APPENDIX C

Cultural Resources Assessment Report

Page intentionally left blank

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Lawrence Station Area Plan City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California

PREPARED FOR:

Circlepoint 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612

PREPARED BY:

WSA, Inc. PO Box 2192 Orinda, CA 94563

July 2016

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Lawrence Station Area Plan City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California

PREPARED BY:

Christina Alonso, M.A., Aimee Arrigoni, M.A., Nazih Fino, M.A., and Thomas Young, B.A.

SUBMITTED BY:

James M. Allan, Ph.D., RPA, WSA Principal Archaeologist

WSA Project No. 2015-56 WSA Report No. 2016-01

July 2016

CRAR WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 State Regulations (CEQA) ...... 6 3.0 Project Setting ...... 7 3.1 Environmental Setting ...... 7 3.2 Cultural Setting ...... 9 4.0 Results of the Records and Literature Search ...... 34 5.0 Native American Consultation ...... 39 6.0 Evaluation Under CEQA ...... 40 7.0 Results of the Archaeological Survey & Architectural Assessment ...... 41 7.1 Results of Archaeological Survey ...... 41 7.2 Description of Built Resources ...... 41 7.3 Architectural Assessment ...... 52 8.0 Impacts and Mitigation ...... 53 9.0 References ...... 59

List of Figures

Figure 1. LSAP Vicinity Map.………………...…..…………….…………..………….....2 Figure 2. LSAP Location Map ……………...... …………….…………..………….....3 Figure 3. Study Area Map…...... …………………...………….…………..………….....4 Figure 4. Applicant Boundaries Map...... 5 Figure 5. 1876 Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County...... ……...25 Figure 6. 1899 San Jose USGS Quadrangle 15’ Topo Map...... 26 Figure 7. 1943 San Jose USGS Quadrangle 15’ Topo Map ...... …...... …...28 Figure 8. 1948 Aerial Photograph of the Study Area...... 29 Figure 9. 1953 San Jose SGS Quadrangle 15' Topo Map...... 30 Figure 10. 1956 Aerial Photograph of the Study Area...... 31 Figure 11. 1961 San Jose USGS Quadrangle 15’ Topo Map ...... …...... 32 Figure 12. 1968 Aerial Photograph of the Study Area...... 33 Figure 13. Architectural and Archaeological Survey Results...... …………...42

List of Tables

Table 1: Cultural Resources Studies that include Study Area ...... 34 Table 2: Cultural Resources Studies within 1/4 mile of the Study Area ...... 36 Table 3: Additional overview reports within Study Area and surrounding 1/4 mile ...... 36 Table 4: Previously recorded archaeological sites within the Project Area ...... 39 Table 5: Known historic sites within 1/4 mile of the Project Area ...... 39 Table 6: Building H-1 ...... 43 Table 7: Building H-1 Permits ...... 43 Table 8: Building I-1 ...... 44 Table 9: Building I-1 Permits ...... 45 Table 10: Building J-1 ...... 46

CRAR WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Table 11: Building J-1 Permits ...... 46 Table 12: Building L-1 ...... 47 Table 13: Building L-1 Permits ...... 47 Table 14: Buildings M-1 through M-7 ...... 47 Table 15: Building M-1 Permits ...... 49 Table 16: Building M-2 and M-3 Permits ...... 49 Table 17: Building M-6 Permits ...... 50 Table 18: Building Z-1 ...... 51 Table 19: Building Z-1 Permits ...... 52

Appendices Appendix A NAHC Consultation & Native American Contacts Appendix B Photographs

CRAR WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

1.0 Introduction

WSA has been contracted by Circlepoint to perform a historical resources assessment of the proposed Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP) in the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California. The LSAP consists of the residential and commercial development of 65 acres north of the Lawrence Caltrain Station, between Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the south, Calabazas Creek to the east, and Lawrence Expressway to the west. It falls within Township 6 South, Range 1 West, Section 29, as depicted on the 1961 Milpitas U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle (Figures 1-3). Proposed development of the study area includes 3,500 residential dwelling units, 104,000 square feet of retail space, and 6.3 acres of public open space including paseos, walkways, and plazas.

The 65-acre LSAP study area is located within the 92-acre Focus Area identified in the 2010-2035 Santa Clara General Plan. The LSAP requires an amendment to the General Plan in order to rezone from Light Industrial to Lawrence Station Area Plan zoning. In addition to Santa Clara planning efforts, three project applicants have submitted development plans for residential and commercial land uses within portions of the study area for the City’s consideration. The three applicants are 1) Westlake Urban, LLC, 2) Summerhill Housing Group, and 3) True Life Companies. Figure 4 depicts the boundaries of these specific project sites within the study area.

In an effort to identify all potentially significant cultural resources that could be impacted by the build-out of the study area, WSA requested the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University to conduct a records search of the project area. The results of the records search indicate that one previously recorded archaeological site is located within the study area (P-43-000019/CA-SCL-134). CA-SCL-134 is a prehistoric habitation site with numerous features, including human burials, and is located on both sides of Corvin Drive within the eastern portion of the study area.

Circlepoint and WSA contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by email to request information on known Native American sacred lands within the study area and to request a listing of individuals or groups with a cultural affiliation to the study area. The complete results of the records search as well as Native American consultation are included in this Cultural Resources Assessment Report (CRAR).

CRAR 1 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

LSAP Vicinity

¯ 0 5 10 National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, Miles USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.

Figure 1 LSAP Vicinity Map CirclePoint Lawrence Station Area Plan Santa Clara County, CA LSAP Location

¯ 0 2.5 5 National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, Miles USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.

Figure 2 LSAP Location Map CirclePoint Lawrence Station Area Plan Santa Clara County, CA ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Study Area Study

M ilpitas, CA USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle, 1961 revised 1980 revised 1961 Quadrangle, CAUSGS 7.5’ Milpitas, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Figure 3 Figure Study AreaMap Study CirclePoint Lawrence Station AreaPlan LawrenceStation Santa Clara County, CA County, Clara Santa U.1 H.1 N.3 A.2

«¬1 K.1 A.1 A.3 N.1 V.1 P.1 L.1 O.1 I.1 W.1 M.1 Q.1 B.1 M.5

E.1 «¬3 O.2

Q.2 X.1 2 «¬ M.2 M.6 C.1

Y.1 F.1 R.1 N.2 J.1 M.3 Y.2 «¬4 S.1 T.1 M.7 D.1 G.1 Z.1 ¯ M.4 Study Area Structure

Applicant Boundary Westlake Urban (1) Summerhill Land (2) Project Level -Future Buildout (3) 0 160 320 640 Truelife Parcel (4) Feet

Figure 4 Applicant Boundaries Map CirclePoint Lawrence Station Area Plan Santa Clara County, CA

WSA staff archaeologist Thomas Young conducted an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey of the study area on December 16, 2015. No new historic or prehistoric-period archaeological sites were identified as a result of the survey. WSA architectural historian Aimee Arrigoni visited the study area that same day to document the present condition of twelve structures that are 45 years or older in order to evaluate their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The results of the archaeological survey and the evaluation of those structures are included below.

This CRAR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the significance (CRHR eligibility) of cultural resources within the project area in accordance with the criteria in CEQA Section 15064.5, and as a means of evaluating the project’s potential impacts to historical resources.

2.0 State Regulations (CEQA)

CEQA provides appropriate measures for the evaluation and protection of historical resources in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of CEQA, “historical resources” are those cultural resources that are: (1) listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined in PRC 5020.1(k)); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of §5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (§15064.5(a)). The subsection further states “A project with an effect 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” (§15064.5(b)).

CEQA also applies to effects on archaeological sites (§15064.5(c)). CEQA requires a lead agency to determine if an archaeological resource fits into one of three legal categories (14 CCR §15064.5(c)(1-3)). A lead agency, in this case the City of Santa Clara, applies a two-step screening process to determine if an archaeological site meets the definition of a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or neither. Prior to considering potential impacts, the lead agency must determine whether an archaeological resource meets the definition of a historical resource in §15064.5(a). If the archaeological resource meets the definition of a historical resource, it is treated like any other type of historical resource in accordance with §15126.4. If the archaeological resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource, then the lead agency applies the second criterion to determine if the resource meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource as defined in §21083.2(g). Should an archaeological resource meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource, it must be treated in accordance

CRAR 6 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

with §21083.2. If the archaeological resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, then effects to the resource are not considered significant effects on the environment (§15064.5(c)(4)). Public Resources Code (PRC) §5097.5 provides for the protection of historical resources. PRC §5097.5 prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of cultural features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

3.0 Project Setting

3.1 Environmental Setting

The study area is located south of the San Francisco Bay. The study area ecology, though heavily impacted by dense urban development, is coastal littoral, which consists of land strips along the coast that are characterized by a series of microenvironments including estuaries, bays, marshes, and grassy terraces (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). The study area is located approximately 6 miles southeast of the Bay waters and 3 miles from the salt flats leading to the Bay. Agricultural activities are known to have taken place in the immediate vicinity since the mid-1870s, and within the study area itself from at least the early-1940s and probably earlier. Development has impacted the entire study area.

The climate of the project area is Mediterranean: mild, rainy winters, and hot, dry summers. Annual precipitation in the area is approximately 14.5 inches, with rainfall concentrated in the fall, winter, and spring. The San Francisco Peninsula’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean provides for mild temperatures throughout the year. Winter temperatures vary from an average high of approximately 60°F to an average low of approximately 39°F; summer temperatures vary from an average high of approximately 81°F to an average low of approximately 52°F (Western Regional Climate Center 2010).

Common vegetation throughout the area includes Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica), star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), wild oats (Avena fatua), morning glories (Convolvulus), lupine (Lupinus), poppies (Papaver), wild artichokes (Cynara scolymus), and various other native and imported grasses (Brown 1985).

Animal life within the region is diverse. Unlike prehistoric times when animals such as pronghorn, antelope, tule elk, mule deer, black-tail deer, and grizzly bear occupied the area, the region today favors small, herbivorous mammals, especially voles, pocket gophers, ground squirrels, and pocket mice (Brown 1985). The few larger, open areas in the region attract some larger animals including deer, rabbit, skunk, opossum, raccoon, and a number of birds including red-tailed hawks and turkey vultures.

CRAR 7 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

3.1.1 Regional Geologic Setting

The Coast Ranges include two distinct core assemblages. The first comprises sandstone, shale, conglomerate, volcanics, chert, limestone and serpentine. The second is characterized by a complex group of granitic intrusives and metamorphic rocks. Younger sediments cover the basement structure (Moratto 1984).

The study area is situated at an approximate general elevation of 40 ft. (12.2 m) on Holocene Floodplain Deposits. These deposits range from medium to dark and gray, dense sandy to silty clay. Coarser lenses of silt, sand and pebbles may also be present among the sediment deposits (Helley et al. 1994). Local topography reveals a generally level alluvial plain, typical of Santa Clara Valley, with the exception of occasional topographic high points appearing as barely perceptible mounds and ridges (Hylkema 2007).

The study area is approximately 1 mile west of Saratoga Creek, and 3 miles southwest of the Guadalupe River where Holocene natural levee deposits are located. These deposits are loose, moderate-to-well-sorted sandy or clayey silt grading to sandy or silty clay. Levee deposits are generally well drained. Holocene estuary deposits (bay mud) occur 3 miles to the north. These deposits are water-saturated estuarine mud consisting predominantly of clay and silty clay underlying tidal mudflats, marshland and salt evaporators of San Francisco Bay. These deposits may contain shell-rich and peaty layers and interfinger with basin deposits and salt-affected basin deposits. Estuary sediments were deposited during and after Holocene sea level rise. The thickness of Holocene bay mud varies from approximately 0 to 10 m in this area (Helley et al. 1994).

Approximately 0.4 miles to the east, 1 mile to the northwest and 0.6 miles to the south of the study area, Holocene floodbasin deposits are found. These are organic rich clay to very fine silty-clay deposits. They occupy the lowest topographic areas between Holocene levee and floodplain deposits. Located approximately 1.25 miles to the north of the study area, there is an area of Holocene salt-affected floodbasin deposits, which vary from clay to very fine silty-clay and contain carbonate nodules and iron. These deposits were formed through the interaction of rich upland and saline water of the San Francisco Bay estuary (Helley et al. 1994).

Approximately 0.5 miles to the southwest of the study area Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits are found. These are characterized as brown, tan or reddish-brown, dense, gravelly and clayey sand or clayey gravel that grades upward to sandy clay. Approximately 1 mile to the west of the study area lie Holocene alluvial fan deposits which are characterized as brown or tan in color, and contain medium dense to dense

CRAR 8 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

gravelly sand or sandy gravel that grades upward to sandy or silty clay. Close to the distal fan edges, sediment deposits trend towards brown, medium dense gravelly sand or clayey gravel that grades upward to sandy or silty clay (Helley et al. 1994).

3.2 Cultural Setting

3.2.1 Prehistoric Background Research into local prehistoric cultures began with the work of N. C. Nelson of the University of California, who conducted the first intensive archaeological surveys of the San Francisco Bay region from 1906 to 1908. Nelson documented 425 shellmounds along the Bay shoreline and adjacent coast when the Bay was still ringed by salt marshes up to 5 miles wide (Nelson 1909). He maintained that the intensive use of shellfish, a subsistence strategy reflected in both coastal and bay shoreline middens, indicated a general economic unity in the region during prehistoric times, and he introduced the idea of a distinct San Francisco Bay archaeological region (Moratto 1984:227).

In 1911, Nelson supervised excavations at CA-SFR-7 (the Crocker Mound) near Hunter’s Point in San Francisco County, a site that was later dated from 1050 B.C. to A.D. 450. L. L. Loud identified archaeological components from this same period in Santa Clara County in 1911 while excavating at CA-SCL-1 (the Ponce, Mayfield, or Castro Mound site) (Loud 1912). R. J. Drake recognized comparably dated archaeological components in San Mateo County in 1941–1942 at CA-SMA-23 (Mills Estate) in San Bruno (Moratto 1984:233).

Conducted more or less independently from the work of Nelson and Loud, investigations into the prehistory of the Central Valley of California, presaged by early amateur excavations in the 1890s, began in earnest in the 1920s. In the early 20th century, Stockton-area amateur archaeologists J. A. Barr and E. J. Dawson separately excavated a number of sites in the Central Valley and made substantial collections. On the basis of artifact comparisons, Barr identified what he believed were two distinct cultural traditions, an early and a late. Dawson later refined his work and classified the Central Valley sites into three “age-groups” (Schenck and Dawson 1929:402).

Professional or academic-sponsored archaeological investigations in central California began in the 1930s, when J. Lillard and W. Purves of Sacramento Junior College formed a field school and conducted excavations throughout the Sacramento Delta area. By seriating artifacts and mortuary traditions, they identified a three-phase sequence similar to Dawson’s, including Early, Intermediate, and Recent cultures (Lillard and Purves 1936). This scheme went through several permutations, including Early, Transitional, and Late Periods (Lillard et al. 1939) and Early, Middle, and Late Horizons (Heizer and

CRAR 9 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Fenenga 1939). In 1948 and again in 1954, Richard Beardsley refined this system and extended it to include the region of San Francisco Bay (Beardsley 1948, 1954). The resulting scheme came to be known as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) (Fredrickson 1973; Hughes 1994:1). Subsequently, the CCTS system of Early, Middle, and Late Horizons was applied widely to site dating and taxonomy throughout central California. This system focused on the archaeology of the Delta region, with its more established tradition of archaeological investigations of rich archaeological sites, to set the standard by which other regions were assessed. Resulting explanations of regional prehistory and culture change tended to place the Delta as the earlier center for interaction, change, and development, with the Bay Area following on a separate, somewhat different path.

As more data were acquired through continued fieldwork, local exceptions to the CCTS were discovered. The accumulation of these exceptions, coupled with the development of radiocarbon dating in the 1950s and obsidian hydration analysis in the 1970s, opened up the possibility of dating deposits more accurately. Much of the subsequent archaeological investigation in central California focused on the creation and refinement of local versions of the CCTS.

Citing limitations with the existing classificatory schemes, Ragir (1972) adopted a new set of terms for describing archaeological cultures based on their localities. Around this same time, a series of workshops was convened to discuss concerns in California archaeology, including revisions to the CCTS (Fredrickson 1973:88-91). In his doctoral dissertation, Fredrickson (1973) reviewed the state of archaeology in California. Adopting some of the revisions agreed upon at the workshops as well as incorporating modifications employed by Ragir and Bennyhoff, Fredrickson (1973) suggested an alternative way of classifying the prehistory of California. Fredrickson (1973:113-114) proposed four “major chronological periods” in prehistoric California: the Early Lithic Period (described as hypothetical), a Paleoindian Period, an Archaic Period, and an Emergent Period. The Archaic and Emergent Periods were further divided into Upper and Lower periods. Subsequently, Fredrickson (1974, 1994) revised the findings and concepts discussed in his doctoral dissertation, further subdividing the Archaic into Lower, Middle, and Upper.

A series of “patterns,” emphasizing culture rather than temporal periods, can be identified throughout California prehistory. Fredrickson (1973:7-8) defines a pattern as:

[An] adaptive mode(s) extending across one or more regions, characterized by particular technological skills and devices, particular economic modes, including participation in trade networks and practices

CRAR 10 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

surrounding wealth, and by particular mortuary and ceremonial practices.

In addition, following Ragir, Fredrickson (1973:123) proposed that the nomenclature for each pattern relate to the location at which it was first identified, such as the Windmiller, Berkeley, and Augustine Patterns (see below for descriptions).

Various modifications of the CCTS (e.g., Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987; Fredrickson 1973, 1974; Milliken and Bennyhoff 1993) sustain and extend the system’s usefulness for organizing our understanding of local and regional prehistory in terms of time and space. The cultural patterns identified in the Bay Area that, in a general way, correspond to the CCTS scheme are the Berkeley and Augustine patterns. Dating techniques such as obsidian hydration analysis or radiometric measurements can further increase the accuracy of these assignments.

It was initially thought that a well-developed Early Period prehistoric component was not represented within the San Francisco Bay area. It had been assumed that San Francisco Bay was a “local marginal and impoverished manifestation of cultural succession or development in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region,” where a thriving Windmiller culture had been identified, which was “explainable in terms of local ecological adjustments over a period of three to four thousand years” (Gerow with Force 1968:10 summarizing Heizer 1964).

However, Bert Gerow of Stanford University, in his work at the University Village site in the 1950s, established the idea that the Bay Area represented a separate center of cultural interaction, change, and development in its own right (Gerow with Force 1968). The work undertaken by Gerow at the University Village site (CA-SMA-77) in San Mateo County indicated that a distinct Early Bay period preceded the arrival of the Middle Horizon, Berkeley Pattern. These conclusions were supported by radiocarbon dates derived from charcoal found in association with burials at the site. The burials were dated from 1500 to 1000 B.C., and were markedly older than any other published site in the Bay Area at that time. Results of obsidian hydration analysis were in accord with this date range (Gerow with Force 1968:7-8).

Comparing characteristics of the Early Bay period to those of the Windmiller pattern and Beardsley’s Sacramento Valley Middle Horizon, Gerow (Gerow with Force 1968:109- 110) noted the following trends. In the Early Bay period, burials tend to be flexed and lack patterned orientation or position, in contrast to Windmiller burials that tend to be in extended positions with patterned orientation. There is a high occurrence of red ochre in relation to ornamental artifacts manufactured of bone, marine shell, and stone. Whole Olivella shell is more common than drilled shell fractions. Quartz crystals, plummet-

CRAR 11 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

shaped charmstones and artifacts manufactured from mica or slate are either rare or absent. Flaked and core tools are more common than projectile points, which are relatively rare. Stone net-sinkers are found in this period, and composite fishhooks or fish spears are rare or absent. There is a relative abundance of bone awls, antler wedges or end-scrapers, scapula and rib side-scrapers, flat-ended pestles and unshaped cobblestone mortars.

Gerow (Gerow with Force 1968) noted that there were similarities between the Early Bay period components and those of later periods, but observed that changing trends included more intensive exploitation of food resources, a decrease in the amount of powdered red ochre included in graves, more elaborate shell, stone and bone artifacts, an increase in the number of obsidian and projectile points and a concomitant decrease in the number of flake and core tools, an increase in the amount of cylindrically shaped mortars and longer pestles, a decrease in the number of edge-notched stone sinkers, and an increase in stature and variations in cranial indices (Gerow with Force 1968:124).

According to Breschini (1983), Gerow’s hypotheses were largely ignored by the archaeological community throughout the next two decades. Alternative explanations have subsequently been suggested such as Moratto’s (1984:279) hypothesis that the “University Village complex is an expression of the Sur Pattern strongly influenced by the Berkeley Pattern.”

The Early Berkeley Pattern has been dated from at least 3000 B.C. in the east San Francisco Bay (e.g., Alameda County, where the earliest Early Berkeley sites appear) (Hughes 1994), with the number of sites increasing through A.D. 1 (Moratto 1984:282). Late Berkeley Pattern (500 B.C. - A.D. 1000) sites are much more common and well documented, and, therefore, better understood than the Early Berkeley Pattern sites. Berkeley Pattern sites are scattered in more diverse environmental settings, but riverine settings are prevalent.

It is during this period that the Bay Area shellmounds were inhabited (Lightfoot and Luby 2002), and deeply stratified shellmound deposits that developed over generations of occupation are common to Berkeley Pattern sites. The typical body position for burials is tightly flexed, with no consistent orientation. Associated grave goods are much less frequent than is encountered in sites of other periods. The sites contain numerous mortars and pestles. Projectile points in this pattern become progressively smaller and lighter over time, culminating in the introduction of the bow and arrow during the Late Period. Wiberg (1997:10) claims that large obsidian lanceolate projectile points or blades are unique to the Berkeley Pattern. Olivella shell beads include saddle and saucer types. Haliotis pendants and ornaments are occasionally found. Slate pendants, steatite beads,

CRAR 12 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

stone tubes, and ear ornaments are unique to Berkeley Pattern sites (Fredrickson 1973:125–126; Moratto 1984:278–279). Evidence of warfare or interpersonal violence is present, including cranial trauma, parry fractures, and embedded projectile points (Milliken et al. 2007:113-114).

The Augustine Pattern coincides with the Late Period, ranging from as early as A.D. 700 to about A.D. 1800. Intensive fishing, hunting, and gathering (especially of acorns) typify this period, as well as a large population increase, expanded trade and exchange networks, increased ceremonialism, and the practice of cremation, in addition to flexed burials. Certain artifacts are also distinctive in this pattern: bone awls used in basketry, small notched and serrated projectile points that are indicative of bow-and-arrow usage, clay effigies, bone whistles, stone pipes, and occasional pottery. Olivella beads and Haliotis ornaments increase in number of types and frequency of occurrence, sometimes numbering in the hundreds in single burials. Beginning in the last quarter of the 18th century, the Augustine Pattern was disrupted by the Spanish explorers and the mission system (Moratto 1984:283).

Most recently, Milliken et al. (2007:99-123) developed what they term a “hybrid system” for the San Francisco Bay Area, combining the Early-Middle-Late Period temporal sequence with the pattern-aspect-phase cultural sequence. Following Fredrickson, Milliken et al. (2007:103) define patterns as “units of culture marked by distinct underlying economic modes, technological adaptations, and ceremonial practices.” The aspect is defined as a local variation in a major economic pattern, with a sequence of phases within a particular district representing an aspect. Following Willey and Phillips (1958), phases represent the smallest units of related site components “spatially limited to the order of magnitude of a locality or region and chronologically limited to a relatively brief interval of time” (Milliken et al. 2007:103).

Dating of the cultural patterns, aspects, and phases was based on Dating Scheme D of the CCTS, developed by Groza (2002). Groza directly dated over 100 Olivella shell beads, obtaining a series of AMS radiocarbon dates representing shell bead horizons. The new chronology she developed has moved several shell bead horizons as much as 200 years forward in time. Milliken et al. (2007:105) use the term bead horizon to represent “the short time periods marked by trade of particular bead types across wide areas of central California, in order to clearly separate units of time and units of culture.”

Milliken et al.’s (2007) San Francisco Bay Area Cultural Sequence includes: 1 • Early Holocene (Lower Archaic ) from 8000 to 3500 B.C.

1 The corresponding periods based on Fredrickson’s Paleoindian, Archaic and Emergent classification system are provided in parentheses.

CRAR 13 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

• Early Period (Middle Archaic) from 3500 to 500 B.C • Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic) from 500 B.C. to A.D. 430 • Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic) from A.D. 430 to 1050 • Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent) from A.D. 1050 to 1550 • Terminal Late Period, post-A.D. 1550

There is no discussion of pre-8000 B.C., as no archaeological evidence dating to this early time period has been located in the Bay Area. Milliken et al. (2007) posit that this dearth of archaeological material may be related to subsequent environmental changes that submerged sites, buried sites beneath alluvial deposits, or destroyed sites through stream erosion. A summary of the approach presented by Milliken et al. (2007) follows.

A “generalized mobile forager” pattern marked by the use of milling slabs and handstones and the manufacture of large, wide-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points emerged around the periphery of the Bay Area during the Early Holocene Period (8000 to 3500 B.C.). No occupation sites dating to this early period have been found in the vicinity of the study area in the South Bay.

Beginning around 3500 B.C., evidence of sedentism, interpreted to signify a regional symbolic integration of peoples, and increased regional trade, emerges in the form of new ground stone technology and the introduction of cut-shell beads into burial contexts (Milliken et al. 2007:114). This Early Period lasted until ca. 500 B.C. The earliest mortar and pestles found so far date to post-4000 B.C., with wood mortars dating to 3800 B.C. found in the vicinity of the Los Vaqueros reservoir. By 1500 B.C., mortars and pestles replaced milling slabs and handstones at some East Bay sites. Sedentism or semi- sedentism is in evidence in the East Bay during this period in the form of burial complexes with associated ornamental grave goods, such as were found at West Berkeley, Ellis Landing, and Pacheco shellmounds, and house floors with postholes, as have been found at the Rossmoor site near Walnut Creek (Milliken et al. 2007:115; Price et al. 2006).

Milliken et al. (2007:115) identify “a major disruption in symbolic integration systems” circa 500 B.C., marking the beginning of the Lower Middle Period (500 B.C. to A.D. 430). Changes included the disappearance of rectangular shell beads and introduction of split-beveled and small saucer Olivella beads (inferred to represent some of the earliest religious artifacts), which appear around the Early/Middle Transition bead horizon. However, spire-lopped Olivella beads continued to be the most common bead type in mortuary contexts. Bead Horizon M1, dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 430, is described by Milliken et al. (2007:115) as marking a ‘cultural climax’ within the San Francisco Bay Area. New developments included the introduction of circular Haliotis ornaments and the

CRAR 14 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

proliferation of Olivella saucer beads. New bone tools and ornaments are also manufactured in this period, such as tubes and whistles, barbless fish spears, and elk femur spatulae. In the Central and North Bay areas, awls of bone with shouldered tips indicate basketry manufacture. Within the Central Bay, mortars and pestles continued to be used exclusively, while both milling slabs and mortars were used around the margins. Net sinkers ceased to be used at most sites around the Bay, but continued to be used at CA-SFR-112, which is located within the South of Market area in San Francisco (Milliken et al. 2007:115).

The Upper Middle Period (A.D. 430 to 1050) is marked by the collapse of the Olivella saucer bead trade in central California, abandonment of many Bead Horizon M1 sites, an increase in the occurrence of sea otter bones in those sites that were not abandoned, and the spread of the extended burial mortuary pattern characteristic of the Meganos complex into the interior East Bay. Bead Horizons M2, M3, and M4 were identified within this period (Milliken et al. 2007:116). Bead Horizon M2a is marked by the replacement of Olivella saucer beads in burial contexts with “rough-edged full saddle Olivella beads with remarkably small perforations” (Milliken et al. 2007:116). Mixed Olivella saddle beads dating from A.D. 430 to 600 characterize bead Horizon M2b. The Meganos burial pattern continued to spread westward, although it did not extend as far as the West or North Bay, and therefore not into the northern San Francisco peninsula. Within the Central Bay, artifacts such as extremely well-crafted “show” blades, mica ornaments, fishtail charmstones and a variety of Haliotis ornament forms appear during Bead Horizons M2a and M2b.

During Bead Horizon M3, dating from A.D. 600 to 800, small square saddle Olivella beads appear in mortuary contexts, occasionally with roughly formed Olivella saucer beads, and often in single component cemeteries located away from the village. Large mortars, ear spools and single-barbed, bone, fish spears also initially occur during Bead Horizon M3. Wohlgemuth (2004, quoted in Milliken et al. 2007:116) also observed an increase in seeds present in midden sites dating to this time. Bead Horizon M4 occurred from A.D. 800 to 1050 and was marked by stylistic changes to Olivella shell beads with various wide and tall bisymmetrical bead forms appearing. Haliotis ornaments also develop a distinctive style, described by Milliken et al. (2007:116) as unperforated rectangles and horizontally perforated half ovals. Few burial sites have been located dating to this period, with Bead Horizon M4 burials excavated at SCL-131 in the South Bay yielding no associated grave goods.

The Initial Late Period, dating from A.D. 1050 to 1550, is characterized by increased manufacture of status objects. In lowland, central California during this period, Fredrickson (1973 and 1994, quoted in Milliken et al. 2007:116) noted evidence for

CRAR 15 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

increased sedentism, the development of ceremonial integration, and status ascription. The beginning of the Late Period (ca. A.D. 1000) is marked by the Middle/Late Transition bead horizon. Well-fashioned “show” mortars, new Olivella bead forms, and a variety of Haliotis ornaments with multiperforated and bar-scored forms appear during this period. These new artifact forms are reflective of the beginning of the Augustine Pattern, while those features of the classic Augustine Pattern, such as the arrow, banjo effigy ornaments, the flanged pipe, and Olivella callus cup beads, appear during Bead Horizon L1 (post-A.D. 1250). Coincident with the introduction of the bow and arrow, Napa Valley obsidian manufacturing debitage increased markedly in the interior East Bay, while there was a striking decrease in biface manufacture and debitage at Napa Valley Glass Mountain quarries. In the South Bay, however, local Franciscan chert continued to be used and completed obsidian projectile points were traded in from the north. Social stratification is evident in the introduction or, in some areas, reintroduction of partial cremations with high-status grave goods. In addition, the variety of status goods included in interments and in association with cremations of high-status individuals increased (Milliken et al. 2007:117).

Olivella sequin and cup beads, characteristic of the L1 Bead Horizon, disappear circa A.D. 1500 to 1550, marking the beginning of the Terminal Late Period. Clamshell disk beads, indicative of the L2 Bead Horizon, were traded across the North Bay during this period, although there is no evidence that they spread south of the Carquinez Strait at this time. The earliest clamshell disks south of the Carquinez Strait date to A.D. 1670 in Contra Costa County. Sometime between A.D. 1500 and 1650, fewer beads appear as grave goods, and only Olivella lipped and spire-lopped beads appear in South Bay and Central Bay interments. Milliken et al. (2007:117) note that material of the L2 Bead Horizon tends to occur as a thin lens atop rich midden material of the L1 Bead Horizon. Other changes occurred around the San Francisco Bay Area during this period. Clamshell disk beads, magnetite tube beads, the toggle harpoon, hopper mortars, plain, corner- notched, arrow-sized, projectile points, and secondary cremation initially appear in the North Bay during the Terminal Late Period. The hopper mortar did not extend into the Central or South Bay, although plain, corner-notched, projectile points did begin appearing in the Central Bay. Desert side-notched points spread from the Central Coast into the South Bay (Milliken et al. 2007:117).

3.2.2 Ethnographic Background

There is a considerable body of ethnographic literature about the Native American inhabitants of the region in which the study area is located. This section provides a brief summary of that ethnography and is intended to provide a general background only. For a

CRAR 16 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

more extensive review of Ohlone ethnography, see Bocek (1986); Cambra et al. (1996); Kroeber (1925); Levy (1978); Milliken (1983); and Shoup et al. (1995).

The study area lies within the region occupied by the Ohlone or Costanoan group of Native Americans at the time of historic contact with Europeans (Kroeber 1925:462-473). Although the term Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word Costaños, or “coast people,” its application as a means of identifying this population is based in linguistics. The Costanoans spoke a language now considered one of the major subdivisions of the Miwok-Costanoan, which belonged to the Utian family within the Penutian language stock (Shipley 1978:82-84). Costanoan actually designates a family of eight languages, which were spoken by tribal groups occupying the area from the Pacific Coast to the Diablo Range, and from San Francisco to Point Sur. Modern descendants of the Costanoan prefer to be known as Ohlone. The name Ohlone is derived from the Oljon group, which occupied the San Gregorio watershed in San Mateo County (Bocek 1986:8). The two terms (Costanoan and Ohlone) are used interchangeably in much of the ethnographic literature.

On the basis of linguistic evidence, it has been suggested that the ancestors of the Ohlone arrived in the San Francisco Bay area about 1,500 years ago, having moved south and west from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. The ancestral Ohlone displaced speakers of a Hokan language and were probably the producers of the artifact assemblages that constitute the Augustine pattern described above (Levy 1978:486).

Although linguistically related as a family, the eight Costanoan languages actually composed a continuum in which neighboring groups could probably understand each other. Beyond neighborhood boundaries, however, each group's language was unrecognizable to the other. Each of the eight language groups was subdivided into smaller village complexes or tribal groups. The groups were independent political entities, each occupying specific territories. Each group controlled access to the natural resources of the territories. Although each group had one or more permanent villages, their territory contained numerous smaller camp sites used as needed during a seasonal round of resource exploitation.

A chief provided leadership. The chief, who could be either a man or a woman, inherited the position patrilineally. Together, the chief and a council of elders served the community as advisers. However, the chief had special responsibility to feed visitors, to provide for the impoverished, and to direct ceremonies and hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. Only in times of warfare was the chief's role as absolute leader recognized by group members (Levy 1978:487).

CRAR 17 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Extended families lived in domed structures thatched with tule, grass, wild alfalfa, or ferns (Levy 1978:492). Semisubterranean sweathouses were built into pits excavated next to stream banks and covered with a structure. The tule raft, propelled by double-bladed paddles similar to those that were used in the Santa Barbara Channel Island region, was used to navigate across San Francisco Bay (Kroeber 1925:468).

The Ohlone utilized the marine and riverine resources of the San Francisco Bay and nearby creeks. These areas were important sources for seasonal foods such as migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, which provided protein-rich supplements to the typical aboriginal diet of greens, roots and bulbs, seeds, and acorns, as well as fish (Levy 1978).

Mussels were an important staple in the Ohlone diet as were acorns of the coast live oak, valley oak, tanbark oak, and California black oak. Seeds and berries, roots and grasses, as well as the meat of deer, elk, grizzly, rabbit, and squirrel formed the Ohlone diet. Careful management of the land through controlled burning served to insure a plentiful and reliable source of all these foods (Levy 1978:491).

The Ohlone usually cremated a corpse immediately upon death, but the body was interred if there were no relatives to gather wood for the funeral pyre. Mortuary goods comprised most of the personal belongings of the deceased (Levy 1978:490).

The arrival of the Spanish in the San Francisco Bay Area led to a rapid and major reduction in native California populations. Diseases, declining birth rates, and the effects of the mission system served to largely eradicate their traditional lifeways (which are currently experiencing resurgence among Ohlone descendants). Brought into the missions, the surviving Ohlone, along with former neighboring groups of Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok, were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers (Levy 1978; Shoup et al. 1995). With the secularization of the mission system by an independent Mexico in the 1830s, numerous ranchos were established. Generally, the few Indians who remained were then forced, by necessity, to work on the ranchos.

Today, descendents of the Ohlone live throughout the Bay Area. Several Ohlone groups (e.g., Muwekma, Amah) have banded together to seek federal recognition. Many Ohlone, both as individuals and as groups, are active in preserving and reviving elements of their traditional culture, such as dance, basketry, and song, and are active participants in the monitoring and excavation of archaeological sites.

CRAR 18 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

3.2.3 Historical Background

The historical background of the region and study area was compiled from primary and secondary sources including Shoup et al.'s Inigo of Rancho Posolmi (1995), Hyding's From Frontier to Suburb (1984), and the County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement prepared by Archives and Architecture, LLC in 2004 and updated in 2012.

In addition, a series of historic maps and aerial photos were consulted that provide details about specific structures in and near the study area as well as general land use in the vicinity. Maps consulted include the 1876 Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County, the 1899 San Jose USGS 15' Topo Map, the 1943 San Jose USGS 15' Topo, a 1948 aerial photograph, and the 1961 San Jose USGS 7.5' Topo Map.

WSA staff archaeologist Thomas Young also conducted research in the California Room at the San Jose Public Library on December 22 and 23, 2015. Sanborn maps from the area were examined, as were other historic maps from the 1950s through the 1980s. Mr. Young examined newspaper clippings from the mid-to-late 20th century as well as books related to the City and County of Santa Clara.

Regional History

The 1769 expedition led by Captain Gaspar de Portola initiated the period of contact between Spanish colonists and the native people of the Santa Clara Valley. The Portola party reached the Santa Clara Valley in the fall of that year, camping on San Francisquito Creek, northwest of the study area. Father Juan Crespí, who recorded the details of the expedition, wrote:

At once upon our reaching here, several very well-behaved heathens, most of them well-bearded, came to the camp, giving us to understand that they were from three different villages, and I do not doubt there must be many of these, from the many smokes seen in different directions (Crespí in Stanger and Brown 1969:105 in Shoup et al. 1995:22).

A year later, Pedro Fages led an expedition that explored the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay, eventually reaching the location of modern-day Fremont, where they traded with the local native people. In 1772, a second Fages expedition traveled from Monterey passing through the Santa Clara Valley (Levy 1978:398). After passing northward through the region in March, they explored the Diablo Valley and returned south through the Santa Clara Valley in early April:

CRAR 19 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

We encountered heathen who as soon as they saw us got scared and ran inside their two little houses. (I wanted to give them) some little strings of beads, but there was no way we could make them receive the gift (Fages 1972 [1772]:354 in Shoup et al. 1995:23).

In 1774, Captain Fernando Rivera y Moncada, scouting locations for a mission and military installment, encountered local Indian people in the Santa Clara Valley. In 1776, a mission scouting expedition under the leadership of Juan Bautista de Anza and Friar Pedro Font traveled through the same area and also traded with residents of native villages encountered along the way (Bolton 1930). Font recorded that the party had observed 100 native people while traveling through the Santa Clara Valley (Font 1930[1776]:324 in Shoup et al. 1995:25).

The first mission in the San Francisco Bay Area was established in San Francisco with the completion of Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Dolores) in 1776. Mission Santa Clara de Asis followed in 1777, and Mission San Jose in 1797. The missions relied on the Native American population both as their source of Christian converts and their primary source of labor. Diseases introduced by the early expeditions and missionaries, and the contagions associated with the forced communal life at the missions, resulted in the death of a large number of local peoples. Cook (1943) estimates that by 1832, the Ohlone population had been reduced from a high of over 10,000 in 1770 to less than 2,000.

Mission Santa Clara, founded in 1777, controlled much of the land of the Santa Clara Valley (approximately 80,000 acres) until the 1830s. Mission lands were used primarily for the cultivation of wheat, corn, peas, beans, hemp, flax, and linseed, and for grazing cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, goats, and mules. In addition, mission lands were used for growing garden vegetables and orchard trees such as peaches, apricots, apples, pears, and figs.

Within a period of 25 years after the founding of Mission Santa Clara, most local native peoples had been affected by the presence of the missionaries. Though some Indians gave up their traditional way of life by choice, many were coerced, manipulated, and forced to the mission. By the mid-1790s, the traditional Ohlone economy had been significantly disrupted. Native populations outside the Mission had suffered losses to Spanish disease, a decline in food resources, a disrupted trade system, and a significant drought in 1794. “Perhaps knowing or sensing the Indians’ new vulnerability, it was precisely at this point in time that both aggressive preaching and violence were used to encourage conversion” (Shoup et al. 1995:45). Mission records of 1794 and 1795 show that 586 Native Indians were baptized. While earlier baptisms were composed primarily of children, 80 percent of

CRAR 20 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

the converts during this period were adults. The independent tribal elders had finally been brought into the mission system.

The next several decades represent a time of relative stability throughout the Santa Clara Valley. During this period, the Spanish and Mexican population outside of the Mission grew in numbers, power, and prosperity, and Mexico, having gained its independence from Spain, began administering the 21 California missions. By the 1820s, when American trappers began exploring the region, Indians of the San Jose and Santa Clara missions began to rebel (Shoup et al 1995:83). The rebellion was led by Indian chieftain Estanislao and his companion Cipriano, and the confrontations that took place in the summer of 1829 resulted in casualties for both the Indian rebels and the soldiers serving the mission (Shoup et al. 1995:86). The fact that Indian people who had maintained long- term relationships with local missions were motivated to rebel against them reflected poorly on the institution’s success, and signaled the beginning of the final chapter in Mission Santa Clara’s long existence (Shoup et al. 1995:87-89).

The Mexican government began the process of secularizing mission lands in the 1830s. The secularization of the mission lands was decreed in 1834, but the process did not get underway at Santa Clara until 1837. Within a few years, the lands of all 21 missions were expropriated in the form of land grants. Despite regulations that stipulated that the land grants were to be distributed fairly, recipients of the land grants were primarily Californios who had allied themselves with Jose Ramon Estrada, Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado’s brother-in-law, who oversaw the process (Shoup et al. 1995:98-99). By 1845, eight land grants of the former Mission Santa Clara lands were formally awarded to Californios and their Anglo allies (54,284 acres); four were awarded to Mission Indians (11,917 acres) (Shoup et al. 1995:104). The study area was located on land in between two rancho land grants: Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas to the west and Rancho Ulistac to the east.

With their victory in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the United States took possession of California and Anglo-European settlers began to arrive in the Santa Clara Valley. The 1849 Gold Rush brought an unprecedented wave of settlers, many of whom acquired land and turned their attention to agriculture. In November of 1849, San Jose became the first capital of the State of California. The following decades were marked by a transition from the ranching economy favored by Spanish and Mexican landholders to an economy based at first on grain agriculture, such as wheat, then increasingly on orchard and specialty vegetable agriculture.

The study area is located on the west edge of the City of Santa Clara immediately east of the boundary of the modern-day city of Sunnyvale. In the 1850's the hamlet of Santa

CRAR 21 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Clara began to take shape as a recognizable small town. William Campbell surveyed the town site into lots one hundred yards square, and one lot was given to each citizen with the understanding that he was to build a house on it within three months or lose the property. A schoolhouse and a church were built, several hotels erected, mercantile businesses established, and 23 houses were imported from Boston to be set up in the town.

In 1851, Santa Clara College was established on the old mission site and became a prominent feature of the developing town. Santa Clara incorporated as a town on July 5, 1852, and became a state-chartered city in 1862. By this time the city encompassed an area two miles long and one and a half miles wide. Outside city limits, small family farms and orchards developed and thrived in testimony to the area's fertile soil and mild climate. As the town grew, it was supported by a variety of manufacturing, seed, and fruit industries. The immediate vicinity around Santa Clara became famous for its acre-upon- acre of flower and vegetable seed farms. As the 19th century came to a close, more and more people arrived seeking the mild climate and job opportunities of the Santa Clara area. By 1906, the population of the city had grown to nearly 5,000 (City of Santa Clara 2010). The population remained fairly stable and did not increase greatly until after World War II when the city outgrew its 19th century boundaries and expanded to open lands north and west of the original city limits, replacing farms and orchards with suburban and high-tech development (City of Santa Clara 2010).

While there had been a flood of immigrants into California during the Great Depression, the influx during World War II was substantially greater. The defense industry expanded and cities surrounding the San Francisco Bay developed rapidly (Kyle 1990: xvi). New shipyards came into existence, the number of factories in use increased by a third, and the population of industrial workers more than doubled (Cole 1988:129). The output of Bay Area shipbuilding facilities - 1,400 vessels during a war that lasted 1,365 days - remains staggering.

California also became an important location for installations of all branches of the United States military during the war. Largely because a portion of the war was fought in the Pacific Theater, and the attack on Pearl Harbor made California a strategic location, the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines utilized the human and natural resources of the Bay Area for national defense (Beck and Haase 1988:86-88). As well as the industrial facilities along the bayshore, the Alameda Naval Air Station, the Oakland Army Base, Moffett Field, and local Army training camps drew civilian and military families to the communities surrounding the study area.

CRAR 22 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

In addition to heavy industries, such as shipbuilding, high-tech industries such as electronics also expanded rapidly during the war. Later, these firms contributed to the emerging field of communications (Hynding 1984:270).

The manufacture of electrical machinery, largely because of the boom in electronics, now [1957] hires in San Mateo County about as many workers as were employed by the industry in the entire Bay Area in 1949. Of the 125 new plants, one-fourth are in San Mateo County, and one-fifth each in Santa Clara and Alameda counties, in part because of research facilities at Stanford University and the University of California (Young and Griffin 1957:401).

In addition to drawing manpower, the facilities established for the war effort spurred industrial and high-tech research that laid the foundation for today’s economy that is increasingly reliant on the innovation of highly skilled workers.

History of the Study Area

The study area lies between two Mexican land grants, but was not included in either of them. It lies to the east of what originally was the Mexican land grant of Rancho Pastoría de las Borregas or Rancho Refugio. In 1842, this parcel was granted to a Francisco Estrada. During the period of 1856-1881, a number of declarations divided the land into northern and southern parcels divided by Permanente Creek. Upon the death of Estrada and his wife, Estrada’s Father-in-law, Mariano Castro, inherited the land (Kyle 1990).

Martin Murphy, Jr., an Irish Immigrant, purchased the southern portion of the land grant. In 1844, Mr. Murphy, along with his parents and siblings, were the first group to successfully cross the Sierra Nevada Mountains in wagons. Murphy purchased what became the southern portion of the rancho in 1849, built the Bay View Ranch and established the Santa Clara Valley’s first orchards. The ranch house where Murphy lived on the rancho was framed on the East Coast and brought to California in 1851. The Murphy’s occupied this residence for over a century until it was demolished in 1961. The Murphy’s were established members of the Sunnyvale community and were instrumental in the founding of Santa Clara College and the Convent of Notre Dame (Kyle 1990).

The study area lies to the west of Rancho Ulistac. In 1845, Governor Pio Pico granted that rancho to Native American claimants, but in 1857, Jacob D. Hoppe’s claim to the property was confirmed. Hoppe was born in Maryland and arrived in California in 1846 at the age of 33. Hoppe lived in San Jose as the first American postmaster and served as a delegate to the constitutional convention in 1849. Sadly, he was killed in the explosion of the steamer Jenny Lind in San Francisco Bay on April 11, 1853, before his claim to the rancho could be confirmed, hence the property was actually confirmed to Hoppe’s heirs

CRAR 23 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

in 1857. The land was subdivided and James Lick, who arrived in California in 1848 and made his fortune through land speculation, bought a parcel and built his mansion on the west bank of the Guadalupe River (Kyle 1990).

By 1876 the study area lay in the southern portion of a 225.6-acre parcel owned by Mrs. J. R. Arqües (Figure 5). The farmhouse stood within the current study area (along the northern edge), while an orchard with an artesian well lay just outside the study area to the north. A small driveway led from Lawrence Station Road (today's Lawrence Expressway) through the study area to the farmhouse. Today’s Arques Avenue marks the northern boundary of the Arqües property, while Kifer Road was the southern boundary. To the east lay the property of J. Swope Jr., whose farmhouse lay in the southwestern corner of the property, approximately 1,400 ft. southeast of the study area. The vicinity was rural with most properties supporting small orchards, although neighbor L. A. Wilcox devoted most of his 61.51 acres to growing strawberries, as did S. I. Jamison on his 100 acres. By this time the Southern Pacific Railroad had been built to the south of the study area, with Lawrence Station approximately ½-mile to the south. The San Francisco and San Jose Rail Road Company built the railroad in 1863 and service began in January 1864. The company was consolidated into the Southern Pacific Railroad Company on October 12, 1870 (Robertson 1998:214).

The location of stations along the early rail lines largely determined the points of development that would soon form the downtown cores of the Bay Area’s early cities and towns. Similarly, the lines formalized the corridors that would become home to the area’s industries that were largely dependent on rail transportation. Future infrastructure, such as highways and public transportation, continued to follow the routes solidified by the railroads.

The 1899 USGS 15’ topographic map (Figure 6) shows that a gradual increase in the population of the project vicinity had taken place, based on the number of buildings shown, and there had been significant additions to the road network. However, the immediate vicinity of the study area had changed little. The Arqües house still stood, although it had a more elaborate driveway and two additional structures associated with it (outside the study area to the north). Approximately one-third of a mile to the north of the study area an oval track is depicted on the map, probably used for horse racing. Calabazas Creek first appears on the 1899 USGS map, although it did not extend as far south as the study area, terminating approximately 0.5 miles to the north.

CRAR 24 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

¯ Study Area

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Figure 5 1876 Historical Atlas Map of CirclePoint Santa Clara County Lawrence Station Area Plan Santa Clara County, CA ¯ Study AreaStudy

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Figure 6 Figure 1899 San Jose Jose San 1899 CirclePoint USGS Quadrangle 15’ Topo MapTopo 15’ USGSQuadrangle Plan Area Station Lawrence Santa Clara County, CACounty, Clara Santa

By 1943, the USGS 15’ topographic map showed relatively little change in the population density in the area based on the number of structures shown (Figure 7). The road system, if anything, had become simplified with many of the earlier roads in the area having gone out of use or fallen into disrepair. The most dramatic change in the road system was the appearance of Highway 101 cutting across the road grid defined by the section lines. The Arqües house still stood, although its elaborate driveway had disappeared and several additional structures were closely associated with it. At this time, orchards were depicted covering the study area and much of the nearby acreage. How long this had been the case, however, is unclear as both the earlier 1899 and 1876 maps did not show agricultural land use within the study area.

By 1948, however, aerial photography (Figure 8) shows the plan area to be mostly agricultural fields. What may be an old channel of Calabazas Creek is depicted running in a southwest-northeast direction in the eastern half of the study area and an area in the northeastern corner of the study area is likely a mound. The northeast end of the mound has a dirt road looping around it, while towards the southwest end is a roughly circular, light-colored area with what appears to be some trees. The 1953 USGS map confirms that orchards were no longer planted in the study area, although they still survived to the east (Figure 9). An aerial photograph taken in 1956 clearly shows the mound area in the northeast corner of the study area in contrast to the surrounding plowed fields (Figure 10).

By 1961, the USGS 15’ topographic map (Figure 11) shows Corvin Drive for the first time and a large building occupying the location of 2970 Corvin Drive. Three smaller buildings including the structure at 3505 Kifer Road and two small buildings at the north end of Copper Road are also depicted. Aerial photographs from 1968 show the new Central Expressway, and illustrate the commercial and light industrial development that would characterize the study area in the following decades (Figure 12). A last remnant of the once extensive orchards that covered the area still stood approximately 1,200 ft. to the east of the study area.

Industry leaders like General Electric and International Business Machines (IBM) expanded their west coast operations in the 1950s and established themselves in the Santa Clara Valley (Archives and Architecture LLC 2012). The study area itself was home to smaller companies, such as the General Package Corporation, a manufacturer of corrugated containers and shipping materials (as depicted on a 1957 map available at the San Jose Public Library). It continues to be home to small manufacturers, suppliers, light industrial, and research oriented companies today.

CRAR 27 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

¯ Study Area Study

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Figure 7 Figure 1943 San JoseSan 1943 CirclePoint USGS Quadrangle 15’ Topo MapTopo 15’ USGS Quadrangle Plan Area Station Lawrence Santa Clara County, CA County, Clara Santa

Arques Ave

Oakmead Pky Oakmead Cobalt Way Cobalt

Central Expy

Ryder St

Ryder St

Copper Rd Corvin Dr Corvin

LawrenceExpy Gordon Ave Gordon

Kifer Rd

¯ Study Area

0 350 700

LawrenceStation Rd Feet

1948 Aerial Photograph Figure 8 CirclePoint of the Study Area Lawrence Station Area Plan Santa Clara County, CA ¯ Study Area Study

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Figure 9 Figure 1953 San Jose Jose San 1953 CirclePoint SGS Quadrangle 15’ Topo MapTopo 15’ SGSQuadrangle Plan Area Station Lawrence Santa Clara County, CA County, Clara Santa

Arques Ave

Oakmead Pky Oakmead Cobalt Way Cobalt

Central Expy

Ryder St

Ryder St

CopperRd Corvin DrCorvin

LawrenceExpy Gordon Ave Gordon

Kifer Rd

¯ Study Area

0 350 700

LawrenceStation Rd Feet

1956 Aerial Photograph Figure 10 CirclePoint of the Study Area Lawrence Station Area Plan Santa Clara County, CA ¯ Study AreaStudy

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Figure 11 Figure 1961 San Jose San 1961 CirclePoint USGS Quadrangle 15’ Topo MapTopo 15’ USGS Quadrangle Plan Area Station Lawrence Santa Clara County, CA County, Clara Santa

Arques Ave

Oakmead Pky Oakmead Cobalt Way Cobalt

Central Expy

Ryder St

Ryder St

CopperRd Corvin DrCorvin

LawrenceExpy Gordon Ave Gordon

Kifer Rd

¯ Study Area

0 350 700

LawrenceStation Rd Feet

1968 Aerial Photograph Figure 12 CirclePoint of the Study Area Lawrence Station Area Plan Santa Clara County, CA

4.0 Results of the Records and Literature Search

On behalf of WSA, staff at the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University conducted a records search of the study area on October 19, 2015 (File No. 15-0591). The records search involved a review of records and maps on file at the NWIC. Relevant pages from the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Properties Directory, which includes information regarding National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and historic building surveys, were included with the search results.

Results of the records search indicate there are two historical resources in or within ¼- mile radius of the study area. Sixteen cultural resources studies have been undertaken that include the study area (Table 1) (S-004181, S-004184, S-004292, S-008521, S-014772, S-016689, S-020537, S-022829, S-024460, S-025173, S-033061, S-034827, S-037579, S-037742, S-037745, and S-038643).

Table 1: Cultural Resources Studies that include Study Area Study Authors Year Title Affiliation Number An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Calabazas Creek (Bayshore S-004181 Rob Edwards 1974 Freeway to El Camino Real), North N/A Central Zone, NC-1-Project Number 2010 Subsurface Testing at Archaeological Robert L. Site WVC-3 on Calabazas Creek S-004184 Edwards and 1974 Between Central Expressway and N/A Thomas F. King Kifer Road, City of Santa Clara, California Archeological Resources and Impact Joseph C. S-004292 1976 of Eight Proposed City of Santa N/A Winter Clara Projects, Job #76-10 Archaeological reconnaissance of approximately 9 miles of Central Archaeological Resource S-008521 Katherine Flynn 1979 Expressway from De La Cruz Service Boulevard to San Antonio Road (WO #872824) (letter report) Evaluation of Prehistoric Resources Archaeological Resource S-014772 1992 for the Calabazas Creek Flood Management Control Robert Cartier, Evaluation of Prehistoric Resources Elena Reese, and Determination for National Archaeological Resource S-016689 1994 and Julie C. Register Eligibility for the Calabazas Management Wizorek Creek Flood Control Project Cultural Resources Assessment, S-020537 Barry A. Price 1998 Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facility Applied Earthworks, Inc. SF-564-02, Santa Clara, Santa Clara

CRAR 34 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Study Authors Year Title Affiliation Number County, California (letter report)

Wendy J. Nelson, Cultural Resources Survey for the Far Western Maureen Level (3) Communications Long Anthropological Research S-022819 2000 Carpenter, and Haul Fiber Optics Project, Segment Group, Inc.; Foothill Julia G. WS05: San Jose to San Luis Obispo Resources, Ltd. Costello Cultural Resources Recommendations for the Santa Clara Metro and 801 Newhall Fiber S-024460 Gabriel Roark 2001 Jones & Stokes Optic Builds, Sunnyvale and San Jose, Santa Clara County, California (letter report) John Holson, Cultural Resources Report for San Pacific Legacy, Inc.; Cordelia Sutch, Jose Local Loops, Level 3 Fiber S-025173 2002 William Self Associates, and Stephanie Optics Project in Santa Clara and Inc. Pau Alameda Counties, California Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the SWCA Environmental S-033061 2006 Qwest Network Construction Project, Consultants State of California Calvano Commercial Condominium Association, Archaeological S-034827 Stella D'Oro 2008 Evaluation of Construction In- Albion Environmental, Inc. Process at 2961 - 2995 Corvin Drive, Santa Clara, California Paul Farnsworth, Data Recovery, Burial Removal and Eric Strother, Construction Monitoring Report for Charlotte the Terremark Data Center Project, William Self Associates, S-037579 2010 Sunseri, Angela CA-SCL-134, 2970 and 3000 Corvin Inc. Cook, and Drive, City and County of Santa Rhonda Clara, California. Robichaud Construction Monitoring Report, Verizon Terremark Data Center S-037742 2015 WSA, Inc. Project, 2930 Corvin Drive, Santa Clara County, California Archaeological Monitoring of William Self Associates, S-037745 James M. Allan 2010 Sample Bores at 2970 Corvin Drive, Inc. Santa Clara, California (letter report) Jennifer Lippel, Addendum to Data Recovery, Burial Jennifer Blake, Removal and Construction Kari Lentz, Monitoring Report for the Terremark David Buckley, William Self Associates, S-038643 2012 Data Center Project, CA-SCL-134, Aimee Inc. 2970 and 3000 Corvin Drive, City Arrigoni, and and County of Santa Clara, Paul California Farnsworth

CRAR 35 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Eight cultural resources studies have been conducted within ¼-mile of the study area (S- 007390, S-010154, S-010831, S-011396, S-023766, S-023934, S-026844, and S- 029657). These are summarized below in Table 2.

Table 2: Cultural Resources Studies within 1/4 mile of the Study Area Study Authors Year Title Publisher Number Rebecca Loveland A Cultural Resources Survey of the Anastasio, James F. Proposed Lawrence Expressway High Basin Research S-007390 Thomas, Donna M. 1985 Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Project Located Associates, Inc. Garaventa, and in the Cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Stuart A. Guedon San Jose, Santa Clara County, California Rebecca Loveland Anastasio, Donna Historic Property Survey of the Proposed M. Garaventa, Central Expressway Commuter Lane Basin Research S-010154 Stuart A. Guedon, 1987 Project Located in the Cities of Santa Clara, Associates, Inc. Robert M. Harmon, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View in Santa and Mella J. Clara County, California Rothwell Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Archaeological Extension of the Calabazas Creek Flood S-010831 1989 Resource Control Project in the Cities of Santa Clara Management and Sunnyvale, County of Santa Clara Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for the Proposed WTG-WEST, Inc., BioSystems S-011396 1989 Los Angeles to San Francisco and Analysis, Inc. Sacramento, California: Fiber Optic Cable Project Archaeological Survey and Record Search for Worldcom National Semiconductor S-023766 Cordelia Sutch 2001 Cable Relocation Project (800-017) (letter report) Cultural Resources Investigations for XO S-023934 2001 California, Inc. Fiber Optic Installations in Jones & Stokes San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties Archaeological Survey and Record Search S-026844 John Holson 2002 for OSPC-0003, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Pacific Legacy, Inc. County (Letter Report) Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain JRP Historical S-029657 Rand F. Herbert 2002 Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Consulting Services Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California

Sixteen additional overview reports include the study area and the surrounding 1/4 mile. These are presented below in Table 3.

Table 3: Additional overview reports within Study Area and surrounding 1/4 mile Study Number Authors Year Title Publisher A Summary of Knowledge of the The Anthropology David A. S-000848 1977 Central and Northern California Laboratory, Sonoma State Fredrickson Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas, College; Winzler & Kelly

CRAR 36 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Study Number Authors Year Title Publisher Vol. III, Socioeconomic Conditions, Consulting Engineers Chapter 7: Historical & Archaeological Resources Joseph C. Tamien - 6000 Years in an S-005260 1978 Winter American City Albert B. Elsasser, R. L. Anastasio, J. C. Revised Data Recovery Plan, Part I: Bard, C. I. Review of the Prehistory of the Busby, D. M. Santa Clara Valley Region as Part Basin Research Associates, S-007483 1985 Garaventa, S. of the Guadalupe Transportation Inc. A. Guedon, E. Corridor Compliance with 36 CFR L. Moore, K. Part 800 M. Nissen, and M. E. Tannam Identification and Recording of Teresa Ann San Francisco State S-009462 1977 Prehistoric Petroglyphs in Marin Miller University and Related Bay Area Counties David W. Ecology of the Pre-Spanish San San Francisco State S-009583 1978 Mayfield Francisco Bay Area University Donna M. Garaventa, Colin I. Busby, Cultural Resources Assessment for Basin Research Associates, S-013200 Sondra A. 1991 the Santa Clara County Inc. Jarvis, and Transportation Plan - T2010 EIR David G. Brittin Robert L. Gearhart II, Clell L. Bond, Steven D. Hoyt, James H. Cleland, James Anderson, California, Oregon, and Espey, Huston & Associates, S-015529 Pandora 1993 Washington: Archaeological Inc.; Dames & Moore Snethcamp, Resource Study Gary Wesson, Jack Neville, Kim Marcus, Andrew York, and Jerry Wilson Colin I. Busby, Donna M. Garaventa, Recorded Archaeological Resources Basin Research Associates, S-016394 Stuart A. 1994 in Santa Clara County, California Inc. Guedon, and Melody E. Tannam

CRAR 37 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Study Number Authors Year Title Publisher Jacquelin Ethnohistoric Genealogy Study, Jensen Kehl Woodward-Clyde S-017852 1995 Tasman Corridor Light Rail Project, and Linda Consultants Santa Clara County, California Yamane Cultural Resource Evaluations for the Caltrans District 04 Phase 2 S-018217 Glenn Gmoser 1996 Caltrans Seismic Retrofit Program, Status Report: April 1996 PCNs of the Coast Ranges of Donna L. California State University, S-020395 1998 California: Religious Expression or Gillette Hayward the Result of Quarrying? Cultural Resources Review, Proposed RCN Fiber Optic Cable Basin Research Associates, S-024967 2000 Program, City of Santa Clara, Santa Inc. Clara County Richard Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Carrico, Survey and Inventory Report for the Theodore S-026045 2000 Metromedia Fiberoptic Cable Mooney & Associates Cooley, and Project, San Francisco Bay Area William and Los Angeles Basin Networks Eckhardt The Central California Ethnographic Randall Community Distribution Model, Milliken, Version 2.0, with Special Attention Consulting in the Past; Far S-032596 Jerome King, 2006 to the San Francisco Bay Area, Western Anthropological and Patricia Cultural Resources Inventory of Research Group, Inc. Mikkelsen Caltrans District 4 Rural Conventional Highways Geoarchaeological Overview of the Jack Meyer and Far Western Anthropological S-033600 2007 Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans Jeff Rosenthal Research Group, Inc. District 4 County of Santa Clara Historic Archives and Architecture, S-046375 Franklin Maggi 2012 Context Statement, Santa Clara LLC. County, California

Known Historical Resources

Two previously recorded historical resources were identified in the records search, one within the study area and one within a 1/4 mile of the study area. Within the project area, P-43-000019/CA-SCL-134 (Table 4) is a prehistoric archaeological site (with some historic components) that was initially recorded by archaeologists in 1974. The site boundary was refined and additional data was gathered in 1994, 2002, and again in 2012.

CRAR 38 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Table 4: Previously recorded archaeological sites within the Project Area Primary Date Trinomial Age Number Attributes Recorded

1974, 1994, 43-000019 CA-SCL-134 Prehistoric/historic Privies/dumps/scatters, burials, habitation debris 2002, 2012

CA-SCL-134 contains historic-period privies, dumps, and trash scatters, as well as prehistoric human remains, and prehistoric habitation debris. Excavation at the site has yielded a total of 20 human burials, 45 prehistoric features, four historic features, and 1,402 artifacts. Radiocarbon dates shows that occupation occurred between 1610 B.C. and 1000 B.C. and then again from A.D. 710-960.

The records search indicates one historic-period resource, P-43-000928, is located within 1/4 mile of the study area. It is a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (Table 5).

Table 5: Known historic sites within 1/4 mile of the Project Area Trinomial Time Date Recorded Site # Site Description Author Period Caltrans, Archives and Architecture, 1990, 1994, Southern Pacific P-43-000928 CA-SCL-898H Historic Dames and More, 1995, 2000, Railroad JRP Historical 2002, 2008 Consulting, PBS&J

5.0 Native American Consultation

On February 7, 2015, Circlepoint contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by email to request information on known Native American sacred lands within the study area and to request a listing of individuals or groups with a cultural affiliation to the study area. As no response was received, Circlepoint submitted additional requests for information on known Native American sacred lands within the study area on April 20, 2015, May 7, 2015, and on October 1, 2015. In a letter dated October 14, 2015, Debbie Pilas-Treadway of the NAHC statedt “a record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.” The letter also provided a list of Santa Clara County Native American Contacts. WSA contacted the local Native American representatives by certified letter on November 19, 2015 to solicit comment and any additional information the individuals might have regarding cultural resources in the study area. On December 9, 2015, WSA archaeologist Thomas Young attempted to contact via phone those Native American individuals and groups who had not responded to the letter. A second follow-up phone call was made to those individuals who had not been reached via email or phone previously. A copy of the NAHC correspondence as well as a complete record of Native

CRAR 39 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

American contacts and their comments can be found in Appendix A. Specific comments are included below:

• Ms. Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson of the Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista recommended that a Native American monitor be present during ground disturbance. • Mr. Valentin Lopez stated that study area is out of their territory so he had no comment. • WSA made follow-up phone calls to Ms. Cambra on 12/9/15 and 12/18/15. She indicated she required additional time to review the letter and map. As of 1/19/16 no comment has been received from Ms. Cambra. • On 12/9/15 Ms. Kehl requested WSA provide her the results of the Records Search conducted at the NWIC. The results were sent via email on 12/22/15. WSA made a follow-up phone call to Ms. Kehl on 12/28/15 (she had not reviewed the documents at that time). As of 1/19/16 no comment has been received from Ms. Kehl.

6.0 Evaluation Under CEQA

The CRHR is the official list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level. CRHR 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 historical resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e. retain integrity). The CRHR utilizes the same seven aspects of integrity as the NRHP. Properties that are eligible for the NRHP are automatically eligible for the CRHR. Properties that do not meet the threshold for the NRHP may meet the CRHR criteria. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the following criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1, Section 4852):

(1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

CRAR 40 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

CRHR criteria are similar to NRHP criteria, and are tied to CEQA, so any resource that meets the above criteria, and retains a sufficient level of historic integrity, is considered an historical resource under CEQA.

7.0 Results of the Archaeological Survey & Architectural Assessment

7.1 Results of Archaeological Survey In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that no potentially significant historical resources are present in the study area, and as a means of evaluating potential impacts to such resources, WSA archaeologist Thomas Young, B.A., conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the over 65-acre study area on December 16, 2015 (Figure 13). The exposed ground surface along both sides of Copper Road has been subject to extensive re-shaping of the terrain, including the installation of hardscape and landscaping (Photo 1 and 2, all photos in Appendix B). The property at 3505 Kifer Road has been minimally altered and the ground is flat and covered with grasses (Photo 3). Considerable rodent activity was present. Areas of illegal dumping and light trash were visible in the western edge of the property (Photo 4). The visible ground surface showed a fairly dark brown/black silty clay, which has a greasy feel, containing approximately 5-10% gravel.

All remaining softscapes in the study area have been modified, leaving no visible native soils or natural terrain. Between buildings N1, O1, and N2, there is a landscaped park (Photo 5). No cultural indicators were observed.

Calabazas Creek runs along the eastern side of the study area, although it has been completely channelized and concreted (Photo 6). It was almost dry at the time of the survey. No evidence of prehistoric cultural material was observed during the survey.

7.2 Description of Built Resources

On December 16, 2015, WSA architectural historian Aimee Arrigoni recorded twelve buildings within the study area that are 45 years of age or older (refer to Figure 15). Physical descriptions of each of the buildings follows, as well as a discussion of alterations made to the buildings where applicable. An analysis of building permits available online through the City of Santa Clara was useful in both tracking physical alterations to structures as well as owners/tenants over the years (permit information is included in the tables below). WSA also examined the California Inventory of Historic Resources and the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Properties Directory to determine if any of the twelve evaluated buildings were included in those inventories. The results were negative. This information, as well as additional basic information about each building (address, year built, square footage, etc.) is included in the tables below.

CRAR 41 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

H.1

«¬1

L.1

I.1

M.1 M.5

«¬3

2 «¬ M.2 M.6

J.1 M.3 «¬4 M.7

Z.1 ¯ M.4

Archaeological Survey Area Architectural Survey Structure (45 years or older)

Applicant Boundary Westlake Urban (1) Summerhill Land (2) Project Level -Future Buildout (3) 0 140 280 560 Truelife Parcel (4) Feet

Figure 13 Architectural and Archaeological Survey Results CirclePoint Lawrence Station Area Plan Santa Clara County, CA

The buildings' CRHR eligibility is evaluated in Section 7.3. The preparation of DPR forms for the evaluated buildings has been deferred to mitigation (see Section 8.0) and was not completed as part of this scope of work.

Building H-1 (Table 6 and 7, Photos 7 and 8)

Table 6: Building H-1 Address 3500 Ryder, 3050 Copper Building Number H-1 Photos (Appendix B) 7-8 APN 21634046 Zoning Code Light Industrial Year Built 1968 OHP Property Data File Not noted California Inventory of Not noted Historic Resources Acres 1.45 Sq. Footage 25,166 Owner/Tenant Copper Industrials/HSC Electronic Supply

Building H-1 is generally rectangular in plan with a small addition on the north side. It is painted off-white (finished in cement board) with a painted maroon band at the roofline. Vertical posts are spaced at regular intervals and the roof is flat. Several shop fronts (now vacant) with glass doors and windows are located on the east elevation. Maroon awnings and brown tile accent the entryways on the east side. A large wood shed-style overhang extends from the south elevation and is supported by metal columns. A concrete pad has been poured in the area beneath the overhang and it is fenced to provide a secure storage area. Large roll-up doors are located on the north and south sides of the building. The entry to HSC Electronic Supply is located on the north side of the building and is accented by a series of metal windows and a maroon awning. Permit data indicates the second floor was finished in 1984 and various interior partitions, offices, and utilities have been added since the date of construction.

Table 7: Building H-1 Permits Year Permitted Activity Bldg H-1 Name on Permit 1968 Erect walk in cooler H & B Beer Sales

1968 Install partitions, F2 Roland Lampert 1968 Add partitions Roland Lampert 1968 Add partitions, F2 Roland Lampert 1968 Erect industrial building, F2 Roland Lampert

CRAR 43 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Year Permitted Activity Bldg H-1 Name on Permit 1969 Erect toilet room Lessee 1969 Add plumbing to BLD1969-35424 J.C.Penny Co. 1969 Add partitions to industrial building K & S Pacific Inc. 1970 1970- Install partitions, F2 K & S Pacific Inc. 1974 1974 - Install paint spray booth Donald Seller 1977 1977 - Add partition (less than 25% of total George Firman area), E4 and E3 1977 Erect office area, E3 George Firman 1984 Alter interior and add 2nd floor, B2 Zycon 1984 Add offices, B-2 Zycon 1984 Add electrical to industrial building Zycon 1984 Add plumbing to industrial building Zycon 1984 Add gas and AC, and plumbing Zycon 1984 Add HVAC, install mech. Zycon 1987 Alter interior, add equipment pad Halted Specialties 1987 Repave parking lot, permit expired in 1989 Roland Lampert 1987 Add electrical, install interior wiring Halted Specialties 1988 Add electrical to BLD1988-076752 Halted Specialties

Building I-1 (Table 8 and 9, Photos 9 and 10)

Table 8: Building I-1 Address 2960 Copper Road Building Number I-1 Photos Attached APN 21634047 Zoning Code Light Industrial Year Built 1967 OHP Property Data File Not noted California Inventory of Historical Resources Not noted Acres 3.28 Sq. Footage 78,894 Owner/Tenant Copper Industrials

Building I-1 is a c-shaped single-story warehouse and office building with a recessed seven-bay loading area with roll-up doors on the east elevation shaded by narrow roof

CRAR 44 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

overhang additions. The building roof is flat and appears to be finished with composite or asphalt roofing. Ramped vehicle entrances to warehouse spaces are located near the north and at the south ends of the east elevation. A low roof overhang supported by posts shades an entrance accessing a fenced exterior work/storage area at the northern end of the east elevation. A staircase and ramp on the east elevation to the south of the loading dock access pedestrian entrances approximately three feet above grade. There are no entrances on the north elevation. The west elevation has pedestrian doors at its north end and at the midpoint of the building. The building exterior is finished with rough white stucco on the lower portion with a smooth accent band incised with vertical lines below the roofline. Columns spaced at regular intervals along the building exterior are flush with the stucco surface and accented with blue paint in the upper accent band. Aerial photo imagery from 1968 and City of Santa Clara building permit data indicate that the original building footprint comprised approximately the southern half of the current configuration. The northern warehouse and office segment appears to have been added in 1971 under Copper Industrials' permit to "Add to warehouse."

Table 9: Building I-1 Permits Year Permitted Activity Bldg I-1 Name on Permit 1967 Erect warehouses and offices; Occ:F-2 Copper Industrials 1967 Install fire sprinklers to warehouse J.C. Penny Co. 1971 Add plumbing, Install sewer and storm drain J.C. Penny Co. 1971 Add plumbing, Install 2 drains and gas piping J.C. Penny Co. 1971 Add plumbing to BLD1971-25979 Copper Industrials 1971 Install 9 heating units J.C. Penny Co. 1971 Add to warehouse; Occ:F-2, MF=10 Copper Industrials 1971 Install fire sprinklers J.C. Penny Co. 1972 Acc Approval by Girvan; Compactor + 10-0, Fence for Copper Industrials screen, to be occupied as reduced parking from 106 to 66. 1981 Install partitions and door, Occ:B-2 J.C. Penny Co. 1981 Add electrical; install 70 outlets and 3 lighting fixtures J.C. Penny Co. 1984 Alter interior/offices; Occ:B-2, incl. plumbing, electrical, J.C. Penny Co. and mechanical. 1988 Alter interior; Occ:B-2 Copper Industrials, SBM Corporation 1988 Add electrical, install 4 panels, service change SBM Corporation 1988 Add/alter plumbing to industrial building Metalcraft 1988 Alter interior; Occ:B-2, office remodel Copper Industrials 1996 Roll up door, ramp upgrade, dock leveler and stripping of lot Donald Seiler 2007 Replace 3hr roll up door at west end of four hour area Cody/Brock separation wall, install four hour rated masonry wall within 3 hour door in middle roll up door section (to correct violation notice); MF=1

CRAR 45 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Building J-1 (Table 10 and 11, Photos 11 and 12)

Table 10: Building J-1 Address 3505 Kifer Rd Building Number J-1 Photos (Appendix B) 9-10 APN 21634070 Zoning Code Light industrial Year Built 1956 OHP Property Data File Not noted California Inventory of Not noted Historic Resources Acres 3.89 Sq. Footage 53,251 Owner/Tenant Kool Metal Awning Co Inc of SU/Clear Towing and Service

The original portion of Building J-1 is relatively small and rectangular in plan, although extensive modifications have been made since the time of construction. The original portion of the building has an off-white painted stucco exterior (brown painted accents) with a unique domed roof (covered in brown composite sheets) with skylights. Metal windows and awnings are prominent on the facade (south elevation), likely because the building is owned by and home to the Kool Metal Awning Company. A very large rectangular addition extends off the rear of the original building. The addition is finished in a variety of materials (faux brick Styrofoam, corrugated metal) and the roof slopes downward as it continues to the north. There are roll-up doors on the east and west elevations. A large portion of the lot behind and adjacent to the building is fenced for additional storage. The fence is finished the same faux brick Styrofoam found on portions of the building addition.

Table 11: Building J-1 Permits Year Permitted Activity Bldg J-1 Name on Permit 1965 Construct partition Ellison Construction Co

1975 Repair and install parking and driveway, Kool Metal Awning Co construct patio awning, fence, pave storage area, construct storage area and fence, addition to existing storage 1977 Remodel, alt industrial building Kool Metal Awning Co 2015 Lawrence Station Area Plan ---

CRAR 46 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Building L-1 (Table 12 and 13, Photos 13 and 14)

Table 12: Building L-1 Address 3045-3049 Copper Rd Building Number L-1 Photos (Appendix B) 11-13 APN 21634005 Zoning Code Light Industrial Year Built 1954 OHP Property Data File Not noted California Inventory of Not noted Historic Resources Acres 0.5 Sq. Footage 10,495 Owner/Tenant Erik Naslund/FlossAid Corporation

Building L-1 is square in plan and painted beige with slightly darker trim. A wide column of stone veneer accents the facade (west elevation). Entry doors are modern hollow doors and entries are covered with flat awnings and accented with a band of fixed windows and a large vertical window. The roof is flat. There are no windows or points of entry on the north elevation, although the south elevation has five sets of repeating multi-pane windows. A large roll-up door is located on the east elevation as well as an addition with a shed-style roof. It is finished with a combination of plywood and open metal grate panels and is likely used for storage or mechanical equipment.

Table 13: Building L-1 Permits Year Permitted Activity Bldg L-1 Name on Permit 1959 Erect warehouse, F2 Lampert-Seiler

1965 Install partitions to industrial and mezz, F2 Henry Gersmiler 1977 Erect industrial partitions, F2 George Firman 1993 Repave and restripe lot Firman I Bold Renew BLD1993-098558, repave and 1994 Firman I Bold restripe lot

Buildings M-1 through M-7 (Table 14 – 17; Photos 15-32)

Table 14: Buildings M-1 through M-7 M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5 M-6 M-7 3015, 2915, 3003, 2989, 2981 3475, 3479, Address 3017 2925 3005 2991 3445 Kifer Copper 3485 Kifer Copper Copper Copper Copper

CRAR 47 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Photos 14-15 16-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30-32 (App B)

Sq. 12,386 26,160 25,908 13,194 21,370 28,823 19,453 Footage Tom's Quidel NOVA Discount Corp Drilling Office H-Square T.M. Tenant AMP (Medical N/A Services, Furniture, Co Industries Supply Inc Zyxel Store) Comm. Owner Audrey and Roland Lampert APN 21634069 Zoning Light industrial Code Year Built 1960 OHP Property Not noted Data File California Inventory Not noted of Historic Resources Acres 7.51

Permitted changes to specific structures on this parcel are presented below with the physical description of the building. In some cases, specific addresses were not listed in the data available online for permitted alterations and they may apply to one or several buildings on the parcel. These alterations generally included construction of canopies and arcades, additions of small structures such as dryer sheds, spray rooms, and clean rooms, structural modifications to roof structures, and the installation of ramps and roll up doors.

Building M-1 (Photos 15and 16)

Building M-1 is rectangular in plan with a stucco exterior accented with decorative rock veneer. Support posts are spaced at regular intervals and the roof is flat. Flat awnings are located above the entries (west elevation) and entries are accented by a band of large metal windows. Two roll-up doors are located at the rear of the building (east elevation). There are four fixed windows on both the north and south sides of the building (two are painted over on the north side).

CRAR 48 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Table 15: Building M-1 Permits Permitted Activity Bldg M-1 Year Name on Permit (3017 Copper) 1998 Add 2 AC on roof, add electrical and mech. Anthony and Sons

Building M-2 and M-3 (Photos 17-20)

Buildings M-2 and M-3 are square in plan and similar in appearance (both are finished with exterior cement board scored with decorative vertical lines like Building M-5). The facade (west elevation) of both buildings has a large boxy overhang with flagstone veneer at the corners. The buildings are painted off-white and M-3 has flat green trim at the roofline while the trim on M-2 is beige (roofs are flat). Large fixed windows and glass/metal doors characterize their entries, although M-2 has been updated with black tinted glass windows and doors. An L-shaped corrugated metal screen on the roof of M-3 likely protects mechanical equipment.

Four sets of three windows characterize the north elevation (scored lines repeat as decorative element below windows). On M-3, two roll-up doors provide access on the east elevation and three fenced areas house equipment (two are covered with wood overhangs). On M-2 one roll-up door is evident on the east elevation and a shed style corrugated metal roof extends from the east side, covering an area fenced with chain link (likely providing additional storage). The stone veneer on the facade of both buildings wraps around to the south side and the boxy overhang repeats on that elevation as well.

Table 16: Building M-2 and M-3 Permits Permitted Activity Bldg M-3 Year Name on Permit (2915 and 2925 Copper) Interior alterations to create address 2915 2008 Copper Rd, ADA ramp (eliminate 3465 Kifer Kifer Industrial

Rd), expand 2925 Copper Road

Building M-4 (Photos 21-23)

Building M-4 is a low building finished in cement board with a rectangular plan and flat roof. It is painted off-white with faded green trim. The single design element is a cutout corner at the southwest corner of the building that accents the main entry. Metal and glass windows/doors flank the entry (recessed beneath an angular overhang). Poured concrete and raised planters create a small courtyard at the main entry. While there are linear fixed metal windows on the west elevation, there are no windows or points of entry on the east side. Three roll-up doors provide access on the north elevation.

CRAR 49 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Building M-5 (Photos 24-26)

Building M-5 is L-shaped in plan and has a cement board exterior scored with decorative vertical lines near the entry (west elevation). It is accented with angular stone veneer and the entry is recessed beneath a large boxy overhang. Large fixed windows and glass doors flank the entry. The roof is flat. The north elevation has several fixed windows and a large sliding door to accommodate loading equipment. Two roll-up doors are located on the east elevation and there are no windows/points of entry on the south side (stone veneer wraps from the facade onto the south side).

Building M-6 (Photos 27—29)

Building M-6 mirrors the L-shaped plan of Building M-5 to the north and originally likely had many of the same exterior finishes. It has been completely remodeled since the time of its construction, however. As is evident in the permit data, there was a fire on the property in the late 1990s and the shell of the building was re-finished at that time. Today it is off-white stucco with dark green painted diamond-shaped accents and green trim. Original windows and doors were replaced with dark tinted glass and a large concrete entry was poured along the west elevation at the main entry (forming a small courtyard/entry area). Several former roll-up doors have been replaced with large black tinted glass panels. The entry on the south elevation is now slightly recessed and accented with stucco columns. The exterior stucco is scored with a decorative geometric pattern throughout. On the east elevation, three roll-up doors remain, although two have been replaced with black tinted glass panels.

Table 17: Building M-6 Permits Permitted Activity Bldg M-6 Year Name on Permit (2991 Copper) 1998 400 cubic yards grading Kifer Industrial

1998 Shell and replace fire damage, built new Aberthaw West MF 1998 Sanitary sewer, add plumbing Kifer Industrial 1998 Fire damage bldg, demolition Occ. B Roland Lampert 1999 Underground storm, add plumbing Aberthaw West 1999 6200 cubic yards grading Aberthaw West

CRAR 50 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Building M-7 (Photos 30-32)

Building M-7 is a low single-story building with a flat roof and rectangular footprint. The main entry is on the south elevation fronting Kifer Road. It is finished in cement board painted off-white with stone veneer at the facade corners and flat metal trim at the roofline painted dark green. Like other buildings on the parcel, large fixed metal windows and a boxy overhang characterize the entry. A roll-up door on the west elevation provides access for loading and additional roll-up doors are located on the east side of the building. The rear of the building (north side) is surrounded by chain link fence and is used for storage.

Building Z-1 (Table 18 and 19, Photos 33, 34, and 35)

Table 18: Building Z-1 Address 3305 Kifer Rd and 2921 Corvin Building Number Z-1 Photos (Appendix B) 33-35 APN 21633001 Zoning Code Light industrial Year Built 1963 OHP Property Data File Not noted California Inventory of Not noted Historic Resources Acres 0.94 Sq. Footage 13,921 Owner/Tenant Adom Moutafian/Kool Metal Awning

Building Z-1 is a concrete building (painted white) with a rectangular footprint. Vertical posts are spaced at regular intervals and the roof is flat. Low, vertical windows accent the facade (west elevation) as well as the south elevation. The entries on the west and south sides are accented with large metal/glass windows and are covered with arched overhangs. The main entry on the west elevation is slightly recessed with mustard colored paint at the entry and brick veneer accenting either side of the entry door. The property is fenced on the east and north sides with barbed wire. There are no decorative elements on the rear of the building (east elevation). Two roll-up doors provide access to the north elevation and an overhang extends from the north side of the building.

CRAR 51 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Table 19: Building Z-1 Permits Year Permitted Activity Bldg Z-1 Name on Permit 1963 Erect industrial shell Type II-N, F2, Landes Const. Co

electrical, plumbing 1966 Erect interior partitions for office and Huber-Hunt Nichols warehouse, Type V-N, electrical, plumbing 1969 Add electrical for manufacture plant Kurze Electric 1969 Add mech. For machine shop T & M Heating and A/C 1970 Add electric for manufacture plant Kurze Electric 1972 Add electrical, plumbing, and mechanical, Red Owen Electric Co. for manufacturing plant 1983 Alter interior, building, electric, plumbing, N.D. Mason Construction mech. 12,000 SF 1983 Partial interior demo Hunter Technology Corp. 1985 Replace furnace County Sheet Metal, INC 1985 Fire doors Wilkirk 2004 Exterior generator All Temp Engineering 2004 Install emergency power generator for N/A ventilation system 2006 Add (1) outlet Adom Moutafian 2015 Lawrence Station Area Plan ---

7.3 Architectural Assessment

The twelve light industrial buildings evaluated within the LSAP were constructed between the mid-1950s and the late 1960s. They are discussed below in relation to the four CRHR criteria used to evaluate historic resources for the purposes of CEQA and as they relate to the historic context prepared for the study area.

(1) Criterion 1 considers a building's association with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. The twelve evaluated buildings are generally associated with the industrial development of Santa Clara in the post-World War II era. That development in its broadest sense is important to the growth of the Bay Area and California economy, specifically as it relates to the connection between the defense industry and the subsequent development of Silicon Valley and the high- tech industry. While the broad pattern is well established and important, the buildings within the specific plan area do not have an important association with the pattern. As a result, WSA does not recommend any of the twelve evaluated buildings as eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 1.

CRAR 52 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

(2) Criterion 2 considers a building’s association with the lives of persons important in our past. Research conducted at the San Jose Public Library as well as through the Office of Historic Properties Property Data File, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, and City of Santa Clara building permits indicates that the twelve buildings have been associated with a variety of builders, owners, and tenants in the last 45 years. While these individuals are representative of those who have constructed and operated light industrial, fabrication, research, and similar businesses in the region in the last half of the 20th century, they are not considered important to California's past, either individually, or as a group. As a result, WSA does not recommend any of the twelve evaluated buildings as eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 2. (3) Criterion 3 considers whether a building embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. The twelve evaluated buildings do not represent the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic values. They exhibit typical low forms in square, rectangular and L-shape plans with flat roofs, decorative elements typical of the building type and era (stone/rock veneer, bands of fixed windows, overhangs of various styles), typical finishes (stucco, cement board), and functional spaces (clean rooms, spray rooms, storage) that are often accessed via large roll-up doors. They are representative of light industrial construction in the mid-1950s through the late 1960s, but do not have an important association with the development of a particular method of construction and do not represent important examples of the style. As a result, WSA does not recommend any of the twelve evaluated buildings as eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 3. (4) Criterion 4 is generally not applied to built resources, and instead considers whether archaeological sites have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. As a result, WSA does not recommend any of the twelve evaluated buildings as eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 4. In order to be eligible to the CRHR, a resource must meet one of the criteria discussed above as well as retain integrity. Integrity is generally considered in relation to seven aspects (design, setting, association, feeling, location, materials, and workmanship). Taken together, the aspects consider a building's ability to convey its significance. In this case, because none of the evaluated buildings meet the CRHR criteria, an extensive discussion of integrity is not warranted.

8.0 Impacts and Mitigation

At this time, one historical resource, CA-SCL-134, has been identified within the eastern portion of the study area. In 2013, WSA recommended CA-SCL-134, a prehistoric archaeological site, as potentially eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 4 and significant under CEQA. The boundaries of CA-SCL-134 have been estimated based on archaeological

CRAR 53 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

data recovery done in association with previous construction. Additional archaeological features may be discovered within the existing site boundary and the boundary itself may expand as new portions of the site are discovered during future ground disturbance.

In addition, one previously recorded site (P-43-000928), a segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad, has been identified 1/4-mile south of the study area. Project-related construction within the study area will not affect P-43-000928, which is an active Caltrain rail alignment that serves the region.

Twelve buildings over 45 years of age have been evaluated for CRHR eligibility as part of this CRAR, although Department of Parks and Recreation documentation (DPR 523 forms) have not been completed and submitted. The following mitigation measures address potential archaeological resources and existing buildings within the study area and are designed to reduce project impacts to any historical resources to a less-than- significant level under CEQA.

Impact 1. A significant impact would occur if CEQA documentation (DPR 523 forms) is not completed for the 12 buildings evaluated as part of this CRAR prior to their demolition.

Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Using the evaluations provided in this CRAR, project sponsors Summerhill Land (Applicant Boundary 2) and Truelife Parcel (Applicant Boundary 4) shall prepare appropriate DPR 523 forms (including the primary form, building, structure, object (BSO) form, sketch map, project location map, and continuation form as needed). As required, these forms shall then be submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) prior to the demolition of the twelve evaluated buildings.

Impact 2. Archaeological site CA-SCL-134 has been recommended as a historical resource under criterion D. A significant impact would occur if ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, excavation, drilling, etc.) associated with project construction disturb, damage, or destroy any element or portion of this buried prehistoric site, or any other previously unknown archaeological site that might be encountered during construction. A significant impact would also occur if construction activities expose buried archaeological features and deposits to erosion, inadvertent damage, or vandalism, which would adversely alter the determination of site significance. CA-SCL-134 consists of a variety of components, including prehistoric human burials, habitation debris, features (hearths, collections of animal remains etc.), numerous isolated artifacts, and intact midden. As discussed above, the current site boundary has been estimated based on archaeological data recovery completely largely within the footprint of previous

CRAR 54 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

construction. As such, only a portion of the site components within the estimated boundary have been excavated and recorded. Additional archaeological features may be discovered within the existing site boundary and the boundary itself may expand if new portions of the site are discovered outside of the recorded boundary during future ground disturbance.

The likelihood of encountering intact cultural resources is considered high within the Project Level-Future Buildout (Applicant Boundary 3) and Truelife Parcel (Applicant Boundary 4) and there is also the possibility that buried archaeological resources may be located outside of the current site boundary. Site preparation, grading, and construction activities could adversely impact previously undiscovered portions of this archeological resource, as well as any not yet identified. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to CA-SCL-134 or any previously unknown archeological resources to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.

Mitigation Measure CULT-2: According to CEQA Section 15126.4 avoidance of historical resources is the preferred mitigation. If avoidance is not feasible, an appropriate plan (archaeological monitoring plan or testing plan) should be prepared to mitigate adverse effects to the site. The plan should be limited to the area of adverse effect.

Before construction, project sponsors within the Project Level-Future Buildout (Applicant Boundary 3) and Truelife Parcel (Applicant Boundary 4) shall obtain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant to analyze specific project impacts and ground disturbance in order to prepare an appropriate archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) or archaeological testing plan (ATP) to ensure there are no adverse impacts to CA-SCL-134, and to address the possibility that project construction may impact previously unknown buried archaeological resources.

Archaeological testing, monitoring, and any resulting data recovery shall be conducted by a professional archaeologist in compliance with CEQA Guideline Section §15064.5. In addition, the consultant should consider the results of Native American consultation, providing for a Native American monitor when applicable during future monitoring or testing. This would fulfill CEQA requirements that the mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project.

Impact 3. A significant impact would occur if ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, excavation, drilling, etc.) associated with project construction disturb, damage, or destroy previously unknown buried historic or prehistoric features and deposits that could be considered significant resources. A significant impact would occur if ground-clearing activities (e.g., grading, brush-hogging, mowing, etc.) exposed to erosion, inadvertent

CRAR 55 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

damage, or vandalism those buried archaeological features and deposits that could be reconsidered historical resources.

In Westlake Urban (Applicant Boundary 1) and Summerhill Land (Applicant Boundary 2), the likelihood of encountering intact cultural resources is considered lower than the Project Level-Future Buildout (Applicant Boundary 3) and Truelife Parcel (Applicant Boundary 4) (where a known prehistoric site is located), but there is the possibility that buried archaeological resources may be located during construction activities. Site preparation, grading, and construction activities could adversely impact previously undiscovered archeological resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to undiscovered archeological resources to a less-than-significant level under CEQA.

Mitigation Measure CULT-3 In accordance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5 (f), should any previously unknown historic-period resources, including but not limited to glass, metal, ceramics, wood, privies, trash deposits or similar debris, be discovered in any of the four project sponsor areas during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 25 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a qualified professional archaeologist has an opportunity to evaluate the potential significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), as determined necessary to protect the resource.

Should any previously unknown prehistoric resources in any of the four project sponsor areas, including but not limited to charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bone, or pockets of dark, friable soils be discovered during grading, trenching, or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 25 feet of these materials shall be stopped until a qualified professional archaeologist and the Native American contacts consulted during preparation of this CRAR have an opportunity to evaluate the potential significance of the find and suggest the appropriate steps to protect the resource. These may include some or all of the following:

(A) According to CEQA Section 15126.4, avoidance is the preferred mitigation. Since CEQA provisions regarding the preservation of historic resources direct that adverse effects to historic resources shall be avoided, if feasible, the resource shall be protected from damaging effects through avoidance.

(B) Avoidance can include, but is not limited to, the following options:

1. Planning construction to avoid the historic site. 2. Incorporation of sites within parks, green space, or other open space.

CRAR 56 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

3. Capping the historic site with a layer of chemically stable soil before construction. Capping the historic site would include installation of a water permeable protective barrier that is covered with a 3-ft.-thick layer of chemically stable soil before constructing non-intrusive facilities on the site. Excavation for landscaping, irrigation or any other purpose shall be limited to the soil layer above the water permeable protective barrier. If the soil layer cannot accommodate all planned underground utilities, a thicker soil layer may be used to cover the site. 4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

(C) If avoidance of any previously undiscovered archaeological site is not feasible, data recovery shall be conducted in accordance with an approved Archaeological Data Recovery Plan (ADRP) to mitigate adverse effects to the significance of the site – the area of data recovery being limited to the area of adverse effect. This would fulfill CEQA requirements that the mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project. A professional, qualified archaeologist shall conduct data recovery in compliance with CEQA Guideline Section §15064.5. Once the site has been properly tested, subject to data recovery, or preserved to the satisfaction of the professional archaeologist in compliance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5, the site can be further developed.

Impact 4. A significant impact would occur if ground-clearing or ground-disturbing activities associated with site preparation, grading, and construction activities could disturb Native American human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The potential to uncover Native American human remains exists in locations throughout California. Although not anticipated outside of the Project Level-Future Buildout (Applicant Boundary 3) and Truelife Parcel (Applicant Boundary 4), human remains may be identified throughout the study area during site-preparation and grading activities, resulting in a significant impact to Native American cultural resources. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential adverse impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure CULT-4: Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety code will be implemented in the event that human remains, or possible human remains, are located in any of the four project sponsor areas during project-related construction excavation. Section 7050.5(b) states:

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably

CRAR 57 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

The County Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties, including the appointment of a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to the project. The MLD, or in lieu of the MLD, the NAHC, has the responsibility to provide guidance to project proponents as to the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains.

CRAR 58 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

9.0 References

Archives & Architecture, LLC 2012 County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement. Prepared for County of Santa Clara Department of Planning & Development Planning Office. December 2004 (revised February 2012).

Beardsley, Richard K. 1948 Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American Antiquity 14(1):1-29. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24-25. University of California, Berkeley.

Beck, Warren A. and Ynez D. Haase 1988 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes 1987 Shell Bead Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64 (2):79-175. American Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.

Bocek, Barbara Rose 1986 Hunter Gatherer Ecology and Settlement Mobility Along San Francisquito Creek. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

Breschini, Gary S. 1983 Models of Population Movements in Central California Prehistory. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

Brown, L. (editor) 1985 The Audubon Society Nature Guides. Grasslands. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.

Cambra, Rosemary, Alan Leventhal, Laura Jones, Les Field and Norma Sanchez 1996 Archaeological Investigations at Kaphan Umux (Three Wolves) Site, CA- SCL-732: A Middle Period Prehistoric Cemetery on Coyote Creek in Southern San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report on file at Caltrans District 4 Offices, Oakland, CA.

Chartkoff, Joseph L. and Kerry Kona Chartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.

CRAR 59 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

City of Santa Clara 2010 Santa Clara “The Mission City.” http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=506 Accessed January 21, 2010.

Cole, Tom 1988 A Short History of San Francisco. Lexikos Publishing, San Francisco, CA.

Cook, Sherburne F. 1943 The Conflict Between the California Mission Indians and White Civilization. Ibero-Americana 22. Berkeley, CA.

Font, Pedro 1930[1776] Font’s Complete Diary of the Second Anza Expedition. Anza’s California Expeditions, Vol. IV. Herbert E. Bolton, editor. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Fredrickson, David A. 1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA. 1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. The Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41-53. 1994 Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered. In Toward a Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology, Richard E. Hughes, editor, pp. 93–104. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley.

Gerow, Burt with Roland Force 1968 An Analysis of the University Village Complex with a Reappraisal of Central California Archaeology. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Groza, Randall 2002 An AMS Chronology of Central California Olivella Shell Beads. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, San Francisco, CA.

Heizer, Robert F. 1964 The Western Coast of North America. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, editors, pp. 117-148. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Heizer, Robert F. and Franklin Fenenga 1939 Archaeological Horizons in Central California. American Anthropologist 41:378-399.

CRAR 60 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Helley, E. J., Graymer, R. W., Phelps, G. A., Showalter, P. K., and Wentworth, C. M., 1994 Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, California: A Digital Database. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-231.

Hughes, Richard E. (editor) 1994 Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology. Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52, Berkeley.

Hylkema, Mark 2007 Santa Clara Valley Prehistory: Archaeological Investigations at CA-SCL- 690, the Tamien Station Site, San Jose, California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis. University of California, Davis.

Hynding, Alan 1984 From Frontier to Suburb: The Story of the San Mateo Peninsula. Star Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution. Bulletin 78, Washington D.C.

Kyle, Douglas A. 1990 Historic Spots in California. Mildred Brooke Hoover, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch and William N. Abeloe, revised by Douglas A. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Levy, Richard S. 1978 Costanoan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Robert F. Heizer, editor, pp. 485-495. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Lightfoot, Kent and Edward Luby 2002 Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area: Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalyst to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, Jon Erlandson and Michael Glassow, editors, pp. 129-141. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, CA.

Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento, CA.

CRAR 61 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Lillard, Jeremiah B., and William K. Purves 1936 The Archaeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento, Co., California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1. Sacramento, CA.

Loud, Llewellyn L. 1912 Notes on Castro Mound #356, site CA-SCL-1. Manuscript 361. On file, Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Milliken, Randall 1983 The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California's San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Master's thesis (Cultural Resources Management), Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.

Milliken, Randall, Richard Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson 2007 Punctuated Culture Change in San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and Complexity, Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, editors, pp. 99-124. Altamira Press, New York, NY.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Nelson, Nels C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Area Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):310-356. University of California, Berkeley.

National Park Service (NPS) 2006 Santa Clara County: California’s Historic Silicon Valley. Accessed May 29, 2006.

Price, Heather, Aimee Arrigoni, Jenni Price, Eric Strother, and Jim Allan 2006 Archaeological Investigations at CA-CCO-309, Rossmoor Basin, Contra Costa County, California. On file with the Nortwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.

Ragir, Sonia 1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 15. Berkeley.

CRAR 62 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Robertson, Donald B. 1998 Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History: California, Vol. 4. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell, ID.

Schenck, William E. and Egbert J. Dawson 1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289-413. Berkeley.

Shipley, William F. 1978 Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, Robert F. Heizer, editor, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Shoup, Lawrence H., Randall T. Milliken and Alan K. Brown 1995 Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian and His Land. Prepared by Archaeological/Historical Consultants, Oakland, CA for Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, CA.

Stanger, Frank M. and Alan K. Brown 1969 Who Discovered the Golden Gate? The Explorers’ Own Accounts. San Mateo Historical Society, San Mateo, CA.

Western Regional Climate Center 2010 Monthly Climate Summary, Santa Clara University, California, 7/1/1893 to 5/31/1976. Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, NV. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7912 accessed 10/19/2010.

Wiberg, Randy S. 1997 Archaeological Investigations at Site CA-ALA-42, Alameda County, California: Final Report. Coyote Press, Salinas, CA.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Wohlgemuth, Eric 2004 The Course of Plant Food Intensification in Native Central California. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

CRAR 63 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Young, Robert N. and Paul F. Griffin 1957 Recent Land-Use Changes in the San Francisco Bay Area. Geographical Review, Vol. 47/3:396-405.

CRAR 64 WSA Lawrence Station Area Plan July 2016

Appendix A

NAHC Consultation and Native American Contacts

Lawrence Station Area Plan

Santa Clara

City of Santa Clara

Payal Bhagat, City of Santa Clara

1500 Warburton Avenue

Santa Clara, CA 95050

(408) 615-2458

(408) 247-9857

[email protected]

See next page Project Description:

The Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP) proposes future transit-oriented development (TOD) mixed-use neighborhoods around the existing Lawrence Caltrain Station near Lawrence Expressway with establishment of a land use plan and policy framework to guide future development. While the Lawrence Caltrain station is located within the City of Sunnyvale, the station is adjacent to the City of Santa Clara limits. Figure 1 shows the LSAP study area that is located within the City of Santa Clara. As shown, the study area is located north of the Lawrence Caltrain Station between Central Expressway to the north, Kifer Road to the South, Calabazas Creek to the east, and Lawrence Expressway to the west. Existing development in the study area is predominantly used for offices, industrial, and research and development land use purposes. Overall, up to 3,000 dwelling units and approximately 45,000 square feet of retail is proposed. The goal of the project is to transform the station area into a pedestrian friendly residential neighborhood with appropriate services, broaden and strengthen the range of variable transportation choices, and encourage efficient use of available land and infrastructure.

A portion of the project is program-level and will ultimately establish a conceptual vision for future development. However, the City has received residential/commercial development applications for a portion of the LSAP area. These areas are depicted in blue on Figure 1. Given this, the environmental document will provide project-level analysis of the proposed developments and program-level analysis in remaining portions of the LSAP (where no specific development is proposed at this time).

Lawrence Station Area Plan Program/Project EIR

SAN FRANCISCO CITY OF SANTA CLARA Central Expressway

SAN

t Corvin Dr Corvin

S JOSE

SANTA Lawrence Expressway Lawrence Lawrence Expressway Lawrence Ryder CLARA

Copper Rd

Gordon Ave Kifer Rd Legend Uranium Dr. Study Area

City of Santa Clara Lawrence Caltrain Limits Station Near-Term Development (2-10 yrs.)

Calabazas Creek Calabazas Long-Term Development (10+ yrs.) CITY OF SUNNYVALE

Monroe St

0 1,000 250 FEET

Figure Lawrence Station Area Plan Study Area 1 Source: Circlepoint, 2015

WSA Consultants in Archaeology and Historic Preservation

November 19, 2015

Ms. Jakki Kehl 720 North 2nd Street Patterson, CA 95363

RE: Lawrence Station Area Plan Project, Santa Clara County, CA

Dear Ms. Kehl,

WSA has been contracted by Circlepoint to prepare a Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the Lawrence Station Area Plan Project (project), located in the City and County of Santa Clara. The proposed project area is approximately 70-acres in size and is situated near the Lawrence Caltrain Station. It is bounded by Central Expressway to the north, Calabazas Creek to the east, Kifer Rd. to the south, and Lawrence Expressway to the west. (Milpitas 7.5’ Topographic Map, Township 6S, Range 1W, Section 29).

The project area is currently developed with light industrial and commercial uses. The project is designed to increase transit ridership and proposes to replace existing buildings with residential and commercial buildings.

We would appreciate a response, at your earliest convenience, should you have any comments regarding cultural resources or sacred sites issues within the immediate project area. If you could provide your comments in writing to the address below, or call me at (925) 253-9070, we will make sure the comments are provided to our client as part of this project.

Thank you again for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Aimee Arrigoni, M.A. Project Director

Attachment: Map

P.O. Box 2192 WSA, Inc. Phone: 925-253-9070 61d Avenida de Orinda Fax: 925-254-3553 Orinda CA 94563 Email:[email protected] Circlepoint: Lawrence Station Area Plan Record of Native American Contacts and Comments Date of Date of Date of Notificati Follow- Native American Contact Phone Comments Comments on Letter Up Phone Contact (certified) Contact Would like to Ms Jakki Kehl review the Records nd Spoke with Jakki, she 720 North 2 Street Search before hasn't had time to 11/19/15 12/9/15 making any 12/28/15 Patterson, CA 95363 review the comments. Sent 510-701-3975 documents yet [email protected] records search results on 12/22/15. Katherine Erolinda Perez P.O. Box 717 Left message on Left message on Linden, CA 95236 11/19/15 12/9/15 12/18/15 voicemail voicemail 209-887-3415 [email protected] Linda G. Yamane 1585 Mira Mar Avenue Left message on Left message on Seaside, CA 93955 11/19/15 12/9/15 12/18/15 voicemail voicemail 831-394-5915 [email protected] Mr Valentin Lopez, Chairperson Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Tribe Left message on Out of their territory 11/19/15 12/9/15 12/18/15 PO Box 5272 voicemail - no comment Galt, CA 95632 916-743-5833 [email protected] Mr. Edward Ketchum Amah Mutsun Tribal Band 35867 Yosemite Ave. 11/19/15 12/18/15 Sent email 12/28/15 Sent follow up email Davis, CA 95616 [email protected] Ms Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson She recommends Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of NA monitor during Mission San Juan Bautista construction. Asked 789 Canada Road 11/19/15 12/9/15 if we would be ------Woodside, CA 94062 conducting a 650-400-4806 cell pedestrian survey of 650-332-1526 fax the area. [email protected] Date of Date of Date of Notificati Follow- Native American Contact Phone Comments Comments on Letter Up Phone Contact (certified) Contact Ms Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Left message on Left message on 11/19/15 12/9/15 12/18/15 P.O. Box 28 voicemail voicemail Hollister, CA 95024 831-637-4238 [email protected] Ms Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area Needs more time to Left message on review the project P.O. Box 360791 11/19/15 12/9/15 12/18/15 voicemail and make her Milpitas, CA 95036 recommendations. 408-314-1898 510-581-5194 [email protected] Mr Andrew Galvan The Ohlone Indian Tribe P.O. Box 3152 Left message on Left message on Fremont, CA 94539 11/19/15 12/9/15 12/18/15 voicemail voicemail 510-882-0527 cell 510-687-9393 fax [email protected] Ms Ramona Garibay, Representative Trina Marine Ruano Family She is okay with our 30940 Watkins Street 11/19/15 12/9/15 ------recommendations Union City, CA 94587 510-972-0645 [email protected]

Appendix B

Photographs

Photo 1. View South down Copper Rd. to Kifer Rd.

Photo 2. View East, showing typical hardscape and landscaping in the survey area.

Photo 3. View North, strip of lawn along eastern edge of 3505 Kifer Rd.

Photo 4. View North, along western side of 3505 Kifer Rd.

Photo 5. View West, showing the park in between N1, O1, O2, and N2

Photo 6. View North, showing Calabazas Creek as a concrete channelized waterway.

Photo 7. Building H-1 east elevation.

Photo 8 Building H-1 south elevation

Photo 9. Building I-1 northwest of east-facing loading dock area

Photo 10 Building I-1 view southeast

Photo 11 Building J-1 northwest elevation

Photo 12 Building J-1 northeast elevation

Photo 13. Building L-1 south elevation.

Photo 14 Building L-1 south elevation

Photo 15. Building M-1 west elevation.

Photo 16. Building M-1 south and west elevation.

Photo 17. Building M-2 west elevation.

Photo 18. Building M-2 north elevation.

Photo 19. Building M-3 south elevation.

Photo 19. Building M-3 north and west elevation.

Photo 20. Building M-3 east elevation.

Photo 21. Building M-4 south elevation.

Photo 22. Building M-4 south elevation.

Photo 23. Building M-4 east elevation.

Photo 24. Building M-5 west elevation.

Photo 25. Building M-5 south elevation.

Photo 26. Building M-5 north elevation.

Photo 27. Building M-6 west elevation.

Photo 28. Building M-6 west elevation.

Photo 29. Building M-6 south elevation.

Photo 30. Building M-7 south elevation.

Photo 31. Building M-7 north elevation.

Photo 32. Building M-7 east elevation.

Photo 33. Building Z-1west elevation.

Photo 34. Building Z-1 north elevation.

Photo 35. Building Z-1 south elevation.

This page intentionally left blank.