Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-10 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, July 10, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM   Historic Resources Board 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@paloalto.gov and will be provided to the Board 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@paloalto.gov 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. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.  1 Regular Meeting July 10, 2025 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 Commission 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.Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 271 University Avenue [24PLN-00289]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. 3.Review and Submit the Historic Resources Board (HRB) 2025-2026 Work Plan to the City Council for Approval BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT  OTHER INFORMATION Public Comments    2 Regular Meeting July 10, 2025 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@paloalto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, 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 Board, 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 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 Board. 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@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  3 Regular Meeting July 10, 2025 Item No. 1. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 10, 2025 Report #: 2506-4856 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: 2025 HRB Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison¹ & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 4     Historic Resources Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 3 8 0 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/9/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 2/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/10/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/8/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 6/12/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/10/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Eagleston-Cieslewicz 8/14/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/11/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/9/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Pease 11/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/11/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2025 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June WP Goal 1 (Suggested Ord. Updates) Eagleston-Cieslewicz WP Goal 2 (Education/User Resources) Pease WP Goal 3 (Inventory Updates) Rohman WP Goal 4 (Preservation Incentives) Pease & Ulinskas WP Goal 5 (Awards Program) Rohman & Willis WP Goal 5 (Awards Program) Eagleston-Cieslewicz & Ulinskas July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 HRB Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 10 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 10, 2025 Report #: 2506-4893 TITLE Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 271 University Avenue [24PLN-00289]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action: 1. Discuss and provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development Services on the project’s conformity with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 16, 2024, the owner Thoits Bros. Inc. (via Hayes Group Architects) submitted a request for 2,500 square feet of historic bonus floor area for accessibility upgrades and rehabilitation of 271 University Avenue (APN 120-26-009), a commercial two-story building currently listed as a Category 2 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory. On April 17, 2025, Hayes Group Architects submitted a revised project and plans. On May 12, 2025, the City’s consultant, Page & Turnbull, prepared a Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards Compliance Memorandum (Attachment B). The memorandum found the project consistent with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation, as summarized in this report. The HRB is requested to review the application and provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development Services on the project’s conformity to the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following project description is based on the project plans submitted on April 17, 2025 (Attachment C). The project includes the following accessibility upgrades: •Remove existing non-historic multi-fold storefront door system and replace with new multi-fold storefront door system. •Install new accessible entry door with steel columns. The project includes the following Rehabilitation work: •Rehabilitate steel sash windows including evaluation of each window for routine maintenance or repair based on existing condition. Repair to be undertaken in accordance with Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrade of Historic Steel Windows and would include cleaning, patching, and repainting. •Remove areas of heavy corrosion through cleaning or with low pressure sandblasting for those areas with the heaviest corrosion. •Repair and patching of historic stucco finish where needed. Repair to be undertaken in accordance with Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco and following recommended treatments for hairline cracks, large cracks, and areas of delamination. •Repair and patching of existing concrete coping at perimeter of roofline (primary façade and rear façade). •Replacement in-kind of existing metal downspouts and scuppers, and cast iron piping, where damaged. Work to include painting new sections to match existing. Additional areas of work include: •Remove existing non-historic bollard and brick paving in setback from face of storefront to front property line (University Avenue) and regrade with less than 2% slope. Install new brick paving to match existing non-historic paving. •Remove existing non-historic awning and install new flat painted metal canopy with textured clear laminated glass. •Remove existing non-historic wood panel and furring at north and south ends of front façade. •Remove existing light fixtures on pilasters between second-floor windows. Replace with new light fixtures installed at top of new storefront system. •Remove existing signage over main entry. •Remove non-original and non-historic hooks and wood vitrines that are mounted at the primary façade. •Remove electrical boxes, wires, and conduit at the rear façade that are no longer in use. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 10 BACKGROUND Palo Alto Historic Inventory 271 University Avenue is listed as a Category 2 (“Major Building”) historic resource on the local Historic Inventory. The property was previously listed as a Category 3 (“Contributing Building”) historic resource, but its historic status was elevated following completion of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) by Page & Turnbull in November 2023. Upon the HRB’s recommendation, City Council reviewed and approved the findings of the HRE, elevating the building from Category 3 to Category 2 on June 17, 2024. A Category 2 is defined as: “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.” Category 2 historic properties require historic preservation project review. Site Development 271 University Avenue is located on a parcel that is 25 feet wide by 100 feet deep and within the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) District with a Pedestrian Combining District (P). The property includes a two-story building with a mezzanine at the rear currently used as one commercial unit. The building was designed by Carl I. Warnecke of Miller & Warnecke in the Art Deco style and completed in 1930 for use as a clothing store. Prior to 1930, the site was occupied by a building used as a music store with addresses of 271-273 University Avenue that were shortened to 271 University Avenue when the current building was completed with a single unit. On August 13, 1929, an article in the Daily Palo Alto Times announced plans for construction of a one-story reinforced concrete commercial building by then owner Georgina Ostrander. The article notes that an existing two-story building would be demolished, and the new building would be designed by Birge Clark in the Spanish style to house a women’s apparel company. In October of 1929, another article was published in the Daily Palo Alto Times that cited architect Carl I. Warnecke had replaced Birge Clark to design the building. George Peterson of Oakland was hired as the contractor. In 1946 a fabric awning was added over the storefront system. Permit records indicate that in 1965 the original storefront system was replaced with a new aluminum roll up and swing glass storefront door system followed by replacement of the entryway at the rear façade in 1968. In 1994 the former aluminum roll up and swing storefront door system was replaced with the glazed wood bi-folding swing doors that exist currently. In 2015, an awning to the front door system and several landscape features to the front sidewalk area were added. No other major alterations have been made since 2015. From the building’s construction in 1930 to 1946 apart from the storefront system, a large commercial sign above the entryway, and smaller panels applied to the pilasters on the edges of the façade at the street level, the façade has retained most of its original ornamentation. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 10 Character Defining Features Character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. The character-defining features of 271 University Avenue, as identified in Attachment A, are assumed to be those architectural features and materials that date to the building’s original construction in 1930. These features include, but are not limited to: •Two-story building with flat roof and stucco cladding; •Commercial storefront spanning the first floor; •Art Deco façade ornamentation including cast medallions, sawtooth detailing over windows, decorative cornice with chevron detailing, and reeded pilaster detailing along the edges of first and second stories; and •Multi-lite steel sash windows. Bonus Floor Area The Bonus Floor Area/Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program is available for qualifying rehabilitation projects for local Historic Inventory Category 1 and 2 resources that are: a) Zoned CD (Commercial Downtown) as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18; b) Zoned PF/City owned property; or c) Zoned Residential Transition (RT-35 and RT-50) in the South of Forest Area Phase 2 (SOFA 2)1 area. Further, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.070 provides the following for Historic Rehabilitation Bonuses: A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation, but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR. Pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.18, the applicant filed an application for floor area bonus on October 16, 2024, stating the amount of such bonus applied for (2,500 square feet), the basis therefore under PAMC 18.18.070(a)(3), and the extent to which such bonus is proposed to be used for transfer. The application also included paid the required fees for the City (in coordination with a qualified expert, Page & Turnbull) to conduct a historic structure report, in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the California State Office of Historic 1 SOFA 2 webpage link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development- services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/south-of-forest-coordinated-area-plan-phase-2.pdf Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 10 Preservation. The project’s compliance with the SOI Standards, as detailed in that report is summarized below. Following this hearing, the Director, taking into consideration the recommendations of the HRB, will decide on whether the project conforms to the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR §67,7). A written certification will be issued stating total floor area bonus which is eligible for transfer to another site pursuant to the provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.18. The certification shall be recorded in the office of the County recorder and a copy shall be provided to the applicant. ANALYSIS PAMC Section 16.49.050 provides, in part, that in evaluating applications, the HRB shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. The prime concern should be the exterior appearance of the building site. The proposed alterations should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the building and its site. Staff notes that the current plan set is still being reviewed by planning and building to address a minor conflict that arose through drainage from the proposed canopy flowing over a public walking surface (California Building Code 3201.4). This review will be finalized prior to approval of the project but is not expected to meaningfully change the design or architecture. The modifications could result in the introduction of a gutter along the front of the awning or slight change in the canopy’s slope. The project would still be compliant with the SOI Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties in the event of these changes. The following table summarizes the project’s compliance with the SOI Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 1 A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The proposed project would not change the current or historic use of the building as a commercial property. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 1. 2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The proposed project does not propose to remove or replace any historic features of the building. Proposed work would be limited to the replacement of existing non-historic features, including the existing commercial storefront system and awning, which were installed in 1994 and 2015, respectively. The storefront has been replaced several times since the building’s original construction in 1930; therefore, replacing the Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS existing storefront and awning with a new commercial storefront and canopy would not alter the historic character of the property. The proposed project also includes in-kind replacement, as well as the patching, repair, and repainting of existing historic materials. Only non-historic and utilitarian features are proposed for removal, including the bollard and brick paving inside the recessed area between the storefront façade and front property line; contemporary exterior light fixtures and signage; unused wiring, piping, and electrical boxes; as well as non-historic hooks and wall-mounted vitrines at the first story. As such, the historic character of the building would be retained and preserved to a high degree. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 2. 3 Each property shall 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The project does not propose any changes to the property that would be conjectural, based on features from other historic properties, or would create a false sense of historical development. The proposed new storefront system and canopy will have contemporary designs that are reflective of their time. Areas of patching or in- kind replacement would be based on the existing materials present on the historic building and would not be conjectural. Areas of patching and repair will be physically and visually compatible with the original materials. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 3. 4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. ☐ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☒ N/A Explanation: No alterations that occurred after the subject property’s original construction in 1930 have acquired significance in their own right. As discussed under Rehabilitation Standard 2, proposed changes are limited to removing or replacing non-historic or utilitarian features. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4. 5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: As proposed, the project would preserve all of the distinctive features, finishes, Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS construction techniques, and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the Art Deco style design of 271 University Avenue. The character- defining features of the building which convey the techniques and craftsmanship of its construction include its overall two-story massing with a flat roof, stucco cladding, multi-lite steel sash windows, existence of a ground-floor commercial storefront, and decorative features including medallions, cornice, sawtooth details, and pilaster detailing. As discussed under Rehabilitation Standard 2, features that are proposed to be altered or removed consist only of non-historic elements, including the existing awning and storefront system with folding doors, one bollard and brick paving in the front setback area, contemporary light fixtures and signage, and façade mounted electrical conduits and equipment. The proposed project would retain all historic features and would, therefore, maintain the historic character of the building to a high degree. As all original and historic features and examples of craftmanship would be preserved, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 5. 6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: As proposed, the project would first evaluate the existing condition of all historic metal windows and areas of cracking or damage to the original stucco finish in order to outline areas of repair to bring the features into “like new” condition. The proposed project would follow the guidance of the National Park Service (NPS) in Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrade of Historic Steel Windows, Preservation Brief 10, Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork, and Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco to ensure that all proposed treatments meet NPS standards for repairing historic features. In areas where replacement may be necessary due to the level of deterioration, the project would replace materials or features in kind to match the existing features in color, texture, design, and materials. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 6. 7 Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Explanation: The proposed project would use physical treatments recommended by the NPS to remove surface dirt, light rust, corrosion, and flaking or loose paint from historic steel sash windows prior to undertaking repairs and repainting. The project would also use treatments recommended by the NPS to treat cracks and delamination in historic stucco and prepare it for repainting. As the proposed project would follow the provided technical guidance of Preservation Briefs 10, 13, and 22, the proposed project would use the gentlest methods possible. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 7. 8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ☐ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☒ N/A Explanation: The proposed project would not undertake ground-disturbing excavation work. Therefore, Rehabilitation Standard 8 would not be applicable to the project. 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: As previously described in the discussions for Rehabilitation Standards 2 and 5, proposed alterations and new construction will only affect non-historic features. The existing awning and commercial storefront system with folding wood doors will be replaced with a new canopy and storefront system. These features were installed after the building’s 1930 period of significance and are not historic. The replacement features will consist of a new flat metal canopy with textured clear laminated glass and a new commercial storefront system with folding metal doors, which will be installed in the existing storefront opening. New light fixtures and tenant signage mounted to the canopy will also be installed as part of the storefront system replacement. The new storefront system and canopy will be made of painted steel and have contemporary designs that clearly differentiate them from surrounding historic materials. The new storefront system will have a similar configuration as the existing storefront system and also feature folding doors. Unlike the existing storefront, which has wood doors, the new storefront will have metal doors, which are more compatible with the historic material palette of Art Deco buildings than wood. However, individual Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 10 # STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS glazed doors will have horizontally divided lites. The horizontal glazing pattern is inconsistent with the vertical orientation of the historic steel sash windows at the second floor, as well as the building’s Art Deco design, which typically emphasized vertical lines. Overall, however, the new features will not destroy any historic materials and are generally compatible with the material, scale, and overall form of historic features. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The proposed project does not include any new additions or adjacent new construction. New features are limited to the previously discussed new storefront system, canopy, lighting, and signage, which could be removed in the future without impacting the historic form and integrity of the property. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 10. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least ten days in advance of the public hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 27, 2025, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) because the scope of work is limited to minor exterior alterations of an existing building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Continue the bonus floor area request for further discussion. ATTACHMENTS Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 10 Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum Attachment C: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison2 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 2 Emails can be sent directly to the HRB using the following email: HRB@PaloAlto.gov. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Senior Center 100.0' 15.0'7.0' 150.0' 278.0' 220.0' 110.0' 49.3' 100.0' 70.0'100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 95.0' 50.0' 25.0' 2 110.0' 110.0' 270 250 251 485 255 271 281 430 235 450 259- 267 L PAULSEN LANE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Underlying Lot Line abc Easement Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'26' ATTACHMENT A271 University Location Map CITYOF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altokpaulau, 2024-03-15 13:28:19Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) CD-C (GF)(P) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 16     170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 MEMORANDUM DATE May 12, 2025 PROJECT NO. 24402.04 TO Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner PROJECT University and Kipling Avenues, Palo Alto – SOI Standards Compliance OF City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Clare Flynn, Cultural Resource Planner, Page & Turnbull CC Christina Dikas Brobst, Principal, Page & Turnbull VIA Email REGARDING 271 University Avenue, Palo Alto – SOI Standards Compliance Memo Introduction This Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards Compliance Memorandum has been prepared by Page & Turnbull regarding the property at 271 University Avenue, Palo Alto (APN 120-26-009) in Palo Alto’s Downtown North neighborhood (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This memorandum was prepared in anticipation of a proposed project at the site. The property contains a two-story commercial building that was constructed in 1930 for local real estate developer Georgina Ostrander and was designed by architect Carl I. Warnecke. 271 University Avenue is listed as a Category 2 (“Major Building”) historic resource on the local Palo Alto Historic Inventory. The property was previously listed as a Category 3 (“Contributing Building”) historic resource, but its historic status was elevated following completion of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) completed by Page & Turnbull in November 2023.1 The Palo Alto Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Palo Alto City Council reviewed and approved the findings of the HRE, elevating the building from a Category 3 to a Category 2. The definition of Category 2 is: “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.”2 Category 2 historic properties require historic preservation project review according to Palo Alto’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 16.49.040). 1 Page & Turnbull, 271 University Avenue: Historic Resource Evaluation, November 1, 2023. 2 “Historic Registers,” City of Palo Alto. Website, accessed August 22, 2024, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation/Historic-Registers Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 17     271 University Avenue, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 2 of 9 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 The purpose of this memorandum is to review the proposed exterior alterations to the property for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to determine whether the proposed project poses a potential impact to the historic resource. Figure 1. Subject property at 271 University Avenue, indicated with dashed red outline. Source: Google Maps, 2023. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 2. Subject property at 271 University Avenue in 2023, view northeast. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 18     271 University Avenue, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 3 of 9 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Methodology Page & Turnbull prepared a HRE for the property in November 2023. The HRE provided information on the historic development and construction history of the property. It provided an evaluation of the building’s historic significance under Criteria 2, 5, and 6 of the Palo Alto Historic Inventory and an assessment of the building’s ability to convey that significance through its high level of historic integrity. Page & Turnbull reviewed drawings of the proposed project that were prepared by Hayes Group Architects (dated April 17, 2025) and were provided by the City of Palo Alto to Page & Turnbull via email on May 5, 2025. No additional building-specific research was conducted for the purposes of this memorandum. Existing Historic Status As previously noted, 271 University Avenue is a Category 2 property listed on Palo Alto’s Historic Resources Inventory. Previous surveys and reports did not establish a period of significance for the property; however, a period of significance of 1930, aligning with the building’s original date of construction, has been assumed for the purpose of this analysis. Character-Defining Features Character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible for historic designation relating to architectural merit, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, 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. The character-defining features of 271 University Avenue have not previously been identified but are assumed to be those architectural features and materials that date to the building’s original construction in 1930. These features include, but are not limited to: • Two-story building with flat roof and stucco cladding • Commercial storefront spanning the first floor • Art Deco façade ornamentation including cast medallions, sawtooth detailing over windows, decorative cornice with chevron detailing, and reeded pilaster detailing along the edges of first and second stories • Multi-lite steel sash windows Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 19     271 University Avenue, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 4 of 9 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Proposed Project Description The proposed description is based on the Building Planning Submission Revision #1 drawing set for 271 University Avenue (dated April 17, 2025), prepared by Hayes Group Architects. The proposed project includes the following scopes: o Remove existing non-historic bollard and brick paving in setback from face of storefront to front (University Avenue) property line and regrade with less than 2% slope. Install new brick paving to match existing non-historic paving. o Remove existing non-historic awning and install new flat painted metal canopy with textured clear laminated glass. o Remove existing non-historic multi-fold storefront door system, and replace with new multi- fold storefront door system. o Install new accessible entry door with steel columns. o Remove existing non-historic wood panel and furring at north and south ends of front façade. o Remove existing light fixtures on pilasters between second-floor windows. Replace with new light fixtures installed at top of new storefront system. o Remove existing signage over main entry. o Rehabilitate steel sash windows including evaluation of each window for routine maintenance or repair based on existing condition.  Repair to be undertaken in accordance with Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrade of Historic Steel Windows and would include cleaning, patching, and repainting.  Areas of heavy corrosion to be removed through cleaning or with low pressure sandblasting for those areas with the heaviest corrosion. o Repair and patching of historic stucco finish where needed.  Repair to be undertaken in accordance with Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco and following recommended treatments for hairline cracks, large cracks, and areas of delamination. o Repair and patching of existing concrete coping at perimeter of roofline (primary façade and rear façade). o Replacement in-kind of existing metal downspouts and scuppers, and cast iron piping, where damaged. Work to include painting new sections to match existing. o Remove electrical boxes, wires, and conduit at the rear façade that are no longer in use. o Remove non-original and non-historic hooks and wood vitrines that are mounted at the primary façade. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 20     271 University Avenue, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 5 of 9 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 SOI Standards Compliance Analysis The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties & Guidelines for Historic Buildings (the Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated goal of making possible “a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”3 The Standards are used to evaluate proposed work on historic properties and are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources. Projects that do not comply with the Standards may cause either a substantial or less-than-substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The Secretary of the Interior offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The Standards for Rehabilitation, which “acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character,” would be the appropriate Standards for the proposed project at 271 University Avenue.4 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ANALYSIS Rehabilitation Standard 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.5 Discussion: The proposed project would not change the current or historic use of the building as a commercial property. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: The proposed project does not propose to remove or replace any historic features of the building. Proposed work would be limited to the replacement of existing non-historic features, 3 Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, (U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.: 2017), accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment- guidelines-2017.pdf. 4 Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 5 This and the following Standards are listed in Grimmer (2017) and also at National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Technical Preservation Services: Rehabilitation as a Treatment,” accessed May 12, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 21     271 University Avenue, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 6 of 9 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 including the existing commercial storefront system and awning, which were installed in 1994 and 2015, respectively. The storefront has been replaced several times since the building’s original construction in 1930; therefore, replacing the existing storefront and awning with a new commercial storefront and canopy would not alter the historic character of the property. The proposed project also includes in-kind replacement, as well as the patching, repair, and repainting of existing historic materials. Only non-historic and utilitarian features are proposed for removal, including the bollard and brick paving inside the recessed area between the storefront façade and front property line; contemporary exterior light fixtures and signage; unused wiring, piping, and electrical boxes; as well as non-historic hooks and wall-mounted vitrines at the first story. As such, the historic character of the building would be retained and preserved to a high degree. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: The project does not propose any changes to the property that would be conjectural, based on features from other historic properties, or would create a false sense of historical development. The proposed new storefront system and canopy will have contemporary designs that are reflective of their time. Areas of patching or in-kind replacement would be based on the existing materials present on the historic building and would not be conjectural. Areas of patching and repair will be physically and visually compatible with the original materials. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: No alterations that occurred after the subject property’s original construction in 1930 have acquired significance in their own right. As discussed under Rehabilitation Standard 2, proposed changes are limited to removing or replacing non-historic or utilitarian features. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: As proposed, the project would preserve all of the distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the Art Deco style design of 271 University Avenue. The character-defining features of the building which convey the Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 22     271 University Avenue, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 7 of 9 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 techniques and craftsmanship of its construction include its overall two-story massing with a flat roof, stucco cladding, multi-lite steel sash windows, existence of a ground-floor commercial storefront, and decorative features including medallions, cornice, sawtooth details, and pilaster detailing. As discussed under Rehabilitation Standard 2, features that are proposed to be altered or removed consist only of non-historic elements, including the existing awning and storefront system with folding doors, one bollard and brick paving in the front setback area, contemporary light fixtures and signage, and façade mounted electrical conduits and equipment. The proposed project would retain all historic features and would, therefore, maintain the historic character of the building to a high degree. As all original and historic features and examples of craftmanship would be preserved, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: As proposed, the project would first evaluate the existing condition of all historic metal windows and areas of cracking or damage to the original stucco finish in order to outline areas of repair to bring the features into “like new” condition. The proposed project would follow the guidance of the National Park Service (NPS) in Preservation Brief 13: The Repair and Thermal Upgrade of Historic Steel Windows, Preservation Brief 10, Paint Removal from Historic Woodwork, and Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco to ensure that all proposed treatments meet NPS standards for repairing historic features. In areas where replacement may be necessary due to the level of deterioration, the project would replace materials or features in kind to match the existing features in color, texture, design, and materials. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 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. Discussion: The proposed project would use physical treatments recommended by the NPS to remove surface dirt, light rust, corrosion, and flaking or loose paint from historic steel sash windows prior to undertaking repairs and repainting. The project would also use treatments recommended by the NPS to treat cracks and delamination in historic stucco and prepare it for repainting. As the proposed project would follow the provided technical guidance of Preservation Briefs 10, 13, and 22, the proposed project would use the gentlest methods possible. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 7. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 23     271 University Avenue, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 8 of 9 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project would not undertake ground-disturbing excavation work. Therefore, Rehabilitation Standard 8 would not be applicable to the project. Rehabilitation Standard 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 will 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. Discussion: As previously described in the discussions for Rehabilitation Standards 2 and 5, proposed alterations and new construction will only affect non-historic features. The existing awning and commercial storefront system with folding wood doors will be replaced with a new canopy and storefront system. These features were installed after the building’s 1930 period of significance and are not historic. The replacement features will consist of a new flat metal canopy with textured clear laminated glass and a new commercial storefront system with folding metal doors, which will be installed in the existing storefront opening. New light fixtures and tenant signage mounted to the canopy will also be installed as part of the storefront system replacement. The new storefront system and canopy will be made of painted steel and have contemporary designs that clearly differentiate them from surrounding historic materials. The new storefront system will have a similar configuration as the existing storefront system and also feature folding doors. Unlike the existing storefront, which has wood doors, the new storefront will have metal doors, which are more compatible with the historic material palette of Art Deco buildings than wood. However, individual glazed doors will have horizontally divided lites. The horizontal glazing pattern is inconsistent with the vertical orientation of the historic steel sash windows at the second floor, as well as the building’s Art Deco design, which typically emphasized vertical lines. Overall, however, the new features will not destroy any historic materials and are generally compatible with the material, scale, and overall form of historic features. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Discussion: The proposed project does not include any new additions or adjacent new construction. New features are limited to the previously discussed new storefront system, canopy, lighting, and Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 24     271 University Avenue, Palo Alto - Standards Compliance Memo [24402.04] Page 9 of 9 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 signage, which could be removed in the future without impacting the historic form and integrity of the property. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 10. Conclusion As the above analysis demonstrates, the project as currently designed complies with the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed project is consistent with nine of the ten Standards for Preservation, and Standard 8, related to archaeological resources, does not apply to the proposed project. Although the horizontal glazing pattern of the proposed new storefront system is not fully consistent with the vertical emphasis of the building’s Art Deco design under Standard 9, the new storefront system and proposed changes are generally compatible with the building’s historic character. If desired, the compatibility of the new storefront could be improved by choosing a storefront system with a vertically oriented glazing pattern that is more consistent with the proportions of the historic second-story windows, or by selecting undivided lites. As the project is consistent with the Standards, the historic building at 271 University Avenue would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project and would in fact be preserved and maintained to ensure its continued historic significance and integrity. Therefore, 271 University Avenue would remain eligible as a Category 2 building on Palo Alto’s Historic Resources Inventory. Appendix Preparer Qualifications Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. The company was one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation and is among the longest practicing such firms in the country. Offices are located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Jose, and staff includes licensed architects, designers, architectural historians, conservators, and planners. All of Page & Turnbull’s professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. This Standard Compliance Memorandum was prepared by staff in Page & Turnbull’s San Francisco office, and include: Christina Dikas Brobst, principal-in-charge; Barrett Reiter, project manager; and Clare Flynn, Cultural Resources Planner, primary author, all of whom meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture, Architectural History, or History. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 25     ATTACHMENT C Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “271 University” and open record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “C2_271 UNI_Plan.pdf” and dated 04/21/2025 to review the plan set. Project Website: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/271-University-Avenue Item 2 Attachment C - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 26     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 2 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: July 10, 2025 Report #: 2506-4897 TITLE Review and Submit the Historic Resources Board (HRB) 2025-2026 Work Plan to the City Council for Approval RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and submit the Draft Work Plan to the City Council for approval. BACKGROUND The HRB Chair is expected to prepare an annual report/work plan by the second quarter of each calendar year with help from staff and their fellow Board Members. City Council reviews the plan and provides feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. The plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan and activities included in the board’s work for the next fiscal year. The Council Handbook has a template for work plan development. If new issues arise during the year, the work plan can be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval. ANALYSIS An HRB annual report is required in the By-Laws and reviews the prior year, while the Council’s new work plan requirement is to look forward on the next fiscal year. A draft document including both has been prepared by the HRB Chair and staff (Attachment A) using Council’s provided template. The attached document includes a summary of the HRB’s accomplishments from last year. It also carries over a majority of the goals from the last work plan over the next year. The HRB is asked to review this document, suggest updates, and add any additional tasks as needed. Council is scheduled to review this plan—as well as all other board and commission work plans—and adopt any changes to this plan in September 2025. If an additional hearing is needed prior to the HRB taking action, a second hearing can be scheduled in August 2025. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 27     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Adoption of the proposed work plan is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b) because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the work plan would not have an environmental impact on the environment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft HRB 25/26 Work Plan and Annual Report AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: HRB@PaloAlto.gov. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 28     Prior Year Accomplishments The HRB recommended that a total of 21 new properties be designated on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, and that five (5) existing properties on the local inventory to be upgraded in their category listing. These additions were the result of the 2023 Reconnaissance Survey efforts and represented the continued implementation of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Policy (L7.2). The HRB reviewed five (5) development proposals on historic properties, recommended naming for the Fred Eyerly Tower Well Park, reviewed updated public education materials on the City’s website, and established a local Historic Preservation Award program that will be held in 2026.The HRB reviewed the Certified Local Government Program (CLG) annual report to maintain the City’s CLG status, held since 1992. Continued participation in the CLG program supports local historic preservation efforts by providing added credibility, access to resources, and increased opportunities for funding. Historic Resources Board Staff Liaison: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation PlannerLead Department: Planning and Development Services About the Commission The City is a Certified Local Government (CLG) responsible for historic preservation - to identify, evaluate, register, and preserve historic properties within its jurisdictions and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns into local planning and decision-making processes. Staff prepares an annual report of the activities of the Certified Local Government each spring for the prior year and submits these to the State Office of Historic Preservation. This HRB Work Plan covers July 2025 - July 2026. The HRB consists of five members with terms for 3 years and are staggered per PAMC Section 2.27.020. For more information please visit https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Boards-Commissions/Historic-Resources-Board. The Department webpages are a wealth of information, go to: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Historic-Preservation 2025-2026 Workplan Mission Statement Per Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27 Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties, HRB purview is:(a) Render advice and guidance to a property owner upon the owner's application for alteration of any historic single-family or duplex building in the downtown area and any such building designated as significant elsewhere in the city (b) Inform the ARB of the historical and/or architectural significance of historic commercial and multiple-family structures in the downtown area and any such buildings designated as significant elsewhere in the City that are under review by the ARB. Submit recommendations to the ARB regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures (c) Recommend to the Council the designation of additional buildings and districts as historic. Research available information and add historical information to the inventory sheets of historic structures/sites. This inventory is maintained in the department of planning and development services. (d) Perform such other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the HRB by the City Council. Current Commissioners Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz (Chair), Samantha Rohman (Vice Chair), Christian Pease, Caroline Willis, and Geddes Ulinskas Item 3 ​​Attachment A - Draft HRB 2526 Work Plan and Annual Report​     Packet Pg. 29     TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Subject to Council direction, to begin in the second quarter City Council direction and accommodation in the PDS department workplan would be needed. HRB subcommittee and staff of planning and city attorney departments to prepare draft amendments for Council review and adoption Well-written ordinance language that assists the public's understanding and calms the fears of property owners about governmental overreach Council may provide direction to modify PAMC 16.49; CLG cities maintain historic preservation ordinances. COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE Council may provide direction to modify PAMC 16.49; CLG cities maintain historic preservation ordinances 2025-2026 Workplan The benefits are providing clarification of the HRB's role for the public Historic Resources Board PROJECT/GOAL 1: BENEFICIAL IMPACTS Limited modification to PAMC 16.49, historic preservation, providing clarifications regarding the HRB’s role. The HRB could discuss language providing clarifications of its role with respect to three potential topics: (a) the nomination process, (b) the effect of HRB recommendations regarding exterior modifications to residential historic resources, and (c) category changes (upgrades, downgrades, removals) Staff Liaison: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation PlannerLead Department: Planning and Development Services PURPOSE STATEMENT: The Board/Commission's goals and purposes (purview) are set in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27 Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties. These duties include reviewing alterations to historic resources and providing recommendations on nominations to the local historic resources inventory. The City's historic program includes the implementation of Comprehensive Plan policies on an ongoing basis including Policy L7.2 (preparation of historic evaluations to determine eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and associated tracking), Policy L7.1.1 (recommend eligible resources to the local inventory), and Policy L7.1.2: Reassess Historic Preservation Ordinance. HIGH PRIORITY Priority is high to enable greater understanding of the HRB's role and address property owners' concerns with respect to Goal items (a) and (b) LOWER PRIORITY Lower priority: Goal item (c) - listed historic resources placed on the City's inventory in the late 1970s and 1980s have not been reviewed to determine whether any modifications reduce critical aspects of integrity and drop or lower the properties' local historic resource category. Item 3 ​​Attachment A - Draft HRB 2526 Work Plan and Annual Report​     Packet Pg. 30     TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED To begin in the first quarter and continue throughout the duration of the 25/26 work plan cycle Staff of PDS would be tasked as well as an HRB ad hoc committee to make progress. Website contains links to information resources and videos, to assist property owners, staff, and others. N/A COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE N/A TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED To begin in the first quarter and continue throughout the duration of the 25/26 work plan cycle Staff of PDS would be tasked as well as an HRB ad hoc committee to make progress. Website contains links to updated Inventory List, to assist property owners, staff, and others.No COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE No PROJECT/GOAL 3:Prepare an updated Local Inventory Resource list that incorporates the recently designated properties from the 2023 Historic Reconnaissance Survey efforts, Category Upgrades, and removal of properties that have been demolished. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS The benefits would be to improve preservation in Palo Alto and clarity for owners of historic properties. Item (a) a table of existing zoning code incentives and another table of historic building code provisions and Item (b) improvements to types of communications used to promote historic preservation. PROJECT/GOAL 2: BENEFICIAL IMPACTS Education and Creating New User-Friendly Resources/Communication Regarding Historic Preservation. (a) find new ways to promote preservation, including use of the existing zoning code incentives and State historic building code (b) improve upon communication types to provide the community accessible information, including the use of videos (linked to the City’s and State’s webpages) to help property owners understand the local and State preservation incentives and codes, (c) continue to provide updates to the historic review process bulletin as needed to communicate CEQA requirements related to PAMC 16.49 and listed historic resources, and (d) enable the HRB staff liaison(s), the City’s historic preservation consultant, and Chief Building Official to implement training providing an ongoing opportunity for HRB members, staff, and the community to gain working knowledge as to the use of the State’s historic building code HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY Items (c) and (d) Providing the public with updated information HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY Properties that have been demolished remove from local inventory Properties that have lost integrity over time that may need a category change Item 3 ​​Attachment A - Draft HRB 2526 Work Plan and Annual Report​     Packet Pg. 31     TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Goal 2 to begin during plan quarter 2 (item a) and subject to Council direction, continue through quarter 4 (April - June 2025, items b and c) PDS staff and CAO staff. City Council direction and accommodation in the PDS department workplan would be needed. More historic properties are preserved for future enjoyment of the owners and community, due to the additional incentives. Council may provide direction to modify PAMC title 18. COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE N/A TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED To begin in the first quarter and continue throughout the duration of the 25/26 work plan cycle Staff of PDS would be tasked as well as an HRB ad hoc committee to make progress. Establish historic preservation award selection criteria and frequency of awards by end of 25-26 Fiscal Year. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.6 COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE No BENEFICIAL IMPACTS A HRB historical preservation award program would express appreciation for the efforts to preserve and protect Palo Alto’s culturally, historically, and architecturally significant places that create a vibrant and sustainable community that fully reflects Palo Alto’s diverse past. HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY Item (a) discuss and determine the selection criteria for eligible projects and/or properties and establish award frequency, and Item (b) discuss and determine award frequency (e.g., annual, bi-annual, 5-year cycle, etc.)Items (c) and (d) PROJECT/GOAL 5:Establish a Historical Preservation Award Program. (a) discuss and determine the selection criteria for eligible projects and/or properties; (b) discuss and determine frequency of awards (e.g., annual, bi-annual, 5-year cycle, etc.); (c) select projects and/or properties to award; (d) conduct an award ceremony and present historic preservation awards. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS PROJECT/GOAL 4: Additional preservation incentives (a) discuss and recommend additional zoning code incentives to continue the community engagement process that began with the 2023 reconnaissance survey/ inventory update; (b) represent the HRB’s interests during public hearings, or participate in joint meetings with the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, to review any proposed zoning code modifications incentivizing historic preservation incentives; (c) outreach to the community after adoption of any adopted new incentives. Benefit will be for all property owners who do not currently see any benefit to listing their property on the City's historic inventory HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY Item a is to gather ideas for new incentives in the zoning code to add to a table of existing incentives in the zoning code.Subject to Council direction, items b and c would follow item a. Item 3 ​​Attachment A - Draft HRB 2526 Work Plan and Annual Report​     Packet Pg. 32     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 33     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 34     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 35     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 36     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 37     VA welcomes your review and comment on this project within the next thirty (30) days. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out, I’m happy to assist. Best, Angela McArdle, RPA Construction & Facilities Management **THE CONTENT OF THIS MESSAGE IS PRE-DECISIONAL** Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 38     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 39     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRSPalo Alto Health Care System April 8, 2025 In Reply Refer To: 640/720 Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation PlannerHistoric Resources Board City of Palo Alto250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 SUBJECT: Construction and Operation of Fisher House 3, Department of Veterans AffairsPalo Alto Health Care System Dear Chairperson Switzer: Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) requestsyour review of a proposed undertaking to construct and operate a third Fisher House at the92.5-acre VA Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS), Palo Alto Division (PAD), 3801Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto, California (CA) 94304, in Santa Clara County. Pꢀiect DescriptionThe undertaking is defined as the construction and operation of Fisher House 3, along withassociated surface parking, managed landscaped areas, and infrastructure/utilityimprovements. The proposed Fisher House will be located at the southeast corner of thecampus (see Enclosure 1), which necessitates the dismantling and removal of an incompletestructure (Building 51; see page 57 of Enclosure 3). Fisher Houses provide temporary lodging for Veterans receiving treatment at VAPAHCS andtheir visiting families. The building will serve as a temporary residence and support facility forsuch Veterans and their families. The Fisher House Foundation will construct the two-storyfacility, and upon project completion the building will be donated to VA. Please see theattached rendering (Enclosure 2) of a Fisher House. The final design may differ slightly. Area of Potential Effects (APE) The APE consists of the Project Site and the immediate surrounding area, inclusive of stagingareas. The APE is depicted in Enclosure 1. ConsultationIn accordance with 36 CFR 800.2 and pursuant to responses received from the CA NativeAmerican Heritage Commission (NAHC), VA has invited the following parties to consult: AmahMutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Indian CanyonMutsun Band of Costanoan, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, TamienNation, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, City of Palo Alto,County of Santa Clara, and the CA State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 40     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 41     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 42     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 43     NADB REPORT CITATION Author(s): Year: Hoffman, Robin, Johanna Kahn, Amy Langford, and Becky Urbano 2024 (November) Title:Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California: Cultural Resources Survey Report Type:Unpublished report Organization: State: Environmental Science Associates (ESA) California Santa Clara Palo Alto County: Town: Work Type:Archeological Overview and Assessment; Historical Resources Study; Field Reconnaissance, Intensive; Field Reconnaissance, Minimal Keyword(s):Section 106; Palo Alto VA Medical Center; P-21-000580; pre-contact archaeological site; human remains; midden; flaked-stone; ground-stone; dietary faunal remains; Federal Agency: Local Agency: Area: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs [none] 92.5 acres Palo Alto VA Medical Center i ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 44     STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY This document may contain sensitive information regarding the nature and location of archaeological sites and traditional or cultural areas and should not be disclosed to the public or unauthorized persons. This document, and information provided to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or its consultants that contributed to the preparation of this document, may be protected from disclosure under state and federal law. Such applicable federal laws include, but may not be limited to, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 3041 and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.2 Applicable state laws include, but may not be limited to, California Government Code (CGS) § 6250 et seq. (implementing regulations of the California Public Records Act of 2016 [PRA]). Specifically, CGC § 6254.10 exempts disclosure of archaeological site information pursuant to the PRA, and CGC § 6254(r) exempts disclosure of information associated with Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects, pursuant to the PRA. Disclosure of site location information to individuals other than those meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards or the California State Personnel Board criteria for Associate State Archaeologist or State Historian II violates the California Office of Historic Preservation records access policy. 1 54 U.S. Code (USC) § 300101 et seq. 2 16 USC § 470aa–470mm. Palo Alto VA Medical Center ii ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 45     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report This Cultural Resources Survey Report documents the methods and results of a cultural resources study completed by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Campus) in Palo Alto, California. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) requires a comprehensive Campus-wide cultural resources survey to support planning and potential future projects at the Palo Alto VA Medical Center (hereafter, Palo Alto Division [PAD]), which comprises 92.5 acres and currently has approximately 38 buildings and structures. Projects at the Campus are subject to federal environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended.3 VA is the lead federal agency for NEPA/NHPA purposes. As part of this study, ESA conducted the following work: definition of a Study Area; a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System; research on existing cultural resources literature; identification of potentially interested parties and Native American Tribes with whom VA may consult regarding future projects at the Campus; a desktop archaeological sensitivity analysis; an architectural survey of the Campus; an archaeological pedestrian survey of the Campus; an evaluation of resource eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register); and recommendations. Study Area, as used in this report, has a horizontal extent congruent to the Campus (the entire PAD property of approximately 92.5 acres) and a vertical extent of 20 feet below ground surface, the maximum depth of reasonably anticipated ground-disturbing activities for potential future projects. ESA identified 14 cultural resources in the Study Area in need of evaluation: one archaeological site (P-43-000580) and 13 architectural resources (Buildings 4, 5, 6, 7, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 53, PAD Campus). P-21-000580 is listed in the National Register and this study did not identify any information to suggest that this existing listing should be reconsidered. Of the 13 architectural resources identified in the Study Area, five were previously recommended as not eligible for individual listing in the National Register (Buildings 6, 40, 41, 42, and 43), and one was previously determined not eligible as a district (the PAD campus). The current study recommends all 13 architectural resources identified in the Study Area (including the seven newly recorded resources) as not eligible for listing in the National Register. As such, this study identified only one historic property, archaeological site P-43-000580, in the Study Area. This study determined that the portions of the Study Area (both horizontally and vertically) that have not been disturbed from post-contact activities (notably, construction of the PAD and 3 54 USC § 306108. Palo Alto VA Medical Center iii ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 46     associated utilities) have a high sensitivity for pre-contact archaeological resources, while the remaining, disturbed, portions of the Study Area have a moderate sensitivity for pre-contact archaeological resources. This study also concludes that the Study Area has a low sensitivity for post-contact archaeological resources. ESA recommends that, as required by Section 106 of the NHPA, VA consult with those interested parties and Native American Tribes identified in this report regarding specific future projects at the Campus and any concerns they may have regarding project-related effects on historic properties. ESA does not anticipate that additional work related to architectural resources would be required, as no National Register-eligible or -listed architectural resources have been identified in the Study Area. Regarding archaeological resources, ESA recommends that all project-related ground-disturbing activities avoid P-43-000580 and that, given the pre-contact archaeological sensitivity of the Study Area, archaeological subsurface surveys be conducted for all previously unsurveyed portions of the Study Area where ground disturbance would occur, after a specific project’s design has been refined to provide the necessary level of detail. If archaeological resources are identified during the archaeological subsurface surveys, they should be evaluated to determine if they are historic properties, pursuant to NHPA. If VA determines that such resources do qualify as historic properties, any project should be designed to avoid adverse effects on these historic properties, or an agreement document, pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, would be required to resolve adverse effects on the historic properties. Palo Alto VA Medical Center iv ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 47     CONTENTS Cultural Resources Survey Report Page NADB Report Citation ..............................................................................................................i Statement of Confidentiality...................................................................................................ii Executive Summary................................................................................................................iii Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................1 Professional Qualifications...............................................................................................2 Study Area........................................................................................................................2 Chapter 2 Regulatory Context................................................................................................3 Federal..............................................................................................................................3 State..................................................................................................................................6 Chapter 3 Environmental and Cultural Context ...................................................................8 Physical Environment.......................................................................................................8 Ethnography .....................................................................................................................9 Archaeology....................................................................................................................11 Post-Contact Period .......................................................................................................13 Chapter 4 Methods ................................................................................................................25 CHRIS Records Search..................................................................................................25 Previous VA Cultural Resources Investigations.............................................................25 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment..........................................................................25 Native American Correspondence .................................................................................26 Interested Party Identification.........................................................................................26 Field Methods.................................................................................................................27 Chapter 5 Findings ................................................................................................................28 Previously Recorded Resources....................................................................................28 Previous Cultural Resources Studies.............................................................................28 Native American Correspondence .................................................................................29 Interested Party Identification.........................................................................................29 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment..........................................................................33 Field Survey....................................................................................................................34 Summary of Cultural Resources Identified in the Study Area........................................37 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................62 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................62 Recommendations..........................................................................................................62 Chapter 7 References Cited..................................................................................................65 Palo Alto VA Medical Center v ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 48     Contents Figures Figure 1 View of the PAD Campus Before Construction, ca. 1957....................................15 Figure 2 PAD Campus Plan, ca. 1958................................................................................16 Figure 3 P-43-000580 East End, View Facing West ..........................................................35 Figure 4 P-43-000580 Central Portion Showing Likely WSA 2016 Excavation Control Unit, View Facing Northwest.................................................................................36 Figure 5 Archaeological Intensive Pedestrian Survey Area West End, View Facing North......................................................................................................................36 Figure 6 Archaeological Intensive Pedestrian Survey Area Central Portion, View Facing East ...........................................................................................................37 Figure 7 Building 4, Primary (East) Façade, View Facing Northwest.................................40 Figure 8 Aerial View of Building 4, Facing East, 1959........................................................45 Figure 9 Building 5, Primary (West) Façade, Views Facing Southeast (Left) and Northeast (Right)...................................................................................................47 Figure 10 Aerial View of Building 5, Facing East, 1959........................................................48 Figure 11 Building 7, Partial View of Primary (West) Façade, Facing South.......................50 Figure 12 Building 7, Partial View of Primary (East) Façade, Facing Northwest .................50 Figure 13 Aerial Photos of Building 7, Facing East, from 1959 (Left) and Ca. 2023 (Right)....................................................................................................................51 Figure 14 Aerial View of the SCI Unit Addition to Building 7, Facing South, 1989...............51 Figure 15 Building 44, Primary (South) Façade, View Facing Northeast.............................53 Figure 16 Building 44, Floor Plan (Left) and Primary (South) Elevation (Right)...................54 Figure 17 Building 50, Primary (East) Façade, View Facing West.......................................55 Figure 18 Building 51, North Façade, View Facing South....................................................57 Figure 19 Building 53, Primary (South) Façade, View Facing North....................................59 Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Archaeological Sensitivity Framework..................................................................26 Previous Recorded Cultural Resources in or within 0.25 Mile of Study Area......30 Previous Cultural Resources Studies Conducted in or within 0.25 Mile of Study Area ............................................................................................................31 Cultural Resources Identified in the Study Area...................................................41 Buildings, Aboveground Structures, and Landscape Elements Within the Study Area ............................................................................................................42 Table 4 Table 5 Maps (all in Appendix A) Map 1 Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 Map 6 Map 7 Study Vicinity Study Location Study Area Previous Archaeological Investigations in Study Area Utility Layout Archaeological Survey Coverage Cultural Resources Identified in and Adjacent to Study Area Appendices Appendix A Maps Appendix B CHRIS Search Documentation Appendix C National Register Nomination Form for P-43-000580 (Price, 2019) Appendix D Documentation of Previous Determinations of Eligibility Appendix E NAHC Documentation Appendix F New DPR Form Sets Palo Alto VA Medical Center vi ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 49     CHAPTER 1 Introduction Environmental Science Associates (ESA) prepared this Cultural Resources Survey Report (CRSR or report) to document the methods and results of a cultural resources inventory completed for the Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Campus), in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (Maps 1 and 2). All maps referenced in the document are included in Appendix A. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may in the future conduct campus redevelopment and improvement projects at the Palo Alto VA Medical Center (hereafter, Palo Alto Division [PAD]) at 3801 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto, California. The PAD comprises 92.5 acres and currently has approximately 38 buildings and structures. Projects at the Campus are subject to federal environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended.4 VA is the lead federal agency for NEPA/NHPA purposes. This document records the existing conditions of the Campus with regard to cultural resources, for use in future project consultations under Section 106 of the NHPA (Section 106). Work performed consisted of background and archival research, including: definition of a Study Area; a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS); research on existing cultural resources literature; identification of potentially interested parties and Native American Tribes with whom VA may consult regarding Campus projects; a desktop archaeological sensitivity analysis; an architectural survey of the Study Area; an archaeological pedestrian survey of the Study Area; an evaluation of resource eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register); and recommendations. In accordance with Section 106, this cultural resources study was conducted in order to:   Establish a Study Area; Identify cultural resources, including pre-contact and post-contact archaeological resources, buildings, structures, and places of importance within the Study Area;    Evaluate cultural resources according to the criteria set forth by the National Register, and make recommendations; Determine whether potential future projects at the Campus would affect the significance and/or integrity of National Register-listed or eligible resources; and Recommend measures for avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of any adverse effects to National Register-listed or eligible resources. 4 54 USC § 306108 Palo Alto VA Medical Center 1 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 50     Chapter 1. Introduction Professional Qualifications ESA Archaeologist Robin Hoffman, MA, and ESA Architectural Historian Johanna Kahn, MArH, were the primary authors of this report. Hoffman is a Registered Professional Archaeologist, meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualifications Standards (SOI PQS) for Archeology and History,5 and meets the Society for California Archaeology standards for Principal Investigator. Kahn meets the SOI PQS for Architectural History, Architecture, Historic Architecture, and History. ESA Architectural Historian Amy Langford, PhD, provided documentation support. ESA Architectural Historian Becky Urbano, MS, who meets the SOI PQS for Architectural History and History, provided quality assurance and review. Study Area Study Area, as used in this document, has a horizontal extent congruent to the Campus (the entire PAD property of approximately 92.5 acres) and a vertical extent of 20 feet below ground surface, the maximum depth of reasonably anticipated ground-disturbing activities for potential future projects. The Study Area is in the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, within unsectioned areas of the former Rincón de San Francisquito land grant, as depicted in the Palo Alto, California U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.6 Figures 1 and 2 depict the Study Area vicinity and location. The Study Area ranges in elevation from 66 feet (along Matadero Creek) to 105 feet (western end) above mean sea level. Due to the unspecified nature of potential future projects and their expected minimal potential for indirect effects, a single Study Area has been defined to account for potential impacts to archaeological and architectural resources. Study Area, as used in this report, includes both the horizontal and vertical maximum extents of the Campus across which projects could have effects on historic properties, as defined by the NHPA7 and, as stated above, encompasses the entire Campus as an area of potential future project-related ground disturbance, including staging and laydown areas. Because future projects are not yet defined, as stated above, the vertical extent of the Study Area is conservatively estimated to extend to 20 feet below current ground surface. Map 3 depicts the Study Area. 5 48 Federal Register 44738–44739. 6 7 U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Palo Alto, California. 7.5-minute (1:24,000 scale) topographic quadrangle map. 54 USC § 300308. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 2 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 51     CHAPTER 2 Regulatory Context Numerous laws and regulations require federal, state, and local agencies to consider the effects a project may have on cultural resources. These laws and regulations stipulate a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other involved agencies. This section summarizes the primary laws, regulations, and policies governing management of cultural resources for the potential future projects at the Campus. Federal National Historic Preservation Act Historic properties are considered through the NHPA, as amended,8 and its implementing regulations.9,10,11 The NHPA establishes the federal government’s policy on historic preservation and the programs, including the National Register, through which that policy is implemented. Under the NHPA, historic properties include “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the [National Register]”.12 Prior to implementing an undertaking (for example, issuing a federal permit), Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Indian tribes, and other interested parties, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the SHPO a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing on the National Register. Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA allows properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization to be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register. National Register of Historic Places The National Register was established by the NHPA as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment”.13 The National Register recognizes a broad range of cultural resources that are 8 55 USC § 306108. 36 CFR § 800. 36 CFR § 60. 9 10 11 12 13 36 CFR § 63. 54 USC § 300308. 36 CFR § 60.2. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 3 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 52     Chapter 2. Regulatory Context significant at the national, state, and local levels and can include districts, buildings, structures, objects, pre-contact archaeological sites, post-contact archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and cultural landscapes. As noted above, a resource that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register is considered a historic property under Section 106. Eligibility for listing in the National Register is as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.14 In addition to meeting one of the above criteria, a resource must also retain integrity to be considered a historic property. Integrity is measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical attributes and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the resources. Certain types of resources are usually excluded from consideration for listing in the National Register but can be considered if they meet special requirements in addition to meeting one or more of the National Register listing criteria. The following seven Criteria Considerations cover resources usually excluded from listing in the National Register: religious resources, moved resources, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed resources, commemorative resources, and resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. Archaeological Resources Protection Act The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 197915 (ARPA) was enacted to “secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals”. Under this act, archaeological resources are defined as material remains of past human life or activities that are of archaeological interest and are over 100 years old. The primary focus of the act is to protect archaeological resources on public and Indian lands, and to prevent looting and destruction of archaeological resources. The statute provides for stiff civil and criminal penalties, including fines up to $100,000 and/or five years in prison for second-time offenders. The act also governs archaeological excavation and disposition 14 36 CFR § 60.4. 15 16 USC § 470aa–470mm. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 4 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 53     Chapter 2. Regulatory Context of collections from sites on public and Indian lands and requires researchers to obtain a permit prior to excavating or removing any archaeological materials on federal lands. The act further requires that the nature and location of archaeological resources be kept confidential unless providing the information would further the purposes of the statute and not create a risk of harm to such resources. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Requirements for responding to discoveries of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects on federal land are addressed under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA)16 and its implementing regulations.17 If human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered on federal or tribal lands, the federal agency must determine and consult with the lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian Tribes and carry out appropriate treatment and disposition of the discovered remains, including transfer of custody. Indian Tribe is defined as any Tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village, recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the U.S. Government to Indians because of their status as Indians by its inclusion on the list of recognized Indian Tribes published by the Secretary of the Interior under the Act of November 2, 1994.18 NAGPRA does not require federal agencies to consult with non-federally recognized Tribes. NAGPRA also requires permitting of the intentional removal of, or excavation of, Native American cultural items from federal or tribal lands for purposes of discovery, study, or removal; establishes criminal penalties for trafficking in human remains or cultural objects; and requires agencies and museums that receive federal funding to inventory those items in their possession and identify the descendants of and repatriate those items. American Indian Religious Freedom Act The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, enacted August 1978 as amended, protects and preserves American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians. This includes, but is not limited to, access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rights.19 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act requires policies of all governmental agencies to eliminate interference with the free exercise of Native religion and to accommodate access and use of religious sites to the extent that is practicable and consistent with an agency’s essential functions. Executive Order 12898 Executive Order 12898 of 1994, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” was issued to focus federal attention on the 16 25 USC § 3001–3013. 17 18 19 43 CFR Part 10. 25 USC § 5131. Pub. L. 95–341, §1, Aug. 11, 1978, 92 Stat. 469. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 5 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 54     Chapter 2. Regulatory Context environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low-income communities. It is also designed to promote non-discrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment. Specifically, Section 6-606 of the Order states that, “each federal agency responsibility set forth under this order shall apply equally to Native American programs.” Executive Order 13007 Issued in 1996, Executive Order 13007, “Indian Sacred Sites,” applies to all federally owned lands except “Indian trust lands.” The Order encourages land managing agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Executive Order 13175 Executive Order 13175 of 2000, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” directs federal agencies to respect tribal self-government and sovereignty, tribal rights, and tribal responsibilities whenever they formulate policies “significantly or uniquely affecting Indian tribal governments.” The Order applies to all federal agencies other than those considered independent federal agencies, encouraging “meaningful and timely” consultation with Indian tribes, and consideration of compliance costs imposed on tribal governments when developing policies or regulations that may affect Indian tribes. U.S. Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes In 2011, the U.S. Department of the Interior issued its policy on enhancing government-to- government consultation with Indian Tribes. The policy honors the government-to-government relationship between the U.S. and Indian Tribes and complies with the Presidential Memorandum of November 5, 2009, which affirms this relationship and obligates the U.S. Department of the Interior to meet the spirit and intent of Executive Order 13175. The policy outlines consultation objectives and practices, reporting requirements, and staff training goals. State The State of California, through the SHPO, consults on implementation of the NHPA and oversees statewide comprehensive cultural resource surveys and preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements these policies and maintains the California Historical Resources Inventory. The SHPO is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdiction. California Public Resources Code § 5097 California Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98 provides procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project implementation on non-federal land. PRC § 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity of the Palo Alto VA Medical Center 6 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 55     Chapter 2. Regulatory Context discovery, that the discovery is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC § 5097.98 further requires the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) regarding the discovery of Native American human remains. The MLD has 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site by the landowner to inspect the discovery and provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave goods. PRC § 5097.99, as amended, states that no person shall obtain or possess any Native American artifacts or human remains that are taken from a Native American grave or cairn. Any person who knowingly or willfully obtains or possesses any Native American artifacts or human remains is guilty of a felony, which is punishable by imprisonment. Any person who removes, without authority of law, any such items with an intent to sell or dissect or with malice or wantonness is also guilty of a felony, which is punishable by imprisonment. California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code protects human remains on non-federal land by prohibiting the disinterring, disturbing, or removing of human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery. PRC § 5097.9820 also identifies steps to follow in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Native American Historic Resource Protection Act The California Native American Historic Resource Protection Act of 2002 imposes civil penalties, including imprisonment and fines up to $50,000 per violation, for persons who unlawfully and maliciously excavate upon, remove, destroy, injure, or deface a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed or may be listed in the California Register of Historical Resources on non-federal land. California Government Code § 27460 and 27491 For non-federal land, California Government Code (CGC) § 27460 requires that human remains be “interred decently” in the event that no person takes charge of them when an inquest is held by a coroner. CGC § 27491 requires that, in the case of unattended deaths, the person in charge of the human remains notify the coroner, and that the coroner inquire into the death. California Executive Order B-10-11 California Executive Order B-10-11 was issued by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., on September 19, 2011. The order affirms that all state agencies shall encourage communication and consultation with California Indian Tribes. 20 Reiterated in California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 15064.59(e). Palo Alto VA Medical Center 7 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 56     CHAPTER 3 Environmental and Cultural Context Physical Environment The Study Area lies in the western Santa Clara Valley, between the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the San Francisco Bay. The dominant drainage of the Study Area and near vicinity is Matadero Creek, located along the northern boundary of the Study Area, with the smaller Barron Creek just south of the Study Area. Matadero Creek is an intermittent stream running roughly southwest to northeast, paralleled to the north by the larger San Francisquito Creek, whose mouth is at the San Francisco Bay. Prior to its historic channelization, Matadero Creek descended northeast onto the valley floor and spread out into an undefined channel, terminating prior to reaching the San Francisco Bay, in the wet meadow just south of Middlefield Road, but may have had periodic connection with the larger San Francisquito Creek during high flows.21 The current character of the Study Area and vicinity is developed (for example, PAD, housing, and high school), which has heavily influenced the natural environment. The surficial geology of the entire Study Area consists of Santa Clara Formation upper Pliocene to lower Pleistocene deposits, which are poorly indurated conglomerate, sandstone, and mudstones in irregular and lenticular deposits. These conglomerates are mainly subangular to subrounded cobbles in a sandy matrix with pebbles and boulders, which are primarily chert, greenstone, and graywacke, also with schist, serpentinite, and limestone.22 Mapped soils in the Study Area consist primarily of urban land/developed, with a mix of Cropley series clay, Flaskan series sandy loam, Literr series loam, Merbeth series gravelley sandy clay loam, and Stevenscreek series sandy loam, all of which are very deep soils formed in alluvium from mixed rock sources.23 Prior to Euroamerican settlement of the area, the Study Area was characterized ecologically by oak savanna/grassland, with dominant flora typically consisting of: live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), wild cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), buckeye (Aesculus californica), and a variety of native grasses and wildflowers.24 Deer, elk, small mammals, and waterfowl were plentiful in the Study Area and vicinity, and nearby marine resources, such as 21 Beller, Erin, Micha Salomon, and Robin Grossinger. 2010. Historical Vegetation and Drainage Patterns ofWestern Santa Clara Valley: A technical memorandum describing landscape ecology in Lower Peninsula, WestValley, and Guadalupe Watershed Management Areas. Oakland, CA: Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute, 18, 20. 22 23 24 Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones. 2000. Geologic Map and Map Database of the Palo Alto 30’ x 60’Quadrangle, California. U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2023. “Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey”. Available:http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 27, 2023. Beller et al., 2010, 52–53. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 8 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 57     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context seals, otters, abalone, mussels, oysters, clams and numerous fish species were also used. The arrival of Euroamericans to the area led to a dramatic decrease in the populations of the faunal species due to overhunting and habitat loss.25 Franciscan chert was an easily obtainable local raw material for stone tools, while obsidian could be obtained from the Annadel and Napa Glass Mountain quarries in the north bay region.26 Ethnography Ethnohistorical, historical, and archaeological data indicates that, prior to Euroamerican settlement of the area, the Study Area and vicinity was inhabited by a group known as the Ohlone.27,28,29 The Ohlone territory extended along the Pacific Coast from south of Monterey Bay to the north end of the San Francisco Peninsula, and inland to the Coast Ranges, from the east side of San Francisco Bay to the Carquinez Strait.30,31 Though varied, contact-era population estimates for the Ohlone range from between 7,000 and 16,000.32 Ethnographic accounts show that the Puichon group lived in the Study Area and vicinity.33,34 The Puichon were the largest tribelet on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, with their lands along lower San Francisquito and Stevens creeks.35 The closest ethnographically documented Native American village in the vicinity of the Study Area is Ssipφtca, which was at the mouth of San Francisquito Creek, a little over 3.5 miles northeast of the Study Area.36,37 Linguistically, Ohlone (also known as Costanoan) is a subfamily of the Penutian stock,38,39 with an estimated six separate languages or dialect clusters, including San Francisco Costanoan, 25 Bartolome, James W., W. James Barry, Tom Griggs, and Peter Hopkinson. 2008. “Valley Grassland”. In TerrestrialVegetation of California, edited by M.G. Barbour and J. Majour, 367–393. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 26 27 Moratto, Michael J. 1984 [2004]. California Archaeology. 2004 reprinted ed. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press. Milliken, Randall. 1995. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco BayArea 1769–1810. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press. 28 Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G. Bieling, AlanLeventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson. 2007. “Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area”. InCalifornia Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, Ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 99–124.Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. 29 Levy, Richard. 1978. “Costanoan”. In California, ed. Robert F. Heizer, 485–495. Handbook of North AmericanIndians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, gen. ed. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 30 31 32 Milliken et al., 2007. Milliken, 1995. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 [1976]. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1976 reprinted ed. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. 33 34 Milliken, 1995. Milliken, Randall, Laurence H. Shoup, and Beverly R. Ortiz. 2009. Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the SanFrancisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. Archaeological and Historical Consultants. Prepared for the National Park Service. 35 36 Ibid. Bocek, Barbara R. 1992. “Subsistence, Settlement and Tribelet Territories on the Eastern San Francisco Peninsula”. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 5:269–297. 37 Price, Heather. 2019. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital Site(CA-SCL-585 [preferred]). WSA, Inc., Orinda, CA. Prepared for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 38 39 Milliken et al., 2009. Levy, 1978. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 9 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 58     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context which was spoken by the group living in the Study Area and vicinity.40,41 Though traditional anthropological literature portrayed the Ohlone cultural as static, today it is better understood that many variations of culture and ideology existed within and between villages. The use of static descriptions allowed for easier ethnographic classification of California native cultures, but inherently masked Native adaptability and self-identity; California Native Americans rarely viewed themselves as members of larger cultural groups, which were posited by anthropologists. Rather, the village tended to be the primary identifier of origin, with marriage and kinship providing additional sources.42,43,44 Ohlone regional communities consisted of fairly autonomous units of between 150 and 400 people led by a chief (man or woman) and council.45 Other key roles in the community were shamans and war leaders. Permanent villages tended to be situated along or near waterbodies, with temporary camps in prime resource-processing areas.46,47 Economically, the Ohlone engaged in hunting, fishing, and gathering. Their territory included coastal as well as open valley environments that yielded a wide variety of resources, such as acorns, grasses, bulbs, tubers, deer, elk, antelope, bear, and a variety of birds, fishes, shellfish, and small mammals. Private ownership of natural and cultural resources was acknowledged, with ownership at the village level. The Ohlone apparently aggressively protected territories, requiring monetary payment (for example, clam shell beads) for access rights.48,49,50 The most common Ohlone house type was circular and grass- or rush-thatched.51 Other common structures were the sweathouse, dance plazas, and assembly house. The Ohlone used a variety of stone tools, ranging from flaked-stone knives, arrow points, and spear points, to ground-stone handstones, millingslabs, mortars, pestles, net sinkers, anchors, and pipes. Flaked-stone tools were most often made from locally available chert or imported obsidian. Other common Ohlone material goods included: tule canoes, mats, and baskets; plant fiber cordage, nets, and baskets; animal skin blankets (for example, sea otter, rabbit, duck); wood bows and arrow shafts; and shell beads and ornaments. There is no evidence that the Ohlone used or made ceramics prior to Euroamerican contact. The Ohlone traded extensively with neighboring groups.52,53,54 40 Levy, 1978. 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Milliken, 1995. Milliken et al., 2007. Milliken et al., 2009. Levy, 1978. Ibid. Milliken et al., 2009. Milliken, 1995. Milliken et al., 2007. Milliken et al., 2009. Kroeber, 1925 [1976]. Milliken, 1995. Milliken et al., 2007. Milliken et al., 2009. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 10 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 59     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context During the Mission Period (1770–1835), California Native Americans, particularly along the coast, were brought, usually by force, to the missions by Spanish missionaries to supply labor demands. The missionization resulted in immediate and devastating changing to Ohlone lives and traditional lifeways, including a massive population decline due to introduced diseases (for example, the measles epidemic of 1806, during which almost 25 percent of the indigenous population died) and declining birth rates. Following the secularization of the missions by the Mexican government in the 1830s, most Native Americans gradually left the missions and established rancherias in the surrounding areas.55,56,57 After European contact, Ohlone life ways were severely disrupted by missionization, disease, and displacement. Today the Ohlone still have a strong presence in the San Francisco Bay Area and are very interested in their past and in maintaining their culture.58,59,60 Archaeology Chronological frameworks facilitate comparison of pre-contact regional archaeological trends and differences. For the San Francisco Bay area, Scheme D, which is based on stylistic temporal variation in shell bead types, is the most recent and refined chronology.61 Scheme D uses a general three-part sequence (Early, Middle, and Late Periods), supplemented by two transition periods (Early/Middle, and Middle/Late Periods). The following discussion of the San Francisco Bay area pre-contact chronology uses a generalized geologic-time based scheme, as presented by Milliken et al. (2007), with Groza et al.’s (2011) Scheme D supplementing the Late Holocene (4200 to 180 years before present [BP]) period. The geologic periods used are: Terminal Pleistocene (13500 to 11700 BP), Early Holocene (11700 to 8200 BP), Middle Holocene (8200 to 4200 BP), and Late Holocene (4200 to 180 BP). Terminal Pleistocene (13500 to 11700 BP) To date, there is general agreement among archaeologists that multiple human migrations to North America occurred, via both inland and coastal routes. The Terminal Pleistocene was characterized by highly mobile hunter-gatherers occupying broad geographic areas who occasionally exploited large game. Archaeological evidence from this period is rare throughout California, mostly represented by isolated fluted projectile points, and none such evidence has been discovered in the San Francisco Bay area to date.62,63 55 Milliken et al., 2009. Milliken et al., 2007. Levy, 1978. 56 57 58 59 60 61 Milliken, 1995. Milliken et al., 2007. Milliken et al., 2009. Groza, Randall G., Jeffrey Rosenthal, John Southon, and Randall Milliken. 2011. “A Refined Shell Bead Chronology for Late Holocene Central California”. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 31(2):135–154. 62 63 Milliken et al., 2007. Byrd, Brian F., Adrian R. Whitaker, Patricia J. Mikkelsen, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. 2017. San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources. Far Western Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 11 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 60     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context Early Holocene (11700 to 8200 BP) Similar to Terminal Pleistocene populations, Early Holocene human occupation in the overall region was characterized by highly mobile groups exploiting a wide variety of plant and animal resources. Assemblages from this period are dominated by stemmed projectile points, flake tools, core tools, cobble tools, crescents, with those in California distinguished by high numbers of handstones and millingslabs. In the San Francisco Bay area, only four archaeological deposits from this period have been documented, two in the East Bay (at Los Vaqueros Reservoir), one in the North Delta (near Vacaville), and one in the South Bay (in Fremont). Two additional deposits from the period have been documented adjacent to the San Francisco Bay area, one in Santa Clara Valley and one in the Santa Cruz Mountains. All the aforementioned sites were in buried contexts.64,65 Middle Holocene (8200 to 4200 BP) When compared with the Early Holocene, there is much more archaeological data from the Middle Holocene for the San Francisco Bay area, including abundant surface and buried deposits. Assemblages from this period indicate increased sedentism and population size and include a wide variety of ground stone (handstones, millingslabs, mortars, pestles), side-notched dart points, cobble tools, flake tools, shell beads, and ornaments. Notable among technological developments of the period is the appearance of the mortar and pestle, which appear by 6000 BP and would become the dominant milling tools in the region in subsequent periods. Extensive inter-regional trade is indicated by the presence of distinct shell beads (Type N grooved rectangular Olivella) and Napa Valley and eastern Sierra Nevada obsidian at period sites in the area. With the expansion of the San Francisco Bay mud flats and tidal marshes during the period, human populations increasingly exploited estuarine resources, such oyster and mussel, reflected in the presence of shell middens. A diverse set of other animal resources was used, likely through local specialized strategies. Middle Holocene archaeobotanical assemblages include many nuts, seeds, and fruit pits, suggesting year-round exploitation of a range of habitats, again reflecting increased sedentism.66,67 Late Holocene (4200 to 180 BP) The Late Holocene is the best represented period, archaeologically, in the San Francisco Bay area. It is typically separated into five additional periods: Early (4200 to 2550 BP), Early/Middle Transition (2550 to 2150 BP), Middle (2150 to 930 BP), Middle/Late Transition (930 to 685 BP), and Late (685 to 180 BP). During the Late Holocene, population size, as well as social, political, and economic complexity increased throughout the region. These developments were accompanied by resource intensification. Late Holocene archaeological sites are the first in which large cemeteries appear, with most burials in flexed positions, and grave goods common. Anthropological Research Group, Davis, CA. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland, CA. 64 Byrd et al., 2017. Milliken et al., 2007. Ibid. 65 66 67 Byrd et al., 2017. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 12 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 61     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context A notable development of the Early Period are the numerous large shell mounds along the San Francisco Bay, yielding assemblages with stemmed leaf-shaped projectile points, flaked-stone knives, mortars, pestles, crescents, perforated charmstones, bone awls and other tools, new sinkers, shell beads and pendants, and other artifacts. As would be expected, marine resource exploitation dominated sites along the Bay shore, while interior sites appear to have focused on freshwater fish and shellfish, and terrestrial mammals; a variety of nuts, berries, and seeds were used at sites throughout the region. Increasing sedentism is seen in the Middle Period, which saw the height of moundbuilding in the area and more social complexity compared to earlier periods. New artifacts to the Middle Period include: large, shaped mortars and pestles, ear spools, bone fishing spears, and more varieties of shell beads and ornaments. A shift to greater terrestrial resource exploitation, such as deer and acorn, is seen in the Middle Period. Evidence also shows that some Central Valley groups migrated to the East Bay during the Middle Period; called the Meganos Intrusion, settlements of this group are distinct and include a high proportion of extended burials. Increased population size and resource intensification continued during the Late Period, which is by far the best documented pre-contact period in the region. New artifact types appearing during the Late Period include the clamshell disk bead, flanged steatite pipes, more elaborate mortars, and new shell bead and pendant forms. Though first appearing around 700 BP, at the end of the Middle Period, the bow and arrow becomes widespread at Late Period sites and is reflected by locally invented and distinct serrated Stockton arrow points. Populations of the Late Period apparently relied on small seeds more than during the preceding periods, and a large variety of terrestrial and estuarine faunal species (for example, sea otter, deer, rabbit, clams) were utilized. Flexed internments, occasional cremations, and intentionally broken grave goods characterized burial practices of the period. Trade with groups from neighboring areas, particularly with those in Napa Valley (for obsidian) and north of the San Francisco Bay (for clamshell beads), was seemingly widespread and highly developed.68,69 Post-Contact Period Regional The first European expedition into the San Francisco Bay area occurred in 1772 when Pedro Fages and his party explored the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay north to San Pablo Bay, then traveled east along the south shore of the Carquinez Strait and returned to the San José area through the Diablo and Livermore valleys south of Concord. The Fages expedition encountered numerous Native American villages, and diarist Juan Crespí reported that the villagers welcomed the Spaniards, giving them food and gifts. Three years later, the ship San Carlos sailed through the Golden Gate, tasked with charting the bay. The ship’s commander, Lieutenant Juan Manuel de Ayala, and his crew encountered many Ohlone, as well as neighboring Coast Miwok villagers from the Marin County shore. In August 1775, Ohlone Huchuin-Aguasto speakers greeted the ship’s longboat. They recounted the earlier visit by Fages and provided food and gifts to the new arrivals.70 68 Byrd et al., 2017. Milliken et al., 2007. Milliken, 1995. 69 70 Palo Alto VA Medical Center 13 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 62     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context The Spanish established Mission San Francisco de Asís (also known as Mission Dolores) and the Presidio de San Francisco in 1776. Mission Dolores was located west of Mission Bay on land occupied seasonally by the Ohlone Yelamu people, a small village community composed of approximately 160 people, while the Presidio was situated along the northern edge of the peninsula. In the 1790s, the Spanish established an outpost (“Hospice”) in San Mateo County to produce grain and livestock for the Mission and Presidio.71 In 1822, Spain ceded their North American colonial outposts to the newly independent Republic of Mexico and Upper California became one of its provinces. The Study Area is within the boundaries of Rancho Rincón de San Francisquito (meaning “ranch at the corner or bend of San Francisquito Creek”). In 1841, then Mexican governor Juan Bautista Alvarado issued the 8,418- acre grant to José Peña, a retired artilleryman, who used the land for agriculture and grazing. In 1847, Peña sold the rancho to brothers Teodoro and Secundino Robles who renamed it Rancho Santa Margarita, and it was also known as Robles Rancho.72 Following the end of the Mexican-American War (1846–48), California attained independence from Mexico and officially became a territory of the United States in 1848. Within a decade, the Robles brothers sold approximately one half of their landholdings.73 In 1876, Leland and Jane Stanford purchased several hundred acres (including the entire Study Area) and constructed an estate renowned for breeding racehorses. The couple’s land holdings increased to several thousand acres in the vicinity of the Study Area and were eventually developed as the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford University).74,75,76 Development History of the Study Area Historic aerial photographs from the 1930s and 1940s illustrate that the Study Area was occupied by undeveloped fields spotted with oak trees, and the property remained undeveloped until 1957 (Figure 1). It was bounded on the west by Matadero Creek, on the south by Junipero Serra Boulevard,77 and on the northeast by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. 71 Milliken, 1995. 72 Barron Park Association Newsletter. 2023. “A Brief History of Barron Park”. July 11. Available:https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/real_estate/1997_Jul_11.BARRONP.html. Accessed November14, 2023. 73 Palo Alto Museum. 2023. “Moments in History: Don Jesus Ramos, 1829–1912 and Don Secundino Robles, 1830-1890”. Available: https://paloaltohistorymuseum.org/moments-in-history-don-jesus-ramos-1829-1912-and-don-secundino-robles-1830-1890/. Accessed November 14, 2023. 74 75 Stanford University. 2023. “Stanford Lands”. Available: https://facts.stanford.edu/about/lands/. AccessedNovember 14, 2023. Herrmann Bros. and Britton & Rey. 1890. “Official Map of the County of Santa Clara, California: Compiled fromU.S. Surveys, County Records, and Private Surveys and the Tax-List of 1889, by Order of the Hon. Board ofSupervisors”. Available: https://www.loc.gov/item/2012592102/. Accessed November 14, 2023. 76 77 Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abelow. 2022. Historic Spotsin California, Fifth Edition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 443. The segment of Junipero Serra Boulevard in the vicinity of the Study Area is known today as Foothill Expressway. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 14 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 63     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context SOURCE: VAPAHCS, 2010 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 1 View of the PAD Campus Before Construction, ca. 1957 In 1956, the federal government acquired approximately 93 acres from Stanford University, specifically from the area known as the Stanford Research Park (or Stanford Industrial Park).78 This land would be developed as the Palo Alto Veterans Hospital (renamed PAD in 1995) and encompasses the Study Area. The following timeline of major development activities at the PAD campus is compiled from multiple sources. November 1957–April 1960: The PAD campus and its original 15 buildings were constructed (Figure 2): –Main Hospital/General Medical-Surgical and Administration Building (Building 1; no longer extant) – – – – – – Geriatrics Care Building (Building 2; no longer extant) Acute Psychiatric Care Building (Building 4; extant) Admission and Psychiatric Treatment Building (Building 5; extant) Women’s Care Building (Building 6; extant) Neurological Care Building (Building 7; extant) Chapel (Building 21; no longer extant) 78 Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS). 2010. 50 Years: A Look Back, VeteransAffairs Palo Alto Health Care System 1960–2010. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 15 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 64     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context – – – – – – – – Medical Rehabilitation Building (Building 22; no longer extant) Therapeutic Exercise Clinic (Building 23; no longer extant) Recreation Building (Building 24; no longer extant) Kitchen Building (Building 25; no longer extant) Boiler House (Building 40; extant) Garage (Building 41; extant) Utility Shops (Building 42; extant) Laundry (Building 43; extant)79 The original architectural drawings list the following design professionals: the architect was Welton Becket and Associates of Los Angeles, CA (see the firm profile below); the civil engineer was Lawrence G. Brian of Redwood City, CA; and the structural engineer was L.F. Robinson of San Francisco, CA. The general contractor was Robert E. McKee, Inc. of Los Angeles, CA.80 SOURCE: P-43-000580 (CA-SCL-585), 1985 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 2 PAD Campus Plan, ca. 1958 79 Grant, Mary. 1960. “Dedication of New Veterans Hospital Marks Start of Joint Operation of Two Medical Centers”. Palo Alto Times. May 13:13. 80 Ibid. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 16 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 65     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context      May 15, 1960: VA held a dedication ceremony for the new PAD campus.81 July 1960: PAD campus opened for patient care and treatment with 1,000 hospital beds.82 1970: The E-Wing Research Addition to Building 1 opened.83 1974: The Spinal Cord Injury Center (SCI) in Building 7 opened.84 1975: The Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) Program was initiated at PAD.85   1977: The F-Wing Ambulatory Care Clinic Addition to Building 1 opened.86 1977: The Western Blind Rehabilitation Center was relocated from the VA Menlo Park Division campus to a newly constructed, purpose-built building at the PAD. It remained at the PAD until 2011 when it moved to occupy a newly constructed building.87       1980: New Rehabilitation Research and Development Building opened at the PAD.88 1981: New Animal Research Facility (Building 54) opened.89 1986: New G-Wing Surgical Addition to Building 1 opened.90 1988: New Women’s Trauma and Recovery Program opened.91 1989: The 30-bed E-Wing and 30-bed F-Wing SCI Additions to Building 7 opened.92 October 17, 1989: The Loma Prieta Earthquake caused extensive structural damage to the Greater San Francisco Bay Area and to the PAD’s Main Hospital Building (Building 1).93 1990: $252 million in emergency funding was approved by Congress for the construction of a new hospital building at the PAD.94   1991: Modular Buildings 1–4 opened.95 1990s: A comprehensive Women Veterans Health Center was created at the PAD.96 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Ibid. Ibid. VAPAHCS, 2010, 100. Ibid., 46, 100. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 40, 46. Ibid., 54, 100. Ibid., 52, 100. Ibid., 54, 100. Ibid., 53. Ibid. Ibid., 60. Ibid., 62. Ibid., 100. Ibid., 57. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 17 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 66     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context May 10, 1993: Groundbreaking for the new hospital building.97 The architects were Stone, Marraccini, and Patterson of San Francisco, CA, and Ratcliff Architects of Emeryville, CA.98      1994: New Diagnostic Radiology Building (Building 102) opened at PAD.99 1996: The new Administration Building (Building 101) opened.100 1997: The new Hospital Building (Building 100) opened, replacing Building 1.101 1998: Building 1 was demolished.102 1998: The Mental Illness, Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC) Program began at the PAD.103   2004: The new Polytrauma Unit opened at the PAD.104 It consists of an 18-bed Polytrauma/ Comprehensive Rehabilitation Center and a 12-bed Polytrauma Transitional Rehabilitation Center.105 2006: Fisher House (Building 8) opened at PAD.106 “Like a Ronald McDonald House, this facility provides a home away from home for families of injured Veterans undergoing medical care at [VA Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS)].”107        Ca. 2010–12: The new 80-bed Inpatient Gero-Psychiatric Unit (Building 520) opened.108,109 2013: The new Mental Health Learning Center (Building 105) opened.110 2013: A new parking structure (PS1) opened.111 2013: Defenders Lodge (Building 9) opened.112 Ca. 2013–14: The new Wellness Center (Building 530) opened.113 2016: Fisher House 2 (Building 10) opened.114 2017: The new Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center (Building 500) opened.115 97 Ibid., 62. 98 Ibid., 70. 99 Ibid., 66, 100. Ibid., 62, 66, 100, Ibid., 66, 100. Ibid., 63, 68. Ibid., 100. 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Ibid., 76. Ibid., 84. Ibid., 77, 100. Ibid., 89. Ibid., 94, 97, 99. VAPAHCS. 2023. “PAD Buildings_Structures by YR.xlsx”. Spreadsheet. Palo Alto, CA: Veterans AdministrationPalo Alto Health Care System. 110 111 112 113 114 115 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 18 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 67     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context   2017: A new parking structure (PS2) opened.116 2021: The new Basic Science Research Center (Building 710) opened.117 Brief History of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Post-Civil War In the aftermath of the Civil War, the U.S. federal government emerged from the devastation of battle as a vastly expanded nation-state with a radically transformed understanding of its power over and obligations to its war-weary citizenry. According to historian Drew Gilpin Faust, one of the most urgent obligations of the federal bureaucracy after 1865 was administering to the Civil War dead as well as a vast cohort of military Veterans and their dependents.118 While the United States had previously established medical facilities for its military Veterans, such as the Philadelphia Naval Home (1826), the Civil War had produced an unprecedented number of injured military Veterans that required a permanent, bureaucratic apparatus to administer to their long-term care.119 In March 1865, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill that created the National Asylum of Disabled Volunteer Soldiers (later renamed the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers [NHDVS]) to offer convalescent and medical care for Navy volunteer forces and recently discharged members of the Union Army.120 The NHDVS was designed to be a nationwide system of branches, the first of which opened in Togus, Maine in November 1866 and, in 1870, the NHDVS established its first permanent hospital building in Dayton, Ohio.121 As the focus and purpose of medical facilities for Veterans has evolved over time, so have their architecture, footprint, and overall appearance. Hospitals constructed as branches of the NHDVS between 1866 and 1930 can be categorized as the nation’s “First Generation” of medical care facilities for Veterans.122 The 11 hospitals constructed during this period aimed to provide lifelong medical and surgical care for Veterans of the Civil War. Hospital campuses were typically located on large tracts of land in rural areas and organized as “miniature” cities, complete with racially integrated medical, administrative, and residential buildings. Burial grounds were incorporated into the surrounding picturesque landscapes.123 U.S. Public Health Service (1919–22) and Veterans Bureau (1922–30) The federal government further expanded its care facilities for military Veterans after the First World War. Although the U.S. Public Health Service operated a select number of hospital 116 Ibid. Ibid.117 118 Faust, Drew Gilpin. 2008. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. New York: VintageBooks, 268. 119 120 Gleaves, Adm. Albert. 2023. “The United States Naval Home, Philadelphia”. U.S. Naval Institute. Available:https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1931/april/united-states-naval-home-philadelphia. AccessedNovember 14, 2023. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 2023a. “VHA Timeline”. Available: https://www.va.gov/VHA-HISTORY/timeline/index.asp. Accessed November 14, 2023. 121 122 Ibid. Delacenserie, Katie. 2021. “Building From Our Past: The Evolution of VA Hospitals”. In Veterans HealthAdministration—75 Years: A Legacy of Service. The Future of Care. St. Petersburg, FL: Faircount Media Group, 31. 123 Ibid. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 19 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 68     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context facilities during the war, most Veterans received medical care in armed service hospitals that lacked the resources and capacity to care for Veterans through often lengthy recovery periods. In response, Congress passed a series of legislation that expanded the U.S. Public Health Service. The War Risk Insurance Act Amendments (1917) and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (1918) provided vocational training and rehabilitation programs for Veterans, and a 1919 law authorized the establishment of new hospitals and transferred the responsibility of several existing military hospitals to the U.S. Public Health Service.124 In April 1919, a base hospital at Camp Fremont in Menlo Park, California, was sold to the agency and became one of 20 new hospitals operated by the U.S. Public Health Service. During its three years under U.S. Public Health Service management, the Menlo Park hospital treated Veterans who suffered from tuberculosis and understudied neuro-psychiatric disorders such as shell shock.125 The Veterans Bureau was established in 1921 to manage programs associated with the newly adopted legislation. In the process, the new Veterans Bureau assumed oversight of health and training programs for Veterans previously administered by the U.S. Public Health Service, the Department of War, and the Department of the Interior. In 1922, the Veterans Bureau also began to operate all hospitals previously managed by the U.S. Public Health Service, including the Menlo Park hospital and the new Livermore Veterans Hospital (1925).126 The health care facilities constructed for World War I Veterans between 1919 and 1940 may be categorized as the “Second Generation” of Veterans Hospitals. Where previous facilities treated patients with a holistic approach, the more than 50 hospitals constructed during this period focused on three main avenues of rehabilitative services—general medical and surgical, tuberculosis, or neuropsychiatric.127 Hospital campuses were in rural areas, were segregated by race, and typically included buildings designed with H- or I-shaped footprints. The buildings were designed with standardized building plans and often featured Colonial Revival- or Classical Revival-style architectural elements.128 Veterans Administration (1930–Present) In 1930, President Herbert Hoover signed an executive order that consolidated three preexisting agencies—the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, the Pension Bureau, and the Veterans Bureau—into a single federal bureau tasked with overseeing the affairs of Veterans.129 While this development streamlined the administration of benefits for Veterans, the new VA was slow to expand and improve upon the existing network of VA hospitals. 124 Grady, Amber, Jesse Martinez, and Denise M. Jurich. 2009. Cultural Resource Investigation in Support of theBuilding 23 Demolition, United States Department of Veteran [sic] Affairs, Palo Alto Division Medical Campus,Palo Alto, California. PBS&J, Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System, 8. 125 SWCA. 2021. Cultural and Archaeological Resource Survey Report, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto& Menlo Park Campuses, CA, Task Order 36C10F20F0048. Prepared for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Construction and Facilities Management, 22–23. 126 127 128 129 Ibid., 23. Delacenserie, 33. Ibid. VA, 2023. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 20 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 69     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context The demand for such improvements became all the more pressing after World War II. By 1946, VA was tasked with overseeing the care of nearly 16 million Veterans. The advancement of technology had fundamentally transformed the nature of warfare and the lives of Veterans in the aftermath. World War II marked the first time that the U.S. military sustained more casualties from combat injuries than disease. Furthermore, advancements in battlefield medical care ensured that more service members returned home. It also meant that many of those Veterans returned home with (once fatal) wounds that required sustained and sophisticated levels of care.130 In anticipation of returning demobilized Veterans, VA’s newly appointed administrator, General Omar Bradley, and medical director Major General Paul Hawley, MD, initiated a comprehensive reorganization of VA’s health care facilities in 1946.131 Empowered by $500 million in Congressional funds, Bradley and Hawley began to implement plans to build a nation-wide network of hospital facilities with the scientific and technological capabilities to meet the medical challenges of the postwar era. The reorganization executed key initiatives beyond the construction of new hospitals. It also included establishing the Veterans Canteen Service, hiring women doctors, building partnerships with medical schools to foster innovative research, and incorporating mental health services into the operations and design of new VA hospitals, fundamentally reimagining the boundaries of the modern American general hospital.132 By 1948, circulated plans for new VA hospitals were being touted as the vanguard of modern hospital design, with one prominent architectural engineer proclaiming, “never have we had hospitals so completely planned around the idea that we must treat not only the disease, but the whole person, including his relationship to the community”.133 Bradley ushered in what has been alternatively called the “Third Generation” or “skyscraper era” of VA hospitals.134 Between 1946 and 1958, 52 new VA hospitals were constructed in what would become the largest federal Veterans medical facility construction program in history. In a departure from previous hospitals, new campuses were situated in populated areas near major medical schools and devoted entire floors and wings to advancing medical research. Hospitals were classified into three specialties—general medical and surgical, tuberculosis, or neuropsychiatric—and focused on rehabilitating Veterans and helping them return to civilian life. In a long-overdue policy reversal, racial segregation officially ended in VA facilities in 1954.135 Brief History of the Palo Alto Division Constructed between 1957 and 1960, the PAD Campus typified the “Third Generation” of VA medical facilities. As described above, the Campus was constructed on land acquired from Stanford University in the 1950s. The Campus, designed by the well-known California architectural firm Welton Becket and Associates, was projected to cost $19,887,500 and have a 130 VA. 2023b. “VHA History”. Available: https://www.va.gov/vha-history/. Accessed November 14, 2023. 131 132 133 134 135 Ibid. Ibid. Rosenfield, Isadore. 1946. “Veterans’ Hospital Program”. Progressive Architecture, November, 58. Delacenserie, 35. Ibid. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 21 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 70     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context 1,000-bed capacity upon completion.136 Built on approximately 93-acres on Juniper Serra Boulevard (currently known as Foothill Expressway), the Campus was intended to serve primarily as a neuropsychiatric hospital that would become a new, integral partner with the nearby Stanford Medical Center and VA hospital in Menlo Park. One 1959 newspaper article described the new hospital as a “miniature city of buildings joined by covered walkways.”137,138 In a June 1960 interview, the new PAD administrator John Prusmack explained that the facilities would be used to help newly admitted psychiatric patients receive diagnostic studies and treatment. Once on the path to recovery, patients would transfer to the nearby Menlo Park VA Hospital.139 In addition to treating and rehabilitating Veterans daily, the Campus was also a place for scientific innovation. During the 1960s, the hospital became a major center for open heart procedures and by the end of the decade began performing the new and complex heart transplant surgery.140 On June 3, 1969, Dr. William W. Angell, the chief of cardiovascular surgery at the Campus, performed the first heart transplant operation to take place in a VA hospital. Angel had collaborated with Dr. Norman Shumway’s groundbreaking heart transplantation research at Stanford University and was a member of the team that performed the first U.S. human-to-human transplant operation at the university in January 1968.141 The recipient was Donald Hallbeck, a retired carpenter and World War II Veteran, who suffered from postoperative care complications and died 41 days later.142 Dr. Angell went on to work in hospitals throughout the South Bay Area and conducted innovative research on pig heart valve preservation for heart transplants and congenital heart defect repair throughout the 1960s and 1970s.143 With ongoing advancements in anti-rejection drugs and postoperative care, the Campus continues to serve as one of VA’s leading organ transplant centers.144 In 1995, VA medical centers in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Livermore were merged to create the VA Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS). The health care system, which originally comprised the three formerly independent VA medical centers and health facilities in San Jose and Monterey, has expanded to include three medical divisions (PAD, Menlo Park Division [MPD], and Livermore Division [LVD]) and seven outpatient clinics and is part of VA’s Sierra Pacific Integrated Service Network.145 136 Daily Palo Alto Times. 1959. “Once A Field In Stanford Foothills, Now A Busy Construction Scene”. January 19:2. 137 138 Ibid. During the architectural survey, ESA staff did not observe remnants of the original covered walkways. The coveredwalkways with brick-clad columns that currently exist were constructed during the 1990s. 139 140 141 Peninsula Times Tribune. 1960. “They’re No Longer ‘Snake Pits’”. June 25:30. Fortney, Mary. 1969. “Transplants ‘just tool for treating disease’”. Peninsula Times Tribune. June 4:5. We Served Too: A Blog from the Museum of the American Family & Learning Center. “VA History Tidbit—1st Heart Transplant at VA”. Available: https://weservedtoo.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/va-history-tidbit-1st-heart-transplant-at-va/. Accessed November 15, 2023. 142 143 Peninsula Times Tribune. 1969. “Heart transplant performed at UC Hospital in SF”. August 14:1. Legacy.com. 2023. “William Willson Angell M.D., 1935–2022”. Available: https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/mercurynews/name/william-angell-obituary?id=36202405. Accessed November 15, 2023. 144 145 VA, 2023b. SWCA, 2021, 24. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 22 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 71     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context Welton Becket and Associates, Architect Welton Becket and Associates is one of the most influential and celebrated California-based architectural firms of the post-World War II era. Based in Los Angeles, the firm is best known for its pivotal role in articulating International-style Corporate Modernism and its designs shaped the skylines of postwar Los Angeles and other major U.S. cities. Welton Davis Becket, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), was born in 1902 in Seattle, Washington, and studied architecture at the University of Washington. After completing a graduate course at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, Becket relocated to Los Angeles, where he formed a partnership with former classmate Walter Wurderman and the more established Los Angeles architect Charles F. Plummer.146 From 1933 to 1939, the partnership of Plummer, Wurderman, and Becket designed markets, restaurants, shops, and cafeterias such as Clifton’s Brookdale Cafeteria (1935) throughout greater Los Angeles. The firm won international acclaim in 1935 with its design for the Pan-Pacific Auditorium (no longer extant), which incorporated fluid pylons that became emblematic of a futuristic Los Angeles and of the Streamline Moderne architectural style more broadly.147 The firm continued to flourish over the next decade and incorporated as Wurderman and Becket after Plummer’s death in 1939. After spending the wartime years developing defense and housing projects, the firm pivoted to designing what would become iconic features of the Los Angeles area, including Bullock’s Pasadena (now Macy’s, 1947), the Prudential Center (1949) on Wilshire Boulevard, and the General Petroleum Building (1949), in downtown Los Angeles. After Wurderman’s sudden death in 1949, Becket assumed sole leadership of the firm and renamed it Welton Becket and Associates. In the following years, the firm continued to design now-famous Los Angeles buildings, such as the Parker Center (1955), Capitol Records Tower (1956), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in collaboration with architects Paul Williams and William Pereira (1959), and the Music Center (1964–67).148 During this period, Welton Becket and Associates designed two medical centers in California: the PAD Campus (1960) and a 60-bed addition to the privately run Centinela Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood (1968).149 The firm gradually established satellite offices in San Francisco, New York, Houston, and Chicago, and became one of the largest architectural firms in the world with over 400 employees. Welton Becket and Associates was the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including the Honor Award of the seventh Pan-American Congress of Architects (1950) for the design of Prudential Square (with his partner Walter Wurderman) and a fellowship with the AIA for excellence in design. Following Becket’s death in 1969, the firm continued under the name Welton Becket and Associates until it was purchased in 1988 by the Minneapolis-based Ellerbe 146 Wuellner, Margarita J. 2005. Historic American Landscape Survey, Parker Center, 150 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California. Prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. 147 Los Angeles Conservancy. 2023. “Welton Becket”. Available: https://www.laconservancy.org/learn/architect-biographies/welton-becket/. Accessed November 14, 2023.148 149 Ibid. Inglewood, CA, Public Art. “Centinela Hospital Medical Center”. Available:https://inglewoodpublicart.org/projects/centinela-hospital-medical-center/. Accessed November 14, 2023. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 23 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 72     Chapter 3. Environmental and Cultural Context Architects and was incorporated under the name Ellerbe-Becket, which currently operates as a division of AECOM.150 The widespread success of Welton Becket and Associates during the 1950s and 1960s has been largely attributed to Becket’s individual business acumen as well as the firm’s “Total Design” approach. A philosophy as much as it was a design protocol, the firm embraced “Total Design”, from overseeing the site plan, engineering plans, to designing the interiors, sign typography, and fixtures, to create a cohesive and fully integrated design aesthetic for each of the firm’s projects. This approach is perhaps best exemplified by the firm’s master planning projects, such as the previously mentioned LAX (1959) and the master plan for Century City (1963).151 150 Pacific Coast Architecture Database. “Welton David Becket (Architect)”. Available:https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/69/. Accessed November 14, 2023. 151 Hunt, William Dudley. 1971. Total Design: Architecture of Welton Becket and Associates. New York, NY:McGraw-Hill. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 24 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 73     CHAPTER 4 Methods CHRIS Records Search On September 14, 2023, ESA staff requested that staff of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), the official CHRIS repository for the Study Area and vicinity, conduct a records search for the Study Area and areas within 0.25 mile (Search Area). The purpose of the records search was to: (1) determine whether known cultural resources have previously been recorded in or adjacent to the Study Area; (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby resources; and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources. The records search consisted of an examination of the following documents:   NWIC base map: Palo Alto, CA. Resource Inventories: National Register of Historic Places-Listed Properties and Determined Eligible Properties (2012); California Register of Historical Resources (2012); California Points of Historical Interest (2012); California Inventory of Historical Resources (1976); California Historical Landmarks (2012); Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (Santa Clara County, 2012); Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory (Santa Clara County, 2012); Built Environment Resource Directory (Santa Clara County, 2023). Previous VA Cultural Resources Investigations In an effort to determine whether there are any previous cultural resources reports or site records associated with the Study Area and vicinity not on file at CHRIS, in October 2023, ESA contacted VAPAHCS facility planning staff in request of documentation of previous cultural resources studies and site records for PAD and vicinity. VAPAHCS staff subsequently provided ESA with all such previous studies and site records for PAD that they have on file. Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment One goal of this study is to identify portions of the Study Area that may yield archaeological resources, with particular attention given to the relationship between the likelihood of the presence of any such deposits and their potential for significance. This study uses the term “sensitivity” to discuss this relationship, whereby an area with high sensitivity would be an area with both a high likelihood of encountering archaeological deposits and a high likelihood of any such deposits being eligible for the National Register (that is, being significant and retaining integrity). Table 1 summarizes this framework, which was developed by ESA. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 25 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 74     Chapter 4. Methods TABLE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY FRAMEWORK Sensitivity Potential for Presence Potential for Eligibility Low Low Low Low Moderate LowModerate Low High Moderate High Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate High High Moderate HighHigh Landforms that predate the earliest estimated periods for human occupation of the region are considered to have very low potential for the presence of buried archaeological sites, while those that postdate human occupation are considered to have a higher potential for presence of buried archaeological sites. The degree of buried site potential presence is inversely related to the estimated date range of a landform. Currently, archaeological research indicates that the earliest evidence for human occupation of California dates to the Late Pleistocene, which ended approximately 11500 BP. Therefore, the potential for presence of buried archaeological deposits in landforms from or predating the Late Pleistocene is very low.152 Native American Correspondence ESA contacted the California NAHC on September 14, 2023, to request a search of the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File (SLF) and a list of Native American representatives who may have interest in a project at the Campus. In October 2023, ESA contacted VA Tribal Relations Specialist Terry Bentley, requesting a list of VA-identified Native American Tribes that should be consulted for future projects at the Campus. Interested Party Identification Regarding cultural resources and for the purpose of identifying non-tribal potential interested parties, individuals and groups that have a vested interest in post-contact architectural resources and historic preservation would typically be consulted. If another federal agency would be issuing a permit, it should be included (this is not anticipated to be the case for projects at the Campus). State agencies and local governments should be engaged during consultation, as should historical societies and cultural institutions. If descendants of the property’s original inhabitants or owner are known, they would also be consulted (this is not the case for projects at the Campus). 152 Meyer, Jack, and Jeffery Rosenthal. 2008. A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District 3.Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, CA. Prepared for the California Department ofTransportation, District 3, Sacramento, CA, 160–161. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 26 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 75     Chapter 4. Methods Field Methods Archaeological Survey On October 4, 2023, ESA Archaeologist Robin Hoffman, MA, RPA, conducted a reconnaissance- level pedestrian survey of the Study Area. The survey consisted of walking accessible portions of the Study Area where archaeological resources had been previously recorded (that is, at and in the vicinity of P-43-000580) in transects no greater than 10 meters apart and inspecting the ground surface for evidence of cultural material, as well as a non-systematic survey of the remainder of the Study Area, which were all landscaped or occupied by buildings or structures. Notes on any identified cultural resources were collected to meet or exceed site recordation guidelines based on the OHP’s Instructions for Recording Historical Resources153 and CHRIS recommendations. Digital photographs were taken to document ground conditions, and all observations were recorded in the field. Architectural Survey On October 4, 2023, ESA Architectural Historian Johanna Kahn, MArH, and ESA Cultural Resources Specialist Amy Langford, PhD, conducted a reconnaissance-level pedestrian survey of all buildings, above-ground structures, and landscape elements within the Study Area. Digital photographs were taken to document each feature, and all observations were recorded in the field. 153 State of California Office of Historic Preservation. 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 27 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 76     CHAPTER 5 Findings Previously Recorded Resources CHRIS has record of two previously documented cultural resources mapped within the 0.25-mile Search Area, one of which (P-43-000580) is mapped within the Study Area, while the other (P- 43-000611) is mapped immediately north of the Study Area. Both of the cultural resources previously recorded within 0.25 mile of the Study Area are pre-contact archaeological sites. Though P-43-000580 was determined not eligible for the National Register in 2009,154,155 it was subsequently re-evaluated as National Register-eligible, under Criterion D, and formally listed in the National Register in 2019, under Criterion D.156,157 P-43-000611 does not appear to have been previously evaluated for National Register-eligibility. Documentation of the CHRIS records search is provided in Appendix B. In addition, VAPAHCS staff provided ESA with a National Register Nomination Form for P-43- 000580, provided in Appendix C, and documentation of seven previously recorded architectural resources (six buildings and one district) in the Study Area that are not on file at CHRIS.158 These previously recorded architectural resources in the Study Area are: Buildings 6, 23, 40, 41, 42, 43, and the PAD Campus (historic district). Of these, Building 23 and the PAD Campus (historic district) were previously determined not eligible for the National Register (documentation provided in Appendix D, and the remaining five resources were previously recommended not eligible for the National Register. Table 2 summarizes the previously recorded cultural resources in and within 0.25 mile of the Study Area. These resources are discussed in detail in the next chapter. Previous Cultural Resources Studies CHRIS has records of 12 previous cultural resources studies, with 21 previous reports or Section 106 consultation documents that have been conducted in or within 0.25 mile of the Study Area; 154 Jurich, Denise. 2009. “RE: Veterans Administration Medical Center PAD Campus Replacement Facilities Project,Santa Clara County, California”. Letter to Milford Wayne Donaldson (State Historic Preservation Officer). August 25. 155 156 Donaldson, Milford Wayne. 2009. “Reply in Reference To: VA090827A.” Letter to Denise Jurich (PBS&J).October 21. Price, Heather, Haley Dixon, Nazih Fino, Megan Watson, and Patrick Zingerella. 2017. Revised Evaluation andRequest for New Determination of Eligibility of Archaeological Site CA-SCL-585, Veterans Affairs Palo AltoHealth Care System, Project 640-16-301, Santa Clara County, California. WSA, Inc., Orinda, CA. Prepared for Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. 157 158 Price, 2019. Ibid. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 28 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 77     Chapter 5. Findings 11 of these have covered at least some portion of the Study Area. Table 3 summarizes the CHRIS records of previous cultural resources studies that covered areas in or within 0.25 mile of the Study Area, with those in highlights having covered some portion of the Study Area, including the National Register Nomination Form for P-43-000580.159 Appendix B provides documentation of the records search, including lists of previous studies and associated reports. VAPAHCS staff provided ESA with two reports for previous cultural resources studies conducted within the Study Area that are not on file at CHRIS. These are also summarized in Table 3. Map 4 depicts the locations of the previous archaeological investigations that have occurred in the Study Area. Native American Correspondence On behalf of VA, ESA contacted the NAHC on September 14, 2023, to request a search of the NAHC’s SLF and a list of representatives from California Native American Tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the vicinity of the Study Area or interest in a specific project at the Campus. The NAHC replied to ESA on October 18, 2023, with the statement that the SLF has no record of sacred sites in the Study Area. The NAHC’s response also included a list of 11 representatives from California Native American Tribes, representing seven California Native American Tribes, to contact who may be interested in a specific project at the Campus. Documentation of the NAHC correspondence is provided in Appendix E. Interested Party Identification In October 2023, ESA presented to VAPAHCS the following list of non-tribal potentially interested parties that should be invited to consult on potential future Campus projects, specifically regarding post-contact architectural resources and concerns related to historic preservation. These include:         SHPO; California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet); City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board; County of Santa Clara Historical Heritage Commission; Stanford University Heritage Services; Palo Alto Historical Association; Santa Clara County Historical and Genealogical Society; and Docomomo US, Northern California Chapter. 159 Ibid. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 29 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 78     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 79     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 80     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 81     Chapter 5. Findings Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment Pre-contact Deposits As discussed earlier, upper Pliocene to lower Pleistocene deposits underlie the Study Area,160 with mapped soils in the Study Area consisting primarily of urban land/developed, with a mix of Cropley series clay, Flaskan series sandy loam, Literr series loam, Merbeth series gravelley sandy clay loam, and Stevenscreek series sandy loam.161 The Study Area is bound on the north by Matadero Creek, a freshwater (albeit intermittent) source, with the smaller Barron Creek just to the south of the Study Area. Additionally, pre-contact archaeological site P-43-000580 is within the north portion of the Study Area, along Matadero Creek, and pre-contact archaeological site P-43- 000611 is mapped just to the north of the Study Area, across Matadero Creek; both sites contain surficial and subsurface deposits.162,163 Given its proximity to freshwater bodies (that is, the creeks) and general Holocene alluvial setting, presence of pre-contact archaeological sites with both surficial and buried components within or in close proximity and mix of both Holocene (alluvial associated with the creeks and mapped soils) and early Pleistocene (overall surficial geologic) settings, the Study Area has a high theoretical potential for presence of both surficial and buried pre-contact archaeological resources. Post-contact engineering of the landscape through development of the PAD have resulted in a large amount of ground disturbance (both horizontally and vertically) throughout the Study Area; this disturbance would likely have disturbed any surficial or buried pre-contact archaeological deposits (previously) present in the Study Area, though to what degree is unknown. Presumably, any surficial deposits present had a higher chance of having been disturbed by such activities, since not all surficial disturbance included deep subsurface disturbance, though the opposite is true. Taking this potential disturbance into account, the actual predicted potential for presence of pre-contact archaeological resources for the Study Area is low for developed (using both horizontal and vertical dimensions) portions of the Study Area and high for all undeveloped or lesser-developed portions of the Study Area (such as along Matadero Creek). The potential National Register-eligibility of pre-contact archaeological resources in the Study Area is hard to gauge since such deposits may be intact or disturbed from post-contact activities, and such disturbance may have affected the integrity of such deposits. Given that P-43-000580, present in the northern portion of the Study Area along Matadero Creek, is listed in the National Register, the potential National Register-eligibility of any intact (that is, those retaining integrity) pre-contact archaeological resources in the Study Area is high since such resources very likely would be associated with National Register-listed site P-43-000580 and/or have the ability to 160 Brabb et al., 2000. 161 162 163 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2023. Price, 2019. Bocek, Barbara R. 1987. Barron Park Site [P-43-000611]. State of California Department of Parks and RecreationArcheological Site Record. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 33 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 82     Chapter 5. Findings address important research questions regarding the area’s history, and/or have potential association with events or people identified by Native American representatives. Based on the above analysis, the portions of the Study Area (both horizontally and vertically) that have not been disturbed from post-contact activities (notably, construction of the PAD and associated utilities) have a high sensitivity for pre-contact archaeological resources (high potential presence and high potential eligibility), while the remaining, disturbed, portions of the Study Area have a moderate sensitivity for pre-contact archaeological resources (high potential presence and low potential eligibility). Map 5 provides locations of disturbance from utilities. The approximate depths below surface for utilities disturbance are 3 feet for gas, 3 to 4 feet for electrical, greater than 10 feet for storm sewer and sanitary sewer, and 8 to 10 feet for steam tunnels. Post-contact Deposits As with pre-contact archaeological resources, predicting the potential presence and significance of any intact post-contact archaeological resources in the Study Area, if present, is difficult. As noted above, post-contact engineering of the landscape has resulted in a large amount of ground disturbance throughout the Study Area. Most of these activities occurred in the mid-20th century as part of the PAD construction. Though these activities and subsequent operations and maintenance activities may have resulted in the creation of subsurface features that could constitute post-contact archaeological deposits, the PAD’s planned nature suggests that most, if not all, of these would be documented. As a result, the potential for presence of post-contact archaeological deposits in the Study Area is low. Background research of historic topographic maps and photographs did not indicate any clear avenues for significance for the National Register for post-contact archaeological deposits in the Study Area, if present. Also, based on known post-contact archaeological resources previously recorded in similar settings in the Study Area vicinity as well as the likely mid-20th century age (due to likely association with PAD construction and/or use) of any such deposits, the potential significance of any intact post-contact archaeological resources in the Study Area is low. Based on the above analysis, the Study Area has a low sensitivity for post-contact archaeological resources (low potential presence and low potential eligibility). Field Survey Archaeological Survey Ground visibility during the intensive-level pedestrian survey was very poor, ranging from 0 to 15%, averaging less than 5%, due to either duff/leaf litter or pavement (Figure 3 to 6). In total, during the survey, of the 92.5-acre Study Area, 1.1 acres (1.2%) was surveyed using intensive pedestrian methods and 91.4 acres (98.8%) using reconnaissance pedestrian methods. Map 6 depicts the survey coverage. During the field survey, ESA did not observe any archaeological material, including at the mapped location of P-43-000580. Despite this, due to the demonstrated presence of P-43-000580 in the Study Area based on previous cultural resources studies, Palo Alto VA Medical Center 34 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 83     Chapter 5. Findings including excavation, P-43-000580 is discussed in the Summary of Cultural Resources Identified in the Study Area section of this document, below. Architectural Survey During the architectural survey, ESA identified 36 permanent buildings, nine temporary buildings (that is, trailers), ten aboveground structures, and one landscape element in the Study Area. The buildings include various medical treatment facilities on the interior of Loop Road, the earliest of which date to the initial construction of the Campus and others that are of relatively new construction, as well as utilitarian, support buildings on the exterior of Loop Road. Six of the seven architectural resources previously recorded in the Study Area were identified during the survey; the exception is Building 23, which no longer exists. Seven additional architectural resources were newly recorded in the Study Area during the survey. All of these resources are further discussed in the Summary of Cultural Resources Identified in the Study Area section of this document, below. SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 3 P-43-000580 East End, View Facing West Palo Alto VA Medical Center 35 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 84     Chapter 5. Findings SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 4 P-43-000580 Central Portion Showing Likely WSA 2016 Excavation Control Unit, View Facing Northwest SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 5 Archaeological Intensive Pedestrian Survey Area West End, View Facing North Palo Alto VA Medical Center 36 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 85     Chapter 5. Findings SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 6 Archaeological Intensive Pedestrian Survey Area Central Portion, View Facing East Summary of Cultural Resources Identified in the Study Area Background research for this study identified one previously recorded archaeological resource (P-21-000580) and seven previously recorded architectural resources (six buildings and one district) mapped within the Study Area. P-21-000580 is a pre-contact archaeological site along the north edge of the Study Area. During the field investigations for the current study, ESA identified and newly recorded seven architectural resources in the Study Area: Buildings 4, 5, and 7 are medical treatment facilities located on the interior of Loop Road; and Buildings 44, 50, 51, and 53 are either utilitarian, support buildings, or decommissioned former medical buildings located on the exterior of Loop Road. Additionally, during the survey, ESA identified six of the seven architectural resources previously recorded in the Study Area, with the remaining previously recorded architectural resource (Building 23) having been demolished since its recordation. In sum, ESA identified 14 cultural resources (one archaeological resource and 13 architectural resources) in the Study Area as a result of this study. P-21-000580 is listed in the National Register and this study did not identify information that suggests that this should be reconsidered. Of the 13 architectural resources identified in the Study Area, five were previously recommended as not eligible for individual listing in the National Register (Buildings 6, 40, 41, 42, and 43), and one was previously determined not eligible as a district (the PAD campus). The current study recommends all 13 architectural resources identified in the Study Area (including the seven newly recorded resources) as not eligible for listing in the National Register. Detailed descriptions and significance evaluations of these cultural resources Palo Alto VA Medical Center 37 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 86     Chapter 5. Findings are provided below. Table 4 summarizes these resources, and Map 7 depicts their locations. ESA prepared California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Form sets (site records) for the newly recorded cultural resources identified as part of this study, provided in Appendix F. Archaeological Resources Through background research, this study identified one previously recorded archaeological resource, pre-contact archaeological site P-43-000580 in the Study Area. No newly recorded archaeological resources were identified in the Study Area as a result of this study. P-43-000580 is discussed in detail below. P-43-000580 Description This pre-contact archaeological site was first recorded in 1958 by Bert Gerow, who was notified of human remains and associated artifacts that had been exposed during grading associated with construction of the PAD. Gerow observed thick, intact midden containing dense shell concentrations and multiple Native American burials. Gerow formally documented three burials and conducted testing at the site, during which he identified an Olivella shell bead, two metates, three bowl mortars, a hammerstone, a chert core, a pestle fragment, and flaked-stone debitage.164 Archaeological Resource Management conducted a series of archaeological subsurface survey units in 1992 in the vicinity of the site boundary determined by Gerow as part of a construction project at the PAD. Though some dietary faunal remains and flaked-stone artifacts were present in several of these units, Archaeological Resource Management determined that the materials were all from contexts that had been disturbed by previous construction at the PAD. These negative findings were used to revise the original site boundary established by Gerow.165 PBS&J conducted archaeological evaluative testing at P-43-000580 in 2009 to support environmental review for the renovation of several PAD buildings. These investigations consisted of both mechanical trenching and controlled-volume hand excavation units. PBS&J determined that the upper 15 to 45 centimeters (cm) of the site was imported fill or disturbed soil. They identified dense shell midden from 60 to 130 cm below ground surface (bgs), underlain by a less dense deposit to 150 cm bgs. In addition to the midden, archaeological material observed consisted of dietary faunal remains, flaked-stone artifacts, and disarticulated human remains. In 2014, human remains were identified during trench excavation for a fire alarm conduit within the site boundary of P-43-000580. As part of the treatment of the find, the NAHC appointed Rosemary Cambra, Chairwoman of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, as the Most Likely Descendant. Cambra recommended that the remains be covered and left in 164 Bocek, Barbara R., and James Rutherford. 1985. V.A. Site [P-43-000580]. State of California Department of Parksand Recreation Archeological Site Record. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University,Rohnert Park, CA. 165 Archaeological Resource Management. 1992. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Veterans AdministrationMedical Center Project in the County of Santa Clara. Prepared for Department of Veterans Affairs. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 38 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 87     Chapter 5. Findings place, which VA did, in addition to enclosing the remains and surrounding area (totaling approximately 300 square meters) with a chain-link fence and locked gate.166 As a result of the 2014 discovery of human remains, WSA, Inc. conducted archaeological investigations at the site, consisting of corings and controlled-volume hand excavation units, to better determine the horizontal and vertical extent of the site and characterize its components. Specifically, WSA, Inc. conducted 11 cores and four controlled-volume hand excavation units. Archaeological material was observed in three of the cores and all controlled-volume hand excavation units. WSA, Inc. found that the archaeological deposit was present from approximately 60 to 100 cm bgs, with overlying sediment consisting of imported fill. In addition to shell midden, WSA, Inc. observed the following archaeological material: an intact juvenile human cranium, dietary faunal remains, charred plant remains, charcoal, flaked-stone artifacts (two bifaces, 20 flake tools, nine cores, and debitage), three ground-stone fragments, two Olivella shell beads, and post-contact artifacts (in the fill layer). Flaked-stone material consists of cryptocrystalline silicates, obsidian, quartzite, sedimentary, quartz, and igneous rocks. Radiocarbon dates from material collected during the investigations yielded dates of 2200 to 1200 BP. The human remains encountered during these investigations were left in place at the request of Rosemary Cambra, the MLD. Based on their investigations, WSA, Inc. revised the site boundary, which is used in the current report. WSA, Inc. concluded that the site represents a small indigenous summer campsite that was intermittently occupied between 2200 and 1200 BP (Middle Period), with activities at the site consisting of summer-month plant and animal resource procurement (mainly invertebrates, but also some mammal, bird, reptile, and fish) and preparation. Significance In 2009, based on their investigations at the site, PBS&J concluded that P-43-000580 lacked stratigraphic integrity and due to that and that no intact features had been identified at the site, recommended the site not eligible for the National Register.167 In 2009, the site was determined not eligible for the National Register, receiving SHPO concurrence the same year.168,169 As a result of the 2014 discovery of human remains at the site, VA pursued re-evaluation of the National Register-eligibility of P-43-000580. As a result, WSA, Inc. recommended P-43-000580 National Register-eligible under Criterion D for its data potential, noting that the remaining portion of the site retains integrity, as demonstrated through the radiocarbon dating conducted as part of their investigations.170 In 2019, Price prepared a National Register Nomination Form for the site with the same eligibility argument presented above. As a result, P-43-000580 was listed in the National Register in August 2019.171 The current study did not identify information that suggests that this should be reconsidered. In summary, P-43-000580 is listed in the National Register. 166 Price et al., 2017. 167 Jurich, Denise, Jesse Martinez, and Emilie Zelazo. 2009. Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of ArchaeologicalSite CA-SCL-585, United States Department of Veteran Affairs, Palo Alto Division Medical Campus, Palo Alto, California. PBS&J, Sacramento, CA. Prepared for The Smith Group, San Francisco, CA. 168 169 170 171 Jurich, 2009. Donaldson, 2009. Price et al., 2017. Price, 2019. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 39 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 88     Chapter 5. Findings Architectural Resources The buildings, aboveground structures, and landscape elements within the Study Area are listed in Table 5. The seven highlighted rows in Table 4 indicate that the resources currently meet (in 2023) or will meet the 45-year age threshold to be considered potential historic properties for projects proposed and undergoing evaluation in 2024 or later (that is, those constructed in and before 1980), and have not previously been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register, and they are keyed to Map 6. Physical descriptions, construction chronologies, and evaluations of these resources are presented below. Building 4 (Research/Administration) Description Building 4 is a three-story-over-basement medical building that is currently used for research and administration operations. The irregular building footprint comprises one longitudinal axis and three shorter, transverse axes. The building is of steel-frame construction with a concrete foundation and floor slabs, clad in Roman brick and concrete panels, and capped by a flat roof. It was designed in the Midcentury Modern style and is very similar in appearance to Building 6. The primary façade faces east (Figure 7). The main entrance is located in the center of the façade and is composed of a one-story vestibule clad in brick with glazed, aluminum-frame doors below a concrete overhang. The main longitudinal axis of the building is recessed from the entrance vestibule and features bands of paired steel-sash windows on all three floors. The transverse axes are clad in brick. The façade terminates in a flat parapet at the roofline, and a tall penthouse structure is visible beyond. SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 7 Building 4, Primary (East) Façade, View Facing Northwest The side (north and south) façades are composed of one end of the longitudinal axis that is clad in brick, and each is flanked by the recessed, transverse axes that feature bands of paired steel-sash windows on all three floors. The façades terminate in a flat parapet at the roofline. The rear (west) façade is similar to the primary façade. The exceptions are that instead of a one- story vestibule at the center, the rear façade features a three-story projection with a loading dock at the base. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 40 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 89     Chapter 5. Findings TABLE 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY AREA Primary (P-43-) Trinomial (CA-SCL-) Age/ Affiliation Previous NR-Status$ Updated NR-Status$Type^Name/Description Recording Status 000580 585 Archae Pre-contact Pre-contact site: human remains, flaked-stone, ground-stone, fire- affected rock, non-human faunal bone, shell, dietary remains, midden Previously Recorded L L [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Archit Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Post-contact Building 4 (Research/Admin) Building 5 (Outpatient) Newly Recorded n/a RNE RNE RNE RNE RNE RNE RNE RNE RNE RNE RNE RNE DNE Newly Recorded n/a Building 6 (Administration)Previously Recorded Newly Recorded RNE n/aBuilding 7 (SCI/ Rehabilitation Medicine) Building 40 (Boiler House)Previously Recorded Previously Recorded Previously Recorded Previously Recorded Newly Recorded RNE RNE RNE RNE n/a Building 41 (Engineering Shops) Building 42 (Engineering Shops) Building 43 (Engineering Shops) Building 44 (Engineering Shops) Building 50 (Warehouse)Newly Recorded n/a Building 51 (Rehab/ Research Center) Building 53 (Hazardous Materials Storage) PAD Campus Newly Recorded n/a Newly Recorded n/a Previously Recorded DNE ^Archae—archaeological, Archit—architectural; $NR—National Register, L—Listed, RNE—Recommended Not Eligible, DNE—Determined Not Eligible *Not on file at CHRIS, provided to ESA by VAPAHCS staff Palo Alto VA Medical Center 41 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 90     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 91     Chapter 5. Findings Year(s) Constructeda PreviousNR-Status$ UpdatedNR-Status$IDa Namea Typea Year(s) Constructed Revisedb 502B 520 Bike Storage Structure Building Building Building Building Building Structure Structure Building Building Structure Structure Structure Building Building Building Building Building Structure Structure Trailer 2016 2012 2013 1991 2011 2017 2011 2019 2017 2021 1978 1991 1998 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 2013 2017 2010 1994 2010 2010 2016 2021 2014 UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE Inpatient Psychiatry Wellness Center530 601 Engineering Storage Storage602 603 Generator Building Domestic Water Tank Chill Water Tank 605 606 615 Chiller Building 710 Basic Science Research Center Connecting Corridor Connecting Corridor Connecting Corridor Modular Building CC ca. 1998–2002 f CC2 CC3 MB1 MB2 MB3 MB4 MBE PS1 PS2 T6 Modular Building Modular Building Modular Building Mechanical Building Parking Structure 1 Parking Structure 2 Administration T6B T7D T50 Child Care Center Administration Building Trailer CCA Office Trailer Hazardous Materials Storage Pharmacy Trailer Trailer T53A T100A T100B Trailer Trailer GEMS Central HazMat Storage (CAA)Trailer Palo Alto VA Medical Center 43 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 92     Chapter 5. Findings Year(s) Constructeda PreviousNR-Status$ UpdatedNR-Status$IDa Namea Typea Year(s) Constructed Revisedb T100C T601A T601B — GEMS Central HazMat Storage (CAA) Administration Trailer 2014 UE UE UE UE UE DNE UE UE UE UE UE DNE Trailer 2012 Administration Trailer 2015 Pergola and Gazebo (between Buildings 8 and 10) Memorial Rose Garden (between Buildings 100 and 530) PAD Campus Structure Landscape District —ca. 2006–16 2004—— —ca. 1960–2023 SOURCES: PAD, 2023; ESA, 2023; Historic Aerials (various dates). NOTES: General: The highlighted rows indicate the buildings and structures that either currently meet (in 2023) or will meet the 45-year age criterion for projects proposed in 2024 or later (that is, those constructed in and before 1980) and that have not been previously evaluated under National Register criteria. a. Data provided by VAPAHCS. Features are keyed to Map 6. b. Certain construction dates were confirmed by ESA staff through the use of various archival records including historic photographs, planning documents, newspapers, and journals. c. Several age-eligible buildings were evaluated in the Cultural and Archaeological Resource Survey Report, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto and Menlo Park Campuses, CA Task Order 36C10F20F0048 (SWCA, 2021). VAPAHCS staff confirmed that no formal determinations of eligibility were made. d. Building 7 was inventoried in the SWCA (2021). However, the building was incorrectly dated to 1989 (this is the construction date of an addition, not the original 1960 construction) and was therefore not evaluated in that report. e. Comparison of historic aerial photographs from1968, 1980, 1982, 1987, and 1991, Historic Aerials, http://www.historicaerials.com. f. Comparison of historic aerial photographs from1968, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1991, 1998, and 2002, Historic Aerials, http://www.historicaerials.com. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 44 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 93     Chapter 5. Findings Construction Chronology According to data provided by VAPAHCS, Building 4 was constructed in 1960 as one of the original 15 buildings that formed the Campus (Figure 8).172 It was initially known as the Acute Psychiatric Care Building and contained approximately 100–130 hospital beds.173 As the building’s current name suggests, the interior was reconfigured to serve as administrative offices and research space at some point before 2014. A set of 2014 design development drawings indicate that the following alterations were made to Building 4: complete building renovation in 1998 and interior renovation of the third floor in 2005.174 SOURCE: VAPAHCS, 2010 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 8 Aerial View of Building 4, Facing East, 1959 Significance Criterion A Research does not indicate that Building 4 is 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. The PAD campus was constructed ca. 1957–60 and Building 4 was one of the original 15 buildings. As the original Acute Psychiatric Care Building, it directly supported the PAD’s mission to provide health care and treatment to American Veterans. However, no records were identified to suggest that Building 4 is the site of important events in medical or VA history or played an important role in acute psychiatric care as an area of medical specialty. For these reasons, Building 4 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. 172 VAPAHCS, 2023. Grant, 1960.173 174 VAPAHCS. 2014. “Research + Admin. Third Floor Architecture Plan”. Architectural drawings. July 21. No sheet number (640.000000.004.ARCH.PAD.Research_and_Administration.Floor_Plan.03.Third_Floor.Project_Definitions.pdf). On file at VA. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 45 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 94     Chapter 5. Findings Criterion B Research does not indicate that Building 4 is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. No individuals are directly associated with the building, which originally functioned as a medical facility and currently functions as administrative offices and research space. For this reason, Building 4 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B. Criterion C As one of the original 15 buildings that formed the PAD campus, Building 4 is one of four remaining medical buildings that reflect the design concepts of the original campus master plan.175 While the PAD was a typical example of the “Third Generation” of VA medical facilities constructed in the years following World War II, as discussed above, it was designed in the Midcentury Modern style of architecture by master architect Welton Becket and Associates. The centerpiece of the PAD was the main hospital (Building 1, no longer extant), and Building 4 was one of several medical buildings that were secondary in both function and physical stature. As a standalone piece of a master planned campus of medical buildings, Building 4 does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Therefore, Building 4 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C. Criterion D Criterion D typically applies to archaeological resources rather than architectural resources. When Criterion D does relate to architectural resources, it is relevant when the building/structure itself is the principal source of important construction-related information. Building 4 was constructed using common materials and building techniques and does not appear to have the potential to provide important information related to materials or construction types. Therefore, Building 4 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D. Building 5 (Outpatient) Description Building 5 is a four-story medical building that is currently used for outpatient, primary care clinics. The irregular building footprint comprises one longitudinal axis and three shorter, transverse axes. The building is of steel-frame construction with a concrete foundation and floor slabs, clad in stucco with brick accents, and capped by a flat roof. It was designed in the Midcentury Modern style and appears to have been altered in the late 20th century to reflect a more contemporary aesthetic. The primary façade faces west (Figure 9), and the main entrance is located south of center. The main longitudinal axis of the building features multi-lite, aluminum-sash ribbon windows on all four floors. The north and south transverse axes do not feature any fenestration, and the center transverse axis features angled, aluminum-sash bay windows on the upper three floors. The façade terminates in a flat parapet at the roofline, and a tall penthouse structure is visible beyond. 175 The other three original medical buildings that are extant in October 2023 are Buildings 5, 6, and 7. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 46 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 95     Chapter 5 Findings SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 9 Building 5, Primary (West) Façade, Views Facing Southeast (Left) and Northeast (Right) The side (north and south) façades are composed of one end of the longitudinal axis that do not feature any fenestration, and each is flanked by the recessed, transverse axes that feature multi-lite, aluminum-sash windows on all four floors. The façades terminate in a flat parapet at the roofline. The rear (east) façade is similar to the primary façade. The exceptions are that the central transverse axis is only three stories in height and clad in brick and there are three one-story additions. Construction Chronology According to data provided by VAPAHCS, Building 5 was constructed in 1960 as one of the original 15 buildings that formed the PAD campus (Figure 10).176 It was initially known as the Admission and Psychiatric Treatment Building and contained 166 hospital beds.177 As originally designed, the primary façade faced east, and the building was originally clad in Roman brick and concrete panels, similar to Buildings 4 and 6. The exterior of Building 5 was altered at an unknown date, at which time all original cladding and fenestration was replaced. A set of 2012 design development drawings indicate that the following alterations were made to Building 5: seismic corrections in 1990 and renovation of the C wing (south portion of the building) in 1996.178 In 2004, the architecture firm Woodford/Sloan of San Francisco, CA, designed renovation plans to the ambulatory care clinic (A and B wings [north and central portions of the building]) which entailed interior demolition on all three floors.179 In 2010, the architecture firm IME-ACC of Daly City, CA, designed a one-story addition to the building’s east façade for the storage of prosthetics and physical and occupational therapy equipment.180 In 2012, the architecture firm KPA Group of Oakland, CA, designed a one-story swing space addition to 176 VAPAHCS, 2023. Grant, 1960.177 178 VAPAHC. 2012. “Primary Care Clinics Second Floor Architecture Plan”. Architectural drawings. June 6. No sheetnumber (640.000000.005.00000.PAD.Primary_Care_Clinics.Floor_Plan.03.Project_Definitions.pdf). On file at VA. 179 180 Woodford/Sloan AIA Architects. 2004. “Renovation of Building #5 for Ambulatory Care Clinic”. Architecturaldrawings. May 28. Project No. 640-349. On file at VA. IME-ACC. 2010. “Building 5 Wing Addition for Prosthetics and PT/OT Storage”. Architectural drawings. August13. Project No. 640-11-121P. On file at VA. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 47 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 96     Chapter 5. Findings the building’s east façade.181 A third one-story addition on the east façade was constructed ca. 2012-14. Building 6 (extant) is visible at the far right. SOURCE: VAPAHCS, 2010 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 10 Aerial View of Building 5, Facing East, 1959 Significance Criterion A Research does not indicate that Building 5 is 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. The PAD campus was constructed ca. 1957–60 and Building 5 was one of the original 15 buildings. As the original Admission and Psychiatric Treatment Building, it directly supported the PAD’s mission to provide health care and treatment to American Veterans. However, no records were identified to suggest that Building 5 is the site of important events in medical or VA history or played an important role in psychiatric care as an area of medical specialty. For these reasons, Building 5 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. Criterion B Research does not indicate that Building 5 is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. No individuals are directly associated with the building, which appears to have continuously functioned as a medical facility. For this reason, Building 5 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B. Criterion C As one of the original 15 buildings that formed the PAD campus, Building 5 is one of four remaining medical buildings that reflect the design concepts of the original campus master 181 KPA Group. 2012. “Swing Space Addition, Building 5”. Architectural drawings. November 19. Project No. 640-13-153P. On file at VA. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 48 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 97     Chapter 5 Findings plan.182 While the PAD was a typical example of the “Third Generation” of VA medical facilities constructed in the years following World War II, as discussed above, it was designed in the Midcentury Modern style of architecture by master architect Welton Becket and Associates. The centerpiece of the PAD was the main hospital (Building 1, no longer extant), and Building 5 was one of several medical buildings that were secondary in both function and physical stature. As a standalone piece of a master planned campus of medical buildings, Building 5 does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Therefore, Building 5 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C. Criterion D Criterion D typically applies to archaeological resources rather than architectural resources. When Criterion D does relate to architectural resources, it is relevant when the building/structure itself is the principal source of important construction-related information. Building 5 was constructed using common materials and building techniques and does not appear to have the potential to provide important information related to materials or construction types. Therefore, Building 5 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D. Building 7 (Spinal Cord Injury/Rehabilitation Medicine) Description Building 7 is located north of Loop Road, within the original PAD campus. It is one story in height, features an irregular plan, is of steel-frame construction, clad in Roman brick and concrete panels, and is capped by a flat roof. Large additions (constructed in 1987–89 and ca. 2012–14) partly obscure the original portion of the building, which was designed in the Midcentury Modern style and is almost entirely intact. The primary façade faces west (Figure 11); this portion of the building was constructed in 1987– 89. Entrances to the building are located at both corners and at the center of the façade. The central covered entrance is capped with a gabled roof supported by steel columns and features glazed, sliding doors with sidelites and a multi-lite transom. The corner entrances are capped by combination gabled and hipped roofs and feature sliding doors with fixed transoms. Between the entrances are fixed, multi-lite, aluminum-sash windows in various configurations. The secondary (south) façade is composed of three distinct parts: on the west is the 1987–89 addition, in the center is the original 1960 building, and on the east is the ca. 2012–14 addition. The three parts, while related in height and use of brick cladding, are distinct from one another in variations in the fenestration patterns, cladding materials and colors, and depth of vertical planes. The east façade is composed of two distinct parts: on the south is the ca. 2012–14 addition, and it is separated by a walkway from a wing of the 1960 building to the north (Figure 12). The rest of the façade is obscured by a group of newer, modular buildings. The north façade faces a service driveway and is largely obscured from the public right of way. 182 The other three original medical buildings that are extant in October 2023 are Buildings 4, 6, and 7. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 49 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 98     Chapter 5. Findings SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 11 Building 7, Partial View of Primary (West) Façade, Facing South SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 12 Building 7, Partial View of Primary (East) Façade, Facing Northwest Construction Chronology According to data provided by VAPAHCS, Building 7 was constructed in 1960 as one of the original 15 buildings that formed the Campus (Figure 13).183 It was initially known as the Neurological Care Building and contained 141 hospital beds.184 Preliminary research did not identify architectural drawings related to Building 7. The following history of Building 7 is an excerpt from 50 Years: A Look Back, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System 1960–2010: In 1974, the Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Center opened 30 beds in Building 7, C-Wing to accommodate paralyzed Veterans. By 1980, a long wait list and overcrowded conditions influenced the decision to expand and build a new facility. Congressional approval for funding took several years. With the support of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, plans for a new addition developed in 1984. Ground breaking took place in 1987, and work included adding two new wings to 183 VAPAHCS, 2023. Grant, 1960.184 Palo Alto VA Medical Center 50 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 99     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 100     Chapter 5. Findings Another addition was constructed ca. 2012–14 at the southeast corner of Building 7, and it includes a secondary entrance to the building. Significance Building 7 was inventoried in the Cultural and Archaeological Resource Survey Report, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto and Menlo Park Campuses, CA Task Order 36C10F20F0048 (SWCA, June 2021). However, the building was incorrectly dated to 1989 (the construction date of an addition, not the original 1960 construction) and was therefore not evaluated in that report. For this reason, the building has been evaluated below. Criterion A Research does not indicate that Building 7 is 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. The Campus was constructed ca. 1957–60 and Building 7 was one of the original 15 buildings. As the original Neurological Care Building, it directly supported the PAD’s mission to provide health care and treatment to American Veterans. However, no records were identified to suggest that Building 7 is the site of important events in medical or VA history or played an important role in neurological care as an area of medical specialty. For these reasons, Building 7 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. Criterion B Research does not indicate that Building 7 is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. No individuals are directly associated with the building, which appears to have continuously functioned as a medical facility. For this reason, Building 7 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B. Criterion C As one of the original 15 buildings that formed the Campus, Building 7 is one of four remaining medical buildings that reflect the design concepts of the original campus master plan.186 While the PAD was a typical example of the “Third Generation” of VA medical facilities constructed in the years following World War II, as discussed above, it was designed in the Midcentury Modern style of architecture by master architect Welton Becket and Associates. The centerpiece of the PAD was the main hospital (Building 1, no longer extant), and Building 7 was one of several medical buildings that were secondary in both function and physical stature. As a standalone piece of a master planned campus of medical buildings, Building 7 does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Therefore, Building 7 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C. Criterion D Criterion D typically applies to archaeological resources rather than architectural resources. When Criterion D does relate to architectural resources, it is relevant when the building/structure itself 186 The other three original medical buildings that are extant in October 2023 are Buildings 4, 5, and 6. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 52 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 101     Chapter 5 Findings is the principal source of important construction-related information. Building 7 was constructed using common materials and building techniques and does not appear to have the potential to provide important information related to materials or construction types. Therefore, Building 7 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D. Building 44 (Engineering Shops) Description Building 44 is one story in height, features a roughly rectangular footprint, is of concrete masonry unit construction, and is capped by a flat roof. The building was designed in a modest, utilitarian style. The primary (south) façade faces a utility yard removed from the Campus core. It features a sliding metal door and three sliding, metal-sash windows and functions as a raised loading dock accessible by a metal ramp (Figure 15). The façade and loading dock are covered by a low-pitch gabled awning. The side (east and west) façades each feature three sliding, metal-sash windows. The rear (north) façade is not visible from the public right of way. SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 15 Building 44, Primary (South) Façade, View Facing Northeast Construction Chronology According to data provided by VAPAHCS, Building 44 was constructed in 1960.187 However, it was not counted among the original 15 buildings that made up the hospital campus (that is, it is not shown in Figure 2), and it does not appear in a 1960 aerial photograph.188 Original as-built architectural drawings dated December 1964 identify Building 44 as the “Can Wash Building” 187 VAPAHCS, 2023. 188 Historic aerial photograph from 1960, Historic Aerials, http://www.historicaerials.com. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 53 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 102     Chapter 5. Findings and confirm that it was designed in-house by VA architecture staff (Figure 16).189 Additionally, the building first appears in a 1965 aerial photograph;190 therefore, a more accurate construction date would be ca. 1964. Alterations observed by ESA staff include the addition of a gabled overhang on the primary (south) façade and the replacement of the original stairs with a metal ramp. SOURCE: VAPAHCS, 1964 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 16 Building 44, Floor Plan (Left) and Primary (South) Elevation (Right) Significance Criterion A Research does not indicate that Building 44 is 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. It was constructed a few years after the 15 original PAD buildings and is therefore not associated with the earliest development of the campus. Based on the building’s name, it functioned as a can wash building as early as 1964, and it has functioned as a one of several engineering shops for an unknown length of time. Preliminary research does not indicate that Building 44 was the location of a significant event, discovery, or trend as one of the PAD’s minor support buildings. For these reasons, Building 44 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. Criterion B Research does not indicate that Building 44 is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. No individuals are directly associated with the building, which has apparently functioned as a minor support building since its construction ca. 1964. For this reason, Building 44 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B. 189 VA. 1964. “Can Wash Building No. 44”. Architectural drawings. December 3. Sheet 44-1 (file 1-0-2-0843). On fileat VA. 190 Historic aerial photograph from 1965 (CAS-65-10_4-8). University of California Santa Barbara Library,Framefinder. Available: http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 54 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 103     Chapter 5 Findings Criterion C Building 44 does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. It was constructed several years after the original 15-building Campus. It was designed by VA’s in-house architecture staff and does not appear to represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. For these reasons, Building 44 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C. Criterion D Criterion D typically applies to archaeological resources rather than architectural resources. When Criterion D does relate to architectural resources, it is relevant when the building/structure itself is the principal source of important construction-related information. Building 44 was constructed using common materials and building techniques and does not appear to have the potential to provide important information related to materials or construction types. Therefore, Building 44 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D. Building 50 (Warehouse) Description Building 50 is located south of Loop Road and east of Freedom Way, outside of the Campus core. It is one story in height, features a rectangular footprint, is of steel-frame construction on a concrete foundation, and is capped by a flat roof. The utilitarian building is clad in Roman brick in order to appear aesthetically related to the older (ca. 1960) buildings on the hospital campus. The primary (east) façade faces a service road and features a covered loading dock with space for five trucks and is accessible by a metal ramp (Figure 17). The loading dock is flanked by blank brick walls, each six structural bays in width. The side (south) façade features one partially glazed, flush, metal door. The side (north) and rear (west) facades contain no fenestration or notable details. Trailer T-50 is visible at the far right, and it obscures approximately one-third of the façade of Building 50. SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 17 Building 50, Primary (East) Façade, View Facing West Palo Alto VA Medical Center 55 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 104     Chapter 5. Findings Construction Chronology According to data provided by VAPAHCS, Building 50 was constructed in 1970;191 however, original construction drawings on file at VA are dated April and May 1974 and confirm that the warehouse was designed in-house by VA architecture staff.192 In 1987, Building 50 was reroofed and the exterior brick walls were sealed.193 In 1996–97, the warehouse was renovated to create several new offices with partition walls, install new wood doors on the interior, update the bathroom, and install a new ceiling system.194 The warehouse was reroofed again in 1998.195 Significance Criterion A Research does not indicate that Building 50 is 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. It was constructed approximately 14 years after the 15 original PAD buildings and is therefore not associated with the early development of the Campus. As a utilitarian warehouse, Building 50 has never been associated with the treatment of patients at the hospital or advancements in health care. For these reasons, Building 50 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. Criterion B Research does not indicate that Building 50 is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. No individuals are directly associated with the building, which has historically functioned as a warehouse for the PAD. For this reason, Building 50 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B. Criterion C Building 50 does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. The warehouse was constructed approximately 14 years after the original 15-building Campus. It was designed by VA’s in-house architecture staff and does not appear to represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. For these reasons, Building 50 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C. Criterion D Criterion D typically applies to archaeological resources rather than architectural resources. When Criterion D does relate to architectural resources, it is relevant when the building/structure itself is the principal source of important construction-related information. Building 50 was constructed using common materials and building techniques and does not appear to have the potential to provide important information related to materials or construction types. Therefore, Building 50 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D. 191 VAPAHCS, 2023. 192 193 194 195 VA. 1974. “Building 50 Supply Warehouse”. Architectural drawings. April 24 and May 1. On file at VA. VA, 1987. “Waterproof Exterior Bldg. 50”. Architectural drawings. May 18. On file at VA. VA. 1997. “Renovate Warehouse Bldg. 50”. As-built drawings. March 21. On file at VA. VAPAHCS. 1998. “Design Build Remove/Replace Roof, Building 50”. Architectural drawings. July 3. On file at VA. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 56 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 105     Chapter 5 Findings Building 51 (Rehabilitation/Research Center) Description Building 51 is located south of Loop Road and northeast of Building 50, outside of the Campus core. It is two stories in height, features an L-shaped footprint, is of steel-frame construction on a concrete foundation, and is capped by a flat roof. The building has existed in a partially disassembled state since at least May 2019.196 The primary façade presumably faces north; however, in the building’s current state, this could not be confirmed during the architectural survey (Figure 18). SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 18 Building 51, North Façade, View Facing South Construction Chronology According to data provided by VAPAHCS, Building 51 was constructed in 1980.197 A Google Maps street view confirms that the building was partially disassembled by May 2019,198 and it remains in the same condition in October 2023. Preliminary research did not identify construction documents or historic photos related to Building 51. Significance Criterion A Research does not indicate that Building 51 is 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. It was constructed 20 years after the 15 original PAD buildings and is therefore not associated with the early development of the Campus. Based on the building’s name, it functioned as a rehabilitation and research center, presumably from 1980 until it was 196 Google Maps. 2019. Street View of Building 51. May. Available: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4022174,-122.1379575,3a,75y,133.19h,95.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soc4j8AgTgPePIWyEOxBjng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. 197 198 VAPAHCS, 2023. Google Maps, 2019. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 57 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 106     Chapter 5. Findings partially disassembled at an unknown date prior to May 2019. Preliminary research does not indicate that Building 51 was the location of a significant event, discovery, or trend in either rehabilitation or medical research. For this reason, Building 51 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. Criterion B Research does not indicate that Building 51 is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. No individuals are directly associated with the building, which functioned as a rehabilitation and research center, presumably from 1980 until it was partially disassembled at an unknown date prior to May 2019. For this reason, Building 51 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B. Criterion C Building 51 does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. It was constructed 20 years after the original 15-building Campus. ESA was not able to locate any architectural drawings or historic photographs of Building 51, and its original appearance prior to partial demolition is unknown. Additionally, the architect or engineer is unknown, and it does not appear to represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. For these reasons, Building 51 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C. Criterion D Criterion D typically applies to archaeological resources rather than architectural resources. When Criterion D does relate to architectural resources, it is relevant when the building/structure itself is the principal source of important construction-related information. Building 51 was constructed using common materials and building techniques and does not appear to have the potential to provide important information related to materials or construction types. Therefore, Building 51 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D. Building 53 (Hazardous Materials Storage/Reclamation Center) Description Building 53 is one story in height, features a rectangular footprint, is of steel-frame construction on a concrete foundation, and is capped by a low-pitch gabled roof. The building was designed in a prefabricated, utilitarian style and is clad in corrugated steel panels. The primary (south) façade faces a utility yard removed from the Campus core and features two roll-up, vehicular doors and one flush, metal pedestrian door (Figure 19). The side (east and west) façades each feature a pair of single-hung, aluminum-sash windows behind metal security grilles. The rear (north) façade is not visible from the public right of way. Construction Chronology According to data provided by VAPAHCS, Building 53 was constructed in 1962;199 however, it does not appear on historic aerial photographs until ca. 1980–81.200 Undated as-built drawings 199 VAPAHCS, 2023. 200 Comparison of 1968, 1980, and 1980 historic aerial photographs, Historic Aerials, http://www.historicaerials.com. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 58 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 107     Chapter 5 Findings (likely 2016 or later) are on file at VA,201 but preliminary research did not identify construction documents or historic photos related to Building 53. SOURCE: ESA, 2023 Palo Alto VA Medical Center CRSR Figure 19 Building 53, Primary (South) Façade, View Facing North Significance Criterion A Research does not indicate that Building 53 is 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. It was constructed approximately 20 years after the 15 original PAD buildings and is therefore not associated with the early development of the campus. Based on the building’s name, it functioned as a hazardous materials storage and reclamation center, presumably from ca. 1980–81 to the present. Preliminary research does not indicate that Building 53 was the location of a significant event, discovery, or trend in either hazardous materials storage or reclamation. For this reason, Building 53 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. Criterion B Research does not indicate that Building 53 is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. No individuals are directly associated with the building, which functioned as a hazardous materials storage and reclamation center, presumably from ca. 1980–81 to the present. For this reason, Building 53 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B. 201 VA. n.d. “PAD-B53.pdf”. As-built drawings. Sheet A101. On file at VA. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 59 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 108     Chapter 5. Findings Criterion C Building 53 does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. The building was constructed ca. 1980–81, approximately 20 years after the original 15-building Campus and has functioned as the hospital’s hazardous materials storage and reclamation center for an unknown length of time. The building is a prefabricated, utilitarian steel structure that does not exhibit or embody distinctive characteristics of a particular architectural style or period, and it is not directly related to the treatment of patients at the hospital. Research did not identify the architect or engineer of Building 53, and it does not appear to represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. For these reasons, Building 53 does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C. Criterion D Criterion D typically applies to archaeological resources rather than architectural resources. When Criterion D does relate to architectural resources, it is relevant when the building/structure itself is the principal source of important construction-related information. Building 53 was constructed using common materials and building techniques and does not appear to have the potential to provide important information related to materials or construction types. Therefore, Building 53 is not recommended individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D. Historic District Considerations In 2009, an evaluation of the PAD Campus concluded that it was not eligible for listing in the National Register as a historic district under any criteria: […] The setting of Building 23 [(no longer extant)] and the [PAD] campus has been significantly altered. Non-historic-age buildings have been constructed throughout the campus. The main focus of the campus, the original main hospital [(Building 1)], no longer exists. The few buildings from the original construction are secondary building [(sic)]. Primarily utilitarian in nature, these structures are scattered throughout the campus and are too few to convey the original feeling or setting of the 1960 campus.202 The architectural survey did not identify Building 23 as an historic property nor did the survey identify the campus as a district. Neither Building 23 nor the campus are associated with significant events, significant persons, are distinctive architecturally, or are likely to yield important information. In addition, the campus lacks integrity. Even if the oldest portions of the campus [which were 49 years old at the time of the 2009 evaluation], including Building 23, was 50 years old it would not be recommended eligible for the [National Register] as a district and no historic properties are present.203 Based on this evaluation, VA determined that the PAD Campus is ineligible for listing in the National Register as a district and that the campus contained no historic properties that are 202 At the time of the 2009 evaluation, ten of the original 15 buildings were extant. Despite the removal/replacement ofthe main hospital building (Building 1) and the demolition of two secondary buildings (medical rehabilitation[Building 22] and recreation [Building 25]) and two tertiary buildings (chapel [Building 21] and kitchen [Building 25]), the original 1960-era hospital campus was largely intact at that time. 203 Grady et al., 2009, 10. Palo Alto VA Medical Center Cultural Resources Survey Report 60 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024 Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 109     Chapter 5 Findings individually eligible for listing in the National Register. The SHPO issued its concurrence with VA’s findings on October 21, 2009.204 Based on the architectural descriptions and individual evaluations presented above and documentation of the physical development of the PAD Campus, no apparent patterns emerge to suggest that there is a potential district or districts that include one or more of the seven subject buildings located within the Study Area. None appear to be significantly related in terms of architectural design, function, or historical development, and this is consistent with the previous VA determination and SHPO concurrence. Similarly, VA records do not indicate that any of the seven subject buildings would contribute to a potential discontinuous historic district within the PAD Campus. Integrity Analysis In addition to possessing significance under at least one of the four National Register criteria, a property must also retain sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance. There are seven aspects to consider when evaluating the integrity of a property: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. As discussed above, none of the seven subject buildings appear to possess individual significance under any National Register criteria, and the PAD Campus was previously determined to be ineligible for listing in the National Register as a historic district. Therefore, a further assessment of integrity is not presented. Summary of National Register-Eligibility of Architectural Resources in the Study Area Based on a pedestrian survey, archival research, and analysis, none of the age-eligible buildings located within the Study Area are recommended as eligible for individual listing in the National Register. These buildings also do not appear to contribute to any known or potential historic districts. As such, none of the individual buildings or structures listed in Table 4, would be considered historic properties under NHPA Section 106. 204 Donaldson, 2009. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 61 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 110     CHAPTER 6 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions This study identified 14 cultural resources in the Study Area in need of evaluation: one archaeological site (P-43-000580), and 13 architectural resources (Buildings 4, 5, 6, 7, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 53, PAD Campus). P-21-000580 is listed in the National Register and this study did not identify information that suggests that this should be reconsidered. Of the 13 architectural resources identified in the Study Area, five were previously recommended as not eligible for individual listing in the National Register (Buildings 6, 40, 41, 42, and 43), and one was previously determined not eligible as a district (the PAD Campus). The current study recommends all 13 architectural resources identified in the Study Area (including the seven newly recorded resources) as not eligible for listing in the National Register. As such, this study identified only one historic property, archaeological site P-43-000580, in the Study Area. This study also determined that the portions of the Study Area (both horizontally and vertically) that have not been disturbed from post-contact activities (notably, construction of the PAD and associated utilities) have a high sensitivity for pre-contact archaeological resources, while the remaining, disturbed, portions of the Study Area have a moderate sensitivity for pre-contact archaeological resources. This study also concludes that the Study Area has a low sensitivity for post-contact archaeological resources. Recommendations ESA recommends that, as required by Section 106, VA consult with those interested parties and Native American Tribes identified in this report regarding potential future Campus projects and any concerns they may have regarding project-related effects on historic properties. ESA does not anticipate that additional work related to architectural resources would be required, as no National Register-eligible or -listed architectural resources have been identified in the Study Area. Regarding archaeological resources, ESA recommends that all ground-disturbing activities at the Campus avoid P-43-000580 and that, given the pre-contact archaeological sensitivity of the Study Area, archaeological subsurface survey be conducted for all previously unsurveyed portions of the Study Area where project-related ground disturbance would occur, after design of a specific project has been defined to provide this level of detail. If archaeological resources are identified during the archaeological subsurface survey, they should be evaluated to determine if they are historic properties, pursuant to NHPA. If VA determines that such resources do qualify as historic properties, a project should be designed to avoid adverse effects on these historic properties, or a Section 106 agreement document would be required to resolve adverse effects on the historic properties. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 62 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 111     Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations Additionally, for a project that would involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the chance that previously unrecorded archaeological material, including human remains, could be encountered during construction activities. Therefore, ESA recommends that the following procedures be implemented. Cultural Resources Awareness Training Before any ground-disturbing activities in high-sensitivity areas, an archaeologist meeting, or under the supervision of an archaeologist meeting, the SOI PQS for Archeology, should conduct a training program for all construction and field personnel involved in project-related ground- disturbing activities. If a Native American Tribe expresses interest, they should be invited to participate in the training program. On-site personnel should attend the training prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The training should outline the general archaeological sensitivity of the Study Area and the procedures to follow in the event that an archaeological resource and/or human remains are inadvertently discovered. Documentation of the training attendance should be maintained by VA. Inadvertent Discovery Protocol for Archaeological Resources If archaeological resources are encountered during construction of a specific future project, all construction activities within 100 feet should halt, and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the SOI PQS for Archeology, should inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify VA of their initial assessment. Indigenous archaeological materials might include: obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (for example, projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (for example, mortars, pestles, handstones); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Post-contact materials might include: building or structure footings and walls; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If VA determines, based on recommendations from the qualified archaeologist and Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Study Area (if the resource is indigenous), that the resource is a historic property (as defined by the NHPA), the resource should be avoided, if feasible. This may be accomplished through: planning construction to avoid the historic property; incorporating the historic property within open space; capping and covering the historic property; or deeding the historic property into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance of the historic property is not feasible, VA should continue to consult with Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Study Area (if the resource is indigenous) and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential effects to the historic property pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.13. This should include documentation of the historic property and may include data recovery, if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the historic property with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting its cultural character and integrity. Any technical report developed to document the treatment of the historic property should be submitted to the NWIC upon VA approval, unless the document contains information that Native American Tribes Palo Alto VA Medical Center 63 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 112     . Conclusions and Recommendations deem should not be filed with the NWIC, in which case, the report should be submitted to the NAHC. Inadvertent Discovery Protocol for Human Remains If any suspected human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities at the Campus, all construction activities within 100 feet of the find should cease and appropriate precautions be taken to protect the human remains and any associated funerary objects from further disturbance. All human remains and potential human remains should be treated with respect and dignity at all times. This includes: Avoidance of any unnecessary disturbance and handling of human remains and associated funerary objects;    Avoidance of separation of human remains from associated funerary objects; Avoidance of physical modifications of human remains and associated funerary objects; and Avoidance of taking photographs of human remains and associated funerary objects prior to agreement with consulting parties, except for evidentiary purposes as required by law (e.g., ARPA violations, criminal investigations). All discovered human remains should be treated initially as a potential crime scene with cultural resources professionals and the appropriate law enforcement authorities being brought in to assist in the determination of antiquity and manner of death. Geospatial data should be taken of the discovery location. Initial discovery information should be recorded including: the name of the person who discovered the remains, the date of the discovery, how the discovery was made, and any other pertinent information about the circumstances surrounding the discovery. Upon discovery of any human remains, a 100-foot buffer should immediately be established to indicate the area (100-foot buffer around find) in which construction should cease. A qualified archaeologist should provide VA with a brief written report describing the discovery within 24 hours. VA cultural resources staff should also be provided with a description of the nature and extent of the find. VA, as the landowner, pursuant to 43 CFR Part 10, should be the responsible agency for NAGPRA should the remains be determined to be Native American. Construction ground-disturbing activities should not resume within 100 feet of any such find until VA provides a written notice to proceed. Note, Rosemary Cambra, Chairwoman of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, was appointed Most Likely Descendant by the NAHC for human remains previously identified at P-43-000580 and would likely be the Most Likely Descendant for any human remains identified in the Study Area. ESA recommends that VA contact Cambra in the event of discovery of any human remains and associated grave goods to get Cambra’s recommendations for treatment. Any technical report developed to document treatment of human remains and grave goods should be submitted to the NWIC and NAHC upon VA approval, unless the document contains information that Native American Tribes deem should not be filed with the NWIC, in which case, the report should be submitted only to the NAHC. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 64 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 113     CHAPTER 7 References Cited Archaeological Resource Management. 1992. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Veterans Administration Medical Center Project in the County of Santa Clara. Prepared for Department of Veterans Affairs. Barron Park Association Newsletter. 2023. “A Brief History of Barron Park”. July 11. Available: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/real_estate/1997_Jul_11.BARRONP.html. Accessed November 14, 2023. Bartolome, James W., W. James Barry, Tom Griggs, and Peter Hopkinson. 2008. “Valley Grassland”. In Terrestrial Vegetation of California, ed. M.G. Barbour and J. Majour, 367– 393. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Beller, Erin, Micha Salomon, and Robin Grossinger. 2010. Historical Vegetation and Drainage Patterns of Western Santa Clara Valley: A technical memorandum describing landscape ecology in Lower Peninsula, West Valley, and Guadalupe Watershed Management Areas. Oakland, CA: Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute, 18, 20. Bocek, Barbara R. 1985. V.A. Site [P-43-000580]. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Archeological Site Record. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. ———. 1987. Barron Park Site [P-43-000611]. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Archeological Site Record. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. ———. 1992. “Subsistence, Settlement and Tribelet Territories on the Eastern San Francisco Peninsula”. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 5:269–297. Brabb, E.E., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones. 2000. Geologic Map and Map Database of the Palo Alto 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Byrd, Brian F., Adrian R. Whitaker, Patricia J. Mikkelsen, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal. 2017. San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, CA. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland, CA. Daily Palo Alto Times. 1959. “Once A Field In Stanford Foothills, Now A Busy Construction Scene”. January 19:2. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 65 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 114     Chapter 7. References Cited Delacenserie, Katie. 2021. “Building From Our Past: The Evolution of VA Hospitals”. In Veterans Health Administration—75 Years: A Legacy of Service. The Future of Care. St. Petersburg, FL: Faircount Media Group. Donaldson, Milford Wayne. 2009. “Reply in Reference To: VA090827A.” Letter to Denise Jurich (PBS&J). October 21. Faust, Drew Gilpin. 2008. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. New York: Vintage Books, 268. Fortney, Mary. 1969. “Transplants ‘just tool for treating disease’”. Peninsula Times Tribune. June 4:5. Gleaves, Adm. Albert. 2023. “The United States Naval Home, Philadelphia”. U.S. Naval Institute. Available: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1931/april/united-states- naval-home-philadelphia. Accessed November 14, 2023. Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Maps. 2019. Street View of Building 51. May. Available: https://www.google.com/maps/ @37.4022174,-122.1379575,3a,75y,133.19h,95.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soc4j8AgTgPe PIWyEOxBjng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. Grady, Amber, Jesse Martinez, and Denise M. Jurich. 2009. Cultural Resource Investigation in Support of the Building 23 Demolition, United States Department of Veteran [sic] Affairs, Palo Alto Division Medical Campus, Palo Alto, California. PBS&J, Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System. Grant, Mary. 1960. “Dedication of New Veterans Hospital Marks Start of Joint Operation of Two Medical Centers”. Palo Alto Times. May 13:13. Groza, Randall G., Jeffrey Rosenthal, John Southon, and Randall Milliken. 2011. “A Refined Shell Bead Chronology for Late Holocene Central California”. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 31(2):135–154. Heizer, Robert F., editor, California, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1978. Herrmann Bros. and Britton & Rey. 1890. “Official Map of the County of Santa Clara, California: Compiled from U.S. Surveys, County Records, and Private Surveys and the Tax-List of 1889, by Order of the Hon. Board of Supervisors”. Available: https://www.loc.gov/item/2012592102/. Accessed November 14, 2023. HistoricAerials.com. Historic aerial photographs, 1968-2002. http://www.historicaerials.com. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abelow. 2022. Historic Spots in California, Fifth Edition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hunt, William Dudley. 1971. Total Design: Architecture of Welton Becket and Associates. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 66 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 115     Chapter 7 References Cited IME-ACC. 2010. “Building 5 Wing Addition for Prosthetics and PT/OT Storage”. Architectural drawings. August 13. Project No. 640-11-121P. On file at VA. Inglewood, CA, Public Art. “Centinela Hospital Medical Center”. Available: https://inglewoodpublicart.org/projects/centinela-hospital-medical-center/. Accessed November 14, 2023. Jurich, Denise. 2009. “RE: Veterans Administration Medical Center PAD Campus Replacement Facilities Project, Santa Clara County, California”. Letter to Milford Wayne Donaldson (State Historic Preservation Officer). August 25. Jurich, Denise, Jesse Martinez, and Emilie Zelazo. 2009. Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Archaeological Site CA-SCL-585, United States Department of Veteran Affairs, Palo Alto Division Medical Campus, Palo Alto, California. PBS&J, Sacramento, CA. Prepared for The Smith Group, San Francisco, CA. KPA Group. 2012. “Swing Space Addition, Building 5”. Architectural drawings. November 19. Project No. 640-13-153P. On file at VA. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 [1976]. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1976 reprinted ed. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. Legacy.com. 2023. “William Willson Angell M.D., 1935–2022”. Available: https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/mercurynews/name/william-angell-obituary?id= 36202405. Accessed November 15, 2023. Levy, Richard. 1978. “Costanoan”. In California, ed. Robert F. Heizer, 485–495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, gen. ed. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Los Angeles Conservancy. 2023. “Welton Becket”. Available: https://www.laconservancy.org/ learn/architect-biographies/welton-becket/. Accessed November 14, 2023. Meyer, Jack, and Jeffery Rosenthal. 2008. A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans District 3. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, CA. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation, District 3, Sacramento, CA. Milliken, Randall. 1995. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769–1810. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press. Milliken, Randall, Laurence H. Shoup, and Beverly R. Ortiz. 2009. Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. Archaeological and Historical Consultants. Prepared for the National Park Service. Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson. 2007. “Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area”. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, ed. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 99–124. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 67 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 116     Chapter 7. References Cited Moratto, Michael J. 1984 [2004]. California Archaeology. 2004 reprinted ed. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press. Pacific Coast Architecture Database. “Welton David Becket (Architect)”. Available: https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/69/. Accessed November 14, 2023. Palo Alto Museum. 2023. “Moments in History: Don Jesus Ramos, 1829–1912 and Don Secundino Robles, 1830-1890”. Available: https://paloaltohistorymuseum.org/moments-in- history-don-jesus-ramos-1829-1912-and-don-secundino-robles-1830-1890/. Accessed November 14, 2023. Peninsula Times Tribune. 1969. “Heart transplant performed at UC Hospital in SF”. August 14:1. ———. 1960. “They’re No Longer ‘Snake Pits’”. June 25:30. Price, Heather. 2019. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital Site (CA-SCL-585 [preferred]). WSA, Inc., Orinda, CA. Prepared for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Price, Heather, Haley Dixon, Nazih Fino, Megan Watson, and Patrick Zingerella. 2017. Revised Evaluation and Request for New Determination of Eligibility of Archaeological Site CA- SCL-585, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Project 640-16-301, Santa Clara County, California. WSA, Inc., Orinda, CA. Prepared for Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. Rosenfield, Isadore. 1946. “Veterans’ Hospital Program”. Progressive Architecture, November: 57–66. Stanford University. 2023. “Stanford Lands”. Available: https://facts.stanford.edu/about/lands/. Accessed November 14, 2023. Stanford University Heritage Services. Stanford Research Park Framework for Historic Resource Evaluation. November 3, 2016. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/ agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources-board/2017/id8184-srp- framework-doc-presentation.pdf. State of California Office of Historic Preservation. 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. SWCA. 2021. Cultural and Archaeological Resource Survey Report, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto & Menlo Park Campuses, CA, Task Order 36C10F20F0048. Prepared for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Construction and Facilities Management. University of California Santa Barbara Library. Various dates. Historic aerial photographs. Available: http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2023. “Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey”. Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 27, 2023. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 68 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 117     Chapter 7 References Cited U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. n.d. “PAD-B53.pdf”. As-built drawings. Sheet A101. On file at VA. ———. 1964. “Can Wash Building No. 44”. Architectural drawings. December 3. Sheet 44-1 (file 1-0-2-0843). On file at VA. ———. 1974. “Building 50 Supply Warehouse”. Architectural drawings. April 24 and May 1. On file at VA. ———. 1987. “Waterproof Exterior Bldg. 50”. Architectural drawings. May 18. On file at VA. ———. 1997. “Renovate Warehouse Bldg. 50”. As-built drawings. March 21. On file at VA. ———. 2023a. “VHA Timeline”. Available: https://www.va.gov/VHA- HISTORY/timeline/index.asp. Accessed November 14, 2023. ———.2023b. “VHA History”. Available: https://www.va.gov/vha-history/. Accessed November 14, 2023. U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Palo Alto, California. 7.5-minute (1:24,000 scale) topographic quadrangle map. Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System. 1998. “Design Build Remove/Replace Roof, Building 50”. Architectural drawings. July 3. On file at VA. ———. 2010. 50 Years: A Look Back, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System 1960– 2010. ———. 2012. “Primary Care Clinics Second Floor Architecture Plan”. Architectural drawings. June 6. No sheet number (640.000000.005.00000.PAD.Primary_Care_Clinics.Floor_ Plan.03.Project_Definitions.pdf). On file at VA. ———. 2014. “Research + Admin. Third Floor Architecture Plan”. Architectural drawings. July 21. No sheet number (640.000000.004.ARCH.PAD.Research_and_Administration.Floor_ Plan.03.Third_Floor.Project_Definitions.pdf). On file at VA. ———. 2023. “PAD Buildings_Structures by YR.xlsx”. Spreadsheet. Palo Alto, CA: Veterans Administration Palo Alto Health Care System. We Served Too: A Blog from the Museum of the American Family & Learning Center. “VA History Tidbit—1st Heart Transplant at VA”. Available: https://weservedtoo.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/va-history-tidbit-1st-heart-transplant-at-va/. Accessed November 15, 2023. Woodford/Sloan AIA Architects. 2004. “Renovation of Building #5 for Ambulatory Care Clinic”. Architectural drawings. May 28. Project No. 640-349. On file at VA. Wuellner, Margarita J. 2005. Historic American Landscape Survey, Parker Center, 150 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California. Prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works. Palo Alto VA Medical Center 69 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 118     Palo Alto VA Medical Center A-1 ESA / D202000526.07 November 2024Cultural Resources Survey Report Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 119     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 120     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 121     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 122     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 123     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 124     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 125     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 126     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 127     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 128     Item {{item.number}} HRB 7.10 Public Comments     Packet Pg. 129