Los Altos City Council
March 11, 2025

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, March 11, 2025
via Videoconference and In Person
PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may participate by being present at the Los Altos Council Chamber at Los Altos City Hall located at 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA during the meeting.

Public comment is accepted in person at the physical meeting location, or via email to [email protected].

RULES FOR CONDUCT: Pursuant to Los Altos Municipal Code, Section 2.05.010 "Interruptions and rules for conduct": Understanding that the purpose of the city council meetings is to conduct the people's business for the benefit of all the people, in the event that any meeting of the city council is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, the mayor, mayor pro tem, or any other member of the city council acting as the chair may order the removal of the person or persons responsible for the disruption and bar them from further attendance at the council meeting, or otherwise proceed pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.0 or any applicable penal statute or city ordinance.

REMOTE MEETING OBSERVATION: Members of the public may view the meeting via the link below, but will not be permitted to provide public comment via Zoom or telephone. Public comment will be taken in-person, and members of the public may provide written public comment by following the instructions below.
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/87060171029?pwd=Z9TXiSgwmHGTA1HwS46lwu71dAT9cg.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 870 6017 1029 / Passcode: 785866 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emailed public comments sent directly to the City Council, either as a group, or individually, will not be included in the agenda packet but may be disclosable as part of a public records request. Emails sent to [email protected] will be included in the appropriate agenda packet and are also disclosable as part of a public records request.

Please note: Personal information, such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your written comments, they will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper format must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Comments provided in hard copy/paper format after 2:00 p.m. will be distributed the following day and included with public comment in the Council packet. 1 3/11/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 5
The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. The Mayor will announce the time speakers will be granted before comments begin. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period. According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.
03-11-2025 Written Public Comments

CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion unless any member of the Council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Approve the Draft Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for the Meeting of February 25, 2025

2. Contract Award for Hetch Hetchy ADA Improvements Project Two actions for Council consideration:

1. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement with SAE Consulting Engineering for Construction Services for the Intersection Access Barrier Removal project in the amount of $97,923.00 and up to 15% contingency, if needed, in the amount not to exceed $14,688.00; and

2. Adopt a Resolution increasing the Intersection Access Barrier Removal, TS-01058, project budget to $127,300

3. Contract Amendment with Civic Plus LLC
2 3/11/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 5
Approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 with CivicPlus LLC. for an amount not to exceed $125,000.00 for development and implementation of a new city website

4. Adoption of Resolution - 2024 Annual Housing Element Program Report Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Accepting the Housing Element Annual Progress Report for Calendar Year 2024 and Authorizing Staff to Submit the Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and find that this action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5)

5. Independent Intake Official (IIO) Yearly Report for 2024 Receive the Independent Intake Official (IIO) Yearly Report for 2024

6. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and compliance reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024

7. Designation of Enforcement Officers
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Designating Certain Employees or Agents as Enforcement Officers

8. City Council Strategic Goals
Adopt a Resolution affirming the City Council Strategic Goals

9. Regional Board Assignments – VTA PAC Representatives and LAC Alternate Affirm Mayoral Appointment to the Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee (VTA-PAC) and Santa Clara County Cities Association – Legislative Action Committee (LAC)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. Library Patio Appeal 1
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Los Altos Historical Commission for Historical Alteration Permit (H24-0003) for a new library courtyard, and affirming that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 (New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures), of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and that none of the exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 apply.

11. Library Patio Appeal 2
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Los Altos Planning Commission for Design Review Permit (DR24-0002) for a new library courtyard, and affirming that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing 3 3/11/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 4 of 5
Facilities) and Section 15303 (New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures), of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and that none of the exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 apply.

12. Library Patio Appeal 3
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Los Altos Historical Commission for Historical Alteration Permit (H24-0003) and the Los Altos Planning Commission for Design Review Permit (DR24-0002) for a new library courtyard, and affirming that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 (New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures), of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and that none of the exceptions outlined in Section 15300.2 apply.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

13. AB481 Military Equipment Use Annual Report for 2024 Waive the first and second reading, affirm and adopt the Ordinance approving Los Altos Police Policy 709 pertaining to the funding, acquisition and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481 and approve the acquisition of new military equipment, removal of training items and addition of new uses for drones

14. Introduction of Ordinance - Underground Utilities
Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter 11.25 Underground Utilities to Title 11 Miscellaneous Property Regulations of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

15. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

ADJOURNMENT
(Council Norms: It will be the custom to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Prior to the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.)

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610. 4 3/11/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 5 of 5
All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk’s Office, City of Los Altos, located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. 5 From: Juno Szalay
To: City Council; Public Comment; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Follow-Up on Parking Restrictions Discussion
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 1:10:59 AM
Dear Los Altos City Council members, Staff, MVLA Trustees, Superintendent Volta, Principal Runeare, and Vice Principal Miyahara,
I have even more respect for those who speak publicly on a regular basis! I was so nervous during tonight’s meeting that I know I wasn’t able to fully articulate my points.

So, I am writing this follow-up email to summarize my thoughts.

I am delighted that the parking restrictions around Los Altos High School will continue.

However, I remain unsure why different restrictions on different streets are necessary, as they only add confusion. It was mentioned several times that the signage south of the High School, across from Almond Avenue, has been effective, raises no complaints, and has been in place for a while (since the same time as the sign in front of my house—at the drop-off/pick-up epicenter).

These signs simply state "No Parking 8am-4pm." If we are going to be consistent, I believe this is the example to follow.

In contrast, the proposed more lenient 2-hour restriction will likely invite abuse.

For four out of five school days, there is a 15-minute brunch or a 53-minute ACT period starting at 10am. And on Mondays, there is a 15 minute window starting at 10:17. This gives motivated students ample time to move their cars just 15 feet, circumventing the entire system based on your Q&A example requiring just 10 minutes for this action.

If the sign in front of my house is changed to the 2-hour restriction, it will eliminate all available space for parents to safely pull over and drop off or wait for their students after school. This will only exacerbate the chaos in the area.

I was also excited to hear that a third party has been hired to enforce existing traffic laws. Please send a dedicated person to my house. The red zone is constantly being violated, along with a myriad of other traffic laws - not limited to the double wide drop off mayhem I described. My mailbox is consistently blocked at pick-up time, with parents sitting in their cars, engines running. I've also had many parents block my driveway while waiting for their students, even when I am trying to leave. I try to avoid using my vehicle between 2 and 4pm because it’s simply too dangerous. Even lunch can get chaotic.

I understand the intent of the restrictions is to disperse the parking problem from a few bottleneck locations to less busy areas, and I believe that is working. I also understand the hope to push students to pressure Los Altos High School and the MVLA School Board to acknowledge the problem. However, I’m not sure the students—or parents—fully grasp that message. As mentioned tonight, this is not just a City or neighborhood problem; it’s a High School problem, and we all need to work together to find a solution.

I hope the High School administration and the MVLA board are reading this.

And I hope the students take this message to heart because they seem focused on pressing the Council members, when they should be directing their concerns to the administration that is unnecessarily restricting their access to on-campus 6 parking.

If anyone doubts that student parking, drop-off, pick-up, and transportation to and from school are issues, I invite you again to come to my home and witness the chaos firsthand. We have space for parking in our driveway (as we use our garage for our cars—quite rare these days). Or, even better, try walking or biking over between 8 and 8:30am to see what we experience every school day.

Thank you for your continued attention to this important matter.

Best regards,
Juno Szalay
Juno Szalay
[email protected]
(650) 796-9165
7 From: Eric Chiu
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Thank you and a suggestion
Date: Friday, February 28, 2025 12:13:08 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
Thank you for all of the work that you, Gabe and Steven Son have put into Complete Streets and the parking restrictions around the high school. I know it is a difficult problem to solve, but I believe the streets are much safer, especially on streets like Los Ninos Way that are a direct route to school drop off on Jardin. I don't feel like I am going to be hit by a parent or student while walking around cars parked on the side of the road (since we don't have a sidewalk).

One suggestion is to mirror the time for north of Jardin to be the same as south of Almond -- 8am to 2pm.

This would be helpful if we are going to allow 2 hour parking beyond 500ft of Jardin since students will start parking at 10am knowing that they can park the whole day from that point on if restrictions end at noon. Also, you mentioned that you get zero complaints from south of Almond so it must be working. I really think any complaints from residents are just an adjustment period and soon you will have no complaints from residents just like south of Almond.

The parking restrictions are a huge help to safety. Thanks again. -Eric Chiu
462 Los Ninos Way
Eric Chiu 650-291-8394 [email protected]
8 From: Chi Buckley
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: "No parking restrictions south of Almond" is UNACCEPTABLE! Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 3:09:17 PM
Dear City of Los Altos:

The recent decision to allow unrestricted parking on all streets south of Almond is nothing short of OUTRAGEOUS! We bought our home in 2011 with established parking limits in place, which had been implemented years earlier. And now, without any logical reasoning, you’ve decided to strip away these longstanding restrictions. This is not acceptable! Expansion of LAHS occurred without any thought about the inevitable surge in parking congestion, litter, and noise invading our neighborhood-residents should not be forced to shoulder this lack of planning. Eliminate your tennis courts and make it into parking spaces rather than forcing your problems onto the neighbors.

Regards,
Buckley Residence
Frederick & Almond
9 From: Bill Hough
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT LA City Council ITEM #10 MARCH 11, 2025 Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 4:32:40 PM
In a conflict between the Los Altos Library and the Historic Apricot Orchard (that only involves 8,265 square feet of land),
you must give priority to the solution that will benefit the most people.

The proposed Library Outdoor Patio will benefit more people than the orchard, and the orchard will still cover the entire Civic Center after the patio is built. Therefore, please recommend approval of the patio.

Bill Hough
Resident and taxpayer
10 From: Bill Hough
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT LA City Council ITEM #11 MARCH 11, 2025 Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 4:34:07 PM
In a conflict between the Los Altos Library and the Historic Apricot Orchard (that only involves 8,265 square feet of land),
you must give priority to the solution that will benefit the most people.

The proposed Library Outdoor Patio will benefit more people than the orchard, and the orchard will
still cover the entire Civic Center after the patio is built. Therefore, please recommend approval of the patio.

Bill Hough
Resident and taxpayer
11 From: Bill Hough
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT LA City Council ITEM #12 MARCH 11, 2025 Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 4:35:18 PM
In a conflict between the Los Altos Library and the Historic Apricot Orchard (that only involves 8,265 square feet of land),
you must give priority to the solution that will benefit the most people.

The proposed Library Outdoor Patio will benefit more people than the orchard, and the orchard will
still cover the entire Civic Center after the patio is built. Therefore, please recommend approval of the patio.

Bill Hough
Resident and taxpayer
12 From: Couture, Terri
To: Public Comment
Subject: City council meeting March 11 -
Date: Saturday, March 8, 2025 3:52:27 PM
Agenda item 14
Dear City Council
I am on the PARC commission, but this letter is not a communication from PARC nor is it to be considered as a message from me being on PARC. These is my thoughts as a long-term resident and professional Realtor working in Los Altos for over 30 years.

I commend the thoughts to undergrounding utilities, but I strongly hope that you will make this known to all residents of Los Altos, and not impact those who cannot afford to underground.

There are many residents who have been here for many years, and they cannot afford to underground their utilities or pay to have poles removed. I do not think this agenda item requires this, however I want to make sure this is the case. This agenda was posted after business hours on Friday, so no way for me to contact any staff to be reassured that this will not impact people on fixed incomes or have no intention to remodel more than 50% of their home.

Thank you so much for clarifying this item for many who have asked me about this agenda item.

Terri Couture
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 13 From: Pat Marriott
To: Public Comment
Subject: SPECIAL SESSION ITEM 1 MARCH 11, 2025
Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 12:21:26 PM
Attachments: 3-11-25 public comment special session.pdf Please see attached.
14 PUBLIC COMMENT SPECIAL SESSION MARCH 11, 2025
Council Members:

There’s been a great deal of discussion and criticism about the PARC Commission’s lack of support for cultural events, particularly regarding the Iftar in 2024 and another scheduled for March 15, 2025.

I'm dismayed when my elected officials – who are supposed to represent me – behave in a disrespectful antagonistic manner toward other residents who sign up to serve the city.

Reviewing documents acquired through PRA requests, it’s clear the PARC commissioners have done their due diligence and made appropriate decisions regarding Iftar in the absence of guidance from Council and Staff.

February 20,2024 PARC Commission meeting
Staff report (attached) says: “The Muslims Around Los Altos group (MALA) is partnering with the Parks & Recreation Department to coordinate a few cultural events in Los Altos. … Discuss the programs and request for funding presented by the MALA group and decide if funding from the Cultural aspect of the Public Art Fund is appropriate.” The MALA item was added to the agenda at the last minute without discussing with the commission chair. PARC reached out to Staff and the council liaison on February 18 asking for information, specifically for “… all applicable ordinances, permit requirements, fee waiver process rules/criteria, and the like pertaining to these areas: (a) separation of church and state.”
Staff responded on the day of the meeting: “We do not have time. I also am not sure what is being asked.”
No information was forthcoming.

At the meeting, MALA asked PARC for $15,000 to support and promote an Iftar. After an indepth discussion, the commission voted 4-1 vote against the request, based on concerns the event was religious.

Having already categorized the Iftar as cultural, Staff waived the room rental fee. They’d been having discussions with MALA regarding banners and room availability as early as February 5th.

After the commission meeting, the city manager and council liaison both thanked the chair for “making sure everyone’s questions were answered and viewpoints were heard” and for having a “respectful and professional” discussion.

Some attendees of the March 31st Iftar told me they felt uncomfortable with the religious aspects, particularly the Call to Prayer. It appears commissioners were justified in denying support.

January 28, 2025 Council Meeting
The PARC commission was called on the carpet in a public meeting, given no opportunity to defend themselves against criticism, mainly from Mayor Dailey and Councilman Weinberg.

Newspaper reports surely proved embarrassing to the commissioners – and should be embarrassing to Council as well.
15 The February 23 Daily Post had a front-page article headlined, “Commission’s ‘culture of no’” with Mayor Dailey claiming the commission’s culture is “toxic” and it “has shown disrespect for Staff” – without corroboration.

The January 28 Town Crier headline was “Low-performing PARC commission under council review.” It ended with this paragraph quoting Councilman Weinberg: “If the response is, the Staff report is wrong, it’s biased, it’s full of half-truths, as someone who wasn’t there likes to call it, I am going to have a really difficult time finding a way to move forward with the commission as is.”
In other words, two elected officials passed a guilty verdict without hearing from the defendants, and any support for the defendants would only make their sentence worse! If Council was unhappy with PARC’s work, a more appropriate approach would have been to have a meeting with the commission to hear their perspective and discuss ways to ensure their efforts aligned with Council’s wishes.

It must be noted that two commissions were merged to form PARC: Parks & Rec and Public Art.

No guidance was ever provided about the new “cultural” aspect with respect to city policies, rules for evaluating financial and space requests, or how to distinguish between “cultural” and “religious” activities.

February 18, 2025 PARC Commission Meeting
Staff report agenda (attached) item 3: “Endorse the MALA Iftar Cultural Event.

RECOMMENDATION: Action to endorse the Iftar Dinner that is scheduled for Mach 15, 2025 as part of the PARC Commission’s efforts to increase cultural programming in Los Altos.” Staff again decided the Iftar is a cultural event and waived the room rental fee. PARC was told they had “an opportunity to endorse the event. … It’s just the public confirmation of accepting the event and that’s all.”
During the meeting, a commissioner said, “We as a commission need to make sure that we … understand the city's stance both legally and socially and legislatively to give us the scope where we know that we're okay making that decision and saying this particular cultural event is okay even though it may have certain elements that we individually might perceive as being religious.”
Again, the commissioners never received any information, instruction or guidance on how to distinguish cultural from religious events.

Another commissioner pointed out that “Council has already said that they want this in this year. lt's already on the calendar, the room’s already reserved, so I don't see that we have any choice other than to agree to it.”
The Commission Handbook says commissioners are appointed “to advise and make recommendations to the Council and Staff. … there may be instances when Staff’s recommendations on an issue may differ from that of the Commission.” Simply endorsing the Staff decision is counter to the commission’s charter, but commissioners obviously felt pressured to endorse Staff’s decision.
16 Culture or Religion: Who decides?
On February 11, I submitted a PRA request for “all documents the city uses to inform Council, Staff, commissioners and residents about what constitutes a religious vs. a cultural event.” I received this response on February 25: “The City does not own, possess or maintain any responsive public records.”
In other words, there are no documented city standards defining cultural or religious events.

That means every council member, every Staff member, every commissioner has nothing to go on but personal interpretations.

References to the display of Christmas trees and Menorahs in public places don’t provide adequate guidance to distinguish a cultural from a religious event.

Court decisions regarding separation of church and state reveal how difficult the decision can be. As one author wrote, “Court decisions have made the law a bit murky.” The ACLU noted that “the court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether.”
Lacking a common framework, it’s grossly unfair to criticize commissioners for using their best judgement while assuming Staff always makes the right call. Threats and bullying won’t improve anyone’s performance, but will promote a toxic culture and demean the city.

I urge Council to promote a team spirit at City Hall instead of pitting Staff against commissioners and residents.

Respectfully,
Pat Marriott Los Altos
17 18
19 From: Maria Bautista
To: City Council; Gabriel Engeland; Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment: City Council Meeting March 11, 2025 Items 10, 11 and 12 Date: Sunday, March 9, 2025 11:54:16 PM
Attachments: MEET-Packet-9f0d65b4371148e884a0c7b60b9c4074.pdf Dear City Council,
Attached please find 79 pages from the February 6, 2025 Joint Meeting Agenda that are not included in the Attachment 2. February 6, 2025, Agenda Item-Joint Planning Commission/Historical Commission Meeting of the City Council Agenda Report prepared by Nick Zornes and provided to you for the March 11, 2025 Public Hearings Items 10, 11 and

12. These missing pages include the Public Comments that were submitted in advance and in regard to the Joint Meeting Item #3: H24-0003 and DR24-0002 Natalie Tan for SSA Landscape Architects-13 South San Antonio Road more commonly known as as the Library Courtyard Project.

Best,
Maria Bautista
20 116
Item 2.
21 From: Pat Marriott
To: Public Comment - PC; Public Comment - HC
Cc: City Council
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT Planning/Historic Commission meeting ITEM #3 FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Date: Sunday, February 2, 2025 1:01:19 PM
Commissioners:

I was unable to find information in the packet regarding the reason for the size increase of the patio to 8265 sf.

That's a very large patio. It's almost four times the size of my 2200 sf home. The library itself is 28,000 sf.

Last November, the concept was 5,000 square feet of patio and walkway. A city staff report stressed that no orchard trees would be impacted.

If this large patio is approved, will it change any financials between the city and the SCCLA, given the additional civic center land taken by the library? These are important questions to be answered prior to making any decisions.

Thank you,
Pat Marriott
117
Item 2.
22 From: Bill Hough
To: Public Comment - PC; Public Comment - HC
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #3 FEBRUARY 6, 2025
Date: Sunday, February 2, 2025 3:04:58 PM
In a conflict between the Los Altos Library and the Historic Apricot Orchard that only involves 8,265 square feet of land, you must give priority to the solution that will benefit the most people.

The proposed Library Outdoor Patio will benefit more people than the orchard, and the orchard will still cover the entire Civic Center after the patio is built. Therefore, please recommend approval of the Historic Alteration Permit for the patio.

Bill Hough
Resident and taxpayer
118
Item 2.
23 From: Pat Marriott
To: Public Comment - PC; Public Comment - HC
Cc: City Council
Subject: 2nd PUBLIC COMMENT Planning/Historic Commission meeting ITEM #3 FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Date: Sunday, February 2, 2025 3:39:06 PM
Commissioners,
From the Novermber 28, 2023 staff report:

Fiscal Impact:

The Library Patio Project is fully funded by private donations through the Los Altos Library Endowment. The cost of the project is estimated to be $2 million with no funding required from the City of Los Altos. Cost for review and approval of the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit associated with this project will be fully paid by the project sponsors.

Given the increase in patio size from 5,000 sf to 8,265 sf, who will pay for the extra space? Thank you,
Pat Marriott
119
Item 2.
24 From: Pat Marriott
To: Public Comment - PC; Public Comment - HC
Cc: City Council
Subject: 3rd PUBLIC COMMENT Planning/Historic Commission meeting ITEM #3 FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Date: Sunday, February 2, 2025 5:23:38 PM
Commissioners:

I know design approvals are now at the administrative or planning commission level. Council no longer has design review function. I think that change was made to satisfy the HCD and get approval for the Housing Element Update.

However, it doesn't make sense to apply that process to public projects on public land, which is vastly different from a developer seeking approval for a private development on private property.

This means the planning commission would be able to approve a new police station or anything else on civic center property.

At the November 28, 2023 council meeting, Councilmembers Fligor and Lee Eng raised concerns the patio project would not come back to Council for review. Both dissented from the vote to carry the project forward.

Councilmember Fligor was in favor of the plans but thought the area size could be more limited to preserve tree space while allowing for adequate library meeting space. What would she say about the enlarged area of 8,265 sf? Unfortunately, we won’t have a chance to hear from her, since Council won’t have a vote on the new plan, which is hugely different from what they saw in 2023.

Cutting Council out of the loop is wrong. This patio proposal deserves more time, more community engagement and definitely another review from Council.

I strongly urge Council to make an exception to administrative/commission design approvals when public lands and/or public projects are at stake.

This patio project is the place to start. It takes a big chunk of the civic center (not even considering the historic orchard) and sets a dangerous precedent for anyone else who wants a piece of MY property.

Thanks for listening,
Pat Marrioitt
120
Item 2.
25 Outlook
4th PUBLIC COMMENT Planning/Historic Commission meeting ITEM #3 FEBRUARY 6, 2025 From Pat Marriott <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/3/2025 10:48 AM
To City Council <[email protected]>
Cc Public Comment - PC <[email protected]>; Public Comment - HC <[email protected]>
Council Members and Commissioners:

IGNORING ANY ORCHARD ISSUES, I object to this library patio project coming to the planning commission for consideration and possible approval.

At the November 28, 2023 council meeting, Council voted 3-2 (Councilmembers Fligor and Lee Eng dissenting) in favor of a library patio going to the planning commission for design approval. The patio proposal was then 5,000 sf.

The current proposal is 8,265 sf. Was it Council’s intention to let the library have 5,000 sf of public land? Or did Council authorize the library to take as much land as it wanted for a patio? Is an additional 3,265 sf OK? What if it was another 5,000 sf? What are the parameters Council is willing to live with in giving final approval to the planning commission? The size and design presented have never been vetted by Council, nor the public.

I’m no lawyer, but I think the patio as now presented violates the spirit and letter of “the law.” This project is an important test case of the design approval process, especially as it relates to public land.

Thanks for listening,
Pat Marriott
121
Item 2.
26 Outlook
Library Patio
From M Satterlee <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/3/2025 11:31 AM
To Public Comment - PC <[email protected]>; Public Comment - HC <[email protected]>
Hi,
There is a change in the proposed use and supplied furnishings from the conceptual plan approved by Council to the plan before you.

The conceptual plan was a gathering space that could be for many different reasons such as studying, eating, meetings, etc. as well library programs.

The furniture before you tonight is single use - a presentation/class room (and uncomfortable as well.) While I appreciate the library does plan to program the space, this furniture greatly limits the usefulness of the patio when it is not programmed.

I do not support the patio exclusively with bench seating as before you tonight.  It would simply be idle too many hours.

Sincerely,
Megan Satterlee
November 28th:
122
Item 2.
27 February 6th proposal:
123
Item 2.
28 Outlook
5th PUBLIC COMMENT Planning/Historic Commission meeting ITEM #3 FEBRUARY 6, 2025 From Pat Marriott <[email protected]>
Date Mon 2/3/2025 9:38 PM
To City Council <[email protected]>
Cc Public Comment - PC <[email protected]>; Public Comment - HC <[email protected]>
Council Members and Commissioners:

I truly hope this is my last public comment on this topic.

I have been asked where I got the 5,000 sf number for a previous version of the library patio.

I went back to documentation from the council meeting of November 28, 2023.

The action before Council that night did not specifically call out any dimensions for the patio. Only two items were in the agenda packet for that item:
1 The staff report, which says:

Consideration of the City Council
Tonight, the City Council is considering the general design, location, placement, and size of the Library Patio Project.
2 Concept drawings (added to the packet on November 27), which do not show dimensions. The only way one could determine the size would be to take an architect’s ruler to the drawing, which notes the scale as 1/8" = 1'-0". That would have been a challenging exercise, given the curved design.

From the council meeting transcript:

Nick Zornes: "...full intent of the conceptual plan that's before you tonight was to kind of meet in the middle as best as we possibly could of the intended size of the previous square footage which was about approximately 7,000 square feet ..." I assumed “previous square footage” referred to the June 27, 2023 meeting, at which time the staff report said:

Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:

Does the City Council wish to send this proposed project to the Development Services Director for review and necessary approvals for the use and expansion of approximately 7,700 square feet for construction of an enclosed patio with transitional green space at the Main Library.

At that meeting, Councilmember Fligor asked how library officials arrived at the proposed patio size and whether they were amenable to something smaller. 124 Item 2.
29 Librarian Rose Baiza indicated a lot of changes could and would be made.

Absent any specific dimensions in the November 28 packet, I believed architect Steve Sutherland when he said: “It's an L-shaped area. I don't think we have exact dimensions but it's about 5,000 square feet.”
Apparently, the Town Crier also assumed that was the size of the patio Council voted on:
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/los-altos-council-green-lights-controversiallibrary-expansion-proposal/article_328b9eae-93a8-11ee-9ffe-ef00e8bb2b17.html “The conceptual plan would create 5,000 square feet of patio and walkway space on the north side of the library.”
The 3-2 Council vote to move the concept forward did not indicate the size of the patio:

7. Authorization by City Council for the use of Civic Center Land for the Construction of Outdoor Library Patio and send to Planning Commission for Final Design Approval.

It’s unfortunate that there’s so much confusion over the details of this important project. I hope the commissioners at the February 6th meeting are absolutely clear on what they’re voting on.

I spent a lot of time digging in to this. If I misunderstood or overlooked any information, I hope you will get back to me and let me know where I got it wrong.

Sincerely,
Pat Marriott
125
Item 2.
30 Outlook
HC01/06/25 Meeting Agenda Item 02 Library Courtyard Project From Jim Wing <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2/4/2025 8:38 AM
To Public Comment - HC <[email protected]> PC Chair Beninato & History Commission Vice Chair Adams Subject: PC / History 01/06/2025 Meeting Library Courtyard Project I am concerned about Main Library Fire Exit Safety, Ability to see Video Monitors, and Noise from Main Library A/C Unit. I recommend you continue this Public Review to obtain Fire Department approval and allow applicant to address following issues:

Fire Exit Safety: Main Library has three [two double & one single] fire exit doors on south side and only one on north side. Library current usage configuration on northside is children room, public computers, meeting pods, and study desks. This means nearest Fire exit for 70% of occupants is northside door. Northside Courtyard project would require fire exit for main building evacuates to walk through north side door, then walk a five-steps, make a right turn, open gate then make left turn to get away from building. Also, Main Library floor elevation is at least 15 inches above Orchard elevation. Drawing does not show how elevation drop to sidewalks accessing Library parking, City Hal, and San Antonio sidewalks is managed. In my opinion, Fire Department would not approve of this design due to only single door exit and restricted access to sidewalks.

Main Library A/C unit next to Courtyard is very noisy: TRANE A/C unit is of older design and near its useful life. Page 35 shows how close it is to Courtyard Project. It is so noisy, that people sitting on bench where Courtyard Project is located will get up and move away when A/C is running. In my opinion, public sitting in planned Courtyard will be bothered by A/C noise.

Meeting attendees will be bothered by direct sunlight blocking video monitors. Seats are east / west. That allows direct sunlight, early to midmorning and mid to late afternoon to shine on monitors and block video monitors image. Midday viewing will not be blocked because monitors are designed to display only in indirect light. Late afternoon attendees will also be bothered by looking into setting sun.

Night light pole should be installed to guide pedestrians walking on “curved sidewalk” around sitting area. This will help guide pedestrians who park at Library and walk sidewalks to night Council and Planning city hall meetings. Only light we now have is street light on San Antonio. Light pole would also help nighttime security.

Thank you for your consideration! Jim Wing, Milverton Road, Los Altos 126
Item 2.
31 Outlook
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #3 FEBRUARY 6, 2025 Library Patio Joint Meeting From Roberta Phillips <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2/4/2025 11:23 AM
To Sean Gallegos <[email protected]>; Public Comment - PC <[email protected]>; Public Comment - HC <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Dear Commissioners and Staff Members
I am writing to ask you to deny the Historical Alteration Permit and the Design Review Permit.at the February 6,2025 joint meeting.

The location of the proposed 8,265 sq. ft patio is too large and overwhelming..  It is more than four times the size of my house.The placement is inappropriate as it sits between the Library and the City Hall where the Heritage Apricot Orchard is located. Even if this was not a historic site I would still want that land to be open space or green space, not a concrete patio with a tall wooden structure on top and around  the sides.. We, in Los Altos, have less parkland and open space than all the towns around us. As Los Altos becomes more dense it is even more important to preserve the land and open space we have now for the health and welfare of the community. The original proposal placed the Library in the front of the Library on the San Antonio Rd side and at the time the architect described it as approximately 5000 sq, ft.  There have been many debates as to the boundaries of the Heritage Apricot Orchard, but no one has discussed the boundaries of the Library.My understanding ( and I might be incorrect)  is that  the Library only rents the  interior of the building.

The Library  and NCLA could certainly find other space  to expand the Library if needed.  I actually agree with plans to redo the interior of the Library at the Civic Center  and to improve the landscaping at the Woodland Library adding a patio at that location. I see no reason for the Patio Project at the Civic Center  to move forward.  Over the thirty three years that I have lived in Los Altos there have been many requests to use the Civic Center land for one reason or another. Just like the Cable Cars are synonymous with San Francisco, the Heritage Apricot Orchard is an integral part of our community that adds to the pride, identity  and uniqueness  of  our town.

I ask that you ask the applicant  to find another location. A Library building, annex or patio can be located anywhere, but the Heritage Apricot Orchard cannot be replaced and should not be diminished.  I know that the City is investing money over the next few years to improve the conditions of the orchard and I applaud that effort.

Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
650-941-6940
127
Item 2.
32 128
Item 2.
33 Outlook
Joint Meeting February 6, 2025 Item #2 Orchards are Agricultural From Maria Bautista <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2/4/2025 6:59 PM
To Sean Gallegos <[email protected]>; Public Comment - HC <[email protected]>; Public Comment - PC <[email protected]>
1 attachment (609 KB)
2023 City of Los Altos Maintenance Orchard Service Agreement with Museum Executed 7-31-23.pdf; Hello,
Please clarify.

In TraenorHL Standard’s Compliance Review Part 2: Categorical Exemptions Exceptions Findings, beginning page 97, the report concludes that the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area where there are known environmental resources of critical concern like agriculture or farmland.

Our working orchard is agricultural.

The attached maintenance agreement between the City and History Museum (2023) highlights the recognition that the orchard has been in continuous production since 1901. The harvest has been sold at De Martini Orchard Market for years.

Why is it that CEQA provisions for agricultural land do not apply here? 129
Item 2.
34 130
Item 2.
35 131
Item 2.
36 132
Item 2.
37 133
Item 2.
38 134
Item 2.
39 135
Item 2.
40 136
Item 2.
41 137
Item 2.
42 138
Item 2.
43 Outlook
Joint Meeting Feb 6, 2025 Item#2: DPR update item, missing? From Maria Bautista <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2/4/2025 7:14 PM
To Sean Gallegos <[email protected]>; Public Comment - HC <[email protected]>; Public Comment - PC <[email protected]>
1 attachment (117 KB)
2 City Doc 2006 Los Altos Orchard Management Plan En Force copy.pdf; Hello,
It seems like the updated DPR and perhaps some of the assumptions by TreanorHL did not include consideration of the attached Apricot Orchard Management and Guidelines (2006), which I think is still en force.

These 2006 guidelines denote what seems like a clear understanding of all of the characteristics of the orchard, and how it functions.

Has another orchard management plan replaced this one?
Best,
Maria Bautista
139
Item 2.
44 To: Honorable City Council, Planning Commission and Historical Commission From: Andrew Mariani
Subject: Los Altos Heritage Orchard
As a local commercial orchardist for many years, I have been asked by several Los Altos citizens to comment on the problems facing the Los Altos Heritage Orchard. In the past, I have also consulted with some of the principals involved in the management of both the Saratoga and Sunnyvale Heritage Orchards. These orchards represent 3 distinct models, each having its own set of factors that impact the maintenance and preservation of their respective sites. However, there are also palpable challenges common to all three, most formidably their locations in urban, largely public settings, that make it increasingly difficult to accomplish the goal of orchard preservation.

While I am involved in fruit growing research and have written and lectured on various horticultural topics, my deep involvement in trying to preserve my own orchard in the face of urban pressures has helped me to identify various issues involved in preserving local orchards. There are several other orchardists, who have had similar experiences, including Charlie Olson, Mike McKinney, and Phil Cosentino. If City officials, stakeholders and other concerned parties are willing, some of us local growers are ready to visit the Los Altos orchard sometime in the near future and share our experience and expertise.

Major challenges include the general attrition of an aging orchard with a major focus on management practices to control putative diseases like Bacterial Canker, Oak Root Fungus and Monilinia Blossom and Fruit Rot. The goal is to improve the health and productivity of existing trees, replant where necessary for orchard renewal, and accomplish it in a sustainable, environmentally responsible way that also preserves the integrity of the orchard site. There are many new practices that have been developed for modern orchards, but to the extent practicable, the goal will be to not only preserve the trees but also the historical context in which the trees once thrived.

The approach involves a commitment to some traditional growing practices that have endured the test of time, like pruning, thinning and irrigation but will also utilize newer, scientifically based practices that further the continued health of the orchard. It is a difficult but not insurmountable goal. If this offer is of interest to those involved in the restoration and continued preservation of the Heritage Orchard in Los Altos, please respond. You may email me directly with any questions regarding this message.

Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Mariani, local orchardist
140
Item 2.
45 141
Item 2.
46

February 5, 2025 Letter to Los Altos Planning Commission and Historic Commission re Library Courtyard Project
Law Office of Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
[email protected]
707-291-6585
City of Los Altos
Planning Commission
Historical Commission
Sent via email:

[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
February 5, 2025
Re: Request for Historic Alteration Permit, Design Review, and Categorical Exemption for the Library Courtyard Project at 13 South Antonio Road Dear Senior Planner Sean Gallegos and members of the Los Altos Planning Commission and Historical Commission:

I’m writing to you on behalf of Catherine Nunes and the unincorporated association, Preservation Action League of Los Altos (PALLA) regarding the Library Courtyard project’s request for a Historic Alteration permit, Design Review approval and a Categorical Exemption that will be considered at the upcoming joint Planning Commission and Historical Commission hearing.

The proposed Library Courtyard project involves constructing a new courtyard north of the Los Altos Public Library, a portion of which overlaps the defined Historic Orchard boundaries. The project also proposes the permanent removal of seven planting sites from the Historic Orchard but summarily concludes that the loss “does not affect the orchard's historic significance or integrity.” (Page 6, Agenda Report for the Feb. 6, 2025, joint Planning Commission/Historical Commission hearing.) The removal of seven planting sites cannot be dismissed so easily for the following reasons. 142
Item 2.
47

February 5, 2025 Letter to Los Altos Planning Commission and Historic Commission re Library Courtyard Project
As a preliminary matter, prior to consideration of the issuance of a Historic Alteration Permit, the adequacy of the updated DPR for an established historic resource must first be determined by the Historic Commission and the City Council prior to the consideration of any further development or alteration of the historic site that relies on the updated DPR.

The new historic study prepared by Treanor confirms the importance of the historic Orchard and states that the resource also retains its historic integrity, therefore, any alteration to the historic resource via changes made to the DPR or the Library Courtyard Project that may result in direct or cumulatively significant historic impacts must be independently scrutinized by the Historic Commission and the Council and be accompanied by CEQA review.

A “project” under CEQA is any activity by a public agency that may cause either a direct or indirect change to the environment. (Pub. Res. Code 21065.) Here, any proposed change to the DPR that may result in a change to the boundaries of the historic site or development that is permitted on the historic site is subject to CEQA.

Regarding approval of the proposed Categorical Exemption for the Library Courtyard project, CEQA disallows adoption of mitigation measures along with a categorical exemption. Here, the City is proposing the adoption of numerous conditions of approval that act as mitigation measures regarding, bird nesting, tree preservation, and numerous others. (Agenda Report pgs. 4-8.) An agency may not evade CEQA by adopting mitigation measures simply to qualify a project for a categorical exemption. (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v.

County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1102 (Salmon Protection).) In Salmon Protection, a county acknowledged a residential construction project may have potential adverse impacts on adjacent stream habitat. It then adopted numerous conditions expressly to mitigate the impacts and thereby qualify the project for a categorial exemption. (Id. at p. 1104.) The court of appeal pointed out that mitigation measures, under CEQA, are only proper at later stages of the process, which the county evaded by prematurely adopting mitigation measures. (Id. at pp. 1107-1108; see also Azusa, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1200-1202.) 143
Item 2.
48

February 5, 2025 Letter to Los Altos Planning Commission and Historic Commission re Library Courtyard Project
Categorical Exemptions also do not apply when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time may be significant. (CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b).) Here, the City has been approving projects and other activities that entail the removal of apricot trees and permanent removal of planting sites in the historic Orchard without environmental review. All projects that propose the removal of historic Orchard land and Apricot trees must be considered in a cumulative impacts analysis. This includes review of the updated DPR and the Library Courtyard project.

The Agenda Report mischaracterizes the seven planting sites proposed for permanent removal within the Historic Orchard as bare ground and fails to reflect the nature of the site as agricultural or historic. The site’s agricultural use is well documented and cannot be characterized as bare ground. The Orchard and planting sites contribute to the context of the Gilbert Smith House and the Los Altos History House Museum as shown below.

The City’s 2023 Maintenance agreement with the Los Altos Historical Museum for the operation of the Los Altos Heritage Orchard establishes that the Orchard contributes to the context of J. Gilbert Smith House/Los Altos History House Museum. It further states that “by means of public/private funding supporting contractual agreements, LAHM proposes to provide oversight services to the CITY with the goal of maintaining, restoring and renovating the Heritage Orchard in a manner that provides an appealing working landscape facilitating a sense of place and civic pride in connecting the downtown, the Civic Center and the Community Center.” The proposed removal of the planting sites cannot be characterized as bare ground and their removal triggers CEQA.

The City must prepare an EIR for the Library Courtyard project prior to adopting mitigation measures. An EIR must also be prepared because the project may result in cumulatively significant impacts regarding the permanent removal of historic Orchard land, together with other past, present, and future projects, via the removal of Orchard trees or planting sites that have the capacity to be restored or renovated.
144
Item 2.
49

February 5, 2025 Letter to Los Altos Planning Commission and Historic Commission re Library Courtyard Project
Thank you,
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
On behalf of Catherine Nunes and PALLA
145
Item 2.
50 146
Item 2.
51 Requirements
(Excerpt from Appendix G, Certified Local Government Application and Procedures, August 1999, pp 41-47.)
Local governments may be certified to participate in the CLG program by complying with the following requirements:

I Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties:

A. State enabling legislation provides for local jurisdictions to enact appropriate historic preservation legislation. California Government Code Sections 65850, 25373, and 37361 enable city and county legislative bodies to provide for “the protection, enhancement; perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value.” B. Local governments must adopt local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to enforce the designation and protection of historic and archeological resources.

C. The local legislation shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470).

D. The CLG will adopt a historic preservation plan or a historic preservation element for the local jurisdiction's General Plan, as authorized by the California Government Code, prior to or upon applying for a CLG grant.

E. The CLG commission will participate in the environmental review of specific federally sponsored projects, such as community development programs involving HUD Block Grant funds unless it is determined by OHP that the necessary expertise is not available to the local government. The CLG will establish programmatic agreements with the state agreeing to ensure compliance with Section 106 provisions of the NHPA.

F. The CLG commission will participate in the environment review of local projects in accordance with the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commission may review and comment on permit actions affecting significant listed historic properties and other resources eligible for listing, in accordance with local ordinance requirements and with CEQA. Procedural guidelines should include standards for demolition stays, design review criteria, anti-neglect requirements, and appeal strategies.

II Establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by local law:

A. The commission shall include a minimum membership of five (5) individuals with all members having demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation.

B. At least two (2) Commission members are encouraged to be appointed from among professionals in the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural 147
Item 2.
52 history, planning, pre-historic and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, and landscape architecture or related disciplines, such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization, or cultural geography, to the extent that such professionals are available in the community. Commission membership may also include lay members who have demonstrated special interests, competence, experience, or knowledge in historic preservation.

C. A local government may be certified without the minimum number or types of disciplines established in state procedures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the state that it has made a reasonable effort to fill those positions, or that some alternative composition of the commission best meets the needs of the protection of historic properties in the local community.

D. Commission members shall be appointed by the chief elected local official, city council, or board of supervisors consistent with the provisions of the preservation ordinance. The appointing authority shall make interim appointments to fill unexpired terms in the event of vacancies occurring during the term of members of the commission. The appointing authority shall also act within sixty (60) days to fill a vacancy. Terms of office of the commission members shall be according to the local preservation ordinance.

E. The commission shall meet at least four times a year, with meetings held in a public place, advertised in advance, and open to the public, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq.) for open meetings.

Written minutes of commission meetings shall be kept on file, available for public inspection, and submitted to the state as a part of the CLG Annual Report.

F. Each commission member is required to attend at least one informational or educational meeting, seminar, workshop, or conference per year that pertains directly to the work and functions of the commission and would be approvable by the state. The CLG Regional Workshops sponsored by the OHP are important sources of information. The annual State Historic Preservation Conference generally provides special sessions devoted to the issues, objectives, and responsibilities of commissions. Commissions may also bring in professionals to provide training on site.

G. An annual report of the activities of the commission shall be submitted to the state at the end of each calendar year. The reports shall include, but not be limited to, such information as narrative summary of accomplishments, summaries of new and corrected survey activities, number of properties designated under local ordinance in relation to inventory for community, summaries of National Register applications reviewed, summaries of historical contexts prepared, number of federal tax certifications reviewed, number of properties on which design review was held, number of properties on which environmental project reviews were conducted, property owners of Mills Act contracts approved, summarization of local preservation activities, list of local landmark designations, description of public education activities, lists of commission members and resumes, list of staff and resumes, detailed listing of commission and staff training received, commission attendance 2 148
Item 2.
53 records, summary of changes in preservation laws, summary of adoption or updates of historic preservation plan or historic preservation element of your community's General Plan, commission meeting minutes and agendas, and other pertinent activities performed by the commission.

III Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties:

The CLG shall be responsible for organizing, developing, and administering an inventory of cultural resources within the entire spatial jurisdiction of the CLG.

A. The commission shall develop procedures for conducting an inventory of culture resources. Survey activities shall be coordinated with and complementary to the state program to ensure that survey results produced by the CLG will be readily integrated into the statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning process.

1. The CLG shall be responsible for overseeing the compiling, recording, and updating of inventory information on cultural resources within its jurisdiction. The information shall be based on comprehensive surveys conducted in conformance with state survey standards and procedures.

Surveys completed prior to the certification of a local government may be re-evaluated in accordance with state standards and may be submitted for inclusion in the State database.

2. As part of any ongoing survey effort, procedural requirements must allow for periodic update of survey results as buildings gain maturity and as new areas are incorporated or annexed by the CLG.

3. The commission must adopt state guidelines for conducting its inventory of historic properties. State-approved inventory forms (DPR-523, A-L) and the OHP's Instructions For Recording Historical Resources shall be used to facilitate integration into the state electronic data system and for statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning purposes. Dimitri software is available for the DPR 523 forms.

4. Standards for the evaluation of properties must be consistent with the National Register of Historic Places criteria.

A. The commission shall establish internal procedures to facilitate the use of survey results in the planning process by the CLG officials and departments.

The commission shall submit survey results to the local government for adoption, then forward to OHP. Copies of the survey should be on deposit at the local planning department, building and safety office, public works department, and redevelopment agency. Libraries, colleges, and historical societies should also receive copies. OHP will make copies available for the appropriate “California Historical Resources Information System” regional center. See IV(A)(2) below for public access requirements.

IV Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program:

A The CLG shall provide opportunities for public participation in all responsibilities delegated to the CLG, in accordance with appropriate regulations, standards, and guidelines.
3 149
Item 2.
54 1. Public participation shall be fully encouraged at local commission meetings. Commission meetings shall be open to the public, with published agenda and minutes in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq.) for open meetings. The published agenda shall be mailed in advance of meetings to individuals and citizen organizations interested in the commission’s activities.

2. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the performance of the historic survey program at all levels of responsibility to identify and inventory significant cultural resources in the jurisdiction of the CLG. The public can serve as volunteers to assist in the survey effort. Survey results shall be of public record and on file at a public institution, except in the case of sensitive resources, e.g., archeological sites subject to vandalism.

3. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the nomination process for the National Register of Historic Places program. The CLG shall invite comments from the general public regarding National Register nominations.

4. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in all public hearings on projects related to CEQA and Section 106 processes.

V Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to the CLG:

A. The CLG shall prepare a comprehensive local historic preservation plan which would identify preservation missions, goals, and priorities. The plan would also establish preservation strategies, programs, and time schedules.

B. The CLG will participate in the review and comment on historic preservation certification applications for tax incentives. The CLG and state may establish procedures for implementation of the investment tax credit program at the local level in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation.

C. Each CLG must have a local historic preservation plan prior to or upon becoming a CLG before any additional grant applications will be considered.

The state shall monitor and evaluate the performance of the CLG for consistency with the identification, evaluation, and preservation priorities of the comprehensive state historic preservation planning process.

1. Annual Review of CLGs:

The State shall conduct an annual review of CLGs to assure that each government continues to meet the minimal requirements and is satisfactorily performing its responsibilities. As part of this review, the state shall examine the annual reports submitted by the CLGs, records of the administration of funds allocated from the HPF, and other documents as necessary. The CLG shall make these records available to the state.

A more thorough review and site visit to the Certified Local Government will occur at least once every three (3) years.

2. Procedures for Decertification:

If the state evaluation indicates that the CLG no longer meets the minimal requirements or that in any other way a CLG's performance is not 4 150
Item 2.
55 satisfactory, the state shall document that assessment and recommend to the local government steps to bring its performance up to a satisfactory level. The CLG shall have a period of not less than 30 nor more than 180 days to implement improvements; If the state determines that sufficient improvement has not occurred, the state shall decertify the local government, citing specific reasons for the decertification. Performance shall be deemed unsatisfactory if one or more of the following conditions exist or is applicable: a) the commission fails to perform its delegated responsibilities within established time periods; b) the CLG fails to coordinate its responsibilities with the state; c) the commission substantially fails to maintain consistency of its design review decisions with the Secretary's Standards for Historic Preservation; d) the CLG fails to maintain a qualified historic preservation review commission membership; e) the CLG fails to enforce the provisions of the local preservation ordinance; f) the CLG fails to enforce its CEQA and Section 106 responsibilities; g) the CLG fails to adequately survey historical resources in its jurisdiction; and h) the CLG fails to comply adequately with proper fiscal management of HPF grants in accordance with the National Register Programs Guideline, OMB Circular A-128, and 43 CFR 12.

3. Decertification Appeal:

If the state recommends decertification, the local government may appeal to the NPS. The NPS has 45 days to respond to the appeal.

4. Decertification Without Prejudice:

CLGs may petition the OHP to be decertified voluntarily and without prejudice.

5. Financial Assistance Close-out:

The state shall conduct financial assistance close-out procedures pursuant to the National Register Program Guideline when a local government is decertified.

VI The CLG shall assume certain responsibilities for reviewing and recommending properties within its jurisdiction to the National Register of Historic Places.

A. The SHPO shall have the sole responsibility of nominating National Register properties directly to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary).

B. The CLG shall establish local procedures for the National Register nomination process consistent with the requirements in the NHPA, Section 101(c)(2).

1. Before a property within the jurisdiction of a CLG may be considered by the state to be nominated to the National Register, the state shall notify the owner, the applicable chief elected local official, and the local historic preservation commission. The commission, after reasonable opportunity for public comment, shall prepare a report as to whether or not such property, in its opinion, meets the criteria of the National Register. Within sixty (60) days of notice from the state, the chief elected local official shall transmit the report of the commission and his/her recommendation to the state. After receipt of such report and recommendation, or if no such report and recommendation are received within sixty (60) days, the state 5 151
Item 2.
56 shall process the National Register nomination. The state may expedite such process with the concurrence of the CLG.

2. If both the commission and the chief elected local official recommend that a property not be nominated to the National Register, the state shall take no further action, unless within thirty (30) days of the receipt of such recommendation by the state, an appeal is filed with the state. If such an appeal is filed, the state shall follow the procedure for making a nomination pursuant to Section 101(a). Any report and recommendations made under this section shall be included with any nomination submitted by the state to the Secretary.

VII By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG. Local governments may be certified to participate in specific program activities under Programmatic Agreements.

A. The CLG may develop educational programs promoting historic preservation at the local level such as, but not limited to, sponsorship of preservation workshops, publication of preservation information, organizing preservation fairs, conducting walking tours, preparing preservation curricula for schools, etc.

B. Commission members may act in an advisory capacity to other officials and departments within the local government and act as a liaison on behalf of the CLG to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation issues at the local level.

C. The CLG may participate in the Mills Act program or other economic incentive programs to provide property-tax relief for owners of historic properties.

D. The CLG may participate in the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act for issuance of tax-exempt industrial development bonds, providing that the commission shall serve as a part of the required citizen advisory board.

E. The CLG may assume certain responsibilities of recommending National Register of Historic Places properties, identified in the CLG jurisdiction, directly to the State Historical Resources Commission.

F. By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG.
6 152
Item 2.
57 153
Item 2.
58 154
Item 2.
59 155
Item 2.
60 156
Item 2.
61 157
Item 2.
62 158
Item 2.
63 159
Item 2.
64 160
Item 2.
65 161
Item 2.
66 162
Item 2.
67 163
Item 2.
68 164
Item 2.
69 165
Item 2.
70 166
Item 2.
71 167
Item 2.
72 168
Item 2.
73 Jane M. Packard, PhD
[email protected] |

MEMORANDUM
February 6, 2025
TO: Esteemed members of the Historical Commission
City of Los Altos

Sean Gallegos
Staff Liaison to Historical Commission
FROM: Jane M. Packard, PhD
Volunteer Chair, Orchard Commons Committee, Los Altos History Museum RE: Public Hearing- Agenda item H24-0003 and DR24-0002
The purpose of this comment is to provide additional information relevant to the Historical Alteration Permit and Design Review for a new library courtyard, based on my personal perspective. The Los Altos History Museum is responsible for maintenance services in the Civic Center Apricot Orchard, under contract from the City of Los Altos (July 2023-June 2026). The information provided below addresses the historical integrity of this landmark as related to (a) the orchard irrigation system, (b) protection of one row of tree replacement sites, and (c) alteration of the spatial character linking the eastern and western portions of the orchard. In the narrative, references will be made to the specific pages (L-1.0 through L-7.1) and content of the document titled “Los Altos Library Courtyard” (project plans).

Orchard Irrigation System
The existing orchard irrigation system is an integral component of historical integrity of the orchard, as it is necessary to maintain the grid spacing and the health of the apricot trees in that grid. The orchard irrigation system is not marked on the basemap on page L-1.0 of the project plans. The following options would address this oversight.

OPTION A. Add to the basemap (L-1.0, L-5.0) the existing irrigation lines for three rows of trees north of the library walkway and 3 trees west of the library entrance. Three irrigation boxes with flush valves mark the ends of these lines. Also add the irrigation line and boxes that serve the trees 4,5,6 as designated on L-1.1.
169
Item 2.
74 Public Comment
February 6, 2025

OPTION B. Add an item to the list of “Preservation & Protection” on L-1.0, with wording such as:
“UNDERGROUND ORCHARD IRRIGATION LINE- PROTECT IN PLACE”.

OPTION C. Add a note on L-1.0 to protect the three apricot trees at the NW corner of the project (designated as 4,5,6 on L-1.1)
OPTION D. Add a note on L-1.0 to protect the two irrigation structures and white posts at the north edge of the access road that crosses the walkway between the Library and City Hall.

OPTION E. Add an item to the list of “Preservation & Protection” on L-1.0 with wording such as “ABOVE GROUND HISTORIC IRRIGATION STRUCTURE- PROTECT IN PLACE OR COORDINATE WITH MUSEUM REPRESENTATIVE”
OPTION F. Add a note on L-1.0 to protect the backflow structure and orchard irrigation boxes drawn northeast of the water meter on the walkway between the Library and City Hall, with wording such as “ORCHARD IRRIGATION- PROTECT IN PLACE”
Justification: Disruption of the irrigation line closest to the library walkway will disrupt the flow of water to the other rows of trees in that section of the orchard. The irrigation box at the end of the line will need to be moved as indicated. This should be done in coordination with a representative of the Los Altos History Museum. If accidental damage occurs to the line during the construction process, the contractor should be liable even if the damage occurs outside the planned construction fence as drawn on L-1.0. During construction, the fence may be moved to accommodate heavy equipment on an ad-hoc basis. If the orchard irrigation system is not clearly marked on the basemap, workers will have no reference regarding their flexibility in moving the fence. This comment is based on experiences during the construction project at the Los Altos Youth Center. With regard to OPTIONS D and E, the irrigation structure is “historic material” that documents how the orchard was irrigated during the previous decade. Although this historic material is omitted from the CEQA analysis, let it be entered into the Public Record.

This would comply with Standard #2 (see Standards Compliance Review). With regard to OPTION F, the irrigation system for the orchard rows along San Antonio is controlled by nodes in the designated irrigation boxes. Accidental damage to that irrigation system would jeopardize the health of trees in the western section of the orchard.

Protection for One Row of Tree Replacement Sites
The historical integrity of the orchard is defined by the rows of trees planted in a grid pattern (see Staff Report pg 7, paragraph 1). One of the rows is not marked on the basemap of L-1.0.

Although only one tree is still living in this row, there are 16 locations for replacement of trees that were living in 2022 (see Figure 22 in Standards Compliance Review). Since August 2023, those locations have been marked by stakes and the corresponding irrigation valves have been marked by orange flags. Apparently, these tree replacement sites were overlooked in the field reports that are the basis for the documents summarized in the Staff Report and preparation of 170
Item 2.
75 Public Comment
February 6, 2025

the basemap L-1.1. The tree sites marked on L-1.1 in the inset east of the landmark boundary are inaccurate. There are 6 existing trees in each of the northern two rows and 5 tree replacement sites should be added to the southern row with the one existing tree.

OPTION G. Add symbols representing 16 protected tree replacement sites in the orchard row along the library walkway on L-1.1, L-2.0, L2.1, L-2.2, L-4.0, L-5.0.

OPTION H. Correct the inaccuracies in the tree sites east of the landmark boundary.

OPTION I. Add lines to the tree table on L-1.1 describing the 11 tree replacement sites inside the orchard boundary as well as the 5 tree replacement sites on the row extending east of the boundary toward the museum, in order to clarify that the status is protected for the entire 3 rows of trees and tree replacement sites.

Justification: As the Staff Report states, standard agricultural practice has been replacement of trees that died within the grid pattern. Just because a tree is not currently growing in a site on the grid, does not mean the site is outside the spatial configuration that provides the historical integrity of the orchard. Damage to the soil at the 16 tree replacement sites could preclude successful growth at those sites when the replacement trees are replanted. Damage might be direct or indirect related to the specified schedule of washing to reduce air contamination due to particulate matter. The Staff Report confirms that the patio will remove 7 tree replacement sites from the grid and presents a convincing argument that it is not the number of tree sites, rather the spatial configuration of the grid that defines the historical integrity. However, the Staff Report overlooks whether failure to protect an entire row of trees within the grid would affect the historical integrity. This particular row is impactful because it lines the walkway to the Smith House, which is registered as a California Point of Historical Interest with the orchard as providing context. Without explicit detailing of the need for protection of the trees along the entire three rows north of the Library, there will be no information for the contractor that would preclude use of the land as a staging area. This would apply to both the land inside the landmark boundary and to the east of the landmark boundary where there are existing trees (between the Youth Center and the Library walkway). The contractor should be liable for damage to the soil as well as the trees and irrigation lines along the entire three rows of the tree grid. Standard #6 states that “Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence.” There is sufficient pictorial evidence for 3 rows of trees in this location in the HRI#15 (Figure 8), Standards Compliance Review (Figures 2, 14, 15), and Staff Report (Figures 1, 3).

Spatial Character: East/West Link
The concrete footprint of the patio entrance extends into the access road that connects the eastern and western portions of the orchard. This access road is essential for routine orchard maintenance so it is good that the specifications are for vehicular concrete. The construction fence extends into the area that was previously planted with rows of trees between the City Hall 171
Item 2.
76 Public Comment
February 6, 2025

enclosed patio and the Library. This use of space as a construction staging area alters the fundamental feature of the orchard previously consisting of a continuous grid of trees connecting the eastern and western portions of the orchard.

OPTION J. Mitigation for loss of tree sites on the orchard grid could be offset by providing resources to rehabilitate tree sites that were formerly on the grid and are now empty in this section connecting the eastern and western portions of the tree grid.

Justification: Standard #2 states in part “alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided”. Connection of the eastern and western portions of the orchard grid is a feature that characterizes the historical integrity of this property. This land between the City Hall enclosed patio and the library has not been rehabilitated due to the impacts of previous use as a construction staging area. It is a reasonable location for a staging area at the present time.

However, after completion of the construction it will remain empty and detract from the historic character of the property unless rehabilitated. Considering that the construction will impact the number of trees on the grid and the connectivity between the eastern and western portions of the grid, the substantial cumulative impacts could be offset by arranging for mitigation to rehabilitate the tree grid in this section. For the record, there is sufficient pictorial evidence for rows of trees in this location in the HRI#15 (Figures 3, 4, 5, 7), Standards Compliance Review (Figures 2, 14, 15), and Staff Report (Figures 1, 2, 3). 172
Item 2.
77 173
Item 2.
78 174
Item 2.
79 175
Item 2.
80 176
Item 2.
81 177
Item 2.
82 178
Item 2.
83 179
Item 2.
84 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Robert Specker <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 5:23 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment: Joint Commission Public Hearing, February 6, 2025, Item #2 Dear Council and Commissions—
The design looks like it’s for holding solar panels in a parking lot. Further, the idea computer screens in the garden is sad.

This is particularly true because we have equivalent facilities at the new community center mere yards away.

Also consider the intrusion on the “quad” itself; the quad is a highlight of the ranch architecture of the entire original site plan. Why destroy those axis lines (visual, physical, communicative) for this (more screens)?
At a minimum, please delay this project pending a full public process.

Best regards,
Robert Specker
180
Item 2.
85 181
Item 2.
86 182
Item 2.
87 Outlook
Fwd: Joint Commission Meeting February 6, 2025
From Maria Bautista <[email protected]>
Date Wed 2/5/2025 12:53 PM
To Public Comment - PC <[email protected]>; Public Comment - HC <[email protected]>; Public Comment <[email protected]> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Maria Bautista <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Joint Commission Meeting February 6, 2025
To: Sean Gallegos <[email protected]>, Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Hi Sean,
Please clarify:

The agenda for Thursday night’s meeting is titled Joint Planning Commission/Historical Commission Meeting, but the business of the meeting reads like a Planning Commission meeting.

The agenda begins with the Planning Commission Minutes and concludes with Planning Commission Work Plan. The Historical Commission has no business on those items.

When they “establish quorum,” who counts? Planning Commissioners? Historical Commissioners? Or joint commissioners?
The Historical Commission and the Planning Commission are resolving two separate and distinct questions; there are two items in one agenda item #2.

Will members of the public then be granted time to speak on each and both the Historical Alteration Permit and the Design Review?
Who is chairs the meeting?
Will City Council Liaisons to the Historical Commission and Planning Commission be in attendance?
Best,
Maria
183
Item 2.
88 184
Item 2.
89 185
Item 2.
90 186
Item 2.
91 February 6, 2025
City of Los Altos Historical and Planning Commissions
1 N. San Antonio Rd.

Los Altos, CA 94022
Dear Commissioners:

I am writing with regards to Item 2, “Request for a Historical Alteration Permit and Design Review for a new library courtyard,” on the agenda for the joint meeting of the Historical Commission and Planning Commission on Thursday, February 6.

The Los Altos History Museum supports the library’s efforts to enhance its outdoor space and recognizes the potential benefits of a new courtyard for the Civic Center community.

The Museum is also the steward of the Los Altos Heritage Orchard under contract with the City (July 2023–June 2026). To that end, I urge you to seriously consider:

1. Preserving the irrigation system as a key part of the orchard’s historical grid.

2. Protecting a row of tree replacement sites along the walkway to the Smith House.

3. Mitigating spatial changes to maintain continuity of the grid between the orchard’s eastern and western sections.

You may refer to Public Comment 26 submitted by Jane M. Packard, PhD, for further details on these three points.

This project and preservation of the historical integrity of the orchard can coexist with thoughtful planning. I appreciate your efforts to balance community improvement with historical stewardship.

Sincerely,
Anna Toledano, PhD
Executive Director
51 South San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022
www.LosAltosHistory.org
650.948.9427
Los Altos History Museum gathers and
presents compelling stories and artifacts
that bridge the past and the present by
fostering the creative energy of staff and
volunteers to challenge established
narratives and produce engaging
educational programs and exhibits for the
community.

Board of Directors
Vicki Holman, President
Kuljeet Kalkat, 1st Vice President
Margo Horn, 2nd Vice President
Wayne Hooper, Treasurer
Jay Thomas, Secretary
Gerri Acers Allison Aldrich
Wynn Belton Christopher Fling
Tyler Furuichi Rebecca Lowell
Cindy Bogard O’Gorman
Jennifer Springer Jeanine Valadez
Jung Yoon
Sophie Filer, Youth Director
Staff
Anna Toledano, PhD, Executive Director
Amy Ellison, PhD, Curator and Director
of Exhibitions
Diane Holcomb, Director of
Communications
Sophia Abarca, Curator of Collections
Lisa Porter, Rental Events Marketing
Manager
Barbara Klein, Bookkeeper
Faustino Carrillo, Gardener
Los Altos History Museum’s
legal name is the Association of
the Los Altos Historical Museum;
tax i.d. number 94-2542813. We are a
501(c)(3) organization and your gifts are tax
deductible.
187
Item 2.
92 188
Item 2.
93 Goal Projects Anticipated
Completion Priority Source Status Assignment Notes
Housing Element Implementation
Review and provide recommendation to Council on code amendments or other policy documents necessary to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031)
As needed Powers and Duties In Progress City Staff
Development Project Review Provide recommendation or decision on development projects. As needed Powers and Duties In Progress City Staff General Plan Safety Element
Review and provide recommendation to Council on the comprehensive update to the City’s Safety Element. State legislation requires that the Safety Element be reviewed and updated as necessary alongside the Housing Element. The City’s Housing Element was last adopted in January 2023.
2025 Powers and Duties In Progress City Staff and
Consultant
Comprehensive General Plan
Update
Review components of the draft General Plan Elements. The City’s current General Plan has a horizon from 2002-2020 necessitating a comprehensive update
TBD Powers and Duties
Process to be
started in
2025.

City Staff and
Consultant
2025 Los Altos Planning Commission Work Plan
189
Item 3.
94 From: Jeanine Valadez
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment item 13
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 11:58:38 AM
Attachments: 2025_03_09 Public Comment Item 13 LARE MEUP Draft assessment & Questions by Jeanine V2.0.docx Hello, please see attached public comment.

Thanks, Jeanine Valadez
95 Los Altos MEUP AB481 Draft to be presented by PD to City Council 2025_03_11 Public Comments by Jeanine Valadez V2.0 2025_03_09

Mayor Dailey, Vice Chair Weinberg, and Councilmembers Fligor, Lang, and Meadows:

These concerns and questions are not in order of importance, but in order as they appear in the MEUP or the ME list. I have organized my public comment into 5 sections:
1) Relegation of ME Inventory list to outside the policy body:

The ME list remains in an Attachment and therefore, according to last year’s assertion by our City Attorney, does not fall under the annual review requirement. This obviates the entire purpose of giving the public the right to review and discuss the current and proposed content of the ME list with the PD and the governing body. Please return the ME list to its proper place as a section of the main document.

The most sensible location would be as section 709.9.
2) Section 709.1.1 Definitions section:

In previous editions of this policy, Los Altos for Racial Equity (LARE) worked with PD leadership to simplify and clarify the definitions of ME in the text of AB481. The group’s outreach to residents reflected that many of the terms were confusing or possibly misleading, especially when our local PD tried to abbreviate the wording in AB481. On the other hand, having the list of definitions of the types of ME numbered in accordance with the list of definitions in AB481 made it very easy for the public to see correspondence between the state law and our local policy.

It seems that the currently requested changes revert to using complex AB481 lexicon. In some cases, the changes requested conflict with AB481. And the numbering system has been removed.

Specific requests:
a) In defining the “governing body” for this policy, it was previously clear that our city charter defines the City Council as the governing body; therefore, the PD agreed to replace “governing body” with “City Council.” AB481 does allow for an appointed body to oversee the PD, however, it allows this only if there is no elected body. The implication is that if there is no elected body, then an appointed body will come into existence through a higher elected body, like a county or state authority. [Citation per REF AB481: “(a) “Governing body” means the elected body that oversees a law enforcement agency or, if there is no elected body that directly oversees the law enforcement agency, the appointed body that oversees a law enforcement agency.”) The proposed MEUP policy makes it a simple, local choice to set either the City Council or an appointed body as the governing body. This is not allowed by the law.

Please return the definition of the governing body to the prior version. Alternatively, this simplified definition is sufficient: “Governing Body – The Los Altos City Council.” b) Past outreach to the public supported adding the definition of common acronyms that are used repeatedly right up front in the Definitions section. Past PD (and the City Attorney by dint of approving it) agreed that making this change did not violate any terms of AB481. Additionally, including “such as” examples of more technically defined munitions and weapons would increase the accessibility of the policy language. For example, the 2024 definition clarified that a “tracked vehicle” was not a vehicle tracked by GPS, as many members of the public assumed, but was, in fact, a vehicle armed with a belt96 Los Altos MEUP AB481 Draft to be presented by PD to City Council 2025_03_11 Public Comments by Jeanine Valadez V2.0 2025_03_09

tracked propulsion system as the law explains. Or citing that “area denial electroshock devices” included Tasers. Or that “noise-flash diversionary devices” included flashbangs with some level of shrapnelproducing injury-causing elements, which meant they were more intense than their description as merely “diversionary” implied. Why were these explanatory elements removed? How do these explanatory elements harm the policy? Please return them to the text. c) why is the numbering system of this section being removed and replaced with an un-numbered bullet-dot system? This makes it more difficult to compare our list of ME categories to AB481’s 16 numbered types of ME.
3) Assault/semi-auto/automatic rifles:

PD is asking to replace the old Colt version with Daniel Defense models and seeks to increase the count to 36, which puts an AR rifle in every officer’s personal armory.

Specific Requests:
a) our current inventory includes the Colt AR rifles (27) and Daniel Defense AR rifles (5, only for SWATtrained officers – we have no SWAT team, instead, we join Mountain View’s SWAT whenever SWAT is needed; our SWAT officers train with MVPD). Clearly, the current MEUP distinguishes the Daniel rifles as SWAT-suitable. Why does Los Altos need the additional capabilities and increased intensities of harmfulness and lethality afforded by the Daniel versions? The report refers to the custom sighting per weapon. This utility is for snipers who shoot from very long range, often with a spotter. That application seems extremely unlikely in this city. Is the added cost of equipment and personnel really warranted given the lack of any substantial history of use? Such specialty equipment belongs in the hands of SWAT, not patrol or community officers. I do not believe we need a custom-tuned assault rifle in every officer’s hands. Please replace EOL Colt’s with similarly specified and priced models only as needed. Purchase Daniel rifles for SWAT snipers.
b) it is my understanding that if a MEUP weapon is made “standard issue,” meaning it is made a part of every officer’s assigned armory, then that military weapon no longer must be reported and tracked in the MEUP Annual Report. Given that the PD request is to intensify every officer’s assault rifle weaponry to what was previously used only by SWAT (the Daniel AR rifles), then if City Council approves the issuance of the Daniel AR rifles to every officer, will City Council no longer require MEUP tracking of these rifles? Put another way: will City Council exploit the AB481 escape clause for standard-issue weapons? Please, never exempt any assault rifles from public scrutiny and accountability! This “standard issue” clause in AB481 incentivizes overspending and turns military-grade weaponry into untracked weaponry, which increases the risk of civil rights violations and fatalities. 4) Drones:

Last year, 4 drones were approved, two exterior, two interior. The two interior drones were never bought. So tonight, PD is asking to switch the interior drones to a new make and model and requests adding a training drone.

Specific Requests:
a) If PD didn’t feel the need to buy the interior and training drones last year, why now? 97 Los Altos MEUP AB481 Draft to be presented by PD to City Council 2025_03_11 Public Comments by Jeanine Valadez V2.0 2025_03_09

b) How does an exterior drone differ from an interior one, other than size? c) While it is true that an interior drone can be used to deliver, say, a cell phone to a suspect that is expecting it, more often, the presence of an unanticipated interior drone adds much anxiety and the risk of unpredictability or threat to a suspect enduring a mental health crisis or under the influence of drugs or suffering from desperation. What is the compelling application that cannot be achieved with exterior drones?
d) Are interior drones constrained from being “too small” so as not to become less detectable, spy-like vehicles?
e) It's my understanding that in the state of California, using each drone requires a two-person team, namely, a driver and a spotter, and the usage always requires visual line-of-site (VLOS) connection by the spotter to the drone. Spotters always increase drone usage efficacy, enable safer usage, and provide a measure of mutual supervision to reduce the likelihood of misuse. e1) In what Los Altos PD policy is this requirement detailed? It is not in the ab481 policy coming before the City Council, nor in 611 that I could find.
e2) Please describe the role of the spotter during the use of an interior drone. f) PD Policy 611 says that drone data/video that is not part of an investigation (or has no evidentiary value) will be discarded no later than 30 days after being gathered. Please confirm that no changes are being made to that policy.
g) what are the data/video-sharing policies with agencies outside Los Altos, with ICE, with other states, and federally? Policy 611 is silent on this, citing only that sharing may occur with “other law enforcement personnel” with no constraint on locale or usage, and in a separate bullet, referring to sharing with “other third parties pursuant to Court Order or Search Warrant.” This loose policy means that the MEUP allowed uses are pretty unconstrained. I ask that sharing be tightened up, either in 611 or in MEUP 709, preferably the former.
h) Why have Exhibitions for the public been added as an allowed use? It should not be the goal to normalize the use of drones by police in situations not invoked by actually fighting crime or responding to disaster. Using drones at “community events” inures the public to surveillance and entices the public to think of these as toys or entertainment. I ask that this use be prohibited. If education is desired, show videos of footage gathered in actual disaster relief or use stock promotional videos already created by the manufacturers.
5) I Propose Alternative Expenditures in Public Safety: Speeding Prevention and Pedestrian-Enabled Safety Solutions
I believe that speeding and distracted driving are the highest-frequency crimes being committed in our city. Speeding is prevalent, just as likely to occur in small interior streets as it is on larger thoroughfares.

Los Altans are scared, injured, or killed by speeding and distracted drivers. I would like to advocate for PD budget spending away from their weaponry and towards their deployment of speeding tech and other solutions like pedestrian safety and traffic calming. 98 Los Altos MEUP AB481 Draft to be presented by PD to City Council 2025_03_11 Public Comments by Jeanine Valadez V2.0 2025_03_09

I like that the usage policies being proposed in the speeding tech pilots that are being conducted in California cities right now seem to be more restrictive on what may be surveilled, including assurances that only rear licenses are still-photo (not video-) captured...not even the entire rear thumbprint, just the plate, and that data capture is triggered only if excessive speed is detected. This is a much more selective process since the "legal transaction" is the citing of a crime committed the instant the excessive speed is detected.

In any event, I am intrigued and have signed up for updates from the San Jose speeding tech pilot happening now, spanning over the next few years. San Jose is one of 6 cities, see link after this paragraph. I think the PD, Complete Streets, and city staff should be studying the nature of these pilots and the approved installations in other cities across the US. link to San Jose pilot:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/transportation/projects/speedcameras-project I am NOT a fan of physical obstructions like street humps, curb/island bump outs, and street narrowing.

While they absolutely slow traffic, I believe they dangerously put obstructions in front of cars to disrupt smooth flow. In fact, they often create a short-distance single-lane situation which causes oncoming cars to suddenly stop, increasing the likelihood of bumper crashes and confusion about right-of-way. It makes sense that stop-starts increase crashes.

These installations also require significant construction costs and usage downtimes for cities. And finally, resultant damage to cars generally imposes greater financial downsides on poor people (workers) than on the relatively wealthy (residents).

Instead, I am a fan of human crossing guards and pedestrian-enabled crosswalk technology that includes in-pavement lights, accessible pedestrian-triggered sound- and visual-signaling equipment, crosswalk scrambles, and other solutions that alert and stop drivers safely and help pedestrians cross safely.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather see the PD spend public safety dollars on the speeding tech, pedestrian safety, and less disruptive traffic calming tech, than on ALPRs and ME. 99 From: Maria Bautista
To: City Council; Public Comment
Cc: PALLA; Catherine Nunes
Subject: City Council Meeting March 11, 2025: Notice of Brown Act Violations Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 1:05:48 PM
Attachments: 3.11.25 Notice of Brown Act Violations.docx Dear City Council,
Attached please find a Notice and Request for Fair Public Hearing and Consideration of Continuance and Cures related to the City Council Meeting scheduled for March 11, 2025.

Please provide a return receipt for this email submission. 100

Preservation Action League Los Altos (PALLA)
Notice and Request for Fair Public Hearing and
Consideration of Continuance and Cures
In Regard to the Public Hearing,
City Council Meeting March 11, 2025

The Brown Act or “Open Meeting Law” found in the California Government Code § 54950 et seq. 1. was enacted in 1953 to guarantee the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies. The Brown Act is pivotal in making public officials accountable for their actions, and in allowing the public to participate in the decision-making process.

On behalf of the Preservation Action League Los Altos, we ask you, Los Altos City Council, to consider a continuance of the March 11, 2025 Public Hearing and other cures in light of the following Brown Act violations:

1. Appearance of Impropriety: Item Descriptions Agenda Items 10, 11 and 12 The agenda item description for each of the three Appeals opens “ Deny the appeal and uphold the decision” which suggests bias, forethought of prejudice and a predetermined outcome. The intent of a Public Hearing is to “hear” the petition. The agenda language runs counter to expectations for fundamental fairness and due process afforded in a Public Hearing.

The impact of the chosen agenda language has a chilling effect on participation by the public. The City has a procedure for an appeal that includes the payment of a $1,000 fee as a testament to the seriousness of the concern. For the agenda to then indicate publicly, and state forcibly, that the decision has already been made before the applicant has had an opportunity to speak runs counter to the guarantees of a Public Hearing, and shows a lack of adherence to our foundational beliefs in justice.

Further, because this agenda language which is a likely a restating of a Staff recommendation is not within the standard practice of Los Altos City Council, it can only be concluded that the language choice is intentional: What does this say about this council, and the form of government you are intending?
The question now is how you, the City Council, rehabilitate the public’s confidence.

Merely offering a continuance and re-noticing the Public Hearing seems insufficient in that it may still leave open questions of the City’s understanding of and respect for the public process. The onus is on you to regain public trust in light of an action that threatens free, fair, and transparent government.
101

2. Failure to Properly Notice
Per Municipal Code 1.12.050 If a public hearing is conducted on the appeal, notice thereof shall also be published once at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the city and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to any other persons who were entitled under the provisions of this code to receive notice of the proceedings at which the administrative determination or decision was made. Notice of this Public Hearing was not published.

3. Failure of the City to include all relevant documents, exhibits and materials provided at and after the Joint Meeting of the Historical and Planning Commissions on February 6, 2025 in the March 11, 2025 Public Hearing agenda packet
 At the meeting on February 6, 2025, Senior Planner Sean Gallegos presented to the commissions and the public a slide of a new, revised site plan for consideration.

He instructed that this new site plan was to be used in the decision making of the Design Review and Historical Alteration permits. The new site plan has never otherwise been made public and is not included in this March 11 agenda packet.  Approved minutes by the Planning and Historical Commissions of the February 6 Joint Meeting are not provided in the agenda packet.
 Public Comment letters submitted for consideration prior to the February 6 Joint Meeting decisions are not included in the agenda packet.

4. Failure to allow for a de novo review as stated in Municipal Code 1.12.060, Conduct of Hearing by City Council

The undue narrowing of deliberation as provided by the agenda and attachments violates the provisions of a de novo hearing which allows for additional claims and pertinent information to be considered as part of the hearing and deliberations. Further, the application of a new site plan, referenced in Item 3 above, requires a de novo review.

We, therefore, are requesting that City Council moves to approve a continuance of the March 11, 2025 Public Hearing.

Sincerely,
Maria Bautista and Catherine Nunes, Preservation Action League Los Altos (PALLA) March 10, 2025
102
From: Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
To: Public Comment; Melissa Thurman
Subject: Letter to Council
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 1:09:25 PM
Attachments: Council letter 3-10-25 signed.pdf
Dear Los Altos Public Comment and City Clerk:

Please accept this letter in support of the three appeals filed by PALLA to be heard at tomorrow’s City Council public hearing for items #s10-12.

Please confirm receipt.

Thank you,
Rachel
103

March 10, 2025, letter to Los Altos City Council re. Library Courtyard Project Law Office of Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
[email protected]
707-291-6585
City of Los Altos
City Council
City Clerk
Sent via email:

[email protected];
[email protected]
March 10, 2025
Re: Appeal of Historic Alteration Permit, Design Review, and Application of a Categorical Exemption for the Library Courtyard Project at 13 South Antonio Road, Council Agenda Items #s 10, 11, and 12
Dear Mayor Pete Dailey and members of the Los Altos City Council:

I’m writing to you on behalf of appellants Preservation Action League of Los Altos (PALLA) as a follow up letter, expanding upon the subjects raised at the joint Planning Commission and Historical Commission hearing in support of the three appeals filed in this matter. As my first letter was included in the appeal packet, I will not reiterate the legal standards set forth there, but I will just underline for your benefit that the underlying basis for the three appeals is the inadequacy of the environmental analysis conducted for the project approvals concerning the Civic Center Heritage Orchard Landmark and historic resource, together “Heritage Orchard”.

As an initial matter, you must consider the objections raised and the documentation presented in support of the appeals, de novo, because an entirely new revised site plan was presented at the prior joint hearing for the very first time but was not provided to the public for comment. We request you remand this matter back to the Planning Commission and Historical Commission so that the public may be fully apprised in a timely matter of what project is actually being proposed.

Furthermore, the failure to provide the documents necessary to determine the adequacy of the appeals constitutes violations of the Brown Act, as enumerated in the March 10, 2025, letter from Catherine Nunes and Maria Bautista on behalf of PALLA to the Council and we request a continuance so that 104

March 10, 2025, letter to Los Altos City Council re. Library Courtyard Project all the documents that were submitted are properly considered by the Council prior to making your determination regarding the appeals.

The letters submitted by: Jane M. Packard PhD, Chair of the Orchard Commons Committee of the Los Altos History Museum (2/6/2025, letter submitted to Planning Commission and Historical Commission); Historian Robert Chattel, AIA, President, Alvin-Christian Nuval, Principal Associate, Chattel, Inc. (3/11/25 letter to the Council); residents Catherine Nunes and Maria Bautista on behalf of PALLA (3/10/25 letter to the Council); and together with the objections and information presented at the prior joint hearing provide substantial evidence that the information used to assess the project’s impacts to the Heritage Orchard and setting includes misinformation and many significant factual errors such that the determinations made by the Planning and Historical Commissions are unsupported by substantial evidence.

The information contained in the submitted letters attest that the project, along with past, present, and future projects, may result in cumulative impacts to historic resources, due to: Heritage Orchard tree removal; permanent removal of tree planting sites in the Heritage Orchard; reconfiguration of historically significant Heritage Orchard layout and orientation; encroachment upon the Heritage Orchard’s integrity; lack mitigation measures to avoid impacts to the Heritage Orchard; and will result in impacts to the context and historical setting of the Heritage Orchard site. Their testimony presents substantial evidence of cumulative impacts to a historic resource such that an exception to the claimed exemption is established and a categorical exemption may not be applied to this project.

I have reviewed and concur with the evidence showing that the project does not fit within the scope of the claimed exemption that is laid out in the March 10, 2025, letter submitted by Catherine Nunes and Maria Bautista on behalf of PALLA. They also attest to the past, present and future projects that impact the Historic Orchard that should be considered in a cumulative impacts analysis.

City Staff asserts that a cumulative impact study was performed as part of the CEQA analysis yet declined to share the study. In fact, no cumulative impact study has been submitted for the public’s review. Furthermore, any cumulative impact analysis must be accompanied by review in a publicly available and published mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report. No such study has been prepared or circulated for review. Moreover, the City’s conduct that entails preemptive actions concerning the Heritage Orchard must 105

March 10, 2025, letter to Los Altos City Council re. Library Courtyard Project first be considered together in one environmental review document prior to implementing any changes to the Heritage Orchard.

Related to an adequate cumulative impacts analysis, CEQA also requires the review of the environmental effects of the “whole of the action” in one environmental document. CEQA disallows the piecemealing of environmental review. When different components of the same project receive separate environmental review, significant impacts may be chopped up into smaller pieces and evade disclosure and mitigation.

It’s important to note that modification to the State Department of Parks and Recreation primary record Historic Resource Inventory #15 (DPR HRI#15) for the Heritage Orchard also presents potentially significant impacts as it applies to the project that must be subjected to CEQA review. Changes to the boundary, removing the requirement to retain specific minimum numbers of trees in the Heritage Orchard, removing the requirement to replace Heritage Orchard trees, and changes to restoration activities, are all potentially significant impacts that require CEQA review.

Finally, in addition to (1) remanding this matter back to the Planning Commission for a fair review of the new site plan; appellants also request the Council (2) remand this matter back to the Historical Commission for review of an updated DPR and to conduct an Advisory Review Permit per Historic Preservation Ordinance 12.44.130, relied upon in the project analysis; and (3) require the application of a Conditional Use Permit for the project per Municipal Code 14.80.045 which requires review by the Council in the event a particular application for a proposed use is determined to be sensitive in nature. The Civic Center Heritage Orchard Landmark and historic resource comprise sensitive resources that are at stake in this matter.

Thank you,
Rachel Mansfield-Howlett
On behalf of Appellants
106
From: Catherine Nunes
To: Public Comment
Cc: PALLA
Subject: City Council Meeting 3/11/25, Public Hearing Items #10, 11, 12 Library Patio Project Appeals Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 1:44:54 PM
Please add these documents to the Public Hearing Items #10, #11, #12 into the records and deliberation packet.

Please provide return receipt.

Thank you
Catherine Nunes, representing PALLA Appellants
3 June 27 2024 Library Patio Agenda Report Su…
4 Nov 28 2023 Library Patio Agenda Summary C…
107
From: Catherine Nunes
To: Public Comment
Cc: Taylor Soleno; Melissa Thurman
Subject: (2) City Council Meeting 3/11/25, Public Hearing Items #10, 11, 12 Library Patio Project Appeals Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 1:54:15 PM
Attachments: ENV25458 NOE No 2 Library Patio Project 2-7-25 PDF .pdf ENV24900 NOE Library Project 12-12-2023 2.pdf
Please add these documents to the Public Hearing Items #10, #11, #12 into the records and deliberation packet.

Please provide return receipt.

Thank you
Catherine Nunes
108
109
110
111
PDF.js viewer 12/28/23, 1:46 PM
https://scccroselfservice.org/web/resources/pdfjs/web/tylerPdfJsViewe…1177.1.pdf/ENV24900.pdf?index=1&allowDownload=false&allowPrint=false Page 1 of 3 112
PDF.js viewer 12/28/23, 1:46 PM
https://scccroselfservice.org/web/resources/pdfjs/web/tylerPdfJsViewe…1177.1.pdf/ENV24900.pdf?index=1&allowDownload=false&allowPrint=false Page 2 of 3 113
PDF.js viewer 12/28/23, 1:46 PM
https://scccroselfservice.org/web/resources/pdfjs/web/tylerPdfJsViewe…1177.1.pdf/ENV24900.pdf?index=1&allowDownload=false&allowPrint=false Page 3 of 3 114
From: Catherine Nunes
To: Public Comment
Cc: Maria Bautista
Subject: 3rd City Council Meeting 3/11/25, Public Hearing Items #10, 11, 12 Library Patio Project Appeals Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 2:01:21 PM
Attachments: 1 State DPR HR 15 Heritage Orchard Historic Record 2011, org 1987 affirmed 2019 History Commission.pdf 2 City Doc 2006 Los Altos Orchard Management Plan En Force copy.pdf 2019 Hist Commission item_3_-_civic_center_apricot_orchard_staff_report_with_attachments.pdf 2023 web Historic Resources Inventory _full_doc_Los Altos 2012.pdf DPR 6.16.2000 and 1987 SCC County Resource List.pdf
Please add these documents to the Public Hearing Items #10, #11, #12 into the records and deliberation packet.

Please provide return receipt.

Thank you
Catherine nunes
115
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder)
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: __ Not for Publication __ Unrestricted
*a. County and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ;  of  of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address City Zip
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*P4.Resources Present: __ Building __ Structure __ Object __ Site __ District __ Element of District __Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: __ Historic __ Prehistoric
__ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by:
*P9. Date Recorded:
*P10. Survey Type:
*P11. Report Citation:
*Attachments: __NONE __Location Map __Continuation Sheet __Building, Structure, and Object Record __Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact Record __Photograph Record __ Other (List):

State of California The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ___________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___________________________________ NRHP Status Code
Other Listings ____________________________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date _____________ P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 1 1 N. San Antonio Road
HRI #:15; Civic Center Orchard
Santa Clara
1 N. San Antonio Road Los Altos 94022
Looking SE
Los Altos History Museum
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road Los Altos,
CA 94022
Circa: Historic Property Development
582 Market Street, Suite 1800
July 2011
Intensive
Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory Update Report (Circa: Historic Property Development, March 2012).

The Civic Center Orchard represents a portion of the apricot orchard planted by Mr. and Mrs. J. Gilbert Smith, early Los Altos settlers, and is related to the nearby Smith farm house. The residence,which currently serves the community as the History House, sits near the southeast corner of the Civic Center complex. Portions of the Smith orchard lands within the Civic Center remain along N. San Antonio Road, north of the Los Altos Library, and in the northeast sector of the complex. A number of trees dating to the period of Smith's residence appear to remain. As the City replaces dead or diseased trees as needed, a number of younger trees are also apparent within the orchard tracts. 2 170 42 029
✔
✔
✔
✔
July 2011
HP39. Other Orchard
San Francisco, CA 94104
Planted 1902
-~ ~-

ATTACHMENT B
116
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP Status Code
Page of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: B4. Present Use:
*B5. Architectural Style:
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) *B7. Moved" _No _Yes _UnNnown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: b. Builder:
*B10. Significance: Theme Area
Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:

B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: ___________________________________
*Date of Evaluation:

State of California & The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONHRI#
BUILDING STRUCTURE AND OB-ECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
22 CA Reg: 5S1
1 N. San Antonio Road
Civic Center Orchard
Agricultural Mixed
n/a
n/a n/a
Early Development/Agriculture Los Altos
c.1900191 (50 year mark) Orchard NR/CR/Local
Circa: Historic Property Development
July 2011
✔
Established c.1900.

J. Gilbert Smith House
In approximately 1901, J. Gilbert Smith purchased 10 acres of farmland to grow apricots and establish a home site. Living in a tent on his land during construction, Smith completed the house in 1905. He later married Margaret Hill Smith and the couple developed a sizeable apricot orchard on the property. The Smiths sold their property to the city of Los Altos in 1954, two years after incorporation, for the construction of the City's Civic Center complex. A stipulation of the sale was that the couple would be allowed to reside in the house and surrounding acre until their passing, at which point the house would become the city's history museum. Upon Mrs. Smith's death in 1973, the property reverted to the city. Another stipulation was that the remaining apricot trees not be removed; the city maintains and replaces the trees as needed today. The house and orchard are now City of Los Altos Historical Landmarks and the house itself is a is a California Point of Historical Interest. On September 8, 1991 the City Council unanimously passed and adopted a resolution adding the Civic Center's apricot orchard along San Antonio Road to the :est, the Library to the South, the <outh Center to the East, the Civic Center parking lot to the North, as a Historical Landmark.

Evaluation: The Civic Center orchard is one of the last active apricot orchards remaining in Los Altos and was first planted by early Los Altos resident, J. Gilbert Smith. Despite the orchard's decrease in size and adjacent new construction, the site retains a fair degree of integrity.

Therefore, it is listed on the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory as a Historic Resource and is assigned the California Register Status Code 5S1: Individual property that is listed or designated locally. Los Altos Historical Commission: Los Altos HRI (9.28.1997); McAlester, 9irginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses.

New <ork: Alfred A. .nopf, 2002; DPR series forms by G. Laffey (1997); Sanborn Maps; Los Altos HRI (February 2011). 9icinity map provided by the City of Los Altos and amended by Circa:

Historic Property Development.

HRI#
117

MAINTENANCE DIVISION

APRICOT ORCHARD

MANAGEMENT & GUIDELINES
- 1 –
P:\Muni Serv Cnt\Park Division\Parks Division Folder\Orchard\Orchard Management Plan and Recommendation updated 081606.doc 118 - 2 –
P:\Muni Serv Cnt\Park Division\Parks Division Folder\Orchard\Orchard Management Plan and Recommendation updated 081606.doc 119 - 3 –
P:\Muni Serv Cnt\Park Division\Parks Division Folder\Orchard\Orchard Management Plan and Recommendation updated 081606.doc Intent: To describe the necessary maintenance practices to manage the Civic Center apricot orchard to ensure normal, vigorous, healthy and safe growth of the orchard.

Orchard maintenance shall consist of mowing, trimming,
fertilization, irrigation, pest control, pruning, harvesting and any other procedures consistent with best management
horticultural practices.
120
- 4 –
P:\Muni Serv Cnt\Park Division\Parks Division Folder\Orchard\Orchard Management Plan and Recommendation updated 081606.doc Description of Orchard: The heritage orchard is located at 1 North San Antonio Road in the Civic Center grounds. It surrounds the City Hall building, and parts of the Library, Youth Center and Police Department.

Acreage: 2.84 acres
Number of tree sites: 444
Type of apricot tree: Blenheim apricot on Nemagard and Lovell rootstock Current condition: Fair/Poor
Number of trees older than 5 years: 182
Number of trees less than 5 years: 262
Number of trees that died and were replanted in 2005: 135 Number of trees that died and need to be replanted in 2006: 40 Diseases and pests affecting orchard:

1. Ring nematodes in the soil reduce the vigor of the trees by restricting the flow of nutrients in the trees, leading to tree decline and death of the trees. – Severe problem.

2. Associated with the nematodes is a bacterial canker, when the nematodes are reduced the incidence of bacterial canker with be reduced. – Severe problem.

3. Brown rot on the fruit reduces the value of the fruit. Stresses the trees as it invades the young shoots, reducing the vigor and ultimately killing the shoots and parts of the support wood, as seen by gumming of the wood. Severe problem.

4. Eutypa limb die back from soil bacteria entering trimming wounds after late season trimming. Moderate problem.

5. Seasonal aphids suck the suck the juices treated with cultural practices or ladybugs. – Mild problem.

Current watering practices:

1. The current use of above ground aluminum agricultural irrigation pipes combined with impact heads results in excessive water use with water runoff and silt flow into storm drains. This method also provides inconsistent watering resulting in drought stressed trees in the summer. It provides excessive water to the cover crop promoting the incidence of ring nematodes and bacterial canker.
121
- 5 –
P:\Muni Serv Cnt\Park Division\Parks Division Folder\Orchard\Orchard Management Plan and Recommendation updated 081606.doc Recommendations:

1. Spray with a pre-emergent under the rows of orchard trees in a strip about 10 feet wide, at the end of the summer to control winter weeds. Spray again in the spring with a preemergent to control summer weeds. Spraying should be done in mid October and again in mid April. After each spray if there is no rain then irrigate to set the pre-emergent.

2. Eliminate disking of orchard cover crops. This will minimize the incidence of ring nematodes by not spreading clover that attracts ring nematodes.

3. Plant new single species cover crop. Recommend a rye grass.

4. Mow cover crop seasonally as needed.

5. Update irrigation method by installing a permanent automated drip irrigation system. a. Drip irrigation will reduce non-point source water run off and silting. b. Drip irrigation will reduce the amount of water required to efficiently manage the orchard trees.
c. Drip irrigation will allow watering as needed to maintain consistent soil moisture that will reduce water stress and improve growth of the orchard trees. d. Drip irrigation will reduce the incidence of water born bacteria and nematodes in the soil.

6. Adjust pruning time of the orchard trees to the end of July to reduce brown rot caused by late season trimming.

7. Trim to remove excess sucker growth in the interior of each tree. Trim to reduce the fruiting branches. If signs of eutypa limb die back are present, slime on branches, cut back at least one foot from wound. If a large cut is made burn wound to harden it off to lessen the incidence of eutypa.

8. Have a private lab complete a leaf analysis annually to determine nutrient needs of orchard trees.

9. Follow the recommendation of the leaf analysis in applying fertilizer. Adjust the amount and types of fertilizer applied utilizing the drip irrigation injector system.

10. Follow PCA recommendations and the Cities BMP’s and IMP policies Clean Crop Spray Oil 415 is currently used to control aphids, fruit tree leaf rollers, mites, scale, and borers.

Typically spraying is completed in red bud stage with only one application. Spray Oil 415 does not control brown rot, leaf spot, blossom blight, powdery mildew or shot hole fungus found above ground in apricot trees. Pristine could be used to control brown rot and shot hole, which are found in the orchard on the leaves, fruit, and in the wood.

Three spray applications would be beneficial in controlling brown rot and shot hole.

11.As the trees die replacement should be larger established container stock trees.

Five gallon cans with a Blenheim apricot and Nemagard or Lovell root stock(Lovell is a peach that suckers at the base).

12.Consider a soil drench of a redox of black walnut tea to reduce ring nematodes. 122
- 6 –
P:\Muni Serv Cnt\Park Division\Parks Division Folder\Orchard\Orchard Management Plan and Recommendation updated 081606.doc Schedules of Tasks and Responsibilities
Task City Orchardist Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Replanting of
trees x x
Post emergent
herbicide
application
Pre emergent
herbicide
application x x x
Sowing seeds for
cover crop x x
Irrigation
scheduling x x x x x x
Irrigation repair
and maintenance x
Pre-harvest
Trimming
Harvesting x x
Post Harvest
trimming x x
Tree Spraying x x x
Mowing of cover
crop x x x x x
123

A G E N D A R E P O R T
DATE: June 24, 2019
AGENDA ITEM # 3
TO: Historical Commission
FROM: Margo Horn, Historical Commissioner
SUBJECT: Civic Center Apricot Orchard
RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Recommend the City fund the cost of final signage approved by the Historical Commission.

B. Recommend the City install the historical plaques and interpretive signage for the Apricot Orchard.

C. Recommend the City Council authorize staff from the Department of Public Works to maintain the orchard to ensure that it is beautiful and a point of pride for the City of Los Altos.

D. Recommend the City allocate $3,600 from the 2019/2020 budget for graphic design expenditures for three interpretive signs.

BACKGROUND
On October 8, 1991, the City Council designated the apricot orchard site located at 1 North San Antonio Road a Historic Landmark. The 2.84-acre heritage apricot orchard site is in the Civic Center Grounds. It surrounds the City Hall buildings, and parts of the Library, Youth Center and Police Department.

The Civic Center Orchard represents a portion of the apricot orchard planted by Mr. and Mrs. J.

Gilbert Smith, early Los Altos settlers, and is related to the nearby Smith farm house. The residence sits near the southeast corner of the Civic Center complex. Portions of the Smith orchard lands within the Civic Center remain along N. San Antonio Road, north of the Los Altos Library, and in the northeast sector of the complex. The resolution designating the apricot orchard a Historic Landmark and Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary Record are provided as Attachment A and B respectively.

At its April 24, 2017 meeting, the Historical Commission considered ways to protect the landmark status of the Civic Center Apricot Orchard and increase public awareness of this city treasure. The Commission recommended further research on the installation of the City Historic Plaque and interpretive signage for the Orchard, leading to recommendations to City Council.

Commissioner Horn consulted with Susanna Chan of the Department of Department of Public Works on maintenance of the orchard. Ms. Chan stated that 100 new apricot trees have been ordered for planting in late 2017 or early 2018. In addition, the Department of Public Works is currently conducting a citywide tree inventory, including the apricot orchard trees, to assess current conditions and make recommendations for future tree maintenance.

IL_______.I
124
June 24, 2019
Civic Center Apricot Orchard Page 2
Commissioners Margo Horn and Larry Lang met with Elisabeth Ward, Executive Director of the Los Altos History Museum to discuss ideas for the design, content and installation of interpretive signage for the orchard. Commissioners Horn, Lang and Ms. Ward also walked through the orchard to make recommendations for the placement of the City of Los Altos Historic Plaque, and the interpretive signage throughout the orchard.

Elisabeth Ward offered to provide the Museum’s expertise and project management to design signage of the orchard, using the text of interpretive signage written by her predecessor at the Museum. Ms. Ward proposes installing interactive signage throughout the orchard with QR Codes for iPhones.

On February 26, 2018, the Los Altos History Museum Executive Director, Elisabeth Ward, and staff provided a report outlining the proposed signage program for the historic landmark orchard. The commission supported the proposed signage, and the Los Altos Historic Sign Program reviewed by the Historical Commission is provided as Attachment C.

In October 2018, the Council at their annual joint meeting with the Historical Commission reviewed and supported the Historical Commissions sign program to install one wood framed sign with the text “Los Altos Heritage Orchard,” a Historic Landmark bronze plaque, a State Historical Point of Interest plaque, and five interpretive signs. The Los Altos Historic Sign Program reviewed by the City Council is provided as Attachment C.

DISCUSSION
Orchard Signage
The Commission shall provide comment and direction regarding the three interpretive signs to be designed by Davis Design. A description of the proposed graphic design proposal for three new signs is provided as Attachment D.

The Historical Commission Orchard Sign subcommittee recommends:

1. Recommend the City fund the cost of final signage approved by the Historical Commission.

2. Recommend the City promptly install the historical plaques and interpretive signage for the Apricot Orchard.

3. Recommend the City Council authorize staff from the Department of Public Works to maintain the orchard to ensure that it is beautiful and a point of pride for the City of Los Altos.

Purchasing
The City of Los Altos has a formal policy and process of procuring goods and services, including a purchase order system, provides several key benefits. It supports clear purchase specifications, avoids dispute with vendors, builds an audit trail, allows level competition to set prices, controls spending limits, creates a system of checks and balances, and enhances public trust. Purchases under $5,000 for one-time purchases can be submitted for payment using original vendor receipts/invoices.
125
June 24, 2019
Civic Center Apricot Orchard Page 3
The proposed scope of work, including cost of work is provided as attachment E.

The Historical Commission Orchard Sign subcommittee recommends:

1. Recommend the City allocate $3,600 from the 2019/2020 budget for graphic design expenditures for three interpretive signs.

Attachments
A. Apricot Orchard Historic Landmark Designation Resolution No. 91-31 B. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary Record C. Sign Program, October 2017
D. Orchard Sign Proposal, Davis Design
E. Graphic Design Proposal, Davis Designs
126
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 31

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

MODIFYING AN APRICOT ORCHARD AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Ordinance No. 78-16 and 90-225, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did establish a procedure for the designation and preservation of historical landmarks within the City of Los Altos; and
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Resolution 81-23, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did designate a portion of APN 170-42-029 known as the Civic Center Apricot Orchard a historical landmark; and
WHEREAS, by designation of this property as a historical landmark it is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance 90-225; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with that Ordinance Section 2-8.404, the Historical Commission has reviewed and recommends modifying the limits of the Civic Center Apricot Orchard as shown on Exhibit A, as located on APN Nos. 170-42-029 and 170-43-001; and WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the recommendation of the Historical Commission in this regard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby determine that the subject property is designated as a historical landmark and is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance 90-225;
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos on the 8th day of October, 1991, by the following roll call vote:
* * * * * * *
AYES: Mayor Spangler, Councilmembers Bruno, Laliotis, Lave, & Reeder NOES: None
ABSENT: None
127
.. ' -
)
---------------- ) C
. "EXHIBIT A"

SAN ANTONIO ROAD
LEGEND
rzza :HISTORIC ORCHARD 128
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder)
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: __ Not for Publication __ Unrestricted
*a. County and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ;  of  of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address City Zip
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*P4.Resources Present: __ Building __ Structure __ Object __ Site __ District __ Element of District __Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: __ Historic __ Prehistoric
__ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by:
*P9. Date Recorded:
*P10. Survey Type:
*P11. Report Citation:
*Attachments: __NONE __Location Map __Continuation Sheet __Building, Structure, and Object Record __Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact Record __Photograph Record __ Other (List):

State of California The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ___________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___________________________________ NRHP Status Code
Other Listings ____________________________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date _____________ P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 1 1 N. San Antonio Road
HRI #:15; Civic Center Orchard
Santa Clara
1 N. San Antonio Road Los Altos 94022
Looking SE
Los Altos History Museum
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road Los Altos,
CA 94022
Circa: Historic Property Development
582 Market Street, Suite 1800
July 2011
Intensive
Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory Update Report (Circa: Historic Property Development, March 2012).

The Civic Center Orchard represents a portion of the apricot orchard planted by Mr. and Mrs. J. Gilbert Smith, early Los Altos settlers, and is related to the nearby Smith farm house. The residence,which currently serves the community as the History House, sits near the southeast corner of the Civic Center complex. Portions of the Smith orchard lands within the Civic Center remain along N. San Antonio Road, north of the Los Altos Library, and in the northeast sector of the complex. A number of trees dating to the period of Smith's residence appear to remain. As the City replaces dead or diseased trees as needed, a number of younger trees are also apparent within the orchard tracts. 2 170 42 029
✔
✔
✔
✔
July 2011
HP39. Other Orchard
San Francisco, CA 94104
Planted 1902
-~
~-
129
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP Status Code
Page of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: B4. Present Use:
*B5. Architectural Style:
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) *B7. Moved? _No _Yes _Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: b. Builder:
*B10. Significance: Theme Area
Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:

B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: ___________________________________
*Date of Evaluation:

State of California & The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONHRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
22 CA Reg: 5S1
1 N. San Antonio Road
Civic Center Orchard
Agricultural Mixed
n/a
n/a n/a
Early Development/Agriculture Los Altos
c.1900-1961 (50 year mark) Orchard NR/CR/Local
Circa: Historic Property Development
July 2011
✔
Established c.1900.

J. Gilbert Smith House
In approximately 1901, J. Gilbert Smith purchased 10 acres of farmland to grow apricots and establish a home site. Living in a tent on his land during construction, Smith completed the house in 1905. He later married Margaret Hill Smith and the couple developed a sizeable apricot orchard on the property. The Smiths sold their property to the city of Los Altos in 1954, two years after incorporation, for the construction of the City's Civic Center complex. A stipulation of the sale was that the couple would be allowed to reside in the house and surrounding acre until their passing, at which point the house would become the city's history museum. Upon Mrs. Smith's death in 1973, the property reverted to the city. Another stipulation was that the remaining apricot trees not be removed; the city maintains and replaces the trees as needed today. The house and orchard are now City of Los Altos Historical Landmarks and the house itself is a is a California Point of Historical Interest. On September 8, 1991 the City Council unanimously passed and adopted a resolution adding the Civic Center's apricot orchard along San Antonio Road to the West, the Library to the South, the Youth Center to the East, the Civic Center parking lot to the North, as a Historical Landmark.

Evaluation: The Civic Center orchard is one of the last active apricot orchards remaining in Los Altos and was first planted by early Los Altos resident, J. Gilbert Smith. Despite the orchard's decrease in size and adjacent new construction, the site retains a fair degree of integrity.

Therefore, it is listed on the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory as a Historic Resource and is assigned the California Register Status Code 5S1: "Individual property that is listed or designated locally." Los Altos Historical Commission: Los Altos HRI (9.28.1997); McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002; DPR series forms by G. Laffey (1997); Sanborn Maps; Los Altos HRI (February 2011).

Vicinity map provided by the City of Los Altos and amended by Circa:

Historic Property Development.

HRI#
□ □ □
130
A1
-
A3
1 B4
1 B5
1 B2
1 B3
1 B1
1 A2
-
A3
1 B1
1 A1
31 Wood Framed Sign with text
“Los Altos Heritage Orchard
“Sign
A2
-
A3
1 Wood Beveled Post with text
Bronze City and Wood Framed
Sign with text “Los Altos
Heritage Orchard “Sign
State Point Interest Plaques
B2
1 Powder Coated Pedestal
Interpretive Sign with text
discussing History of Orchard
Powder Coated Pedestal
Interpretive Sign with text
regarding spring season.

Powder Coated Pedestal “Sign
Interpretive Sign with text
regarding summer season.
“Sign
Powder Coated Pedestal
Interpretive Sign with text
regarding fall season.
“Sign
Powder Coated Pedestal
Interpretive Sign with text
regarding winter season.
“Sign
B3
1 B4
1 B5
1 Los Altos Heritage Orchard - Sign Program
131
A1 Wood Framed Sign with text “Los Altos Heritage Orchard 31 132
A2 Wood Beveled Post with text Bronze City and Wood Framed Sign with text “Los Altos -
A3
1 f----------- 5" ------ 1
1908 11 11
I I
11 11
PulQ.UE. 11 11
MOUNTED ON eEVELW 11 11
POE>T 11 11 0 1-0U!t:D 01-1 E!,UILDIN9,
is5~RWWOOD N&'lf<. rROI-.IT DXJR, IF
WITH- 11 1 1 - Vl.SIB(,f!. fFOM 51DE!,JA!.-K Cl.E,4P. COAT 11 I I e,"y;i' CML! -0 @ LOCATED ON FENC.E. ~
e>!.Oc.i'- Will-I 11 11 _, 1-,1,41..1. IF BUILDINGt I~ '"') I ~~~~ f-lOT i<-b'IDL'( VI.SJE,L,~ J_II I I 11 © MOUf-UED 01-1 l'l!JST IN
116.J
I
n+t: Ff\ONT YAM1 N0!-R r-rr-, , 1, 1 I
$1J::tl44Lk A-NO OP--.

ST!<E:ET 114" s 3116 .. T -(l
_, j"0MOUNT~ ·
"' HOLE

SUGGESTED PROFILE
ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 2
133
Signs B1-B5 (Interpretive Signs): Material and Style
~
0 u
"' u
:r
...
<
.., "'
...
-
"' "' 0
":
3';
3';
3';
FOSSIL

INDUSTRIES
SINGLE POST PEDESTAL: In Ground • Black Powder Coated Aluminum • Custom Sizes and Colors Available
SIDE
60" Post 44_5• Above Ground
1s.s· Be1owGround
lu,paRni-..&b"1<>Mladl1J...,,,•,.-ubla
-ourgrapt,;cpo,MIJ. .,_......,,,,.1.,.i..tuenu
c:o>er«••rd•ot>.-•••~utw,,._• _.n.
3"~•3"-
.
'
9J16"Hole
ffO'lland6acllolPOSI
lortfl"R«>ar
,.

Part #: SPG1212
FRONT
134
Powder Coated Pedestal Interpretive Sign with text discussing History of Orchard

B1
1 a,-. .;- ,,.

A Historic Orchard
This apricot orchard was planted in 1901 by
local grower Gilbert Smith, whose home is
now part of the Los Altos History Museum.The
site for tho Los Altos Civic Center was selected
after city leaders consulted with architect Frank
Lloyd Wright in 1954, who
said it was an ideal choice
given the beauty and history
of this orchard.
10ldltdotld19 a•Mtot OICNIIQOIUd1a ludot
gtd1 g1.oot1 OOHdl gk>Hdl glo,eld g1a.d,Q
In the century spanning 1870 to 1970, Santa Ciara
County was home to millions of fruit treesthe largest comm rcial orchard the world had ever seen. Los Altos, with its
rich soil, mild winters, and
long, dry summer
became known for
the sweetness of its
apricot crop.
]. Gilbert Smith spent his life growing
and harvesting the apricots 011 this land,
· and the trees in this orchard continue to
produce frnit for local residents.
135
Powder Coated Pedestal Interpretive Sign with text regarding spring season. B2 1 THE ORCHARD

IN SPRING
. Gilbert Smith, who first cultivated this
orchard, was born in the days of the horse and
buggy. But he wasn't inclined to stay there. In
1905, he bought himself an Oldsmobile runabout,
one of the very first automobiles in Los Altos.

Still, in the early years of his orchard, the trend
in transportation was interurban rail service.

When the Peninsular Railway was constructed in
the early 20th century, it featured the "Blossom
Route" through the Santa Clara Valley and
carried three million people a year at its peak, just
before World War I. The line ran parallel to the
Southern Pacific line along what is now Foothill
Expressway. By 1933, it was made obsolete by
the growth in use of the automobile and trolley
service ended.

Blossoms on the branches of200,000 acres of
fruit trees in the Santa Clara Valley were a spectacular sight in spring and became an attraction for tourists from all over the world. The spring
blooms on the apricot tree are so lovely that in
some parts of Asia the tree is cultivated for its
blossoms alone.
136
B3 Powder Coated Pedestal Interpretive Sign with text regarding summer season. 1 THE ORCHARD

IN SUMMER
I
n surruner, apricots are ripe and must be
picked immediately, so the summer season
was very busy. Some apricots went to the
canneries. Others were shipped as fresh fruit
across the nation and the world. A large quantity
were harvested and preserved by sun drying: the
first modern commercial use of this preservation
technique that was developed in North Africa and
Central Asia, thousands of years ago.

To sun dry apricots, they are sliced in half, pitted,
and set out on large wooden trays. They are
treated in sulfur sheds overnight to preserve their
color and to discourage pests. Then the trays
are laid out in the sun. During the peak of the
orchard years, entire families, including children,
worked long hours to cut and dry the apricots
before the crop spoiled. It can take a day to dry
a tray of'cots or it can take a week: it all depends
upon the sun.

In summer, the apricot trees are covered with
dark green, heart-shaped leaves. They provided
a rich shade for all those who work in the sunny
California ecosystem.
137
B4 Powder Coated Pedestal Interpretive Sign with text regarding fall season 1 THE ORCHARD

IN FALL
During the 20th century, the Santa Clara
Valley was the world's foremost producer
of stone fruits, a category that includes
apricots, plums, prunes, cherries, peaches, nectarines and even almonds. In 1917, growers like J.

Gilbert Smith in Los Altos and Los Altos Hills
shipped four railroad freight cars-about one
hundred tons of fruit-to market each day during
the summer season.

Though Los Altos was famous for its apricots,
growers here shipped prunes, peaches, cherries,
pears, and thousands of pounds of tomatoes.

Los Altos orchards also produced walnuts
commercially. The innovative Wizard Walnut
Huller was manufactured in Los Altos by the
Formway family.

Apricot trees are deciduous, which means they
lose their leaves each autumn. In the 21st century,
the leaves are removed and often ground up for
use in mulch or compost. In the days of J. Gilbert
Smith, the leaves were bundled into piles and
burned, creating a great opportunity for roasting
potatoes in the twilight bonfires and filling the
138
B5 Powder Coated Pedestal Interpretive Sign with text regarding winter season. 1 hen J. Gilbert Smith sold his orchard to
the City of Los Altos in 1954, the terms
gave him and his family a life interest
in the fruit of the trees that were not removed to
build the new City Hall. As a consequence, the
Los Altos Civic Center has been encircled since
it opened in 19 59 by a working apricot orchard.

This unique form of landscaping ties Los Altos
and its civic life to its agricultural heritage.

The apricot is bdieved to have its origins in
China, from which it spread across Asia to the
Mediterranean. It was even grown on the island
of Majorca, birthplace ofJunipero Serra (1713-
1784). When Serra arrived in Alea California in
1769, his party brought apricots with them. The
commercial variety later cultivated in this valley
was the Blenheim, known for its exceptional
flavor.

The apricot tree has a stark look in winter. Its
branches are bare and the trees are resting. Like a
rose garden in winter, it is storing up strength for
a showy spring and fruitful summer.
139
Agricultural Exhibit Interpretive Signs
Prepared by Jan Davis, Davis Design. June 20, 2019
The budget proposal for design was submitted to all parties on May 19 2019, #E19-02.

Los Altos Civic Center Historic Orchard
140
W
P1
P2
K H
O1
O2
O3
gpy
Placemaker
gn
Historic Plaque
Historic Plaque
Orchard
sforming the Land
Running Water
se
November 2019
t
rhead and Underground
e Turnover
er, Motor Power
February 2020
Orchard and
r
eepers
easons
e at the Smith House
wn
May 2020
Windmill
A
Walnut Shed
Tree
Sulfur Shed
Cutting
Shed
Tank
House
Privy
HISTORY HOUSEJ. GILBERT SMITH
F1
F3
G1 F2
E1
J
I
A
Museum Grounds—Detail
Not to Scale
Note: There may have been changes since this map was created.

This proposal is for the design
development of three new graphics
panels which is on the Phase 3 Civic
Center Orchard plan.

O1 – Orchard Keepers
O2 – Orchard Seasons
O3 – Learn more at the Smith House
Two of these signs have been designated to be
interactive, such as spinning panels.

Pa ricing Par1cing
141
The three signs in the proposal are
an extension of the Los Altos History
Museum outdoor agricultural exhibit.

The sign “A Historic Orchard”sign is
ready to be installed located by the
library entrance facing the orchard.

A Historic Orchard
J. Gilbert Smith spent his life growing and harvesting
the apricots on this land, and the trees in this orchard continue to produce fruit for local residents.

This apricot orchard was planted in 1901 by local grower J. Gilbert Smith, whose home is now part of the Los Altos History Museum.

The site for the Los Altos Civic Center was selected after city leaders consulted with architect Frank Lloyd Wright in 1954, who said it was an ideal choice given the beauty and history of this orchard.

In the century spanning 1870 to 1970, Santa Clara County was home to millions of fruit trees—the largest commercial orchard the world had ever seen. Los Altos, with its rich soil, mild winters, and long dry summers became known for the sweetness of its apricot crop.

Aerial view of J. Gilbert
Smith’s orchard and
downtown Los Altos,
c. 1950., Los Altos
History Museum.

J. Gilbert Smith House, Los Altos History Museum
Courtesy Robin Chapman
Los Altos History Museum
Los Altos History Museum
The orchards and their related
canneries and packing houses
employed thousands of
workers and became known
worldwide through colorful
postcards and company labels.

To learn more about this region’s agricultural past, visit the outdoor exhibition on the grounds of the Los Altos History Museum. e Sunnyvale Heritage Park Museum
Prototypes were installed in 2018 at the history museum.

The installation of the final signs are in progress at the museum by volunteers and the city maintenance staff.

This 36” x 24” sign is made of a durable 1/2” high-pressure laminate graphics panel using a surface-mount cantilever-style hardware made of aluminum with a dark bronze powder-coat finish.

The proposal is for the
design development of
one graphics panel and
two graphics panels with
an interactive component,
such as spinning panels.

Fabrication of the hardware and
graphics panel is not part of the
design proposal.

Surface mount cantilever sign
Interactive sign with spinning panels
□□□
142
The inventive spirit that permeates Santa Clara Valley today was already apparent in early Los Altos, where industrious farmers engineered solutions to problems. William E.

Formway was one such patent-holder. His machine shop on Almond Avenue made and repaired many tools. He also invented a walnut huller in his shop, which would remove the pulpy outer shuck that envelops walnuts. The first prototype of his invention is here on display at the Museum. In 1933, he filed a patent for a modified walnut huller he called the Wizard. Today, the company he started is still in operation in Chico, California, under the name Wizard Walnut Company.

Patent Town
Photos: Los Altos History Museum
The Formway Shop on Almond Avenue in Los Altos.

A working production model is on display here. Fresh walnuts are poured into the hopper, dragged up the conveyor belt through a series of brushes, and then placed in the metal drum, which is turned by an electric motor. The pulpy outer shell or shuck would disintegrate in this process, leaving the shelled walnut ready to go to market in the drum.

This machine was so successful that Formway began manufacturing hundreds more.

Production Model
These machines were built to last. The production model still works today! Home with Running Water
This home was built between 1901 and 1905 by J. Gilbert Smith, a few years prior to municipal water coming to Los Altos. He installed a windmill to pump water into a tank at the back of the house for the family’s water needs. That windmill collapsed during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

A few years later the railway came to town and brought
progressive changes with it. By 1908, municipal water and electricity were installed by the Los Altos Land Company and J. Gilbert Smith connected to it.

As you look around the outside of
the house, you will notice piping
on the exterior. That was the way
plumbing was done, even though the
house had running water all along,
and an indoor bathroom.

Los Altos Water Works Tower. Los Altos History Museum
Los Altos History Museum
This vintage 1930s Allis Chalmers Model M tractor
is low to the ground, designed that way so it could
operate under the limbs of apricot and prune
trees. The tractor does not have wheels that
would raise it off the ground. Instead, it “crawled”
on belts, which is why this kind of tractor is called
a crawler. This one was used for decades on the
J. M. Pear Ranch near the corner of what is now
California and Showers avenues in Mountain
View and was donated by the Pear family.

Visitors are welcome to sit on the tractor, and
listen for this old engine to start.

Specialized for the Job
Worms, bugs, and other infestations were a
serious threat to the investments orchardists
had made in their fruit trees. When pesticides
were first introduced, growers applied them to
tree limbs and fruit with hand-pumps like the
one to your left. Later, mechanized sprayers, like
the black Meyers orchard sprayer you see here,
were invented. This unit was originally pulled by
horses, but then modified to be pulled by a tractor.

From the 200-gallon tank in the back, insecticide
was pumped by a one-cylinder Lycoming engine
to a hand-held spraying wand. Liquid fertilizer
became more common after the 1940s and would
also be applied by sprayers.

Chemical Aids Tractor Crawler
J. Gilbert Smith pulling a sprayer behind his tractor, circa 1930.

Photo: Los Altos History Museum
As the horses went out of use, more land became available for the planting of trees since the farmer no longer
needed ten acres to keep his horses in feed.
– Yvonne Jacobson
Here are a few examples from the
history museum agricultural exhibit.

They are color-coded by section.

Green: Machine shop
Orange: Apricot and walnut
Blue: Water
Dark gray: Smith House
J. Gilbert Smith House
Working alone from 1901 to 1905, J. Gilbert Smith
planted the surrounding orchard while building this
craftsman-style home. He chose redwood from the
Santa Cruz Mountains, delivered by wagon, at a cost of
$15 per 1,000 board feet.

During his 65 years in Los Altos, Gilbert gained a
reputation as a skilled carpenter and building contractor, a fine orchardist, and an avid amateur photographer.

His mother lived with him in this home until her
death in 1931. Gilbert then married childhood
friend Margaret Hill. Margaret was an outgoing
community leader who often entertained at the
home. Upon her death in 1973, the home and
surrounding 1.3 acres were donated to the City
of Los Altos, and it was turned into the Los Altos
History Museum in 1977.

J. Gilbert Smith and his wife, Margaret.

Los Altos History Museum
143
Marketing communications design for print and web
#E19-02 Estimate
Date: May 20, 2019
Project: Orchard Exhibit Extension Design Development
Client: City of Los Altos
Davis Design 1423 Ranchita Drive Los Altos, CA 94024 • 650.961.1673 • jandavisdesign.com Scope of Work
To design 3 interpretive exhibit signs (two interactive), not to exceed 36" x 24" in size. These panels are an extension to the Library and Los Altos History Museum outdoor exhibit. The various groups involved with this project are: Los Altos History Museum (LAHM), City of Los Altos (LA), Orchard Commons Committee (OCC), Historical Commission (HC). A member of the OCC will serve as project coordinator. Work not to exceed $5K.

Project Phases 1: Design Development Hours Outside costs Meeting with client and get briefed on the project goals. LAHM provides copy and historical photos before design can begin.
1 Design first design comps 3 signs at 5 hours each (10 bus days) 15 First Design Presentation 1
Receive/review feedback from LAHM 1
Revise design to prepare Design rev 2 to present to OCC 5-7 business days
4 Meeting with LAHM / OCC project coordinator 1
Design rev 2 to OCC (pdf sent) 3
Final tweaks and prepare Design rev 3 for HC 1
Estimated Out-of-Pocket
Printouts for internal design development
$80
*Optional: 6 RF stock images w/extended license for outdoor signs. $110 each
$660
*Optional: Custom illustrations or photography are unknown at this time and not included in this estimate
TBD
* Optional: 1 set full-size rigid comps of the graphics panels $240

DAVIS DESIGN
144
Marketing communications design for print and web
Fee Schedule Hours Total
End of phase 1* 27 $2,700
End of Phase 2* 9 $900.00
Design $100/hr
Project mangement/fabricator $100/hr
*Out-of-pocket and expenses are estimates and will be invoiced as needed/ approved by clients.
$80-$960
Davis Design 1423 Ranchita Drive Los Altos, CA 94024 • 650.961.1673 • jandavisdesign.com About Davis Design
Woman-Owned Los Altos business since 1993. Davis design is a sole proprietor and does not have any employees. Services include graphic design for marketing communications and exhibit design.

Proof of Insurance:

Once an estimate is approved, Davis Design will provide a Certificate of Liability Insurance documentation. Workers Compensation clause is always waived.

Fees/Compensation/Change Orders
Payment for work completed will be based on progress to date for each phase as described in the Scope of Work. Davis Design provides hours associated with each phase. Meetings or change to the scope of work will be billed at an hourly rate of $100/ hour
Terms:

Net 30. Terms are based on fee schedule outlined above. If a project is delayed for more than 20 days, or terminated, then an invoice will be submitted for work completed to that date.

All files are provided electronically to vendor or client and is not subject to sales tax, unless physical delivery is requested, at which time sales tax is applied. Fonts can not be distributed with a project due to licensing restrictions. Fonts will be outlined if client requests files or substituted, or the client can license the font. Any stock images licensed is only to be used on this project.

Out-of-Pocket*
Are estimates only and will billed at their cost plus a 15% agency mark-up for items less than $250. These expenses include color prints, Fedex, proofs, stock photography/ illustration. Stock photography prices are subject to change based on different suppliers and their licensing terms. For expenses or reimbursements over $250 a 10% agency fee
applies. Sales Tax may apply.

Los Altos History Museum/ OCC Staff Responsibilities:

Responsible for copy development, editing, proofreading and hi-res historical images. OCC staff will provide project management to keep all parties on schedule.

Fabrication Vendor: Davis Design will work with the vendor and provide what they need. Engineering drawings, site
drawings and fabrication is not part of this Scope of Work.

Project Phase 2: Refined Design and Final Art to Fabricator Hours Total Design 3 presented to HC
Consolidated feedback/ edits by HC from OCC/LAHM. At this phase, if there are objections by the public or HC requiring a major redesign, this requires a change order to the Scope of Work.
2 Final electronic file prep with high-res images prepared for the fabricator. 4 Final design, and specs. Hardware type, color, size, ground or surface mount. Specs on thickness of hi-pressure laminate and size. Davis Design does not provide engineering drawings. One review cycle if additional edits are required. Files will not be sent to fabricator until proofs are approved.

Correspondences with fabricator until job is delivered. Meet with installers. 3 DAVIS DESIGN
145
The City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
146
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
October 2012 i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City Council
Ronald D. Packard Mayor
Valorie Cook Carpenter Mayor Pro Tem
David C. Casas
Jarrett Fishpaw
Megan Satterlee
Historical Commission
Gregory Loney Chair
Lance Kreisman Vice-Chair
Kristin Baker
Frank Bishop
Justin Drewes
Sapna Marfatia
Denise Welsh
City Staff
Douglas J. Schmitz City Manager
James Walgren, AICP Assistant City Manager
Zachary Dahl, AICP Senior Planner
Los Altos History Museum
Laura Bajuk Executive Director
Lisa Robinson Collections Manager
Consultant
Sheila McElroy CIRCA: Historic Property Development
San Francisco, CA
Cover: Going clockwise – The J. Gilbert Smith House (The Los Altos History House) (circa 1906); the newly constructed Southern Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot in Los Altos (1913); four of the original houses in Los Altos along Orange Avenue (circa 1913); the Tankhouse at 10 Yerba Buena Avenue (date unknown). Background – Tract map from 1906 showing the Sarah Winchester property, the original tract of land used to develop Los Altos. 147
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
ii October 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I
Overview of the Historic Evaluation Process I-1
Introduction I-2
Definitions I-3
Historic Evaluation Framework I-6
The National Historic Preservation Act I-6
The National Register Criteria I-6
The California Environmental Quality Act I-8
The California Register Criteria I-8
Historical Resource Status Codes I-9
Evaluating Historic Resources in Los Altos I-11
Step 1: Age I-11
Step 2: Determination of Integrity I-11
Step 3: Significance I-12
Historic Designation I-14

SECTION II
Los Altos: The Historic Contexts
Context 1: Prehistory II-1
Context 2: Agriculture 1850 to 1940 II-4
Context 3: Residential Architecture 1907 to 1940 II-6
Context 4: Institutional Development 1907 to1940 II-9
Context 5: Commercial Development 1907 to 1940 II-10
Los Altos: The Influence of Transportation on Growth and Development Early History II-11
Early American Settlers: The Cattle and Wheat Ranches II-12 The Age of Subdivision and Mass Transit II-13
Growth and the Importance of Transportation II-15
Transportation after the 1920s: The Automobile II-16
The Commuter and Los Altos II-18
Profile of Los Altos: 1907 to 1930
Occupations II-19
Demographics II-20
148
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
October 2012 iii

SECTION III
Historic Landmarks Properties III-1

SECTION IV
Historic Resource Properties IV-1

SECTION V
Designated Heritage Trees V-1
149
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-1

OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORIC EVALUATION PROCESS
The Los Altos historic evaluation process has been developed using the criteria outlined in the State and National evaluation practices and is intended to coordinate the areas of integrity, significance, and association between the California Register and the City of Los Altos, in order to avoid conflicting information or interpretations. The evaluation process consists of three steps which are summarized below.

The first step is to determine whether or not the property is over fifty years of age – buildings must, in most cases, be fifty years old or older to be considered historic resources. Certain properties that were constructed less than fifty years ago may be important as examples of mid-century modernist design or suburban development patterns. These properties may be eligible as historic resources if they are demonstrated to meet certain specialized criteria, sometimes referred to as demonstrating exceptional significance.

The next step is to determine whether the property retains enough original materials and features to convey its value as a historic resource. For example, a residence potentially important as a notable example of the Tudor Revival Style of architecture in Los Altos should retain the majority of its original cladding materials, as well as decorative details such as leaded glass windows, half-timbering and/or overhanging gables. These elements would be considered to be the structure’s Character Defining Features. This integrity assessment is commonly done in the field, usually as part of a survey or individual site visit. Most aspects of physical integrity can be easily assessed by a preservation professional in the field without knowing the full historic background on a property beforehand.

If a resource meets the age requirement (or demonstrates the potential for exceptional significance) and retains physical integrity, the next step is to determine if the resource has historic significance (i.e. has it been relocated, is it associated with a person or event of importance, is it associated with an event, person/people, architecture/design, and/or yields important information based on national, state or local definition). Significance is based on a property’s relationship or association with an important historic context. This context could be an association with a person, event or pattern of events significant in local, state or national history or themes within these associative values. It could be an association with a notable architect or an important architectural style or method of construction. A building, structure or object could also be important for its ability to provide information about prehistory. If a property is found to have a clear association with an important historic context, then it is determined to have significance as a historic resource on a national, state or local level.
150
City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-2 April 2011

INTRODUCTION
Los Altos is a community that celebrates its history. This rich past has been incorporated into the fabric of the City and provides a link to the community’s heritage and history. The remaining sites and structures of architectural and/or historic significance enhance the community’s unique character and contribute to a sense of place.

As outlined in the Los Altos General Plan, it is a goal of the City to preserve and enhance historic and cultural structures and resources within the community. To support that goal, the General Plan identified specific historic preservation policies:
 Ensure that the integrity of historic structures and the parcels on which they are located are preserved through the implementation of applicable design, building and fire codes.  The City shall regard demolition of landmark and historic resources listed in the Historic Resources Inventory as a last resort. Demolition would be permitted only after the City determines that the resource has lost its physical integrity, retains no reasonable economic use, that demolition is necessary to protect health, safety and welfare, or that demolition is necessary to proceed with a new project where the benefits of the new project outweigh the loss of the historic resource.
 Work with property owners to preserve historic resources within the community.

These goals and policies are implemented through the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance.

The primary purpose of the Ordinance is to ensure the protection of irreplaceable historic resources, enhance visual character through architectural compatibility, and encourage appreciation and recognition of the City’s past.

In order to properly identify historic resources within the City of Los Altos, the City Council authorized the Historical Commission to conduct a historic property survey in the spring of 1990.

In 1997, the Historical Commission completed a Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). The HRI was developed to catalogue all of the historic resources that were subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and rank each resource based on their significance. To rank the historic resources, a numerical evaluation system derived from The Evaluation of Historic Buildings by Harold Kalman (1979) was used. The “Kalman Scale” used a numeric scale to rate the resources in five categories:

Architecture, History, Environment, Age and Integrity.

Over the years, the methods and techniques for evaluating historic resources have evolved. As outlined in the criteria for the National Historic Register and the California Historic Register, current historic resource evaluation is based on using four areas of eligibility criteria: events, persons, design and the ability to yield important information, with age and integrity as separate entities. The Kalman Scale generally covers the same criteria, but is not totally consistent with the National Register and California Register evaluation methods in that it uses a ranking system and is quantitative rather than qualitative. In order to maintain the City’s HRI and evaluate historic resources in a way that is consistent with current historic preservation practices, a new historic rating methodology has been developed for the City.
151
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-3

DEFINITIONS
In order to better understand the terminology used within this document, the following is a glossary of terms as they relate to historic preservation in the City of Los Altos.

Alteration. Any act or process that changes any portion of the exterior architectural appearance of a structure or object, including, but not limited to, the erection, construction, reconstruction, removal of exterior architectural features or details, or the addition of new structures, but does not include painting, ordinary maintenance and landscaping.

California Historical Building Code (CHBC). The California Historical Building Code is Part 8 of Title 24 (State Building Standards Code) and applies to all qualified historic structures, districts and sites, designated under federal, state and local authority. It provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration or relocation of structures designated as qualified historic buildings.

California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) is a statewide system for managing information on the full range of historic resources identified in California. Specifically, those resources evaluated in historic resource surveys conducted in accordance with criteria established by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), formally determined eligible for, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places or designated as California Registered Historical Landmarks or California Points of Historical Interest. CHRIS is a cooperative partnership between the citizens of California, historic preservation professionals, twelve Information Centers, the CHRIS Hub and various agencies.

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The governmental agency primarily responsible for the statewide administration of the historic preservation program in California.

California Register of Historical Resources. The California Register of Historical Resources is a comprehensive listing of California’s historic resources, including those of local, state and national significance. The “significance” criteria for the California Register are similar to those used by National Register of Historic Places, which includes resources formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places.

Certified Local Government (CLG). The CLG program is a model and cost-effective local, state and federal partnership that promotes historic preservation at the grassroots level. Through an agreement between the City and the California OHP, the City carries out some of the functions of the National Historic Preservation Act. The OHP also provides the City with technical assistance and the ability to apply for grants to aid in the preservation of local historic resources.

Character Defining Features. The defining elements, such as prominent architectural features, materials, craftsmanship or other elements, that, individually or in combination, identify a historic property, building or landscape.

Commission Staff. The staff liaison assigned to the Historical Commission. 152
City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-4 April 2011

Contributing Resource. A public or private property that is not a Historic Resource individually, but contributes to the historic character of a Historic District.

DPR 523. The California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resource Inventory Forms used for historic evaluations. The DPR 523A form provides descriptive information about a resource. The DPR 523B form provides an evaluation of the resources and includes a determination as to whether the resource is eligible for the National or State Register of Historic Places or listing on the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory. The 523D form is used to identify districts or clusters of buildings that consist of a concentration or continuity of associated historic resources.

The District Record is used for documenting the linkages among individual resources within the framework of an historic context.

Exterior Architectural Feature. The architectural elements embodying style, design, general arrangement and components of all the outer surfaces of an improvement, including but not limited to, the kind, size, shape and texture of building materials, and the type and style of windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement.

Historic District. A distinct section of the City, specifically defined in terms of geographical boundaries that has cultural, historic, architectural and/or archaeological significance and is designated as a historic district by the City Council.

Historic Landmark. A building, improvement, structure, natural feature, site or area of land, under single or common ownership that has significant historical, architectural, cultural, and/or aesthetic interest or value, and is designated as a historic landmark by the City Council.

Historic Resource. A property or structure that has been determined to be over 50 years old, retains its physical integrity, has historical, architectural, cultural, and/or aesthetic value, and is listed on the Historic Resources Inventory.

Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). The City's official inventory of the historic resources, as adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the Historical Commission and/or the City Council. A property or structure must be designated as a Historic Landmark, a Historic Resource or located within a Historic District in order to be listed in the HRI.

Historical Commission. A seven-member advisory commission appointed by the City Council that is tasked with maintaining the Historic Resources Inventory, making recommendations on historic landmarks and historic districts, working with property owners on preservation, maintenance and other development activities related to historic resources, and other activities as identified in the Municipal Code.

Improvement. Any building, structure, parking facility, wall, work of art or other appurtenance or addition thereto constituting a physical betterment of real property or any part of such betterment.

Integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of the characteristics, also referred to as Character Defining Features, from which resources derive their significance. Integrity is the composite of seven qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. When properties 153
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-5

retain integrity, they are able to convey their association with events, people, and designs from the past.

Kalman Scale. A quantitative rating system that was derived from The Evaluation of Historic Buildings by Harold Kalman (1979) for evaluation of potential historic resources at the local level in five categories: Architecture, History, Environment, Age and Integrity. This rating system was used by the City through 2010 to identify and evaluate historic resources.

National Register of Historic Places. The official inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history, architectural, archeology and culture, maintained by the Secretary of Interior under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

Mills Act. The Mills Act is the single most important economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic structures. Enacted in 1972, the Mills Act grants participating local governments the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties to reduce the property tax assessment in exchange for the restoration and maintenance of the historic resource.

Preservation. The act of identification, study, protection, reconstruction, restoration, rehabilitation or enhancement of historic and/or cultural resources.

Reconstruction. The act or process of reproducing by new construction, the exact form and detail of a vanished building, structure or any part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period of time.

Rehabilitation. The act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration that makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural and cultural value.

Restoration. The act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work.

Secretary of Interior’s Standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards), with accompanying interpretive guidelines, are utilized by federal agencies in the preservation of historic properties that are listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; by State Historic Preservation Offices in evaluation projects proposed for historic properties in accordance with federal regulations; and by local governments, organizations and individuals in making decisions about the identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of historic properties. The list of ten Rehabilitation Standards, published as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, is aimed at retaining and preserving those features and materials that are important in defining the historic character of a resource. Technical advice about archaeological and historic preservation activities and methods is included in the Standards along with guidelines for archaeology and historic preservation.
154
City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-6 April 2011

HISTORIC EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Historic resources can be defined as buildings, sites, structures or objects which demonstrate historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural importance. Various regulations - at local, state and federal levels - seek to protect and encourage the revitalization of historic and cultural resources.

The survey and evaluation process considers the historical significance and physical integrity of a property to determine whether it can be considered a historic resource, and thus subject to certain regulations and financial incentives.

The National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470a to 470w-6, is the primary federal law governing the preservation of cultural and historic resources in the United States. The law establishes a national preservation program and a system of procedural protections that encourage the identification and protection of cultural and historic resources of national, state, tribal and local significance. Key elements of the act include:
 Establishment of a comprehensive program for identifying historic and cultural resources for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).  Creation of a federal-state/tribal-local partnership for implementing programs established by the act.
 Requirement that federal agencies take into consideration actions that could adversely affect historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, commonly known as the Section 106 Review Process.
 Establishment of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation which oversees federal agency responsibilities governing the Section 106 Review Process. 1 The National Register Criteria
The National Register is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. It is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) in conjunction with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). The National Register includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological or cultural significance at the national, state or local level. The National Register criteria and associated definitions are outlined in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

The following is a summary of Bulletin 15:

Generally, resources (structures, sites, buildings, districts and objects) over 50 years of age can be listed in the National Register provided that they meet the evaluative criteria described below.

1 http://www.preservationnation.org/resources/legal-resources/understanding-preservation-law/federallaw/nhpa.html (Accessed 9.1.2009). 155
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-7

Resources can be listed individually in the National Register or as contributors to a historic district.2 The National Register criteria are as follows:

A. Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history;
B. Resources that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Resources that have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history.

Certain resources are not usually considered for listing in the National Register. These properties can be eligible for listing, however, if they meet special requirements, called Criteria Considerations (AG), in addition to meeting the regular requirements (that is, being eligible under one or more of the four significance criteria and possessing historic integrity). Generally, such properties will qualify for the National Register if they fall within the following seven criteria considerations:

A. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance;
B. A building or structure removed from its original location, but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event;
C. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; D. A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events;
E. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived;
F. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or
G. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

2 A “contributor” is a building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic associations or historic architectural qualities for which a property is significant. The contributor was present during the period of significance, relates to the documented significance of the property, and possesses historic integrity or provides important information about a period; or the contributor independently meets National Register criteria. A “non-contributor” does not add to the historic associations or historic architectural qualities as it was not present during the period of significance; it has experienced alterations, disturbances, additions or other changes; or it does not independently meet the National Register criteria.
156
City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-8 April 2011

The California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEAQ) provides the legal framework by which historic resources are identified and given consideration during the planning process. The law was adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public Resources Code §§21000-21177. CEQA’s basic functions are to:
 Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities;
 Identify ways to reduce or avoid adverse impacts;
 Offer alternatives or mitigation measures when feasible; and  Disclose to the public why a project was approved if significant environmental effects are involved.

Any type of action that has the potential to impact a historic resource is subject to CEQA review and analysis. This type analysis required by CEQA usually takes the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Negative Declaration (ND) or Environmental Assessment (EA). The analysis will evaluate the potential impact(s) and, if necessary, look at ways to mitigate any negative impacts to the historic resource. If a significant impact to a historic resource is unavoidable, then a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required before the project is allowed to proceed.

The California Register Criteria
The California Register of Historical Resources is the official list of properties, structures, districts and objects significant at the local, state or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e., retain integrity). The California Register utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the National Register. Properties that are eligible for the National Register are automatically eligible for the California Register. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may still meet the California Register criteria.

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or

4. Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals 157
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-9

associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource.3
The California Office of Historic Preservation
(OHP) recommends documenting, and taking into consideration in the planning process, any cultural resource that is 45 years or older.4

The application of National Register and California Register criteria for evaluation is very much the same, with national significance as the threshold for National Register eligible properties and statewide significance as the threshold for California Register being the only substantial difference. These are the standard criteria used by preservation professionals who qualify under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards.

Historical Resource Status Codes
When a Historic Property Evaluation is prepared which consists of the applicable California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms (Primary Record, Building, Structure or Object, District form, etc.), an appropriate status code is selected and entered in the NR Status Code section of the form. The code that is selected is the one that best defines the relationship of the resource to the National Register and/or California Register. The status code also helps define a resource’s importance at the local (Los Altos) level. The California Historical Resource Status Codes are divided into seven major categories as follows:

Status Code 1: Properties listed in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR).

Generally applied to properties already on one of the registers, but being re-evaluated for integrity and/or being updated due to age of the original evaluation.

Status Code 2: Properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR). Generally applied to properties when extensive research has been conducted and substantiated data concluded eligibility.

Status Code 3: Appears eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) through survey evaluation. Generally applied to properties when limited research has been conducted and concluded potential eligibility.

Status Code 4: Appears eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) through other evaluation. Generally applied to State-owned properties.

Status Code 5: Properties recognized as historically significant by Local Government. Generally applied to properties with significance at the local level.

Status Code 6: Not eligible for listing or designation as specified. Generally applied to properties for various reasons noted.

Status Code 7: Not evaluated for National Register or California Register or needs reevaluation.

Generally applied to properties recorded but not evaluated for a variety of reasons.

3 CCR 14(11.5) §4852 (d)(2).
4 California Office of Historic Preservation, 1995, p.2. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
158
City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-10 April 2011

It is important to note that each of these categories have sub-sets that further define and articulate the status “value.” For the City of Los Altos, the majority of historic resources listed on the HRI will be listed under Status Code 5. The subcategories of Status Code 5 are as follows:
5D1: Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally. 5D2: Contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5D3: Appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.
5S1: Individual property that is listed or designated locally. 5S2: Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5S3: Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.
5B: Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation.

The application of the most appropriate status code therefore communicates the value of the resource and is extremely useful in any preservation planning process. A complete listing of all of the California Historical Resource Status Codes is available from the Planning Division at City Hall. 159
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-11

EVALUATING HISTORIC RESOURCES IN LOS ALTOS
When evaluating or re-evaluating a structure or property in Los Altos that has the potential to be a historic resource, the following process should be followed:

Step 1: Age
In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance or that it is exceptionally significant.

To be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register, a structure is usually more than 50 years old, must retain its physical integrity and must have historic significance. Similarly, in order to be eligible for listing on the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory, a structure must first be more than 50 years of age.

Step 2: Determination of Integrity
If a structure is more than 50 years old, then the next step in assessing its historic value is to determine if it has physical integrity. Specifically, the physical integrity of Character Defining Features needs to be associated with the historic attributes of the structure or property. When looking at historic integrity, it needs to meet one or more of the applicable (national state or local) criteria. In order to be considered historic, a structure or property must retain sufficient historic integrity in most of the “seven aspects” of integrity:
 Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
 Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure and style of a property.
 Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.  Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.  Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
 Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
 Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Of the seven aspects listed above, the following five aspects should be taken into consideration when evaluating a property or structure in the field for physical integrity: Design, Setting, 160
City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-12 April 2011

Workmanship, Materials and Feeling. These five aspects can be assessed on site to determine a property’s physical integrity without having any information regarding the property’s associative significance (association with significant events/people) or historical development (including relocation). This type of information is usually not known when completing a reconnaissance survey in the field. As such, an assessment of a property’s Association and Location are further developed as part of Step 3 in the evaluation process.

Based on the five applicable aspects of integrity for a reconnaissance survey (design, setting, materials, workmanship and feeling), the “In-Field Physical Attributes” evaluation needs to be able to determine if a property retains or does not retain enough physical integrity to convey its historic association.

Retains Physical Integrity: Properties that exhibit integrity of their Character Defining Features with regard to design, materials, feeling, workmanship and setting. Such properties retain approximately 50% or more of the building’s original materials, form and character defining features, including one or more of the following: exterior siding and window materials, architectural detailing and stylistic features. Their general setting and physical context is intact.

These properties may have alterations or additions, but the general form, massing and original stylistic features of the property – the basic elements that allow it to communicate its historic character – remain intact.

Does Not Retain Physical Integrity: Properties that do not retain integrity of design, materials, feeling, workmanship and setting are properties with two or more of the following: removal and replacement of original windows with modern sash (vinyl or aluminum, usually), complete siding replacement, significant alterations to the setting/physical context and/or notably incompatible or out of scale additions. This includes alterations or additions to a property that present a false sense of history. Properties that do not retain physical integrity are not considered to warrant further evaluation as a historic resource. They may still be considered in planning in the context of an entire neighborhood or collection of properties as a contributor to a “sense of place.” If a property or structure is found to retain the physical integrity of its Character Defining Features, then a determination of association and location are made in the Significance assessment (Step 3). If found to have a majority of the seven aspects of integrity, it is eligible to be considered for listing in the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory.

Step 3: Significance
This step of the process includes the establishment of the historic context for the property that is being evaluated. A Historic Context enables the assessment of a property’s historical significance by creating a framework against which to objectively qualify its relationship to larger themes and events in the history of the City of Los Altos, the greater Peninsula region and the State of California. A historical context for the City of Los Altos and a history of the influence of transportation on the City’s growth is included in Section II.
161
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section I
April 2011 Page I-13

The process of analyzing a historic resource’s association is an invaluable tool intended to identify, protect and maintain the historic status of a property or district, and its contribution to the built environment and community character. The historic resource evaluation process should include:
 Evaluation of the property’s historic significance utilizing national, state and local criteria and status codes;
 Identification of Character Defining Features;
 Evaluation of the Physical Integrity (Step 2); and
 Establishment of the period of significance based on substantiated documentation.

A professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards for history or architectural history (Federal Code 36 CFR Part 61) should be used to conduct the analysis.

The evaluation of a subject property should use the historic context as a tool for understanding where the property’s historic significance lies within the larger municipal historical timeline and to establish the property’s period of significance. The establishment of a historic context involves both broad and property specific research to determine whether the property has a demonstrable association. This research investigates broad patterns of history (i.e., suburban development in Los Altos or the growth and decline of the apricot industry), as well as the specific owners/occupants, architects, builders or events that may be associated with a particular property. In addition, physical alterations over time are assessed through survey field notes and building permit history documents, if available.

Once the background research has been completed and the integrity aspects of location and association can be confirmed (because one would then know whether a property has been moved from its original location and whether or not is continues to be associated with the particular family or use for which it may be significant), the final evaluation of historical significance is outlined using four basic criteria. These criteria, discussed in the Historic Evaluation Framework section above, address four potential areas of significance. These criteria are used as a professional standard for determining significance at state, national and local levels, and are summarized again as follows:
 Event: Associated with a single significant event or a pattern of events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States;
 Person/People: Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history;
 Architecture/Design: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or
 Archaeology: Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
162
City of Los Altos
Section I Historic Resources Inventory
Page I-14 April 2011

If a property is found to retain physical integrity and to be clearly associated with one of the above criteria, it is then able to communicate its historic character and can be considered a Historic Resource. The historical association of a structure or property will determine the level of importance within the context of Los Altos history and, depending on that level of importance, may make it eligible to be designated as a landmark. For example, if a property is the only or last remaining property associated with a particular context in Los Altos, it may be considered a historic landmark.

A property could also be a landmark if it is an outstanding example of design or construction or if an event of citywide, statewide or national importance occurred there.

Historic Designation
The Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) is the official list of historic resources, designated historic landmarks and designated historic districts that are significant at the local level (contribute to the history of Los Altos). If a property is over 50 years old, retains its integrity and has association with one or more of the criteria of significance, then it is eligible for designation as a Historic Resource. A property that has completed the historic evaluation process can be nominated for addition to the HRI as a Historic Resource by the subject property owner, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Historical Commission or the Community Development Director.

The Los Altos Historical Commission, which maintains the HRI as part of its charter, will hold a public hearing to consider a property or structure that is nominated for addition to the HRI.

Following a presentation of information supporting the nomination, the Historical Commission will take action on whether or not to designate the property or structure as a Historic Resource and list it on the HRI. Decisions made by the Historical Commission are appealable to the City Council. The Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 12.44 in the Los Altos Municipal Code) outlines the complete process for listing a property on the HRI.

All properties on the HRI are subject to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Properties on the HRI are potentially eligible for designation as Historic Landmarks and economic historic preservation incentives, such as the Mills Act. For more information about the historic preservation program, incentives and resources available for historic property owners or the Historical Commission, contact the Community Development Department at City Hall.

163
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-1
Note: The Historical Context and Transportation Narrative were originally prepared by Historical Consultant Patricia Leach as part of the Historic Resources Inventory that was completed in September of 1997. The Historical Context and Transportation Narrative have been edited and updated as part of the Historic Resources Inventory Update in 2010-2011.

LOS ALTOS: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS
Context 1: Prehistory
Central California had the densest native population anywhere north of Mexico before Spain began its explorations into the new world in the latter part of the eighteenth century. There were over forty different groups of Indians living between the coastal areas of Big Sur and the San Francisco Bay.

Among those groups, more than ten languages were spoken.

The Europeans who encountered the Indians referred to them as Costenos which meant people of the coast. This was twisted into Costanoan which is still used today, although the Bay Area Indian people dislike it intensely. They prefer to be called Ohlones, even though the word Ohlone is of disputed origin. It may have been the name of a village near the San Mateo coast or it may have been a Miwok word meaning people of the west. Nevertheless, Bay Area Indians prefer the word Ohlone when referring to their heritage.

There was no Ohlone tribe in the sense there was a Sioux, Hopi or Navajo. Even though each Bay Area settlement was loosely affiliated with its neighbors by trade or intermarriage, there was not tribal organization or confederation. The people who populated the region had a common root in their languages but did not see themselves as one nation of the same people.

The diaries of the early Spanish explorers and missionaries give us a rich account of what Indian life was like before the influx of Europeans. The Bay Area, two-hundred fifty years ago, would hardly be recognizable today. The land was covered with vast meadow lands, marshes spread out near the shores of the bay and thick oak, bay and redwood forest covered much of the hillsides. Animal life was plentiful. Fish and game of almost every kind flourished. Herds of elk and antelopes as well as wolves and deer were common as the bald eagles, giant condors, mountain lions, bobcats and coyotes. There were grizzly bears who fed on the abundant berries and acorns as well as the salmon and steelhead that swam in the area’s creeks and streams. To the Ohlone, the grizzly was always present yet today there is not a single one left in all of California.

Water was everywhere. We know that the explorers suffered more from the mosquitoes and hard to cross rivers than they did the heat of summer. Places which are now very dry were described as having springs and ponds, even small lakes. The major rivers and streams stretched out over the winter and spring to form wide very marshy valleys. This is a very different scene from the semi-arid country the Bay Area has become. The San Francisco Bay was much larger than it is today, since much of the bay has been filled in with landfill.

The environment of the Bay Area has changed drastically from the days when the early Spanish explorers first began to penetrate. Some of the birds and animals are no longer here and others have diminished greatly in number. The characteristics of the animals have also changed. The early explorers wrote that foxes were virtually underfoot and that mountain lions and bobcats were often very visible. Animals then seemed to have become familiar and comfortable with man. Man, of 164
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-2 April 2011
course, was the Ohlone people. The Ohlone depended upon animals for their food and for some of their clothing. They had an intense interest in animals and knew a lot about their behavior. The Ohlone viewed animal spirits as their gods and imitated animal motions in their tribal dances and ceremonies. They looked at themselves as belonging with the animals, so the relationship was not an adversarial one, but one of living in harmony.

There were as many as forty permanent villages that rimmed San Francisco Bay, plus many other temporary encampments. The Ohlone way of life was one of treks. Following the harvest, the Ohlone would travel to the seashore for shellfish, to the rivers for salmon and trout, to the marshes for ducks and geese, to the oak groves for acorns and to the meadows for seeds, greens and roots.

There were also trips to the quarries for stones and minerals and other trips for medicines, tobacco and for fiber and hemp. Because of their wandering way of life, the Ohlone built shelters of tule that could be put together and torn apart easily and quickly. The homes were a simple design made by fastening bundles of tule onto a framework of bent willow poles. Their boats were also made of tale and could be left behind when it was time to move on.

The Ohlone definitely had a very highly developed society where men and women had definite roles.

The women were keepers of the family, harvested acorns as well as ground them, gathered roots and herbs, collected seeds and made baskets. The men hunted, gathered food and participated in ceremonies. The Ohlone people were generous. They did not hoard food or other possessions, but shared them with the entire settlement. Competitiveness was not encouraged. Moderation and restraint were the virtues to admire. Because of this, strong rule or government was really nonexistent. The Europeans who first encountered the Ohlone called it anarchy, but on closer examination, the sense of right and wrong, modesty and truthfulness that were instilled in each individual created a much more sophisticated, controlled way of life.

The Ohlone developed basketry into a very intricate art-form. The baskets, made by women primarily, were made in many different shapes and sizes. There were storage baskets, winnowing baskets, hopper baskets, water-carrying baskets, seed beaters, cooking baskets, serving baskets and many more. Each basket had its certain shape that was both aesthetically pleasing as well as appropriate to its function. There could be as many as 25,000 stitches in a medium sized basket.

Each basket was an individual piece and reflected the natural world of plants of the Ohlone environment.

Dancing was a very important part of Ohlone life. They spent days, even weeks just dancing. At feasts, they would use moderation in eating and drinking just so they could continue dancing longer.

There were dances for all occasions. There were wild dances for war, acorn dances, mourning dances, dances just for men, and dances just for women. Dancing was a natural part of life, just like eating and sleeping. There was a deep religious or spiritual significance to every dance. In the dance, the Ohlones would feel power more deeply perhaps from the rhythms as they summoned spirits from their world.

The Ohlones were a strong well-developed people with an average life expectancy of about forty years. There were none of the contagious diseases that plagued Europe such as smallpox, measles, mumps and venereal diseases. However, respiratory diseases were probably prevalent. The Ohlone used natural medicines developed over the centuries to cure their ailments. They used herbs, barks and root in a variety of ways. They steamed and inhaled them or smoked them like tobacco. They 165
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-3
rubbed them into their skin or put them into their nostrils like snuff, plastered them on their faces or drank them as beverages or applied them as poultices to wounds. Minor illnesses like stomach aches or sprains were accepted as normal; however, major illness was believed to be caused by magic or by some evil spirit who invaded the body. When a major illness occurred the shaman was called.

Shamans would pray and dance to try to force the evil spirit to leave. Families would pay the shaman with beads or animal skins. Shamans, generally women, were the spiritual advisors or leaders. They were believed to influence fertility, health, the abundance of fish and the weather. Shamans could also turn to evil and in general were somewhat feared by the Ohlone people.

The Ohlone believed that almost every object had a life force of its own. Although everything had power, everything did not have equal power. Stones, for example, had little power, but rivers, redwood trees, the moon and especially the sun were very powerful. The storytellers would tell and retell the myths that had been handed down for centuries. Animals, especially, were believed to have special spiritual powers. The animal gods were more like people than what we might imagine gods to be. The Ohlone believed in and lived a rich spiritual life. They fasted, abstained from sex, danced long dances, chanted and sometimes used bodily punishment in order to achieve a heightened sense of living in their spirit filled world.

They envisioned the world primarily in terms of witchcraft and magic. Death was a matter of tremendous grief. The Ohlone feared death because they often felt the spirit or ghost of the deceased would remain and harm the settlement. For this reason, the family or especially the spouse of a deceased person would be shunned for a period of time. The Ohlone also did not have a sense of genealogy as we do. They would not know the immediate past but would know long ago ancestors. They would know their history beyond a few generations. This contributed to their belief of only living in the present.

Ohlone had lived in an unchanging world for thousands of years until the Spanish explorers began their treks though the new world. The Ohlone, oddly enough, greeted their arrival with much generosity and curiosity. The Franciscan fathers, especially Father Junipero Serra, saw the Ohlone as ripe to Christianize. And although the idea that these Franciscans were evil, power-hungry men who robbed the Ohlone of their life in paradise, the Franciscans saw the opportunity to bring their Christian way of life to the Ohlone. The Indians would be the beneficiaries of their more knowledgeable way of life. The original intent was the Franciscans would teach the Ohlone the proper way to eat, drink, pray and farm. After their apprenticeship, the Ohlone would be allowed to farm the land and the Franciscans would go on to Christianize other peoples. Of course, that never happened. Disease and the bureaucracy of the Spanish government prevented the Indian’s return to the life in natural surroundings. There was a brief period in the 1860s when Indians banded together to form settlements, but the influx from the Eastern U.S. did not allow these communities to continue and flourish.

Relics of the Ohlone have been unearthed over the last one hundred years. Mortars and pestles and an Indian skull were found east of Moody Road in 1955, and the developer of Colonial Estates on O’Keefe Lane discovered many human remains and artifacts during excavation work in 1964. The major find locally occurred in 1970, when the remains of an Ohlone village and burial ground were uncovered just across OKeefe Lane, on the Los Altos side of the boundary on the property of Mrs.

Lucile Costello, which had been acquired by Edwin C. Johnsen for condominium development.

With permission from Mrs. Costello and Johnsen, a “dig” and archeological study was undertaken 166
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-4 April 2011
by a team from Foothill College, aided by Mrs. Florence Fave (now McCliman), then historian for the town of Los Altos Hills. The ranks were later joined by students from the California History Center of De Anza College, San Francisco State, West Valley and St. Patrick Colleges.

Today, there are groups of Ohlone descendants who occasionally make their opinions public. Many of them have tried to bring back some Ohlone customs, traditions and way of life. Groups sometimes perform Ohlone dances at local churches and schools. The Ohlone still believe in treating strangers as brothers and sisters and though they can’t change the past, continue to believe that life will get better if we work together.

Context 2: Agriculture 1850 to 1940
Los Altos comprises a portion of what was the La Purissima Conception Rancho and Rancho San Antonio and later, after the adoption of the State constitution in 1849 and the official creation of Santa Clara County in 1851, a portion of the Fremont Township.

In the early rancho days, much of the Santa Clara Valley was used for cattle grazing. This activity later gave way to wheat and grain fields in the 1860s and 1870s. Mountain View was the principle settlement in the area and grew primarily as a result of the old Mountain View Station, a stage stop located along the San Francisco-San Jose Stage Road. This route today is known as El Camino Real.

When the Southern Pacific railroad came through in 1864, the line was located about a mile from Mountain View Station, bypassing what was known as Old Mountain View (near present day Calderon). The “New Mountain View” was officially laid out in 1865 at the present downtown area along Castro Street. Settlement in and around Los Altos area grew as a result of the railroad and Mountain View was the center for all business activity for these early residents. One early name is that of Charles Berry, who according to Sawyer’s History of Santa Clara County, was one of the earliest inhabitants of the area, arriving just prior to the railroad. Berry is said to have purchased 15 acres of the Taaffe Ranch and immediately planted it in fruit.

According to the Thompson and West Historical Atlas of 1876, Santa Clara County comprised some 578,850 acres. Nearly half of this was cultivated and included some 170,000 acres of wheat growing alone. The 1890 Sunshine, Fruit and Flowers publication of the San Jose Mercury Newspaper describes much of the area north of Mountain View as being planted in wheat fields with the area west and south devoted to orchards. Prior to this time, it appears that most land was used for grain growing; in 1875 some 2,000 acres in the county are listed-as vineyards and wineries.

Other accounts describe the Mountain View area as having some 22 wineries, including that of John Snyder. In 1875, over 182,000 gallons of wine were produced in the county, with an additional 45,000 gallons of brandy the same year. The Snyder Ranch was one of the largest in the area comprising 700 acres. Others include the Campbell Ranch (the present day Rancho Shopping Center) encompassing 150 acres, the Taaffe Ranch, the Madigan Ranch, and the Emerson Ranch.

Remnants of the early agricultural activity in this area have not been identified in the survey. It is clear that by the end of the nineteenth century, smaller farms began to appear and the large ranches which were largely in grain began to give way to smaller subdivisions and orchards. 167
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-5
It is the orchards in the valley that are the emphasis for this agricultural context. The earliest farms predate the official subdivision of the town by Paul Shoup and the Altos Land Company in 1907.

These farms were largely aligned economically with the town of Mountain View and along Grant Road.

By 1890, according to Eastman’s History of the Los Altos Area, smaller ranches were producing as “much as 200 dollars per acre from prunes, apricots, peaches, cherries, pears and other fruits.” The properties were lived in year round by their occupants and represent a phase in this history of the community that emphasizes farming as the means of livelihood. This activity predates the later relocation of San Francisco businessmen and their families to town after 1907. After the official establishment of the town, businesses in Los Altos grew and the beginning of residential subdivisions began to take over the orchard land use.

The impact of the railroad and subsequent layout of the townsite is another type of context that is not covered in this examination. It is in large part, due to transportation and the settlement that developed as a result of the technology that the orchards virtually disappeared in the valley. The significance of the theme did not become evident until the end of the project. Therefore, the theme of transportation and the growth of roadways in the area may be viewed as another context to be examined.

Although orchards continued up to the early 1940s in Los Altos, many of the smaller properties (five to ten acres) are not included in this category, yet provide significant examples of architectural styles and are included in the residential architecture context. The agricultural context attempts to identify properties which likely were constructed prior to the establishment of the town. An excellent description of life during this time period (and later periods) may be found in the unpublished manuscripts Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver by Lyle W. Huestis in 1977. This account gives detailed reminiscences of Mrs. Huestis about a farm and apricot orchard located on Grant Rd. (a copy can be found at the Los Altos History Museum). Properties that are, or were, part of this context include:
 170 Almond Avenue (Formway Machine Shop)♦
 210 Alta Vista Avenue♦
 960 Berry Avenue (Frank Bacon House)1
 965 Berry Avenue*
 547 Castano Court*
 1398 Chelsea Drive
 1330 Concord Avenue♦
 980 Covington (Emerson House)
 762 Edgewood Lane*
 331 El Monte Avenue
 236 Eleanor Avenue
 1520 Grant Road

1 The property at 960 Berry Avenue is not only significant because it is an early ranch house of the area, but also because of its historical association with actor Frank Bacon. 168
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-6 April 2011
 1473 Miramonte Avenue (Holly Village) ♦
 1475 Oakhurst Avenue♦
 1284 Paula Court
 39 Pine Lane (Hoskins House)
 1050 Portland Avenue♦
 439 Rinconada Court*
 51 S. San Antonio Rd.*
 175 Sylvia Court♦
 10 Yerba Buena Avenue (Tankhouse)
* Denotes City Designated Landmark
♦ Denotes that the structure has been demolished and/or is no longer on the HRI All properties in this context represent farmhouses of the area that were tied to some form of agriculture prior to the influx of San Franciscans and other families after the town’s creation.

Context 3: Residential Architecture 1907 to 1940
Many believe that the real beginning of Los Altos start with the Altos Land Company and acquisition of Sarah Winchester’s 100 acres in 1906. This land became what is known today as the downtown triangle.

The earliest account, date August
2, 1906, was found in the Palo
Alto Times in an article describing
the purchase of the 100 acres
mentioned above by the
Interurban Electrical Railway for
a right-of-way. It mentioned the
creation of a new town-site to be
called “Banks and Braes.” Just
when the name was changed to
Los Altos in unknown, but we do
know that the Altos Land
Company and the University
Land Company were formed in
1907. The October 2, 1913 issue
of the Mayfield News, however,
describes the townsite as being
sold again and placed solely into
the hands of Paul Shoup and
George Herbert, a San Jose fruit
packer. The deal is described as
one of the most important real
estate transactions in Santa Clara
A 1906 tract map showing the Winchester parcel that would be sold to the Altos Land Company and become the town-site for Los Altos.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives
169
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-7
County.

With the establishment of the town in 1907 came the beginnings of subdivisions (although a few earlier subdivisions were recorded prior to 1907). It is with the creation of the new townsite that the context of residential architecture is examined.

The original town contains the University Avenue neighborhood. This early and very elite neighborhood contains a variety of architectural house types which are unified mainly by the street layout and alleyways. The lot sizes and scales of these homes vary in size greatly; yet there is a continuity of form in the streetscape in most cases. Dates in this area range from 1908 to the 1930s and buildings in many cases are probably architect-designed judging from the styles found, and the social status of people who occupied these buildings. Many of the homes in the district began as summer homes for prominent San Francisco businessmen and their families while others remained year round living quarters for businessmen who commuted on the train. An examination of the Architect and Engineering Record of California between 1906 and 1930 reveals that many well known architects worked in the Los Altos area, but little is available that sheds any light on the exact locations of residences or their occupants.

The well-known Ng Tong Temple, for example, was designed as an outdoor theater for performances. It sat upon part of the property formed by the rear yards of five prominent families (the translation means “five families”), along Adobe Creek, where Shoup Park is now located. The theater was designed by San Francisco architect John K. Branner (listed in an August, 1924 article).

Henry C. Smith, architect, was the designer of the Los Altos Grammar School as well as the Wellman residence, known today
as the El Retiro Retreat (1916
article). John Hudson Thomas
did some work in Los Altos
along Pine Lane, but the
residence is apparently gone
today. We know Ernest Coxhead
worked in town, designing a
residence and a church. Wellknown landscape architect, Emerson Knight, also worked in
the sea, but again, the locations
are unknown. The Paul Shoup
residence at 500 University was
designed by San Jose architect,
Charles McKenzie, in 1910.

Further examination of the
records may shed more light on
local architects.

Local contractor, Claude Taylor (later of Taylor properties), built several homes in town, including the Mabel Eschenbraecher home. The most well-known contractor in town was local orchardist, J.

Gilbert Smith, whose residence is the History House Museum on the Civic Center campus.

Although the architect is unknown, the Los Altos Country Club is featured on the cover of one The Paul Shoup residence at 500 University Avenue
Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives
170
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-8 April 2011
issue of the Architect and Engineering Record. The residential architecture context, thus, centers mainly on architectural styles popular between 1907 and 1940 (including some not so popular styles).

By 1911, according to Eastman’s history of the town, Los Altos had only fifty homes; by 1913, only thirty-two telephones had been connected. The majority of properties in the residential context are homes built in the 1920s and 30s, reflecting the growth of the area.

By this period, the central business district had been established, roadways were more complete, and working-class families could afford to move to “the county” and grow a few apricot trees.

The dominant house types in this category include:
 Bungalows
 Mission
 Period Revival (Tudor, Colonial, Provincial)
 Prairie
 Italian Villa
 Spanish Colonial Revival
Three districts also appear: the already described University Avenue area, Los Altos Park and Loyola Comers. Los Altos Park was subdivided in December of 1925 and contains a variety of small homes on small lots of a uniform size. The tiny lots and cottages in the Loyola district contain a variety of styles and are also linked together due to the scale and size. Originally known as the Loyola Tract in 1904, the 600 acre area was purchased by the Jesuit Father of the University of Santa Clara for the purpose of relocating the college. The area also had a train stop. The financial pledges for the construction of the new school fell through after the San Francisco earthquake in 1906 and a good portion of the land was used for grazing dairy cattle. The official subdivision of Loyola Corners was recorded in 1926 and a group of investors purchased a portion of the land from the Jesuit Fathers for the Los Altos Country Club. Properties that are, or were, part of this context include:
 11 Angela Drive
 232 Burke Road
 448 Cherry Avenue
 6 Cypress Court
 233 West Edith Avenue♦
 1485 Fremont Avenue
 1671 Kensington Circle
 25 Maynard Court
 55 Pepper Drive*
 625 Palm Avenue
 431 University Avenue*
 436 University Avenue*
 452 University Avenue
 500 University Avenue* Villa Angela - an Italian Renaissance style house designed by Andrew Knoll and constructed in 1922 at 11 Angela Drive.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives
171
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-9
 551 University Avenue
 711 University Avenue
 725 University Avenue
 420 Yerba Santa Avenue
* Denotes City Designated Landmark
♦ Denotes that the structure has been demolished and/or is no longer on the HRI Context 4: Institutional Development 1907 to 1940
The development of civic organizations, schools, and clubs began shortly after the creation of the new town-site. Few resources are remaining today in Los Altos from the early days of the community, but other resources will become significant as more years go by. Civic organizations, such as the Los Altos Men’s Club or the Garden Club, are recorded in detail in Joe Salameda’s Los Altos Memories, which is available at the Los Altos History Museum or the Los Altos Library.

The most significant resource within the institutional development context that still remains is the San Antonio Club, which is currently located at 647 North San Antonio Road and is a City Designated Landmark. Started in May 1907, this organization began as the Musical and Literary Club of Los Altos. By 1908, the club had changed its name to the San Antonio Country Club, whose purpose was to devote time to charity. The property was donated to the club by Julia Chandler Hill, mother of Margaret Hill, who later married J. Gilbert Smith.

The remaining
civic/institutional resources
with this context include the
Coxhead designed, Foothills
Congregational Church
(originally the Christ Episcopal
Church) and the Los Altos
Country Club building (original
building is now demolished).

The church and Country Club
have been altered significantly
and are probably not eligible
for National Register listing.

Further, the Country Club lies
within the jurisdiction of Santa
Clara County and not the City
of Los Altos. The Eschenbruecher Hardware Store and the Shoup Building – two of the first buildings to be constructed on Main Street.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives
172
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-10 April 2011
Context 5: Commercial Development 1907 to 1940
With the establishment of the town-site came the beginnings of commercial development in Los Altos. The first building to locate on Main Street is the well-known Eschenbruecher hardware store in 1908 (316 Main Street), followed by the Shoup building (300 Main Street). The Shoup building may also be viewed as part of Context 3, since it was the first grammar school location as well as the meeting place for the local Boy Scouts. The Altos Land Company occupied a building at the comer of Main and First (388-398 Main Street). The Copeland building sits across Main Street (395-399 Main Street). All four buildings were constructed by 1911 and are City Designated Landmarks.

Perhaps the most significant building within the commercial context is the Los Altos Railroad Station (288 First Street). Built in 1913 by the Architectural Bureau for Southern Pacific, the railroad station represents the real force behind the development of the town. The railroad station is a City Designated Landmark and appears eligible for listing on the National Register.

Other prominent commercial buildings located downtown that are listed on the HRI include:
 301 Main Street (Originally Larry Nelson’s Los Altos Pharmacy)  350 Main Street
 368 Main Street (also known as Al’s Barber Shop)
 180 Second Street (Tudor style residential building converted to commercial) The Southern Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot, constructed in 1913.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives
173
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-11
LOS ALTOS: THE INFLUENCE OF TRANSPORATION ON GROWTH

AND DEVELOPMENT

Executive Summary
This study is the result of intensive research on transportation history as it relates to the broader Santa Clara Valley and Los Altos in particular. The basic thesis of this document maintains that the town of Los Altos would not have developed as it has without the coming of the railroad and subsequent mass production of the automobile. The earliest pioneer settlers of this area were primarily associated with the town of Mountain View as a source of commercial and recreational activity; the stage line was located there as well as the Post Office, mercantile and other establishments. The earliest city directories for the area show early residents of what is now Los Altos as residents of Mountain View. In fact, residents later changed their mailing addresses from Mountain View to Los Altos without moving. Los Altos does not show up as a separate directory listing geographically until 1911.

Paul Shoup, president of Southern Pacific Railroad Company and founder of the Altos Land Company, put Los Altos on the map. The acquisition of railroad right-of-way and surrounding lands, coupled with the new layout of the townsite in 1907 gave Los Altos a separate identity from the surrounding communities and enabled middle-class commuter populations to move into the area. The entire rural nature of the area was changed with the development of more roads, school, churches, commercial, and residential construction activity. Foremost amongst this built environment is the Los Altos Train Station, symbol of the town’s very existence.

Early History
It was not until 1769 that the Santa Clara Valley began to feel the Spanish presence. Don Gaspar de Portola discovered the valley over 200 years after Cabrillo first arrived in California. Large land grants were subsequently issued in order to encourage settlement and increase revenue for the territory of California. Starting in 1769, twenty-one widely separated missions were established along the El Camino Real by the Franciscan Friars. Essentially, the El Camino Real became California’s oldest thoroughfare (See Map One - the El Camino Real is known as San Francisco Road). Mexican independence from Spain in 1821 and the Secularization Act of 1833 soon shifted the way land was distributed.

The two land grants that are now Los Altos and Los Altos Hills were awarded by the Mexican government. Rancho San Antonio was made by Governor Alvarado to Don Juan Prado Mesa on March 24, 1839. It extended from San Antonio Creek (later named Adobe Creek) to Stevens Creek, with a division by Permanente Creek. The second was granted on June 30, 1840 to two Indians, Jose Gregorio and Jose Ramon. They sold this land to Dorms Juana Briones de Miranda on November 6, 1850.

In February of 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo formally transferred the California Territory form Mexican rule to the United States. Gold was also discovered in 1848. Anglo settlers had already been exploring the area and many migrated to California in the 1840s to make their fortune in mining. Several of these same settlers became the largest land holders. In 1843, one of 174
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-12 April 2011
Santa Clara Valley’s first American land holders, Martin Murphy, arrived in California. By 1849, Murphy had acquired nearly half of the rancho that is now known as the City of Sunnyvale. This began a new era in the Santa Clara Valley’s history.

Early American Settlers: The Cattle and Wheat Ranches
The American settlers transformed the valley into fields and orchards mined for maximum profits.

Families such as the Murphy’s dominated the economic and political life of the valley during the 1850s, creating a landed aristocracy. These were the day of wheat and large cattle ranches in the Santa Clara Valley. The first agriculture had been from the mission, but the new immigrants began planting the produce they missed from home in 1852.

Joseph P. Hale, one of the largest land owners in the west (primarily due to a marriage to the daughter of a large Spanish grant holder), bought 2,000 acres of Donna Juana Biones’ original ranch and became one of Los Altos’ earliest large land owners. He and four other families lived on the Hale Ranch. In 1862, John Snyder became the area’s first rancher, proving that wheat and grain could be grown without irrigation on his ranch along Permanente Creek. Additional map documentation also shows the Emerson and Berry families as larger land holders.

Early Ranches in Los Altos
Name of Owner Location Crops
Joseph P. Hale Adobe Creek on the west to present
Fremont Ave. on the north, Permanente
Creek on the east and the hills to the south.

John Snyder Foothill Ranch along Permanente Creek. Hay/Grain Stone and Sanborn Between Taaffe and Hale Ranches. Horses/Grain Campbell Site of present Rancho Shopping Center. Fruit/Vineyard Spaulding North of Fremont and El Monte.

Griffin West of Adobe Creek adjoining Taffee land. Fruit Madigrm Bounded on east by San Antonio Road.

Source: Eastman’s “History of the Los Altos Area,” from Memories of Los Altos, by John Salameda In 1856, Louis Pellier introduced the Santa Clara Valley Prune in San Jose, beginning the fruit era in the valley. Although slow in its development, five and ten acre lots began being sold for fruit farms.

By 1890, many of the small ranches were producing prunes, apricots, peaches, cherries, pears and other fruits at a large profit; for as much as two hundred dollars per acre.

The table below exemplifies the large growth in the number of smaller farms as the valley changed from a ranching to an orchard economy.
175
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-13
Number of Farms in Santa Clara Valley by Size
Year <100 Acres >100 Acres
1880 721 771
1890 1,470 750
1900 3,057 938
1910 3,096 825
1920 4,390 626
1930 5,616 621
Source: Lukes and Okihiro, Japanese Legacy
The Age of the Subdivision and Mass Transit
Change in land ownership by the turn-of-the-century in the Los Altos area began to have an impact on land usage and development. Some 700 acres of the Hafe Ranch were sold to the University of Santa Clara as a university site. By 1906, big ranches were sold off in smaller parcels of approximately 40 to 100 acres. Many of these lots were bought by professors from the newly formed Stanford University (1891) according to Eastman’s account. Mrs. Winchester, the widow of the Winchester rifle manufacturer, purchased the present site of Los Altos.

At this time the relationship between mass transit and urban growth becomes important to Los Altos development. A brief history of the growth of transportation across the United States will shed light on the importance of transportation in the growth of Los Altos.

During the time of the Civil War, the United States was an essentially agricultural land of fewer than 34 million inhabitants. Only two of its cities had as many as half of a million citizens, and most of its people had never seen a railroad track or a three-story building.2 By 1913, Henry Ford had introduced the assembly line automobile and the American nation had become the world’s leading industrial power. New York was about to become the world’s largest city and half of the United States population had become urban.3 The railroads played a large part in that development.

In 1862, President Lincoln signed the bill authorizing the transcontinental railway. Collis P.

Huntington, Leland Stanford, Mark Hopkins, and Charles Crocker formed the Central Pacific in order to build the western link. The Union Pacific was to build westward in order to connect the two lines. By 1865, Southern Pacific had been incorporated with the intention to build from San Francisco south to San Diego and then eastward. On May 10, 1869, the Golden Spike was driven in Promontory, Utah, meeting the Union Pacific and completing the transcontinental railway. In 1870, Southern Pacific came under the control of Hopkins, Huntington, Stanford, and Crocker. By 1885, The Big Four had merged all their interests into the Southern Pacific Company.

In 1890, when the federal government first canvassed the nation’s street rail systems, it enumerated 5,700 miles of horsecar track, 500 miles for cable cars, and 1,260 miles for trolley. By 1893, more than 250 electric railways had been incorporated in the United States, and more than 60 percent of the nation’s rail systems had been electrified. By the end of 1903, America’s 30,000 miles of street

2 Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier. 87 3 Ibid
176
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-14 April 2011
railway was 98 percent electrified. By comparison, the recently invented automobile was slower to develop.4
The electric streetcar was crucial in opening up the suburbs for the common man. Traditionally, railroad suburbs had been for the elite. The introduction of improved street railway lines made possible a continuing outward expansion of the city. Kenneth Jackson describes the policy of land speculation that developed from this trend:

Two policies of streetcar entrepreneurs were especially important in facilitating the outward movement of population. The first was the practice of extending lines beyond the built-up portion of the city and into the open country. …this had the practical effect of enabling heads of households to see that a convenient transportation mode would be available from their homesite. The second essential policy was the five-cent fare. …American firms usually adopted a flat fee with fee transfers, thus encouraging families to move toward the cheaper land on the periphery.5
A Massachusetts Street Railway Commission noted in 1918: “It is a well-known fact that real estate served by adequate street railway facilities is more readily saleable and commands a higher price than real estate not so served.”6 Cities such as Oakland and Los Angeles, California, and Washington, D.C. are all examples of large American urban areas that grew mainly because of land speculation efforts of transit tycoons.

Los Altos followed the same pattern as other larger cities. A typical scenario was that of a transportation official privately purchasing large tracts of undeveloped land and then
subdividing the land after the development of a transit line.

In Los Altos, Southern Pacific president, Paul Shoup, and his brother, Southern Pacific attorney, Guy Shoup, bought a right-of-way from Palo Alto through Los Altos to run a
connecting line through Los Gates and points south.

On October 19, 1907, the Altos Land Company was
incorporated with L. E. Petree as Secretary. The University Land Company was also incorporated on exactly the same
day with Petree as Secretary. Paul Shoup served as a director of the Altos Land Company; there is no documentation
showing the directors of the University Land Company.

Both companies had as their objective the layout and
subsequent sale of lots in the newly laid out town of Los Altos.

Prior to the land company incorporation, the San Jose-Los Gates Interurban Electric Railway Company had acquired

4 Jackson, 111
5 Jackson, 119
6 As quoted in Jackson, 120
Paul Shoup, known as the “Father of
Los Altos,” was President of the
Southern Pacific Railroad and founder
of the Altos Land Company.

Source: Los Altos History House
Museum Archives
177
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-15
100 acres of land from Sarah Winchester for the proposed route of the railway and townsite of what was then called “Banks and Braes.” The company was shortly thereafter acquired by Southern Pacific’s newly created subsidiary know as the Peninsular Railway with the stipulation that the Altos Land Company would lay out the lots for the townsite, and the town name changed to a Los Altos in 1907.

The Southern Pacific
had already established
its line from Mayfield
through Los Altos and
Saratoga on to the final
destination of Santa
Cruz. The Peninsular
Railway, the suburban
electric route, built its
line from Mayfield to
San Jose. According to
McCaleb’s Tracks, Tires
and Wires, the line was
formally dedicated on
April 12, 1908 when
two Southern Pacific
steam trains brought
prospective lot buyers
to a land sale and
barbecue in Los Altos, Regular service was established on April 19, 1908 with five trains per day passing through Los Altos. With the establishment of this regular rail service, more families could move outward into the “country,” and many promotional brochures haled this new lifestyle available to the middle-class. Lot prices ranged form $400 to $650 and homes could be built from $2,000 to $4,000. This era marks the beginning of small fruit farmers occupying 10 acre lots. With the movement of families to the Los Altos area, comes the development between 1910 and 1930 of many small subdivisions and the establishment of additional roadways. Up until this time, the El Camino Real, San Antonio Road and El Monte Road (Moody Road) served as major routes of transportation.

Up until 1913, the ticket office and train station for Los Altos was a boxcar setup along the tracks near the present day Safeway store. In 1913, the Architectural Bureau of Southern Pacific completed the new train depot at its present location. It was a Craftsman style building and a symbol of the beginning of the development of Los Altos. Without the arrival of the railroad, early land owners would probably still be affiliated with the older community of Mountain View, the source for all commercial and domestic activity (see Map One).

Growth and the Importance of Transportation
With the advent of the railroad to Los Altos, a town had begun to form. Shoup and the Altos Land Company had laid out the town plan and the promotion of Los Altos got into full swing. Businesses The Mayfield-Los Gatos cut-off railroad line under construction in 1907. Train service along this line would start serving Los Altos in 1908.

Source: Los Altos History House Museum Archives
178
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-16 April 2011
had started; the first being the hardware store, the second the Shoup building. A dry good store and the Los Altos Water Company soon appeared in this “fast growing town of paved curved streets, lined with hitching posts every 25 feet.”7
According to Eastman’s “History of Los Altos,” by July of 1911 Los Altos had “boasted some fifty houses, the initial part of Sam Antonio School and an ‘unusually good water system… the water pipes of the best cast iron material that can be obtained… the water from two artesian wells 250 and 322 feet deep respectively.’” Jackson’s account of the growth of the suburbs in America discusses the importance of infrastructure and transportation development for these new towns. Jackson explains the process in the subdivision:

Whether their subdivisions were large or small, real estate specialists were more active in the city building process than anyone else. The theory that the early suburbs grew, with owners “turning town paths and natural avenues of traffic into streets,” is erroneous. Subdividers lobbied with municipal governments to extend city services, they pressured streetcar companies to send tracks into developing sections, and they set the property lines for individual homes. Each city and most suburbs created from many small real-estate developments that reflected changing market conditions and local properties.8
Affordable transpiration was also crucial to Los Altos’ success. According to Jackson, two important factors contribute to town development success: the quality and cost of housing and convenience, speed and cost of transportation. Generally, lower income groups have lived closer to urban centers due to the low cost of living. For the middle class, the importance of centrality decreases because of the sinking importance of transportation costs. The train fare in Los Altos was five cents.

Increased transportation in the form of the railroad opened up new markets in the East for farmers and other businesses in Los Altos and the Santa Clara Valley. In the early days of the Santa Clara Valley’s orchard economy, farmers relied on San Francisco for much of their business and support. San Jose soon replaced San Francisco’s role as a place to finance and sell the goods of the fruit industry. Farmers in the Los Altos area benefitted from the improved transit by having greater accessibility to both locations.

Transportation after the 1920s: The Growth of the Automobile.

In 1898, there was only one automobile in operation for every eighteen thousand Americans. The primary means of intraurban movement remained the electric trolley or streetcar and the railway. By the early 1920s, the rail system in Northern California was extensive. However, by 1925, Ford was turning out 9,000 cars per day, or one every ten seconds. The table below gives a better indication of how rapid the growth of the automobile was in the United States.

7 Eastman, “A History of Los Altos,” in Jose Salameda, Memories of Los Altos 8 Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, 135.
179
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-17
Automobile and Truck Registration in the United States
Year Automobiles Trucks Trucks:Cars
1905 80,000 1,400 1:55
1915 2,332,426 158,506 1:15
1925 17,481,001 2,569,734 1:7
1935 22,567,827 3,919,305 1:6
1945 25,793,493 5,079,802 1:5
1955 52,135,583 10,302,987 1:5
1975 106,713,000 25,755,700 1:4
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States
With the growth in automobile usage in the United States, the need for improved roads became necessary. By the 1920s, a coalition of private-pressure groups, including tire manufacturers and dealers, parts suppliers, oil companies, service station owners, road builders, and land developers were lobbying for new streets. Road and highway building was viewed as a form of social and economic therapy, and merchants justified public financing on the theory that roadway improvements would pay for themselves by increasing property-tax revenues along the routes.9 Road building in the United States was primarily financed with the establishment of a gasoline tax in the early 1920s. The Depression of the 1930s helped build more roads throughout the nation because of the availability of state and federal funds that enabled employment of many workers in the road building effort. By the 1930s, the road system in the Santa Clara Valley and Los Altos had grown extensively. This growth continued throughout booming post-World War II years.

The 1920s saw the growth of the automobile suburb. Patterns of settlement began to change drastically as the use of the automobile became more common. The streetcar settlement was relatively compact with the best homes constructed within walking distance of rail transportation.

The presence of the auto allowed tracks of land between rail centers to be developed. Los Altos was no exception to this pattern. The first subdivisions from the original town layout (such as the Los Altos Park Subdivision of 1925) were further from town. Although these subdivisions were laid out at the end of the 1920s, many were not built up until after the Depression of the 1930s.

By 1935, buses had begun to appear on San Jose’s streets, replacing the streetcar as the preferred method of transportation. By 1933, the Peninsular Railway was beginning to substitute buses for railcars on all interurban routes. On June 12, 1935, the Peninsular Railway was legally disincorporated and its properties and assets were conveyed to its parent company, the Southern Pacific. Train service in Los Altos had stopped altogether by 1964.

Together with private sources, government subsidies helped to create a national system of interstate highways. One of the first completed interurban freeways in the United States was the Pasadena Freeway in Los Angeles. This innovation raised the value of Pasadena real estate to such an extent that developers and builders anxiously supported freeways elsewhere. The Bayshore Freeway that passes east of Los Altos in Palo Alto is the connection linking San Jose and San Francisco and was envisioned starting in the late 1920s. The final link was dedicated on June 12, 1937 with major construction into the late 1940s, starting a new direction in transit for the Santa Clara Valley. The

9 Ibid, 164
180
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-18 April 2011
Bayshore further changed the patterns of settlement and working in Los Altos providing quicker access to jobs throughout the valley. In 1952, the town formally incorporated.

In 1977, The Southern Pacific Company asked the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to discontinue Peninsular Commuter service. In 1980, Caltrans agreed to take financial responsibility for the route and CalTrain was born. In October 1988, Rio Grande Industries, Inc. acquired Southern Pacific rail operations.

The Commuter and Los Altos
Los Altos is ideally situated between San Jose and San Francisco. Early promotional brochures advertise its proximity to these urban centers and their accessibility by rail. A 1946 Chamber of Commerce brochure heralds the location of Los Altos as being ideal and shows the importance of transportation to Los Altos.
“San Francisco is convenient by train, bus or motor car. The thriving industrial city of San Jose is fifteen miles to the south. Palo Alto, seat of Stanford University, lies six miles to the north.

Shady, orchard-lined roads connect it directly with all Peninsula points and with busy Highway 101, the major west-coast thoroughfare. Three miles to the east stretch the salty waters of the bay, beyond which rears a rugged range of mountains extending to the north and south. The ugliness and tumult of the industrial world do not intrude on the serenity and beauty of Los Altos, although the greatest business and manufacturing centers of Northern California are within easy commuting distance, many residents gladly make the daily trip, finding adequate recompense in returning to the refreshing quiet, the clear air, and the fruitful greenery of the foothill country.”
In addition to the white collar workers who commuted to San Francisco, the rail lines and the roads that subsequently began developing from Los Altos’ increased growth served an important function to the migrant worker that sustained the Santa Clara Valley’s fruit economy. Worker and their families traveled throughout California depending on the crop that was being harvested or the fruit that was being canned. Better roads and increased rail lines helped them access the orchards. 181
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-19
PROFILE OF LOS ALTOS: 1907 TO 1930
Occupations
The following analysis is based on census data from 1910 and 1920. Los Altos during 1910 was a primarily agricultural town. Although this continued well into the 1930s, by 1920 the census showed an increase in white collar professions, a variety of business proprietors and their employees, clerical support positions, and more diversified blue collar workers.

Cooks and servants were a part of many large farm families. Many of the cooks were Japanese or Chinese men, the servants tended to be female and recent European immigrants. If the servants were male, they were primarily young Japanese “houseboys” that were common at this time. These large farm families generally had more children, a cook, and some hired men or general laborers included in their household. There is also evidence of many farm support professions in Los Altos, such as blacksmiths, tinsmiths, farm laborers, and machinists. The pre-Prohibition era is shown by the presence of vineyardists.

In 1910, Los Altos did have some white collar workers. A few university instructors lived in the town. There were many workers in administrative railroad support jobs such as ticketing agents or mail clerks. The make-up of the workforce had changed; sons of farmers were often listed as having jobs as clerks and housing carpenters instead of working in farming.

The evidence that the town was newly growing is seen in the number of building contractors, housing carpenters, and lumberyard workers. These professions were even more represented in the 1920 census that also showed the increase of real estate-related professions. In addition, 1920 showed the new importance of the automobile to the town with garage proprietors and oil station managers represented as part of the workforce.

In the 1910 and 1920 census, women were rarely listed as having an occupation. Those that did were often widowed or young unmarried women. These single women were often teachers, book writers, or clerical support staff.

Creativity was evident in early Los Altos; the town boasted a landscape artist, H. A. Straight, a handful of book writers (many female), a music teacher and a singer. Publishing house trades also appeared as early as 1910. Los Altos had the professional trades documented as well. Both attorneys and physicians lived in the downtown area.

Workers were obviously already commuting in 1910 to the San Francisco area. The representation of the professions such as tughead navigator, river steamer mate and a marine supervisor are all indicative of jobs away from Los Altos.

Shop proprietors of the machine shop, restaurant and the hardware store live in the downtown area of First and Second streets. This was a common pattern. El Monte Road and San Francisco Road remained relatively rural in 1920. Early businesses seemed to be related to farms or the growth of the new town.
182
City of Los Altos
Section II Historic Resources Inventory
Page II-20 April 2011
The census showed that Los Altos’ population had many interesting occupations. The 1910 census even lists two tramps in Los Altos. A 57 year old single male that is listed as a tramp cites the occupation of a laborer. Additional unusual professions include a book binder, a waiter, a linen good manufacturer, and a proof-reader. These occupations all show the diversity of the population.

Demographics
Los Altos in 1910 was home to one Indian (an Eskimo Indian from Alaska) who worked as a farm laborer. In 1920, a Indian woman was a live-in servant to a family and another Indian was an 85 year old farm laborer.

The 1910 census recorded no African Americans. In 1920, there were three African Americans listed, a widowed female fruit farmer and a real estate collector and his wife.

Immigrant populations in Los Altos changed drastically from 1910 to 1920. The 1910 census showed the Canadian and English as being the most numerous with the Germans, Irish, and Japanese not far behind. By 1920, the Japanese were by far the largest immigrant group with English, Germans and Canadians following. A major change between the two decades is the growth in immigrants from many different countries. Los Altos in 1920 had a population from countries almost everywhere between China and Alsace-Loraine.

Immigrants from Italy and Portugal were not as numerous in Los Altos as in other parts of the Santa Clara Valley. This may be attributed to the fact that Italian and Portuguese communities were centered in San Jose or San Francisco, closer to the canneries that were the place of employment for many southern Europeans. Of the Los Altos southern Europeans, the majority worked in farmrelated occupations and appeared to be instrumental in vineyard development in Los Altos.

Early Asian immigrants in Los Altos followed common patterns of migration. In 1910, there was only one family of Japanese in Los Altos; the remainders were single men. These single men were mainly servants, gardeners or cooks. By 1920, their family status and working patters had changed.

Japanese farmers became a major presence in the Santa Clara Valley’s landscape. Census data analysis from 1920 shows the Japanese as being the largest immigrant group in Los Altos (22 percent). Most Japanese that arrived to the United States came through San Francisco, so the journey to Los Altos and work in the numerous fruit orchards was not far. The Japanese in Los Altos in 1920 generally worked on fruit farms although the census does show one shop owner.

Most of these Japanese farmers leased their land because restrictive and discriminatory land legislation had made it difficult to own property. According to Greenburg’s account of the orchard and canning economy of the Santa Clara Valley, each of the ethnic groups found strategies to participate in fruit growing based on their cultural traditions and the nature of their immigration patterns. While Japanese laborers used their strength as pickers and organized together under a boss and later leased land themselves, southern Europeans used their family structure and intensive agricultural techniques to combine working as laborers with their goal of farming some land of their own.

In conclusion, these early immigrants to Los Altos were vital to its growth. Often faced with economic hardships or discrimination, the immigrants joined together in order to achieve their goals 183
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section II
April 2011 Page II-21
of land ownership and independence. Consequently, their growth in economic prosperity contributed to the formation of the town. In addition to their work on the farms, immigrants were instrumental in working on the railroad, beginning shops in Los Altos, and building its houses and commercial establishments.
184
185
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section III
October 2012 Page III-1

HISTORIC LANDMARKS

1. 965 Berry Avenue Cyrus P. Berry House

2. 547 Castano Corte Panama Pacific International Exposition Structure

3. 571 Cherry Avenue Erwin Reichel Designed Home

4. 762 Edgewood Lane Winchester-Merriman House

5. 288 First Street Southern Pacific Railroad Passenger Depot

6. 300 Main Street Shoup Building

7. 316 Main Street Eschenbruecher Hardware Store

8. 388-398 Main Street Altos Land Company Building

9. 395-399 Main Street Copeland Building

10. 55 Pepper Drive Adams House

11. 439 Rinconada Court Farnsworth-Myers House

12. 647 N. San Antonio Road San Antonio Club (City Owned Property)

13. 51 S. San Antonio Road J. Gilbert Smith House (City Owned Property)

14. 220 University Avenue Marini House

15. 431 University Avenue Eschenbruecher House

16. 482 University Avenue Halsey House and Redwood Grove

17. 500 University Avenue Guy Shoup House

18. 420 Yerba Santa Avenue Coxhead Designed Home
186
187
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section IV
October 2012 Page IV-1

HISTORIC RESOURCES

1. 19 Almendra Lane Myers House

2. 52 Almond Avenue

3. 11 Angela Drive A.H. Knoll Residence (Villa Angela)

4. 127 N. Avalon Drive

5. 960 Berry Avenue Frank Bacon house

6. 232 Burke Road Wallace Home

7. 876 Carmel Avenue

8. 892 Carmel Avenue Berry house

9. 1398 Chelsea Drive

10. 530 Cherry Avenue H. Bleibler Ornamental Ironworks

11. 90 Cody Lane

12. 980 Covington Road Edwin L. Emerson House

13. 290 Cuesta Drive

14. 6 Cypress Court Cranston House

15. Deep Well Lane Costello Barn

16. 973 Dolores Avenue

17. 133 W. Edith Avenue

18. 331 S. El Monte Avenue Baldwin House

19. 566 S. El Monte Avenue

20. 236 Eleanor Avenue Morris House

21. 170 Formway Court Formway Machine Shop

22. 235 Fremont Avenue

23. 1485 Fremont Avenue

24. 189 N. Gordon Way

25. 60 S. Gordon Way

26. 1365 Grant Road

27. 1520 Grant Road

28. 41 Hawthorne Avenue

29. 109 Hawthorne Avenue

30. 151 Hawthorne Avenue

31. 181 Hillview Avenue Richard Neutra Designed House (City Owned Property)

32. 183 Hillview Avenue DeMartini residence (City Owned Property)

33. 1570 Kensington Circle
188
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory
Page IV-2 October 2012

34. 473 Lincoln Avenue

35. 125 Los Altos Avenue Finnigan Residence

36. 479 Los Altos Avenue

37. 67 Lyell Street

38. 125 Lyell Street Hollyhock Bungalow

39. 301 Main Street Los Altos Pharmacy

40. 350 Main Street

41. 70 Marvin Avenue

42. 25 Maynard Court Lenox House

43. 120 Merritt Court

44. 604 Milverton Road Costello House

45. 461 Orange Avenue Foothills Congregational Church

46. 580 Orange Avenue Albert S. Robinson House

47. 640 Orange Avenue McKillican House

48. 654 Orange Avenue Denny Residence

49. 668 Orange Avenue F. W. Rathbun House

50. 672 Orange Avenue Francisco Home

51. 706 Orange Avenue

52. 714 Orange Avenue Ingraham Home/Archey Residence

53. 718 Orange Avenue Peters Home

54. 625 Palm Avenue Lanthier Home

55. 10 Pasa Robles Avenue

56. 71 Pasa Robles Avenue Taylor House

57. 41 Pepper Drive

58. 81 Pepper Drive

59. 121 Pepper Drive

60. 39 Pine Lane

61. 1050 Portland Avenue

62. 160 W. Portola Avenue Stevens Fox Farm/Thoma Residence

63. 146 N. San Antonio Road

64. 457 San Luis Avenue

65. 188 Second Street

66. 275 Silvia Court Segur Home

67. 260 Surrey Place
189
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section IV
October 2012 Page IV-3

68. 368 University Avenue Sarah Shoup House

69. 436 University Avenue Robert M. Tooker House

70. 452 University Avenue Guy Shoup House

71. 485 University Avenue M. O. Adams House

72. 551 University Avenue Frothingham House

73. 662 University Avenue El Retiro, Jesuit Retreat House

74. 711 University Avenue Judge Shenk House

75. 725 University Avenue Scheid Residence

76. 600 University Terrace Hyde/Huttlinger House

77. 275 Valley Street Spangler Home

78. 396 Van Buren Street

79. 556 Van Buren Street

80. 10 Yerba Buena Avenue Yerba Buena Tankhouse

81. 211 Yerba Buena Avenue
190
191
City of Los Altos
Historic Resources Inventory Section V
October 2012 Page V-1

HERITAGE TREES

1. Rinconada Court Palm Trees

2. 1 N. San Antonio Road Civic Center Apricot Orchard (City Owned Property) 192
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 70 W. ROSA STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 1962

PRELIMINARY INVENTORY OF
msTORICAL LANDMARKS
IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 193
Another objective of the Plan is "Conservation of Resources." lM.!llic.s of a community's past are among its most basic assets It is particularly important that they be preserved since,· once lost, they can never be replaced. -
A "Plan for the Preservation of Historical Landmarks" would be a specific, detailed plan within the framework of the General Plan. If could be officially adopted as a portion of a "Conservation Element" of the General .Plan for Santa Clara County. It would then be a firm guide for public and private action for the preservation of historical sites and structures having countywide importance.

PRESERVING THE LANDMARKS: We can save many of the historical landmarks which remain.

Both public and private action will be needed to carry out the "Plan for Preservation of Historical Landmarks." "Public action" usually implies public acquisition. This may be on federal, state, or local levels.

Federal grants are available to states .and local bodies on a matching basis for acquisi· lion of permanent open space land which, by definition, includes land to be used for historic purposes. ("Open Space Land" Section of the Federal Housing Act of 1961.) The State of California Division of Beaches and Parks has been directed to formulate a "co· ordinated, statewide program of acquisition and preservation of historical .sites ... ," including "provisions to encourage the participation of private enterprise and local and intercounty gov· ernments to acquire or operate authentic historical examples for the public education and enjoyment. .. " (Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 25, March 13, 1961.) In 1.962, a bond issue will go before the people of the State of California that, if passed, will provide several million dollars for the acquisition and deve.lopment of beaches, parks, recreational and histori· cal sites.

At the local level a program for the preservation of historical sites-is also necessary. The Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara have historical landmarks commissions with the official duty of recommending historical landmarks to be acquired by these cities; Similarly an "Historical Landmarks Commission of the County of Santa Clara" could, if formed, recommend those landmarks of countywide importance which should be preserved. "Public action" may also take the form of urban renewal. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has com· bined the protection and restoration of historical structures in the renewal area with overall neighborhood improvement. Providence, Rhode Island, has combined clearance with rehabili· tation, saving many of its fine old houses, and incorporating them into· modern neighborhoods having a rich integration of old and new. ·
The City of San Jose Urban Renewal Agency has a good opportunity to preserve valuable re· minders of the County's past in its work in the rehabilitation or redevelopment of older neigh· borhoods in the city. Some of the structures saved might have a public use, as for a museum or art gallery. Others might be privately used. The prestige value of historic significance may be a considerable economic advantage to firms utilizing historical landmarks for commercial uses.

Uses for publicly owned landmarks may include. useums, ibraries, art galleries, · d Uses for pnva e y owne an mar s · : nces , now Basu1 · roc-iAon,..o\ nffi,..oc- H-U.7NRV MAN<::lf\N nnw P.ti.nturv \..ln11c.:r. ::ind I nnw r.nm14-JOSE MARIA ALVISO ADOBE 194
1ins on site. Marker nearby.
i Market and San Fernando
Avenue, Santa Clara.
ed until 1819. Only marker
of first non-Indian born in
Jecame the first permanent
so Street, Santa Clara.
1928 after former building
<hich the city of Los Gatos
by Weller. Recently recon-
'iedmont Road at Calaveras
ter. Now owned by Basuini.
\ltos Hills.
used as post office. Stage
Jr ships. Now known as San
-'S used in Civil War. Site inRoad, New Almaden.
·esent building, built about
Hicks Road, New Alma.den.

Murphy, Sr. M. Mur·
:emporarily in California for . North· First Street at St.

Market Street at Park Ave1g.r.ess Springs Resort. Many ct the City of Sunnyvale now
letween Arques Avenue a·nd
!lectronics equipment. Post
rtin Avenue at New Avenue,
r near Mountain View·Alviso
64 (1870's) LELAND STANFORD BARN - Famous for trotting horses and picture·taking experiments leaamg to mouon pictures. Monument to ravorne norse nearoy. iumpero Serra Boulevard, Stanford. 65 11870'sl
66 11871)
67 11872)
68 (1873)
69 11874)
70 11874)
71 11874)
72 (1874)
73 (1876)
74 11876)
75 11877)
76 11880)
77 11880)
78 11880)
79 11880's)
80 11880's)
81 11880's)
82 11880'sl
83 11882)
84 11883)
85 11884)
86 11885)
87 11885)
88 11886)
89 11887)
90 11888)
91 11890)
92 11890'sl
93 11890'sl
94 (1894)
BREWER STORE- Was store and butcher shop, next to slaughterhouse, lumberyard, and barn·stable. Was night stopover for teams and wagons on two.day trip from lumber mills in mountains to lumberyair.d.? in San Jose. Now residence. 14265 Saratoga Avenue, GLENDENNING HOUSE-Representative' farmhouse in large prune orchard. Land owned by same family since 1851. Now owned by Leonard, descendant of Glendenning. 19160 Homstead Road, Cupertino.

GILROY HOT SPRINGS- Resort and .cottages remain at famous springs discovered in 1864. Gilroy HolSprings Road, east of Gilroy.

THOMAS REA HOUSE- Built by Rea, who arrived in California in 1850. Local showplace for 90 years. E. 6th street, Gilroy.

FRENCHMAN'S TOWER- Built by Peter Coutts for water storage for his cattle fatm and racing stable. Mill Road, south of Palo Alto.

FRENCHMAN'S LIBRARY - Built by Peter Coutts on his estate. Now private residence on Stanford land. 860 Escondido Road, Stanford.

FRENCHMAN'S COTIAGE-B.uilt by Peter Coutts. Now administration building for Stanford University housing project for married students. Olmsted Road, Stanford.

FRENCHMAN'S BRIDGE-Remainder of irrigation system of Peter Coutts' farm. Frenchman's Avenue, Stanford.

ERWIN T. KING HOUSE- Built by King, one of founders of the Saratoga Paper Mill. later was one of Saratoga's hotels, HThe Oriental Housa." Now owned and re· stored by CaldwelL 14605 Big Basin Way, Saratoga
NOTRE DAME COLLEGE BUILDING- One of the early buildings of the Coliege of ,Notre Dame. Now The Press Box. 189 W. Santa Clara Street, San Jose.

ST. JOSEPH'S CHURCH - Original pueblo church stood on or near this site in 1803. Conspicuous landmark. Market and San Fernando Streets, San Jose.

DUNNE FAMILY HOME- Home of pioneer family. Example of early California elegance. Pacheco Pass Road, east of Gilroy.

FATJO HOUSE- Home of Antonio Fatjo who arrived from Spain in 1850. Contains marble fireplaces and sinks. Carriage house adjacent. Now owned by Harrington. 1016 Santa Clara Santa Clara.

MRS. JOHN BROWN'S HOME-Temporary home of widow of John ·Brown of Harper's Ferry. 13915 Saratoga Avenue,'Saratoga.

LATHROP HOUSE SITE- Was home of brother of Mrs. Leland Stanford. House is gone. Barn and carriage house remain. COilection of carriages now at Sutros in San Francisco. Site now Behavioral Sciences Center for f.dv.anced Study. Junipero Serra Blvd., near Stanford. · CRIBARI WINERY-Stone winery and large home remain. Vineyard now being subdivided. Villa Vista· Road, Evergreen.

HENRY MANSION -James Henry built first overhead electric trolley line connecting San Jose and Santa Clara. Now Century House. The Alameda at University Street, San Jose.

BEAULIEU WINERY-House, formal garden, brick winery, and orchard. Now second site of Foothill Junior College District. Stevens Creek Road at Stelling Road, Cupertino.

PLAZA IN SANTA CLARA-Was the Mission corral, then the public square of the Americans. Now site of_ park and library. Lexington and Main Streets, Santa C!ara.

STANFORD WINERY - Recently used for cattle-breeding experiments. Now converted to restaurants, offices, and art gallery. Welch Road, Stanford.

SMITH HOU.SE- Home of Evergreen pioneer family that has lived on same site since 1868. Site of first Evergreen store. San Felipe Road, Evergreen.

CHATEAU RICARDO WINERY SITE-Rebuilt in 1907. Now used for manufacturing.·Richard Henry house 11885) adjacent. Mountain View-Stevens Creek Road, Cupertino.

WRIGHT'S STATION SITE-former railroad station and fruit-packing town. Railroad tunnel still in existence. On Los Gatos.Creek near Summit Road, south of Los Gatos.

FIRST METHODIST CHURCH - Oldest church building in Los Gatos. Conspicuous landmark. Church Street, Los Gatos.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY QUAD- Main sandstone buildings of the University dedicated to the memory of Leland Stanford, Jr., by his parents. Other early buildings include Encina Hall, Chemistry Building, Museum and Memorial Chapel. Serra Street, Stanford.

LYNDON HOME- Victorian residence of John Lyndon, early prominent citizen of Los Gatos. Site includes outstanding Victorian carriage house. Now owned by Far. well, descendant of Lyndon. 55 Broadway; Los Gatos. ·
OR. SULLIVAN HOUSE-Architecturally interesting. Now belongs to a church. Homestead Road near Maxine Avenue, Sunnyvale.

MORGAN HILL HOUSE- Home of man for whom town of Morgan Hill was named .. His wife, Diana, was daughter of Dan Murphy of San Martin. Now owned by Wal· gren. Monterey Road, Morgan Hill.

HAYES ESTATE-Former home of founders of San Jose Mercury, J. 0. and Congressman E. A Hayes. Part of the estate is now Frontier Village, a commercial amuse· ment park. Monterey Road at Snell Road, Edenvale.

SECOND COLLINS SCHOOL- Then Copa de Oro Club. Now Cupertino de Oro Club. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Homestead Road, Cupertino. "·---:-··-··- c:- ..... A .. tnno hHilriinn tn thnc:1> Universitv. Market at San Fernando Streets, 195
sites of Mission Santa Clara.
ioser Re-ad, ·Ne)'V
cessible from Church Street.
k warehouse (1860) used for
ta Teresa Streets, San Jose.
still in existence. Lexington
, Santa Clara.

Memorial State Park. Seeley
tradero Road, Los Altos Hills.
in 1930, designed by archi·
I, Evergreen.
loper of road·to Santa Cruz,
oad, Saratoga.
;aratoga.
kland .. Los Gatos-Santa Cruz
1d, Evergreen.
1• 435 S. 3rd Street, San Jose.

Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara.
nta Cruz Freeway, Los Gatos.
iet, San Jose.
)f State of California. Moved
uth of Gilroy.
'ass Highway, west of Gilroy.
again recently. Now Falstaff
es of which were planted in
.HI by Law, relative of Burrel.
"
96 (18951
97 (1896)
98 (18981
99 (18981
100 (19001
101 (1901)
102 {t904)
103 (1904)
....

METHODIST CHURCH- Built by volunteer labor. :served as cnurcn tor j4 years. Later, painters ex111u1L !ituu10. l\t:u 1,,1u;..;.. 111::au4ua1 uu11115 "'" •u .... , ,, ... v ..

Corinthian Studios, antiques. 20490 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga.

PAUL MASSON WINERY - The 12th century Spanish portal came around the Horn. Reconstructed in 1906. Original sandstone walls still stand. Pi.erce Road, Saratoga.

HOTEL LYNDON- Original building called "Ten-mile House." Was located across the street before being moved to present site in 1878. Rebuilt in 1898 after fire · destroyed original building. N. Santa Cruz Avenue at Main Street, Los Gatos.

PITTIS LIVERY STABLE-A rare and well restored typical livery stable. Now owned by Caldwell. Big Basin Way, Saratoga.

SAN MARTIN WINERY -Started by the Filice family. Includes brick winery and a wine cellar replica in the tasting room. Miller Avenue, San MartiQ.

ALTOS APRICOT ORCHARD-Planted by Gilbert Smith. To be maintained as representative of former Los Altos Now part of Los Altos civic center. Los Altos. . ALVISO SCHOOL- Now Alviso City Hall, Liberty Street, Alviso. -- JOHN SQUIRE HOUSE-Built by Prof. Squire of Stanford University. Has two-story columns. Imposing architecture, elegant and unchanged. Palm trees border drive· way. 900 University Avenue, Palo Alto.
104 (1905} GILROY CITY HALL-Was city hall for Gilroy for over 50 years. Co'nspicuous landmark which identifies Gilroy. Monterey Road, Gilroy. 105 (1906) NOTRE DAME COLLEGE BUILDING-Was Science Building before College moved to Belmont in 1923. Now Rosicrucian Press Building. Notre Dame AVenue, San Jose. 106 (1906) /SHOUP HOUSE-First home inLos Altos. Built by President of Southern Pacific Railroad who was responsible for Los Altos spur line. Nearby Shoup Park of City of Los Altos, formerly serving Shoup and other estates. Contains Japanese garden donated by Los Altos Garden Club. 500 Univ.ersity Avenue, Los Altos. 107 (1909)
108 (1910)
109 (1911)
110 (1912)
111 11912)
112 (19121
113 (19151
114 (19161
115 (1917)
. 116 (1917)
117 (1919)
FIRST RADIO STATION-Site of first regular radio station in world. Started by Dr. Charles Herrold, much of the equipment of which is now at New Almaden Museum.

Now American Trust Building. S. First and San Fernando Streets, San Jose.

WINCHESTER HOUSE-Home of widow of Winchester rifle manufacturer. Expansive house is said to be result of her belief that she would live only as long as she continued building a structure of some kind. Santa Clara-Los Gatos Road, Cupertino.

MONTGOMERY HILL- Site of flight experiments and fatal crash of Prof. John Montgomery in 1911. Yerba Buena Road near San Felipe Road, Evergreen.

LEE DE FORREST LABORATORY - Site of De Forrest's early experiments with oscillating vacuum tube. Credited as beginning of development of electronics. 913 Em· erson Street, Palo Alto.

VILLA MONTALVO - Former home of U. S. Senator James D. Phelan, who named his estate after 16th century Spanish novelist. Main door of Mediterranean style house came from palace in Grai:iada, Spain. Building now maintained as an art gallery and cultural center by the Montalvo Association, an endowed, non·profit organ· ization. Grounds are maintaine<I as an arboretum by the County Parks and Recreation Department. SaratOga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga.

KIRKWOOD MANOR HOUSE- Designed by architect Willis Polk. Showplace. Bella Vista Avenue, Saratoga. ·. JAPANESE TEA HOUSE-Was· part of Japanese exhibit at San Francisco Exhibition. Now located on 1194-acre parcel of Boranda Farm being pur· chased for park by City of Pal6 Alto. Page Mill Road, south of Palo Alto.

SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUBHOUSE- Designed by Julia Morgan, prominent woman architect. Used for meetings of women's social club and community organizations.

Park Way, Saratoga.

HAKONE- Japanese garden containing Japanese buildings designed by a Japanese Court landscape designer and a Japanese architect Big- Basin Way, Saratoga.

STONE CATS- ·rwo "Leo and Leona," symbol of Los Gatos, created by Robert Paine. At residence entrance. Los Gatos-Saratoga Freeway,. Los Gatos.

HOLY CITY - Community of a religious sect. Founded by William E. Riker. Los Gatos-Santa Cruz Freeway, south of Los Gatos. 118 (1920) MAYBECK HOUSE- Designed by the famous architect, Bernard Maybeck. Now boarding house. 13th Street, near Santa Clara Street, San Jose. 119 {1920'sl LOU HENRY HOOVER HOUSE- Home of Herbert Hoover when he became President of the United States. Mirada Avenue, Stanford. 120 !1930's) HANNA HOUSE-Designed by architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Uses hexagonal theme. Home of Stanford professor. Frenchman's Avenue, Stanford. 121 (1930's) /MORGAN HOUSE - Tudor style house with leaded panes and from Europe. Now Ford Country Day SchOol. Stonebrook Road, Los Altos Hi;ls. 122 (19331
123 (19371
MOFFITT FIELD DIRIGIBLE HAN1;AR- Built to house the U. S. S. Macon, one of the largest dirigibles ever constructed, destroyed in a crash in 1935. Bayshore Highway, Mountain View.

BUDDHIST CHURCH -Japanese style architecture and garden. Copy of West Shrine, Kyoto • .Designe<I by George G. Shimamoto and built by S-hintahro Nishiur3.-. ln center of Japanese community. 640 N. 5th Street, San Jose. - · *State of Callfornia Registered Historical Landmarks
196
-----
# Street
191Almendra Lane
52 Almond Avenue
210 Alta Vista Avenue
240' Alta Vista Avenue
11 Angela Drive
127 Avalon Drive
743 Berry Avenue
960 Berry Avenue
965 Berry Avenue
232, Burke Road
726 Campbell Avenue
735 Campbell Avenue
876 Carmel Avenue
892 Carmel Avenue
547 Castano Corte
1398 Chelsea Drive
448 Cherry Avenue
530 Cherry Avenue
571 Cherry Avenue
Civic Center Orchard
333 Clark Ave/ 581 Paco Drive
90 Cody Lane
1330 Concord Avenue
980 Covington Road
290 Cuesta Drive
1 C\lnress Court
6 C"'"'f8SS Court
973 Dolores Avenue
164 Doud Drive
762 Edaewood Lane
133 w. Edith Avenue
233W. Edith Avenue
236 Eleanor Avenue
331 El Monte Avenue
5665. El Monte Avenue
20 First Street
288 First Street
Architecture
A Style
B. Design I
Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory Sorted by Address updated 4/18/07
30 History 35 Environment 15 Age
A. Person A. Continuity A. Pre-1907
B. Event B. Setting/ Context 8. 1907-1929
C. Architect/ Builder C. Landmark c. 1930-1950
D. Construction D. 1950-
E. Interior
20 10 10 15 5 30 20 10 10
10 5 5 8 2 15 10 5 5 5
5 2 2 4 1 10 5 2 2 2
0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 2
A. 8 .. c. D. E. A. 8. A 8. c. A. 8. C.
10 10 4 2 26 30 5 35 2 2 10 14 5
10 10 4 24 5 5 5 5 10 5
10 5 4 19 5 5 5 5 10
10 10 10 8 2 30 10 5 15 5 5 10 15 5
10 10 8 28 5 5 5 5 5 15 5
5 5 4 1 15 0 5 ' 5 2 12 5
10 5 4 19 25 25 2 I 0 5 7 10
10 10 8 2 30 20 10 30 5 5 10 15 10
10 10 4 24 5 5 5 5 10 15 5
5 5 4 14 0 5 5 2 12 5
10 5 4 19 5 5 5 5 5 15 5
5 5 8 18 5 5 5 5 5 15 5
10 5 4 19 10 5 15 5 5 10 5
10 10 8 1 29 5 5 10 10 10 10
10 10 4 1 25 5 5 5 5 5 15 5
10 10 8 28 5 5 5 5 10 5
10 5 4 19 5 5 5 5 10 5
10 10 2 8 30 15 10 25 5 5 5 15 5
10 10' 4 24 15 15 5 5 10 5
10 5 4 19 0 5 2 5 12
5 10 4 19 20 15 35 5 5 10 15 10
10 10 8 1 29 5 5 2 1 5 8 5
10 10 4 24 30 10 35 5 5 5 15 5
10 5 4 19 5 5 5 5 0 10 5
10 5 4 19 5 5 5 5 0 10 5
20 10 8 30 30 30 5 2 10 15 10
10 10. 4 24 5 5 5 5 10 5
10 10 4 24 5 5 5 5 10 5
10 10 4 24 10 10 20 5 5 10 5
10 10 4 24 5 15 20 5 5 5 15 10
10 10 4 24 15 5 20 5 5 10 3
20 10 5 8 2 30 20 20 35 5 2 10 15 5
- 1 -
10 Integrity 10 Total St I
A. Site '
B. Alterations
C. Condition
5 5 5
3 3 3
2 2 2
0 0 0 0
D. A. B. c. 100
5 2 2 5 9 89
5 5 5 5 10 54
10 0 0 0 0 39
Not F
5 5 5 5 10 75
5 5 5 5 10 63
5 5 2 3 10 42
10 5 5 66
10 3 5 3 10 95 Landmark
5 5 5 10 59
5 5 5 3 10 41
5 5 5 3 10 54
5 5 5 5 10 53
5 5 5 5 10 59
10 5 5 10 69 Lan
5 5 5 5 10 60
5 5 5 5 10 58
5 5 5 I 5 10 49
5 5 5 5 10 85 Landmark
Lani
Not
5 5 5 10 64
0 5 5 3 10 41
10 3 5 3 10 89
5 5 3 5 10 57
5 5 5 10 89
Not F
5 5 2 5 10 49
5 3 5 3 10 49
10 3 5 5 10 95 Landmark
5 5 5 5 10 54
5 5 5 5 10 54
5 5 3 5 10 69
10 5 5 3 10 79
Not I
3 5 5 5 10 67
5 5 3 5 10 95 Lane
197
State C>fCallfornla ., . • .· · · . 11.
0F:1>A.R1ts ..
• PRIMARY?RECORO ·.· ·.. ... · · / ,
• • ' • •• · , Codo
., Cfj'd&.'i-: -=-,: =-.: ..

Page of 7
Resource Name or#: Civic CcnJc,,r-'/\=1_,,·ic"''o,,_,O-"r"'c'"h"ar"'------------------------------ PI. Other Identifier:
•P2. Location: U Not for Publication lJ Unrestricted a. County ____ _ b, USGS 7.6' Quad Date T • R - __ 114 of 114 of Sec : _____ B.M. c. Address _l...hku:.Ul San AntoniQ. IWad ---------- City __ Los.J\.Jtos, ______ _ Zip 94.Q22 d. UTM: (Give more lhan one for large 11nd/or Unear feature) Zone ___ , mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel II, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, additional UTMa, etc. as appropriate) Assessor's Parcel Number: APN nos. 170·42·029 nnd 170·43·001 'P3a Description: (Describe resource and Its major elements. Include deslgn1 materials, condlllon, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) So111e\vhere around 190 I .l.Ciilbert Sn1ith 1 a local carpenter and orchardist, purchased 10 acres off.1rn1land to gro\v apricots and as a building site for his hon1e. The house \.Vas co1npleted in 1905 and still re111ains on the site and is no\v used as the History House rvtuseu111.

In 1954, hvo years after the C'ity or Los Allos incorporated, .I. Gilbert and Marguret Hill S111ith sold their property to the City to build the City's Civic Center Con1plex. Stipulated ns part of this land transfer agree1nent \vith the City, \Vas that the couple \vould be allo\.ved to reside in their house until their passing.

On May 12, 1981 the City Council of Los Altos adopted Resolution No 81-23 111aking the J.

CJilbert S111ith Mouse and its garden land orchard a historical lnnd111ark. 111e house is listed \vi th the S1<1te of Culi furni<1 as 1:1 C:-1li fornia Point of Historical Interest. On Scpte1nber 8, 1991 the City Council unanin1ously passed and adopted, Resolution No. 91-31 adding the Civic Center's apricot orchard along San Antonio Road to the \Vest, the Library to 1he South, the Youth Center to the East, the Civic Center Parking Lot to the North, as a Historical Landntark. "'P3b. Resource Attributes: (Ust nttrlbutes and codes) ------------------------------ 1P4. Resources Present: O Bulldlng U stn1cturc U Object U Site 0 Dlstrlcl 0 Element of District D Othor (lsotates1 etc. ) l'P6a, Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects) P6b. Description of Photo: (View, date, etc.] "P6. Date Conshucted/Age and Sources:
0 Prehistoric l.J Historic 0 Both
1 P7. Owner and Address:

City of LoS Altos
•PS. Recorded by:( Name, atfiliatlon, address)
•P9. Date Recorded: 06/(6/00
•p10, Survey Type: (Describe)
9 P1 1, Report Citation: (Cite survey report/other sources or "none"] ------------------------- •Attachments: O NONE 0 Location Map 0 Sketch Map 0 Continuation Sheet 0 Building, Structure and ObJect Record CJ Archaeologlcal Record 0 District Record 0 Linear Feature Record 0 Milling Station Record 0 Rock Art Record O Artifact Record O Photograph Record 0 Other: (Ustl ---------------------------------- Los Altos History Museum
51 S. San Antonio Rd.

Los Altos, CA 94022·2319 198
I Sta. te·of Caltt<itnia .. Tha-Rt'!SOutCe1$ 0
Agency Primary n --------------------- DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANO RECREATION· HR1 # !BUILDING, STRUCTURE,. AND OBJECT ________
P"<J• _2_ of . __ 7_ 9
NRHP StQIUS Godo-----------------
'Resource Name or
Bl. Historic NamJ!.!.._.). Gilbcr.Lt __________________________ _ B2 Common Namtiivic Cente"r_,A,.,.rui><co,.t._U,.,...r"d"ia"'1"·d'-------------------------------- e3. Original Uso: Agricullural 84. Present Use:
' 65. Arehltcctural Stytc:_Ll,'LW•
• 06. Construction History (Construc1ton date, alteratlone, and date of alleratlons.) •57, Moved? ){No ·:J Yes CJ Unknown Date: _____ Original Location:--------------------- • 68. Related Features:

B9a Architect ------------------- b, Builder: ----------------------- •010. Significance: Theme_ Area --------------------- Pnriod of Signiticance ----------property TypB _____________ Appllcable Criteria ------- IOtscuss lmponancc ln tarms of hlatorlcal or archilectural cont6lll es delined by theme, ponod, 11nducog111phic storm Also address Integrity.) 611. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) ---------------------------- 'B I 2. References:
llistory llousc rvtuseun1 Archives (Sketch with north l!rrow required) ! l ,.,
"
--·, :.l i!
i ; ! !
B13. Remarks: "
. J
' .. " ..
r .. •'
8 81 4. Evaluator· Mark Sandoval AIA
Data of Evaluatlon: "0,,6ulLl6!L/O"O"-----------------
!Thl!lspaoo rose1ved tor or fida! comn 11"1&)
I t, ',
l i'
J
..

I
199
Pririlarv. II I _State of:-caJrfom .. ie.. The-· ••. ·.Ag.,n.e.v-· · DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION·· HRI# ------------------- CONTINUATION SHEET Ti'inomial
Page _3_ of __ 7_ "'Recorded by Mark Sandoval, {\IA _______ _ •Dote 06-12.:<JO Continuation a R&source Name or #: J:Jy_ic_Cenls;:r_f\.prJcc.,-o,.l_,O,,rc;c,,h"ar,,dc__ ___________________________ _ r. z:u;.soLJST-:ON or THE c l''f'Y C<)!J!,fC IL or '!nk; t:kT'l OF Al/!OS Df:S A HIS'Z'ORX('.;;t, WJDHARK
l>y virtue of ft1t
the <:i Council of tho C'1t;· Qf
th-e ,,,nd
rt,.JArJ.-:.;1?. within th-0 Ci t;y of Al
ion c1f Ordirt:'lfl.:'..'ct No. 7-8-!G.

Altos did -0atabllsh
ion of historLcal
'ftHr:RJ<fi.S * in acc-ord&n.cn with that, Ot'din.z'.ln<:-0 1 thi? Mim,tor,ie.:ti. us1dn:r Soctt-on 2'"'13, l\J-4 (c}
vt·0<1<i1·tv .@t Ono N.r,;rth Sil:rr Ant-or.to
nAdQ tive !
with r<:qnt"d to ;}, of th-<:i
P.oad An<Ywn Jus the C#Jn tor
,\P:-: l ?Q-42-29}, ,)_%} in
and h<l-rcin by ro!iJ!'flnCfl; dnd
(d i0r1 nf
!"i.eyrcto
HNAREAS, tJ·io C1ty Council oonc:urs -P.'ith tJ1e of th<C M1mtor:te.'!tl in th1® t'0'!1&ff'dJ
NQ'fil, TUt:ru:J-"O}!J; Bt: 1·-r Ht:RL'.BY RFSOLVt;-o that th(l City Coun-ci l ot t.h12 C:t-ty of J,..013 Alt-03 di'.>-Ds; thJ1;t:
prop--f?rty i"t -d:o101qn.ated ilii jJ, himtQrical l;}Y!dff";dlfk itrtd i:; to th-e .and c--onditions cnttlin<rd in Ordin4lncQ No. JS; ..

I U£'.Rt:B'1' CERfif'Y thilt
P'AtMolution duly -0:rtd
City of W2% Alto!) on tho
tQll 'C'41ll
of :.
<.>'!
, hy th+:!" fol
:J Update
OPR 523L (1 /95) LoB AftoB History Museum
51 S. San Antonio Rd.
•Required Information
Los Altos, CA 94022-2319 200
I
State of:·C. alif. omie..""" The· Aesour4;. es·.Agan .. c.y" OEPARTMENTOF PARKSAND RECREATION··

CONTINUATION SHEET
Pl!!lge _4_ ol __ 7_ •Date 06-16-0_0_ t:J Conttnuatlon '.J Update 'Recorded by f\1ark Sandoval /\IA •Resource N11me or #: ilvic,..C.enli:r.Aprkot Orchard - ---------------- E.XH!!1AT
M$0:t.XJ'T!ON NO.

H!\'.">tc.rt;;; . .:.l !'.:> in:;;'hJd<t Ct'! (l) St"''JC':Jrc to t11 hl".'.tory Kt.11il1' c:r J. Giltie'"':. rssLden<t, th>: ;.urrJ!,l:!"c:in; ::nd A;;;r1<:c:

Orcll<lrd <>!"! tt;-k l.ar.1: he!c1'il.

A.i1 uthmr •p·rnct·n·tt on tJ'l!? lJM. ,ai .ts a
ti'Jt! CO tho f1tt'J:l''1!
of
ffire !::'.,jjr;;1f1<:l11y
;-:o. o.: il:". '- CtrJi- ,,,.
: ;;.41 0 1C C'.:1:.·::: fi)Z'""tl'.'.::;'1./ '."::tL!, ;;\ ';;(;;: •• ·-.' 5?.73 0: cl
-:;1!'0:'t;f! D. :_..,'!,r.e ':.;:; C. by ej .• ;;,.:•1•.! Cc>;<:;;:;.t: ::.:, : r.i:
:'(".'C'.'..1:'o!-®'! :'S,, _p?:,i 1ri .S-:::o'..:: 1/( Q( C-f'·¢•-!2. ::.-:::;, 0J'1tt1 G'.:..0.:s :c-:.;r; fro: \/h!..ch nor,i::.:e:i.: <:C"".ccr. " - ¢[ l'! 29 '.)O 7C'•fnah!; 6 ;:::,,;--!, 2 \!,, <:; ·,;-. '-d
c@ld :. -tr 01i.tic :".#\Lo:;,: i'.::' c
c or 6.75 JllC ;-.::e!. <::." :fl:-;<l onve:tc;! '::: '.''.::.:-- :'fr':- :S.::t:;:;·1, -:,: 1-"'. !!J..::'£.:l::et H!.1. '..t;•. $: Oett:! a:,,::
,;·.;€"-J'*:;, :./k3 !:-. 2l5.!. o: ur:.:.:J. C!:Jrti
County
O"' -01 ::.h>t
!.l:t(' 01.' : ,:.( -:t.enc:e l GC.ld
;;;.;;n:r.r: .:ie n::-1 !!.:-;11 .:;.f ";.Le H;;:>e
z::.r )';,Bf" :,._5i !. .C-0 :'t1et; t.r.cr.ce 1.('P.'11:-:o; c_;;i!.C :>: :tr;¢ flr,-:! :-ur,n!.il-I'.'. !_;-, r. l!n!ft }CO.Ca fee: %'.:J c:-i Z>;;.M:i-'.r:·.i · l!r.e <'Jf s111i! 59.1'.5 mere par-eel 1-rin·!, t:.1.0!,'.1 pa t lw<> t-Jel er, 11r.e- o -:r.e mi;;.tt! 6,75 n-:.:rc r;1C l,,;'l,nd 11 tf).?Al; tie-a.re t 1) .t.JC 1 :;::. 755.-0 'tc¢ f;o::.:71 ·::i:' nn:.;ig; a
1!nci o th¢ 59,75 ncre of land tr.fl, iffe.1$0 the :.:<J"J y llne or a1ld 6.75 acre o( lAnd £? 755.0 reet :o th!" of t11n:! e1ng A of ;59."?5 4-ct<e u::
l , n& n!'.-ovn on thn: .::l!:rto.ln :Mil;; e:t";1':l c,f Lo@ Alto@ Hi@tory A4u@tum
DPR 523L (1 /95) 51 S. San Antonio Rd. *Required Information Los Altos, CA 94022-2319
201
.State of:·Califomic.._ ":'. The· ·

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Pririlarv. II l
Trinom-ia-1---------------------.

Paga _S __ of __ 7_ •Recorded by ______ _ ta Continuation •Resource Name or #: ..Civic .... _______ _
t:-:.>!' '::he '' ".t!.
7 W., !anta Co.J
:_59i, tr, Eo·off. >1:f{' or ;::.age
i:.el:ig 1' 0l" S • .29 1 1. 6 :. :'!led ZS..

CJ. Srs:r.:.n C:A:'il. <::ount7 Re<::i:":jtl,
?AP.CEr.. NO. 2: <lt the :;:-o!,:;.'! of .. -;:;t th1' {:en':'tr:> l!.ne o"t s1or. Ar.-;onlo A't<l':"ll.lC. £::.::1<':-l,:1 __ -..1, ';.h. the 1!..:i.e o':

R.'l 1l(v:i-..·n on r.::'1.e :o; >"ann!.>".,..g
r,,s:,r-.!..y $<:ald llnoe, 4.SQ.C fee:;; 1¢&\'!.ng natl! }:0;":;:·11!'rZ.y l!.iHl er.1! :rur.r.1n;r Sou>;t.erl)" Jt:::! flJ':'al:!!!l •,,·:., ;');;;l..d cent or ::ne c: S.a:i ,l,r;:.::r.!.o A't<!nu<t". JJC.O t'<ret '.:9 11 on :;h.e Scutt.o;r-l:« 2.!.r.e <J:'" ai.\!4 ·.<.,.ll!ter11 along r:::"111 Soct.he:-1.y ll:;,, l>.$0.0 :0 ..,_ po!r.t $a!.! cei,";c:' ltr.ti or San Ar;:..onto A.·1er.utt; r'tir.r..!.:> • .;; thitf\i::!!t' Sor-;:11H•ly 4],c0n.; s.a!.d. <:enr.;er 11r.e )JC. o t..:i :..£-.,<!' po!.nt v:' );:.gg1r.;iir.g, ar.;! $ Of 4• &s s:.oi-.·n en ':.?..at certal:.

Mop '?r.t!.:lc:l, )Ol.20 ror JZV &<lt"!t® oC School. Lan<:1 1.r.cl.udtd ln :":e:-':l:'!.c.m:e t-;,:i, :17 dn:itd June 27th,
ur.1¢'r 1\<:': <;;' Le>f;!.l'lAtu:-e o:" S";a:e of Cal!.fo:-n!a, Apr!.:. 22. l36l, lr. i;..e r.a:::e -::( t.fl0'1.-"t''1 $, C:lti;-l'., !'.};:! 1;. S!1n f;-::i;icili:csi, w:.t, tt.e f:'a .. :;:;1.::ina: ::o::-:;:; 'il.l:S'.;; ¢11.·'! :lt}u"; c;_u11:"o;,er::o co: S@c1:1.;:;n )2 nnC. ti;e $:;u!i1 ·,1'-'!'tt C\1.lar:.!':' of , 1n 7, 6 2 or X:. !ilnd
for :-e<Jor::l. :..;o. :::.e <::!fl,¢e :; f.-eeor<Jer G:' the Cou:i:::r o:f' G:.;ara, :S!,;tt- o:' C;i:.:.1:c:-n!..m., on i' 1864 1:1 2<>:::·% '1,!,"' o:' '.',,.,;::io, iat r:agea 70 ,..:ir:(! 7:, nr.J tJ 1::-.e:-!00!" wtu; ir. tir!!.d Of:'l.,;.e er. X . .:i.y Z6, 1977 l..:1 Bc;;<iJ: "A" t, 41.t. P-l'H{'t! 19, ti:;:.:!. -CO·'::lt:.Or.lr Jl;'J ?;t',e :i.ftlp ·-:I:"
.::i. or. t:.e .l.!.r.ff ':.:f t·-;: Lo, e.ts<;ar.::
:'"."e ;::!.' !,;-;:e:re":",::::i,.cf", ::-:@:&o( ·,.:_:;, ::1r: o: •R lo:
1:-'i<i e'!'.'."';':•!-::' J, $!!"!.':' :::-: t::l-:.<¢ !-;e:-t:d.;iv.:"-:e:- ::'"": ·:;,:::;; -:"'.:r.r.1;;.h ;'.:q:S";.":>1 .t<:r.ir.,:- !!$.:d ::;:.:-:::e::'l7 l.tr:.1:'. :"!<0-t :·) ;.h>!' :l2'rtten!lC- ":-1? ·::or.1.,;: :1 t,,:>'.; <'.:., {lfl rrf',C\ft, -er. .S:ou t:te-1 ·1 .. ,...ti':,... SA.s";f'"'l\' 1· <Yf eald :..-;;;t t1, d!,s-;i\\r,;:e ;:1(1,0 ree: r::o • -.·.: • ,<\ •• ; . • ,•, ••• •• •! ,'•' , •. · .• ,•. "· "' - • - "" f; :"'J.nr.l.nR dl:)r"') ';h,' :i:ou:;,!l'!"'l;: :.J::i:. , Jl 1!1€':'3.!1:'.!e o: 120.0 l11!A\'1r.g C4'!.1 i'1r;.! ::-..::":::!.r.; }.;'or:t:r!"lj' 1'41! Cfln'::<·l' <:"'::'.'Pi:", AVt:'::.:.0, :'!'Je': :o r.:--:c ;:;¢!_;i: cf ng t1r,d A ::i:•::,or. '):.' :,;,, .>ififl ?:';:o"<,«n 1)r, ::;,.u: ,:'.!e:":A!,f. ;!,{:.::" ";led, '';t.,i;; !'o; J'.2·'.'J c: :.Ar.:! !.;-. Ce!'t!.::.t:;;rt';.e -cf · ::o. :17 \!ateG. Jur.c 27th, 1.,36:2, lne11:!!:1 t:;>l" ,,,: ;Y.t o: t:.t St.11.:e -0f Ci:il1:"c.1rr.1n. ;.:.:.ieee.! :22, l , lr. :::% r,@;":C or ::. Cl,i.:-:.:. • . ._;:.s !.n ::.nn f:"l'l:".:::'.:.:lc.o. t·:5 :"rAc:'l.-onto.l 1:or-th t,'.ee: l'ir.d :;::;u:::. '\,'!!1!t; qtu\:•terei ct ,z !ou:h o: 29, lr. T. 6
:! f.', )!,i;blr.; '.<{!;:-!,.d!.fl:-',,"' "df".!.::f. t=.dl·:! :'.".ri.p '.<AS f<)l' f"(!'C0f'4 !n D:tice tte RccO::'der cf c:arn, si1te of
·Califorr.!.a, or. J\.1l:r 28, 186!> 1:-. E-oof. '"A" or :.-!tip'!1 1 it"; 70 nr.d 71, r.rH! 41 V.flffi rf:<:::cr.:!ed !n ti&!.<1 Q:l H.::it 26, 1877 1.n Cook or 1.9, nr.d Ce!.r,,e 'COi:::x-cr.ly J:;:-0\fn rig '!)-,e Nn? of :he :JUpdato
DPR 523L 11 /95)
I as Alton History Muecn1m
51 S. San Antonio Rd,
Los Altos, CA 94022-2319
•Required Information
202
State of.·carrtornia.""' The· flesour4,0es ..

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ·

CONTINUATION SHEET
Priffiarv.11
HRI# _______ .

Trinomial
Psge _6_()f ____]_ •Recorded bv f\,1ark Sandoval ... •onte !'JJ Continuation '.JUpdato •R&source Nam& or#: .Civic Cen_kr . ---------- ·--------- -------·--------------- its adopt!cn cf Ordinnrce No. 7E-l6 ano
90-225, tho City Council the of cstabli=h z
re !or the tion •no c: ni1tor1cal
ty of Alto=:
ty virtue of 0f 8l-2j, rhr
C:ty Counr·il of thv of Los Alto' <lid 0 1:o::ion ct
AP:1 Civtc Apr!cct Otchocd
h:.stcc1c.;l l-a.nd::i0rk: ,jfld
C:1 rC:.r .. :inc€ 5-0-22$;
pcoyJ?r
Jt.r,C
as c. r.isto.:ico1
tt,e Hi.s:.orJ.<:ZJl h4::; rcV1{.'·wvci ..
the of tnc Civic ccnte! ls on Exh!bi: ;., .:if; t)n A?t; :;o.:;, ..,">nd !70-.;J-•)01; anC WHt.?::'.A.S, CotUncil CQf,<;U:-Z: CftCQ;'."''.C('f,CJ.:.!cr. (1C cegare;
NOW, 't'HER£FOR£, t:!E lT FESOLV:'.:!'.l t:,.;it C<.;l:IH'.:;.1 tho C!cy at Los A!to£ ticrc:iy t}.<lt
propP::y h!sto:ica! ·o
c0nditions in
I HEREDY CSR.:fY that tho (c:eqo1n0 i: a c! a
dcly fas1ed and adopted by tte Cl:y c: Lity
f :..i:>s Altos or: tt'.e €th day cf octot:er, !991, ., 1 :0ll<:J•·•::--,<-::
oll cal: vote:
• • • • • • •
AY!S: Mayor L.:iV<', Re..-.:dr:t"
!·:onn ·
A3SE!;T: ;:one
./
DPR 523L (1 /95) Los Altos History Museum 'Required lntormatlon 51 S. San Antonio Rd.

Los Altos, CA 94022-2319 203
Stats af·Catifornia_ ":'. The· Resourif:es·.Agancy· ·
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREA llON

CONTINUATION SHEET
Pririlarv.11
HRIR
Trinom-ia-,------------- · ·
Page _7_of _7_ •Recorded bV Mnrk San<lovn\, ______ •oate 06-16"..QO. !al Continuation '::J Update "Re.source Name or#: !:_ivic
>:::
. .,
()
C;!
0 C)
>:::
r
·.f.
0 !-.
(fl
!-.
-
c:: -- -
x
\ w
'
c::.
§1 ;.::
w
0 w
..J
I
i
I Ii
lJ
Los Atlos h'is tory i\1fuseum
DPR 523L (1 195) 51 S. San Antonio Rd. •Required Information Los Altos, CA 94022-2319
204
RESOLUTION NO. 81-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

DESIGNATING A HISTORICAL LANDMARK
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Ordinance No. 78-16, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did establish a procedure for the designation and preservation of historical landmarks within the City of Los Altos; and WHEREAS, in accordance with that Ordinance, the Historical Conunission has made positive findings under Section 2-8.104(c) with regard to a portion of the property at One North San Antonio Road known as the Civic Center Apricot Orchard (a portion of APN as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the decision of the Historical Commission in this regard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby determine that the subject property is designated as a historical landmark and is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance No. 78-16; I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos on the 12th day of May, 1981, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor pro tern Reed, Councilmen Kallshian and Lave NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Eng and Councilman Grimm
/Di /
' I ! /,
Los Altos History Museum
51 S, San Antonio Rd.

Loil l1IU>s .. CA 94022-2319
205
ci· - :·1 · ... :·'
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. Bl-23
Historical designation to include one-(1} structure referred to as History House or J. Gilbert Smith residence, the surrounding garden, and the Apricot Orchard on the land described below.

All other structures on the land, as well as a presently undefined portion of the orchard necessary to accorrmodate the future Council Chambers, are specifically excluded.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL NO. 1: Beginning at an underground wooden monument standing in the center line of San Antonio Avenue, former:lY Gr:Lffin Road, at the Southwest corner of that certain 59. 75 ac·re parcel of land conveyed by George D. Wise to George D. Newhall by Deej dated October 2, 1894 and recorded December 28, in Book 177 of Deeds, pnge 140, Santa Clara County Records, from which monument the corner of Sections 19, 20, 29 and JO Township 6 S.R. 2 W., M.D.M., bears N. 0° 01 1 ii. J9.81 chains distant; said point of beginning also being point of intersection of said center line of San Antonio Avenue with the Southerly line of that certain 6.75 acre parcel of conveyed ty Hill Smith, et al, to Margaret Hill Smith, et vir, by Deed dated July Jl, 1943 and recorded August 4, 194J in Book 1151 of Official Records, page 526, Santa Clara County Records; running thence along said center line of-San Antonio Road, N. 0° 01 1 W. JOO.DO feet to the intersection thereof with the Northerly line of said 6.75 acre parcel of land; thence leaving said center line and running along said Northerly line of the 6.75 acre parcel of land N.89° 46 1 E. 755.00 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line and running Southerly in a direct line JOO.O feet to"a point on the Southerly line of the said 59.75 acre parcel of land, said point also being on the Southerly line of the said 6. 75 acre parcel of land, that bears, N. 89° 461 E. 755.0 feet from the point of beginnfng; running thence along said Southerly line of the 59. 75 acre parcel of land being al so the Southerly line of the said 6.75 acre parcel of land S. 89° 46• W. 755,0 feet to - the point of beginning, and being a portion of the 59.75 acre parcel of land of Geo. D. Newhall, as shown on thut certain_ Map entitled, '·'.',Map of .. 206 ('
\. .-:·:,.
(
. . ;
the portion of the Newhall & Wise Tract, being a part of s. 29, T. 6 S.R. 2 W., Santa Clara Co., Calif.," filed for record December 28, 1894 in Book "H" of Mapa, page 103, Santa Clara. County Records. ··;::-: .
..
. ·.·· .

PARCEL NO. 2: Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of San An tonic Avenue, formerly Griffin Road With the Northerly line of Lot 4, as shown on the Map· he'reinafter referred to; running thence Easterly along said Northerly line, 480.0 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line and running Southerly and parallel with said center line of San Antonio Avenue, 330. 0 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Let 4; running thence Westerly along said Southerly line 480.0 feet to a point in said center line of San Antonio Avenue; running thence Northerly along said center line 3JO,O feet to the point of beginning, and being a portion of Lot 4, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Map of JOl. 20 f'or J20 acres of School Land included in Certificate of Purchase No. 117 dated Sacrament June 27th, 1862 located under the Act of the Legislature of the of California, passed April 22, 1861, ls5ued in the of Leonard s. Clark, location No. 68 in San Francisco, to wit, the fractional North West and South West quarters of Section 32 and the South West quarter of Section 29, in T. 6 s.R. 2 w., of Mt. Diablo Meridian," which said Hap was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on July 28, 1864 in Book "A" of Maps, at pages 70 and 71, and a copy thereof was recorded in said Office on May 26, 1877 in Book "A" of Maps, at page 19, and being commonly known as the ) Map of the Leonard s. Clark Subdivision.

PARCEL NO. 3:. Beginning at a point on the Northerly line of Lot 4, distant Easterly thereon 480.0 feet from the intersection thereof with the center line of San Anto.nio Avenue, formerly Griffin F.oad, as said lot and center line are en the Map hereinafter referred to; running thence Easterly along said Northerly line 180.0 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4, as shown on said Map; running thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said Lot 4 a distance of 330.0 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; running thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Lot h, a distance of 180.0 feet; thence leaving said Southe::-ly line and running Northerly and parallel with said center line of San Antonio Avenue, JJ0,0 feet to the point cf beginning and being; a portion of Lot 1.J., as sho;m on that certain Map entitled, cf JOl.20 for 320 acres of School Land included in Certificate of Purchase No. 117 dated Sacrament June 27th, 1862, located under the Act or the Legislature of the State of California, passed April 22, 1861, issued in the name of Leonard s. Clark, location No. 68 in San Francisco, to wit, the fractional N'orth West and Sou th West quarters of Section 32 and the South West quarter of Section 29, in T. 6 S.R. 2 W., of Mt. Diablo Meridian, 11 which said Me.p was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the Count:.• cf Santa Clara, State .of California, on July 28, 1864 in Book "A" of Maps, at pages 70 and 71, and a copy thereof was recorded in said Office on May 26, 1877 in Book "A" of Maps, at page 19, and being commonly known as the Map of the Leonard S. Clark Subdivision.
\
Lo? Altos 11istoiy Mueeum
51 S. San Antpnio. Rd.
lo" Altos, CA 94022·2319
207

EXHIBIT A
ordinance 90- 225
CHAPTER 8. DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION

OF LANDMARKS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Article 1. General Provisions
Sec.2-s.101 Purpose
It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the recognition, preservation, enhancement and use of historic resources within the city is required in the interest of health, economic prosperity, cultural enrichment and general welfare of the people. The purpose of this Chapter is to:
(a) Safeguard the heritage Of the City by providing for the protection of irreplaceable historic resources representing significant elements of its history;
(b) Enhance the visual character of the city by encouraging the compatibility of architectural styles which reflect established architectural traditions;
(c) Encourage public knowledge, understanding and
appreciation of the city's past, and foster civic and
neighborhood pride and sense of identity based upon the recognition and use of the City's historic resources;
(d) Stabilize and improve property values within the city and increase the economic and financial benefits to the city and its inhabitants derived from the preservation, rehabilitation, and use of historic resources;
(e) Integrate the conservation of historic resources into the public and private development process and identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of such resources and alternative land uses.

Sec.2-s.102 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise:
(a) Alteration means any exterior change or modification of a designated historical landmark or any property within an historic district including, but not limited to, exterior changes to or modifications of structure, architectural details or visual characteristics, grading, surface materials, the addition of new ,.
208
\
- 2 -
structures, removal or alteration of natural features,
disturbance of archeological sites or areas, and the placement or removal of any exterior objects such as signs, plaques, light fixtures, walls, fences, steps or gates affecting the exterior visual qualities of the property, but does not include painting, ordinary maintenance and landscaping.
(b) Designated historic district means a distinct section of the City, specifically defined in terms of geographical boundaries, designated as an.historic resource pursuant to this Chapter.
(c) Designated historic landmark means a building,
improvement, structure, natural feature, site or area of land under single or common ownership, designated as an historic resource pursuant to this Chapter.
(d) Exterior architectural feature means the architectural elements embodying style, design, general arrangement and components of all the outer surfaces of an improvement, including but not limited to, the kind, size, shape and texture of building materials and the type and style of windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement.
(e) Historical Commission means the historical preservation commission established pursuant to this Chapter and Commissioner means a member of the Historical Commission.
(f) Commission staff means the Planning Director and
her/his authorized representatives.
(g) Historic resource means any public or private property designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter, as an historic landmark or historic district, and those properties listed on the City's Historical Resources Inventory.
(h) Historic Resources Inventory means the city's official inventory of the historic resources, as adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the Historical Commission. A property may be listed on the Historical Resources Inventory without being designated pursuant to this Chapter as an historic landmark or historic district.
(i) Improvement means any building, structure, parking
facility, fence, gate, wall, work of art or other appurtenance or addition thereto constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment.
(j) Preservation means identification, study, protection, restoration, rehabilitation or enhancement of cultural resources. 209
I
- 4 -
record shall be kept of all Commission proceedings and actions.

A majority of Commissioners shall constitute a quorum, with the Chairman having a vote. The City Council shall prescribe rules and regulations for the conduct of its business, thereafter, giving the powers and authority to perform the duties hereinafter enumerated.

Sec. 2-B.203 Powers and Duties
The Historical Commission shall be advisory only to the City Council, the Planning Commission and the agencies and departments of the City, and shall establish liaison and work in conjunction with such authorities to implement the purposes of this Chapter.

The Historical Commission shall have the following powers and duties: ·
(a) Conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive
survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing the Historic Resources Inventory. To qualify for inclusion in the Historic Resources Inventory, a property must satisfy the criteria listed in this Chapter. The Inventory shall be publicized and periodically updated, and a copy thereof shall be kept on file in the Planning Department. (b) Recommend to the city Council specific proposals for designation as an historic landmark or historic district. (c) Recommend to the appropriate City agencies or
departments, projects and action programs for the recognition, conservation, enhancement and use of the City's historic resources, including standards to be followed with respect to any applications for permits to construct, change, alter, remodel, remove or otherwise affect such resources.
(d) Review and comment upon existing or proposed
ordinances, plans or policies of the City as they relate to historic resources.
(e) Review and comment upon all applications for building demolition or grading permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or significantly affecting any historic resource. The Commission's comments shall be forwarded to the City agency or department processing the application within thirty days after receiving the request for such comments.
(f) Investigate and report to the City Council on the
availability of federal, state, county, local or private funding . ..,_.,
210
\
'
- 6 -
Article 3. Designation of Historical Resources
Sec.2-8.301 Criteria
The Historical Commission may recommend to the City council the designation of a proposed historic landmark or historic district if it satisfies one part from each of the three criteria listed below:
(a) It should have achieved its significance more than fifty years ago. (Exceptions are made to this rule if the building(s) or site(s) is/are truly remarkable for some reason -- such as being associated with an outstanding architect, personage, usage or event.)
(b) It should fit into at least one of the following categories:

I
(1) It has character, interest, or value as part of the development of, and/or its exemplification of, the cultural, educational, economic, agricultural, social or historical heritage of the City;
(2) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, State, or National history;
(3) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of architecture or construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
(4) It is representative of a notable work of a builder, designer, or architect;
(5) It has a unique location or singular physical
characteristics, whether man-made or natural, representing an established or familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City of Los Altos; or it has a
relationship to any other landmark, and its preservation is essential to the integrity of that landmark;
(6) The property has the potential for yielding
archeological information.
(7) It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special
historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. (c) It should not be altered significantly, so that its integrity is not compromised.
211
\
- 8 -
(1) That the proposed landmark has significant historical, architectural, cultural, or aesthetic interest or value; and (2) That the approval or modified approval of the
application is consistent with the purposes and criteria of this chapter.

The report shall be accompanied by all of the relevant
information and documentation and either shall recommend the designation as originally proposed, recommend a modified designation, or recommend that the proposed designation be rejected. The report shall set forth in detail the reasons for the Historical Commission's decision and the information and documentation relied upon in support thereof. A copy of the report shall be sent to the property owner or owners.
(d) The City Council shall consider the report at its next available regular meeting and determine whether or not to accept the Historical Commission's recommendations. The City Council shall by resolution either approve the proposed designation, in whole or in part or as modified, or shall, by motion, disapprove the proposal in its entirety.
(e) The City must notify the owner and all adjacent property owners of the date on which the city Council will consider this report.
(f) In the event a designating resolution is adopted by the City Council, such resolution shall become effective immediately following adoption thereof and the designated property shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this Chapter and to such further restrictions or controls as may be specified in the designating resolution. After approval of a designating resolution, the secretary of the Commission shall notify the property owner by mail, outlining the basis for the designation and the regulations which result from such
designation. The secretary shall also cause such resolution to be recorded in the office of the county Recorder.
(g) Adoption of a designating resolution shall be based upon a finding by the City Council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the city, the county, the State or the Nation, and satisfies the criteria set forth in this article. (h) Until final action has been taken by the City Council on the proposed designation as an historic landmark no building, alteration, grading, demolition or tree removal permit shall be issued for any work to be performed upon or within the property which is the subject of the proposed designation, unless approved by the Historical Commission or the City Council. This ,,-. 212
\
- 10 -
(f) At the conclusion of the public hearing, but in no event later than sixty days from the date set in the resolution for the initial public hearing, the City Council either shall adopt an . ordinance designating the historic district, in whole or in part, or as modified, or shall, by motion, disapprove the proposal in its entirety.
(g) In the event a designating ordinance is adopted by the City Council, such ordinance shall become effective thirty days following adoption thereof and the designated property shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this chapter and such further regulations or controls as may be specified in the designating ordinance.
(h) Adoption of a designating ordinance shall be based upon a finding by the City Council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or.history of the City, the County, the State or the nation, and satisfies one or more of the criteria set forth in this Chapter.

Sec 2-8.305 Notice of Public Hearings
(a) Notice of the time, place and purpose of public hearings conducted by the city council, the Planning Commission, and the Historical Commission pursuant to this Chapter shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing such notice as follows:
(1) In the case of a proposed historic landmark, notice shall be given as set forth in Section 2-8.303 (b) of this chapter.
(2) In the case of a proposed historic district, notice shall be mailed to all persons shown on the latest available equalized assessed roll of the County as owning any property within the boundaries of the proposed district. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a
newspaper having general circulation in the city not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
(b) Failure to send any notice by mail to any property owner whose name and address is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with a proposed designation. The City Council, Planning Commission or Historical Commission may, but shall not be obligated to, give such other notices as they deem appropriate or desirable.
213
\
- 12 -
Article 4. Permits
Sec.2-8.401 Permit required
It is unlawful for any person to alter, demolish, remove, relocate or otherwise change in any manner any exterior architectural feature or natural feature of a designated historic landmark or to construct, alter, demolish, remove or relocate any building, improvement, other structure or natural feature upon any property located within a designated historic district, or to place, erect, alter or relocate any sign upon or within a designated historic landmark or historic district, without first (/ obtaining a written permit to do so in the manner provided in this Article. Approval shall be based upon conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Projects, the State Historic Building Code, and the designating ordinance.

Sec.2-8.402 Applications
Applications for permits, on forms prescribed by the Historical Commission, shall be submitted to the Planning Director, who shall forward the application to the Historical Commission for review and comment.

Sec.2-8.403 Supporting Data
The application shall include the following data:
(a) Documentation establishing ownership of the designated property by the applicant for the permit;
(b) A clear statement of the proposed work;
(c) A site plan showing all existing buildings, structures, trees over six inches in diameter, property lines, easements and the proposed work;
(d) Detailed plans showing both the existing and proposed exterior elevations, materials and grading;
(e) Specifications describing all materials to be used and all processes that would affect the appearance or nature of the materials.
(f) Notes indicating any deviation from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
(g) Where the application is for demolition, a detailed statement of the necessity for demolition together with photographs of the structure to be demolished; ·
214
- 14 -
(b) The decision of the Planning Commission may be further appealed to the City Council by either the applicant or any interested person, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Title 1, Section 1-4.01, of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

Sec.2-8.407 Criteria
The Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Historical Commission, or Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, shall authorize issuance of a permit, or a conditional permit, if and only if, it is determined that:
(a) The proposed work is consistent with the purposes and objectives of this Chapter; or
(b)' The proposed work does not adversely affect the
character or integrity of the designated historic landmark or historic district; or
(c) In the case of construction of a new building,
structure or other improvement upon or within a designated historic landmark or historic district, the exterior of such improvement will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of the existing landmark or district.

Sec.2-8.408 Hardship
Notwithstanding the criteria of Article 4 of this Chapter, the Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Historical Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, may approve an application for a permit to conduct any proposed work upon or within a designated historic landmark or property located within a designated historic district, if the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that a disapproval of the application will work immediate and
substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry out the proposed work or because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, building, structure, topography or other feature involved. If a is found to exist under this Section, the Historical
Commission or the Planning Commission or City Council shall make a written finding to that effect, and shall specify the facts and reasons relied upon in making such finding.
215
,
u
• <
E-t
..... A ..... :z: l:i::
>< r.:I
i:i:1 i:i:1
....:i
[
<.l
·c
s
:a
0 .....
z
0 E-<
z
-<
z
-<
v.i
Los Al History
51 S. San Antoni
Los Altos, CA 94
A
p::
< :I:
0 p::
0 0
.....
i::i::
0 E-t
00 .....
216
. '
RESOLUTION NO. 91-_ll_

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

MODIFYING AN APRICOT ORCHARD AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Ordinance No. 78-16 and 90-225, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did establish a procedure for the designation and preservation of historical landmarks within the City of Los Altos; and
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Resolution 81-23, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did designate a portion of APN 170-42-029 known as the Civic Center Apricot Orchard a historical landmark; and
property as a historical
and conditions outlined in
WHEREAS, by designation of this
landmark it is subject to the terms
Ordinance 90-225; and \pi'\e, u D'
,/ ,,)(· WHEREAS, in accordance with that Ordinance section 2-8.404, if" ()).Pi the Historical Commission has reviewed and recommends modifying the limits of the Civic Center Apricot Orchard as shown on Exhibit A, as located on APN Nos. 170-42-029 and 170-43-001; and WHEREAS, the City council concurs with the recommendation of the Historical Commission in this regard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby determine that the subject property is designated as a historical landmark and is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance 90-225;
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos on the 8th day of October, 1991, by the following roll call vote:
* * * * * * *
AYES: Mayor Spangler, Councilmembers Bruno, Laliotis, Lave, & Reeder NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Los Altos History Museum
51 S. San Antonio Rd.

Los Altos, CA 94022-2319
217
Excerpts From: Los Altos Municipal Code
http://ordlink.com/codes/losaltos/index.htm
Chapter 12.44 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION

12.44.050 Historic landmark designation.

A. The historical commission shall conduct a study of the proposed designation, based upon such information or documentation as it may require from the applicant, the commission staff, or from other available sources. The commission may, in its discretion, receive written or verbal comments from any persons having an interest in the proposal or any information relevant thereto.

B. The commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposal. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the city and by mail to the applicant, to the owner or owners of the property, and to the owners of abutting properties. Such written notice shall contain a complete description of the proposed designation and shall advise the property owners that written objections to the proposal may be filed with the historical commission in addition to oral comments at the hearing.

C. Based on its findings to the following issues, the commission shall render a written report of its recommendation to the city council within a reasonable time:

1. That the proposed landmark has significant historical, architectural, cultural, or aesthetic interest or value; and

2. That the approval or modified approval of the application is consistent with the purposes and criteria of this chapter.

The report shall be accompanied by all of the relevant information and documentation and either shall reconnnend the designation as originally proposed, recommend a modified designation, or reco1mnend that the proposed designation be rejected. The report shall set forth in detail the reasons for the historical connnission's decision and the information and documentation relied upon in support thereof. A copy of the report shall be sent to the property owner or owners.

D. The city council shall consider the report at its next available regular meeting and determine whether or not to accept the historical c01mnission's recommendations. The city council shall by resolution either approve the proposed designation, in whole or in part or as modified, or shall, by motion, disapprove the proposal in its entirety.

E. The city must notify the owner and all adjacent prope1ty owners of the date on which the city council will consider this repott.

F. In the event a designating resolution is adopted by the city council, such resolution shall become effective immediately following adoption thereof and the designated property shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this chapter and to such further restrictions or controls as may be specified in the designating resolution. After approval ofa designating resolution, the secretary of the commission shall notify the prope1ty owner by mail, outlining the basis for the designation and the regulations which result from such designation. The secretary shall also cause such resolution to be recorded in the office of the county recorder.

G. Adoption ofa designating resolution shall be based upon a finding by the city council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeo Jo gical, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the city, the county, the state or the nation, and satisfies the criteria set forth in this article.

H. Until final action has been taken by the city council on the proposed designation as a historic landmark no building, alteration, grading, demolition or tree removal permit shall be issued for any work 12/20/2007 1 of2 Los Altos History .Museum
51 s San Antonio Rd.

LDB Altos, CA 94022-2319
218
to be performed upon or within the property which is the subject of the proposed designation, unless approved by the historical commission or the city council. This restriction shall become effective as of the time the study is initiated, and shall extend until the designating resolution becomes effective. (Ord. 04-257 § 1 (part))
•'

12.44.090 Termination of designation.

The only legitimate reason for terminating the designation is when meets the wllena lancfinarkiS building department sb.affbe ____ _ notified, and the appropriate cancellation notice of previously recorded notice of designation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder. (Ord. 04-257 § 1 (part))

12.44.120 Supporting data.

The application shall include the following data:

A. Documentation establishing ownership of the designated prope1ty by the applic t for the pennit; B. A clear statement of the proposed work;
C. A site plan showing all existing buildings, structures, trees over six inches i diameter, property lines, easements and the proposed work;
D. Detailed plans showing both the existing and proposed exterior elevati s, materials and grading; E. Specifications describing all materials to be used and all processes t t would affect the appearance or nature of the materials;
F. Notes indicating any deviation from the secretary of the interior' standards for historic rehabilitation; G. Where the application is for demolition, a detailed statement fthe necessity for demolition together with photographs of the structure to be demolished;
H. Such other information or documents as may be request by the historical commission. (Ord. 04-257 § 1 (part))

12.44.190 Ordinary maintenance and repair.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to pre nt the ordinary maintenance, painting, landscaping or repair of any exterior feature in or upon any de 1gnated historic landmark or prope1ty located within a designated historic district that does not i;:v Ive a change in design, material or the external appearance thereof, nor does this chapter prevent the nstruction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or removal of any designated historic la mark or property located within any designated historic district which has been certified by th city building inspector, or fire chief, or other code enforcement officer as being in unsafe or dan er s condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California State Historic Buildin o e. (Ord. 04-257 § I (pait))

12.44.200 Duty to keep in good repair.
- A. The owner, occupant, or the person in actual charge of a designated historic landmark or prope1ty located within a designated historic district shall keep and maintain in good condition and repair all exterior portions thereof, all interior portions thereof when subject to special regulation or control as specified in the designating ordinance or pe1mit, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature or natural feature.

B. It shall be the duty of the building official to enforce this section. (Ord. 04-257 § I (part)) Los Altos History Museum
12/20/2007 2 of2 51 s. San Antonio Rd.

Lo5 Aft05, CA 94022-2319
219
@ 7
(; -
f--1--1 I , !
:

I • 0
z ' 0 0
f- ; z
<{
z
<{ • II>
,
I 'j
':e
"'
c T y
--· .,_ ...
i
I
I
PCL. I
a -1
I
I
I
---------ig ,.

I
I
PCL.

A -1
I
L 0 S
PCL. C
a:
0 LEONARD 5. 1
1 CCARK SUBDIVISION s W L -(('l'IT".]soOC: -;;co:.,;;---- U TRACT N" ••• .... 6290 6 : 1112 "iii 144 - /6o <ii _ C/L __
j l 1!6 17'6 , I
1 t I a1.;i.3
:e. I I !
22 §
6 I t I I
--- ' 6--' 5 f 0 F ----' , '\, .... 55.158 I 4
II
• 3 1
"' !£ :.I \ 1
e i ----'-..,_ I 3 "" gg l -?5
J...._
l!OOl'-
170 II
-1-··-- IE. EDITH AVE.
"'
L
:g I g_j I il165---
.. !"·" i 7 51 .
29 A L T 0 s
' -'-T .. -- ---· --
,. \7
.1_
'"
:q
..

I
I
I
I
I
2 ,,.
.!
;{tlo;
"' 0
z
<
w
w
FRl.NCES OR. @
"' " ' "
- C/'- HILL:,:: __
4 ·
1 ,
4 . _· ,"'.'17:s .-.
i ' ,,,,,' " '
" - "'" "'" ·-, .. o
-- AVE. --"-' _ _j__ I
® LAWRENCE E. STON Corlll!trcl map for E - ASSESSOR
Compled under purpoilCS ooly. Err.cttw Roll Y • . Code, Sec. 32.7 6Gr 2007-2008 · 220
!:

I ,l· 1
f
0 2 ' 0
:s;
<(
I
I
_ _j__
OFFICE:@ OF
TRACT 1011

F'REDERICK MANOR
CiT'I
LOS ll.L10S
" <(
0 "'
....

I
'::
"' --1- w "'
:s;
COUNTY C@ N\t....Y___ . .C_A ! I f 0 R N I A /
CIELlTO
T
NAVAJO
Ln AC NET
13S 31
S.B.E. 279-4B-(03)-22
F>CL I

PACIFIC SELL
DRIVE
--···--,

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
l
P.M. 64!-M-4
WISE. TRACT
CARMICHAEL MANOR .. Ut..13
TR. 1-J? 4099 LAWRENCE E. STONE - ASSESSOR
:;:; 'g. Cii) 300 Ccdortnll map fur purposes cnly.

I d under R. &: T. Sec. 327. N.__!_ SAN ANTON 10 -------- · ______ ---1-- ----- ____.;___RO. tJ.au....Rall y_. 2007- 2008 221
cB. RESPONSES TO LETTER FROM V, LORIE COOK CARPENTER AST CHAIR

LOS ALTOS HISTORICAL COM ISSION)
.. COMMENT B-1: In the discussion at the ·bLicheariilg on this topic last night, one of the alternate locations mentioned for this project was the Civic Center apricot orchard. A council member stated that, while he understood that the orchard was historic, he was unaware of any protection for it. As the Los Altos Historical Commission representative present, I would like to inform the City Council, staff and consultants hired to prepare the EIR that the Civic Center Orchard has been designated a local landmark by two previous Los Altos City Councils, as follows:

PROPERTY
Civic Center Orchard
Revised
DATE
5-26-81
10-8-91

RESOLUTION
81-23
91 - 31
Th e apricot orchard is living proof that at one time much of the present-day City of Los Altos was \ { orchards, particularly apricot orchards. I am confident that my fellow Historical Commissioners . would join me in urging the city to continue to honor its local landmark status and preserve it as a \\ unique reminder of our agricultural heritage. Thank you for your suppmt for our precious historic cj\ ' DEIR on one of the alternative sites. Page 72 of the DEIR states, "Development of ;j: 71 RESPONSE B-1: This comment supports the information contained in the the proposed project at the Civic Center would require the removal of a portion of the orchard, which is designated as a historic resource." The text on page 72 the DEIR is ' amended to include the information contained in this comment. Please see Section 1, IV of this Final EIR, Revisions to the Text of the Draft EIR. J . .

LOB AltoB History Museum
51 S. San Antonio Rd.

Loo A/too, CA 94022-2319

LOS ALTOS COMMUNITY SWIM CENIBR
23 FINALEIR
222
Los Altos

HISTORY MUSEUM
Time-Line for J. Gilbert Smith, His Family, and His House Created by Dan McDonald, updated 2/26/2016
.. ····-····---·--·--· .. ··--·--·---·--··-----·-·-··· . ·---------·---·-·-·-·---·-···-----·------·--·-··-·---·-,-·--·-----··1 -i::i-t born to --------+--R_if--1 -- -j-----:·----1 ___________ L_ ______ ·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.------····-···----1 .
1 ca 1896 worked as a carpenter, and helped build some of the small cottages at College Terrace. Mary wrote a I 5 ---- -------·-·----·--··--------··--t 6-1 __ ----------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------+- --1 _ • __ ····--------- J_ 7 .J • Flax was crop across Griffin Rd. in what became the Downtown Triangle. 8 I I • Margaret Hill graduated from Berkeley, taught in Portland 1901-05, Mt. View 1905-06, Carmel and Susanville 10 I ! 1907-31, before becoming Gilbert's wife. 1
111
1 I • Gilbert lived in a tent on his property, began Blenheim apricot ORCHARD, paid little Joe Urban for 5 cents 11 • I each gopher the youth could catch.
__ start_ed building his and tari_k tower,_[><lid $1Sper 1,0ll_q_s_'L_ft forheart ___ ] • Gilbert installed his windmill, and planted a Canary Island Palm tree in his front yard. with hi;:;;-·They ----·-··---·--····-·· -- 11
j I • Gilbert's house built with 3 bedrooms upstairs and bathrooms upstairs and downstairs. 13 ! 1905 I • Gilbert bought his first automobile-a 1905 Oldsmobile "Curved-Dash Runabout" 14 I ' • Gilbert was listed in the Polk-Husted Commercial Index as "Julian G. Smith, carpenter." 14 I • Railroad with "gasoline motor cars" began operation through Los Altos "about 1908." 'I I ' ' I • William and Julia donated land for San Antonio Clubhouse, which Gilbert helped maintain. 11 i • Gilbert built locally historic Lennox/Manning house, now on Maynard Court. I 7 & 18 I I • Telephones were installed in downtown Los Altos; also a Post Office was opened. I 17 i • San Antonio Road became official name for Giffin Rd. In response to San Antonio Club petition. 3 I / • Sale of lots began by Los Altos Land Co. I 20
I ' • Elinor Smith visited the "Smith Cottage" at Twin Lakes near Santa Cruz. [There were several other references I 3 j to this cottage---we did not know previously of its existence.] ' 79 1901
1908
I
! • "Mrs. Shane-Smith" went to San Jose on Club business and gave several readings at their programs. ----y------ ------ ---- - ------------ --------- ------ ------------------ - ---- --··· --·--·--·-· 1909 JI • Gilbert & Mary drove to Mission San Juan Batista and to their cottage, where she remained for some days. 79 L _____ _• __ Gilbert with be _ _ ·-·--·---· 1 1910 I •
3 Census listed Mary S. Smith "Head of Family," daughter Elinor A., and son "J. Gilbert ... Building Contractor." I • Electricity came to Los Altos with the Peninsula Electric Railway Co's power station. 3 ------+------·-·····--·- ----········------ ·-·----· -------·-······---------------···--·--------- -····-------··------------- ··-·····----------· - -- ··--··· - 1911 i • Electric railway operation began on tracks parallel to Southern Pacific steam train. ·-···---·······-------·-··-·-·····-·--- ---·--·-····-·-··- ···------···--···-·--···-· 3 Los Altos History M11se11111: J. Gilbert Smith Ho11se Timeline as o/212612016 Page 1 of6 223 -=l:Gilb;.1 for Mrs. -Guy -- ------ --- ---- -- ---- - -i-- 5-- 1 ___ . ----- -'I-;- him -;;;•Head and - ---- I I
[ 1920 • Gilbert took photos during family camping trip to Del Monte. I I !-----+-·- listed__(J__ll_CHARD to _ _()v.med by_Ober
1922 I • Smith family snapshot was captioned "Gilbert's plane" -- a Jenny (JN-4) airplane. 14 I .. .. ..

I - --------··28 I-"-- 9 & 26
'j December, the Mt. View Register-leader noted that over half of 1000 copies had been sold. It was I published in July by The Seven Arts, Carmel. Elinor bought a cottage in Carmel and taught "nature study" I 26 • Mary over Christmas vacation. (Her usual custom, confirmed this year.) I 1 1 -=f
1927
1 • Elinor's Trees of Yosemite and of The Sierra Nevadas published-photos uncredited. 1 I
; • Census listed Gilbert as "Head of Family" and "Fruit Farmer." His mother Mary was listed together with 1 1 29
1 Marjory Mcleod, a servant. Elinor not listed, having moved to Carmel. 1930
] ! • Gilbert volunteered material and work to the Los Altos Garden Association's project to beautify the "park" I i ] area by the SP Railroad depot. 1
I ca 1930 I • Gilbert bui.lt house for Harry on Cherry Ave. Claimed that was his last house, and that he was ! now retired from carpentering. r----·--1----·-------------·--·-·---·-···-·--·--·-·---·-··-·-----·-····---··---·--···-·-----,o-·--····-·-·-·--·--···--····--·- 1 I • Divorce action mentions Gilbert, brought by Rafe. R. Reid. vs. his wife, Carmel poet, Helen Reid. ' • • Mary Shane Smith died at age 84. Her wish to be 11laid to rest under my favorite oak" wasn't honored. She 1931 was buried in Cypress lawn Cemetery, Colma, CA.
• Marriage of Margaret Hill and Gilbert Smith took place in Reno, NV with her cousin officiating. They had a lake Tahoe honeymoon, and their marriage date chosen so they would appear a year apart in age. 27 22
58 7 I • Gilbert made apricot brandy in basement-when custom began is unknown. 23 I 1933 .. -• ___I
1934 • Margaret Smith entered Los Altos Golf and Country Club February golf tournament. -··-····-·----- .. '.-·--·--·--·-···-·---··---·········-······-····---- • Smiths took a 4-day trip to Tahoe in early June.
26 25 28
1935 • Margaret was Trustee for the San Antonio Club. 30 Smiths a_!.r:P_!_o the ___________ ------------- ______ ·- 31 1 1936
I • Smiths spent two months in Carmel (Presumably with Elinor). 40 ____ in Guild o_!_S?n __ fa.r _______ __ _
I ;-: . --- 1 ! Grammar School. 59
··-·············----·-······· ·-··-···----····- ____ _ 1940 1 · Gilbert was a pall-bearer at the November funeral of his neighbour, Charles O'Connor. 71 ,---·--···--· -----··---------··---------.. ·------·-·-·-·---···-··--··--·--·---··--··---·-"·-.. ·------····-··· .. ··-···---····--···········- -··-.. ···-·"·-···-·-·-· I 1940 • Smiths bought Charles A. and Emilie K. O'Connor's house and ORCHARD (6.75acres), adjoining to north. (39) 39 f----"-----------------------------------------------------------------------------·-··-···------------· _--=-- _____ ... ,__ ::
1942 • Smiths rented former O'Connor home to Mr. & Mrs. W.E. Todd 67 pa rty"_.!9-. ....... __ ........ ..
..... ..... l __ .. .. .... , .....

Los Altos History Museum:]. Gilbert Smith House Timeline as of2/26!2016 Page 2 of6 224 ------,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-- i Grammar School, from August '42 to February '43. ' 3
Prior and APricots fo-r - ----- 1 7 __ ___ special trees, kept_!9if.?mily ______ ________ __ ________ _ _ ___________ --\-- c!'!o:(69) ---·---·-·------..
j
• Gilbert attributed his good health and longevity to a daily 15 minute nap after lunch. ] 34 I cut because
.. h_:.0.iP .. ----...........
1947 I • Margaret was on Board of Directors San Antonio Women's Club {formerly San Antonio Club). I -··-·-· ____ in at __ in .. ,.--·----··- ··-···--·--····-·- ' L ' I I • Gilbert had Dave Ellsworth do extensive renovations to house. (13) 13 : II ! • Smiths sold 8.84 acres to City of Los Altos for $115,000, retaining house and 1.36 acres as a life tenancy; I 33 19 I to be gift deeded to the City upon their deaths. I 56 I 54 I • Smiths deeded O'Connor house and 1.7S acres to Gilbert's nephew Forrest Smith {brother Harlan's son). 1 I • Forrest and family probably moved in several years earlier. l 63 ---+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --, ------ 19S6 I • City Council recognizes Los Altos History Association by Resolution #182. 60 64 • Smiths fly east to visit Margaret's sick brother; do sight-seeing in Boston and New England; • Los Altos awarded Civic Center contract to Ernest J. Kump and Associates of Palo Alto. • Los Altos History Association publishes 1st and only annual report. Later becomes inactive. Re-formed in -·-.. .. ... Smith .. H.:ory
:: I
··;-1
1957
late I . . 19SOs • Margaret found take-out food very practical; she had take-out menus on kitchen table. ! and 8
1--- .. 48
I ca 1963 I • Photos of Gilbert and Margaret taken by Foothill Congregational Church for their archives. 14 ·-----·----y----··-·--·-·-·---··------·-----·--·--·---··----··-··-·-·--·---··--·"--·---··----··-·-·--·-------·-·-···········-·-·-•""'-··-·-·····-·-··-····- ........ _____ _ 11963 I • Margaret, in October letter to Irene, mentions "Gil isn't very well now ... 87." 66 of .. his ····-·-··73·---·
1-------j-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·------------ ----------- ----- to th_: .. .. .. ........... ·-···--·-"·· .... -·- S7
i 1 · Gilbert Smith died (5/23/66) at age 89 (1966) 1
1966 • Margaret had upstairs apartment constructed--didn't want be alone and couldn't climb stairs. 7 I • Town Crier article (and photo under her favorite oak) celebrated Margaret's 90th birthday. ______ a letter to th_e Crier, Smith City "1?_.?cre __ ··-·-··-- _ SS _ LA2:_<:__a0icle ___________________ -----······-···---·--- 72 1970 • Margaret receives a golden SO-year certificate from Gamma Phi Beta Sorority. 6S ------ - ----- ----- ---- ----------------------- -------- --- :;: . i; '"''' '"""' ''"'"' Smith's mother's offer to donate Smith artifacts she inherited as Gilbert's niece-in-law. ------ - - - - ---- ----- ----- ----- -------- -------- -- - -- -------- """""""""-··'·"·-·····-- _ __ __ SS
, 197SM • Smith house refurbished to public safety and ADA standards; sprinkler system, outside stairway to second SS 1_7_7_ ___ instal_led a_n_<! built_, _ ____ ------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------- 1 1976 1 • City rented upstairs apartment to LAFD Clerk Linda Sandigo and her husband. 61 ---------1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·----- -------------------------- 1977- I • City rented upstairs apartment to LAFD fireman Bob and Pam Mordecai. In 1981, their son Zack became first 16 ----
7 60
60 Los Altos History Museum: J. Gilbert Smith House Timeline as o/212612016 Page3of6 225 ----r--·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------T·---·-- --, 1993 -L • Tank House from Pilgrim Haven (Spagnoli farm) added to HH grounds. , 55 i ---I HH for 1 1 Upgrades to Smith House (basement, insulation, EQ strengthening, etc.). While a city project, it was , 1 I 1993- ! funded in the majority by grants and donations sought by the Assn. {Estimate was $170k, City allocated ' 60 1 I 94 j $50k, rest was raised by the Assn.} Project scheduled to begin after June 14, 1993. (Minutes of the LAHM, I ] I 1/5/93) _J_ I -/- GO J - ___ L - ----- --- --- ----------------- ----- ------------ --- ---------- ---- - __ ,_ - - Los c:_djacent ____________ J _________ J

REFERENCES
Newspapers: LAN=Los Altos News; LATC=Los Altos Town Crier; MVRL=Mountain View Register-Leader Other abbreviation: LAHMC=Los Altos History Museum
-·--·-···--··-----------------··---------··--·-·----- ---··-·-·--·-··-·-·-----------------------·-··--------····--·-··--·--1 I N!:? 1 Reference / Description ! 1 ___________________ -----···-···--------------------------------------········-·-! ···-·---r-·--··-------·-·-·-···----------··-·-·--···-·-···-··--·---·----·-·-·----------···--·----·-·····--·-·-- --·-·-·--···-- -·-··--·····--···- - - i 5 ! Papers in LAHMC f---L-·--·-·--· ·---·····---·----·-·-·-··-----·--··--·-····----·--·--·········-····-·-·······-·-·-·--····--·····---···--··-----····-··········-···-·-.. ·-·-·-······-·--···-·-·" l-6 -1 -\ ..

I it's clear that both Margaret and Mary knew it wouldn't work out for them live together with Gilbert as a threesome.

I ..... 1
11 8 Los Altos Town Crier (LATC) but not cited.
----- I 9 Both books are in the collection of Irene Grenier 10 Mountain View Register-Leader {MVRL) Obituary 4/15/47. 11 Gilbert's 1957 "Reminiscences," in Joe Salameda's Memories of Los Altos; published in Los Altos News 12/6/62 12 Merry Edwardson heard that Gilbert brought the little palm on his bicycle, it having been given to him by a friend who was planting them at Stanford at that time, along Palm Drive, related by phone 9/19/06. .. , 14 Photo file in LAH MC. Presumably Gilbert had a ride in this plane. We've checked available aviation files for those years, and r·15 =:======: ==: := ::==:
! 16 , Bob Mordecai Oral History i---\----···-····-·····-··------------·--------------···--·-----··-·----·----·-----··--·------- ·-··---------- 1---· 17 • Arah Love Oral History ::= _ _:::=:=- -
i 19 -i Phyllis Windeler (with Marlon Grimm) Oral History ---·------·-···- ······-·-·-- --------- ---···-··-·- i 20 '! LATC 2/7/68 '-·····---·-· .. -·--·--·--·--··-·····-····---············- I 21 I The culprit here may have been Jimmy Griffin, who once created a diversion at Mac's Tea Room by dumping several __________ j _ on sou .. Cf?.Un ............. ---···--·--···-·--- 22 I LAN 10/7 /31 and the Palo Alto Times 10/8/31. We have been unable to find out more about this court case. Nor do we have any other evidence that Smith even knew Helen, although it is certainly possible. A MVRL article (9/13/29) indicated that the Reids were then living on Manuela Ave. (now in Los Altos Hills), that she was a magazine writer who had studied I conditions in Alaska, and that they had a Carmel cottage. We have not been able to find information about Helen after she t-23 ___ .... From
... !!.!9-... ... ........... _ ....... _ ·····---···-·····-----·--·---·· I 24 i MVRL /27/33 -··-----'--······----·--·- ······----·-·--· .. ·--·---·--·····-·--···-·-·--·-·-·----·-·· .. ·---·-······--·--··········------····- """"·····-·--·-·····-- ······-··--···· , .......... --·-·-·-·--·----· Los Altos History Museum: J. Gilbert Smith House Timeline as a/212612016 Page 4 af6 226 - -: : __ ::::::-
27 I Joyce Buswell Frederick Oral History I
.. ..
31 I MVRL 9/20/35 . -·--·--·--------···-··-------·--·-·-·-···-- ___ _J I 32 I MVRL 27 /37. Ruth Job Erichsen's mother, a close friend, said Margaret was chiefly interested in the Church's sewing circle, I i ! and that she did not remember Gilbert attending very often, by phone 9/13/06. i l33T"Deed Page "15 Was
i i (38) and Amy Heath (41}. That may be true, but as far as we can tell, Smith's ORCHARD actually totaled 13.7 acres-a figure i I derived by adding the 11.95 acre City deed (which presumably included the Smith's 1+ acre life-tenancy grant) to the 1.75 ----··-·-·--··---·-·--····------·-·-·-·-·----··-------····-------·-·-···-···--·--·-···-·---- 1-3s .. -jAOne 1 also G-ii"bert ::
--- I
=:r =:: _=: H::===: ::===:==:=-_:= ==:-=:: _ ] 41 MVRL 10/2/36. [ 46 1 There are several oral history stories about Gilbert's failing eyesight in his final years, notably in Ed Jackson's oral history. i 47j-LATciot2o/71-------------------··-·---·-··--········--- ··-----·-····-··········---------------------·---------·-····-----······-···--·-·--·-····-·------- !--- - -- ----------- --------- ------ -- --- -- -- -- - ---"- -- - ···--·-··--····--····-·····-·-· .. ·- ! 48 ' Daphne Smith Oral H1Story ;How #19 : __ : _:==--: ::=:: t _ Sl _\ __ r.Jl\IRL 6/27/30.__ _______ ____ _____ ______ ____ _____ __ _ ___ ___ ____ _ ______ _ ' 52 I LAN S/20/30 -S3 ::== _ __ _ S4 Joyce Buswell Frederick, by phone 9/13/06 ------·-··--··---·-·-·--···--····--·-·------·--·····----··--···-····-··-·-·-···----····-·-····-···--·--··--.. ·----·---·-··--··--·····-·-·"··--·-·--·-·- ···············-·-··-·' SS I Audrey Fisher files LAHMC. white =:: == ====-:: :-::::: == ::::: ==== ·················-···· S7 I Frank White oral history, verified by phone 8/23/07 from Daphne Smith 1---- --- ------ --- ----- --- ------ --- -- ----- -- -------- -- --- ----- -- -- l _
:: __ _ -= - -: _ --- - ----·- ____ -------- __ __ ___ _ ___ _ _ _______ _ ___ Jos:__ Mer':,_u'}' '}ews She 62 1 MVRL 8/29/30
L.. ... ------··--·------···---·--··----··-·--·-···-··--·--····-·--·····--···---·-·-···-""""--··· ........................................... ----··-·-·-····-"""'"--······-··-····--··-····"·-·-·"··-""'"•-··-----·--·-·-···-·····-······• ... . I 63 I Daphne Smith, by phone 6/14/08 LAH ......
!_·--···--·-- Haven CT ret!:'_rn b.Y. tra ... Florence did ...... _···---····- . 65 LAHMC--Certificate dated 12/7/70 is in Museum archives I ----- ----------------------------------------------···-------------···--·-·····-··-··-------------·-···-··----··-·····----·-··I 66 LAH MC-Margaret's letter to Irene, dated 120/14/63 I 1=67 _::::J
Los Altos History Museum:]. Gilbert Smith House Timeline ns of2/26/2016 Page 5 of6 227 1 -68-jtANs/13/42 ---------·---·------····-··-··-·-·---·-··- ··-··-·····--------·------------·----·-···--- --- 7 '!_'.4!_ __________ ·····-····-··----------·--------·-······--··-··-···· ·····--··--··-----·-----·········-·--·····--····· I 70 I LAN 9/21/44 1---t---:-:-:----·-······---·---·-----·-·-····-···---··--·------------·------···-···········---------------·-······-··-·····--····--·--·-·--·---·······-···-·- 1 71 I OH memo 9/21/2007 filed "J. Gilbert Smith" covers Ralph Appia's memories as a LAGS student 1943-46. His additional ------.. He d __ - .. that .. - 72 LATC 9/11 (or 17)/68. Halleck's article titled ''Seeing Los Altos Through Yesterday's Eyes" imagined Gilbert's reactions to ! current developments in Los Altos if he were still alive. I .. --73·-- LAT·c·2;1 /Gs. Th.is step-toWard -·---1 r
._ .. _
7 _
4 ___ .. Smith ·-·--····-·--]
-·---··-···-- -·-·------··--··--··,.··--· .. 75 LATC described the "Vintage Comfort Station" as an 1888 model from the Kifer farmhouse on Grant Road. I [ __J
Los Altos History M11se11n1: J. Gilbert Sn1ith House Tin1eline as o/212612016 Page6of6 228 J. G ILBEftT SMITH
-::>f1m::;v1u., F.:'::>V."'Co l(e cfl · fY\
Los Altos History Museum
51 s. San Antonio Rd.

LoB AltoB, CA 94022-2319
In the early Hl90's Mrs. Mary Shane Smith; her two sons, J. Gilbert and Harlani her daughter, Elinor, fondly called, Nell, left Partland F!e:\.ghts, Oregon for Calirornia. Mrs, Smith's desir" was for' her children to finish the:i.r education at the renowned stanford Unive>"sity in Palo Alto. They built, small in the town the turn of the century. ;'-
of Mayfield, now South Palo Alto, where they lived until Finances so0n b<>Ci<l.l1le a bit o.f a pr'Oblem and the MJS1!!!SH; son. J, G:i.lbert, who was a fine carpenter, decided to give up his college career in order to help the ,:j/[)r,:_r::..
family1 thus IM.king it pessible fer his!;brother and si.ster to continue their education.

On August 1, 1901 Gilbert ptll'Chased about 5 acres of land on a narrow, dusty country road then called Giffln Roar! in the rural country tO¥m which was soon t.o l>A known as Los Altos. This narrow road was later relllll.med San Antonio Road, He to plant the acreage in apricot tr"6s and started construction on their n<N ·1-room house while camping in a tent nE>ilr the site of tho home, LUtle by lHtle he b°"ght more land, including the home and 6Urrounding acreage of Dr. O'Conner, an<l planted more apricot traes until he had a acre orchard, 'i'his fine 01"ohard was con- :l.n Los Historkal
of these trees
In recalling early days in Los Altos an interviErw with Joseph J. Gilbert Smith gave the foll<'.lldng inforrnati.ont
"I arrived on the property ooeupied by l1\Y !largaret, and I at the Present time on August 1, 1901. At f1.1"st I In a tent near the site of rrw Pr<'13tont home, I had purchased five acres, a port:lon of I'll' later holrlings, The area of the present 'Triangle• bounded by what is now San Antonio Road, ID:lith Avenue and the 229
railroad tracks, was at that time nothing but a fi.olcl of popp:l.es am lupin wj th a few treos scattoroo 11round, There was no Hillview Avenue am, of orn1rse, no San Antonio lchool building, The follmring year I planted th" five acres in apricots ancl started construction of llW home.

The original plots for Los Altos had been Jxi<l out 1.n 1864 hut the town of Los Altos was not 1".1.d out until i '}IJB, In those days \to automoM.les, I remember San .Antonio Raad as an excellent 1•osd for wnp;ons a.nd hike , San Antonio Road tervlinated at Giffin Road anrl tnters<•cted El Monte Avenue near where Gif'f'in nnd E1 Monte Avenue now maet. The stretch of San Antonio Rood near I;Jmber Company and what formerly was Santa Maria Avenue from McElroy Iarnhm· Com]J".ny to El Monte Avenue Has non-existent, El Monte Avemie w11s the" older road and a deal of constructien of homes was along that street. It was apparently the earlieat of the roads in the Los Altos and a fair m1mher of the older hmnes arEl still standing there.

A railronci which usoo motor ears was put into operation about i'}OB and ran from Mayn.eld through Los Altos to Los Gatos, Later, e.round 1915, the &'ln Jose to Palo Alto electric car system was put in. A gener&tor power house was eroctoo. 'fhi.s power hrnrne was the building between First Stroot and the railroad tracks and j s now occupied by the Los Altos Library.

The first post office was a hox car at the rai .. lread stat:l.on and later the post offjce was moved to the back end of the Shoup Building at F1rst a.nd Main Streets, At that time groceries were delivered hy horse-dro:wn wagons from Palo Alto ancl Mountain Viaw. 1'here were also vegetable 1md meat wagons as well as occasional fish wapons.

In approxi.matel,y 1906, Mr. and Mrs. M. O, Adams built a residence on wh&t is now Pepper Drive. This residence is presently occupier! by Cap Herring. The residence now occupied by the Chiotti. family on Almond Aveuue was 01omed by a Hr.

Kelly, This home stood in a thirty acre orchard, The Hike Wright honse in the area of El Monte Avenue near University Avenue was one of the first homes to be built in Los Altos. This house is still standing at 762 &lgeweod Avenue, It was formerly mmed hy Mrs. Merriman, a sister of Mrs, Winch.,ster of' the Winchester lt,rstery House farn:ily,
other res:l.dences up at that time were the Shoup home and the A, S, Robinson home, The present Creshaw residence had been constructed and was oooup:i.ed hy Professor Huntington, a member of the Stanford faculty, This residence is on the north side of Almond Avenue ne.!tr San Antonio and has the s.rldress of 145 J\]mond Avenue. In appro1dmately 190B a Mr. Berry built a harn the stabli.np; of horses on the site where the present garage across from the Market is looeted.

The house of Frank Rathbun >l'&S at !hird and State Streets on the property where the Purity Store :ls now being erected. This house was mover! in 19}4 to 620 Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Rathbun was here in 1908. He and his father ran a plumbing business on the site presently occupied by the Associated Oil Service Station on First Street between the present garage anrl the alley parelleling Main Street, The they occupier! was used for a short time later as a restaurant. Frank was here at the time the tmm of Los Altos was laid out.

It was a number of years before rany business establishment,; started to locate in Los Altos, When they did start, a hardware
present Los Altos Store. Its mmer was
home he built was near the present Christi.an Sdenee Robinson ran a grocery store at Main anrl Second Streets, Gene Tarbell's store now ooou.pi.es this buHding. The Robinson family home was one of the first built in the Univers1 ty Avenue section.

The Shonp 11u1.lding which in later ys'lrs was occupied by Kahn's Drug seems to have been used as a drug store for much of its lifee JXJ the of' the Loe; Altos History Museum
51 S. San Antonio Rd.

Los Altos, CA 94022-2319 230
Los Altos History Museum
51 S. San Antonio Rd.

Los Altos, CA 94022-2319
' Shoup huilc'ing which :\s pl"esently!oocupl.ed by Gene Ta-rhells Children's Shop, the-re was a German 13:J.kery .. I rernernl'lAr t.hB hor5e drawn l)akery war\on a.s pa.rt of the Los Altos scene, At a lnter date this part of' the l1uildin,; was o<Jcupied by the f1.ret movie thsa ter
Bill and Joe Urban, later they were kn<:»m as the Urban Brothers of the well kn<»m building r<lflterials company of PB.lo Alto, lived on San Antonio Roo.d north of Almond Avenue, I remember Bill Urhan delivering milk. Bill and Joe and their sister were considered the best. apricot. cutters in this area. I also remewber paying Joe Urban ten oents per rwpher for all the gophers he could co.t"h. Another memory is of the lumber I for $15.00 per thousnnd.

The present Los Altos l'eed and Fuel Company was put. up u•ound 1915 and has occupied the snme Prsm:lses since that time, It was th" WoCA4.l:'nff F'eed Store in t.hmrn d2yr; nnd a hos0 cart for tho volunteer f:ire d<lpartment was kept at that s1t.e, 11amse.v' s Garage was b1il.l t in "pproidmat.ely 1912, The first hank was located in the huildi.np; now occupied hy the Cun11inf?ham Department Store at First and Naln Street!!.

Today our once quiet lI.ttlo vlllage teems with activity. Where orchards, open fields, and an oooa.sional hutlding onee stood are mod.ern business establishments and streets of attractive residences. Mostly, I remerqber the few hundred people of fifty years ago who were the nucleus of almost twenty thousand today," (1957) J, Gilbert's bolovec1 mother, J:.l'.ary Shane Smith,
her f"vorite old oak tree, He gave the O'Cormer house and surr01.mcJin?: 1.75 acres to his nephew, Forrest, son of Harlan, On October 16th, 19)1, at the "·f." of 55 yoors, he married his Bfe-lonf', friend, Margaret F. Hill. Mony happy years wore spent t.ogethm• ho\)by
of Gilberts.

By 19'.)Lf the cdt.;\f of Los Altos had hocorne n flour'Lshinf\ city a.rid the J, Gilbort Smith property fl.djoi,ntnp; the ln1sinE1ss distrlnt har1 1)ecnrno qutte was "besieead 'by real tors offering to purchase a portion or all of ltls apricot orc}rnrdf4, but chose :l.nstead to sell thA portion to the oi t.y for their C:l.vic the family howe a.nd surrcm.ncling 1.36 11.ores for ll.nd hi.s ·with the a.@:reement that it is to be a pift deocl to the city ;,t the de0.th of both of them. .. Gtl'hert pasoerJ avray· on 1966 at the age o.f 90 ;Yf:Z'Aro ..

The home huilt with "1tch pricle Hnd joy hy the hsnds of ,J, GUhert Smi.th w:l.ll be The ford m.sb of hfo widow,
in memory of hrothor Harlan and the lovely red
bear tho name of sistor Elinor.
!
to h11.ve
in the front of the house to
i
//'
231
COPY
P.o. Box 1395
J. Gilbert Smith
Marga1°et Hill Smith
San Antonio Road,
Los Altos, California
Dear Nr. and Mrs. Smith,
November 26, 1954 '--'";
I ) I : -,:

The City of Los Altos offers to purchase the 10.20
acres of Land owned by you on San Antonio Road in Los Altos which has been the subject of negotiation for a Civic Center site for the price of 000 and reserving to you a life estate in 1.36 acres on which the residence is located.

It is understood by the City that you feel this price
really only covers the 8.97 acres not in the home site and that you are only agreeing to this proposition because you feel that you are making a gii't of' the 1.36 acre tract. The City appreciates 1ur action therein.
!
It is also understood that you shall have the f'ruit from the trees so long as you may desire and so long as you work the property yourself and maintain the trees and properly care for the same, but only until the City may desire to appropriate the tree area or any part of it to City use and nessitating removal of said trees.

There is further to be reserved an easement of 20• for road ingress and egress as approximately now used, but this easement is to become void when Edith Ave. is extended through said property to give ingress and egress. "
This offer is subject to the gift to the City by Mr. Arthur Fowle of 1113,000 for this specific acquisition and the grant by the State of California of' of so-called Christmas Tree funds and for which application would be made immediately.

We appreciate your cooperation and interest and if, as
we believe, this is now in accord with your views, will you kindly indicate approval hereon and we shall proceed to process our state application at once.

Approved:

Yours very truly,

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
By _ _;G:..:' /'------ Flayer
__:'l,LDYTH C. REED /s/
Coimcilwoman
''
. )_
1:
)' ·'
!i.
" L
Ji
232
CIT'l COUNGlL
GEORGE H. ESTILL, Mayor
A. WATSON CONNER
ALDYTH C. REED
BURT H. RIGGS
CLARENCE O. WITT
)
Mr. and Mrs. J. Gilbert Smith,
San Antonio Road,
Los Altos, Calif.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith:

Enclosed is a certified copy of a Resolution
adopted by the City Council at its regular
meeting of December 7, 1954.

JOHN M. R. HOPE

CITY CLERK
Chief AdinlnlBttative Oificer
Since you are the subjects of the Resolution,
I thought that you would like to have a copy.

JMRH:m
Enc.

Yours very truly,
\\ !; ;·\:, ;J /I. · •· •11 • • • I
'' J IV" I . \\, - ! 1· i i 1--;:-/-'. / \·v. -· .._... I I/·'/ / f\_ 1"1 John M. R. Hopej City Clerk
Chief Administrative Officer
'
\ I '._/
.Los Altos History Museum
51 S. San Antonio Rd.

Los Altos, CA 94022-2319
__ , ·t
i
233
R E S 0 L U T I 0 N N O. 59
On motion of Councilman Witt, seconded by
Councilman Riggs and unanimously carried it is .
hereby
RESOLVED that the appreciation of the City
Council of the City of Los Altos be expressed to
Mr. and Mrs. J, Gilbert Smith for their public
spirited attitude in making possible acquisition of
the site on San Antonio Road for a Civic Center and
as further evidenced by a of a Deed of Gift of
the homesite adjacent thereto.

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was adopted by the Council of the City of Los Altos
at a Regular Meeting held December 7, 1954 by the
following vote:

AYES: Councilwoman Reed, Councilmen Conner, Riggs,
and Witt, and Mayor Estill.

NOES: None
ABSENT: None
'
•
Clerk of' the City of Los Altos
Approved as to form:

City Attorney
Approved:

Mayor
I
,.

I
it,'
l'.$1
f\l
a i1 iJ
1 i '
'
''
234
I .Site Dovelop:ner.t.

2. TOFCK;';'AFi!Y
a. The sit.e is relatively flat, sl.oping o,955;b frorr. South to !forth, and l. 45;& from We st to East,
b. Site drains to the Ea.st,
c. No flood da_'1ger, although there is some to the North of Site d, Soil est.ima.ted able to carry large structures, although no borings have been made,

3. UTILITIES
a, . Gas line buries along East side of San Antonio Road. (size considered adequate by City Engineer)
b, ;.,·atsr line buried along East side of San Antonio Road. con3id.ered adeq\iate by·
c. i':lect:"i<:>ity on poles running along East side of Sl\ll Ant.on:l.o Ro!ld. d, Telephone lines run along East side of San Antonio Road, e, Se1·ra.ge
', l. None at present.

2. Soil sat.isfactory for Septic. Tanks,
(not possible if much of site area is paved)
3, Hot feasible to ;hook onto proposed sewer line from El Camino to 11Triangle 11 along San Antonio, since land drains to East, according to City Engineer.
4, Possibility of hooking onto sewer proposed for developnent along Edith Avenue to East of Site.
4, CLil\ATIC FACTORS
• a,
b,
c,
d,
e,
f.
g.
h.
i,
Average sumtner degrees
Average sUlTllner m.ax.i.nru.m temperature•e•••••••e•••79 degrees Average sumraer minirmun temperature ••••••••••••• 49 degrees Average winter temperature••••••••••••••••••o••52 degrees Average winter maximum tempel;'ature ............. 63 degrees Average winter mininu.un temperature•••••••••••••iil degrees Average S'3a3011P-1 'rai.r£.all." ••• " ••••• IP •••• ee·•. ·.15. 54 inches Ma.x.i.m:UJU 24 hour rainfall (13 year period),.,•• •• 2. 7S inches Prevailing winds
l. Trade Winds from North-West to West,
2, Storm winds from South-East to South,

5. SETBACKS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAYS
a. Setbacks
l" Front. ••0••11•••••40' .yardo

2. Back,"•••••••o•••50' yard.

J. Sideseo•ee•••••••25'
b, Right-of-way
601 right-of-way along San Antonio for future expansion of the road from 40' to 100'•
c, No Easements.

6. ACCESS
a. Pedestrian
l. .!Leong San Antonio Road.
2, City plan ex<:ludes use of paved sidewalks in order to prese:rve the ro.ral character of the City •
. b, Vehi(;uJ.ar
l. Alon,[l San Antonio Road

2. San Antonio main artery from El Camino Real to l"friangle.11 I
!

2. 235
)
\
\,
In civic center
City orChardwins historical
The Los Altos Historical Commission took steps Jast site: Plans now call for old apricot trees to be r'e!lili'' week. to assure the presOj"Vation of one of the Jast by new ones as they succumb to old age or remaining apricot orchards'ofsignificant size in the city. "When we have the money, I hate to think that The commission won city council approval for its have.ahassleifeverwewanttoexpandCivlcCentei- · recommendation to assign historical landmark designa- the orchard," Grimm said. ·. · • ti on to the orchard in Civic Center. The apricot orchard Lynch responded that the aim is to "alert future c · was one of four sites to receive Jandmark designation on missions thatthe site is designated and that they SliO. ·;.

May 12. The others are the Smith House, now History give (appropriate) thought before tearing out the '!88f •l House at 51 S. San Antonio Road, San Antonio Club 647 apricot trees.," . . • N. San Antonio Road and Redwood Grove at 482 Umver- San Antoruo Club was built m 1901 and served .. as' • sity Ave. meeting'place for men's and women's clubii. · The orchard should continue to serve as a remi:ider of Grove was developed early in the century and itli'll"' · the city's agricultural heritage, according to Lee Lynch, .ings, along with San Antonio Club and Histor)'.Hd ' former chairnlan of the historical commission. The are now owned by the city and extensively' · · · · ;• orchard also has a close reJationship to Smith House, she recreational a.nd educational programs. : · .' ,.,,,· said. .· In other action;tliecffy-i:iHllicll .. ,- '•:'.·:.::;.,,_ The property that is now Civic Center-was originally · . t Approved the appointment of Steve Aced.tO thi!- .. · ::
developed by Smith at the of ce!ltury. torical commission, . . .. · .:, The house, which. he constructed himself, IS typical of . ) t Approved .the allocation of the city's sha'!\. the architecture of that era, Lynch said. J.ederal revenue sharing funds to pollce. andAlliH Original Civic Center master plans show lutUre rdepartment saJaries. Finance Director JaCk ""! construction of a council chamber in the orchard between the existing City Hall and the Youth Center, but 'in revenue sharing funds this year. Co.uncilnian ·· "'.' -the plans never have been pursued. · · Kallshian expressed some reservations about The Jandmark designation assures that no structural ·money for recurring expenses. "It's not a goodideili ·' alterations will be made to the sites without public hear-. : get addicted to federal funds for on-going ings. Lynch indicates that should civic center expansion \ would rather use them for one shot deals," he wa.\'!il\i be undertaken, alternative pJans might be considered in \intent of revenue sharing is to allow local discretiol\. .. ·. order to leave the orchard intact. · \'order to reduce local taxes, according to COwic . . : .. , · · Councilman Bob Grimm expressed some reser- oy Lave. The council agreed that paying ·· .. · · ' vations about pro\ecting present and future trees at the ·1a1 services fits the intenl - LOS ALTOS TOWN CRIER 5/81
':<<;. .. \..

Los Altos History Museum
51 5. San Antonio Rd.

Los Altos, .CA 94022-2319
' ..
. .. < .. ' •.•
236
From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - Agenda Item #13 - MARCH 11, 2025 Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 3:42:46 PM
Attachments: Letter to City Council re_ Military Equipment Use Policy 2025-03-10.pdf Please find my public comment attached re: Agenda Item #13: AB481 Military Equipment Use Annual Report for 2024.
237
March 10, 2025
Dear Honorable Los Altos City Council Members,
I attended the community meeting hosted by the Los Altos Police Department on Feb. 27, 2025 and have several questions that Los Altos Police Department staff were unable to answer that evening:
- What existing public safety problems are we trying to solve with the military equipment and where is the crime data to show these problems exist in Los Altos? - What data supports that this policy and these specific pieces of equipment are the best solution to solve the crimes happening in Los Altos?
In reviewing Los Altos crime data from the FBI crime database for January 2013 to January 2023 there were 0 crime related deaths and 32 violent offenses. Of the violent offenses, the majority took place inside a home, making it impossible for law enforcement to prevent them.

Interestingly, the second most common location for violent crime in Los Altos was on roadways.

Please see details below:

Violent Offenses
0 homicides
0 manslaughter
14 aggravated assaults (46% home, 31% highway/road/alley/street/sidewalk) 10 robberies (30% Department/Discount store, 20% highway/road/alley/street/sidewalk) 8 rapes (75% home)
Property and Individual Offenses:
41 simple assaults
0 kidnapping/abduction
63 thefts of motor vehicle parts
106 thefts from motor vehicle
146 burglaries
315 larceny thefts
26 vehicle thefts
Various other non-violent crimes
During the public meeting on Feb. 27th, Los Altos police department used a potential active shooter event at the high school as an example justifying the need for more rifles, but there have been 0 active shooter events in Los Altos. In fact, the FBI report on active shooter events in 2023 shows 1 event occurred in K-12 schools in the entire US while 10 occurred on roadways. It is unclear in the report whether rifles improved outcomes during an active shooter event, and if so, the level of expertise held by the officer or agent who used the rifle. Based on this information, there is no logical reason for all 36 Los Altos police officers to have a rifle assigned to them and in their vehicle at all times.

Let’s take a look at the top controllable public safety issue in Los Altos - roadway deaths and injuries. The unsafe road conditions dissuade pedestrians and bicyclists from using the streets, especially those most vulnerable in our community like children, the elderly, and the disabled.

This is backed up by injury data and community concerns. From January 1, 2013 to December 238
31, 2022 (same period as used above for FBI crime data above) there were 6 deaths and 694 injuries on roadways in Los Altos, excluding state highways.

Of non-highway accidents, 47 people suffered serious injuries or death, and 61% of all accidents were caused by a driver.
239
Again, filtering out state highways, unsafe speed caused 30.36% of accidents, automobile right of way 17.64% and improper turning 10%. In summary, 30% of non-highway accidents in Los Altos are caused by unsafe vehicle speeds.
240
These data points show a real problem that exists in our community. People have been, and continue to be, harmed by poor roadway design, lack of enforcement, and lack of funding and policy. These are problems we can and should address.

None of the policies in the Military Equipment Use Policy will prevent further death and injury on our roads. City staff have informed the public via the Complete Streets Commission meeting recently that there is NO traffic calming budget, and LAPD has only 1 officer dedicated to traffic enforcement. Even so, it has been stated over and over that enforcement does not happen due to loopholes in the law allowing ticketed drivers to contest the citation. The police department doesn’t bother to issue tickets, essentially granting de facto immunity to speeding cars.

The conclusion is that the city is not currently working to make our city safer. Los Altos Police Department representatives stated multiple times in the Feb 27th meeting that the LAPD’s #1 priority is hiring, but it is clear based on city priorities and LAPD actions that it is not a priority to eliminate the biggest dangers in our community.

I ask that you consider carefully the following points related to the proposed 2025 Military Equipment Use Policy.

DRONES - Please remove drone use on private property when in pursuit of any suspect, and allow only when in active pursuit of a confirmed suspect from the scene of a crime.

1. Where is the data showing there is a problem that must be solved in this specific way? How many crimes in Los Altos were unsolved because of the PDs inability to use a drone?

2. What is the definition of a “suspect” that would allow drone usage on private property? Who makes that determination to categorize a person as a “suspect” and what are the criteria that must be met?
241
RIFLES - Please define when the rifles may be held in public, and specific situations in which they may be used.

1. There is nothing in the policy stating these rifles will not be open-carried and in which specific situations they can be taken into public settings.

2. I think everyone would agree it would be better in an active shooter situation to have a properly trained sniper. Is every police officer currently trained to use the Daniel Defense “sniper quality” rifles? If not, how many hours of training will be required before one of these weapons is assigned to them? Of note, special intensive courses are required in the military that take many weeks of full time training and are very selective in who qualifies, and require ongoing training and practice. How will the LAPD ensure ALL officers are properly trained, fit, of proper mental standing to use these weapons?

3. What is the current status of the rifles owned by Los Altos Police Department, are they inoperable? Please provide evidence that the current weapons cannot perform the function required. What will happen to these rifles - will they be retained by LAPD in inventory or sold? What is the resale value?

4. Why can’t the rifles be checked out at each shift change and assigned to on duty officers? Why do off-duty officers need assigned weapons?

5. It was explained that Los Altos does not need tanks because we can get them in an emergency from other agencies. Why is this not the case if we need more rifles?

6. Assigning a gun to every officer means the policy will no longer need to report use of these weapons. Does that mean they can be replaced without review/approval? What happens when they are used/fired? The usage no longer needs to be reported to Council, so how will the public be made aware of such incidents? Thank you for taking the time to consider the data presented as it is important to address the disparity between community injury data and the crimes this policy and funding might address.

Jill W.

Los Altos resident
242
From: Maria Bautista
To: Taylor Soleno; City Council; Public Comment
Cc: PALLA
Subject: PDF of Letter submitted March 10, 2025
Date: Monday, March 10, 2025 5:28:56 PM
Attachments: 3.11.25 Notice of Brown Act Violations.pdf Hello Taylor,
Upon review, the Notice and Request for Fair Public Hearing and Consideration of Continuance and Cures related to the City Council Meeting scheduled for March 11, 2025, for which you acknowledged receipt, was not sent as a pdf file.

Attached is the same document in a pdf format.

Thank you,
Maria
243