DOCSLIB.ORG

Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey Prepared for: City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia St. Berkeley, CA 94704 Attn: Sally Zarnowitz, Principal Planner Secretary to the Landmarks Preservation Commission 05.28.2015 FINAL DRAFT ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC PO Box 1332 San José, CA 95109-1332 http://www.archivesandarchitecture.com Shattuck Avenue ACKNOWLEDGMENT The activity which is the subject of this historic context has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally‐assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013‐7127 Cover image: USGS Aerial excerpt, Microsoft Corporation ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE 2 Shattuck Avenue Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 Background to this Study .......................................................................................................... 5 Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 6 Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 11 Historical Background ................................................................................................................. 12 Early History............................................................................................................................ 13 Spanish Period (1777-1822) .................................................................................................... 13 Mexican Period (1822–1846) .................................................................................................. 14 Early American (1847-1875) ................................................................................................... 15 Evolution of the City – Commerce and Transportation in Downtown Berkeley ......................... 18 1870s ...................................................................................................................................... 18 The 1880s................................................................................................................................ 20 The 1890s................................................................................................................................ 21 The 1900s................................................................................................................................ 23 1910s ...................................................................................................................................... 27 1920s ...................................................................................................................................... 30 1930s ...................................................................................................................................... 32 1940s ...................................................................................................................................... 35 1950s and beyond .................................................................................................................. 36 Architectural Theme ................................................................................................................... 39 Commercial Building Types ..................................................................................................... 39 One and Two-Part Commercial Blocks ................................................................................... 39 Additional Building Types ....................................................................................................... 41 Design Styles ........................................................................................................................... 42 Victorian Era (mid-1880s through 1905) ................................................................................ 42 Classical Revival / Beaux-Arts Classicism /Neoclassical (1890-1930) ..................................... 43 Eclectic Revival (1900 - 1940) ................................................................................................. 44 Art Deco and Art Moderne (1925-1945) ................................................................................. 45 Streamline Moderne (late 1930s into the 1940s) ................................................................... 46 Significance and Architecture Type and Style ......................................................................... 46 Integrity of Design in a Historic District .................................................................................. 47 Architects and Builders ........................................................................................................... 47 ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE 3 Shattuck Avenue Methodology of Cultural Resource Management ...................................................................... 53 General Framework ................................................................................................................ 54 Project Methodology .............................................................................................................. 55 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 56 Naming ................................................................................................................................... 56 Period of Significance (1895-1958) ......................................................................................... 56 District Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 56 Western Boundary .................................................................................................................. 58 Southern Boundary ................................................................................................................. 58 Eastern Boundary ................................................................................................................... 58 Northern Boundary ................................................................................................................. 59 Contributors and Non-Contributors ........................................................................................ 61 Sources of Information ............................................................................................................... 62 Primary Sources ...................................................................................................................... 62 Governmental Guidelines and Standards ............................................................................... 62 Governmental Plans, Surveys and Inventories ....................................................................... 63 Published Resources ............................................................................................................... 63 Maps ....................................................................................................................................... 65 Websites ................................................................................................................................. 65 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 66 Appendix A: Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................... 66 Appendix B: DPR523D District Record (to be included as a part of formal recording and transmittal to the State Office of Historic Preservation ......................................................... 66 Appendix C: DPR523 series forms for individual properties ................................................... 66 Appendix A: Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................... 67 City of Berkeley Policies and Regulations ............................................................................... 67 Other Registration Programs .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vii. Report Preparation
    VII. REPORT PREPARATION A. REPORT PREPARATION LSA Associates, Inc. Report Production and Management; Project Description; Land Use, Population and Housing; Agriculture; Air Quality; Noise; Global Climate Change; Public Services; Utilities and Energy; Visual and Scenic Resources; Alternatives; and Other CEQA Considerations. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Judith H. Malamut, AICP, Principal-in-Charge and Project Manager Hannah Young, AICP, Planner Amy Fischer, Senior Planner (Air Quality and Noise) Phil Ault, Analyst (Air Quality and Noise) Jason Paukovits, Air Quality Specialist (Global Climate Change) Fred Bauermeister, Planner Lauren Haring, Assistant Planner Jennifer Morris, Word Processing and Production Patty Linder, Graphics and Production LSA Associates, Inc. Historic and Cultural Resources; and Biological Resources. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 Christian Gerike, Principal (Cultural Resources) Steve Foreman, Principal (Biological Resources) E. Timothy Jones, Cultural Resources Manager Tim Lacy, Biological Resources Manager Andrew Pulcheon, Associate (Cultural Resources) Greg Gallaugher, Associate (GIS Specialist) LSA Associates Inc. Air Quality and Noise 20 Executive Park, #200 Irvine, CA 92614 Tony Chung, Principal (Air Quality and Noise) Ronald Brugger, Air Quality Specialist Baseline Environmental Consulting. Hydrology and Water Quality; Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Mineral Resources; and Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608 Yané Nordhav, Principal Bruce Abelli-Amen, Hydrologist (Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality) Cheri Page, Senior Geologist (Hazards) Ralph Russell, Environmental Specialist (Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality) P:\CYK0701 Yolo GP EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\7-RprtPrep.doc (4/27/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 819 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. YOLO COUNTY 2030 COUNTYWIDE GENERAL PLAN EIR APRIL 2009 VII.REPORT PREPARATION Estep Environmental Consulting.
    [Show full text]
  • IV.L. Transportation/Traffic
    IV. Environmental Impact, Setting, and Mitigation Measures IV.L. Transportation/Traffic IV.L.1 Introduction This chapter evaluates project impacts on transportation facilities and existing transportation operating conditions in the vicinity of the project area, including neighborhood traffic, vehicular circulation, parking, transit and shuttle services, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. IV.L.2 Setting LBNL is located close to three major highways: Interstate 80/5801 approximately three miles to the west, and State Routes (SR) 24 and 13, two miles to the south. Access from the Lab to I-80/580 is through the city of Berkeley via arterial roads. Access to SR 24 and SR 13 is via Tunnel Road. Grizzly Peak Boulevard, which runs through a largely undeveloped area, provides a minor local access route. Berkeley Lab is approximately one mile from the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station in downtown Berkeley. IV.L.2.1 Regional Roadways and Routes into Berkeley Regional freeway access to LBNL is provided by I-80/580, SR 24, and SR 13. These roadways are part of both the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) network (see Figure IV.L-1). The primary objective of designating a CMP system is to monitor performance in relation to established level of service standards (ACCMA, 1999a). The MTS network is generally consistent with, but not identical to, the CMP network, encompassing 22 miles of local streets in the city of Berkeley not in the CMP network. Interstate 80. I-80 connects the San Francisco Bay Area with the Sacramento region.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • Specifications
    GLENDALE AVENUE RETAINING WALL SPECIFICATION NO. 21-11448-C ATTENTION 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT ALL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BONDS AND INSURANCE BEFORE: July 20, 2021 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES OF ALL REGULATORY AGENCIES. 3. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL PROPOSALS. 4. DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND WEEKLY MEETINGS AT THE ENGINEER’S OFFICE. 5. THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA SB 854 – PUBLIC WORKS REFORM 6. PROJECT INCLUDES WORK IN PRIVATE PROPERTY. WORK IN PRIVATE PROPERTY IS NOT PERMITTED UNTIL ACCESS AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN SECURED BY THE CITY AND COPIES OF THE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CONTRACTOR. GLENDALE AVENUE RETAINING WALL SPECIFICATION NO. 21-11448-C TENTATIVE SCHEDULE (DATES SUBJECT TO CHANGE) 1. Advertisement May 12, 2021 2. Pre-Bid Meeting None 3. Bid Opening June 8, 2021 4. Pre-Award Conference July 6, 2021 5. Council Award July 13, 2021 6. Contract Documents Due July 20, 2021 7. Contract Award August 17, 2021 (Notice to Proceed) 8. Start Construction September 8, 2021 9. Complete Construction December 20, 2021 GLENDALE AVENUE RETAINING WALL SPECIFICATION NO. 21-11448-C TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A - BIDDING CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS NOTICE TO BIDDERS A1 – A4 BIDDER’S AND CONTRACTOR’S CHECK LIST A5 BIDDER’S PROPOSAL A6 – A10 EXPERIENCE AND FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS A11 TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION REPORT A12 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING A13 WORKFORCE COMPOSITION OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES A14 WORKFORCE COMPOSITION
    [Show full text]
  • As a Longtime Fan of NHK World's Japan Railway Journal, I've Seen
    ISSUE 3 MAY 3, 2020 watching. Spuzz’s 2003 review also points out that there is even “a cute animated character which adds NOTHING to the film.” Who could pass on that? During World War II, the Key System temporarily expanded and ran trains directly to the Richmond Shipyard from 40th and San Pablo. The railroad was built using scrap material and decommissioned New York subway cars. The Key Route’s reign ended in 1958, and its privately-held services were replaced by public transit agencies AC Transit (which bought out the Key System) and later BART. P.S. if you want to have a good time with conspiracy theories, check out the demise of the Key Route as a factor in the GM Streetcar Conspiracy, which weirdly I had never realized is the basis for the plot of the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit?! Vestiges of the Key Route still linger on in the East Bay. I was most excited to learn that the mysterious tunnel behind the Target on the West Oakland-Emeryville border was actually a subway for Key System trains (and now leads to a sewer that is part of East Bay MUD). As a longtime fan of NHK World’s Japan train hopper serial killer who struck on NOTE: the Key System also included Railway Journal, I’ve seen the our railroad line here in 1996. Finally, ferries, which leads to my perpetual aftermath of many Shinkansen I did a deep dive into historic East Bay question: WHY IS THERE NO FERRY SERVICE derailments. I never thought I’d see railways.
    [Show full text]
  • Item #15-2-2 Transportation Committee Action
    Item #15-2-2 Transportation Committee Action January 29, 2015 Unmet Transit Needs Findings for Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and the Cities Therein Issue: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that SACOG, as the four-county Regional Transportation Planning Agency, make annual unmet transit needs findings for the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) and for jurisdictions eligible to use TDA funds. Jurisdictions outside of the SRTD are permitted to use TDA funds on street and road projects if they have filled all transit requests that meet SACOG’s adopted definitions of “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet.” Recommendation: That the Transportation Committee recommend that the Board: (1) approve the minutes of the five previously held public hearings on unmet transit needs in Sacramento County, including the SRTD and cities therein, and in Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties and the cities therein (see Attachments F-H), and of the public hearing held on January 29, 2015, before the SACOG Board of Directors (Attachment I); and (2) adopt the attached resolutions regarding unmet transit needs in each county, cities therein, and the SRTD. Discussion: State TDA statute established a Local Transportation Fund (LTF) for each county. LTF revenues are derived from 1/4 cent of the state retail sales tax and are returned to each county according to the amount of tax collected. LTF funds are apportioned to jurisdictions within each county on a population basis. In Sacramento County, the LTF apportioned to jurisdictions located within the SRTD may only be used for transit service.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Improvement Project
    FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION S TATE C LEARINGHOUSE N UMBER: 2015052053 Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Improvement Project P REPARED F OR: - 22) San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District -2688 P.O. Box 12688 (Mail Stop LKS Oakland, CA 94604 -7423 Contact: Janie Layton (510) 874 P REPARED BY: nd Floor ICF International 620 Folsom Street, 2 San Francisco, CA 94107 (415 677-7162 Contact: Aaron Carter ) 2015 July In July ICF International. 2015. Final itial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Improvement Project. (ICF 00036.14.) San Francisco, CA. Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District, Oakland, CA. Introduction ImprovementThe San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza and Transit Project (Project). On May 20, 2015, BART published a Draft Initial -Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which analyzed the potential impacts of the Project. Pursuant to Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft IS/MND provided for a 30 day public and Clearinghouseagency review period from May 20, 2015, to June 18, 2015. The- Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent (NOA/NOI) to adopt the MND was posted with, the Alameda County Clerk and the State , mailed to all owners and occupants within 1/8 mile of the Project site, emailed to the Project’s list of interested people and organizations and made available on the BART website.. T A public meeting was conducted on June 1, 2015, at Commentsthe City of andBerkeley Responses Central Library, to receive public comments on the IS/MND.
    [Show full text]
  • 5-26-17 Joint Powers Authority Agenda
    Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair, Stanislaus County Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Councilmember Don Tatzin, Vice-Chair, City of Lafayette Alternate Federal Glover, Contra Costa County Councilmember Patrick Hume, Vice-Chair, City of Elk Grove Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Merced County Alternate Mike Villalta, City of Los Banos Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Alternate Tom Blalock, BART Councilmember Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Alternate Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Alternate Justin Mendes, City of Hanford Supervisor Brett Frazier, Madera County Alternate Andrew Medellin, City of Madera Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Alternate Michael Derr, City of Selma Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County Alternate Bob Link, City of Visalia AGENDA May 26, 2017 – 1:00 PM Fresno County Board of Supervisors Chambers 2281 Tulare Street, Fresno CA San Joaquin Joint Powers Sacramento County Authority Administration Building 36437 East Ridge Road 949 East Channel Street 700 H Street, Suite 2450 Sea Ranch, CA 95497 Stockton, CA 95202 Sacramento, CA 95814 This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting. All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Berkeley Downto W N Area Plan
    City of Berkeley Downtown Area Plan Historic Resource Evaluation 5 November 2008 prepared for Lamphier-Gregory Urban Planning & Environmental Analysis Oakland, CA prepared by Architectural Resources Group Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc. San Francisco, CA Historic Resources Evaluation City of Berkeley, Downtown Area Plan 5 November 2008 I. OVERVIEW/INTRODUCTION At the request of Lamphier‐Gregory, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) has prepared this historic resource evaluation of the Draft Berkeley Downtown Area Plan. The Downtown Area Plan (DAP) is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is a discretionary project that may impact potential historic resources in the plan area. Public Resource Code Section 21084.1 states “a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA defines substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource as the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the resource is materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)). The significance of a historic resource is considered to be materially impaired when a project demolishes, or materially alters in an adverse manner, those characteristics that convey its historic significance and/or account for its inclusion on a historic resource list. ARG’s review is based on the Downtown Area Plan (DAP) as adopted by the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC), a memorandum from the Berkeley Planning & Development on “DAP Height and Bulk Assumptions” dated 8 September 2008, which updated Policy LU‐1.4.1— LU‐1.4.3 and the following maps or graphics: • EIR Building Height Assumptions (DRAFT), no date.
    [Show full text]
  • Visit-Berkeley-Official-Visitors-Guide
    Contents 3 Welcome 4 Be a Little Berkeley 6 Accommodations 16 Restaurants 30 Local Libations 40 Arts & Culture 46 Things to Do 52 Shopping Districts 64 #VisitBerkeley 66 Outdoor Adventures & Sports 68 Berkeley Marina 70 Architecture 72 Meetings & Celebrations 76 UC Berkeley 78 Travel Information 80 Transportation 81 Visitor & Community Services 82 Maps visitberkeley.com BERKELEY WELCOMES YOU! The 2018/19 Official Berkeley Visitors Guide is published by: Hello, Visit Berkeley, 2030 Addison St., Suite #102, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 549-7040 • www.visitberkeley.com Berkeley is an iconic American city, richly diverse with a vibrant economy inspired in EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE great measure by our progressive environ- Greg Mauldin, Chairman of the Board;General Manager, Hotel Shattuck Plaza Vice Chair, (TBA); mental and social policies. We are internationally recognized for our arts Thomas Burcham, Esq., Secretary/Treasurer; Worldwide Farmers and culinary scenes, as well as serving as home to the top public univer- Barbara Hillman, President & CEO, Visit Berkeley sity in the country – the University of California, Berkeley. UC Berkeley BOARD OF DIRECTORS is the heart of our city, and our neighborhood districts surround the Cal John Pimentel, Account Exec/Special Projects, Hornblower Cruises & Events campus with acclaimed restaurants, great independent shops and galleries, Lisa Bullwinkel, Owner; Another Bullwinkel Show world-class performing arts venues, and wonderful parks. Tracy Dean, Owner; Design Site Hal Leonard, General Manager; DoubleTree by Hilton Berkeley Marina I encourage you to discover Berkeley’s signature elements, events and Matthew Mooney, General Manager, La Quinta Inn & Suites LaDawn Duvall, Executive Director, Visitor & Parent Services UC Berkeley engaging vibe during your stay with us.
    [Show full text]
  • Oral History Center University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California
    Oral History Center University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Dorothy Walker Interviews conducted by Shanna Farrell in 2014 and 2015 Copyright © 2015 by The Regents of the University of California ii Since 1954 the Oral History Center of the Bancroft Library, formerly the Regional Oral History Office, has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and June 4, 2015. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. Excerpts up to 1000 words from this interview may be quoted for publication without seeking permission as long as the use is non-commercial and properly cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey
    Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey Prepared for: City of Berkeley Department of Planning and Development City of Berkeley 2120 Milvia St. Berkeley, CA 94704 Attn: Sally Zarnowitz, Principal Planner Secretary to the Landmarks Preservation Commission 05.28.2015 FINAL DRAFT (Revised 08.26.2015) ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC PO Box 1332 San José, CA 95109-1332 http://www.archivesandarchitecture.com Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey ACKNOWLEDGMENT The activity which is the subject of this historic context has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally‐assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013‐7127 Cover image: USGS Aerial excerpt, Microsoft Corporation ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE 2 Shattuck Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]