4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section describes existing sensitive cultural and historical resources in the City of San Mateo, regulations protecting those resources, and the potential for the proposed General Plan Update to impact these resources. This analysis is summarized from a review of historic building records; a prior archaeological investigation performed by David Chavez, consulting archaeologist for the City of San Mateo Planning Department; and a cultural resource assessment for the Versailles Housing Project prepared in April 2005 by Basin Research Associates, a consulting firm specializing in the analysis of cultural resources, to identify prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in the City and vicinity.1 The City of San Mateo has initiated consultation with Native American tribes as required under Senate Bill (SB) 18. As a result, the City received a list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places in the area. The City contacted these tribes for further consultation.

The following definitions are common terms used to discuss the regulatory requirements and treatment of cultural resources:

• Cultural resources is the term used to describe several different types of properties: prehistoric and historical archaeological sites; architectural properties such as buildings, bridges, and infrastructure; and resources of importance to Native Americans.

• Historic properties is a term defined by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property.

• Historical resource is a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) term that includes buildings, sites, structures, objects, or districts, each of which may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance, and is eligible for listing or is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

• Paleontological resource is defined as including fossilized remains of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms, fossil tracks and trackways, and plant fossils. A unique paleontological site would include a known area of fossil-bearing rock strata.

4.10.1 EXISTING SETTING

PREHISTORY

The City of San Mateo is set between two dominant physical features, to the east and the ridge of hills along the City’s western border. The project area was within an environmentally advantageous area for Native Americans, falling between the resources of the San Francisco bayshore (shellfish, fish, waterfowl, tule) and the foothills (acorns, seed, game, stone). In addition, San Mateo Creek provided a year-round source of water and riparian resources. North-south travel would have been relatively easy between the marshy bayshore and rugged hills, and several nearby passes provide access to the interior San Andreas rift valleys and the Pacific Coast.

1 As this assessment is primarily summarized from both the Citywide Archaeological Report prepared by David Chavez and a cultural resource assessment conducted by Basin Research Associates for the Versailles project, this section incorporates by reference all of the sources from these two reports. Both reports are available for review in the City of San Mateo Planning Division.

City of San Mateo General Plan Update July 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-1 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Native American occupation and use of the general area appears to extend over 5000–7000 years and may be longer. Evidence for early occupation along the bayshore has been hidden by rising sea levels from about 15,000 to 7,000 years ago, or was buried under sediments caused by bay marshland infilling along estuary margins from about 7,000 years onward. Early occupants concentrated on hunting, gathering various plant foods, and collecting shellfish. Archaeological information suggests an increase in the prehistoric population over time with an increasing focus on permanent settlements with large populations in later periods. This change from hunter-collectors to an increased sedentary lifestyle is due to more efficient resource procurement but with a focus on staple food exploitation, the increased ability to store food at village locations, and the development of increasingly complex social and political systems including long-distance trade networks. The information obtained from archaeological studies in the general area has played a key role in refining both the local and regional interpretations of Native American history for central California.

Occupation and socio-cultural utilization of the San Mateo Peninsula area, prior to European contact, is not well known. Many prehistoric archaeological sites have been destroyed or are not accessible due to ground surface cover. Based on the data from archaeological sites which have survived, available data from sites located in other Bay counties (San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa) and ethnographic sources, it is possible to present at least a partial picture of the prehistoric human activities in the area.

According to Chavez, the prehistoric way of life in the San Mateo Peninsula can be characterized as a hunting and gathering network of subsistence systems. Seasonally, parties went out from the villages to temporary camps within their territory to exploit the various available resources through hunting and gathering techniques. Subsistence patterns included the exploitation of marine resources by gathering mussel and shellfish in season, fishing for trout and salmon, taking of seals, and hunting land mammals. Intensive use of plant foods included the common utilization of acorns through the leaching process. Ethnographic evidence suggests that San Mateo area people apparently relied on seed-bearing annual plants which were burned over yearly to increase the yield. Native hazelnuts, tubers, and grasses were gathered and baked in earthen ovens.

Amateur archaeologist Jerome Hamilton recorded 40 shell mounds along San Mateo Creek and its immediate vicinity between 1896 and 1936. The Hamilton Mounds (Hamilton 1896-1936) were field checked by Chavez (1983) and most have been assigned reported cultural resource “C” numbers by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, CSU Sonoma (CHRIS/NWIC) rather than official trinomial site numbers.

The sites in the study area generally consist of dark midden (culturally affected) soils containing large quantities of shell, primarily obtained from the bayshore area. According to Hamilton’s data, aboriginal human remains were reported from all but four of his 40 sites, and all but three contained large and varied artifact assemblages including mortars, pestles, manos, charmstones, bone and deer/elk horn tools, projectile points (including obsidian), and shell ornaments. Unfortunately, most of the mound sites in the general study area have been leveled and partially covered by roads, buildings, parking lots, and even a park over the past 70 to 100 years. The midden from the mounds was used to construct garden paths, sidewalks, roads, and even tennis courts in the San Mateo area.

The prehistoric sites recorded by Hamilton were reported to range in size from 2,000 square feet to 4 acres, although the majority of site boundaries have never been formally determined for any of the sites. On the average, the sites appear to have extended over 1 acre. Hamilton recorded mound heights ranging from 2 to 25 feet with an average of 7 feet. Chronological

General Plan Update City of San Mateo Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2009 4.10-2 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES sequences have not been defined for any of the sites, primarily due to the lack of controlled archaeological excavations.

ETHNOGRAPHY

The California Indians who occupied the Peninsula at the time of European contact are known as the Costanoan. The term Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word Costanos, meaning coast people. No native name for the Costanoan people as a whole is known to have existed in prehistoric times. Bay Area descendents of these people prefer the name Ohlone. Informational sources for Ohlone ethnographic data are limited primarily to European accounts during visits to the coast.

Linguistic evidence suggests that the immediate ancestry of the historically known Ohlone people moved into the San Francisco region about A.D. 500. Likely they migrated from the Delta of the San Joaquin Sacramento River area. This theory of Costanoan language arrival into the San Francisco area is chronologically consistent with the appearance of Late Horizon artifact assemblages in archaeological sites in the Bay Area.

The Ramaytush subdivision of the Costanoan included much of present day San Mateo and San Francisco counties. Based on Spanish mission records and archaeological data, researchers have estimated a population of 1,400 for the Ramaytush group in 1770. The Ssalson tribelet (San Mateo Area) included seven villages located primarily along San Mateo Creek. The Ssalson held minimally 30-35 square miles of foothill and bayshore.

The aboriginal lifeway apparently disappeared by 1810 due to its disruption by EuroAmerican diseases, a declining birth rate, the cataclysmic impact of the mission system, and the later secularization of the missions by the Mexican government. The Costanoan were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers who lived at the missions and worked with former neighboring groups such as the Yokut, Miwok, and Patwin. After secularization of the missions between 1834 and 1836, some Native Americans returned to traditional religious and subsistence practices while others labored on Mexican ranchos. Thus, multi-ethnic Indian communities grew up in and around Costanoan territory and provided informant testimony to ethnologists from 1878 to 1933.

HISTORIC CONTEXT

Spanish Period

Spanish explorers in the late 1760s and 1770s were the first Europeans to traverse the . The first party, that of Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan Crespi, traveled up the coast in search of Monterey Bay but failed to recognize it based on previous descriptions. In the fall of 1769, they first sighted San Francisco Bay from a ridge on the Peninsula. Sergeant Jose Francisco Ortega scouted the area although his exact route remains uncertain. The second exploration party, that of Fernando Javier Rivera and Father Francisco Palou, reached the San Francisco Peninsula in late 1774. They selected the Palo Alto area for a mission site but continued to travel north to San Francisco.

In 1776, Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza and Father Pedro Font traveled from Monterey to San Francisco to select the settlement sites. Font, who accompanied Anza’s expedition, commented in his diary entry dated Tuesday, March 26, 1776, on the existence of “a good-sized village situated on the banks of the arroyo of San Matheo.” On March 29, 1776, the party of explorers

City of San Mateo General Plan Update July 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES camped at the banks of the creek – placed at Arroyo Court and the north side of Third Avenue on the south side of San Mateo Creek.

The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail [1776] places their northward route along present-day El Camino Real/State Route 82 and their return along Skyline Boulevard. El Camino Real/State Route 82 ran from Mission San Diego de Alcala in San Diego to Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Dolores) in San Francisco. A few months after the return of Anza and Font to Monterey, Lieutenant Jose Moraga led a party of 193 colonists up the Peninsula to settle at the mission and presidio, also camping on San Mateo Creek en route.

Within the province of Alta California, four institutions were used to settle the land: the missions, the presidios, the pueblos, and the ranchos. Of the four, the missions were the most successful. Between 1769 and 1823, 21 missions were established by the Franciscan priests along the California coast between San Diego and Sonoma. The first task of the missions was to Christianize the natives who became the main force behind the economic development of Spanish California. Mission San Francisco de Asis (also known as Mission San Francisco Dolores or Mission Dolores for its location on Arroyo de los Dolores) was formally established on October 9, 1776, the sixth of the 21 missions founded in California. As one of seven missions located within Costanoan territory, Mission San Francisco was the mission with the greatest impact on the native population living in the study area and the Peninsula.

By 1800, almost all of the Native Americans of the Peninsula had been brought into the mission fold, and as a result the mission area became overcrowded. In addition, the sandy and windswept San Francisco made for poor farming, so in the 1780s Palou established a rancheria in San Pedro Valley to resettle the neophytes and provide food for both the mission and the presidio. This settlement was successful until 1791, when an epidemic decimated the native population. Soldiers from the presidio were sent out to round up new converts from the East Bay and soon a new rancheria was established in San Mateo.

About 1793, an adobe was built on the north bank of San Mateo Creek along El Camino Real, the trail connecting the San Francisco outpost with Monterey. This “hospice” or outpost also functioned as a way station from Santa Clara to Mission Dolores. The footprint of the building appears to have straddled the southeast corner of Baywood Avenue and El Camino Real. This three-room structure was constructed near Moraga’s 1776 campsite and has been described as about 20 x 75 feet with a tile roof.

The neophytes raised wheat, corn, and vegetables and tended herds of sheep and cattle at various locations on the San Mateo peninsula and on the east side of the Peninsula, run by Indian workers living in one or two huts. The San Mateo rancheria was by far the largest of these agricultural outposts, as well as a stopping place for travelers on El Camino Real. In 1810 the San Mateo adobe was destroyed by an earthquake and a new, larger adobe was built.

Reportedly the mission outpost at San Mateo specialized in producing wool, salt, grain, and vegetables. By 1798 about 175 acres of grain were in production “presumably in the bottomland on the north side of San Mateo Creek.” By 1800, 30 mission-trained Native Americans were living in and around the adobe. The peak year of 1812 lists 11,098 bushels of grain, beans, peas and lentils and other crops, 10,000 sheep, and more than 10,000 cattle.

Mexican Period

During the Spanish Period (1769-1822) the philosophy of government was directed at the founding of presidios, missions, and pueblos with the land held by the Crown, whereas the later

General Plan Update City of San Mateo Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2009 4.10-4 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Mexican policy stressed the individual ownership of land. During the Mexican Period (1822-1848) vast tracts of land were granted to individuals. On the Peninsula, 18 ranchos were granted from mission lands. The Mexican period in California is an outgrowth of the Mexican Revolution, and its accompanying social and political views affected the mission system. The missions were secularized in 1833 and their lands divided among the as land grants called ranchos. Owners of ranchos used local populations, including Native Americans, essentially as forced labor to accomplish work on their large tracts of land. Consequently, Native American groups across California were forced into a marginalized existence as peons or vaqueros on the large ranchos.

The end of the Mexican-American War and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 marked the beginning of the American period (1848-Present) in California history. The rancho system generally remained intact until 1862–1864, when a drought forced many landowners to sell off or subdivide their holdings.

American Period

The initial population explosion on the Peninsula was associated with the after 1848, followed later by the construction of the transcontinental railroad in the late 1860s. European immigration and the development of a prosperous dairy industry had an impact on population growth in the area. Until about World War II, San Mateo County had a substantial agricultural or rural land use pattern. Former ranchos underwent a transformation in concert with the growth of transportation systems, the City of San Francisco, and other towns south of the city in San Mateo County. These major transportation nodes include the El Camino Real, the San Jose and San Francisco Railroad in 1863 (later Southern Pacific Railroad), and the construction of the Bayshore Highway (now US 101). The San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906 and post- World War II settlement were responsible for notable growth spurts in the communities along the Peninsula.

The San Mateo adobe continued to play a part during the American Period in the City of San Mateo. In 1849, Nicholas DePeyster moved into the abandoned mission building, repaired it, and converted it into an inn. Not long after DePeyster opened his inn, William D.M. Howard, the legal patentee of Rancho San Mateo, took control of the property and forced him to leave. DePeyster moved across San Mateo Creek and built a new inn, known as San Mateo House, at Second and El Camino. San Mateo House served as a major way station for the Butterfield Overland Mail Stages along El Camino Real/State Route 82. After the second abandonment, the adobe may have been used to store hay. Although gradually deteriorating, the building was severely damaged in the 1868 earthquake and demolished, with the remnants of the adobe reportedly dumped into the south garden lawn of St. Cyr’s estate.

San Mateo County was created in 1856 from the southern part of San Francisco County and enlarged by annexing part of Santa Cruz County in 1868. The town of San Mateo began to develop in the 1860s. In May 1861, construction began on the railroad to link San Francisco with San Jose (the first train service through San Mateo was on October 17, 1863). Charles Polhemus, a director of the San Francisco-San Jose Railroad which ran through San Mateo, had William Lewis plan the town in 1862 and the first plat of the City of San Mateo consisted of about 16 blocks around the railroad depot. The first building to be erected near the tracks was the train station, but it wasn’t long before buildings were constructed in the area of Main Street and Railroad Avenue. This was the beginning of downtown San Mateo.

The opening of railroad service in San Mateo attracted many San Franciscans to the area. Wealthy San Franciscans bought up portions of Rancho San Mateo (on the north side of San

City of San Mateo General Plan Update July 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-5 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Mateo Creek) and Pulgas Rancho (on the south side of San Mateo Creek) and developed large estates, with the majority of property owned by a few families. Gradually, portions of other estates were incorporated into the town. San Mateo became an ideal place for building summer and weekend homes for people who worked in San Francisco. The resulting population that developed in San Mateo was largely made up of people employed in the service of these great mansions. San Mateo developed into a “business district” in the middle of farm country, complete with a waterfront and shipping industry located where San Mateo Creek became a tidal slough.

In 1889 there were many important events in the developing San Mateo community. Under head engineer Herman Schussler, the Crystal Springs dam was completed. The completion of this project assured that the people of San Mateo would have quality drinking water, allowing for further growth in the area. The activity surrounding the construction of the dam further added to San Mateo’s growing population. William Howard had part of his estate opened for subdivision. Although subdividing had been attempted in the past, this was the first successful attempt at selling smaller plots of land. With this, the middle class moved to San Mateo. In this same year, Richard H. Jury and Charles N. Kirkbride established the Leader, San Mateo's first successful newspaper and one of the earliest proponents of the incorporation of San Mateo. On September 3, 1894, in a vote of 150 in favor of and 25 against incorporation, San Mateo became a town.

KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PLANNING AREA

The City has been mapped for archaeological sensitivity (Chavez, 1983). The “high sensitivity” zone includes recorded archaeological sites and the immediate area which are favorable sites. The 1983 survey concluded that while soil removal and construction have eliminated most above-ground shell mounds, good potential still exists for the presence of undisturbed subsurface archaeological deposits at surveyed sites. It was also concluded that high research potential exists for sites adjacent to San Mateo Creek. The “medium sensitivity” zone includes areas surrounding the high sensitivity areas and other locales where, while no sites are recorded, the settings are similar to those where recorded sites do occur. The majority of the City is in a “low sensitivity” zone wherein archaeological resources are not generally expected but may occur. Because of concerns over the looting of sites, Chavez’s map is available only for inspection in the Planning Division office. In addition, site-specific archaeological investigations for individual development projects have taken place in conformance with City policies and conditions of approval since the development of the Chavez map. Copies of these investigations are kept in the Planning Division.

The establishment of the Downtown at B Street and Third Avenue as a result of the arrival of the railroad is one key to the development character and history of the City. The second key is the establishment of estates and country homes in San Mateo during the 1800s and then the subdivision of those estates in the early 1900s. As a result of this early start in suburbanization, San Mateo has many historically significant buildings, structures, and landmark sites. Individual buildings of distinction are important to San Mateo’s economy and quality of life. These structures contribute to neighborhood identity and cultural diversity; they add to the overall character of the City and the viability of the City for new businesses. Over the years, significant buildings have been lost to make way for new development or due to fire, demolition, or neglect, and with them elements of associated eras, stories, and personalities have been lost. Interest in preservation of these structures among City residents has grown over the years.

In 1989, a historic building survey was completed for the City of San Mateo. The survey identified some 200 historically significant buildings. Because of the large number of structures, the survey

General Plan Update City of San Mateo Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2009 4.10-6 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES focused primarily on the oldest neighborhoods, most of which are located east of El Camino Real (SR 82). Survey efforts were concentrated in the traditional downtown area, particularly along B Street and Third Avenue, and the neighborhoods of Central, East San Mateo, Hayward Park, San Mateo Heights, and North Central. Other areas west of El Camino Real and south of Hayward Park through 25th Avenue were visually surveyed only. The City has two identified historic districts, the Downtown Historic District and the Glazenwood Historic District. The downtown area is of particular importance and interest with respect to historic structures. These historic structures, as identified in the 1989 survey, contribute to Downtown’s identity and add to the overall character of the City. The areas along Third Avenue and B Street contain the largest concentration of historical structures within the Downtown and form the Downtown Historic District.

In addition to the historic building survey work done in 1989, there have been other historic evaluations performed on structures in the City. These evaluations typically coincided with planning applications for alterations or substantial removal of dwellings and commercial buildings. These evaluations have led to additional buildings being added to the City’s data base for historic structures. It should be noted that there are five buildings in the City that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (listed by official name of resource): Ernest Coxhead House on East Santa Inez; De Sabla Teahouse and Tea Garden on De Sabla Avenue; Hotel Saint Matthew on Second Avenue; National Bank of San Mateo on B Street: and the U.S. Post Office on South Ellsworth Street.

KNOWN PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE PLANNING AREA

Paleontology is defined as a science dealing with the life of past geological periods as known from fossil remains. Paleontological resources include fossil remains, as well as fossil localities and formations that have produced fossil material. Such locations and specimens are important nonrenewable resources. CEQA offers protection for these sensitive resources and requires that they be addressed during the environmental impact report (EIR) process. There are no known paleontological resources in the City of San Mateo.

4.10.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE

California Environmental Quality Act

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.”

“Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 [a], [b]). The term embraces any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest.

City of San Mateo General Plan Update July 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-7 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be historical resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (Pub. Resources Code, Section 5024.1 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4850). Unless a resource listed in a survey has been demolished, lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource to be potentially eligible for the CRHR.

In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentially impacted by a proposed project are listed or have been identified in a survey process (Public Resources Code 5024.1 [g]), lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate them against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources (Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 [a][3]). Following State CEQA Guidelines Section 21084.5 (a) and (b), a historical resource is defined as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that:

a) is historically or archeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California; and

b) meets any of the following criteria:

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.

Archaeological resources may also qualify as historical resources, and Public Resources Code 5024 requires consultation with the Office of Historic Preservation when a project may impact historical resources located on state-owned land.

For historic structures, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (b)(3) indicates that a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995) shall mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. Potential eligibility also rests upon the integrity of the resource. Integrity is defined as the retention of the resource’s physical identity that existed during its period of significance. Integrity is determined through considering the setting, design, workmanship, materials, location, feeling, and association of the resource.

As noted above, CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact “unique archaeological resources.” Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, subdivision (g), states that “ ‘unique archaeological resource’ means an archaeological artifact, object, or site

General Plan Update City of San Mateo Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2009 4.10-8 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

a) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

b) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

c) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.”

Treatment options under Section 21083.2 include activities that preserve such resources in place in an undisturbed state. Other acceptable methods of mitigation under Section 21083.2 include excavation and curation or study in place without excavation and curation (if the study finds that the artifacts would not meet one or more of the criteria for defining a unique archaeological resource).

Advice on procedures to identify cultural resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effects is given in several agency publications such as the series produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The technical advice series produced by OPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities, including, but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associations, and societies, be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of their antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains.

Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered. The code 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 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.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (e) requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are those of Native Americans, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native Americans, if any, as timely identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. Section 15064.5 directs the lead

City of San Mateo General Plan Update July 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-9 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES agency (or applicant), under certain circumstances, to develop an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains.

In addition to the mitigation provisions pertaining to accidental discovery of human remains, the State CEQA Guidelines also require that a lead agency make provisions for the accidental discovery of historical or archaeological resources, generally. Pursuant to Section 15064.5, subdivision (f), these provisions should include “an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be available. Work could continue on other parts of the building site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place.”

Senate Bill 18

As of March 1, 2005, Senate Bill 18 (Gov. Code, Sections 65352.3, 65352.4) requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005, a city or county must consult with Native American tribes with respect to the possible preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, specified Native American places, features, and objects located within that jurisdiction. The City of San Mateo initiated the consultation process as required under these provisions of the Government Code. As a result, the City received a list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places in the area. The City contacted these tribes for further consultation on May 4, 2009. Two tribes responded. Of these two tribes, one tribe expressed interest in being informed on the General Plan Update, while the other tribe provided information on an archaeological consultant firm in the San Mateo area. The City is aware of this consulting firm and has used the firm for project-related archaeological investigations.

LOCAL

County of San Mateo General Plan

The San Mateo County General Plan addresses the identification, conservation, and protection of cultural and historic resources in the county (General Plan Policies 5.10 through 5.26).

City Zoning Code Requirements

Chapter 27.66 Historic Preservation of the City’s Zoning Code (Municipal Code) requires public review and submittal of a Site Plan and Architectural Review planning application for any individually eligible building for the National Register of Historic Places or contributor building in the Downtown. Any modifications are evaluated for conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures.

4.10.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Following Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and Section 15064.5 and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, cultural resource impacts are considered to be significant if implementation of the project considered would result in any of the following:

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource or an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, respectively;

General Plan Update City of San Mateo Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2009 4.10-10 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

2. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature; or

3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines “substantial adverse change” as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource is materially impaired.

METHODOLOGY

City of San Mateo Planning staff performed the review of current cultural and archeological information and historic building records for the preparation of the General Plan EIR. These investigations included review of the proposed General Plan goals, policies, and text; review of the Chavez 1983 Archaeological Investigations Report for the City of San Mateo, including copies of the Jerome Hamilton Shellmounds Map; review and update of the City of San Mateo Historic Resources Inventory; and all historic building evaluations submitted to the City (for development projects).

The City also requested a consultation list of Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The City contacted all groups on the list provided by NAHC. The City contacted these tribes for further consultation on May 4, 2009. Two tribes responded. Of these two tribes, one tribe expressed interest in being informed on the General Plan Update, while the other tribe provided information on an archaeological consultant firm in the San Mateo area. The City is aware of this consulting firm and has used the firm for project-related archaeological investigations.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Known and Unknown Prehistoric Resources, Historic Resources, Human Remains, and Paleontological Resources

Impact 4.10.1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the potential disturbance of cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) and human remains. This would be a less than significant impact given existing City standards and proposed General Plan Update policies.

The City has been mapped for archaeological sensitivity and is divided into three sensitivity zones. The high sensitivity zone includes recorded archaeological sites and the immediate area which are favorable sites. The 1983 survey concluded that while soil removal and construction have eliminated most above ground shell mounds, good potential still exists for the presence of undisturbed subsurface archaeological deposits at surveyed sites. It was also concluded that high research potential exists for sites adjacent to San Mateo Creek. The medium sensitivity zone includes areas surrounding the high sensitivity areas and other locales where, while no sites are recorded, the settings are similar to those where recorded sites do occur. The majority of the City is in a low sensitivity zone wherein archaeological resources are not generally expected but may occur. There are no known paleontological resources in the City of San Mateo. The City of San Mateo is nearly built out, and future development would likely occur in previously disturbed areas. However, this does not preclude the possibility that fossils or other paleontological resources could be discovered during site excavation as part of future development projects in the City. Consequently, there is a potential to discover cultural resources and human remains

City of San Mateo General Plan Update July 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-11 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES during development construction in areas encompassed by the General Plan Update. Since the City is mostly a built-out community and future development would likely occur in previously disturbed areas, the impact is considered less than significant.

San Mateo has many historically significant buildings, structures, and landmark sites that are important to the City’s character, economy, and quality of life. Over the years, significant buildings have been lost to make way for new development, by fire, or by neglect leading to demolition. As such, there is the potential for loss of historically significant structures in the City.

The City’s 1989 historic building survey identified some 200 historically significant buildings. This survey is the basis for General Plan policies and Zoning Code requirements for the review of historic buildings on the City’s List of Eligible Historic Structures during the development review planning process. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA, there have been other historic evaluations performed on structures in the City during the review of development proposals. Project specific historic reviews will reduce the potential loss of significant historic structures.

General Plan Policies

The following policy provisions are proposed in the General Plan Update to address cultural resources impacts:

C/OS 7.1: Resource Protection. Preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, archaeological sites with significant cultural, historical, or sociological merit.

C/OS 8.1: Historic Preservation. Preserve, where feasible, historic buildings as follows:

a. Prohibit the demolition of historic buildings until a building permit is authorized subject to approval of a planning application.

b. Require the applicant to submit alternatives on how to preserve the historic building as part of any planning application and implement methods of preservation unless health and safety requirements cannot be met.

c. Require that all exterior renovations of historic buildings conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures.

d. Historic building shall mean buildings which are on or individually eligible for the National Register or Downtown Historic District contributor buildings as designated in the 1989 Historic Building Survey Report, or as determined to be eligible through documentation contained in a historic resources report. The City Council by resolution may add or delete any building which it finds does, or does not, meet the criteria for the National Register or other criteria defined by the City Council to establish buildings of local historical significance.

C/OS 8.2: Historic Districts. Consider the protection of concentrations of buildings which convey the flavor of local historical periods or provide an atmosphere of exceptional architectural interest or integrity, after additional study.

C/OS 8.3: Structure Rehabilitation. Promote the rehabilitation of historic structures; consider alternative building codes and give historic structures priority status for available rehabilitation funds.

General Plan Update City of San Mateo Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2009 4.10-12 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

C/OS 8.4: Inventory Maintenance. Establish and maintain an inventory of architecturally, culturally, and historically significant structures and sites.

C/OS 8.5: Public Awareness. Foster public awareness and appreciation of the City's historic, architectural, and archaeological resources.

Zoning Code Requirements

Chapter 27.66 Historic Preservation of the Zoning Code (Municipal Code) requires public review and submittal of a Site Plan and Architectural Review planning application for any individually eligible building for the National Register of Historic Places or contributor building in the Downtown. Any modifications are evaluated for conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures.

Standard Conditions of Project Approval

The City of San Mateo has developed specific conditions of project approval that address the potential for discovery of cultural and paleontological resources as a result of development in the City. The following archaeological conditions of approval are applied to development projects in the high and medium archaeological sensitivity zones of the City. In addition, projects with subterranean excavation in the high sensitivity areas are required to provide an archaeological report for the site during the planning application process for review under CEQA. The paleontological condition of approval also applies to projects with subterranean excavation.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS – In the event of the discovery of archaeological resources, the applicant shall be responsible for halting construction activities, notifying the Chief of Planning, and retaining a qualified archaeologist. The archaeologist will be required to evaluate the uniqueness of the find and to contact local Native American and historical organizations, and shall recommend a further course of action.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING – Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a qualified archaeologist shall perform subsurface testing at the site to include hand-augured borings and excavated test units. The archaeologist shall analyze gathered data in relation to the detailed project construction plans. The findings of the archaeological investigation shall be submitted for review and approval of the Chief of Planning. This report shall include an evaluation of the “uniqueness” of the find and anticipated project-related impacts, as well as recommendations for impact mitigation.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Should any potentially unique paleontological resources (fossils) be encountered during development activities, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery. The City of San Mateo Planning Division shall be immediately notified, and the applicant shall be responsible for retaining the services of a qualified paleontologist to determine the significance of the discovery. The paleontologist shall evaluate the uniqueness of the find and prepare a written report documenting the find and recommending further courses of action. Based on the significance of the discovery, the actions may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, recovery, or other appropriate measures as determined by the paleontologist.

Implementation of the above policy provisions, code requirements, and standard conditions of project approval would ensure protection and preservation of significant known and unknown

City of San Mateo General Plan Update July 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-13 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES cultural resources by identifying resources and avoiding or mitigating the impact. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

None required.

4.10.4 CUMULATIVE SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

CUMULATIVE SETTING

The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the City of San Mateo. Previous archaeological and historical investigations and reports have provided an inventory of historic buildings and structures, as well as archaeological sites and sensitivity zones within the City. Since the entire City has not been surveyed or evaluated for the presence of archaeological or historic resources, there is the potential to identify additional historic buildings/structures and for the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during any ground-disturbing activity within city boundaries. Building remodeling, demolition, and ground disturbance could result in a potential loss of prehistoric and/or historic resources. Similarly, approved and proposed development within the region could impact paleontological resources, even though there are no known paleontological resources within project boundaries.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 4.10.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, in addition to existing, approved, proposed, and foreseeable development in the City, could result in cumulative impacts to cultural resources. This impact would be cumulatively considerable.

Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with cumulative development in the City of San Mateo, would increase the potential to disturb known and undiscovered cultural resources. This contribution might be considerable when combined with other past, present, and foreseeable development in the region. This impact is considered cumulatively considerable.

Implementation of the policy provisions, code requirements, and standard conditions of project approval discussed under Impact 4.10.1 above would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to cultural resources to less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measures

None required.

General Plan Update City of San Mateo Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2009 4.10-14 4.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

REFERENCES

Basin Research Associates, Inc. 2005. Monitoring and Archaeological Property(ies) Protection plan (MAPPP), Versailles Senior Housing Project.

Chavez, David. 1983. Citywide Archaeological Investigations, City of San Mateo, California.

City of San Mateo. 2009a. Draft General Plan.

City of San Mateo. 2009b. Standard Conditions of Project Approval.

City of San Mateo. 2009c. Zoning Code.

City of San Mateo General Plan Update July 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-15