Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-21 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, May 21, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM   Architectural Review 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 76, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. 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 for Study Sessions and Action 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 arb@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. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL   AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.   IN-PERSON PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda.   CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS   1.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items 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. 788-790 and 796 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00294]: Review of an Application to Rezone the Subject Properties From Service Commercial (CS) to a New Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) and to Redevelop the Site With an Eight-Story Mixed-Use Building With 167 Residential Rental Units, Including 28 Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, and Approximately 1,400 Square Feet of Ground Floor Retail Space. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070) Is Currently Being Prepared. Zoning District: Service Commercial (CS). 3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 16, 2026 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. In-person comments will be heard at the beginning of the agenda and remote comments will be heard at the end of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT   INFORMATIONAL REPORT The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda. Written public comments may be submitted in advance and will be provided to the Commission and available for public inspection on the City’s website three days before the meeting. A.Public Comments   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 arb@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: 965 6189 1491 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. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 21, 2026 Report #: 2605-6360 TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: ARB meeting schedule Upcoming ARB agenda items Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review Board members are encouraged to contact Samuel Tavera (Samuel.Tavera@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of an ARB quorum. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change: MEETING DATE TOPICS June 4, 2026 375 Hamilton Avenue: Parking Garage 762 San Antonio Road: Builder’s Remedy Tier 2 & 3 Wireless Public Right-Of-Way Study Session RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS The following new ARB project was submitted: ADDRESS & RECORD #PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2197 E Bayshore 26PLN-00098 Site and Design Application for the Deconstruction of Two Existing Research and Development and Office Buildings of Approximately 56,370 Square Feet Total and Surface Parking Lot, and the Construction of 62 Residential Townhome Units. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 1 1 4 0 4 2026 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/1/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/15/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock, Hirsch 2/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 3/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Rosenberg 4/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/7/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Jojarth 5/21/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/4/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/18/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock, Chen, Rosenberg 7/2/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock 7/16/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/6/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/20/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/3/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/17/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/1/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/15/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/5/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/19/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/3/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/17/2026 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2026 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 11 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 21, 2026 Report #: 2604-6264 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788-790 and 796 San Antonio Road [25PLN-00294]: Review of an Application to Rezone the Subject Properties From Service Commercial (CS) to a New Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) and to Redevelop the Site With an Eight- Story Mixed-Use Building With 167 Residential Rental Units, Including 28 Below Market Rate (BMR) Units, and Approximately 1,400 Square Feet of Ground Floor Retail Space. CEQA Status: An Addendum to the Previously Certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed Use Project EIR (SCH # 2019090070) Is Currently Being Prepared. Zoning District: Service Commercial (CS). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: 1. Provide initial comments/feedback and continue the proposed project to a date uncertain. The project will return to the Architectural Review Board for a formal recommendation following completion of environmental review and continued staff review of the plans by all departments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties from Service Commercial (CS) to a new Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) and redevelop the site with an eight-story mixed-use building containing 167 residential rental units, including 28 below market rate units affordable to low-income households, and approximately 1,400 square feet of ground floor retail space. The project includes demolition of two existing commercial buildings, including a historic building at 788 San Antonio Road that was previously evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report for this site and approved for demolition pursuant to overriding considerations. In accordance with the Planned Community rezoning process set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38, the ARB reviews the Development Plan following prescreening with the City Council and initial review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 11 Both of those steps have occurred. The City is currently preparing an addendum to the previously certified Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788 San Antonio Mixed-Use Project EIR to evaluate the project in accordance with CEQA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PC/PHZ: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.38. Planned Community is intended to accommodate all types of developments, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The PC district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that provide a substantial public benefit and conform with or enhance the policies and programs of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The application requires a prescreening with Council, initial review by the PTC, and followed by review by the ARB. Upon recommendation from the ARB, a draft ordinance for the project would be presented along with the development plan to the PTC for formal recommendation to the Council for final action. Staff is requesting Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 11 ARB feedback on the project’s development plans. The findings for ARB approval of the development plans and of a PC/PHZ are included in Attachment B. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Grubb Properties Architect:KTGY Group Inc. Representative:Ted O’Hanlon, Explore Real Estate Legal Counsel:Margo Braddish, Cox Castle Property Information Addresses:788-790 San Antonio Road (147-03-041), 796 San Antonio Road (147-03-042) Neighborhood:San Antonio Lot Dimensions & Area:Resulting lot is approximately 254 feet (ft) wide, 150-178 ft deep, and 43,889 square feet (sf) in area (approximately one acre) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable; however, 102 units were identified on the site as a pipeline project due to a previously entitled project on the site (see further discussions below). Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Existing street trees Historic Resource(s):Found eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (see discussion below) Existing Improvement(s):788-790 San Antonio Road: 6,200 sf, one-story building 796 San Antonio Road: 11,633 sf one-story building Existing Land Use(s):Contractor, martial arts gym Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Proposed 808 San Antonio Road Residential Project, Learning Center (tutoring), Personal Service (day spa), and Automotive Services (car rental office) (CS) East: Automotive Services (body shop) and General Industrial uses (City of Mountain View MM-40 Zone District) West: Multi-Family Residential (PC-2711), Office, Religious Use, Restaurant (GM) South: Automotive Services-Oil Changers (CS) Special Setbacks:24-foot special setback along San Antonio Road and 15-foot special setback along Leghorn Street Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 11 Aerial View of Property: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Comp. Plan Designation:Service Commercial (CS) Zoning Designation:Service Commercial (CS) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:Prescreening May 19, 2025 PTC:Initial review April 8, 2026 HRB:None ARB:None City Council Prescreening The City Council provided feedback on a prescreening application for the proposed development and rezoning on May 19, 2025. At that time, the proposed development included an eight-story, 168-unit residential rental development with 73 parking spaces and no retail. Councilmembers were generally supportive of the overall height, density, and green roof design. They also expressed concern regarding the parking supply, requested stepbacks on San Antonio Road and adjacent to the 800/808 San Antonio Road project, and stated that retail should be incorporated into the project. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 11 Planning and Transportation Commission Initial Review On April 8, 2026, the PTC reviewed the conceptual development plan and recommended that the project move forward to the ARB for further review. Comments at that hearing addressed parking, retail, public benefit, building transitions, and circulation and operational issues. Public comment generally focused on traffic congestion, bike infrastructure, emergency access, and parking spillover concerns. Neighborhood Context This property is located within the boundaries of the proposed San Antonio Road Area Plan, as well as the Housing Incentive Program area. Adjacent properties include the approved five- story mixed-use project at 800 San Antonio Road which has also recently applied to rezone to a new PC/PHZ district for an eight-story proposal; the proposed eight-story residential rental project at 762 San Antonio Road to the south; and the approved four-story senior housing project to the north at 824 San Antonio Road. Across San Antonio Road are commercial uses, a biomedical use, and the Greenhouse residential development at the intersection of Leghorn and San Antonio Road. Adjacent buildings are generally single-story buildings, however approved and pending residential projects in the corridor now range from four to eight stories. ANALYSIS The project is being reviewed by City departments and the City is preparing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. Accordingly, no recommendation is requested at this time. This hearing is intended to obtain initial ARB feedback on the Development Plan and the applicant would return to the ARB for a formal recommendation once all department review and the environmental analysis is complete. However, to inform feedback from the ARB, an initial analysis of the project’s consistency with relevant plans, policies, guidelines and regulations is provided herein. Consistency With the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines The project site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Service Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan describes Service Commercial areas as accommodating citywide and regional services that often rely on customers arriving by car, while also stating that in some locations residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate and that higher-density multi- family housing may be allowed in specific locations. San Antonio Road is identified as one example of a Service Commercial area. Housing Element The project site is not identified as a housing inventory site in the City’s adopted Housing Element. However, the Housing Element pipeline assumed 102 planned units on the site, including 16 moderate-income units. The proposed project would provide 167 units, including 28 low-income units. The proposal would therefore exceed the number of pipeline units previously assumed for the site and would provide a greater number of income-restricted units, Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 11 at a deeper affordability level. These additional units would support the City’s progress toward meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation. San Antonio Road Area Plan 89 feet of height to parapet, where 50 feet is otherwise allowed (94 feet 2 inches to the top of rooftop equipment); 3.75:1 floor area ratio, where 0.6:1 is otherwise allowed (or 2.0:1 under the Housing Incentive Program); 67 percent lot coverage, where 50 percent is otherwise allowed (or 100 percent under the HIP); 167 dwelling units per acre, where 30 dwelling units per acre is otherwise allowed under the CS district (no maximum density is established under the HIP); and Approximately 1,385 square feet of ground floor commercial space, where approximately 6,583 square feet would otherwise be required based on the mixed-use commercial requirement. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 11 Project Design and Site Planning Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 11 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 11 with a Planned Community application. Based on the weighted methodology described in prior City Council direction for PHZ projects, the proposed 28 low-income units are equivalent to approximately 20.11 percent, which exceeds the minimum 20 percent weighted threshold for a PHZ project. 788-790 and 796 San Antonio Road Below Market Rate Unit Calculation Income Level Area Median Income Weighted Value Number of Units % of Actual Units Weighted % Total FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 11 $8,235,058.41. This estimate does not currently include transportation impact fees or public art fees, which will be calculated separately in the future. Required fees are generally due at building permit issuance, unless deferred to occupancy in accordance with applicable state law and municipal code requirements. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Daily Post on May 8, 2026, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 6, 2026, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 11 of 11 Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment D: Historic Resources Evaluation Attachment E: Transportation Demand Management Plan and Applicant Parking Materials Attachment F: Development Program Statement and Development Schedule Attachment G: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB[1] Liaison & Contact Information Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     24 15 15 15 24 ding 4 ilding 1 Building 1 Building 3 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 0.0' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 169.6' 60.1' 165.8' 60.0 ' 165.8' 60.2' 160.8' 60.0 ' 160.8' 107.0' 148.9' 105.9' 95.0' 129.4' 32.0' 74.4' .1' 149.9' 244.42' 197.0' 244.42' 171.8' 50.0' 169.6' 50.0 ' 9.3' 219.3' 90.1' 209.1' 89.2' 209.1' 94.1' 198.5' 93.2' 198.5' 98.7' 187.4' 21.3' 76.4' 187.4' 103.5' 178.2' 102.6' 178.2' 107.3' 172.2' 106 .7' 172.2' 147.6' 147.0' 34.3' 124.2' 136.6' 118.1' 159.4' 102.4' 27.9' 159.4' 219.8' 180.6' 126.6' 97.2' 107.4' 409.8'409.8' 180.6' 8' 4062 808- 814 796 800 809 777 790 801 799 797 795 821 815 824 816 788 780 762 4074 SAN ANTONIO ROAD LEGHORN STREET CS CS (AD) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages Park School abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits: Palo Alto City Boundary Tree Highlighted Features 0' 73' Attachment A Location Map 788-796 San Antonio Road CITY OF PALO ALTO I NC O R P O R A TE D CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRI L 1 6 189 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2025-04-30 08:22:38 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 19     ATTACHMENT B DRAFT PC AND ARB FINDINGS Planned Community Findings Finding #1: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. Finding #2: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. Finding #3: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. Architectural Review Findings Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 2 Attachment B - Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 20     ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 788 and 796 San Antonio Road, 25PLN-00294 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Residential Development Standards Regulation CS Requirement (w/HIP Zoning for Proposed PC Minimum Site Area None No change: • 788 San Antonio Road (APN 147-03-041): 22,622 sf • 796 San Antonio Road (APN 147-03-042): 21,267 sf Resulting parcel: 43,889 sf (approx. 1.00-acre) project; none for commercial or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts Road) 100% for housing incentive program 67% (28,882 sf) 35 feet within 150 feet of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting Rooftop Garden allowed to exceed height by 12 feet. Stair and elevator overrun allowed to minimum height feasible for access. Mechanical equipment allowed to exceed height by 15 feet. 89 feet to parapet 94 feet 2 inches to top of rooftop equipment Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 21     daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting (including residential PC) each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the Not demonstrated, PC modification requested. Build-to-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (1) 33% of side street built to setback (1) None built to setback 40 dwelling units/acre per Housing Element No density maximum for Housing (167 units proposed) 18.16.060(b) or a total FAR (including both residential and commercial FAR) in excess of 2.0. 3.75:1 (178,558 sf Total) 3.49:1 (151,488 sf Residential) 0.03:1 (1,385 sf Minimum Useable Open Space 150 sf per unit Common Open Space Provided: ground level, courtyard, roof terrace = 13,471 sf Private Open Space: Typical 69 sf – 98.4 sf Average total per unit meets 150 Floor Commercial FAR (10)1,385 sf (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 22     Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Existing Commercial and Proposed Residential* Vehicle Parking 1 space per studio and 1- bedroom unit 2 spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit (note HIP allows 1.5 space per two bedroom or larger) First 1,500 sf of retail: none 74 spaces for residential, no retail spaces provided (40% of total required spaces) Bicycle Parking 1 LT space per unit and 1 ST space per 10 units 167 LT spaces and 17 ST ST none indicated, though ST bike spaces appear to be provided on Leghorn 1, for residential structures with >50 units term loading space Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 23     imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull 788 SAN ANTONIO ROAD HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA [16252H] PREPARED FOR: CITY OF PALO ALTO JUNE 5, 2020 Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 24     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 2 II. EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS .............................................................................. 4 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ............................................................................................ 4 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 4 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ............................................................................... 4 PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .......................................................................................................... 4 DAMES & MOORE PALO ALTO HISTORICAL SURVEY UPDATE ................................................................. 5 III. BUILDING AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 6 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ........................................................................................................ 8 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 10 PALO ALTO HISTORY ............................................................................................................................ 10 PENINSULA GARDEN FARMS ............................................................................................................... 12 THE CALIFORNIA CHRYSANTHEMUM GROWERS ASSOCIATION ........................................................... 14 V. PROJECT SITE HISTORY ...................................................................................... 23 SITE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................ 23 OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANT HISTORY .............................................................................................. 25 VI. EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 26 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 26 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ...................................................................................................... 28 INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................ 28 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 30 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 31 Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 25     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 2 - I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of the City of Palo Alto for the property at 788 San Antonio Road (APN 147-03-041). The property is owned by the California Chrysanthemum Growers’ Association, and is located at the southeast extent of the City of Palo Alto near the northwestern border of Mountain View in an unnamed neighborhood zoned for “service commercial” (CS) use. The subject property is a roughly square 22,622-square foot parcel at the northeast corner of the intersection of San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street (Figure 1). The parcel includes the subject property at 788 San Antonio Road, a concrete masonry unit commercial building constructed in 1953, as well as a portion of the neighboring building to the northeast, 796 San Antonio Road. 788 San Antonio Road is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The subject property is also not currently listed on the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory, and is not located within a registered historic district.1 Figure 1. Location of 788 San Antonio Road. Parcel boundary outlined in orange. Source: Google Earth, edited by Page & Turnbull. METHODOLOGY This report follows a standard outline used for Historic Resource Evaluation reports, and provides a summary of the current historic status, a building description, and historic context for the building at 788 San Antonio Road. The report includes an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The report does not include an evaluation of its eligibility for local designation or as a contributor to a historic district. 1 City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, July 24, 2012. Electronic document at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504, accessed February 15, 2019. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 26     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 3 - Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at local repositories, including the Palo Alto Development Service and Palo Alto Historical Association, as well as the San Francisco Public Library and various online sources including Ancestry.com, the California Digital Newspaper Collection, and the Online Archive of California. Key primary sources consulted and cited in this report include Palo Alto building permit applications, city and county directories, and historical newspapers. All photographs in this report were taken by Page & Turnbull during a site visit on January 31, 2019, unless otherwise noted. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 27     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 4 - II. EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to 788 San Antonio Road. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. Administered by the National Park Service, the National Register includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 788 San Antonio Road is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually, or as a part of a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. 788 San Antonio Road is not listed in the California Register of Historical Resources individually, or as a part of a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE Property listed or under review by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of “1” to “7” to establish their historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR).2 Properties with a Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register, or are already listed in one or both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of “3” or “4” appear to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally require more research to support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be locally significant or to have contextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of “6” are not eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource has not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation. 788 San Antonio Road is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a status code. The most recent update to the CHRIS database for Santa Clara County that lists the Status Codes was produced in April 2012. PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is 2 California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant Bulletin No. 8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 2004), electronic document at http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf, accessed March 11, 2019. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 28     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 5 - associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The inventory is organized under the following four Categories: ▪ Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. ▪ Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. ▪ Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden façades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.3 788 San Antonio Road is not listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category. DAMES & MOORE PALO ALTO HISTORICAL SURVEY UPDATE Between 1997 and 2000, the consultant firm Dames & Moore, contracted by the City of Palo Alto, conducted a survey update which identified, recorded and evaluated properties for the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms were not prepared for all properties. The findings of the survey are summarized in Dames & Moore, Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, submitted to City of Palo Alto (February 2001). 788 San Antonio Road was not included in the Dames & Moore survey. 3 City of Palo Alto, “Palo Alto Historic Inventory,” electronic resource at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/historic_preservation/historic_registers/local_inventory.asp, accessed February 15, 2019. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 29     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 6 - III. BUILDING AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 788 San Antonio Road is a simple, one-story, concrete masonry unit commercial building on a concrete foundation with a rectangular footprint 50 feet wide and 124 feet long, and its long axis aligned east-west. The majority of the building’s roof is of a shallow domed shape or flat, but an asymmetrical side-gabled portion at the west side, with composition shingle roofing, an overhanging eave, and a cross-gabled ridge centered over the main entrance highlights the primary façade. Metal flashing folds a few inches over the roof edge of the flat-roofed portions of the building. Rectangular, multi-lite fixed and casement steel-sash windows are typical on all façades, and appear to be original. The exterior, concrete masonry unit walls are set in running bond and painted white. The building is set back approximately 40 feet from Leghorn Street to the south, and 50 feet from San Antonio Road to the west. It is surrounded on all sides by paved areas, with a parking lot serving the property to the west, vehicle circulation and parking areas to the south, the parking lot of the adjoining property to the east, and a driveway accessing the rear of 796 San Antonio Road to the north. Primary (West) Façade The primary (west) façade of the subject building faces San Antonio Road and features an anodized metal swinging entrance door with tinted glass, a wide sidelight with a metal mail slot, and flat, painted wood trim centered below the peak of the cross-gabled roof (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The entry is flanked on either side by paired typical windows with two-by-four configuration of panes, framed by slightly curved concrete blocks at either side (Figure 4). A wood plank shelf is mounted below each pair of windows, each supported by four square wood beams. The roof gable features tongue-and-groove wood siding. The slightly overhanging eave has a metal eavestrough affixed to the simple wood fascia board running the width of the façade. South Façade The south façade of the subject property faces Leghorn Street and includes three roll-up utility doors accessed by corresponding curb-cuts in the adjacent sidewalk (Figure 5). Four typical windows, with a four-by-three configuration of panes and slightly curved concrete units framing the sides, are spaced evenly in alternation with the utility doors. One small, narrow rectangular three-lite window sits to the immediate west of the westernmost utility door. The central utility door has a single, metal pedestrian door opening in its right side The roof is predominantly flat, with the asymmetrical gable of the western roof portion at the end closest to San Antonio Road. Rear (East) Façade The rear (east) façade of the subject property abuts the east parcel boundary, overlooking the parking lot of the neighboring property (Figure 6). It has no openings. North Façade The north façade of the subject property faces the neighboring building a 796 San Antonio Road, and overlooks a driveway accessing the rear of that building. The façade features seven fixed typical windows, with four-by-three configurations of panes, spaced evenly along its length. The roof is predominantly flat, with the asymmetrical gable of the western roof portion at the end closest to San Antonio Road (Figure 7). Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 30     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 7 - Figure 2. Primary (west) façade of 788 San Antonio Road, view northeast. Figure 3. Detail of primary façade entrance at 788 San Antonio Road, view northeast. Figure 4. Detail of windows, south side of primary façade, 788 San Antonio Road, view east. Figure 5. South façade of 788 San Antonio Road, view northeast. Figure 6. Rear (east) façade of 788 San Antonio Road, view northwest. Figure 7. North façade of 788 San Antonio Road, view southwest. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 31     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 8 - SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The neighborhood immediately surrounding the subject property is generally characterized by mid- twentieth-century commercial buildings lining the busy corridor of San Antonio Road (Figure 8 through Figure 13). Appropriate to the “service commercial” zoning of the area, these businesses are primarily oriented toward customers traveling by automobile, and thus provide on-site parking accessed by driveways from the main thoroughfare. There is a mix of automotive service providers, private office complexes, and health- and activity-focused businesses within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Several of the office spaces appeared to be vacant at the time of the site visit. A multi-unit residential complex is set back from San Antonio Road to the west opposite the intersection with Leghorn Street. Figure 8. 796 San Antonio Road, view northeast. Figure 9. 800 San Antonio Road, view northeast. Figure 10. 795 and 796 San Antonio Road, view northwest. Figure 11. Residential development at 777 San Antonio Road, set back from traffic. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 32     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 9 - Figure 12. 780 San Antonio Road, view southeast. Figure 13. 2595 Leghorn Street, view northwest. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 33     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 10 - IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT PALO ALTO HISTORY The earliest documented settlement of the Palo Alto area was by the Ohlone people, who resided in the area at the time of Gaspar de Portola's 1769 expedition through the territory. Permanent European settlements were established beginning in 1777, with Junipero Serra's founding of the Mission Santa Clara de Asis within what is now the city of Santa Clara, with lands extending into the area which is now Palo Alto. During its years of operation, the mission relied on the labor of indigenous workers belonging to the region's Ohlone tribes and other groups. Following secularization of the Spanish missions beginning in 1833, the Spanish, and later Mexican, government carved the area into large ranchos which contained portions of land that became Palo Alto. These included Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.4 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States, but did not long remain intact as parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the rest of the nineteenth century. The subject property was within the lands of the Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and was later subdivided into a parcel south of Charleston Road, owned in 1876 by “P. Swallow” (Figure 14).5 The earliest township within the current boundaries of Palo Alto was called Mayfield. In 1882, railroad magnate and California politician, Leland Stanford, purchased 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield to add to his large estate in northwestern Santa Clara County. Figure 14: Detail view of “Santa Clara County Map Number One” by Thompson & West, 1876. Red square notes approximate location subject property. Source: David Rumsey Historical Map Collection, edited by Page & Turnbull. 4 Ward Winslow and Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993), 12-17. 5 Thompson & West, “Santa Clara County Map No. 1,” Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County, California, (San Francisco: Thompson & West, 1876). Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 34     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 11 - Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. On March 9, 1885, Leland Stanford Junior University was founded through an endowment act by the California Assembly and Senate. Using their Stock Farm land, the Stanfords began constructing the university, which ultimately opened in 1891. Stanford decided in 1894 to found the town of Palo Alto with help from his friend Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Hopkins purchased and subdivided 740 acres of the former Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.6 Known as both the Hopkins Tract and University Park, the townsite was bounded by the San Francisquito Creek to the north, the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the southwest, and Embarcadero Road to the south The development of a local streetcar in 1906 and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910 facilitated access to jobs outside the city and to the university campus, encouraging more people to move to Palo Alto. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed into the city of Palo Alto. Palo Alto was one of the first California cities to establish a City Planning Commission (CPC). In 1917, this advisory commission considered zoning matters in order to control new development and design within the city. The CPC’s purview included regulations on signage, public landscaping and lighting, and residential development. Palo Alto’s regulations on development have resulted in its relatively low density and consistent aesthetic. However, zoning controls in the early part of the twentieth century contributed to racial segregation in the city and the exclusion of certain groups from residential areas. Several neighborhoods were created with race-based covenants, which persisted until this practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1948.7 The depression of the 1930s impacted the design, construction, and financing of buildings across the nation. While Palo Alto did suffer through the Great Depression, new development did not come to a halt. The United States government assisted in providing housing through several programs, and architectural journals and newspapers showed a substantial amount of construction between 1931 and 1944.8 The United States’ involvement in World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the San Francisco Peninsula. When the war ended, Palo Alto saw rapid growth. Many military families who had been stationed on the Peninsula, who those who worked in associated industries chose to stay. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 33,753 in 1953.9 Stanford University was also a steady attraction for residents and development in the city. The city greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s, as new parcels were annexed to house new offices and light industrial uses. As a result of this development, the city evolved somewhat beyond its “college town” reputation.10 Palo Alto’s city center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s, gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation. Small annexations continued into the 1970s, contributing to the discontinuous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry dominates other sectors of business, as is the case with most cities within Silicon 6 City of Palo Alto. Comprehensive Plan 2030. Adopted by City Council, November 13, 2017. Electronic document at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915, accessed January 2, 2019, section L-3. 7 Dames & Moore, “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000” prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, February 2001,1-7. 8 Ibid., 1-9. 9 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, accessed March 24, 2016, http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 10 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030, section L-4. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 35     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 12 - Valley. Palo Alto consciously maintains its high proportion of open space to development and the suburban feeling and scale of its architecture.11 PENINSULA GARDEN FARMS Throughout Palo Alto’s early decades of growth as a town, the lands surrounding the subject property remained a largely agricultural stretch between that city and the small settlement growing around the transportation stop at Mountain View to the southeast. Until the early 1950s, the area surrounding the location of the subject property was dominated by large agricultural tracts with low- density settlement. The building at 788 San Antonio Road was constructed within tract No. 219 of the “Peninsula Garden Farms,” a subdivision that was marketed as early as the mid-1920s for buyers seeking one- to two-acre lots where they could raise market gardens, poultry, or rabbits.12 By 1927, advertisers offered that, with the expansion of Palo Alto to the northwest and Mountain View to the southeast, buyers could soon subdivide and sell their acre lots for a profit. An April 16, 1927 advertisement suggested: At the rate property is being developed on the San Francisco Peninsula, it will be only a short time before your acre here will become too valuable for ranching. Then you can subdivide your acre into city lots and sell each lot for more than the cost of an acre today.13 Despite this early marketing effort, aerial photographs of the area show that the pattern of development along San Antonio Road between Charleston and Middlefield roads consisted primarily of large, rural lots and open space rather than the city lots developers envisioned (Figure 15). The subject building was among the earliest commercial buildings constructed along this portion of San Antonio Road. In 1953, the year the subject building was completed, the city directory for Palo Alto listed only one address, a road construction company, on San Antonio Road. The road is described as running “south from Bay Shore hway, 1 e of Diss rd.”14 The 1954 Polk’s city directory lists addresses on San Antonio between 126 and 996, stretching from the Bayshore Highway to the block south of Leghorn Street, but does not include the subject property.15 The earliest directory listing for the address was published in 1955.16 By the mid-1950s, the area between Charleston Road to the north and Middlefield Road to the south had changed drastically, with residential subdivisions and commercial thoroughfares taking the place of the open fields of only a decade earlier (Figure 16). 11 Ibid., 11-20. 12 Advertisement for Peninsula Garden Farms, San Francisco Examiner, September 10, 1926, 30 13 Advertisement for Peninsula Garden Farms, San Francisco Examiner, April 16, 1927, 16. 14 R.L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Palo Alto City Directory (San Francisco: R.L. Polk & Co, 1953), 636. 15 R.L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Palo Alto City Directory (San Francisco: R.L. Polk & Co, 1954), 836-837. 16 R.L. Polk & Co., Polk’s Palo Alto City Directory (San Francisco: R.L. Polk & Co, 1955), 265. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 36     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 13 - Figure 15. 1941 Aerial photograph of the project vicinity. Subject parcel outlined in orange. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-660, Frame 381, collection of the UC Santa Barbara Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 16. 1956 Aerial photograph of the project vicinity. Subject parcel outlined in orange. Source: Aero Services Corporation, Flight CIV-1956, Frame 9r-33, collection of the UC Santa Barbara Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 37     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 14 - JAPANESE AMERICAN FLORICULTURE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Among the earliest economic contributions of Japanese immigrants to California was their employment as farm laborers, with large numbers arriving between the turn of the twentieth century and the passage of the Immigration Act, also known as the Japanese Exclusion Act, of 1924. In 1900, just over half of the state’s Japanese American population centered around the San Francisco Bay Area. Even while in following decades many families sought opportunities in other parts of the state, until World War II the Bay Area was home to nearly one-fifth of California’s Japanese American population.17 Japanese immigrants to California began growing flowers in the San Francisco Bay Area in the last decades of the nineteenth century, and many of those who began work in California as laborers later established their own family farms specializing in cut flower production or produce. It was in the Bay Area that the state’s Japanese American cut flower industry originated with growers such as the Domoto Brothers and Hiroshi Yoshiike. Yohnoshin and Kanetaro Domoto, from the Wakayama prefecture in Japan, began their nursery in Oakland around 1885. With brothers Motonoshin and Mitsunoshin, the Domotos bought two acres of land in Oakland in 1895 and soon employed a large workforce of Japanese-born laborers. 18 Hiroshi Yoshiike began producing chrysanthemums for sale in Oakland in 1886. By 1890, Yoshiike’s business success allowed him to buy an acre of land in Oakland and build five glass houses. Noritaka Yagasaki notes that early Japanese American growers were not formally trained in floriculture before starting their businesses in California. They learned, rather, from their own efforts and, in later years, by working for more experienced growers such as the Domoto brothers, whose business employed many laborers with roots in their home prefecture of Wakayama.19 For example, after working for the Domotos, brothers Eikichi and Sadukusu Enomoto purchased five acres in Redwood City to begin greenhouse cultivation of carnations and roses. Within a short time, Sadukusu Enomoto began growing chrysanthemums, which he sold wholesale at the Domoto brothers’ market on Lick Place, San Francisco.20 In the first decades of the industry’s growth, the Bay Area’s flower producers were located in two concentrations of activity: the East Bay, including Richmond, Berkeley, and Oakland; and the San Francisco Peninsula, with growers in the areas surrounding San Mateo, Belmont, Redwood City, and Mountain View. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the East Bay had nearly three dozen Japanese American-owned nurseries, most specializing in chrysanthemums, carnations, and roses.21 Redwood City had become the early center of chrysanthemum growing in the region, with the city claiming itself in 1926 to be the Chrysanthemum Center of the World, boasting more than seven million dollars in annual income from the flowers’ sale.22 It is important to note that many of the growers in both the East Bay and Peninsula areas purchased land before the passage of the California Alien Land Law of 1913, which prohibited purchase or long-term lease by immigrants ineligible for citizenship in the United States. Yagasaki writes: 17 Noritaka Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture: A Study of Japanese Floriculture and Truck Farming in California. (Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, 1982), 35-36. 18 Ibid., 39. 19 Ibid., 43-44. 20 Gary Kawaguchi, Living With Flowers: The California Flower Market History. (San Francisco: California Flower Market, 1993) 33. 21 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 46. 22 Jagruti Patel, Japanese Americans in Redwood City: A Local History (Master of Arts Thesis, Department of History, San Jose State University, 2004), 5. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 38     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 15 - Partly because of this high rate of land ownership from the beginning of their involvement, the flower growers of the Bay Area were not seriously affected by the Alien Land Law. Some of them had incorporated their nurseries before the land law took effect. I n any event, most of the growers had children born on American soil, who could acquire title to the land.23 The 1913 Alien Land Law was found unconstitutional in 1948, and was repealed in California in 1956. Japanese American growers who established their operations in the San Francisco Bay Area had connections to geographic and cooperative organizations with roots in Japanese rural organization that maintained a fundamentally feudal system of land tenure.24 Though late nineteenth-century rural cooperatives in Japan were different in role and structure from those instituted in the Americas, Japanese immigrants brought with them a spirit of rural cooperativism that took different forms from that maintained in Japan. First generation, or Issei, immigrants to the United States initially maintained connections to one another through prefectural associations, as well as fraternal and trade organizations. Agricultural cooperatives in California, referred to as Sangyo kumiai, supported collective approaches to credit, marketing, purchasing, and production of flowers or produce.25 Among the most influential organizations, which spurred the growth of California’s cut flower industry, were the California Flower Growers Association, founded in San Francisco in 1906 in the wake of the earthquake and fires, and the marketing cooperative, the California Flower Market, Inc., incorporated in 1912.26 The membership of the former were exclusively Issei growers.27 Later Japanese-operated flower growers’ organizations included the Carnation Growers Association (c. 1914), the Redwood City Nurserymen’s Association (1917), and the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association (1932).28 The early importance of the California Flower Market in the Japanese American floriculture industry cannot be overstated. It provided a central organization for selling growers’ products as well as sharing resources and information. Alongside market organizations dominated by Italian American and Chinese American growers, the California Flower Market’s 5th Street, and later Sixth and Brannan Street locations in San Francisco provided the main venues for Bay Area growers’ wholesale and retail sales.29 In the next section, the context for Japanese American floriculture in the San Francisco Bay Area from the 1930s onward focuses on the operation of the California Chrysanthemum Growers’ Association. Definitive histories of the California Flower Market, Inc. have been produced by Gary Kawaguchi, in his 1993 Living With Flowers and 1995 doctoral dissertation, Race, Ethnicity, Resistance and Cooperation: An Historical Analysis of Cooperation in the California Flower Market. An extensive discussion is also provided by Noritaka Yagasaki’s 1982 dissertation, Race, Ethnicity, Resistance and Cooperation: An Historical Analysis of Cooperation in the California Flower Market. In addition, The history of Japanese American social and economic activity in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties is well documented by Gayle K. Yamada and Dianne Fukami’s Building a Community: the Story of Japanese Americans in San Mateo County, published by the Asian American Curriculum Project in 2003; the San Mateo Chapter of the Japanese American Citizens League’s 1872-1942: A Community Story, published in 1981; 23 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 74. 24 Ibid., 4-5, 23-24, 29. 25 Ibid., 27. 26 Ibid., 35-36; Linda L. Ivey and Kevin W. Kaatz, Citizen Internees: A Second Look at Race and Citizenship in Japanese American Internment Camps (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2017), 47. 27 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 49. 28 Ibid., 50-51. 29 Ibid., 51. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 39     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 16 - Timothy J. Lukes and Gary Y. Okihiro’s Japanese Legacy: Farming and Community Life in California's Santa Clara Valley, published in 1985 by the California History Center at De Anza College; and Dianne Fukami’s 1994 documentary film, Chrysanthemums and Salt, produced by KCSM-TV and the San Mateo Community College District. THE CALIFORNIA CHRYSANTHEMUM GROWERS ASSOCIATION As noted above, in the first decades of the twentieth century most of the Bay Area’s chrysanthemum growers were Japanese American families centered around the Redwood City and Belmont areas, with 40 of the Peninsula-based members of the California Flower Market producing Chrysanthemums by the late 1920s.30 After about 1904, the practice of shading Chrysanthemums under cheesecloth-covered frames led to a major shift in the Japanese American growers’ production capacity. While the mild climate of the San Francisco Peninsula was already ideal for growing chrysanthemums, commercial growers found that the cheesecloth shading could improve the quality and yield of their flowers.31 This innovation also created what became the familiar landscape of cheesecloth covered frames that dominated chrysanthemum nurseries until the 1930s. In the depression years of the early 1930s, individual growers on the Peninsula experienced difficulty securing payment on their orders from shippers, who were expected to collect payment from the flowers’ purchasers. Chrysanthemum growers faced the necessity of gaining better control of their shipping and credit to survive the financial hardship caused by reduced demand for and dropping price of their products.32 In response to these pressures, the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association (CCGA) was founded in Redwood City and formally incorporated on April 6, 1932, under director Toru Yamane and manager Joseph Iwasuke Rikimaru. With its membership entirely consisting of Japanese American growers, the organization was one of many ethnic cooperatives in northern California’s floriculture industry established in the early decades of the twentieth century.33 Rikimaru was experienced with growers' cooperative organizations at the time he started with the CCGA, having previously worked with the Livingston Fruit Growers Association.34 Rikimaru acted as a spokesperson for the CCGA’s members, and as a go-to for press inquiries regarding projected chrysanthemum supplies beginning in 1932. His experience with the Livingston Fruit Growers’ Association aided the CCGA’s success in regulating production and collecting debts owed to the members. 35 The first meeting of the CCGA was held on April 27, 1932 on the second floor of the Doxsee Building, located across Middlefield Road from the San Mateo County Courthouse in Redwood City.36 Noritaka Yagasaki’s 1982 dissertation provides the following thorough description of the CCGA’s founding and operations: It aimed at the adjustment of production acreage, improvement in marketing, control of market prices, and cooperative purchasing, when the industry was suffering difficulties. Consisting of Japanese chrysanthemum growers on the Peninsula, it had sections devoted to production, supply, collection and finance. By 1959 membership had reached 56. Plantings covered 90 acres and sales amounted to $300,000 annually. The association used the “tag system” to handle the sales of members’ chrysanthemums. Although buyers received flowers from each member grower, the purchase was made through the 30 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 84-85. 31 Ibid. 32 Kawaguchi, Living With Flowers, 50-51. 33 Brian Niiya, Japanese American History: An A-to-Z Reference from 1868 to the Present. (New York, NY: The Japanese American National Museum, 1993). 34 Kawaguchi, Living With Flowers, 51. 35 “Early Cutting of Mums This Year,” San Mateo Times and Daily News Leader, July 22, 1932, 8. 36 California Chrysanthemum Growers Association, Kiku Kumiai, Fifty Years, edited by Hiroji Kariya (Palo Alto: 1981), 5. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 40     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 17 - association. Buyers received tags from growers to specify the volume and value of purchase, and the payment was made to the association. Members, in turn, received their sale proceeds from the association, and became free from bookkeeping obligations. This rationalization of the marketing process reduced conflict among growers and buyers. The association’s success in protecting the individual growers was beyond dispute.37 Most members’ flowers were initially sold at the California Flower Market in San Francisco, with many growers shipping via the Shima Transfer company of San Francisco.38 The association’s cooperative structure protected its grower members from price fluctuations and provided opportunities for marketing and distribution not available to individual growers. The organization took over collections on accounts, regulated production levels among members to control supply, and facilitated cooperative purchase of supplies to reduce growers’ costs. Buying in bulk, the association could sell supplies such as cheesecloth, waxed paper, pipes, twine, insecticides, and tools at lower prices than if growers purchased individually.39 With a cooperative approach to supply purchasing, members could adopt new growing techniques not as available to individual growers. CCGA members’ adoption of the use of shade cloth over their plantings beginning in 1933 allowed the usually short fall harvest – and growers’ months of productive income – to be lengthened. As covering their growing frames with cloth was a labor-intensive activity, each spring growers' families would gather to help each other with the task.40 The association placed a half-page advertisement in the October 7, 1936 issue of the San Mateo Times and Daily News Leader, introducing readers to the Japanese origin of the flower and announcing that “San Mateo County is the Large Chrysanthemum Center of the World.”(Figure 17)41 The CCGA initially included just over 40 members, and the Board of Directors initially included representatives from three districts: San Mateo-Belmont, Redwood City-Menlo Park, and Mountain View- Sunnyvale.42 In 1938, five Japanese families who had previously been leasing the Horgan Ranch property near Redwood City bought the property in their American-born children’s and cousins’ names – an arrangement necessitated by legal restrictions on land ownership for Japanese-born growers.43 The CCGA built an office and warehouse at the location in 1939. In 1942, the forced relocation of Japanese Americans under the Executive Order 9066 directly impacted the lives of the CCGA’s entire membership and created gaps in the supply of cut flowers to markets nationwide. Before the order was signed, Japanese Americans were arrested in raids in Peninsula counties aimed at detaining “Japanese, German, and Italian nationals and against axis nationals who had failed to turn in contraband radios, cameras, signaling devices, and weapons.”44 CCGA president Kotoharu Inouye was arrested by the FBI on December 8, 1941. His brother was among seven flower growers and nurserymen arrested in Redwood City in February 1942.45 37 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 86-87. 38 CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, 5. 39 Ibid., 6. 40 Ibid., 7, 13 41 “Chrysanthemums,” San Mateo Times and Daily News Leader, October 7, 1936, 4. 42 CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, 4. 43 “Japanese Buy Horgan Ranch,” San Mateo Times and Daily News Leader, December 31, 1938; CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, 6; Patel, Japanese Americans in Redwood City, 17; Donna Graves, “Transforming a Hostile Environment: Japanese Immigrant Farmers in Metropolitan California,” in Food and the City: Histories of Culture and Cultivation. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture XXXVI, 2015, 209. 44 “14 Japs Held in Local Raids,” San Mateo Times and Daily News Leader, February 21, 1942, 2. 45 Ibid. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 41     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 18 - Figure 17. Advertisement for the CCGA, San Mateo County Times and Daily News Leader, October 7, 1936, 4. In March 1942, facing evacuation and the inability to maintain their business activities, the CCGA Board granted power of attorney to act as agent and overseer of the organization’s interests to J. Elmer Morrish, vice president of the First National Bank in Redwood City.46 Morrish was an established banking professional in Redwood City at the time he helped the Japanese growers, and during their wartime internment assisted not only the CCGA organization, but also more than 20 Japanese American families with banking, taxes, and land management.47 Individual San Francisco Peninsula growers faced different situations upon their return from internment following the end of the war. Some had leased their property to other growers who had maintained the nurseries, while others’ vacant properties had been damaged by thieves and vandals.48 Due to their agreement with Morrish, following the end of World War II, the CCGA resumed operations and continued to support its members’ growing businesses.49 By 1947, Rikimaru was again advising event organizers and reporters regarding the availability of chrysanthemums for the following season.50 The association continued to set an example for other growers’ groups in the post-war years, and maintained a pattern of family-based nurseries when growing operations faced competition from larger corporate growers and imports.51 46 Ivey and Katz, Citizen Internees, 48. 47 Patel, Japanese Americans in Redwood City, 36. 48 CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, 8. 49 Ibid., 7. 50 “Fiesta Gets 9 Days’ Racing,” San Mateo Times, November 19, 1947, 1. 51 Kawaguchi, Living With Flowers, 64. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 42     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 19 - After the end of World War II, when many chrysanthemum growers returned to their San Mateo County farms, production of the flower resumed growth in the area. In the 1950s, Peninsula growers adopted the use of black cloth and artificial lighting to extend the blooming season of chrysanthemums, whose harvest had originally been limited to a short period in the fall.52 The proportion of greenhouse-grown chrysanthemums produced by San Mateo County growers increased as growers adopted the use of polyethylene-covered greenhouses, with indoor-grown area surpassing the outdoor-grown chrysanthemum area in 1967.53 Greenhouse growers could harvest three times each year, using steam sterilization and fungicides to prevent root diseases as they reused growing sites.54 During the last half of the twentieth century, growers could provide year round chrysanthemum production in greenhouses with artificial heat and cooling systems. The CCGA headquarters’ 1953 move from the Horgan Ranch property in Redwood City to 788 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto was spurred by broader postwar urban and suburban development throughout Peninsula cities that pushed growers’ territory southward. Prior to 1950, flower production in Santa Clara County had been far outweighed in importance by production in San Mateo and Alameda counties. By the 1960s, maintaining a nursery operation had become more expensive due to increased taxes and utility and labor costs. Redwood City growers struggled to compete with more economically produced imported South American cut flowers, and many nurseries shut down or left San Mateo County.55 Gary Kawaguchi writes: Agriculture has always yielded to the requirements of urban pressures. To paraphrase Yoshimi Shibata, roses like the same land that shopping malls grow on. Long-time growers sometimes found land becoming too valuable and yielded to pressures to sell out and move on. Some were forced out of their land in urban zoning battles.56 The CCGA’s 1981 history states that due to “urban encroachment spreading on the peninsula and the central point for members shifting south of Redwood City, growers began to consider relocating the Association office and warehouse to a lot on San Antonio Road in Palo Alto.”57 Palo Alto had previously been home to a modest concentration of Japanese American families. In 1942, as Japanese Americans faced relocation and internment, Palo Alto was home to less than 200 Japanese Americans, whose community centered around the two blocks of Ramona Street between Forest and Channing avenues.58 After the end of the war and their internment, the families who returned to Palo Alto rebuilt their businesses and religious communities away from their earlier Ramona Street enclave.59 This relatively small population was part of a much larger Japanese American population in the Santa Clara Valley, which had been working in agriculture in the area since shortly before the turn of the twentieth century. In the years between the 1890 and 1940 52 CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, 9. 53 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 366-367, 375. 54 Kawaguchi, Living With Flowers, 72. 55 Patel, Japanese Americans in Redwood City, 51. 56 Kawaguchi, Living With Flowers, 73. 57 CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, 9. 58 Palo Alto Historical Association, "Palo Alto's Japanese-American Community," Supplement 1 to The Tall Tree, March 2017. 59 Sonia Dorfman, "The Japanese in Palo Alto," (May 1998) in Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, August 1997-August 2000 (San Francisco: Prepared by Dames & Moore for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, 2001), 6-55. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 43     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 20 - censuses, the Japanese American population of the Santa Clara Valley increased from 27 individuals to 4,049.60 In 1953, the CCGA purchased the lot surrounding the subject property for $3,100, and began construction of their new headquarters. The total cost of the building was $19,842.77. By 1958, the association required additional space to serve its members’ production needs and expanded the rear of the building at a cost of $9333.21.61 In the years between 1954 and 1958, the number of carnation and chrysanthemum growers in Santa Clara County more than doubled. By 1966 concentrations of nurseries had grown in around Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose.62 Growth in the county’s cut flower production continued to increase, and as of 1980 the estimated $28.8 million in flower production was dominated by $20.8 million in chrysanthemums.63 Many growers moved even further in the post-war years, establishing operations in Half Moon Bay, Pescadero, Gilroy, Watsonville, and Salinas.64 In 1957, 50 acres at the Horgan Ranch property was approved by the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for zoning designation as a “floricultural zone” with the goal to “recognize and maintain the important contribution that floriculture is making to the economic welfare of the county.”65 While the property was no longer the headquarters of the CCGA, this designation protected some members’ production of chrysanthemums and carnations for a time. Development of the Horgan Ranch property in Redwood City as a residential suburb was approved in May 1983. Shortly after purchasing the corner lot encompassing the subject building, the organization purchased the adjoining lot to the north for $3400.00. 66 The CCGA built the commercial and warehouse building at 796 San Antonio Road, intended to be used partly for their own storage needs as well as rented to tenant businesses, in 1967. Continuing to operate at its San Antonio Road Headquarters, the CCGA became a stock company in 1973 and amended its by-laws to extend membership to flower growers whose primary focus was not chrysanthemums.67 In 1981, authors of the organization’s history wrote of the building, which was a focal point for professional development and social cohesion among the Japanese American flower growers’ community (Figure 18): The Association office has become a gathering place where growers, stopping to pick up supplies or to bring in their sales tags for collection, meet with other growers. There they exchange information on various aspects of business to keep abreast of the newest developments and keep up with the latest fishing news and golf scores.68 In a 1982 dissertation focused on Japanese American cooperative growers in California, Noritaka Yagasaki observed a general shift in the post-war years toward individualism among San Francisco Bay Area growers – with the exception of the chrysanthemum growers. He writes: Chrysanthemum growers on the Peninsula represent something of a special case, an exception to this trend [toward individualism]. The California Chrysanthemum Growers 60 Ibid., 6-51. 61 CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, Fifty Years, 10. 62 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 372. 63 Ibid., 369. 64 Kawaguchi, Living With Flowers, 73. 65 “Horgan Ranch Flower Zoning is a Landmark,” San Mateo Times, October 18, 1957. 66 CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, Fifty Years, 10. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid.,13. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 44     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 21 - Association established in 1931 by Japanese producers has played a central role in the development of chrysanthemum production on the Peninsula. The fiftieth anniversary was celebrated in 1981 with the publication of the history of the association. Half a century after its establishment, it continues to function as a growers cooperative. As of 1981, its 51 members were all Japanese. The contemporary grower members are located in Redwood City, the Palo Alto-Mountain View-Sunnyvale area, and in San Jose. Cooperative marketing of chrysanthemums is still carried out, while it also serves a fraternal function. There is a smaller Chinese chrysanthemum Growers Association, but it plays a much less important role both in supply and marketing. Locational cohesiveness of the members and the fact that they grow mainly chrysanthemums are the key factors of this long-lived ethnic organization of Japanese chrysanthemum growers. It, however, is gradually losing grower-members.69 When the CCGA’s historical narrative was produced in 1981, the Association maintained close ties with the California Flower Market in San Francisco, sent members to training courses on new techniques and to represent the Association at industry-related policy meetings, and communicated with the University of California Floriculture Research Station in San Jose regarding development of solutions to ongoing growing challenges.70 The CCGA’s primary office address was at 788 San Antonio Road until the at least the 1990s. The organization merged by 2002 with the California Flower Market, based at 640 Brannan Street, San Francisco.71 69 Yagasaki, Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture, 384-386. 70 CCGA, Kiku Kumiai, 12. 71 United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form D, notification regarding “Common stock of California Flower Market, Inc. pursuant to merger agreement with California Chrysanthemum Growers Association Inc.,” February 20, 2002. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 45     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 22 - Figure 18. 1981 photograph of the CCGA “Anniversary Committee and History Project Committee” outside the headquarters at 788 San Antonio Road. Left to right: Jim Nakano, Ken Yamane, Richard Tsukushi, Shozo Mayeda, Hiroji Kariya, Sachi E. Adachi, Kio Yamane, George Nakano, and Richard Kaneko. Source: CCGA, Kiku Kumaiai, Fifty Years, 38. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 46     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 23 - V. SITE HISTORY SITE DEVELOPMENT 788 San Antonio Road was constructed in 1953 for the CCGA by Mountain View-based building contractor, Don Gordon (Figure 19). At the time of construction, 788 San Antonio Road had two 10-foot by 10-foot overhead doors, six three-foot by six-foot steel sash windows, and four four-foot by four-foot steel sash windows. The 50-foot wide building was originally 72 feet deep, and a rear 52- foot addition, with a third utility door on the south façade, was built in 1958. A 1965 aerial photograph shows the building with its current configuration, including the original front gabled portion and the 1958 rear warehouse extension (Figure 20). Figure 19. 1953 Photograph of the CCGA building at 788 San Antonio Road, shortly after completion. Source: Kariya, Kiko Kumaiai, Fifty Years, 10. Figure 20. 1965 aerial photograph of the project vicinity, subject property outlined in orange. Source: Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Flight CAS-65-130, Frame 4-184, edited by Page & Turnbull. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 47     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 24 - Construction Chronology The following table provides a timeline of construction activity at 788 San Antonio Road, based on building permit applications and assessment records on file with Palo Alto Development Services. The most visible changes recorded in this permit history include the 1974 replacement of the original front door with the current anodized aluminum-frame door and sidelight with tinted glazing, and the 2013 reroofing which replaced wood shakes with composition shingle roofing. Table 1. Building Permits on File for 788 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto Date Application # Owner/ Applicant Architect / Contractor Work 07/06/1953 10282 CCGA Don Gordon Construction of concrete block commercial building with cement floors, tar & gravel roof, sheet rock ceilings and interior partitions, and steel frame sash windows ($17,000) 02/21/1958 17006 CCGA Not listed Addition at rear ($5,000) 08/23/1967 0022753 Fred Hoshi Allsberry Plumbing Water heater installation 03/26/1974 A32995 CCGA Durnos Schroder AIA (architect); Ira Ota (builder) Interior alterations to form offices, completed 12/02/1974. 04/22/1974 C16627 CCGA Biber Electric Change of service, panel boards and switchboards. 04/16/1974 P2755 CCGA Dale Plumbing Gas outlet installation. 04/17/1974 H1499 CCGA Marelich Mechanical Co. Boiler installation 05/02/1974 Not listed CCGA West Coast Glass Co. Installation of bronze anodized aluminum door with bronze plate glass and sidelight with mail slot. 04/23/2003 03-ARB-31 CCGA Acquisition Corp. Design by Habitec Architecture and Planning Sign review and approval for new occupant, Mechanica Automotive. 12/22/2003 03-2965 CCGA Vance Brown, Inc. Tenant improvements for “Mechanica Automotive,” including installation of three car lifts within central repair portion of building (original 50- foot by 54-foot rear area). ($9,500) 10/26/2005 05-2990 CCGA Central Coating Co., Inc. Roofing: Sweep gravel, install sprayed polyurethane foam. ($22,438) 10/30/2013 13-2908 CCGA Above All Roofing Reroof: On front sloped portion of roof only, tear off existing shake, install new sheathing and comp shingles, approximately 14 squares. ($4,500) Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 48     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 25 - OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANT HISTORY Through the majority of the years since its construction, the building at 788 San Antonio road was owned and used by the CCGA. In 2003, use of the building transferred to Mechanica Automotive Services, which operated at the location until 2018. The following table details the available ownership and occupancy history for 788 San Antonio Road is based upon city directory listings and building permit applications.72 Table 2. Owner and Occupant Chronology for 788 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto Year(s) Business Owner 1955-67 CCGA, Inc. Manager Joseph I. Rikimaru. CCGA 1968-1980 CCGA, Inc., Manager Hero Tsukuski CCGA 2003-present Mechanica Auto Services CCGA Acquisition Corp. 72 It should be noted that directories were not published in / are not available for all years. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 49     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 26 - VI. EVALUATION CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. ▪ Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. ▪ Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. ▪ Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. ▪ Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The following section examines the eligibility of 788 San Antonio Road for individual listing in the California Register: Criterion 1 (Events) 788 San Antonio Road appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association, a long-term representative of the importance of Japanese American floriculture and industrial cooperatives in the San Francisco Bay Area. This cooperative floriculture group provided Japanese American growers on the San Francisco Peninsula with shared access to growing technologies, shipping options, and stabilized markets from its founding in 1932 to the end of the twentieth century. Though 788 San Antonio Road was not the first headquarters of the organization, it served as the longest center of operations for the CCGA and stands as a testament to the group’s ability to rebuild their businesses following the disruption of Japanese American internment during World War II. While the economic and social damages caused by internment challenged Japanese American growers, by maintaining strong business relationships among themselves and with non-Japanese banker J. Elmer Morrish, CCGA members were able not only to rebuild their businesses in the post- war years, but to expand production in response to technological change and market forces. The building at 788 San Antonio Road represents a different and significant segment of this resilient floriculture industry than that conveyed in previously evaluated floriculture sites in the San Francisco Bay Area. For example, the Sakai Nursery in Richmond, found eligible in 2004 for the National Register, represents a Japanese American family nursery which operated between 1906 and 2003, Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 50     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 27 - specializing in the production of greenhouse-grown cut flowers.73 In a 2018 Historic Resource Evaluation, Architectural Resources Group found the University Mound Nursery, located in San Francisco’s Portola district and founded by the Italian American Garibaldi family, to be eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1 for its association with the agricultural settlement of the neighborhood and Italian American community, and Criterion 3 as a “rare vernacular cultural landscape” representing a family-owned commercial nursery. Its period of significance was recommended to be 1921-1990, the years of operation under the Garibaldi family.74 Though not a Japanese American owned nursery, the University Mount Nursery is a significant reminder of the family-based Italian, Japanese, and Chinese nurseries that dominated San Francisco Bay Area floriculture, and one of a very few remaining Bay Area historic sites linked to the industry. In contrast to the significant, family-owned nurseries represented by these examples, the CCGA building at 788 San Antonio Road represents a cooperative organization that successfully facilitated the operation of numerous family nurseries on the San Francisco Peninsula for seven decades, and linked those nurseries to the wholesale and retail markets that supported their operation. It is a reminder that the floriculture industry did not just grow at nurseries, but relied on networks of relationships and locations that worked in concert. The front office accommodated the work of the organization in assisting family growers with their business operations, the rear warehouse space provided a storage and distribution point for the supplies purchased in bulk for use by member nurseries, and its location near the border between Palo Alto and Mountain View was chosen in direct response to the shifting post-war locations of its member nurseries. The organization’s second office and warehouse, built in 1939 at Horgan Ranch in Redwood City and used by the organization between 1939 and 1952, was also important. This location was directly connected to the group’s response to anti-Japanese land ownership laws and the effects of internment during World War II, while the extant, later building at 788 San Antonio Road represents the sustained relevance of the organization in the post-war years. Had the Horgan Ranch buildings been preserved, rather than demolished in the early 1980s to make way for suburban residential development, they may have been considered significant alongside the CCGA building on San Antonio Road as important markers of Japanese American growers’ cooperatives. Unfortunately, nothing appears to remain of the CCGA members’ work at Horgan Ranch. The period of significance of 788 San Antonio Road under Criterion 1 is 1953-2002, beginning with construction of the building and ending with the merger of the CCGA with the California Flower Market. Criterion 2 (Persons) 788 San Antonio Road does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). While individuals associated with the CCGA during the group’s use of the building between 1953 and 2003, such as the organization’s first manager Joseph I. Rikimaru, were important in the local development of the floriculture businesses and professional organizations, the significance of the subject property is more appropriately connected to the work of the larger group rather than the contribution of individual members. 73 Donna Graves, Ward Hill, and Woodruff Minor; Historic Architecture Evaluation, The Oishi, Sakai, and Maida-Endo Nurseries, Richmond, CA (Prepared for Eden Housing, Inc., 2004); Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms for the Sakai Nursery (San Francisco, 2004); Historic American Landscapes Survey documentation for the Sakai Nursery, Greenhouses (HALS CA-6- B), https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca3547/. 74 Architectural Resources Group, Historic Resource Evaluation: 770 Woolsey Street, San Francisco (Draft) (San Francisco: Prepared for 140 Partners LP, 2018). Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 51     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 28 - Criterion 3 (Architecture) 788 San Antonio Road does not appear to be individually eligible under Criterion 3 (Architecture), as a building that embodies the distinct characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. Built in a vernacular utilitarian style, using functional materials selected to serve the needs of an organizational office and warehouse space, the appearance and configuration of the building is tied to its significance under Criterion 1. While the CCGA building exhibits a collection of features which generally convey mid-twentieth-century commercial use, it lacks the stylistic elements commonly associated with popular mid-century modern buildings. Its style is not representative of a significant type at the local, state, or national level, was not designed by a master architect or building professional, and lacks high artistic value. Research did not provide any evidence that building contractor Don Gordon was an important or influential building professional at the local, state, or national level. Criterion 4 (Information Potential) 788 San Antonio Road does not appear to be individually eligible under Criterion 4 as a building that has the potential to provide information important to the prehistory or history of the City of Palo Alto, state, or nation. It does not feature construction or material types, or embody engineering practices that would, with additional study, provide important information. Page & Turnbull’s evaluation of this property was limited to age-eligible resources above ground and did not involve survey or evaluation of the subject property for the purposes of archaeological information. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. These distinctive character -defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible, 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 788 San Antonio Road include the following features original to its 1953 construction: • Rectangular, one-story massing, including original building and 1958 eastern extension; • Side- and cross-gabled roof element at west building façade; • Concrete masonry unit construction; • Multi-light steel-frame windows on north, west, and south façades; • Vehicle utility openings on south façade; • Wood-plank shelves below windows on west façade. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in any local, state, or national historic register, a property or landscape must possess significance under at least one evaluative criterion as described above and retain integrity. Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity by the survival of certain characteristics that existing during Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 52     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 29 - the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”75 There are established integrity standards outlined by the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Seven variables, or aspects, that define integrity are used to evaluate a resource’s integrity—location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property must stand up under most or all of these aspects in order to retain overall integrity. If a property does not retain integrity, it can no longer convey its significance and is therefore not eligible for listing in local, state, or national registers. The seven aspects that define integrity are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property. Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Location 788 San Antonio Road retains integrity of location. The subject building has remained situated at its location of original construction since 1953. Setting 788 San Antonio Road substantially retains integrity of setting. The surrounding portion of San Antonio Road at the southeastern extent of Palo Alto was developed relatively quickly beginning in the early 1950s, and although the location was much less densely populated at the time the CCGA constructed the subject property, the overall setting, which consists of one-story service buildings accessed primarily by automobile with on-site parking areas, has remained much the same throughout the building’s use. Design 788 San Antonio Road retains integrity of design. The subject property has undergone only minor exterior alterations since the 1958 rear warehouse extension, built for use by the CCGA only five years after the building’s initial construction. Its composition, consisting of a front office segment for the daily business operations of the CCGA and rear warehouse space originally used for storage and distribution of growing supplies and equipment, has been retained. 75 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001), 11. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 53     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 30 - Materials 788 San Antonio Road substantially retains integrity of materials. The subject property has undergone minimal alterations since its original construction in 1953. The main entrance door was replaced in 1978 with a non-contributing tinted glass and anodized aluminum door. The wood-shake roofing was replaced with compatible composition shingles in 2013. The roll-up utility doors within the original openings on the south façade were replaced at an unknown time. These minor alterations do not detract from the overall character or design of the building, and all other character-defining features appear to retain their original materials. Workmanship 788 San Antonio Road retains integrity of workmanship. Many of the material choices and design elements are characteristic of mid-twentieth-century small-scale commercial buildings. For example, the concrete masonry unit construction, multi-light steel-frame windows, and flat or shallow-arched warehouse roof convey the goals of fairly utilitarian construction for the occupants’ commercial needs. The gabled roof portion at the west façade, though re-clad with modern shingles, adds interest to the most publicly visible portion of the building. Feeling 788 San Antonio Road retains integrity of feeling. The property was originally designed for use by a commercial organization, and has continued to function until very recently in a commercial service capacity. The property’s location, design, materials, and workmanship have been retained such that the building retains the overall feeling of a mid-twentieth-century suburban business. Association 788 San Antonio Road retains integrity of association. Due to the fact that the property retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, the property is clearly identifiable as the building constructed in 1953 by the CCGA. It retains sufficient integrity to convey its association with this organization and its contribution to Japanese American flower growers on the San Francisco Peninsula. Therefore, 788 San Antonio Road retains integrity to the degree necessary to appear eligible for individual listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) with a period of significance of 1953-2002. VII. CONCLUSION 788 San Antonio Road does appear to qualify for individual listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The subject property is associated with the long-term operation of the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association, a Japanese flower growers’ cooperative that commissioned construction of the building in 1953. It therefore appears to be eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1. The subject property does not appear to be directly associated with the lives of any persons known to be significant and, therefore, is not eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. The building, constructed in 1953 by builder Don Gordon is a simple example of mid-twentieth-century commercial design with few stylistic features. It lacks the architectural or artistic value necessary for California Register eligibility under Criterion 3, or use of building or engineering techniques with information potential under Criterion 4. Therefore, 788 San Antonio Road does appear to qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA review. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 54     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 31 - VIII. REFERENCES CITED Published Works Architectural Resources Group. Draft Historic Resource Evaluation: 770 Woolsey Street, San Francisco. San Francisco: Prepared for 140 Partners LP, 2018. California Chrysanthemum Growers Association. Kiku Kumiai, Fifty Years, edited by Hiroji Kariya. Palo Alto: 1981. California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant Bulletin No. 8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing. November 2004. Electronic document at http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf, accessed March 11, 2019. _____. Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001. Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000. San Francisco: Prepared by Dames & Moore for the Palo Alto Planning Division, 2001. Dorfman, Sonia. “The Japanese in Palo Alto” (May 1998), in Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, August 1997-2000. San Francisco: Prepared by Dames & Moore for the Palo Alto Planning Division, 2001. Graves, Donna. “Transforming a Hostile Environment: Japanese Immigrant Farmers in Metropolitan California,” in Food and the City: Histories of Culture and Cultivation. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture XXXVI, 2015. Graves, Donna, Ward Hill, and Woodruff Minor. Historic Architecture Evaluation, The Oishi, Sakai, and Maida-Endo Nurseries, Richmond, CA. San Francisco: Prepared for Eden Housing, Inc., 2004. _____. Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Forms for the Sakai Nursery. San Francisco, 2004. Historic American Landscapes Survey. Documentation for the Sakai Nursery, 99 South 47th Street, Richmond, Contra Costa County, CA (HALS CA-6-B), https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ca3547/. Ivey, Linda L. and Kevin W. Kaatz, Citizen Internees: A Second Look at Race and Citizenship in Japanese American Internment Camps. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2017. Kawaguchi, Gary. Living With Flowers: The California Flower Market History. San Francisco: California Flower Market, 1993. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997. Niiya, Brian. Japanese American History: An A-to-Z Reference from 1868 to the Present. New York, NY: The Japanese American National Museum, 1993. Palo Alto Historical Association. “Palo Alto’s Japanese-American Community.” Supplement 1 to The Tall Tree, March 2017. Patel, Jagruti. Japanese Americans in Redwood City: A Local History. Master of Arts Thesis, Department of History, San Jose State University, 2004. Winslow, Ward and Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 55     Historic Resource Evaluation 788 San Antonio Road [16252H] Palo Alto, California June 5, 2020 Page & Turnbull - 32 - Yagasaki, Noritaka. Ethnic Cooperativism and Immigrant Agriculture: A Study of Japanese Floriculture and Truck Farming in California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, 1982. Public Records Building Permit Applications. Palo Alto Development Services. California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, March 4, 2012. City of Palo Alto. Comprehensive Plan 2030. Adopted by City Council, November 13, 2017. Electronic document at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915, accessed January 2, 2019. –––––. City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, July 24, 2012. Electronic document at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504, accessed February 15, 2019. City of Palo Alto. Online Parcel Reports. Newspapers and Periodicals San Francisco Examiner San Mateo Times and Daily News Leader Archival Records Building Permit Record Index, Palo Alto Historical Association. University of California, Santa Barbara Library, Special Research Collections. Aerial Photography FrameFinder. https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos/aerial-photography-information. R.L. Polk & Co. Palo Alto City Directories (1953-1980), via Ancestry.com. Internet Sources David Rumsey Historic Map Collection. “Depression, War, and the Population Boom.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation - Sutter Health. Accessed January 2, 2019. http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. Google Maps. 2019. Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 56     417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax 2401 C Street, Suite B Sacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY www.page-turnbull.com Item 2 Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation     Packet Pg. 57     www.nelsonnygaard.com M E M O R A N D U M To: Grubb Properties From: Nelson\Nygaard Team Date: January 13, 2026 Subject: 788 San Antonio Road - TDM Plan Update – Final Introduction This TDM Plan Update for 788 San Antonio Road is provided to justify a reduced supply of on-site parking compared to the City of Palo Alto’s requirements. This memo presents the results of a shared parking analysis for the proposed 788 San Antonio Road development (“the project”) along with a set of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies selected to reduce traffic impacts and minimize environmental impacts, while enabling the completed project to thrive as a vibrant and attractive place to shop, eat, live, and do business. It also summarizes the results of a parking demand analysis that factors for both the supply efficiencies expected from shared use of the project’s on-site parking, and the parking demand reduction impacts of the selected TDM strategies. Outline This memo summarizes the completed analysis and is organized as follows:  Proposed Land Use Program – the types and quantities/scale of uses proposed for the project  City Parking Requirements – minimum parking requirements for each use, based on City code  Proposed Parking Supply – the amount of on-site parking proposed for the project  Baseline Parking Demand Projections – initial estimates of peak parking demand for each use  Shared Parking Analysis – adjusted estimates of baseline peak parking demand, based on uses sharing the proposed on-site parking  TDM Analysis – parking demand impacts from TDM strategies anticipated to encourage non-driving travel modes among the project’s future residents, commercial tenants, and visitors, which are then factored into an updated shared parking analysis  Findings – a comparison of parking demand projections with the City’s requirements and the proposed on-site supply Proposed Land Use Program The development will include 167 residential units, comprised of 37 studio units, 96 one-bedroom units, and 34 two-bedroom units. 33 units will be rented at below-market rates for qualified households, satisfying a Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 58     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2 20% requirement for affordable housing units for a Planned Housing Zone project. Approximately 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail space is also proposed, to be located at the corner of San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street. City Parking Requirements Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code chapters 18.52 and 18.54, the proposed program requires 201 residential spaces. The Service Commercial (CS)-designated zone for the lot exempts parking requirements for the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail. Under this exemption, 0 spaces will be required for retail use. Proposed Parking Supply The project is proposed to include 74 parking spaces, within a podium parking structure at grade and second floor of the building. The proposed parking supply is less than the City’s required minimum supply. Baseline Parking Demand Projections Initial projections of peak parking demand were calculated for the project, based on the proposed land uses, applying standard parking-generation rates for each use. Findings are summarized below. Figure 1 Peak Parking Demand for each Proposed Land Use – Baseline Estimates Without TDM Land Use ITE1 Parking Demand Rate Proposed Units Projected Peak Baseline Parking Demand Without TDM or Context Spaces Per Residential (1BR) 0.68 Dwelling Unit 133 91 Residential (2+ BR) 0.93 Dwelling Unit 34 32 Residential (Affordable) 0.65 Dwelling Unit 27 18 Commercial 2.79 1,000 Gross SF 1.5 5 All 146 Shared Parking Analysis From this baseline projection, shared supply efficiencies were modeled, based on patterns of peak and off- peak demand for the proposed uses during typical weekdays and weekends. When these patterns vary between multiple land uses, sharing a supply of parking can reduce the total number of spaces needed. To right-size the project’s on-site supply, therefore, we factored in the offsetting peak/off-peak demand patterns typical of the proposed land uses, using Nelson\Nygaard’s shared parking model. The charts below present a graphic summary of how the patterns projected for each use created accumulations of demand across a typical weekday and weekend day. 1 ITE = Institute for Transportation Engineers, the source of standard baseline parking generation estimates used in this analysis. Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 59     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 3 Figure 2 Shared Demand (without TDM) Across All Proposed Land Uses - Weekday As shown, the cumulative demand peaks at approximately 140 spaces, with the peak projected to occur during the nights, when residents have returned home and have their cars parked. The shared demand adjustments for uses does not have a significant impact on the peak baseline demand amount, because the non-residential land use is of modest scale and is expected to generate parking demand only during hours when residential parking demand is below peak. Similar patterns are seen over the weekends as shown below. Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 60     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 4 Figure 3 Shared Demand (Without TDM) Across All Proposed Land Uses - Weekend TDM Analysis A TDM program can encourage non-driving mode use among the project’s future residents, employees, and visitors, reducing the project’s trip and emissions impacts, and reducing the project’s parking needs. The strategies outlined below were selected based on the project’s location, mobility context, and proposed land use programming – as well as for their synergistic potential to amplify their collective effectiveness, compared to the sum of their individual impacts. Figure 4 Proposed TDM Strategies TDM Strategy Description Cost Implementation of a local Transportation Management Agency (TMA) Commuter Shuttle and Programs In coordination with local businesses, major employers and nearby housing communities, a funded TMA (e.g., Palo Alto TMA or MVgo) would provide commuter shuttle services from the site to the San Antonio Caltrain Station, among other supportive services. Other services offerings through the TMA, such as rideshare programs, can be explored. TBD Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 61     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 5 TDM Strategy Description Cost On-site Transportation Coordinator On-site property management staff will provide a welcome package for new tenants, distribute Go Passes and other memberships, and additional information. Minimal: This should be the property manager, ideally one offering skills in maintaining and promoting the benefits of a TDM Plan and coordinating with neighboring properties. Monitoring Program By annually monitoring the TDM and parking program, the owner/management can adjust the resulting strategies to meet requirements, parking ratio, mode split, etc. A TDM monitoring report will initially be submitted to the City two years after building occupancy and subsequently on an annual basis (18.52.050) Pre-Tax Deductions for Transit Employees are allowed to exclude their transit or vanpooling expenses (up to the maximum amount allowed by federal tax law) from taxable income. This would be required of any commercial tenant at 788 San Antonio regardless of the size or other transportation benefits provided by the specific employer. Covered employees will include all who work an average of at least 20 hours per week over the course of the most recent calendar month. Cost-neutral. Information Boards/Kiosks TDM information boards, kiosk, and hotline/online access to transportation information and coordinators. Included in construction costs. Bicycle Parking The project is proposing a total of 120 bicycle parking spaces for residential and community use, including 102 long-term (Class I) and 18 short-term (Class II) bicycle parking spaces, which significantly exceeds the City’s requirement. Hardware for bicycle parking is currently in the procurement stage. 5% of the bicycle parking spaces will be dedicated for cargo bikes. Estimate: $800 - $1,000 per one unit of 8-bike double-decker bike racks. Bicycle Resources and Amenities To encourage biking, additional resources and amenities, such as a Bicycle Repair Station will be provided to support convenient maintenance of personal bicycles. Additional information and resources will be provided via the Information Boards and Kiosks. Estimate: $1,150-$2,150 for a bike repair stand. Dedicated Micromobility Fleet The project is proposing a dedicated fleet of micromobility services (bike share, e-scooters, e-bikes Estimate based on 9 bikes: $10,855. Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 62     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 6 TDM Strategy Description Cost etc.) located on the premises of the private property/development made available for residents to use. A minimum of 9 bikes is suggested, reflective of approximately 5% of the number of residential units. Charging outlets will be provided near the dedicated micromobility station. Programs, such as ON Bike Share, provide a turnkey, automated bike share program that can be customized, owned and operated at a specific property (including bicycles with smart locks, docking racks, a rider app, administrative software, and a mechanic app). The bicycles can be customized with the logo and name of the building and bike components to match the color of the building logo. On Bike Share estimates the cost of the program is ~$40/per unit and recommends 1 bike per 30 units – with a minimum of 5 bikes (with room to expand). With a program including 9 bikes, we are assuming the cost per unit would increase to ~$65/per unit. Unbundling Parking Keeping the price of parking separate from the cost of rent helps to ensure that monthly expenses are more affordable for those who do not want to own a car, while placing a premium on those who want guaranteed parking in an environment where there are other mobility options. Based on a monthly fee within the range of $100 to $300 (depending on the number of parking spaces requested by a household and/or ease of access to the parking space). Cost-neutral. Promotional Programs Promotion and organization of events for the following programs: new tenant orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Bike to Work Day, Spare the Air; Rideshare Week; Palo Alto TMA Programs2 (e.g. Clipper or Lyft benefits for employees working in commercial areas); and trip planning assistance routes and maps. Responsibility of the site wide TDM coordinator to administer programming. Car Share Through the Envoy car share program, or similar car share programs, seven spaces would be dedicated for on-site car share. Car sharing programs allow people to have on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis. Car sharing has been shown to significantly reduce vehicle ownership and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Making these vehicles accessible to residents increases the vehicle availability for non- A subscription program like the Envoy car share program, would cost approximately $20 per hour paid by the user. For the property, cost will reflect the loss of resident parking fees. Depending 2 Palo Alto TMA has three programs for Downtown and California Avenue employees. Employees earning less than $70,000 are eligible for a free, monthly transit pass as well as subsidized Lyft shared ride trips. Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 63     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 7 TDM Strategy Description Cost car owners and reduces the need for households to own more than one vehicle. on the car sharing program that ultimately occupies the spaces, a minimum subsidy for the program may be required. Reduced Residential Parking The on-site parking supply will have 74 spaces, whereas the minimum municipal requirement is 201 spaces. Reducing parking supply from the municipal requirement to accurately reflect shared peak demand will eliminate excess spaces that will otherwise be unoccupied. Note: This is not a TDM program, but rather a contextual factor that affected demand estimates. Cost savings achieved through reduced capital, operations, and maintenance for parking. Passenger Pick- Up/Drop-Off (PU/DO) Area To support an effective TDM program, a clearly designated Passenger Pick-Up/Drop-Off area will be incorporated in the site plan and design. Cost-neutral. Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Improvements Grubb is supportive of providing a bicycle lane or multimodal path in proximity to the site. In working with the City of Palo Alto, Grubb will provide support and input in the development of enhanced pedestrian and bicycle improvements along San Antonio Rd., much of which is conditional on the continued development and implementation of the San Antonio Road Area Plan. TBD Transit Stop When VTA transit services are expanded further north along the San Antonio Rd corridor, Grubb will work with City to coordinate enhanced transit accessibility from their site. If a transit stop is suitable at or near the site, Grubb will work with the City to ensure the provision of a transit stop is well integrated within the property, and that the transit stop will include elements that provide a positive and safe user experience. To encourage transit use, physical upgrades at transit stops may include shelters, seating, increased pavement areas for standing/sitting, improved lighting, and clear signage and branding. · Benches: ~$3,000 · Signage ~$200 (non- digital) · Basic shelter: ~$100,000 Two or more land uses on site The impact of a mixed-use/shared-parking environment helps reduce parking supply needs by allowing multiple on-site land uses to be reached from a single parking space. This is often referred to as a “captive market” effect, where the trips made between uses without additional parking often referred to as an Cost-neutral. Local businesses and employees may help ensure revenue is also kept in proximity to the community. Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 64     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 8 TDM Strategy Description Cost “internal capture” rate. For example, a resident living above a café might walk downstairs to grab a coffee. Safe Routes to School Participation To support and encourage families to choose healthy, active, and sustainable alternatives to driving, the Safe Routes to School program offered by the City of Palo Alto will be promoted for participation among residents with school-aged children. Cost-neutral. Combined, this set of measures is projected to reduce baseline parking generation as follows:  Residents: 55.8%  Employees: 30.7%  Visitors: 10.7% The updated peak parking demand projections with TDM impacts are shown below, with weekday and weekend peak projections at 68 spaces. Adding seven spaces for the proposed car-share vehicles, this brings the total projected peak demand to 75 spaces. Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 65     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 9 Figure 5 Demand Across All Proposed Land Uses (with TDM) - Weekday Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 66     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 10 Figure 6 Demand Across All Proposed Land Uses (with TDM) - Weekend Findings Primary Finding: Parking Demand and Supply Our analysis identifies a peak on-site parking demand of 75 parking spaces for the proposed project, inclusive of the TDM program outlined above. Secondary Finding: Trip Generation & VMT Impacts The focus of this memo is to confirm the suitability of the proposed on-site parking supply for the project when factoring for its proposed TDM Plan. However, it is worth noting that the measures included in that plan will also significantly reduce the trip-generation and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) impacts of the project. Because the nature of the proposed property is predominantly residential, the parking demand reductions outlined above would result from reduced levels of resident car ownership – meaning that the parking demand reduction of 52% equates to 52% fewer vehicles owned by the project’s future residents. Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 67     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 11 While it is likely that this reduced level of vehicle ownership is likely to be skewed toward future residents who would have driven their vehicles less often and for fewer overall miles, reducing the number of resident vehicles by 52% will significantly reduce the trip and VMT impacts of the project – arguably by as much as half. At this level of vehicle access reduction among residents, the TDM Plan is projected to achieve a reduction in peak hour motor vehicle trips far in excess of the minimum 20%. Appendix: Reduction Factors for Proposed TDM Measures The tables below provide parking-demand reduction factors assigned by the NN model to each of the proposed TDM measures. To capture both synergistic and diminishing-return relationships among measures implemented as part of a comprehensive TDM Plan, the model categorizes potential TDM measures into functional categories. The model caps the cumulative impacts of measures within the same category – to reflect the diminishing returns expected from similar measures – ensuring that higher demand-reduction projections are only achievable through plans that include significant measures from multiple categories – incentivizing synergistic combinations of measures. As shown, several measures only have a secondary impact on parking demand – increasing the effectiveness of other, primary measures, with no direct reduction impact assigned. As more of these secondary measures are included, the model increases the total estimated effectiveness of the primary measures – those assigned a direct reduction estimate in the tables below. Figure 7 Parking Demand Reduction by Each TDM Measure Parking Policy and Pricing TDM Strategy Residents Employees Other Unbundling Parking 13.4% 12.0% N/A Reduced Residential Parking 38.5% Secondary N/A Passenger PU/DO Secondary Secondary Secondary Total 46.7%* 12.0% 0.0% *Category maximum capped at 35.0% Programs and Services TDM Strategy Residents Employees Other Car Share 15.0% 0.1% N/A Dedicated Micromobility Fleet 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 68     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 12 Programs and Services TDM Strategy Residents Employees Other Funding of a local Transportation Management Agency (TMA) Commuter Shuttle and Programs Secondary 9.0% Secondary Pre-Tax Deductions for Transit Secondary Secondary N/A Safe Routes to School Participation Secondary Secondary N/A Total 21.3% 10.7%* 1.7% *Category maximum capped at 25.0% Physical Features TDM Strategy Residents Employees Other Two or more land uses on site 14.3% 1.8% Secondary Bicycle Parking 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Improvements 2.0% 22.0% Secondary Transit Stop Secondary 6.7% 6.1% Bicycle Resources and Amenities Secondary Secondary N/A Total 19.0%* 13.3%* 9.1% *Category maximum capped at 10.0% Promotional Resources and Activities TDM Strategy Residents Employees Other On-site Transportation Coordinator 4.0% 2.0% N/A Monitoring program Secondary Secondary Secondary Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 69     788 San Antonio Road Grubb Properties Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 13 Promotional Resources and Activities TDM Strategy Residents Employees Other Information Boards/Kiosks Secondary Secondary Secondary Promotional Programs Secondary Secondary Secondary Total 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% TDM Category Residents Employees Other Parking Policy and Pricing 35.0% 12.0% 0.0% Programs and Services 21.3% 10.7% 1.7% Physical Features 10.0% 10.0% 9.1% Promotional Programs 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Total 57.0% 41.8% 10.8% Item 2 Attachment E - TDM Plan and Applicant Parking Materials     Packet Pg. 70     4601 Park Road, Suite 450, Charlotte, NC 28209 | T. 704 372 5616 F. 704 372 9882 121 Edinburgh S Drive, Suite 100, Cary, NC 27511 | T. 919 461 3950 F. 919 461 3939 500 W 5th Street, Suite 202, Winston-Salem, NC 27101 | T. 336 923 7650 F. 336 777 0624 47 Perimeter Center East, Suite 530, Atlanta, GA 30346 | T. 770 604 3387 F. 770 604 3959 grubbproperties.com Grubb Properties, LLC 4601 Park Road, Suite 450 Charlotte, NC 28209 February 20, 2026 Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org RE: PHZ Application for 788 San Antonio Road Project Dear Mr. Lait, Following our initial submission of the Formal PHZ Application on October 31, 2025, we received a comprehensive set of review comments from the relevant departments having purview over this project. The feedback has been thoughtful, and we appreciate the collaboration that our team has been afforded over the past two months as we refined the project in response. With this second submission and the PTC hearing ahead, we would like to clarify a key element of the proposal: reduced parking and expanded transportation alternatives. Grubb’s proposed mixed‑use development at 788 San Antonio Road advances the City’s goals of reducing automobile dependence, expanding sustainable mobility options, and delivering housing aligned with evolving transportation and lifestyle trends. Demographic shifts, especially among households across a range of ages and income levels, suggest growing interest in neighborhoods where daily needs can be met without a private car 1. This demand is reinforced by the rapid expansion of autonomous mobility services such as Waymo, which make car‑free living more feasible than ever. In Palo Alto, rental costs have typically exceeded the averages for Santa Clara County and the Bay Area 2. As housing costs rise, households are increasingly focused on total cost of living, including vehicle expenses. Housing that lowers or eliminates these ancillary costs, in areas where base rents offer some relief from Bay Area extremes, meets an urgent and growing need for an expanding set of renters. Unbundled parking allows residents without cars to avoid unnecessary costs and creates incentives for reduced car ownership. The proposed low-parking model at 788 San Antonio Road supports affordability through lower transportation expenses, reinforced by mobility programs designed to make zero-car living practical. This approach complements existing options on San Antonio Road by adding a housing choice tailored to car‑light lifestyles. A comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program will be implemented at the property from the outset to support reduced vehicle ownership. Research shows that the design of a neighborhood and building parking supply will meaningfully influence household travel choices 3. The proposed TDM Plan aligns the City’s policy goals, resident mobility preferences, and the project’s design. Item 2 Attachment F - Development Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 71     grubbproperties.com Grubb’s experience in the Bay Area and across the country demonstrates that projects with lower parking ratios can succeed. Our 157-unit Oakland property, with only 79 parking stalls, is 98% leased while still having parking spaces available, evidence that many residents prefer walkable, well‑connected housing over car‑centric models. Over the past decade, parking demand across our apartment portfolio has declined from 1.4 spaces per bedroom to 0.7 spaces per bedroom. In Palo Alto, the site’s proximity to a dense cluster of major employers within one mile makes walking and biking a practical option when combined with implementation of the San Antonio Road Area Plan vision. Grubb recognizes that our approach on this issue differs from that of our peers; however, our strong commitment to this project reflects our confidence in its long-term viability and success. As always, we look forward to continued collaboration with the City of Palo Alto on bringing this housing project to life. Respectfully, Megan Watson Senior Director, Development CC: Ted O’Hanlon, Consulting Project Manager 1 National Association of Realtors, 2023 2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2023 3 Urban Studies, 2021 Item 2 Attachment F - Development Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 72     Development Program Statement – 788 San Antonio Road (a) Necessity of the Planned Community (PC) District Application The proposed Planned Community (PC) District is necessary to enable a thoughtfully designed, higher-density mixed-use development that advances the City of Palo Alto’s adopted housing, sustainability, and transit-oriented development goals along the San Antonio Road corridor. The project replaces underutilized, low-intensity commercial uses with a vertically integrated multi-family residential development, optimizing land use efficiency in an accessible location with excellent proximity to jobs. Application of the PC District is required to allow: • Increased residential density to deliver 167 units, including 28 affordable units • Additional building height (approximately 84 feet) • Modified parking ratios reflecting a transit-oriented, multimodal context The proposed development is consistent with the required findings of Section 18.38.060 in that it: • Promotes orderly and efficient development of land in alignment with City policy direction • Provides superior site planning and design relative to conventional zoning standards • Advances housing production, including below-market-rate units • Enhances the public realm and pedestrian environment along a key corridor • Supports sustainability and reduced vehicle dependency through integrated transportation demand characteristics (b) Complete Listing of Proposed Uses The proposed PC District will allow the following uses, consistent with Palo Alto zoning terminology: Primary Uses • Multi-family residential (rental apartments) • Affordable housing units (Below Market Rate) Accessory Residential Uses • Residential amenities, including: o Co-working/lounge spaces o Fitness center o Rooftop clubroom and terrace o Pet spa o Outdoor courtyard and recreation areas Commercial Uses • Ground-floor retail (approximately 1,400 square feet), intended for: Item 2 Attachment F - Development Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 73     o Neighborhood-serving retail o While this is included in the proposal, the viability of retail is questionable within the context of this building and corridor, currently under review in the San Antonio Road Area Plan Parking and Mobility Uses • Structured parking (two levels) • Bicycle parking and storage facilities (c) Description of Use Characteristics and Need for Modified Regulations The proposed development integrates residential in a compact, vertically mixed configuration that differs from conventional zoning assumptions in several key ways: Intensity and Built Form • Eight-story structure with increased height and density to support housing delivery goals • Reduced building massing through articulation, step-backs, and a courtyard design that greatly reduces the massing along San Antonio Road Parking and Transportation • Reduced parking supply (74 vehicle spaces for 167 units) supported by: o High bicycle parking ratio (167 spaces) o Proximity to transit and services o Evolving mobility patterns, reduced auto dependence and alternatives Operational Characteristics • Active ground-floor frontage along San Antonio Road with residential-focused activity Public Realm Enhancements • Pedestrian-oriented design with transparent frontages and active uses • Enhanced landscaping, lighting, and seating areas • Integration of open space and community-facing elements These characteristics warrant flexibility from standard zoning regulations to allow: • Increased height and density • Modified parking requirements • Refined massing and design standards Such modifications result in a higher-quality, policy-aligned development outcome than would be achievable under base zoning. (d) Housing Program Summary Unit Type Number of Units Studio 37 Item 2 Attachment F - Development Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 74     Unit Type Number of Units One-Bedroom 96 Two-Bedroom 34 Total Units 167 • Affordable Units (BMR): 28 units • Housing Type: Market-rate rental apartments with integrated affordable housing Floor Area • Total building area includes residential, amenity, and approximately 1,400 square feet of retail space Pricing • Market-rate rents to be determined based on prevailing market conditions at time of lease-up • Affordable units to be priced in accordance with City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) program requirements and Santa Clara County 51-80% AMI (e) Additional Information for Review Sustainability and Design • Energy-efficient building systems • Water-efficient, climate-appropriate landscaping • Pollinator-friendly plantings • Durable, high-quality exterior materials Site Redevelopment • Demolition of approximately 17,800 square feet of existing commercial buildings • Replacement with a higher-intensity, mixed-use development Consistency with Area Development Pattern • Aligns with emerging development trends along San Antonio Road • Comparable in scale and intensity to nearby GM-ROLM overlay criteria and recently proposed high-density residential projects in the vicinity • Reinforces corridor transformation into a transit-oriented, mixed-use district Item 2 Attachment F - Development Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 75     Development Schedule – 788 San Antonio Road (a) Project Timeline Based on the applicant’s current understanding, the anticipated development timeline is as follows: • Entitlement Phase: Ongoing, with an estimated completion by late 2026 • Construction Documentation & Permitting: Preparation of construction drawings and securing of building permits anticipated to be completed by mid-2027 • Construction Commencement: Construction is expected to begin in the third quarter (Q3) of 2027 • Construction Duration: Approximately 30 months • Estimated Occupancy: Initial occupancy is anticipated in the first half of 2030, with full project completion occurring shortly thereafter This schedule reflects a continuous development process from entitlement through construction and occupancy. (b) Phasing Program The proposed development is planned as a single-phase project. Although the total development timeline exceeds two years, the project consists of one integrated mixed-use building and associated site improvements that will be constructed concurrently. As such, phased construction is neither necessary nor practical due to: • The unified structural design of the building • Integrated parking, residential, and retail components • Site-wide infrastructure and landscape improvements Accordingly, the development will proceed as one coordinated phase, with occupancy occurring upon substantial completion of the project. Item 2 Attachment F - Development Program Statement and Development Schedule     Packet Pg. 76     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Commissioners for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Use the map to find “788 San Antonio” and click the green map icon link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/788-San-Antonio-Rd-Zone-Change Item 2 Attachment G - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 77     From:lee steven To:Dinh, Joey Cc:Zhou Wei Subject:Inquiry regarding proposed development at 788-790 San Antonio Road (Project #25PLN-00294) Date:Sunday, May 10, 2026 1:59:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Joey Dinh, I am a resident living at 777 San Antonio Rd, Palo Alto. I recently received the public hearing notice regarding the proposed eight-story mixed-use building project at 788-790 and 796 San Antonio Road (Project #25PLN-00294). As a direct neighbor, I have several concerns and would like to request more detailed information regarding the following: 1. Detailed Planning Maps: Could you provide or point me to the detailed architectural drawings and site plans for this project? 2. Building Height: What is the exact proposed height of the building in feet? 3. Parking: Where will the resident and retail parking be located? Will it be underground or a surface lot? 4. Ground Floor Usage: The notice mentions ground-floor retail. Could you clarify what types of businesses are being considered? 5. Privacy Concerns: Since I live at 777 San Antonio Rd, I am concerned that an eight-story building may overlook our property. How will the privacy of existing residents be protected? 6. Noise and Traffic: Has a study been conducted on the potential increase in noise and traffic congestion on San Antonio Road resulting from 167 new units? Thank you for your time and for helping me understand how this development will impact our neighborhood. I look forward to your response. Best regards, Steven Li This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Item 2 Attachment H - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 78     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 21, 2026 Report #: 2605-6358 TITLE Election of Chair and Vice Chair RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) elect a Chair and Vice Chair. BACKGROUND Section 3.1 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) By-Laws states: The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in April of each year, which coincides with the first meeting of new Board members. This election was agendized for the earliest available meeting with full member attendance. There is no express procedure for Chair and Vice Chair elections. Where the ARB’s bylaws and procedural rules are silent, the presiding officer may decide questions of procedure, though any board member may appeal a decision to the ARB as a whole. The process for the most recent election is summarized below: 1. Accept public comment on ARB Chair and Vice Chair elections. 2. Nominations for Chair are made from the floor. Board members may nominate anyone, including themselves. A second is required for the nomination. 3. The nominee states whether they will accept the nomination. 4. The Board members who moved and seconded the nomination make a brief statement on why they support the nomination. 5. Nominee(s) may also make a brief statement regarding their candidacy. 6. Other Board members may give comments or ask questions to the nominee(s). 7. The ARB will take a vote after all nominations have been made, seconded, and the nominee(s) have stated whether they will accept. 8. A majority vote is required for confirmation. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 79     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 9. The entire process is repeated for Vice Chair election. AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 80     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 21, 2026 Report #: 2605-6365 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 16, 2026 RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of April 16, 2026 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information   Steven Switzer, Senior Historic Planner   (650) 329-2321   Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB at the following email: ARB@PaloAlto.gov Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 81     Page 1 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: April 16, 2026 Council Chambers and Zoom 8:35 a.m. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on April 16, 2026, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:35 a.m. Present: Chair Yingxi Chen, Vice Chair Mousam Adcock, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Marton Jojarth, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg Absent: None Chair Chen called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll and declared a quorum. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS No changes planned for this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT None. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1. Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Senior Historic Planner Steven Switzer presented the Director's Report. On Monday, a Builder's Remedy project at 3606 El Camino Real received approval. It is the 321-unit apartment building located between the cross streets of Matadero and Kendall Avenue. Upcoming agenda items include the Lot T Housing Development Project and holding elections for chair and vice chair. Planned absences should be directed to staff's attention. The 6/18 meeting will be canceled due to a lack of quorum. Vice Chair Mousam Adcock added she will be absent July 2. ACTION ITEMS 2. PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation to City Council on Outdoor Activation Standards and Pre- Approved Parklet Plans for the Car-Free Portion of California Avenue. CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. In addition, on March 10, 2025, the City Council Approved an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for street closure and associated improvements (SCH#2014052101). Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of April 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 82     Page 2 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 Bruce Fukuji, Assistant to City Manager, provided a slide presentation on the work they have been doing the last several months in collaboration with Vice Chair Mousam and Boardmember Marton. Bruce Fukuji covered City Council direction, merchant perspectives, the ARB Ad Hoc process, outdoor activation design, pre-approved parklet plans, pedestrian and bicycle concepts, next steps, and recommended action. Council direction for Car Free Cal Ave was initiated in 2023. In March of 2025, they permanently closed Cal Ave from Birch to El Camino and designated it as a community street and car-free environment. In June of 2025, the outdoor activation program was presented and received public comments from merchants and community members. Council's direction was to pursue standards for parklets on the car-free portion of Cal Ave, consider how to do year-round outdoor dining, and utilize the ARB for design recommendations and review process. Related to bike use on Cal Ave, Council's direction in 2023 was to have 2-way slow bike lanes down the center. They provided recommendations in further meetings about speed, pedestrian conflicts, and parallel routes. On March 18, the Economic Development Committee looked at the concept and asked for alternatives to bike lanes that prioritize pedestrians where bikes are allowed. At monthly meetings with Cal Ave merchants, there have been ongoing discussions about parklets and outdoor dining. The merchants want a range of outdoor dining investment options, permanent solutions, pre-approved parklets, year-round dining options with minimal impact on gas main lines, and the best possible customer experience. Merchants expressed concerns about speeding bikes and pedestrian safety. Vice Chair Mousam and Boardmember Marton have been participating in the ARB Ad Hoc design process, which meets almost twice monthly. Design topics have included requirements and procedures, setback protection, parklet examples around the Bay Area, street function, activation standards, and pre-approved parklet options. They have been meeting with merchants every month to share progress and gather feedback. Bruce Fukuji shared that while the problems on Cal Ave seem simple, the solutions have contradictory challenges, which is part of what led to a set of solutions specific to Cal Ave. Slide 7 of the presentation focused on 10 design problems and 23 unique dining solutions for Cal Ave. The slide showed a layout that addresses the pre-approved parklet and equivalent outdoor café seating desired. Slide 8 demonstrated a potential layout for building frontages with activation zones, setbacks, parklets, café seating, and ADA accessibility. Example parklets at Evvia Estiatorio, Meyhouse, and The Barrel Bistro & Wine Bar were studied for adaptation to Cal Ave. For the parklets, one challenge was figuring out how to create a structure with no foundations or attachments. The engineer came up with doing flat steel plates with sleeves or collars welded onto them for the posts. The structural frame for lateral loading is the moment frames and connections in the roof. This design is transparent, open, and adaptable to the variety of street environments on Cal Ave. There are 3 parklet designs: roofless, cabana, and pergola. Data analysis was done to show the proposed program's square footage of outdoor dining space is equivalent to previous outdoor dining space. Key findings were: outdoor dining can expand via the activation program, 19 of 20 restaurants can locate a pre-approved parklet, and covered areas will be limited to 350 square feet per parklet with a maximum of 2 per business. Pedestrian and bicycle considerations in Cal Ave design started with direction from Council to have 2- way slow bike lanes and a pedestrian promenade. The Economic Development Committee was concerned about this design encouraging bikes to go faster and making the space feel bike dominated Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of April 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 83     Page 3 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 versus pedestrian prioritized. The solution to this concern involves thermal plastic stripes to define the pedestrian environment. The stripes are similar to rumble strips, which will motivate bikes to stick to the smooth area through the center. The design includes a tactile delineator strip along the outdoor dining to allow people with disabilities to better navigate the environment. For next steps, they will present at the Earth Day Festival on April 19, the Economic Development Ad Hoc Committee on May 20, and the City Council on June 8. ARB was asked to review the standards and parklet plans and provide feedback on the public space concept. Chair Chen thanked Bruce Fukuji for the presentation and thanked the Ad Hoc Committee members for their time and effort working on this with the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Lara Ekwall expressed thanks for the presentation and noted it was valuable to include the hurdles addressed in planning and designing. Lara Ekwall asked for clarification on where the bike parking is planned and noted she hopes to keep bike parking in front of her business, La Bodeguita. 2. Michael Ekwall, co-owner of La Bodeguita, recognized the work of Bruce and his team but noted what the City promised residents and businesses for many years was a European-style promenade, which has not happened. Michael Ekwall stated the City has spent hundreds of thousands on this only to create a plan that falls short of the original vision. He acknowledged the challenges that were presented but expressed disappointment in the lack of support for the businesses affected by this plan. Michael Ekwall noted the street closure has led to declining business activity, reduced accessibility, and emergency service delays. Michael Ekwall asserted that it is reasonable, after 6 years, to question if the experiment of a closed street has succeeded. He stated most merchants on the street support reopening it as a 1-way avenue that includes year-round, protected outdoor dining. In response to Lara Ekwall's public comment, Bruce Fukuji stated they are collecting information from business on bike parking preferences. If a business wants to keep existing bike parking, there is no reason for it to change. Bruce Fukuji noted this plan seeks to locate about 30 bike racks where bicyclists enter the area, at the El Camino and Birch Street intersections and at Ash Street. There will be additional bike racks in front of Country Sun Market for those coming from Mimosa Lane. Boardmember Hirsch thanked Bruce for the presentation and acknowledged the incredible problem- solving involved, citing the example of the horizontal stripes for slowing bicyclists. Boardmember Hirsch noted the original scheme with sidewalk patterning and glass pieces was not included in the presentation. He stated the bike plan has to be flexible and suggested the bike racks be moveable in some way. He noted more bike racks may be necessary as the street attracts more people and there are playful ideas for bike racks that can be part of the character of the street. Boardmember Hirsch suggested further thought be put into the parklet design, perhaps creating more openness and having the furniture be moveable. Boardmember Hirsch noted that some areas of the street are dead and wondered if and how the plan deals with them. Vice Chair Adcock thanked Bruce and stated it has been fun working on this. Vice Chair Adcock asked about the recent change in the bike concept and wondered if Cal Ave could be a walk-your-bike-only space like some places at Stanford or if walking bikes could be required at specific busier times. Vice Chair Adcock noted the wavy pattern of the bike path may distract bikers from being aware of surroundings and pedestrians. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of April 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 84     Page 4 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 Boardmember Rosenberg commended Bruce and thanked the Ad Hoc Committee. Boardmember Rosenberg expressed fondness for the new pedestrian/bike path design and stated it was very thoughtful to have bike parking at both ends of the street to give bicyclists the option to walk. She cited the L.A. Promenade as an example of something like this working well. Boardmember Rosenberg noted requiring bikers to walk would make it difficult for those passing through. Boardmember Rosenberg opined the wavy pattern is lovely, will slow down bike traffic, and is overall a good design, though it could be less wavy. Boardmember Rosenberg highlighted the bike parking available to Bodeguita in the new design, which is across the street at the entrance, and emphasized the need for ample bike parking overall. She found the parking options to be clever and suggested adding more to the entrance side toward El Camino. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about the potential to create a drop-off zone such as a roundabout or U-turn for vehicles on El Camino, which is worth exploring considering the rise of Lyft and Uber and is a concept the Promenade in L.A. implemented effectively. Bruce Fukuji responded that when they first started, their alternatives were to adapt and reimagine the street. For this design, they looked at the first-step improvements needed for bicycle safety and emergency egress and then added the planters to protect people. Bruce Fukuji stated that bringing cars in and around there conflicted with the simplicity of what was needed for bikes. He noted the drop-off zone idea had not been looked into and was worth exploring further. Boardmember Rosenberg said the parklet designs are simple, elegant, and easily adaptable to the needs and wants of individual businesses. Boardmember Rosenberg asked about any concepts or discussions around e-bikes and suggested they not be allowed. Bruce Fukuji said Transportation staff are looking at the e-bike issue as part of the city-wide Pedestrian Bike Transportation Plan (PBTP). There was a recommendation for a speed limit of 8 miles per hour; though most people have no way of knowing how fast they are riding their bikes, setting a limit would help police with enforcement. Boardmember Rosenberg suggested it may be as simple as stating e-bikes must be walked. Boardmember Jojarth thanked Bruce for going through this process and being conscious of the needs of the community and businesses. He acknowledged it is hard to satisfy everyone and agreed with Boardmember Hirsch that Bruce's team have managed to put a square peg in a round hole. Chair Chen asked for clarification on the 4 types of parklets noted on Packet Page 28. Bruce Fukuji responded that Packet Page 28 was trying to define the parklet shapes and how they fit in the roadway, essentially the spatial conditions where parklets can be located. An example of a narrow parklet is shown in the diagram and a wider parklet is shown in the pre-approved parklet plan. The sidewalk varies in width from areas 22 feet wide (such as from Izzy's Bagels to Mediterranean Wraps) or 30 feet wide (such as by Mini Cat Town across from Mimosa Lane). In areas where the sidewalk is narrower, businesses can take advantage of the curb furniture zone and extend their parklet into that area. Chair Chen wanted to understand the maximum 350-square-foot requirement. Bruce Fukuji clarified that when an applicant files for an encroachment permit, they have to supply structural drawings and meet the California Building Code or the American Society of Civil Engineers Code for Outdoor Structures. After 350 square feet, they are required to have sprinklers, so that is the issue that limits roofed parklets to under 350. Businesses with longer street frontage could build 2 separate parklets up to 350 square feet each. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of April 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 85     Page 5 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 Chair Chen asked about the parklet design showing a column-to-column distance of 8 feet maximum. Bruce Fukuji said they talked with their structural engineer about what they can do to increase those spans. Because it is a roof-based moment frame and there are no foundations, it requires more frequent posts to stabilize the roof. They talked to the architects about what they can do to accommodate seating arrangements. The architects did 10 different layouts to show how seating can be accommodated with different sized tables, from 2 to 6 seats. In all cases, they were able to come up with 15 square feet or less per seating. All are flexible and allow a dining area equivalent to existing outdoor dining. If someone wants to do a custom parklet, they can do that and arrange it however they want. There are sufficient options to meet all kinds of different dining configurations. Vice Chair Adcock pointed out that the pre-approved parklet designs all have solid roofs and asked whether parklets could be bigger than 350 square feet if the roof were not solid, like a trellis that is 50 or 75 percent open. Bruce Fukuji offered to speak to George Hoyt, the Chief Building Official, about roof enclosure requirements that set that 350-square-foot area requirement. Bruce Fukuji agreed that it would make sense to allow a bigger parklet if the roof is mostly trellis. Boardmember Rosenberg wanted to better understand where the 350-square-foot limit applies, whether to the roof only and/or the base structure and gave the example of a parklet where the roof is part solid and part trellis. Boardmember Hirsch stated it was not a good idea to have the El Camino end of the street interrupted by vehicles. Boardmember Hirsch wondered how to make a symbolic entry to this street, such as an artistic/sculptural piece placed where the plan currently shows long, lozenge-shaped elements. Boardmember Hirsch recommended perimeter connections be explored further to respond to delivery issues. He stated the huge amount of parking around the perimeter makes the street viable. He noted answering the issue of dimension should be included in the package. Vice Chair Adcock stated the list of challenges was clear about trying to make the street 95 percent pedestrian while allowing for deliveries and emergency services. Vice Chair Adcock believed the green bubbles shown were part of fire access. Bruce Fukuji answered that the setbacks are greater where there are medians to make space for emergency vehicles. The median is not included in the space for emergency vehicle access, so artwork could go there. Vice Chair Adcock mentioned the dots and lines pattern for bicyclists is good and recommended straightening it between intersections to make it relatively simple. Vice Chair Adcock hoped people coming through with bikes will choose to walk them when there are a lot of pedestrians. It should be bike and pedestrian friendly without having conflicts or making it too difficult for people cutting through the area. Vice Chair Adcock acknowledged there is no budget to make major changes to the streets but there is another layer of development involved in parklet design that keeps the 22 feet clear while maximizing what businesses can do from each side and loosening the 350-square-foot limit, even if it is with an open trellis. Boardmember Rosenberg stated this design is fantastic for the street and having this as a pedestrian- friendly area is crucial for the City. Boardmember Rosenberg stated it is a tremendous improvement and benefit to the community to have this be a walkable space where people can spend time versus driving, parking, and leaving. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that the bike is very detailed and needs to Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of April 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 86     Page 6 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 be done with a brush stroke approach to find smoother curvature. Boardmember Rosenberg said the colored stripes are lovely and requested the concept of drop-off zones at each end be explored. Chair Chen opined that the pedestrian priority scheme is successful and the Committee loves it. It would be hard to ban bikes entirely but some concepts like time-limited access or bike walking areas would be helpful. Chair Chen recommended working with Public Art for art installations along the street and adding interactive things like giant chess or Connect Four for people to stay and play because people staying longer is a benefit to the local businesses. Chair Chen was unsure if the parklet design information is complete because the designs need to be year-round. Boardmember Hirsch stated it might be worth spending some effort to show a standard design with the open roof concept built into it. Bruce Fukuji expressed appreciation for the Committee's feedback and suggestions. Vice Chair Adcock suggested going through the packet to address the clarity of the options because the whole goal is for merchants to be able to take the packet, checkbox their choices, and be 90 percent to building their parklets. On Page A0.1, if a business owner chooses cabana, they have a choice of narrow or wide, depending on their space. The steel base looks like a fixed thing on cabana but the platform base is also an option if they go with the cabana, so that should be included. Bruce Fukuji agreed the platform option is missing from the cabana sub-options. For pergola, the roof options are flat only, no pitched option. On A0.2, Vice Chair Adcock asked how merchants choose what happens with the railing. Bruce Fukuji responded that A0.2 shows sidewall options which can extend from the platform up to the full height of 6 feet or can be above the low wall structure and are primarily for screening. The sidewall notes address those options. Bruce Fukuji clarified that roll-down screens are another option, which are discussed in the sidewall notes under Roll Down Shades. Merchants will see sub-set options for the sidewall notes. Steven Switzer added that optional sidewalls are shown dashed under each checkbox option. Bruce Fukuji shared that the way the current program works is that an applicant meets at Public Works with John McCarty, who goes through the selection options with them. When they leave, they have a clear selection of all elements they want and requirements for what they have to submit in order to advance. Bruce Fukuji agreed the packet needs to be completely clear but noted that staff are supporting the process. Vice Chair Adcock highlighted that on Page A2.1, a parklet roof plan with a trellis is shown but it was not on the checkbox options. Boardmember Rosenberg stated that this packet was well done. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that the options being shown as roofless, cabana, and pergola help business owners visualize their options but may not be necessary if the decision flow moves through 1) full base or steel post, 2) railings, 3) roof structure, 4) covered or open roof, and 5) option of drop-down shades. Boardmember Hirsch asked if people looking for parklets usually come with an architect. Bruce Fukuji did not know the details of the submittals that have been done but offered that they vary from having architects to contractors. Boardmember Rosenberg moved to approve following Staff Recommendations 1 and 2 as written on Packet Page 8. Chair Chen seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of April 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 87     Page 7 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/16/26 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 5, 2026 Chair Chen moved to approve the minutes as written. Vice Chair Adcock seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 19, 2026 Chair Chen requested a change on Packet Page 86, where "Chair Chen observed the taller buildings would be a good sun blocker" should say sound barrier or blocker. Chair Chen moved to approve the minutes as adjusted. Vice Chair Adcock seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 by roll call vote. BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Chair Chen reminded the ARB that the next meeting includes elections for chair and vice chair and anyone with a planned absence should inform Steven. ADJOURNMENT Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of April 16, 2026     Packet Pg. 88