Santa Cruz City Council
April 25, 2023

Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment
Mixed Use Project, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Suitability for Preservation Ratings: Retention or Removal Code:

Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site
RT: Retain Tree
RI: Remove Due to Construction Impacts
Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures
I.M. Impacts Can Be Mitigated With Pre-Construction Treatments R.C. Remove Due to Condition
Protected Tree City of Santa Cruz Any tree 14 inches or greater in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade. Street trees regardless of size.

Riparian Trees (River Corridor) Any tree regardless of size is protected.

Poor 3/22/2022
Dead and Removed- 3/22/2022

30.286
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter @
54 inches
a.g.

Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts
(Rating &
Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T34
purple-leaf plum
(Prunus cerasifera
'Thundercloud' )
2" No 9'X5' Fair Good Good 5'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

T35 purple-leaf plum 5" No 15'X12' Good Good Good 6'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

T36 Southern magnolia
(Magnolia grandiflora ) 14" Yes 35'X30' Good Good Good 14' High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

T37 purple-leaf plum 2" No 9'X4' Good Good Good 5'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

T38 tree aloe (Aloe
sp. ) 6" No 12'X3' Good Good Good 5'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

Mixed Use Project, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A

30.287
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention or
Removal
Code
Comments
T39
liquidambar
(Liquidambar
styraciflua )
10" No 45'X12' Good Good Good 10'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

T40 liquidambar 11" No 45'X10' Good Good Good 10'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

T41 liquidambar 12" No 45'x12' Good Good Good 10'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

T42 evergreen pear
(Pyrus kawakamii ) 13" No 25'x22' Fair Good Good 11'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I. Thin canopy.

T43 evergreen pear 8" No 22'X12' Fair Fair Fair 10'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I. In raised planter. Unbalanced canopy.

T44 mayten
(Maytenus boaria ) 11" No 17'x15' Fair Good Fair 10'
High (Within
foot print of
new building)
R.I.

In raised planter. Water needs not being met.

Upper canopy dieback in twigs up to 1" in
diameter. Trunk girdled at base. Soil void
under trunk.

T45 liquidambar 20" Yes 75'X35' Good Fair Fair 15'
High (Within
1' of new
stairway
footing)
R.I.

Co-dominant trunks at 9' above grade.

Numerous 4-6" diameter surface roots
uplifting sidewalk.

Mixed Use Project, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A

30.288
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T46
liquidambar
(Liquidambar
styraciflua )
20" Yes 65'X20' Fair Good Fair 15'
High (Within
2' of new
stairway
footing)
R.I.

Multiple co-dominant trunks at 15'
above grade. Numerous 4-6" diameter
surface roots uplifting sidewalk.

T47 liquidambar 13" No 65'X15' Fair Fair Fair 10'
High (Within
3' of new
building footing)
R.I.

T48 liquidambar 13" No 65'X15' Fair Fair Fair 10'
High (Within
2' of new
building footing)
R.I. Co-dominant trunks at 15' above grade.

T49 liquidambar 22" Yes 70'X25' Fair Poor Poor 16'
Moderate
(Within 15' of
new retainer )
R.C.

Co-dominant trunks at 15' above grade.
4-6" diameter roots uplifting sidewalk.

Two each 8-12" diameter limb tear outs
with deadwood.

T50
Aesculus californica
(California buckeye ) 3" Yes 9'X10' Good Good Good 5'
High (Within 1'
of new retaining
wall)
R.I.

T51 bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum ) 7",5" Yes 25'X18' Good Fair Good 10'
High (Within
foot print of
restaurant
patio)
R.I. Co-dominant trunks at 3' above grade.

Mixed Use Project, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz

30.289
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T52 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa ) 13" Yes 35'X25' Poor Fair Poor 10' High (Within
foot print of
restaurant
patio)
R.I.

Significant leaf blight from anthracnose (Apiognomonia
veneta ), infection. Foliage canopy density is reduced (twig and small branch dieback), by 75% due to leaf blight.

T53 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa ) 20" Yes 65'X40' Fair Good Fair 15' High (Within
foot print of
restaurant
patio)
R.I.

Significant leaf blight from anthracnose (Apiognomonia
veneta ), infection. Foliage canopy density is reduced (twig & small branch dieback), by 50% due to leaf blight.

T54 California sycamore 16" Yes 55'X30' Fair Good Fair 12' High (Within
foot print of
restaurant
patio)
R.I.

Leaf blight from anthracnose (Apiognomonia veneta ),
infection. Foliage canopy density is reduced (twig dieback), by 25% due to leaf blight.

T55
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia ) 6" Yes 12'x10' Good Good Good 6'
High (Within
foot print of
restaurant
patio)
R.I.

T56 coast live oak 6" Yes 10'X10' Good Good Good 6'
High (Within
foot print of
restaurant
patio)
R.I.

T57 Aesculus californica
(California buckeye ) 7" Yes 15'x15' Good Good Good 8'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

Mixed Use Project, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz

30.290
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T58 Italian stone pine
(Pinus pinea ) 18" Yes 20'x25' Good Good Good 14'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

T59 poplar
(Populus sp. ) 8",8",5" Yes 25'x18' Good Fair Fair 10'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I. Multiple co-dominant trunks at grade.

T60 coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia ) 6" Yes 10'x8' Good Good Good 6'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I. .

T61 oak (Quercus
sp. ) 4" Yes 10'X7' Good Good Good 6'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

T62 cork oak
(Quercus suber ) 3" Yes 10'X6' Good Good Good 6'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

T63 Aesculus californica
(California buckeye ) 5" Yes 10'x6' Good Good Good 8'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

Mixed Use Project, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz

30.291
Tree Assessment Chart - Appendix A
Tree # Species
Trunk
Diameter
@ 4.5'
Protected
Tree
Crown
Height &
Spread
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Tree
Protection
Zone (in
feet)
Construction
Impacts (Rating
& Description)
Retention
or
Removal
Code
Comments
T64
No
Tag
oak
(Quercus sp. ) 1" Yes 4'X3' Good Good Good 5'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

T65
No
Tag
oak
(Quercus sp. ) 1" Yes 4'X3' Good Good Good 5'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

T66
No
Tag
oak
(Quercus sp. ) 1" Yes 4'X3' Good Good Good 5'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

T67
No
Tag
oak
(Quercus sp. ) 1" Yes 4'X3' Good Good Good 5'
High (Within
foot print of
levee backfill)
R.I.

Mixed Use Project, 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz

30.292
APPENDIX B – CRITERIA FOR TREE ASSESSMENT CHART
Following is an explanation of the data used in the tree evaluations. The data is incorporated in the Tree Assessment Chart, Appendix A.

Trunk Diameter and Number of Trunks:

Trunk diameter as measured at 4.5 feet above grade. The number of trunks refers to a single or multiple trunked tree. Multiple trunks are measured at 4.5 feet above grade.

Health Ratings:

Good: A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease Fair: Moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, crown may be thinning and leaf color may be poor
Poor: Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk, most of foliage from epicormics
Structure Ratings:

Good: No significant structural defects. Growth habit and form typical of the species Fair: Moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care Poor: Extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

Suitability for Preservation Ratings:

Rating factors:

Tree Health: Healthy vigorous trees are more tolerant of construction impacts such as root loss, grading and soil compaction, then are less vigorous specimens.

Structural integrity: Preserved trees should be structurally sound and absent of defects or have defects that can be effectively reduced, especially near structures or high use areas.

Tree Age: Over mature trees have a reduced ability to tolerate construction impacts, generate new tissue and adjust to an altered environment. Young to maturing specimens are better able to respond to change.

30.293
Species response: There is a wide variation in the tolerance of individual tree species to construction impacts.

Rating Scale:

Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with potential for longevity on the site Fair: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that may be reduced with treatment procedures.

Poor: Trees in poor health and/or with poor structure that cannot be effectively abated with treatment. Trees can be expected to decline or fail regardless of construction impacts or management . The species or individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site.

Construction Impacts:

Rating Scale:

High: Development elements proposed that are located within the Tree Protection Zone that would severely impact the health and /or stability of the tree. The tree impacts cannot be mitigated without design changes. The tree may be located within the building footprint.

Moderate: Development elements proposed that are located within the Tree Protection Zone that will impact the health and/or stability of the tree and can be mitigated with tree protection treatments.

Low: Development elements proposed that are located within or near the Tree Protection Zone that will have a minor impact on the health of the tree and can be mitigated with tree protection treatments.

None: Development elements will have no impact on the health and stability of the Tree.

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ):

Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, particularly during construction or development.

30.294
SWENSON COPYRIGHT C 2019 19-112 MARCH 26, 2019 AT Consultant: Revision Schedule: • • CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Feet 0 20 40 1"=20' Sheet T1
of 2
Tree Protection Plan
Mixed Use Project -530 Front Street, SantaCruz, 96060 . . . ... . . . .... . . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . ... . x xxx x x x xxxx x x xx xx xx x x x x x x x x x x x T30- RED OAKDBH 9"
T31- AUSTRALIAN WILLOWDBH 19"
T32 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIADBH 14"
T35 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 5"T34 PURPLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 2"T33 HOLLY OAKDBH 7" T37 PURLE-LEAF PLUMDBH 2"
TT36 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIADBH 14"
T38 TREE ALOEDBH 6"
T39 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 10"T40 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 11"T41 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 12"T42 EVERGREENPEARDBH 13" T43 EVERGREEN PEARDBH 8"
T44 MAYTENDBH 11"
T50 CALIFORNIA BUCKEYEDBH 3Z"T51 BIG LEAF MAPLEDBH 7",5"T49 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 22"T48 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 13"T47 LIQUIDAMBAR13"T46 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 20"T45 LIQUIDAMBARDBH 20" T52 SYCAMOREDBH 13" T53 SYCAMORE DBH 20"
T54 SYCAMORE
DBH 16"
T55 COAST LIVE OAKDBH 6"
T56 COAST LIVE OAKDBH 6"
T57 CALIFORNIA BUCKEYEDBH 7" T58 ITALIAN STONE PINE DBH 18" T59 POPLARDBH 8",8",5" T60 COASTLIVE OAK DBH 6"
T61 OAK DBH 4"
T62 OAKDBH 3"
T63 CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE DBH 5"
T64,T65,T66 & T67 COAST LIVE OAKDBH 1",1",1",1" (NO TAG) XXXX x
....
x ---- ---- --- ---
--
--
--
--
/PUF
5BSHFUFE
SPPU
QSVOJOH
BT
SFRVJSFE
during installation of new sidewalk for trees T30 and T31TIBMM
CF
VOEFS
UIF
TVQFSWJTJPO
PG
1SPKFDU
"SCPSJTU Base Map Provided by: Civil Engineers Associates
K.F.
5/20/2019
See Arborist Report dated 5/20/2019 for additional tree assessmentinformation.

New 6" sanitary sewer lateral.Notify Project Arborist 48 hours in advance of trenching for sewer lateral. Dead & Removed (3/22/2022)

30.295
Tree Protection Plan
Mixed Use Project - 530 Fronts Street, Santa Cruz, 95060 Sheet T2
of 2
K.F.
5/20/2019
Tree Trunk Protection All existing street trees will require trunk protection. Protect trees with either option below:1. Preventing mechanical damage to the main trunk from equipment or hand tools can beaccomplished by wrapping the main trunk with straw wattle, to a height of 6 feet. The wattle will prevent damage to the vascular tissues underneath the bark. No nails are used to secure the wattle.2. A minimum of 4 layers of orange plastic snow fencing, then a layer of 2X4 planks set on end, edge to edge and wrapped a minmum of 4 additional layers of orange plastic snow fencing to a height of 6 feet.

30.296
Glossary of Terms
Basal rot: decay of the lower trunk, trunk flare, or buttress roots.

Canker: Localized diseased area on stems, roots and branches. Often sunken and discolored.

Critical Root Zone (CRZ): Area of soil around a tree where a minimum number of roots considered critical to the structural stability or health of the tree are located. CRZ determination is sometimes based on the drip line or a multiple of the DBH, but because root growth can be asymmetric due to site conditions, on-site investigation may be required.

Codominant branches/stems: Forked branches (or trunks), nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction and lacking a normal branch union, may have included bark.

Crown: Upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all branches and foliage.

Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree’s structural strength.

Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measurement of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade.

Frass: Fecal material and/or wood shavings produced by insects.

Included Bark Attachments (crotches): Branch/limb or limb /trunk, or codominant trunks originating at acute angles from each other. Bark remains between such crotches, preventing the development of axillary wood. The inherent weakness of such attachments increases with time, through the pressure of opposing growth and increasing weight of wood and foliage, often resulting in failure.

Live Crown Ratio (LCR): Ratio of the height of the crown containing live foliage to overall height of the tree.

Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that form the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree.

Suppressed: Trees that have been overtopped and occupy an understory position within a group or grove of trees. Suppressed trees often have poor structure.

Tree Protection Zones (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited of restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development.

Trunk flare: Transition zone from trunk to roots where the trunk expands into the buttress or structural roots.

This Glossary of Terms was adapted from the Glossary of Arboricultural Terms (ISA, 2015)

30.297

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Trees & Development – A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 1998 Costello, L.R., Watson, G., Smiley E.T. Root Management – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2017 ANSI Board of Standards Review. A.N.S.I. (American National Standard) A300 (Part 8)- 2013 Root Management
Harris, R.W., Clark, J.R. and Matheny, N.P. Arboriculture: Integrated management of landscape tree, shrubs, and vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. c.2004 Matheny, N. and Clark, J. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Champaign, IL: Wadley Graphix Corp. c.1994
Smiley, E.T., Matheny, N., Lilly, S. Tree Risk Assessment – Best Management Practices, Champaign, ILL: International Society of Arboriculture c. 2011 Costello, L., Perry, E., & Matheny,N, Abiotic Disorders of Landscape Plants: A Diagnostic Guide Oakland, CA:UC/ANR Publications (Publication 3420) c.2003.

30.298
Appendix F- TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS Protecting Trees During Construction:
1) Before the start of site work, equipment or materials move in, clearing, excavation, construction, or other work on the site, every tree to be retained shall be securely fenced- off as delineated in approved plans. Such fences shall remain continuously in place for the duration of the work undertaken in connection with the development. 2) If the proposed development, including any site work, will encroach upon the tree protection zone, special measures shall be utilized, as approved by the project arborist, to allow the roots to obtain necessary oxygen, water, and nutrients. 3) Underground trenching shall avoid the major support and absorbing tree roots of protected trees. If avoidance is impractical, hand excavation undertaken under the supervision of the project arborist may be required. Trenches shall be consolidated to service as many units as possible. Boring/tunneling under roots should be considered as an alternative to trenching.
4) Concrete or asphalt paving shall not be placed over the root zones of protected trees, unless otherwise permitted by the project arborist.
5) Artificial irrigation shall not occur within the root zone of native oaks, unless deemed appropriate on a temporary basis by the project arborist to improve tree vigor or mitigate root loss.
6) Compaction of the soil within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. 7) Any excavation, cutting, or filling of the existing ground surface within the tree protection zone shall be minimized and subject to such conditions as the project arborist may impose. Retaining walls shall likewise be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize their impact on protected trees.
8) Burning or use of equipment with an open flame near or within the tree protection zone shall be avoided. All brush, earth, and other debris shall be removed in a manner that prevents injury to the tree.
9) Oil, gas, chemicals, paints, cement, stucco or other substances that may be harmful to trees shall not be stored or dumped within the tree protection zone of any protected tree, or at any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the tree protection zone of a protected tree.
10) Construction materials shall not be stored within the tree protection zone of a protected tree.

30.299
Project Arborist Duties and Inspection Schedule:

The project arborist is the person(s) responsible for carrying out technical tree inspections, assessment of tree health, structure and risk, arborist report preparation, consultation with designers and municipal planners, specifying tree protection measures, monitoring, progress reports and final inspection.

A qualified project arborist (or firm) should be designated and assigned to facilitate and insure tree preservation practices. He/she/they should perform the following inspections:

Inspection of site: Prior to equipment and materials move in, site work, demolition, landscape construction and tree removal: The project arborist will meet with the general contractor, architect / engineer, and owner or their representative to review tree preservation measures, designate tree removals, delineate the location of tree protection fencing, specify equipment access routes and materials storage areas, review the existing condition of trees and provide any necessary recommendations.

Inspection of site: During excavation or any activities that could affect trees: Inspect site during any activity within the Tree Protection Zones of preserved trees and any recommendations implemented. Assess any changes in the health of trees since last inspection.

Final Inspection of Site: Inspection of site following completion of construction. Inspect for tree health and make any necessary recommendations.

Kurt Fouts shall be the Project Arborist for this project. All scheduled inspections shall include a brief Tree Monitoring report, documenting activities and provided to the City Arborist.

Tree Protection Fencing
Tree Protection fencing shall be installed prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials. Fence shall be comprised of six -foot chain link fence mounted on eight - foot tall, 1 and 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced on a minimum of 10-foot centers. Once established, the fence must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection.

A final inspection by the City Arborist at the end of the project will be required prior to removing any tree protection fencing.

Tree Protection Signs

All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited.

30.300
Monitoring
Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented.

The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted.

Root Pruning
Root pruning shall be supervised by the project arborist. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour.

Tree Work Standards and Qualifications
All tree work, removal, pruning, planting, shall be performed using industry standards of workmanship as established in the Best Management Practices of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the American National Standards Institute series, Safety Requirements in Arboriculture Operations ANSI Z133-2017, Contractor licensing and insurance coverage shall be verified.

During tree removal and clearance, sections of the Tree Protection Fencing may need to be temporarily dismantled to complete removal and pruning specifications. After each section is completed, the fencing is to be re-installed.

Trees to be removed shall be cut into smaller manageable pieces consistent with safe arboricultural practices, and carefully removed so as not to damage any surrounding trees or structures. The trees shall be cut down as close to grade as possible. Tree removal is to be performed by a qualified contractor with valid City Business/ State Licenses and General Liability and Workman’s Compensation insurance.

30.301
Development Site Tree Health Care Measures

RECOMMENDED TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM GROWING CONDITIONS, PHYSIOLOGICAL

INVIGORATION AND STAMINA, FOR PROTECTION AND RECOVERY FROM CONSTRUCTION IMPACT.

Establish and maintain TPZ fencing, trunk and scaffold limb barriers for protection from mechanical damage, and other tree protection requirements as specified in the arborist report.

Project arborist to specify site-specific soil surface coverings (wood chip mulch or other) for prevention of soil compaction and loss of root aeration capacity.

Soil, water and drainage management is to follow the ISA BMP for "Managing Trees During Construction" and the ANSI Standard A300(Part 2)- 2011 Soil Management (a. Modification, b. 'Fertilization, c. Drainage.)
Fertilizer / soil amendment product(s) amounts and method of application to be specified by certified arborist.

30.302
City of Santa Cruz

9.56.040 HERITAGE TREE AND HERITAGE SHRUB DESIGNATION.

Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs, growing on public or private property within the city limits of the city of Santa Cruz which meet(s) the following criteria shall have the “heritage” designation:
(a) Any tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty-four inches (approximately fourteen inches in diameter or more), measured at fifty-four inches above existing grade; (b) Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs which have historical significance, including but not limited to those which were/are:
(1) Planted as a commemorative;
(2) Planted during a particularly significant historical era; or (3) Marking the spot of an historical event.
(c) Any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs which have horticultural significance, including but not limited to those which are:
(1) Unusually beautiful or distinctive;
(2) Old (determined by comparing the age of the tree or shrub in question with other trees or shrubs of its species within the city);
(3) Distinctive specimen in size or structure for its species (determined by comparing the tree or shrub to average trees and shrubs of its species within the city); (4) A rare or unusual species for the Santa Cruz area (to be determined by the number of similar trees of the same species within the city);
(5) Providing a valuable habitat; or
(6) Identified by the city council as having significant arboricultural value to the citizens of the city.

30.303
City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code
Chapter 24.08

LAND USE PERMITS AND FINDINGS
Part 21: WATERCOURSE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

24.08.2100 PURPOSE.

The purpose of this part is to carry out the goals of the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan by applying development standards to lands adjacent to watercourses within the city of Santa Cruz that will enhance and protect watercourse functions and values. This part of the zoning title is also part of the Local Coastal Implementation Plan.
(Ord. 2008-03 § 1 (part), 2008: Ord. 2006-02 § 2 (part), 2006).

24.08.2110 GENERAL PROVISIONS.

1. Applicability. The watercourse development permit requirements of this part apply to every zoning district within the city of Santa Cruz. Refer to the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan to determine the category and development setback areas for each individual watercourse.

2. Definitions.
a. Best Management Practices (BMP). Any program, technology, process, siting criteria, operating method, measure or device which controls, prevents, removes or reduces discharge of pollutants or sediments into bodies of water.
b. Centerline of Creek. The midpoint of a creek channel as determined by taking the midpoint of the bank-full width. Bank-full width is the lateral extent of water surface at the point where the channel is completely filled to a point above which water would spill onto the floodplain. c. Development. For the purpose of this part the term “development” shall include any work requiring a use, building, grading, or public works permit; the placement of a fence, wall, retaining wall, steps, deck, patio, any accessory structures, or walkway; grading, relocation or removal of stones from the creek channel; bank stabilization or repair structures; and certain landscape changes occurring within the management area.

30.304
d. Development Setback Area. The distance from the centerline of the watercourse and the edge of development, which provides a buffer between new development and the riparian corridor and watercourse.
e. Integrated Pest Management (IPM). An approach to pest management that relies primarily on nonchemical means (such as controlling climate, food sources, and building entry points) to prevent and manage pest infestation.
f. Management Area. The area of city permitting authority adjacent to watercourses that includes the riparian corridor, development setback area and extends twenty-five feet beyond the edge of the development setback area.
g. Riparian Corridor. The width of riparian vegetation and/or immediate watercourse influence area, measured outward from the centerline of the watercourse. h. Vegetation Removal, Major. Clearing of woody and non-woody vegetation canopy cover or herbaceous ground cover that does not meet the definition of minor vegetation removal; removal of any native (indigenous) annual or perennial woody or non-woody species within the riparian area; or pruning, trimming, cutting off, or removal of greater than twenty-five percent of the crown of any tree within a three-year period. Major vegetation removal is allowable under certain limited conditions for prevention of serious fire hazards, prevention of noxious weed infestation (provided, that erosion control measures are implemented and the cleared area is replanted/reestablished and seeded with appropriate native species to reduce the potential for erosion), or for other projects allowed under the watercourse development permit procedures.
i. Vegetation Removal, Minor. Routine trimming of plant material; pruning of tree branches totaling less than twenty-five percent of the crown within a three-year period; removal of nonnative invasive species of brush, annual or perennial vegetation, and herbaceous grass species that out compete or suppress existing native vegetation; provided, that sufficient vegetation remains to prevent erosion (bare soil shall not be left exposed); or the removal of vegetation as authorized by the planning director or his/her designee to alleviate an existing hazardous condition. Minor vegetation removal is permissible only for routine maintenance, increasing interior light and air circulation, improving tree structure, controlling plant disease or decay, promoting longevity of vegetation, habitat enhancement and under certain conditions, for fire safety and prevention. Minor vegetation removal does not include removal of mature eucalyptus trees in known monarch butterfly habitat areas.

30.305
j. Watercourse Categories. All watercourses and watercourse reaches included within the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan are categorized as either an “A,” “B” or “C” watercourse. This designation is based on the quality of the riparian corridor associated with each watercourse. k. Wetland. An area that is: (1) identified as a known wetland or area of ponding water that needs further site-specific review by the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan or (2) identified as part of a review process as inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions (hydrophytes). l. Wetland (Coastal Zone). An area that is (1) identified as a known wetland or area of ponding that needs further site-specific review as described in the City-Wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan or (2) identified as part of a review process as having at least one of the following three attributes: (A) land that supports predominantly hydrophytic cover; (B) soil that is is predominantly hydric; (C) or in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soils, land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation. (Ord. 2008-03 § 1 (part), 2008: Ord. 2006-02 § 2 (part), 2006).

30.306

LATIN NAME COMMON NAME

TREE WIDTH

TREE HEIGHT

DECIDIOUS

EVERGREEN

FLOWERING

FALL COLOR SPECIAL INFORMATION
Aesculus x carnea 'Briotii' Red Horsechestnut 40 35 Y N Y YArbutus 'Marina' Marina Madrone 20 25 N Y Y NBetula jacquemontii White Birch 10 25 y N N Y Requires regular watering and careCercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 20 25 Y N Y YCinnamonium camphora Camphor 45 50 N Y N N Wide park strips onlyFraxinus americana 'Autumn Purple' Autumn Purple Ash 40 50 Y N N YJacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 35 30 Y N Y Y Late to leaf out in springLagerstroemia indica 'Natchez' 'Tuscarora' 'Muskogee' Crepe Myrtle 20 20 Y N Y Y Available in Light pink, dark pink and whiteLaurus 'Saratoga' Saratoga Grecian Bay 20 20 N Y N N Medium to slow growth rate, good cooking herbMaytenus boaria Mayten Tree 20 20 N Y N NMelaleuca linariifolia Flaxleaf Paperbark 25 25 N Y Y NMelaleuca stypheliodes Prickly Paperbark 35 30 N Y Y NMelaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree 45 30 N Y Y NNyssa sylvatica Tupelo Gum 40 35 Y N N Y Excellent fall colorPistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache 45 40 Y N N Y Excellent fall colorPlatanus acerifolia 'Columbia' or 'Yarwood' London Plane 50 40 Y N N Y 'Columbia' has a better branching structurePyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' Chanticleer Pear 30 20 Y N Y Y Columner formPyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' Aristocrat Pear 30 25 Y N Y Y Open formQuercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 50 50 N Y N N Requires wide planting stripQuercus frainetto 'Forest Green' Hungarian Oak 40 30 Y N N YQuercus lobata Valley Oak 50 50 Y N N Y requires wide planting stripQuercus macrocarpa Bur or Mossy Cup Oak 50 50 Y N N Y Interesting Acorns, requires wide planting stripQuercus rober English Oak 40 40 Y N N Y 'Fastigiata' is an upright formQuercus rubra Red Oak 40 40 Y N N YQuercus suber Cork Oak 50 50 N Y N N Interesting bark Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak 50 50 Y N N Y Requires wide planting stripQuercus virginiana Southern Live Oak 40 40 N Y N N Irrigation and Lawn tolerantSophora japonica 'Regent' Regent Scholar Tree 30 30 Y N Y Y White wisteria-like blossomsSyagrus romanzoffianum Queen Palm 45 15 N Y N N Tropical accent palmTilia americana 'Redmond' American Linden 45 30 Y N Y Y Excellent smelling blossomsTristania laurina 'Elegant' Yellow Tristania 15 10 N Y N N 'Elegant' has larger leaves and a redish tintUlmus parvifolia 'Drake' Drake Chinese Elm 40 40 Y N N N Anthracnose resistantWashingtonia filifera CA Fan Palm 50 15 N Y N N Thicker and stouter than the Mexican relativeWashingtonia robusta Mexican fan Palm 60 15 N Y N N Tall thin trunk Approved Street Trees of Santa Cruz
City of Santa Cruz - Parks Division
Telephone: (831) 420-5246 Fax: (831) 420-5361
323 Church Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Leslie Keedy City Urban Forester/Arborist

30.307

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. Any legal description provided by the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as the quality of any title.

2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others.

3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services.

4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.

5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant.

6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser/consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.

7. Sketches. Diagrams. Graphs. Photos. Etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.

8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.

9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.

10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection.

CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education. Knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees, Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.

Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.

30.308

Evans & De Shazo, Inc.
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-812-7400
www.evans-deshazo.com

RESULTS OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY

FOR THE PROPOSED FRONT / SOQUEL
MIXED USE PROJECT AT 514-516 AND 530

FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA

CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:

Swenson Builders
c/o Jessie Bristow
[email protected]
PREPARED BY:

Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
[email protected]
and
Sally Evans, M.A., RPA
Principal Archaeologist
[email protected]
May 14, 2019

30.309
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
This report identifies the locations of cultural resources within the Santa Cruz County that is confidential information because archaeological sites are nonrenewable resources that can be significantly impacted by disturbances that can affect their cultural, scientific, and artistic values. Disclosure of this information to the public may be in violation of both federal and state laws. Applicable U.S. laws include, but may not be limited to, Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470w-3) and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470hh). California state laws that apply include, but may not be limited to, Government Code Sections 6250 et seq. and 6254 et seq. Furthermore, disclosure of archaeological site location information to individuals other than those meeting the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior’s professional standards or California State Personnel Board criteria for Associate State Archaeologist or State Historian II violates the California Office of Historic Preservation’s records access policy.

30.310
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.

Table of Contents
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY.......................................................................................................................... I INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 REGULATORY SETTING........................................................................................................................................... 5 THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ................................................................................................ 5 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LOCAL REGULATIONS.................................................................................................................... 7 STUDY METHODS.................................................................................................................................................10 RECORD SEARCH AND REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 10 NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS INVENTORY AND CONSULTATION ................................................................................. 11 FIELD SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 CULTURAL SETTING..............................................................................................................................................12 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL SETTING .............................................................................................................................. 12 ETHNO-HISTORIC SETTING ...................................................................................................................................... 14 HISTORIC SETTING................................................................................................................................................. 16 RESULTS OF RECORD SEARCH AND REVIEW......................................................................................................... 21 RESULTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS INVENTORY AND CONSULTATION............................................. 30 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEY...................................................................................................................................32 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................36 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES........................................................................................... 36 DISCOVERY OF ARTIFACTS OR REMAINS DURING EXCAVATION OR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 37 DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS.............................................................................................................................. 38 REFERENCES CITED...............................................................................................................................................39 Appendix A: Early-stage Project Concept Plans
Appendix B: Sacred Lands Inventory Results and Native American Correspondence

30.311
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 1

INTRODUCTION
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) was retained by Swenson Builders to provide an Archaeological Study for a proposed development project within four adjacent parcels that total approximately 1.03 acres located at 514-518 and 530 Front Street in Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Project Area).

The four parcels include Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 005-151-37 located at 514-518 Front Street that currently contains a 1926 commercial building, a ca. 2007 shed, and a paved parking area; APN 005-151-46 located at 530 Front Street that currently contains a 1981 bank building and a paved parking area; APN 005-151-44 that currently contains a paved parking lot with no physical address associated with the 1981 bank building; and APN 005-151-45 that currently contains a ca. 2007 shed and a small area of paved parking associated with the 1981 bank building. The proposed project includes the demolition of the 1926 commercial building, 1981 bank building, two ca. 2007 sheds, and associated parking areas, and the redevelopment of the four adjacent parcels with a mixed-use project that includes the construction of a six-story building and associated infrastructure (Project) (see Attachment A for early-stage concept plans).

The purpose of the Archaeological Study was to determine if there are significant archaeological resources present that could be impacted by the proposed Project following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines. In addition to the Archaeological Study, EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A and Senior Architectural Historian, Brian Matuk, M.S. completed a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the 1926 commercial building and documented it on Department of Parks and Recreation DPR) 523 forms to determine if they are considered historical resources under CEQA, the results of which are presented in a separate report (De Shazo and Matuk 2019).

The Archaeological Study was completed by EDS Senior Archaeologist, Gilbert Browning M.A., RPA, and EDS Principal Archaeologist, Sally Evans, M.A., RPA, who both exceed the Secretary of Interior's qualification standards in Archaeology. The methods used and the results of the Archaeological Study are presented herein.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project consists of the demolition of the 1926 commercial building, 1981 bank building, the two ca. 2007 sheds, and associated parking areas, and the redevelopment of the four adjacent parcels with a mixed-use project that includes the construction of a six-story building consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses, as well as a street-level garage, and associated infrastructure (see Attachment A for early-stage concept plans).

PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Area includes four parcels that total 1.03 acres located at 514-518 and 530 Front Street in Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. The four parcels include the 0.41-acre parcel located at 514- 518 Front Street within APN 005-151-37, the 0.38-acre parcel located at 530 Front Street within APN 005-151-46, the 0.21-acre parcel (no physical address) that includes APN 005-151-021, and the 0.03-

30.312
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 2 acre parcel (no physical address) that includes APN 005-151-045(Figure 1). The Project Area is bound by Soquel Avenue on the north, the San Lorenzo River Walkway and the San Lorenzo River on the east, the adjacent parcel at 512 Front Street to the south, and Front Street to the west.

The USGS 7.5-minute Santa Cruz quadrangle (1994) (Figure 2) shows the Project Area located within Township 11 South, Range 2 West, Section 12, Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid coordinates at the approximate center of the Project Area are:
4092298 meters North and 586865 meters East, Zone 10.

30.313
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 3 Figure 1: Aerial view of the Project Area.

30.314
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 4 Figure 2: Project Area Location Map.

30.315
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 5

REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed Project is subject to CEQA and the Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR Section 15064.5). These regulations as they pertain to cultural resources are outlined below.

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The Guidelines for Implementing CEQA provide direction and guidance for the evaluation of properties, as well as the preparation of Initial Studies, Categorical Exemptions, Negative Declarations and Environmental Impact Reports. According to CEQA, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and consideration regarding potential impacts (14 CCR 15064.5 and PRC 21084.1).

Resource Definitions
There are five classes of cultural resources defined by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) that include:
• Building: A structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. A “building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn.
• Structure: A construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter.

Examples include mines, bridges, and tunnels.
• Object: Construction primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale and simply constructed. It may be movable by nature or design or made for a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use or character. Examples include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures and boundary markers.
• Site: The location of a significant event. A prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time.

Examples include trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs.
• District: Unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally.

30.316
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 6 Significance Criteria
According to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5, buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts are historically significant if they are:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et. seq.); • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); • Included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resource Code; or • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the CRHR if it has integrity and meets any of the following criteria:

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

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

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

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

Buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts representative of California and United States history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture convey significance when they also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A resource has integrity if it retains the characteristics that were present during the resource’s period of significance. Enough of these characteristics must remain to convey the reasons for its significance.

Unique Archaeological Resources
CEQA (PRC §21083.2) distinguishes between two classes of archaeological resources: archaeological sites that meet the definition of an historical resource as described above, and “unique archaeological resources.” A unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site 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:

30.317
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 7

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

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

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources is an additional category of resources defined in CEQA (PRC § 21074). Tribal Cultural Resources are:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either (A) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, or (B) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of §5020.1.; or,

2. A resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of §5024.1 - taking into account the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Tribal Cultural Resources are resources that are specific concern to California Native American tribes.

Pursuant to revisions to CEQA enacted in 2015, Tribal Cultural Resources are to be identified by Tribes during government-to-government consultation with the lead agency and can remain confidential (PRC § 21080.3.1).

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LOCAL REGULATIONS
The following section presents the City of Santa Cruz ordinances pertaining to cultural resources.

Santa Cruz City Ordinance No. 2003-14, Part 5: Historic Preservation

24.12.400 Purpose.

It is hereby found that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, districts, lands, and neighborhoods of historic, archaeological, architectural, and engineering significance, located within the City of Santa Cruz, are of cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. It is further found that respecting the heritage of the City will enhance the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City. The purpose of provisions in this title related to historic preservation is to:

1. Designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate those historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods contributing to cultural and aesthetic benefit of Santa Cruz;

2. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;

3. Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods;

30.318
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 8

4. Protect and enhance the City’s cultural, archaeological and aesthetic heritage;

5. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and use of such buildings and other structures now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be obtained under such policy;

6. Serve as part of the Local Coastal Implementation Plan for the Coastal Program. (Ord. 94-33 § 60, 1994: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

24.12.410 Historic Preservation Procedures Authorized by this Title.

The following procedures related to historic preservation are authorized by this title:

1. Historic District Designation (Part 2, Chapter 24.06).

2. Historic Landmark Designation (Section 24.12.420).

3. Archaeological Procedures (Section 24.12.430).

4. Procedure for Amending Historic Building Survey (Section 24.12.440).

5. Procedure; New Construction in Historic Districts (Section 24.12.450).

6. Historic Alteration Permit (Part 10, Chapter 24.08).

7. Historic Demolition Permit (Part 11, Chapter 24.08).

8. Historic Overlay District (Part 22, Chapter 24.10). (Ord. 86-13 § 6, 1986: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

Archaeological Procedures (Section 24.12.430)

1. Policy and Purpose. Existing in Santa Cruz are certain deposits and sites of cultural significance believed to have been left by Native Americans and other early inhabitants. These deposits and sites are unique and irreplaceable phenomena of significance in the history of the City and the understanding of the cultural heritage of our land and of all humankind. Such sites have a deep, spiritual significance to Native Americans, especially the native peoples of the State of California, and constitute a precious archaeological and historical heritage, which is fast disappearing as a result of public and private land development. Uncontrolled excavation or modification of these resources would destroy their cultural integrity. This loss would affect future generations and must be prevented in the public interest. Such cultural resources should be preserved in an undisturbed state wherever possible, for future generations who should be more skilled and have access to better methods of study. In order to promote the public welfare, it is necessary to provide regulations for the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of such sites. This section, therefore, is intended to provide a procedure for preserving the valuable cultural resources in the City of Santa Cruz.

2. Developer’s Action on Discovery of Artifacts or Remains During Excavation or Development.

Any person exercising a development permit or building permit who, at any time in the preparation for or process of excavating or otherwise disturbing earth, discovers any human

30.319
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 9 remains of any age or any artifact or any other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of an archaeological/cultural resource, shall:
a. Immediately cease all further excavation, disturbance, and work on the project site; b. Cause staking to be placed completely around the area of discovery by visible stakes not more than ten feet apart forming a circle having a radius of not less than one hundred feet from the point of discovery; provided, that such staking need not take place on adjoining property unless the owner of the adjoining property authorizes such staking; c. Notify the Santa Cruz County sheriff-coroner and the city of Santa Cruz planning director of the discovery unless no human remains have been discovered, in which case the property owner shall notify only the planning director; d. Grant permission to all duly authorized representatives of the sheriff-coroner and the planning director to enter onto the property and to take all actions consistent with this section.

3. Coroner’s Action on Discovery of Remains. If human remains are discovered, the sheriffcoroner or his/her representative shall promptly inspect the remains to determine the age and ethnic character of the remains, and shall promptly, after making such determinations, notify the planning director.

4. Planning Director’s Action on Discovery of Artifacts or Remains. If any artifacts or remains are discovered, the planning director shall cause an on-site inspection of the property to be made.

The purpose of the inspection shall be to determine whether the discovery is of an archaeological resource or cultural resource. If remains have been discovered, the planning director shall consult the sheriff-coroner before making his/her determination. In making a determination, the planning director may also consult with Native American groups, qualified archaeologists, or others with the necessary expertise.

5. Discovery Not an Archaeological/Cultural Resource. Upon determining that the discovery is not of an archaeological/cultural resource, the planning director shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work.

6. Discovery an Archaeological/Cultural Resource. Upon determining that the discovery is of an archaeological/cultural resource, the planning director shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other measures have been approved by the director the protection of the site.

7. Mitigation Plan. The property owner or his/her agent shall prepare any required mitigation plan. The mitigation plan shall include conditions necessary or appropriate for the protection of the resource including, but not limited to, conditions on the resumption of work, redesign of the project, or other conditions deemed appropriate by the planning director. The director shall review the mitigation plan and may consult with Native Americans, archaeologists, or other interested persons, to insure proper protection of the resource. When the director is satisfied

30.320
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 10 that the mitigation plan is adequate, the director shall authorize the resumption of work in conformance with the mitigation plan.

8. Referral to Historic Preservation Commission. The planning director may refer to the historic preservation commission the decision whether the discovery is of an archaeological/cultural resource and the decision whether the mitigation plan is adequate to protect the resource. If the director refers the matter to the historic preservation commission, a public hearing shall be held in conformity with the requirements of this title relating to public, hearings.

9. Development on Known Archaeological Sites. No building permit for any earth-disturbing activity shall be issued on parcels identified by resolution of the City Council as containing known cultural or archaeological resources, without the owner first obtaining an administrative use permit. The administrative use permit shall be conditioned with appropriate archaeological survey and mitigation procedures such as those prescribed in the Historic Preservation Element and the Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

10. Archaeological Reconnaissance. The City may conduct archaeological reconnaissance on any parcel in the City of Santa Cruz, at the request of or with the consent of the property owner. The City may also as a condition of any permit issued pursuant to this title or as a condition of any building permit issued pursuant to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, require that an archaeological reconnaissance be conducted on any parcel in the City of Santa Cruz, whenever such requirement is in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter. A fee for such reconnaissance shall be charged to the applicant or property owner as established by resolution of the City Council.
(Ord. 2013-09 § 1, 2013: Ord. 2003-14 § 1 (part), 2003: Ord. 86-13 § 6, 1986: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

STUDY METHODS
In accordance with CEQA and the City of Santa Cruz historic preservation ordinances, EDS completed the following methods to identify archaeological resources within the Project Area that could be considered a Historical Resource or Tribal Cultural Resources for the purposes of CEQA: a record search and review, a Native American Sacred Sites inventory, and a field survey. The methods used to complete each of these tasks are described below.

RECORD SEARCH AND REVIEW
EDS conducted a record search to obtain and review information pertaining to previous cultural resources studies and previously recorded cultural resources located within 0.25 miles of the Project Area. The record search included a review of information on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS), a review of the California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976), the Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (OHP 1988), and the Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California

30.321
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 11 (OHP 2012) that includes resources listed on the CRHR, NRHP, as well as California Historical Landmarks (#770 and above) and California Points of Historical Interest. In addition, the City of Santa Cruz’s GIS layer of the archaeological sensitivity within the City of Santa Cruz (http://datacruzgis.opendata.arcgis.com/) and the Cultural Resources Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update (Pulcheon et al. 2006) were also reviewed for information about the pre-defined archaeological sensitivity of the Project Area.

EDS also reviewed a series of historic maps dating from 1886 to 1954, as well as documentation obtained as part of the HRE (De Shazo and Matuk 2019) to determine past land use activities within the Project Area that could indicate the likelihood of encountering buried historic-period archaeological resources. The following maps were reviewed:
• 1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance map
• 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance map
• 1892 Sanborn Fire Insurance map
• 1900 Map of the City of Santa Cruz
• 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance map
• 1906 Official Map of Santa Cruz County
• 1908 Map of the City of Santa Cruz
• 1917 GLO map of Township 11, Range 2, Section 13
• 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance map
• 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance map, updated 1950
• 1954 USGS 7.5-min Santa Cruz quadrangle map
Information about the geology and soils associated with the Project Area was reviewed to identify the potential for buried prehistoric archaeological resources to be present. The geologic landform and soil types can indicate the potential for buried prehistoric archaeological resources to be present because, in general, Pleistocene-age landforms (1.8 million years to 11,800 years before present) have little or no potential to contain buried prehistoric archaeological resources because they were created prior to occupation of the area by humans and lack soil development or morphologic process that would bury former living surfaces; however, most Holocene-age (post 11,800 calibrated years before present) landforms, particularly those containing alluvial deposits, have the potential for buried sites (Meyer and Rosenthal 2007:15). Additionally, certain landforms such as alluvial fans, floodplains, and areas along rivers and streams, are more likely to contain buried sites.

NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS INVENTORY AND CONSULTATION EDS contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento to request a Sacred Lands inventory and a Native American contact list for the Project. The NAHC works to identify,

30.322
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 12 catalogue, and protect places of special religious or social significance, graves, and cemeteries of Native Americans per the authority given the Commission in Public Resources Code §5097.9. The purpose of the Sacred Lands inventory was to identify any known Native American Sacred Sites located within, or in the vicinity of the Project Area. EDS also sent letters to the Tribal representatives on the Native American contact list provided by the NAHC for further information and consultation. Consultation was focused on identifying issues of concern to Native American tribes, including cultural values, religious beliefs, and traditional practices.

FIELD SURVEY
A Secretary of Interior qualified archaeologist conducted a field survey to physically inspect the Project Area for potentially significant archaeological resources. The field survey included an inspection of the Project Area for evidence of prehistoric artifacts, such as chipped stone (obsidian, chert and basalt) flakes and tools (e.g. projectile points, knives, scrapers), shellfish remains, ground stone, fire-affected rock, as well as historic-era artifacts and evidence of historic archaeological deposits and features associated with historic-era activities within the Project Area, including surface scatters of farming or domestic type artifacts (i.e. glass, ceramic, metal, etc.), as well as features such as alignments of stone or brick, foundation elements from previous structures, minor earthworks, and historic plantings (i.e. fruit trees, ornamental plants). The built-environment resources (i.e. buildings and structures) located within the Project Area that are at least 45 years of age were surveyed and evaluated as part of the HRE (De Shazo and Matuk 2019).

CULTURAL SETTING
This section provides an overview of the prehistory and history of the Santa Cruz area for contextual purposes using a variety of historic and prehistoric references.

PREHISTORIC CULTURAL SETTING
The chronology that forms the framework many archaeologists use to interpret and define the prehistory of the Central Coast of California that includes Santa Cruz County was developed by David A.

Fredrickson (1973) who developed a taxonomy consisting of broad periods defined by shifts in adaptive patterns that reflect changes in the environment and the movement and influences of native groups within a region. Fredrickson’s (1974) Paleo-Archaic-Emergent cultural sequence is commonly used to interpret the prehistory of the Central Coast and is broken into three broad time periods, including the Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000-6000 B.C.); the three-staged Archaic Period that includes the Lower Archaic (6000-3000 B.C.), Middle Archaic (3000-500 B.C.), and Upper Archaic (500 B.C.-A.D. 1000); and Emergent Period (A.D. 1000-1800).

In 1993, T. Jones updated this chronology using additional data from the central California coast and developed the following chronology that is still used today: Paleoindian Period (9000-6500 B.C.), Millingstone Period (6500-3500 B.C.), Early Period (3500-1000 B.C.), Early/Middle Transition Period (1000-600 B.C.), Middle Period (600 B.C.-A.D. 1000), Middle/Late Transition Period (A.D. 1000-1200),

30.323
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 13 Late Period (A.D. 1200-1500), Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1500-1769), and the Historic Period (post A.D. 1769).

Paleoindian Period (9,000-6500 B.C.) and Millingstone Period (6500-3500 B.C.) Archaeological sites dating to the Paleoindian and Millingstone periods are rare in the Central Coast; however, evidence of occupation during this time have been found in a few archaeological sites located in Santa Cruz County near Scotts Valley (CA-SCR-177), and in Monterey County within Elk Horn Slough (CA-MNT-229), as well as in the neighboring San Luis Obispo, San Benito and Santa Clara counties.

Artifacts include crescent shaped flakes tools, long-stemmed projectile points, cobble/core tools, and milling slabs and handstones. Data collected from these early archaeological sites suggest the habitation of the Monterey Bay area began as early as ca. 8000 B.C., and possibly earlier (Pulcheon et al. 2006).

Based on the limited archaeological evidence from this period, it appears that populations within and surrounding Santa Cruz County consisted of small, highly mobile groups that practiced broad-spectrum hunting and gathering techniques.

Early Period (3500-1000 B.C.) and Early/Middle Transition Period (1000-600 B.C.) The Early and Early/Middle Transition periods (3500 – 600 B.C.) have been defined in the Central Coast region of California by archaeological excavations at sites including CA-MNT-387 and CA-MNT-391 in Monterey County and CA-SCR-7 in Santa Cruz County. The Early and Early/Middle Transition is also referred to as the Hunting Culture period because although the subsistence base appears to have remained focused on marine and plant resources, the period from 3500 to 600 B.C. is also marked by a significant increase in the presence of large Central Coast Stemmed Series and side-notched style projectile points, bifaces, as well as high densities of debitage, suggesting a greater emphasis on hunting during this period (Jones et al. 2007). The mortar and pestle, a ground stone type that was initially introduced circa 4000 B.C., are also present in sites that date to Early and Early/Middle Transition periods, signaling the advent of acorn processing during this time. An increase in population is also evident during this time by the establishment of many previously unoccupied sites along the coast (Glassow et al. 2007; Jones et al. 2007).

Middle Period (600 B.C.-A.D. 1000) and Middle/Late Transition Period (A.D. 1000-1200) Middle Period (600 B.C. – A.D. 1000) and Middle/Late Transition Period (A.D. 1000 - 1200) sites have been identified near Elkhorn Slough (CA-MNT-229) and near Salinas (CA-MNT-3), and contain an artifact assemblage consisting of bowl and hopper mortars, long-stemmed projectile points, concave base projectile points, and side-notched projectile points. Based on archaeological evidence, it appears that during the Middle Period (600 B.C. – A.D. 1000), marine resource exploitation intensified with technological advancements such as grooved stone net weights, pitted stones, and circular shell fishhooks, alongside bone gorges. Increased use of the mortar and pestle heightened the importance of acorns and soft plants for subsistence. Earlier types of projectile points dwindled as contracting stem projectile points become favored implements for the procurement of a diverse array of terrestrial and sea mammal species. Social organization became more complex, evidenced by an increase in ornamental grave associations, including numerous Class G2 Olivella saucer beads, which replaced

30.324
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 14 Olivella (L2) rectangular style beads, and, occasionally, bone flutes. The widespread use of Olivella saucer (Class G2) beads, as well as the presence of obsidian from the Casa Diablo source in eastern California found within Central Coast archaeological sites suggest that regional trade networks were well-established at this time.

According to Rabb and Larson (1997), the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA), which is a time period dating from about 950 to 1400 A.D., was marked by two severe periods of drought separated by a wet period and triggered unstable environmental conditions, especially in eastern California. It is postulated that severe climate fluctuations associated with the MCA may have affected the availability and distribution of resources, leading to shifts in settlement patterns and trade networks, a redistribution of people on the landscape, as well as changes in social organization, as people adjusted to strained environmental conditions (Jones and Schwitalla 2008). Populations may have adjusted by changing group size and/or location, selecting different types of resources to procure, and/or defending existing resources during this time (Jones and Schwitalla 2008). In San Luis Obispo County, populations seem to have shifted away from the coast, possibly due to a decrease in maritime resources (Jones et al. 1994) caused by an increase in surface water temperature and salinity that affected the availability of marine resources. Bow and arrow technology, evident by the appearance of small leaf-shaped arrow points in the archaeological record, as well as basket hopper mortars sealed with asphaltum were also introduced during this period (Jones et al. 2007). An absence of imported obsidian from the Casa Diablo source after A.D. 1000 implies a disruption of trade networks and possible shift in settlement patterns as well (Jones et al. 1994).

Late Period (A.D. 1200-1500) and Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1500 – 1769) Archaeological evidence of occupation during the Late Period (A.D. 1200 – 1500) and Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1500-1769) is generally characterized by small, single-component archaeological sites, frequently located inland and away from the coast. The Late and Protohistoric periods in Santa Cruz County is represented at sites in the Santa Cruz Mountains (CA-SCR-20) and within City of Santa Cruz limits (CA-SCR-160). Sites dating to these periods typically include an artifact assemblage consisting of hopper mortars, bedrock mortars, millingslabs, pestles, handstones, small side-notched projectile points, including the Desert side notch and Cottonwood triangular arrow points, chipped stone drills, schist, circular shell fishhooks, clamshell disc beads, steatite beads, Haliotis (abalone) shell pendants, and certain types of Olivella shell beads (B2, B3, G1, G6, K1, E1, E2) (Jones et al. 2007; Pulcheon et al. 2006).

ETHNO-HISTORIC SETTING
At the time of Euro-American contact, the Native Americans that lived in the vicinity of the Project Area included the speakers of the Awaswas language, part of the Costanoan language family (Levy 1978:485).

Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word costa and means “coast people”, and refers to many communities speaking distinct, yet related, languages. Costanoan territory extended from the southern shore of the Carquinez Strait where the San Juaquin/Sacramento River Delta joins the San Francisco Bay,

30.325
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 15 south to Big Sur, and from the Pacific Coast inland for twenty to thirty miles (Levy 1978). According to linguistic data, the ancestors of the Costanoans moved into the area around 4,500 years ago.

The Costanoan language family was made up of eight distinctly different languages, including the Awaswas language, that were spoken by some fifty separate tribelets, each with a population of approximately 200 people. The tribelet was the basic inter-village organization of central California (Kroeber 1925). Separate dialects were spoken by each tribelet; and each tribelet was politically separate and had its own permanent villages and seasonal camps for hunting and fishing (Levy 1978).

Today the descendants of these tribelets are referred to collectively as the Ohlone. There were two village sites reported by early ethnographers to be in the area of Santa Cruz, including those referred to as ?uypi and ?aptos (Levy 1978:485). These two sites were located near the San Lorenzo River, north of the Project Area, and Woods Lagoon, respectively.

The general region includes a long stretch of the Pacific Ocean which drew birds, fish, marine mammals, and was abundant with shellfish; but acorns were one of the most important food sources to the Costanoans. Four separate species of acorns were gathered, processed, and consumed as a mush or as acorn bread. Other seeds that were collected include buckeye seeds, which were processed into a mush as well, and Bay laurel seeds, which were consumed both cooked and raw. Dock, tarweed, chia, and Indian pine seeds were roasted before being eaten. Many varieties of berries were also acquired including blackberries, elderberries, strawberries, Manzanita berries, gooseberries, madrone berries, toyon berries and wild grapes. Other edibles that were gathered included roots, young shoots, and common tule pollen (Levy 1978). A historical account noted that the Costanoans enjoyed eating native tobacco mixed with shell lime (Heizer and Wipple 1971). The Costanoans used controlled burning to promote seed bearing, control chaparral, and to create larger grazing areas, which in turn created better hunting grounds. The burning would have also ripened the acorns for an earlier harvest (Winter 1978).

Animal bones typically found in Costanoan archaeological sites include black tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, antelope, mountain lion, grizzly bear, sea lion, whale, dog, wildcat, skunk, raccoon, brush rabbit, cottontail, jackrabbit, tree squirrel, ground squirrel, woodrat, mouse, mole, fish and a variety of birds (Levy 1978). Some species of insects also were eaten. Although most animals were hunted for food, some were valued for their bones, which could be modified into tools or decorative ornaments. For instance, whistles made from eagle, hawk, or condor wing and leg bones have been found, but it is thought that these birds were not killed for food (Winter 1978). The Costanoans ate many species of shellfish such as mussels, abalone, clams and oysters. They also used the shells of these mollusks for the manufacture of ornaments, such as beads and pendants.

Costanoan clothing included small tule or grass front aprons and buckskin rear aprons for women. Men did not usually wear clothing; however, both men and women wore skins and feather robes in colder weather. For personal decoration ears were pierced and beads and feathers were worn. Both men and women tattooed their body and face and some men pierced their nasal septum (Levy 1978).

For shelter the Costanoans fashioned a shallow pit with a sunken floor and constructed a frame structure around it consisting of poles thatched with tule grass and ferns (Winter 1978). Houses were

30.326
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 16 also constructed out of redwood poles and redwood bark. Occupation sites in the area are typically located on river terraces and near the coast where creeks and rivers empty into the ocean.

HISTORIC SETTING
Spanish Period (1772 - 1821)
The earliest accounts of the Santa Cruz area include the Spanish expedition of Juan Cabrillo and Sebastian Vizcaino, who in 1542 and 1602 (respectively) entered Monterey Bay while charting the Pacific coast. One-hundred and sixty-seven years later, in October of 1769, Gaspar de Portola arrived unbeknownst to him at Monterey Bay. Upon their arrival in the area, Father Crespi, the groups’ priest, blessed a creek in the name of Santa Cruz (The Holy Cross). However, being unable to verify his arrival at Monterey Bay, the Portola expedition returned to San Diego to later discover that he had reached his desired destination. The expedition quickly returned to Monterey Bay and established a small settlement, and on August 28, 1791, the Mission de la Exaltacion de la Santa Cruz (The Mission of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross) was established on the banks of the San Lorenzo River by Padre Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. The twelfth mission in California, the location was also the site of a previous Native American village of Uypi (Pulcheon et al. 2006).

Six years later in 1797, the secular town of Villa de Branciforte was established on the opposite side of the Lorenzo River from the mission. It was one of three Spanish cities established by Spain in Alta California1
, including San Jose (1777) and Los Angeles (1781), and was named after Don Miguel de la Grua Talamanca Branciforte, aka, the Marques de Branciforte, the 53rd Viceroy of Spain who supervised Spain’s American Colonies from 1794 to 1798.

Villa de Branciforte was intended to be a mixed community of civilians and soldiers, but when the Spanish government found it difficult to recruit settlers, they offered convicts their freedom in exchange for moving to the Villa. This led to an undesirable element within the population of Branciforte (MidCounty Post, June 27, 2006 [This newspaper is no longer in publication]). The intent to assign soldiers to Villa de Branciforte who would eventually settle there was prevented by an outbreak in hostility between Spain and England. The first occupants of the Villa de Branciforte arrived in November 1797, and consisted of nine men from Guadalajara who had been condemned for petty crimes (Garr 1978:105). Amongst them were three tailors, three farmers, a miner, a saddler and a carpenter; and upon their arrival they were provided with two carts, oxen, and tools for farming, carpentry and iron work (Guest 1962: 36-37). By December 1797 the population of the Villa had increased to forty people, including four retired soldiers and their families. The Villa centered near what is now Branciforte Elementary School and houses lined what is now North Branciforte Street. The Villa was bounded by what is now Seabright on the south, De Lavega Park on the north, Branciforte Creek on the west and Morrissey Boulevard on the east (Reader 1997).

1 Alta California was a polity of New Spain founded in 1769 and became a territory of Mexico after the end of the Mexican War of Independence on 1821.

30.327
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 17 In 1802, the Villa’s residents established a civil government with the election of an alcalde (mayor), perhaps the first election held in Alta California (http://www.villadebranciforte.org/). This was also the year the Spanish Crown ceased providing supplies to the Villa. Within a decade of being established Spain became concerned with conditions and events at the Villa, and in 1803 Governor Jose de Arrillaga sent José de la Guerra to report on the conditions at the Villa de Branciforte. “De la Guerra found the houses of the town constructed without solidity, arranged without symmetry, and located on a poorly chosen site, namely, a little level spot on the extremity of a small hill. Of the twenty-five houses, only one was built of Adobe. The rest were made of palisades covered with mud and were roofed with tule” (Guest 1962:45).

In 1803 the town consisted of 101 individuals. By 1811 the population had dwindled to thirty-seven individuals, and in 1815 there were fifty-three people living at the Villa. The decline and eventual demise of the Villa de Branciforte is believed to be due to the lack of arable land (Guest 1962: 45-46). In 1818, following report of attacks on other Spanish settlements in Alta California, carried out by the Argentinian pirate Hippolyte Bouchard, residents of the Villa looted the Mission, taking most of the assets and garnering further mistrust from Mission officials.

Figure 3: Mission Santa Cruz, ca. 1883 (calishpere.com).

Mexican Period (1821 - 1848)
In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain with the signing of the Treaty of Córdoba and took possession of Alta California. Dramatic changes occurred in Alta California during the Mexican Period due to the lack of strong oversight and strict military rule imposed by the Spanish who had previously ruled over Alta California. In addition to secularization in 1834 that saw mission land and property dissolved, new opportunities arose for trade because foreign ships that had previously been held off by Spanish guarded military ports were allowed to dock and so a variety of provisions were made available

30.328
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 18 to local settlers. As a result, tea, coffee, sugars, spices, spirits of all kinds, as well as a variety of manufactured goods made their way into the region; and the taxes on these imported goods became the main source of revenue for the Mexican government in Alta California. Likewise, products produced in Alta California were exported, which bolstered the hide and tallow trade that became the primary business activity in California during this time.

The Mexican colonial authorities also encouraged settlement of Alta California by permitting foreigners to settle and issuing politically prominent Mexican citizens and military leaders large land grants called ranchos. Because of this, the 20 or so ranchos that had been granted during the Spanish period increased to roughly 800 ranchos that varied in size between 10,000 and 50,000 acres. Since the income of the rancho was dependent on the amount of hide and tallow produced, a family's wealth was determined by the size of their rancho, number of cattle they owned, and the availability of a labor force, which consisted mostly of Indians and poor Mexicans who depended on the rancho owners for their basic needs during this time.

After secularization in 1834 the Santa Cruz Mission and the Villa were joined together in a separate parish known as the Pueblo de Figueroa. By 1845 the name Pueblo de Figueroa had been replaced by the name Santa Cruz (Garr 1978:108). Title to the former Villa de Branciforte land began to be settled in 1864 when the county judge, Augustine W. Blair, ordered the county surveyor to make a full survey of the village, including the lots and parcels and owners or occupants of those lots (Martin 1911).

Claimants of those lots needed to file their claim with the County of Santa Cruz to retain them.

During the 1840s, the lumber industry in Santa Cruz County initiated commerce in the area, beginning with Francisco Lajeunesse, a French Canadian, Joseph L. Majors, a Mexican citizen, Isaac Graham and Henry Neale, both Americans (Lehmann 2000). All four were granted Rancho Zayatane in 1841, and that same year, Majors and a syndicate that included Graham had constructed a sawmill near Mount Herman—the first lumber mill in the County. The Lumber industry accelerated rapidly by statehood, and became Santa Cruz County’s major industry in the mid-nineteenth century.

American Period (1848 - present)
In 1850, when California received its statehood, Santa Cruz County was formed as one of the original 27 counties in the state. Although the lumber industry had got its start during the Mexican period, the vast stands of old-growth redwood forests in the nearby Santa Cruz mountains provided an economic opportunity for the newly formed town of Santa Cruz during the beginning of the American Period. In 1851, a wharf (name unknown) was built to facilitate the growing lumber industry, and a small business district soon developed around the wharf. The wharf was located south of Water Street, between Front Street and the San Lorenzo River— approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project Area (Lehmann 2000).

By 1864 approximately 28 lumber mills were in operation within Santa Cruz County. In addition to mills, tanneries and lime quarries operated on the edges of the town and soon brought a number of workers, and entrepreneurs who further expanded the growing town. In 1866, the Town of Santa Cruz was incorporated, which later became a City in 1876. A large population influx in the 1870s spurred greater development in Santa Cruz, with the center for city commerce focusing on Pacific Street, located to the

30.329
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 19 west of Front Street (Figure 4). During this transition, Front Street was designated a “secondary street” and saw the development of the City’s Chinatown in this area (Lehmann 2000).

Figure 4: ca. 1900 photograph of Pacific Street in Santa Cruz (courtesy of California State Library).

In 1876, the Santa Cruz Railroad launched its first train along a narrow-gauge track that was constructed using local financing to connect the Southern Pacific rail line between Watsonville, Gilroy, and Salinas.

By the 1880s, the rail line led to the decline of the wharf’s importance, as maritime shipping was no longer the only means of interregional commerce. The rail line was bought by the Southern Pacific in 1888, and the latter two decades of the nineteenth century saw a dramatic increase in Santa Cruz’s beachfront tourism industry, as tourists were able to reach Santa Cruz by train. During this time the birth of the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk (today California’s oldest amusement park), along with the construction of casinos and hotels added to the city’s growing tourism industry. By the 1890s, commerce was centered around Pacific Street and Soquel Avenue; however, on April 14, 1894, a devastating fire swept through downtown, and destroyed the Chinatown area that was focused around Front Street (Lehmann 2000).

Tourism continued became a major player in the local economy, as Santa Cruz became a destination for its seaside recreation, with additional resorts, grand hotels, and associated facilities constructed to accommodate and entertain the visitors (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Santa Cruz was envisioned by local developers as the West Coast version of New York’s Coney Island, and tourism thrived in the City until the Great Depression. Around this time, the automobile took over as the preferable way to travel, and accommodations in Santa Cruz shifted to meet these needs. With the construction of auto courts and motels came the decline of the grand hotels and casinos that were so closely tied to railroad tourism.

30.330
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 20 Figure 5: Undated postcard (likely ca. 1900) of “The Auditorium” casino along the beach at Santa Cruz (courtesy of Santa Cruz Public Library).

Figure 6: 1900 photograph of the pier at Santa Cruz (courtesy of California State Library).

30.331
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 21 Development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” (ca. 1920 – ca. 1945) Prior to ca. 1895, Front Street had terminated at Soquel Avenue but was later extended southward across Soquel Avenue. However, development along this area of Front Street was rather slow until the 1920s, when new construction increased substantially and began to have a more automobile-focused purpose, with automobile showrooms and automobile repair and service garages operating between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street. Automobile travel into and around Santa Cruz increased during the 1920s, as it had through much of California, as the public increasingly purchased cars and roads were improved as part of the “good roads” movement (Lehmann 2000). Similar development occurred throughout large and medium-sized cities throughout the U.S., and especially California, during this period. Much like these other cities, auto courts and auto camps developed in the City during this period between World War I and World War II, replacing the grand hotels that once served tourists in Santa Cruz that had previously arrived by railroad (Archives and Architecture 2013).

The rise of the automobile signaled the rise of new automobile showrooms and repair garages in Santa Cruz. A 1932 Santa Cruz Sentinel article about Front Street’s emergence as the City’s “Automobile Row” cited the Palomar Garage as the first automobile-centric building that spurred further such development along Front Street—mostly constructed of reinforced concrete (Santa Cruz Sentinel 1932a). Headlines in the Santa Cruz Sentinel such as “Modern Cement Buildings Grace Front Street, now a Regular Automobile Row,” and “Front Street Rapidly Taking Place As Modern “‘Automobile Row’” chronicled the development of Front Street during the late 1920s through the early 1940s (Santa Cruz Sentinel 1932a, 1932b). The development along this section of Front Street is detailed in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013):
“Later, as the automobile became increasingly prevalent in urban centers during the interwar period, commercial sales and services clusters began to appear in Santa Cruz, primarily on Front Street. Prominent local architects such as Lee Dill Etsy and C. J. Ryland designed buildings for clients in the automobile business, including auto repair shops (Huston & Weymouth Garage, 418 Front Street) and auto showrooms (Thrash Pontiac Motors, 429 Front Street). In 1936 the nineteenth-century county jail was replaced with a Modern edifice designed by Albert Roller (now the Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center, 725 Front Street)” (Archives and Architecture 2013).

While there are some automobile-centric buildings along Front Street that remain from the period from ca. 1920 through ca. 1945, many have been demolished or have been repurposed for other commercial purposes.

RESULTS OF RECORD SEARCH AND REVIEW
This section describes the results of the record search and review that included a record search at the NWIC, a review of historic maps, aerials and information obtained as part of the HRE (De Shazo and Matuk 2019) to determine the potential for historic-era archaeological resources within the Project Area, and a review of the geology and soils of the Project Area as well as the City of Santa Cruz’s GIS layer of the archaeological sensitivity within the City of Santa Cruz (http://data30.332 Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 22 cruzgis.opendata.arcgis.com/) and the Cultural Resources Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update (Pulcheon et al. 2006).

NWIC
EDS Principal Archaeologist, Sally Evans, M.A., RPA completed a record search at the NWIC on April 10, 2019 (NWIC File #18-1952). According to information on file at the NWIC, the Project Area has not been previously evaluated for cultural resources and there are no previously documented cultural resources recorded within the Project Area. However, there have been fifteen (15) cultural resource studies previously conducted within a 0.25-miles of the Project Area. These studies are listed below in Table 1.

Table 1: Previous cultural resource studies within 0.25-mile of the Project Area.

NWIC # Year Title Author(s)
S- 3801 1975 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed San Lorenzo Apartments, Dakota Avenue near Soquel Avenue. Santa Cruz, California.

Mary Ellen Farley and
Jack Baskin
S- 3964 1977 Santa Cruz Regional Wastewater Treatment System Project, Santa Cruz, California.

Ann Peak
S- 4130 1981 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Bank of America Site on Front Street in the City of Santa Cruz.

Robert Cartier and
Charlene Detlefs
S-6137 1983 Archaeological Consultation on the Discovered Historic Resources on the Redevelopment parcel, Front and Cooper Streets in the City of Santa Cruz, California.

Rob Edwards
S-6308 1984 Salvage Recovery of Archaeological Materials from the Swenson Project on Front Street in the City of Santa Cruz.

Robert Cartier,
Charlene Detlefs, Jan
Whitlow
S-18384 1996 A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Soquel Bridge Rehabilitation Project (36C-105) in the City of Santa Cruz.

Robert Cartier
S- 18981 1997 A Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Laurel Street Bridge Retrofit Project (36C-102) in the City of Santa Cruz.

Robert Cartier and
Lynne Eckert
S-26569 2003 Historic Architectural Survey Report: AT&T Wireless Services ID#960008037C-Downtown Santa Cruz 1101 Pacific Avenue,
Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.

Ric Windmiller
S-26667 2002 Letter of Findings: 1010 Pacific Avenue, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.

Mary Doane
S-30779/
S-39563
2005 Collocation Submission Packet FCC Form 621: Downtown Santa Cruz SF-16610A.

Earth Touch Inc.

S-46428 2015 Preliminary Archaeological Assessment of APN 007-420-26, in Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.

Mary Doane and Gary
Breschini
S-48752 2016 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of parcel (APN 007- 402-04), 320 Broadway, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County,
California.

Patricia Paramoure
S-49916 2017 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Santa Cruz Crown Castle DAS Project, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.

David Brunzell

30.333
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 23 S-50288 1993 Cultural Resource Evaluation for the San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek Flood Control Feasibility Study.

U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, SF District
S-50988 2015 Historical Resource Evaluation Report: Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory: 2015 Update 1965-1974.

Helen Blackmore,
Lauren Clementino,
Andy Hope, Noah
Stewart, Janice Calpo
Previously Documented Cultural Resources
According to information on file at the NWIC there are eight (8) cultural resources recorded within 0.25- miles of the Project Area, including one historic-period archaeological site (P-44-000269), four historicperiod buildings (P-44-000214, P-44-000227, P-44-000247, P-44-000554), one historic-period bridge (P44-001128), and two historic-period districts (P-44-000853, P-44-000939), as well as one previously identified but unrecorded prehistoric archaeological site (SL-CEO-1) located on the opposite side of the San Lorenzo River from the Project Area. These resources are described below:
• P-44-000214: A ca. 1882 octagonal shaped building located at 118 Cooper Street in the City of Santa Cruz. Designed by J. W. Newman, the building served as the Santa Cruz County Hall of Records from 1882 to 1968. Surviving numerous fires, earthquakes and floods, the building was listed on the NRHP in 1971 (No. 71000193). The building is located 0.13 miles north of the Project Area (Cooper 1970).
• P-44-000227: The ca. 1908 Hotel Metropole previously located at 1111 Pacific Avenue in the City of Santa Cruz. Constructed by Charles Kay in 1908 in the Italianate-style, the three-story commercial building hotel was listed on the NRHP in 1979 (No. 79000553). The building was severely damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and subsequently demolished. The building was located 500 feet west of the Project Area (Peterson 1978). • P-44-000247: A ca. 1894 Renaissance revival style building located at 1502 Pacific Avenue in the City of Santa Cruz. Originally housing the Bank of Santa Cruz County, the two-story building was designed by W.D. Siclen and C.L. Haynes. The building underwent remodeling in 1910 under the guidance of Clarence Ward. The building was listed on the NRHP in 1982 (No. 82002273); however, following the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake the building was severely damaged and much of it was demolished. Currently, two stone clad exterior walls are all that remain of the original building. The building is located 0.17 miles north/northwest of the Project Area (McGregor 1981).
• P-44-000269 (CA-SCR-267/H): A late nineteenth century concentration of historic refuse associated with the former Chinatown located along Front Street. Although disturbed, the site was found to contain a number of artifacts including Chinese ceramics and bottles. The site is located 0.14 miles north of the Project Area (Detlefs 1984).

30.334
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 24 • P-44-000554: A 1953 commercial building located at 709 Center Street in the City of Santa Cruz.

The two-story building does not meet any of the criterion for listing on the CRHR or NRHP. The building is located 0.23 miles west/northwest of the Project Area (Billat 2002). • P-44-000853: The Pacific Avenue Historic District in the City of Santa Cruz. The District is characterized by a group of residences and commercial buildings, including the Pacific Garden Mall located within the “…historic and economic heart” of the City of Santa Cruz. The District includes fifty-four (54) buildings and structures located along Pacific, Front and Cooper streets in Santa Cruz. Thirty-six (36) of these buildings and structures are contributing elements to the District. With a period of significance spanning from 1860 to 1929, the District’s historic character and significant architectural qualities contribute to the significance of the District as an example of regional architecture and early commercial growth. The south end of the District comes within 185 feet west of the Project Area (Pearson 1985). • P-44-000939: The Santa Cruz Downtown Historic District in the City of Santa Cruz. The District encompasses over fifty-two (52) acres and more than two-hundred (200) buildings, with approximately eighty percent of the buildings acting as contributing elements. The District encompasses the residential areas bordered by Rincon, Church and Walnut streets on the north, Myrtle and Chestnut streets on the west, Laurel Street to the south, and Center and Cedar streets on the east. The area represents the oldest residential settlement within the City of Santa Cruz with a period of significance spanning from 1860 to 1910 (Mathews et al. 1989). The District was listed on the NRHP in 1989 (No. 89001005). The District is located 0.2 miles west of the Project Area.
• P-44-001128: The 1968 San Lorenzo River Bridge (Caltrans Bridge No. 36C0102). The bridge is located on Laurel Street, 0.8 miles east of State Route 1 in the City of Santa Cruz. Measuring 335-feet in length the bridge has a span of 170-feet. The bridge does not meet any of the criterion for listing on the CRHR or NRHP. The bridge is located 0.2 miles south of the Project Area (Blackmore 2014).
• SL-CEO-1: A prehistoric archaeological deposit described as a midden deposit marked by very sandy soil, slightly darkened and containing angular rock fragments, chert flakes, and mussel and clam shell (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993).

A check of the OHP's Directory of Properties in the HPD file for Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (dated 4/5/2012), which includes listings of the CRHR, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the NRHP, does not list any resources within or adjacent to the Project Area. There are also no California Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976) within or adjacent to the Project Area. The nearest listed resource is the Pacific Avenue Historic District located 185 feet west of the Project Area.

30.335
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 25 Historic Documentation and Map Review
The record search included a review of maps and aerials dating from 1886 to 1954 and documentation obtained as part of the HRE (De Shazo and Matuk 2019) that were used to assess the Project Area’s potential to contain buried historic-period archaeological resources.

A review of Sanborn Fire Insurance maps dating between 1886 and 1950, indicate the presence of at least three buildings within or immediately adjacent to the Project Area by 1886 (Figure 7). The Sanborn Fire Insurance map from 1886 and 1888 (Figure 7 and Figure 8) show Soquel Avenue to the north of the Project Area, as well as wooden bridge crossing the San Lorenzo River immediately northeast of the Project Area; however, Front Street that is currently west of the Project Area had not yet been built.

According to the 1892 Sanborn Fire Insurance map additional development had occurred within the Project Area by this time, including approximately four buildings located at the north end of the Project Area and along the south side of Soquel Avenue (Figure 9). By 1905 Front Street had been constructed and there were several buildings present within Project Area, including an armory building, known as the Armory of the 4th Division Naval Militia N.G.C. (Figure 10).

By 1928, the Project Area contained approximately six store buildings, and several automobile-service type buildings, including a battery service, auto trimming, and auto paints (Figure 11). According to local research conducted as part of the HRE (De Shazo and Matuk 2019) the 1926 building that currently exists within the Project Area first served as an auto repair and had the address of 227 Front Street. The Santa Cruz Evening News issue dated June 23, 1926 states that “Harvey Bryan has opened an auto repair shop at 227 Front street and would like to meet all his old friends and patrons there. Expert repairing.” Soon afterward, by July 10, 1926, the Santa Cruz Evening News publishes an advertisement for “The Whippet”, described as being “America’s First European-Type Light Car” along with the address of the showroom “227 Front St.”, though the advertisement lacked any particular business name associated (Polk 1928). By April 30, 1927, the 1926 building was occupied by the “Hutchings & Dodson” dealership for Oakland and Pontiac automobiles by General Motors, as shown in an advertisement in the Santa Cruz Evening News. It appears that around this time, a non-extant building to the east of the 1926 building was used as the offices for Hart Bros., a business selling and delivering washed sand and gravel, which is also shown on the 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (Figure 11) (Polk 1928).

By 1928, Kirby Motor Company is listed in the Polk’s City Directory associated with the 1926 building, along with Bryan & Churchill, an auto repair company likely operating out of the rear of the building. By 1929, however, Kirby Motor Company was no longer operating out 227 Front Street, as the Polk’s City Directory from that year shows Bate Motor Company operating out of the front portion of the 1926 building. An April 26, 1930 article in the Santa Cruz Evening News announces the building permit for a reinforced concrete garage on the west side of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Cathcart to house the Kirby Motor Company. The Bate Motor Company’s tenancy in the 1926 building was shortlived, and are shown operating at 227 Front Street through at least June of 1931.

By September 1931, the front of the 1926 building housed Ward & Thrash, an Oakland-Pontiac dealer that took over the appointment as the Oakland-Pontiac dealer for Santa Cruz from the Bate Motor

30.336
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 26 Company. It appears that S. L. Thrash was selling Pontiac and Packard automobiles by 1936, and continued to operate in the 1926 building until 1939. From 1933-1935 it appears the rear of the building was operated by Derrel T. Lake’s auto repair business (Polk 1935).

By 1940, the 1926 building was occupied by Russ Samuels, Inc., which was an automobile dealership owned by Russell R. Samuels selling the Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln makes. Russ Samuels, Inc. remained in the building until sometime in the mid-1940s (Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder 1940). Howerver, by 1946, it appears that Russ Samuels may have sold his business to George H. Scofield, as the Polk City Directory from that year shows G. H. Scofield Motor Company—a dealership selling Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln automobiles—occupying the 1926 building (Polk 1946). From the listing in the 1946 Polk City Directory, it appears that Scofield’s business also operated a service garage out of the rear of the building. It was this same year that the building was sold by four individuals—Walter A. Huston, L. Fern Huston, Alvin L. Weymouth and Lois A. Weymouth—to Benjamin F. Kelley and Alice B. Kelley. It is likely that the G. H. Scofield Motor Company remained in the building until at least 1958 (Polk 1946; Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder 1946).

By 1950, most of the buildings that had been located within the Project Area along the south side of Soquel Avenue had been removed, and the 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map shows an automobile service station located at the corner of Soquel Avenue and Front Street, as well as the existing 1926 building (Figure 12).

By 1959, it appears that the 1926 building’s owner Benjamin F. Kelley opened an auto parts and service business in the building named Kelley’s Auto Parts Service, also sometimes referred to as Kelley’s Service Inc (Polk 1959; Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder 1976). The Kelley’s sold the 1926 building to Robert P.

Chandler in 1972, but continued to operate the auto parts and service business until at least 1977.

Beginning in 1976, it appears that a business named Best Auto Parts was operating out of the 518 Front Street address, while Kelley’s Service Inc. was operating out of the 516 Front Street address (Polk 1976).

By 1978, the 1926 building was occupied solely by Best Auto Parts, as there is no mention of Kelley’s Service in the Polk City Directory from that year, nor is there a listing for any business at the 516 Front Street address—suggesting that 516 Front Street had become vacant. It appears that Best Auto Parts continued to operate in the 1926 building until at least 1981, and by 1982 the building was listed in the Polk City Directory as being vacant (Polk 1978, 1983).

In 1981 the existing bank building at 530 Front Street was constructed, and also during this time the existing 1926 building was reconfigured to accommodate three individual storefronts, as the city directory shows three separate businesses by 1985—each with a respective address of 514, 516, and 518 (Polk 1983).

30.337
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 27 Figure 7: 1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing approximate location of Project Area.

Figure 8: 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing approximate location of Project Area.

30.338
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 28 Figure 9: 1892 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing approximate location of Project Area.

Figure 10: 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing approximate location of Project Area.

30.339
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 29 Figure 11: 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing approximate location of Project Area.

Figure 12: 1928 (Updated 1950) Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing approximate location of Project Area.

30.340
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 30 Review of Project Area Soils and Geology
The background research also included a review of information about the soils and geology of the Project Area that was used to assess the potential for the Project Area to contain buried prehistoric archaeological resources. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey map shows that the Project Area contains Baywood loamy sand (0 to 2 percent slopes). Baywood loamy sand occurs in valleys and is composed of eolian2 deposits. In a typical profile, Baywood loamy sand (0 to 2 percent slopes) includes loamy sand from the surface to a depth of 61-inches (USDA 2019).

According to the US Geological Survey map of Santa Cruz County (Brabb 1997), the parent material of the soils within the Project Area is Young Surficial Deposit of Holocene-age (11,650 years B.P. to the present) alluvium (Geologic code: Qal) that includes active and recently active flood-plain deposits. It consists of unconsolidated, highly fragmented sandy, silty, clay-bearing alluvium.

Buried prehistoric resources tend to be found on a on layer of buried, ancient soil, called a paleosol. A paleosol is a layer of soil that formed from weathering at or near the ground surface during a period of landform stability (i.e. residuum), and later buried by alluvium during a period(s) of landform instability.

A paleosol would have been a stable land surface available for human occupation prior to alluvial deposition. Since the Project Area contains alluvial deposit that are part of a Holocene-age (11,650 years B.P. to the present) landform, it has the potential to contain buried prehistoric archaeological resources.

City of Santa Cruz Archaeological Sensitivity Maps
The records search and review also included a check of the City of Santa Cruz’s GIS layer of the archaeological sensitivity within the City of Santa Cruz (http://data-cruzgis.opendata.arcgis.com/) and the Cultural Resources Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update (Pulcheon et al. 2006).

The City of Santa Cruz Prehistoric Archaeological Sensitivity Map (Pulcheon et al. 2006:Appendix F-2) shows the Project Area located in an area defined as “sensitive” for containing prehistoric archaeological resources.

The City of Santa Cruz Historic Archaeological Sensitivity map available on the City of Santa Cruz’s GIS website as a data layer and in the Cultural Resources Background Report (Pulcheon et al. 2006:Appendix F-2) shows the Project Area located in an area defined as “sensitive”, particularly in association with the areas American-period development as of 1866.

RESULTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED LANDS INVENTORY AND

CONSULTATION
A search of the Sacred Lands file conducted by the NAHC on April 25, 2019 was positive for the presence of a Native American Sacred Site, but the location was not provided (Totton 2019/Appendix B). The

2 Eolian: borne, deposited, produced, or eroded by the wind.

30.341
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 31 NAHC recommended contacting Patrick Orozco, Chairman of the Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsen Tribe in regard to the positive finding. The NAHC also provided a list of other Native American tribes to contact who may have specific knowledge about the Sacred Site referenced in the letter, or other important Native American cultural resources located near the Project Area.

Five tribes are included on the NAHC contact list: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsen Tribe, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, and Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area. As recommended by the NAHC, a letter was sent via electronic mail to the representatives of each tribe listed to request further information about Native American traditional cultural resources, including Sacred Sites, or Tribal Cultural Resources, within or near the Project Area, and to inquire about Native American issues related to the overall Project.

Table 2: Summary of Native American Correspondence.

Tribe Contact Response
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Valentin Lopez, Chairperson Letter sent via email on 04/26/2019. Response received
(see below).

Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission
San Juan Bautista
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson Letter sent via email on
04/26/2019. No response
received to date.

Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsun
Tribe
Patrick Orozco, Chairman Letter sent via email on
04/26/2019. Phone message left
on 5/3/2019. No response
received to date.

Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Letter sent via email on
04/26/2019. No response
received to date.

Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the
San Francisco Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson Letter sent via email on
04/26/2019. No response
received to date.

As of the date of this report, one response has been received from the Native American individuals contacted (see below). All correspondence with the NAHC and Native American tribes is included in Appendix B.

Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
An email was received from Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Chairman, Valentin Lopez, on April 28, 2019, requesting formal consultation regarding the Project. Mr. Lopez was contacted via email on May 1st to schedule a conference call meeting on May 3rd to discuss the project. No response was received. The email was followed up by a phone call to Mr. Lopez on May 3rd, at which time Mr. Lopez requested an email with alternative dates for a conference call meeting. On May 3rd, EDS emailed Mr. Lopez with two suggested dates for a conference call meeting. No response was received. There has been no further contact with Mr. Lopez.

30.342
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 32

RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEY
A pedestrian field survey of the 1.03-acre Project Area was conducted by EDS Senior Archaeologist, Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA on April 18, 2019. The Project Area is roughly rectangular in shape and is bordered by Front Street on the west, Soquel Avenue on the north, a commercial building to the south, and the San Lorenzo River Walkway and the San Lorenzo River to the east. The San Lorenzo River Walkway runs along the top of the river levee that its approximately 16 to 24 feet above sea level and was constructed in 1956 for flood control purposes. The west side of the levee forms an approximate 36 degree slope down to the Project Area, which sits at approximately 15 feet to 19 feet above sea level.

There is a modern shallow cement drainage that runs along the base of the levee parallel to the Project Area.

The Project Area currently contains two commercial buildings and two shed buildings, as well as two paved parking areas, and associated infrastructure that includes lighting, irrigation, electrical transmission boxes, refuse disposal areas, and landscaping. Landscaping includes a variety of native and non-native cultivars located within several raised planters located throughout the Project Area.

Imported rock (small base rock and river cobbles) and soil were also evident in the landscaped areas.

Vegetation outside of the landscaped areas (behind buildings and structures and along the levee slope) included oak trees, pine trees, English ivy, low-lying grasses and miscellaneous scrub brush. Larger size rip rap was present on the slope of the levee, although it was largely covered with miscellaneous grasses and vegetation.

Due to the presence of buildings and pavement, the methods used to complete the field survey varied.

In the open areas that were not obstructed by buildings or parking lots, including along the western slope of the river levee, the surveyor walked a series of north/south oriented linear transects spaced approximately one meter apart. The individual planters within the Project area, including those located within the parking lot, and within the sidewalk area along Front Street were also inspected. However, due to approximately 90-95 percent of the Project Area being covered by buildings or pavement, very little soil could be inspected. Where visible, the soils consisted of gray colored (Munsell 7.5YR 6/1) sandy loam that appeared highly disturbed and included modern refuse.

No prehistoric or historic-era artifacts, features or other evidence of an archaeological resource was observed within the Project Area.

30.343
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 33 Figure 13: Overview of portion of the Project Area that includes 530 Front Street (APN 005-151-46), facing north/northwest.

Figure 14: Overview of portion of the Project Area that includes the east side of APNs 005-151-45 (no address) and 005-151-37 (514-516 Front Street), and the river levee, facing south.

30.344
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 34 Figure 15: Overview of northwest portion of Project area within APN 005-151-44, facing south/southeast.

Figure 16: Overview of southern portion of Project Area within APN 005-151-044, facing east.

30.345
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 35 Figure 17: Overview of the Project Area within APN 005-151-037, facing west.

Figure 18: Overview of eastern portion of Project Area within APN 005-151-037, and the levee, facing north.

30.346
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 36

CONCLUSIONS
In accordance with CEQA regulations and guidelines, and the City of Santa Cruz ordinances, EDS completed an Archaeological Study of the property at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California to identify any archaeological resources that could be impacted by the proposed Project and to project Project-specific recommendations in accordance with CEQA and the City of Santa Cruz. The Archaeological Study included a record search and review, a Native American Sacred Lands Inventory, and a field survey that were completed by EDS Senior Archaeologist, Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA and EDS Principal Archaeologist, Sally Evans, M.A., RPA, both of who exceed the Secretary of Interior's qualification standards in Archaeology.

The NWIC record search and field survey did not identify the presence of any archaeological resources within the Project Area; however, a review of historic maps and documentation obtained as part of the HRE (De Shazo and Matuk 2019), and a review of the soils and geology of the Project Area indicate that the Project Area has the potential to contain buried prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources. The potential for the Project Area to contain buried prehistoric resources is based on the Project Area’s being located on a Holocene-age (post -11,650 years) alluvial landform that has the potential to contain buried former surfaces that would have once been exposed and available for human occupation, and the Project Area’s proximity to the San Lorenzo River. The potential for the Project Area to contain buried historic-period archaeological resources is based on the presence of buildings within and adjacent to the Project Area by 1886. The City of Santa Cruz prehistoric and historic archaeological sensitivity maps also indicate the potential for prehistoric and/or historic-period archaeological resources to be present. Furthermore, the results of the Native American Sacred Lands inventory were positive for Sacred Lands within or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Area. The local Native American tribes listed by the NAHC were contacted for additional information, but no further information about Sacred Sites was obtained (Appendix B).

While the archaeological study did not result in the identification of archaeological resources, or indications of an archaeological resource within the Project Area, due to the potential for archaeological resources to be present under the exiting built-environment within the Project Area, Project-specific recommendations are recommended (see Recommendation section below).

RECOMMENDATIONS
EDS has provided the following recommendations in accordance with CEQA and the City of Santa Cruz ordinance (Section 24.12.430) due to the potential to encounter archaeological resources within the Project Area that are currently obscured by the existing built-environment.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES
EDS recommends that a qualified professional archaeologist is retained to monitor ground-disturbing activities associated with the demolition of the existing buildings and parking lot within the Project Area, and prepare a report of findings. During archaeological monitoring, if archaeological materials are encountered, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the archaeologist assesses

30.347
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 37 the potential significance of the material. If the archaeological resource is found to be potentially significant, it shall be evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or as a unique archaeological resource. If the archaeological resource does not meet the California Register criteria and is not a unique archaeological resource, it will not be necessary to mitigate impacts. If the archaeological resource is determined to be eligible for the California Register, or meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource, adverse impacts shall be mitigated.

Mitigation of adverse impacts may include excavation of the archaeological resource in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) that includes standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities associated with demolition of the existing buildings and parking area, the archaeologist shall prepare a brief report of the observations and findings, and provide updated recommendations for development within the Project Area. The report shall be submitted to the City of Santa Cruz and the Northwest Information Center.

DISCOVERY OF ARTIFACTS OR REMAINS DURING EXCAVATION OR DEVELOPMENT In the event that human remains of any age or any artifact or any other object which reasonably appears to be evidence of an archaeological/cultural resource is discovered during Project-related earthdisturbing activities and an archaeologist is not present, the following actions shall be taken:

1. Immediately cease all further excavation, disturbance, and work on the project site;

2. Cause staking to be placed completely around the area of discovery by visible stakes not more than ten feet apart forming a circle having a radius of not less than one hundred feet from the point of discovery; provided, that such staking need not take place on adjoining property unless the owner of the adjoining property authorizes such staking;

3. Notify the Santa Cruz County sheriff-coroner and the city of Santa Cruz planning director of the discovery unless no human remains have been discovered, in which case the property owner shall notify only the planning director;

4. Grant permission to all duly authorized representatives of the sheriff-coroner and the planning director to enter onto the property and to take all actions consistent with Santa Cruz City Historic Preservation ordinances (Ord. 2013-09 § 1, 2013: Ord. 2003-14 § 1 (part), 2003: Ord. 86- 13 § 6, 1986: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

Historic-era resources potentially include all by-products of human land use greater than 45 years of age, including alignments of stone or brick, foundation elements from previous structures, minor earthworks, brick features, surface scatters of farming or domestic type material, and subsurface deposits of domestic type material (e.g., glass, ceramic, etc.).

Prehistoric artifacts that are typically found associated with sites in the area include humanly modified stone, shell, bone or other materials such as charcoal, ash and burned rock that can be indicative of food

30.348
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 38 procurement or processing activities. Prehistoric domestic features include hearths, fire pits, house floor depressions and mortuary features consisting of human skeletal remains.

DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS
In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in the Project Area, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Santa Cruz County Corner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and if the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent, or the most likely descendent fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission, or the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. The location shall be recorded using a GPS with sub-meter accuracy and the location made known the City of Santa Cruz, the Native American Heritage Commission, and the Northwest Information Center.

A qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology (48 FR 44 738-39), should also be retained to evaluate the historical significance of the discovery, the potential for additional remains to be present, and to provide recommendations for treatment of the archaeological resource in coordination with the most likely descendent.

30.349
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 39

REFERENCES CITED
Archives & Architecture
2013 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Planning and Community Development.

Billat, Lorna
2002 Primary Site record for P-44-000554. Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Black, George
1854 Map of Santa Cruz Mission Lands, U.S. District Court Lands Case No. 338. On file at the Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley.

Blackmore, Helen
2014 Primary Record form for the San Lorenzo River Bridge, P-44-001128. Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Brabb, Earle E.
1997 Geologic Map of Santa Cruz County, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.

Geological Survey. Washington D.C.

Cooper, J.
1970 Archaeological Site Record for P-44-000214 “Octagon Building” Unpublished site record on file at the Northwest information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

De Shazo, Stacey and Brian Matuk
2019 A Historic Resource Evaluation for the Property at 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Report on file at Evans & De Shazo, Sebastopol, California.

Detlefs, Charlene
1984 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SCR-267H. Confidential record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. Journal of California Anthropology 1:41-54.

Garr, Daniel
1978 “Villa de Branciforte: Innovation and Adaptation on the Frontier.” The Americas, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1978.

Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell 2007 Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges. California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 191-214. New York: AltaMira Press.

30.350
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 40 Guest, Florian
1962 “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte.” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962.

Heizer, R. F., and M. A. Whipple
1971 The California Indians. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jones, Terry
1993 Big Sur: A Keystone in Central California Culture History. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(1):1-78.

Jones, Terry, Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richart T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G. Hylkema 2007 The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu. In California Prehistory. Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A.

Klar eds. Pp. 125-146. New York: AltaMira Press.

Jones, T. L., K. Davis, G. Farris, T. Fung, S. Grantham, and B. Rivers 1994 Toward a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Highway 41 Widening Project, Caltrans Environmental Division, San Luis Obispo. Confidential report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Jones, T. L., and Al W. Schwitalla
2008 Archaeological Perspectives on the Effects of Medieval Drought in Prehistoric California.

Quaternary International 188(1):41-58.

Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted in 1976 by Dover Publications, New York, NY.

Lehmann, Susan
2000 Fully Developed Context Statement for the City of Santa Cruz. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department, 20 October 2000.

Levy, R. S.
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Martin, Edward
1911 Illustrated Complete in One Volume, Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California.

Mathews, Cynthia, Jane Silberstein and Larry Pearson
1989 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Santa Cruz Downtown Historic District, P-44-000939. Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

McGregor, T.
1981 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SCR-245H “County Bank of Santa Cruz.” Confidential record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Meyer, Jack and Jeffrey Rosenthal
2007 Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District 4. Report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

30.351
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 41 Office of Historic Preservation
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. 2012 Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, dated 4/5/2012. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Pearson, Larry
1985 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Pacific Avenue Historic District, P-44-000853. Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Peterson, Richard Arvid
1978 National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for the Hotel Metropole, P-44- 000227. Record on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

Pulcheon, Andrew, E. Timothy Jones, and Michael Konzak
2006 Cultural Resources Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update. Unpublished report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

R. L. Polk & Co.
1928 Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1928. San Francisco, California.
1935 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1935. San Francisco, California. 1946 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1946. San Francisco, California. 1959 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1959. San Francisco, California. 1976 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1976. San Francisco, California. 1978 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1978. San Francisco, California. 1983 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1982-83. San Francisco, California.

Rabb, L. M., and D. O. Larson
1997 Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal Southern California.

American Antiquity 62:319-336.

Reader, Phil.
1997 “Branciforte History Chronology.” Santa Cruz County Historical Journal 3. Santa Cruz, CA:

Museum of Art and History.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. July 1886. 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. May 1888. 1892 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. July 1892. 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1905.
1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1928.
1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1928, updated August 1950.

30.352
Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-516 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Page 42 Santa Cruz County Office of the Recorder
1972 Deed between B. F. Kelley Trust (Grantor) and Robert P. Chandler (Grantee). 1940 Deed of Trust between Russell R. Samuels and Kathleen T. Samuels (Trustor) and K. D.

Daubenbis and Bruce L. Sharpe (Trustee).
1946 Joint Tenancy Deed between Walter A. Huston, L. Fern Huston, Alvin L. Weymouth, and Lois A.

Weymouth (Grantor) and Benjamin F. Kelley and Alice B. Kelley (Grantee; Joint Tenants).

Santa Cruz Sentinel
1932a “Brunetti Building Latest Substantial Structure on Front Street.” 20 February 1932. 1932b “Front Street Rapidly Taking Place As Modern “‘Automobile Row’.” 20 February 1932.

Totton, Gayle
2019 Native American Heritage Commission Letter with Results of Sacred Lands Inventory for 514- 518 and 530 Front Street, Soquel Mixed-Use Project, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California.

United States Army Corps of Engineers
1993 Cultural Resources Evaluation, San Lorenzo River and Branciforte Creek Flood Control Feasibility Study. Confidential report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, California.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2019 Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Electronic application, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 28, 2019.

Winter, Joseph C.
1978 Tamian, 6000 Years in an American City.

30.353
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
www.evans-deshazo.com
APPENDIX A:

Early Stage Project Concept Plans

30.354
S
S
(LOCATION APPROX.)
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030 6'-2
3_
4" x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4" x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4" x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030 6'-2
3_
4" x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4" x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4" x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
6'-4 3_
4 " x 16'-4 7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4 3_
4 " x 16'-4 7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4 3_
4 " x 16'-4 7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
6'-4
3_
4" x 16'-4
7_
8" CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4" x 16'-4
7_
8" CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
6'-4 3_
4 " x 16'-4 7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4 3_
4 " x 16'-4 7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4 3_
4 " x 16'-4 7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
UP
(LOCATION APPROX.)
S
S
UP
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4" x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4" x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
CITYLIFT 2400 x 6030
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
6'-2
3_
4 " x 15'-9" CAR
1900 x 4800

MODULE A
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
6'-4
3_
4" x 16'-4
7_
8" CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4
3_
4 " x 16'-4
7_
8 " CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
CITYLIFT 2450 x 6250
6'-4 4
_3
" x 16'-4 8
_7
" CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4 4
_3
" x 16'-4 8
_7
" CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
6'-4 4
_3
" x 16'-4 8
_7
" CAR
1950 x 5000

MODULE B
(LOCATION APPROX.)
S
S
D
D
1727 SF
COMMERICIAL #1
1813 SF
COMMERCIAL #2

COMPACT

CAR ONLY
30669 SF

GARAGE -

STREET LEVEL
1242 SF

LOBBY / LEASING
558 SF

TRASH RM
34 35
4 0
63 19
48 47
69 74
72 COMPACT

CAR ONLY
1 1' - 10 3/4"
21' - 3 5/8"

GAS METERS
1 1
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
12 12
13 13
A A
B B
C C
D D
F F
G G
H H
B.3
C.6
11 11
1192 SF
COMMERCIAL #3
382 SF

TFMR RM
194 SF

ELEC RM
566 SF

BIKE CAFE
-
---
20' - 8" 11' - 8 7/16"
7 COMPACT

CAR ONLY

COMPACT

CAR ONLY

COMPACT

CAR ONLY
21' - 0 3/8"
5' - 0 7/8"

26.00 25.00

25.00 20.00

25.00 20.00

20.00 1
A-3.01
12' - 0" 21' - 8" 23' - 6" 27' - 0" 27' - 0" 27' - 0" 27' - 0" 27' - 0" 27' - 6" 16' - 0" 28' - 0" 24' - 6" 24' - 0"
E
28' - 6"

4.2 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 9.2
3' - 6" 27' - 0" 27' - 0" 28' - 6" 27' - 0" 27' - 0" 22' - 6" 9 8
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 6 5 4 3 2
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
36 37 38 39
23' - 9"
4 6
62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49
64 65 66 67 68
70 71 73
2 2
21' - 1" 20' - 11" 24' - 3" 19' - 9" 19' - 9" 24' - 11" 16' - 0" 27' - 0 1/4"
24' - 0" 24' - 0"
D.8
C.5

COMPACT

CAR ONLY

COMPACT

CAR ONLY
4 5
44 4
3 4
2 41
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
203 SF
STAIR #4
155 SF
STAIR #1

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 D
L
F
C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O ETA
E
CI L
SE
E
NE
DA
I N
I F
CAL
AI
ORN
ARC
S
W.

E
I T H
LL
C
E
T
E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A-2.01
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
1ST FLOOR N

30.355
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
REF.

REF.

WD WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
WD
WDWD
REF.

WD
UP
UP
UP
WD
UP
UP
REF.

WD
WD
WDWDWD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
UP
1 1
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
12 12
13 13
A A
B B
C C
D D
F F
G G
H H
11 11
3366 SF
PODIUM
Legend
MICRO
STUDIO

COMMERCIAL
1 BDRM
1 BDRM 1 DEN
ELECT

RESIDENTIAL

RESTAURANT
PODIUM

STORAGE
TRASH
Calculating...
729 SF
UNIT D5
737 SF
UNIT D5
492 SF
UNIT B3
616 SF
UNIT C 737 SF
UNIT D5
561 SF
UNIT C
492 SF
UNIT B3
737 SF
UNIT D5
348 SF
UNIT A2
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
338 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
342 SF
UNIT A1
442 SF
UNIT B1
-
---
689 SF
UNIT D3
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
111 SF
ELECT
442 SF
UNIT B1
442 SF
UNIT B1
442 SF
UNIT B1
459 SF
UNIT B2
363 SF
UNIT A3
1000 SF

OUTDOOR
LOUNGE
5274 SF
PODIUM
1287 SF
COMMERCIAL #5
1386 SF
COMMERCIAL #4
1 A-3.01
15' - 3 5/8"
2142 SF

RESTAURANT
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
10' - 2"
503 SF
UNIT B4
503 SF
UNIT B4
410 SF
COMMERCIAL #6
410 SF
COMMERCIAL #7
A-4.02
12 E
2 2
D.8
C.5
155 SF
STAIR #1
158 SF
STAIR #2
157 SF
STAIR #3
172 SF
STAIR #4

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 D
L
F
C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O ETA
E
CI L
SE
E
NE
DA
I N
I F
CAL
AI
ORN
ARC
S
W.

E
I T H
LL
C
E
T
E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A-2.02
1 1/16" = 1'-0" N
2ND FLOOR

30.356
WD
WD
REF.

REF.

WD
WD
WD
WD
WD WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
UP
UP
UP
WD
UP
REF.

WDWDWD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WDWD
WD
WD WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
Legend
MICRO
STUDIO
1 BDRM
1 BDRM 1 DEN
2 BDRM
ELECT

STORAGE
TRASH
Calculating...
916 SF
UNIT E1
916 SF
UNIT E1
-
---
736 SF
UNIT D5
737 SF
UNIT D5
492 SF
UNIT B3
630 SF
UNIT C 737 SF
UNIT D5
561 SF
UNIT C
492 SF
UNIT B3
737 SF
UNIT D5
348 SF
UNIT A2
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
341 SF
UNIT A1
442 SF
UNIT B1
689 SF
UNIT D3
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D2
661 SF
UNIT D1
459 SF
UNIT B2
442 SF
UNIT B1
442 SF
UNIT B1
459 SF
UNIT B2
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3 111 SF
ELECT 1
A-3.01
916 SF
UNIT E1
916 SF
UNIT E1
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
A-2.03
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 3RD FLOOR
N

30.357
WD
WD
WD
WD
REF.

REF.

WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
UP
UP
UP
WD
UP
REF.

WD
WDWDWD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WDWD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
Legend
MICRO
STUDIO
1 BDRM
1 BDRM 1 DEN
2 BDRM
ELECT

STORAGE
TRASH
Calculating...
736 SF
UNIT D5
737 SF
UNIT D5
492 SF
UNIT B3
630 SF
UNIT C
737 SF
UNIT D5
561 SF
UNIT C
492 SF
UNIT B3
737 SF
UNIT D5
348 SF
UNIT A2
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
341 SF
UNIT A1
442 SF
UNIT B1
689 SF
UNIT D3
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
459 SF
UNIT B2
442 SF
UNIT B1
442 SF
UNIT B1
459 SF
UNIT B2
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3 111 SF
ELECT
661 SF
UNIT D2 916 SF
UNIT E1
916 SF
UNIT E1
916 SF
UNIT E1
916 SF
UNIT E1
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
A-2.04
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 4TH FLOOR
N

30.358
WD
REF.

REF.

WD
WD
WD
WD
WD WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
WD
WD
UP
UP
UP
WD
WD WD
UP
REF.

WDWDWD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
Legend
MICRO
STUDIO
1 BDRM
1 BDRM 1 DEN
2 BDRM
ELECT

STORAGE
TRASH
Calculating...

BALCONIES
10FT MINIMUM SETBACK ABOVE
50FT FOR AT LEAST 50%OF FRONT

STREET FRONTAGE AS REQUIRED

BY DESIGN GUIDLINES
10FT X 15FT BUILDING MASS RECESS

BREAK REQUIRED BY DESIGN GUIDLINES
736 SF
UNIT D5
736 SF
UNIT D5
494 SF
UNIT B2
630 SF
UNIT C
492 SF
UNIT B2
737 SF
UNIT D5
610 SF
UNIT B4
519 SF
UNIT B3
519 SF
UNIT B3
519 SF
UNIT B3
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
442 SF
UNIT B1
689 SF
UNIT D3
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
661 SF
UNIT D1
459 SF
UNIT B2
442 SF
UNIT B1
15' - 3 5/8" 36' - 8 3/8"
363 SF
UNIT A3
341 SF
UNIT A1
363 SF
UNIT A3
348 SF
UNIT A2
111 SF
ELECT
661 SF
UNIT D2 916 SF
UNIT E1
916 SF
UNIT E1
916 SF
UNIT E1
916 SF
UNIT E1
737 SF
UNIT D5
561 SF
UNIT C
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
363 SF
UNIT A3
1 1
'
-
4 1
5/
1 6
"

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

FIFTH FLOOR PLAN
A-2.05
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 5TH FLOOR
N

30.359
WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
REF.

WD
WD
WD
WD
WD
UP
UP
UP
WD
UP
UP
WD WD
UP UP
REF.

WD
WD
Legend
MICRO
STUDIO
1 BDRM
1 BDRM 1 DEN
2 BDRM
ELECT

STORAGE
TRASH

ROOF DECK

ROOF GARDEN
Calculating...
519 SF
UNIT B5
519 SF
UNIT B5
519 SF
UNIT B5
610 SF
UNIT B6
561 SF
UNIT C 492 SF
UNIT B3
492 SF
UNIT B3
348 SF
UNIT A2
36' - 8 3/8"
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
341 SF
UNIT A1
714 SF
UNIT D4
714 SF
UNIT D4 714 SF
UNIT D4
341 SF
UNIT A1
45' - 2 1/4"
341 SF
UNIT A1
TOP FLOOR SHALL NOT EXCEED 60% OF FLOOR
AREA BELOW NOR 60% OF BUILDING LENGTH
UNDERLAY OF UNITS ON THE 5TH FLOOR

ROOF GARDEN TO HELP SATISFY PRIVATE

OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, STORM WATER
TREATMENT, AND SC CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.
1532 SF

ROOF GARDEN
1949 SF

ROOF GARDEN
2146 SF

ROOF DECK
21' - 8"
12' - 0"
7' - 4 1/4" 6' - 0" 18' - 0" 5' - 0" 18' - 0" 7' - 5"

ROOF DECK HAVE BEEN ADDED TO HELP

SATISFY PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT

BY PROVIDING DIFFERENT OUTDOOR ROOMS

FOR THE RESIDENCE TO BOTH PASSIVE AND

ACTIVE USES ALONG WITH TAKING IN VIEW OF

THE SAN LORENZO RIVER AND THE
BOARDWALK IN THE DISTANCE.
459 SF
UNIT B2
442 SF
UNIT B1
111 SF
ELECT
746 SF
UNIT E2
746 SF
UNIT E2
746 SF
UNIT E2
6' - 0" 18' - 0" 5' - 0" 12' - 0" 6' - 0"
1 A-3.01
12' - 0"
1 4
'
-
0 1
/8
"

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

SIXTH FLOOR PLAN
A-2.06
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 6TH FLOOR
N

30.360
UP
UP UP
2 A-4.03
A-4.03
A-4.01 2
1 A-4.01 1
A-4.04 12
-
---
267 SF
UNIT E2
267 SF
UNIT E2
267 SF
UNIT E2
1 A-3.01
A-4.02 12

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

LOFT LEVEL
A-2.07
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 LOFT LEVEL

30.361
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"

LOFT LEVEL
64' - 0"

LOFT ROOF
74' - 0"

LEVEE LEVEL
8' - 0"
7' - 0"

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

BUILDING SECTION
A-3.01
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 Section 14

30.362
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"

LOFT LEVEL
64' - 0"

LOFT ROOF
74' - 0"
1 A-3.01

LEVEE LEVEL
8' - 0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"

LOFT LEVEL
64' - 0"

LOFT ROOF
74' - 0"
1 A-3.01
5' - 0"
10' - 0"
24' - 6"

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A-4.01
1/16" = 1'-0"
2 EAST - LEVEE SIDE
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 WEST - FRONT STREET

30.363
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"

LOFT LEVEL
64' - 0"

LOFT ROOF
74' - 0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"
1 A-3.01

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A-4.02
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH-WEST - FRONT STREET SIDE
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 SOUTH-WEST - FRONT STREET SIDE

30.364
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"

LOFT LEVEL
64' - 0"

LOFT ROOF
74' - 0"

LEVEE LEVEL
8' - 0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"

LOFT LEVEL
64' - 0"

LOFT ROOF
74' - 0"

LEVEE LEVEL
8' - 0"

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A-4.03
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH - SOQUEL AVENUE
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 SOUTH

30.365
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"

LOFT LEVEL
64' - 0"

LOFT ROOF
74' - 0"
1 A-3.01

LEVEE LEVEL
8' - 0"
2ND FLOOR
15' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
25' - 0"
4TH FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
45' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
55' - 0"
ROOF
65' - 0"

LOFT LEVEL
64' - 0"

LOFT ROOF
74' - 0"
1 A-3.01

LEVEE LEVEL
8' - 0"

SWENSON
Scale:

Date:

Job #:

Sheet
Drawn by:

COPYRIGHT C 2019 FRONT / SOQUEL MIXED USED PROJECT 530 FRONT STREET SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 9019-70-704
MARCH 28, 2019777 North First Street, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA 95112 - (408) 287-0246 DL F C 19629
REN. 7-31-2019
TS
O

ETA E CI L SEENE DA I N
I
F
CA
L
AI
ORN
A
RC S
W
.

E

I T H LLCE T E

SCHEMATIC DESIGN PROGRESS SET
DM
Consultant:

Revision Schedule:

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A-4.04
1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SOUTH-EAST - LEVEE SIDE
1/8" = 1'-0"
2 NORTH-EAST - LEVEE SIDE

30.366
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
www.evans-deshazo.com
APPENDIX B:

Sacred Lands Inventory Results and Native American Coorespondence

30.367
SLF&Contactsform: rev: 05/07/14
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95501
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project:

County:

USGS Quadrangle
Name:

Township: Range: Section(s):

Company/Firm/Agency:

Contact Person:

Street Address:

City: Zip:

Phone: Extension:

Fax:

Email:

Project Description:

Project Location Map is attached
April 25, 2019

30.368

30.369
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Cultural and Environmental Department
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Phone: (916) 373-3710
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov
April 26, 2019
Sally Evans
Evans & De Shazo, Inc.

VIA Email to: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
RE: Front / Soquel Mixed Use (514-518 and 530 Front Street) Project, City of Santa Cruz; Santa Cruz USGS Quadrangle, Santa Cruz County
Dear Ms. Evans:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsen Tribe at (831) 728-8471 for more information. Also, please note that several quadrangles are highly sensitive for cultural resources.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
[email protected].

Sincerely,
Gayle Totton, B.S., M.A., Ph. D
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment
Gayle Totton

30.370
Amah MutsunTribal Band
Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA, 95632
Phone: (916) 743 - 5833
[email protected]
Costanoan
Northern Valley
Yokut
Amah MutsunTribal Band of
Mission San Juan Bautista
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA, 94062
Phone: (650) 851 - 7489
Fax: (650) 332-1526
[email protected]
Costanoan
Costanoan Ohlone RumsenMutsun Tribe
Patrick Orozco, Chairman
644 Peartree Drive
Watsonville, CA, 95076
Phone: (831) 728 - 8471
[email protected]
Costanoan
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA, 95024
Phone: (831) 637 - 4238
[email protected]
Costanoan
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe
of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA, 94546
Phone: (408) 464 - 2892
[email protected]
Costanoan
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use (514-518 and 530 Front Street) Project, Santa Cruz County.

PROJ-2019-
002448
04/26/2019 09:03 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Santa Cruz County
4/26/2019

30.371
From: Gilbert Browning
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 12:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Archaeological Survey in Santa Cruz
Hello,
Attached you will find a notification letter for the Acarological Study Evans DeShazo is conducting at 516 Front Street in Santa Cruz.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any question or concerns.

Thank you for your time,
Gilbert Browning
Senior Archaeologist / Cultural Resources Specialist M.A., RPA Evans & DeShazo, Inc. (DBE/SBE/WBE)
707­206­5330
gilbert@evans­deshazo.com
Main Office
707­812­7400 | office
707­484­9628 | cell
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Oregon Field Office
971-344-2826
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

30.372
Evans & De Shazo, Inc.
1141 Gravenstein Highway South
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-812-7400 office
April 26, 2019
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA 95632Re: Archaeological Study of the Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California Dear Chairperson,
Evans & De Shazo (EDS) is conducting an Archaeological Study for the proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Project Area). The Project Area is bound to the north by Soquel Avenue, to the east by the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and the San Lorenzo River, to the south by an adjacent parcel at 512 Front Street, and to the west by Front Street. The Project Area consists of four buildings: a 1926 building, two ca. 2005 sheds, and a 1981 commercial building that will be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the parcels. The proposed Project consists of the development of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses, as well as a street-level garage (Project). The City of Santa Cruz has requested an Archaeological Study and a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the buildings that are 45 years of age and older to assess potential impacts to Historical Resources following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods being used to complete the Archaeological Study include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a literature review, a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey. A search of the Native American Sacred Sites file conducted by the NAHC on April 26, 2019 was positive for the presence of a Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area. As such, the NAHC recommended we contact you for information about cultural resources in the Project Area that could be impacted by the proposed Project.

If you have any information regarding Native American traditional cultural resources, including Sacred Sites, or Tribal Cultural Resources, within or near the Project Area, or if you have any concerns about Native American issues related to the overall project, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707) 812-7400, or [email protected]. Please know that your comments and concerns about the Project are very important. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
[email protected]

30.373
From: Gilbert Browning
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 12:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Archaeological Study in Santa Cruz
Hello,
Attached you will find a notification letter for the Acarological Study Evans DeShazo is conducting at 516 Front Street in Santa Cruz.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any question or concerns.

Thank you for your time,
Gilbert Browning
Senior Archaeologist / Cultural Resources Specialist M.A., RPA Evans & DeShazo, Inc. (DBE/SBE/WBE)
707­206­5330
gilbert@evans­deshazo.com
Main Office
707­812­7400 | office
707­484­9628 | cell
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Oregon Field Office
971-344-2826
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

30.374
Evans & De Shazo, Inc.
1141 Gravenstein Hwy. South
707-812-7400 office
April 26, 2019
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Re: Archaeological Study of the Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California
Dear Chairperson,
Evans & De Shazo (EDS) is conducting an Archaeological Study for the proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Project Area). The Project Area is bound to the north by Soquel Avenue, to the east by the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and the San Lorenzo River, to the south by an adjacent parcel at 512 Front Street, and to the west by Front Street. The Project Area consists of four buildings: a 1926 building, two ca. 2005 sheds, and a 1981 commercial building that will be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the parcels. The proposed Project consists of the development of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses, as well as a street-level garage (Project). The City of Santa Cruz has requested an Archaeological Study and a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the buildings that are 45 years of age and older to assess potential impacts to Historical Resources following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods being used to complete the Archaeological Study include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a literature review, a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey. A search of the Native American Sacred Sites file conducted by the NAHC on April 26, 2019 was positive for the presence of a Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area. As such, the NAHC recommended we contact you for information about cultural resources in the Project Area that could be impacted by the proposed Project.

If you have any information regarding Native American traditional cultural resources, including Sacred Sites, or Tribal Cultural Resources, within or near the Project Area, or if you have any concerns about Native American issues related to the overall project, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707) 812-7400, or [email protected]. Please know that your comments and concerns about the Project are very important. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
[email protected]

30.375
From: Gilbert Browning
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 12:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Archaeological Study in Santa Cruz
Hello,
Attached you will find a notification letter for the Acarological Study Evans DeShazo is conducting at 516 Front Street in Santa Cruz.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any question or concerns.

Thank you for your time,
Gilbert Browning
Senior Archaeologist / Cultural Resources Specialist M.A., RPA Evans & DeShazo, Inc. (DBE/SBE/WBE)
707­206­5330
gilbert@evans­deshazo.com
Main Office
707­812­7400 | office
707­484­9628 | cell
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Oregon Field Office
971-344-2826
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

30.376
Evans & De Shazo, Inc.
1141 Gravenstein Hwy. South
707-812-7400 office
April 26, 2019
Costanoan Ohlone-Rumsen Mutsun Tribe
Patrick Orozco, Chairperson
644 Peartree Drive
Watsonville, CA 95076
Re: Archaeological Study of the Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California
Dear Chairperson,
Evans & De Shazo (EDS) is conducting an Archaeological Study for the proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Project Area). The Project Area is bound to the north by Soquel Avenue, to the east by the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and the San Lorenzo River, to the south by an adjacent parcel at 512 Front Street, and to the west by Front Street. The Project Area consists of four buildings: a 1926 building, two ca. 2005 sheds, and a 1981 commercial building that will be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the parcels. The proposed Project consists of the development of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses, as well as a street-level garage (Project). The City of Santa Cruz has requested an Archaeological Study and a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the buildings that are 45 years of age and older to assess potential impacts to Historical Resources following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods being used to complete the Archaeological Study include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a literature review, a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey. A search of the Native American Sacred Sites file conducted by the NAHC on April 26, 2019 was positive for the presence of a Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area. As such, the NAHC recommended we contact you specifically for information about cultural resources in the Project Area that could be impacted by the proposed Project.

If you have any information regarding Native American traditional cultural resources, including Sacred Sites, or Tribal Cultural Resources, within or near the Project Area, or if you have any concerns about Native American issues related to the overall project, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707) 812-7400, or [email protected]. Please know that your comments and concerns about the Project are very important. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
[email protected]

30.377
From: Gilbert Browning
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 12:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Archaeological Study in Santa Cruz
Hello,
Attached you will find a notification letter for the Acarological Study Evans DeShazo is conducting at 516 Front Street in Santa Cruz.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any question or concerns.

Thank you for your time,
Gilbert Browning
Senior Archaeologist / Cultural Resources Specialist M.A., RPA Evans & DeShazo, Inc. (DBE/SBE/WBE)
707­206­5330
gilbert@evans­deshazo.com
Main Office
707­812­7400 | office
707­484­9628 | cell
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Oregon Field Office
971-344-2826
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

30.378
Evans & De Shazo, Inc.
1141 Gravenstein Hwy. South
707-812-7400 office
April 26, 2019
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
Re: Archaeological Study of the Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California
Dear Chairperson,
Evans & De Shazo (EDS) is conducting an Archaeological Study for the proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Project Area). The Project Area is bound to the north by Soquel Avenue, to the east by the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and the San Lorenzo River, to the south by an adjacent parcel at 512 Front Street, and to the west by Front Street. The Project Area consists of four buildings: a 1926 building, two ca. 2005 sheds, and a 1981 commercial building that will be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the parcels. The proposed Project consists of the development of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses, as well as a street-level garage (Project). The City of Santa Cruz has requested an Archaeological Study and a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the buildings that are 45 years of age and older to assess potential impacts to Historical Resources following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods being used to complete the Archaeological Study include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a literature review, a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey. A search of the Native American Sacred Sites file conducted by the NAHC on April 26, 2019 was positive for the presence of a Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area. As such, the NAHC recommended we contact you for information about cultural resources in the Project Area that could be impacted by the proposed Project.

If you have any information regarding Native American traditional cultural resources, including Sacred Sites, or Tribal Cultural Resources, within or near the Project Area, or if you have any concerns about Native American issues related to the overall project, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707) 812-7400, or [email protected]. Please know that your comments and concerns about the Project are very important. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
[email protected]

30.379
From: Gilbert Browning
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 12:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Archaeological Study in Santa Cruz
Hello,
Attached you will find a notification letter for the Acarological Study Evans DeShazo is conducting at 516 Front Street in Santa Cruz.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any question or concerns.

Thank you for your time,
Gilbert Browning
Senior Archaeologist / Cultural Resources Specialist M.A., RPA Evans & DeShazo, Inc. (DBE/SBE/WBE)
707­206­5330
gilbert@evans­deshazo.com
Main Office
707­812­7400 | office
707­484­9628 | cell
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Oregon Field Office
971-344-2826
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

30.380
Evans & De Shazo, Inc.
1141 Gravenstein Hwy. South
707-812-7400 office
April 26, 2019
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson
789 Canada Road
Woodside, Ca 94062
Re: Archaeological Study of the Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California
Dear Chairperson,
Evans & De Shazo (EDS) is conducting an Archaeological Study for the proposed Front / Soquel Mixed Use Project at 514-518 and 530 Front Street, within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Project Area). The Project Area is bound to the north by Soquel Avenue, to the east by the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and the San Lorenzo River, to the south by an adjacent parcel at 512 Front Street, and to the west by Front Street. The Project Area consists of four buildings: a 1926 building, two ca. 2005 sheds, and a 1981 commercial building that will be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the parcels. The proposed Project consists of the development of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses, as well as a street-level garage (Project). The City of Santa Cruz has requested an Archaeological Study and a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the buildings that are 45 years of age and older to assess potential impacts to Historical Resources following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and guidelines.

The methods being used to complete the Archaeological Study include a record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), a literature review, a Native American Sacred Sites inventory conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a field survey. A search of the Native American Sacred Sites file conducted by the NAHC on April 26, 2019 was positive for the presence of a Sacred Sites within or near the Project Area. As such, the NAHC recommended we contact you for information about cultural resources in the Project Area that could be impacted by the proposed Project.

If you have any information regarding Native American traditional cultural resources, including Sacred Sites, or Tribal Cultural Resources, within or near the Project Area, or if you have any concerns about Native American issues related to the overall project, please contact me at your earliest convenience at (707) 812-7400, or [email protected]. Please know that your comments and concerns about the Project are very important. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this request for consultation. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,
Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
[email protected]

30.381











!"
#

$" %




&

'"$
&&(
)
##))
$*+,-../ 
,(&

",
("))
#,)
#
012!-2-3
)(,)
#
012!-24 
56778
9:6;<
=<6778>?:6;<@A?<B6CDEFDGH IJAK
LMFB6?D7DNOF67
5PM:?8
O;
56;Q6
RMPC

SO7T?MQ
UMDJ;O;N
V#/"&W



)X $

!("
.

&
 -
Y Z

%W



)


&
0")
)%
Y
 [#

0"

"
)

#
IMDGK
\

](
V (W
)
)$&
$
"#X
^6Q?K
!("
.

&
  
Y
YZ
_DK
`/"&
["


#
V#/"&W



)X
5PTa?FQK
b?K
LMFB6?D7DNOF67
5PM:?8
O;
56;Q6
RMPC

c
"d$
&
0")



$&
&

"#
"
#
&

("e&

Y



&
&
$

& %$"

"
&





Z

+
%$
\

&

](
'
" !)

$&
$

Z"/

[

-
32
.22

f

"
!("
-

&
 2
Y
`/"&
["


#
V#/"&W



)X

"&

g

!&&

%$


0

&0
&

&&"
0"
&
!
"#

&$%







$&
#
&
-

"
&
&"&




&

'"$ Y


0
0"
&

&
&
$

0
%$



%
d$
&

"

"



Z

+
%$
0"
%$"
&)

30.382











!"
#

$" %




&

'"$
&&(
)
##))
$*+,-../ 
,(&

",
("))
#,)
#
012!-2-3
)(,)
#
012!-24 
5/"&
6"


# 
"
!"
#
&

'$&$"

7
$"

(

&
!
78! 






966:6; 33
-
22 #/"&<



)

=>?@
ABB?CD 33
.
3
E
00 33
.
-.

E
 
5"


&

F
%
 /

&(
'!
3 AGDHI@
J?DKL
ABB?CD

3
2
.-


&
0")


0"
:




30.383
From: Gilbert Browning
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 9:44 AM
To: Val Lopez
Cc: Sally Evans
Subject: RE: Archaeological Survey in Santa Cruz
Hello Mr. Lopez,
I am responding to your request for consultation about the project Evans and DeShazo is conducting at 516 Front Street in the City of Santa Cruz.

We are pleased to provide further information and consultation regarding the project.

I would like to set up a conference call this Friday (May 3rd) if that works with your schedule. Please let me know if that works for you and if there is a time at which you would like to conduct the conference call.

If that does not work could you suggest a time when you would be available to talk about the project? Thank you for your time,
Gilbert Browning
Senior Archaeologist / Cultural Resources Specialist M.A., RPA Evans & DeShazo, Inc. (DBE/SBE/WBE)
707­206­5330
gilbert@evans­deshazo.com
Main Office
707­812­7400 | office
707­484­9628 | cell
1141 Gravenstein Hwy S
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Oregon Field Office
971-344-2826
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Val Lopez
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2019 9:09 PM
To: Gilbert Browning
Subject: Re: Archaeological Survey in Santa Cruz
We request formal consultation regarding this project. Please contact us at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,

30.384
















!
"!"
#
# "$


%!

!




!



!




&
"
'$
(($$

)*+,#--,. /+"

!+
"!$#+!
#
01211-33-,
$"+$
(
01211-4 
56778
9:6;<
=<6778>?:6;<@A?<B6CDEFDGH ID;<J7K6KLD;
MDN
ONDOD<?A
A?:?7DOG?;K
6K
PQR
SND;K
5KN??K
L;
56;K6
INJCT
56;K6 INJC
IDJ;K8


$

( UL7V?NK
WNDX;L;Y
Z(.![

#

$\ %!

&
1


1'-
] ^'
_

`"
Z "[
$
$

!(\
'

&


Z

&[

#

$\ a
!
`"


$
/!
(
&



!
"

&
!





!b


!(
!#
(

"!c


#





#

(

-
,
%!

!




&



!



"

.

/
#
*




"


!



!

d
/*
/
.


#



/

e


f!
/
 /



f
#!
g# "!
h


/
#
*


((


/
(
#

'

iBJN<A68
j68
kT
lmQk n!SNLA68
j68
QmT
lmQk

2 &$




#


/
/!*
!
$



#


#


/!*
!
&

"



$
*
/

#
/
/

((

!

 

^

*
&

!
&
!
$
o.!
f!/

( 
!
2!
(




!

p

!

"


2
p]2 






gffqfh 33

11
(.![

#

$

rstu
vwwtxy 33
,
3-
z
  33
-,-
,
z
 -
o!




a/&
 30.385













 !
"
"
#
$
%

"
"
"




"

&
'


"

&
'
&'
"(
""
)!
**!!
'+,-$ ##$. /-"


-

!!
* -!
*
01232$222$4#
!-!
*
01232$5 
67889
:;7<=
>=7889?@;7<=AB@=C7DEFGEHI JKELE=@B
M@;@8ELH@<N
7N

OPQAOPR
SKE<N
6NK@@N
T<
67<N7
UKVDW
67<N7
UKVD
UEV<N9

XT8Y@KN
ZKE[<T<\
]*.
"^



!_ %


(
2

"
2)#$

 `)
a(

4^*
!!a
](

4^*
!!_ &)

(


]

(^



!_ b


c



!
/
"
*
('


*

"

d"







'"
*
"
#
$
%

"
"
"
/"

"
&"(
0


"
&
'


"

&
'
&'
"(
&
0




c'




e



"
(
fg'
"
/


" 

"
h3b&

'**
"

"
"
*
('

"(

i
/'
,
"

g'

0
('
/'
,

0
!



'"
"







"

"


'

'


"

d"

0
('
/'
,
"

"
'


0






.(

!
"!

j"
/,
"

'

(
g'
"






('
!
(


.'"
"

d"



"
'

,
/

`

,
('
0

('

"!
k.
"
l
/

* 


3 
*
"

&'"'


f
'




"
3
f
3 






mlliln 44

22
*.
"^



!

opqr
sttquv 44
$
4#
w
00 44
#$#
$
w
 #
k



"

b/(
 .

"
&3
#4 sxvyzr
{qv|}
sttquv

4
2##
$


"
0 !


0

i
/

 30.386

Evans & De Shazo, Inc
1141 Gravenstein Highway South,
Sebastopol, CA 95472
707-812-7400
www.evans-deshazo.com

A HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
FOR THE PROPERTY AT 514-518

FRONT STREET, SANTA CRUZ, SANTA

CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:

Jessie Bristow
SWENSON Builders
[email protected]
PREPARED BY:

Stacey De Shazo, M.A.

Principal Architectural Historian
and
Brian Matuk, M.S.

Senior Architectural Historian

Updated May 13, 2022

30.387
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page ii
Management Summary
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. (EDS) completed a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of 1926 building located at 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California (Property) that is part of the proposed Front/Soquel Mixed-Use Project (Project). The Project consists of three parcels (Project Area), including one parcel located at 514-516 Front Street, within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 005-15-137, with a 1926 building and two ca. 2007 sheds, and two parcels at 530 Front Street, within APNs 005-151-47 and 005-151-44, which include a 1981 commercial building (most recently operating as Wells Fargo bank) and paved surface parking lot. The proposed Front/Soquel Mixed-Use Project consists of the demolition of the 1926 building and ca. 2007 sheds (APN 005-15-137) and the 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot (APNs 005-15-144 and 005-15-147) and the redevelopment of the Project Area including the construction of a six-story mixed-use building with multi-family residential and commercial uses (Project).

The 1926 building is not currently locally listed or previously found eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is not listed on the Historic Property Data (HPD) file for Santa Cruz County (2012) and does not appear to have been previously evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The 1926 building was previously surveyed in 2013 as part of Volume III of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey and was subsequently identified as locally eligible for listing in the Historic Building Survey; however, the property was not listed in the local Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey due to owner’s decision to “opt out” of the listing.1 The ca. 2007 sheds, and 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot were not included in the 2012 survey by the City of Santa Cruz, likely due to their age, being less than 45 years in age, at the time of the 2012 survey.

Based on California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historical Resources,2 EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. conducted research and a survey to evaluate the built environment that is at least 45 years in age, recommended by the OHP as a threshold, within the Project Area to determine if any of the built environment qualifies for listing on the CRHR. Utilizing CEQA regulations and OHP guidelines, EDS determined that of the built environment resources within the Project Area only the 1926 building warranted recordation and determined that the ca. 2007 sheds,3 1981 commercial building, and vacant parking lot did not warrant recordation.4 As such, the 1981 building, ca. 2007 sheds, and parking lot were not documented or evaluated. In addition, there is no local City of Santa Cruz policies or ordinance that would require EDS to record or evaluate properties within the city that are less than 45 years in age.

The results of the HRE determined that the 1926 building is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria. However, the 1926 building was previously determined to be a historical resource eligible for local listing. But, currently, the 1926 building is not locally designated or listed as the property owners elected 1 City of Santa Cruz, City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621 (passed and adopted March 2013). 2 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, March 1995 3 Available aerial photographs from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 suggest that these garbage sheds were constructed in ca. 2007.
4 Both EDS and the City of Santa Cruz did not record or evaluate the ca. 2007 sheds and 1981 commercial building.

30.388
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page iii
to “opt-out”5 of the listing. As such, based on Resolution No. NS-28.621 it does not appear that the 1926 building is subject to the City’s historic preservation regulations.

In April 2022, the City of Santa Cruz requested a re-evaluation of the 1926 building due to issues with the 2013 Archives & Architecture local evaluation of the building,6 which lacked the historical contextsuch as architectural style and the history associated with the signature theme of Commercial Development from 1927 to 1948, and a thorough integrity section, required to support historical significance. As such, the following HRE has been updated to include a local “re-evaluation”, completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. following the guidance of the Santa Cruz Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), specifically related to the local designation of historical resources.

In summary, the 1926 building at 514-518 Front Street is not individually eligible for listing in the CRHR. In addition, the re-evaluation of the 1926 building for local significance recommends the building is not eligible for local listing.

As such, the Proposed Project would not have any impact on historical resources under CEQA. 5 City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621 (passed and adopted March 2013). 6 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Planning and Community Development, March 2013, 20.

30.389
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page iv
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT AREA LOCATION......................................................................................................................................1 REGULATORY SETTING...........................................................................................................................................3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT................................................................................................................... 3 ADDITIONAL CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS AS REFERENCED IN CEQA ...................................................................................... 4 OHP INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECORDING HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 4 What Kinds of Resources Merit Recordation? ................................................................................................... 4 CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LOCAL REGULATIONS..................................................................................................................... 5 Santa Cruz City Ordinance No. 2003-14, Part 5: Historic Preservation................................................................ 5 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III – March 2013 ........................................................................... 6 City Registry Criteria Section 24.12.440 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey ...................................................... 6 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................................................7 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................................8 Spanish Period (1772 - 1821)............................................................................................................................ 8 Mexican Period (1821 - 1848)........................................................................................................................... 9 American Period (1848 - present)................................................................................................................... 10 DEVELOPMENT OF FRONT STREET AS “AUTOMOBILE ROW” (CA. 1920 – CA. 1945).............................................................. 13 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT................................................................................................................................... 15 AUTOMOBILE SHOWROOM PROPERTY TYPE ................................................................................................................. 15 RECORD SEARCH AND REVIEW............................................................................................................................. 18 NWIC ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 LOCAL RESEARCH................................................................................................................................................... 19 ONLINE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................. 20 RESULTS OF THE PROPERTY SPECIFIC HISTORY RESEARCH ................................................................................... 20 Property History............................................................................................................................................. 20 Owner and Occupancy History ....................................................................................................................... 21 HISTORIC ARCHITECTUAL SURVEY........................................................................................................................ 27 PROPERTY ............................................................................................................................................................ 27 1926 “Automobile Showroom” Building.......................................................................................................... 28 Contemporary Buildings................................................................................................................................. 42 PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION .................................................................................................................................... 44 EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................................ 46 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 46 CRHR EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................................... 47 INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................................ 49

30.390
Evans & De Shazo, Inc. Page v
LOCAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION............................................................................................................................... 50 2013 Archives and Architects - 1926 Building Evaluation (DPR page 4 of 5)..................................................... 50 EDS Review and Recommendations:............................................................................................................... 50 2022 EDS Local Re-Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 53 Summary of Local Re-Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 56 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................... 56 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................................................... 58 APPENDIX A: Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms (updated May 2022) APPENDIX B: Memo amending the

30.391
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 1

INTRODUCTION
Evans & De Shazo, Inc (EDS) completed a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the 1926 building located at 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 005-15-137 (Property) that is part of the “Front/Soquel Mixed Use Project” that is currently being developed. The proposed project includes three adjacent parcels including one parcel at 514-516 Front Street, within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 005-151-37, which includes the 1926 building and two ca. 2007 sheds, and two parcels at 530 Front Street, within APNs 005-151-47 and 005-151-44, which include a 1981 commercial building (most recently operating as Wells Fargo bank) and paved surface parking lot, located within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County (Project Area). The proposed project consists of the demolition of the 1926 building and ca. 2007 sheds at 514-518 Front Street (APN 005-15-137), as well as the demolition of the 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot at 530 Front Street (APNs 005- 15-144 and 005-15-147), and redevelopment of the three parcels that includes the construction of a sixstory mixed use building with multi-family residential and commercial uses (Project). The 1926 building is not currently locally listed or previously found eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is not listed on the Historic Property Data (HPD) file for Santa Cruz County (2012), and does not appear to have been previously evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The 1926 building was previously surveyed in 2013 as part of Volume III of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey and was subsequently identified as locally eligible for listing in the Historic Building Survey; however, the property was not listed in the local Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey due to owner’s decision to “opt out” of the listing.7In April 2022, the City of Santa Cruz requested a re-evaluation of the 1926 building due to issues with the Archives & Architecture evaluation of the building in 2009, 1 which lacked the historical context such as architectural style and history of the significance them of Commercial Development from 1927 to 1948, as well as a section that details the status of all seven aspects of integrity need to support significance. As such, the following HRE has been updated to include a local “re-evaluation”, completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. The re-evaluation was included within updated on DPR 523 forms (attached) that will be submitted to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS).

Based on the California Office of Historic Preservation instructions for Recording Historical Resources,8 EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A., and Senior Architectural Historian, Brian Matuk, M.S., who both exceed the Secretary of Interior's qualification standards in Architectural History and History surveyed of the property located at 514-518 Front Street that includes the 1926 building, two contemporary garbage sheds from ca. 2007,
9 and the 1981 commercial building and vacant parking lot at 530 Front Street that are part of the Project Area. It was determined by Ms. De Shazo and Mr. Matuk utilizing the OHP guidelines that the 1981 building did not warrant recordation. As such, the 1981 building was not documented.

The following HRE is based on specific guidelines and evaluation criteria of the California Register of 7 City of Santa Cruz, City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621 (passed and adopted March 2013). 8 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, March 1995 9 Available aerial photographs from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 suggest that these garbage sheds were constructed in ca. 2007.

30.392
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 2 Historical Resources (CRHR) (14 CCR §15064.5 and PRC§ 21084.1), as well as local guidelines and ordinances. A Cultural Resource Study (CRS) was also completed by EDS Principal Archaeologist, Sally Evans, M.A., RPA, and EDS Senior Archaeologist, Gilbert Browning M.A., RPA, of which the findings are presented in a separate report.10
The results of the HRE are presented herein.
10 Sally Evans, M.A. RPA, and Gilbert Browning, M.A., RPA, Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Project at 516 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. Evans & De Shazo, Inc., 2019.

30.393
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed “Front/Soquel Mixed Use Project” consists of the demolition of the 1926 building and the two ca. 2007 sheds located at 514-518 Front Street (APN 005-151-37), as well as the demolition of the 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot at 530 Front Street (APNs 005-151-47 and 005-151-44) and the redevelopment of three adjacent parcels that will include an eight-story mixed-use building consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses, as well as a street-level garage.

PROJECT AREA LOCATION
The Project Area consists of three parcels, which total 1.03 acres fronting the east side of Front Street in Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. These parcels include the 0.42-acre parcel located at 514-518 Front Street within APN 005-15-137, and two parcels located at 530 Front Street (APN 005-15-144, 0.22 acres; and, APN 005-15-147, 0.39 acres) (Figure 1). The Project Area is bound to the north by Soquel Avenue, to the east by the Santa Cruz Riverwalk and the San Lorenzo River, to the south by an adjacent parcel at 512 Front Street, and to the west by Front Street. The Project Area consists of four buildings, including a 1926 building and two ca. 2007 sheds at 514-516 Front Street, and a 1981 commercial building at 530 Front Street, as well as adjacent associated paved surface parking lots. .

30.394
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 2 Figure 1. Project Location Map

30.395
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 3

REGULATORY SETTING
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA and the Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5) give direction and guidance for evaluating properties, and the preparation of Initial Studies, Categorical Exemptions, Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports. Under California State law, the City of Santa Cruz is legally responsible and accountable for determining the environmental impact of any land use proposal it approves. Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance under CEQA (14 CCR § 15064.5 and PRC § 21084.1).

There are five classes of cultural resources defined by the State OHP. These are:
• Building: A structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. A “building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn.
• Structure: A construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter.

Examples include mines, bridges, and tunnels.
• Object: Construction is primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale and simply constructed. It may be movable by nature or design or made for a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use or character. Examples include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures, and boundary markers.
• Site: The location of a significant event. A prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time.

Examples include trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs.
• Historic District: Unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally.

According to CCR § 15064.5, cultural resources are historically significant if they are:
(1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC §5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements PRC § 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency

30.396
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 4 determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4852), including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) 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
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC § 5020.1(k), or identified in a historical resources survey meeting the criteria in PRC § 5024.1(g) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC § 5020.1(j) or § 5024.1.

Additional Criteria Considerations as Referenced in CEQA The NRHP considers certain kinds of properties are not usually considered for listing in the National Register: religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties achieving significance within the past fifty years. However, these criteria considerations are not part of the CEQA criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4852). As such, and as noted in the section above, the Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) lists the NRHP criteria that would also qualify a resource to be listed in the California Register of Historical Resources include criteria A, B, C, and D.

OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources
The following section providesthe city with an understanding of what kinds of resources merit recordation under CEQA and decisions made by professionals regarding the “45-year criteria” with the OHP guidelines.

The following guidance is taken directly from the OHPs “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources”.11 What Kinds of Resources Merit Recordation?
A broad threshold is set here for the kinds of resources that may be recorded for inclusion in the OHP's filing system. That threshold is designed to encompass resources that have been formally evaluated, as well as those whose importance has not yet been determined. Any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old may be recorded for purposes of inclusion in the OHP's filing system. Documentation of resources less than 45 years old also may be filed if those resources have been formally evaluated, 11 30.397
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 5 regardless of the outcome of the evaluation.

The 45-year criteria recognizes that there is commonly a five-year lag between resource identification and the date that planning decisions are made. It explicitly encourages the collection of data about resources that may become eligible for the NRHP or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) within that planning period. More restrictive criteria must be met before the resources included in OHP's filing system are listed, found eligible for listing, or otherwise determined to be important in connection with federal, state, and local legal statutes and registration programs.

The OHP recognizes that there are a wide range of reasons for recording historical resources. It is understandable that within the constraints of a survey's objectives it is not always reasonable or appropriate to record all historical resources as defined here. Professional judgement in the field is essential when determining whether or not a resource warrants recordation. The scope of surveys may be defined by specific legal criteria. In such cases, survey methods may be clarified through consultation and agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Professional surveys that do not evaluate resources against specific legal criteria should record all resources that meet the broad threshold set here when those studies are conducted in connection with planned developments. Detailed recordation of all but the most limited resource types is generally required for such project-driven, non- evaluative professional surveys.

Surveys conducted for reasons other than development activities may focus on a narrower range of resources based on the user's need for information. For example, a thematic survey may focus exclusively on the identification of a certain type of resource, or a reconnaissance survey may be conducted to develop a management plan for a large tract of land. The submission of records not produced as the result of surveys is also encouraged.

City of Santa Cruz Local Regulations
Santa Cruz City Ordinance No. 2003-14, Part 5: Historic Preservation

24.12.400 Purpose.

It is hereby found that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, districts, lands, and neighborhoods of historic, archaeological, architectural, and engineering significance, located within the City of Santa Cruz, are of cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. It is further found that respecting the heritage of the city will enhance the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this City. The purpose of provisions in this title related to historic preservation is to:

1. Designate, preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate those historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods contributing to cultural and aesthetic benefit of Santa Cruz;

2. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;

3. Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts, and neighborhoods;

4. Protect and enhance the City’s cultural, archaeological and aesthetic heritage;

5. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and use of such buildings and other structures now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be obtained under such policy;

30.398
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 6

6. Serve as part of the Local Coastal Implementation Plan for the Coastal Program. (Ord. 94-33 § 60, 1994: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

24.12.410 Historic Preservation Procedures Authorized by this Title.

The following procedures related to historic preservation are authorized by this title:

1. Historic District Designation (Part 2, Chapter 24.06).

2. Historic Landmark Designation (Section 24.12.420).

3. Archaeological Procedures (Section 24.12.430).

4. Procedure for Amending Historic Building Survey (Section 24.12.440).

5. Procedure; New Construction in Historic Districts (Section 24.12.450).

6. Historic Alteration Permit (Part 10, Chapter 24.08).

7. Historic Demolition Permit (Part 11, Chapter 24.08).

8. Historic Overlay District (Part 22, Chapter 24.10). (Ord. 86-13 § 6, 1986: Ord. 85-05 § 1 (part), 1985).

Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III – March 2013 With regard to the Amendment of the City Historic Building Survey, Section 24.12.440 (2) All properties included in the Volume III Survey meet historic criteria listed in Section 24.12.440 (c) of the City zoning ordinance. The Survey was prepared by Archives and Architecture, a professional historic consulting firm, under contract with the City. Volume III property owners who have chosen to “opt out” of listing on the City Historic Building List have not been included on the list. Public hearings have been held by the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council.

City Registry Criteria Section 24.12.440 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey

1. Background – Availability. The Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume I – prepared for the City of Santa Cruz by Charles Hall Page and Associates Inc., and published in 1976, and Volume II – prepared by John Chase, Daryl Allen and Jeanne Gordon, and published is 1989, is hereby adopted, as amended, as the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, and is incorporated herein by reference. Three copies of said building survey are, and shall be, maintained on file in the office of the city clerk, City of Santa Cruz, for the use of, and examination by, the public. See Chapter

24.08 for permits and requirements relating to Historic Building Survey buildings.

2. Procedure for Amending Historic Building Survey.
a. The city council may amend the Historic Building Survey by resolution by adding buildings or property to the survey or deleting buildings or property from the survey. This shall be done following a recommendation by the historic preservation commission. The historic preservation commission shall report to the city council on changes to buildings or property listed on the survey, and the commission shall recommend initiation of a new survey when there is a need to update the Historic Building Survey. b. A public hearing shall be held by both the city historic preservation commission and the city

30.399
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 7 council, allowing time for notice to the owner or owners of the property and to the public pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 24.04.
c. Actions by both bodies shall be based on the following criteria:

The property is either a building, site, or object that is:

1. Recognized as a significant example of the cultural, natural, archaeological, or built heritage of the city, state, or nation; and/or

2. Associated with a significant local, state, or national event; and/or

3. Associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; and/or

4. Associated with an architect, designer, or builder whose work has influenced the development of the city, state, or nation; and/or

5. Recognized as possessing special aesthetic merit or value as a building with quality of architecture and that retains sufficient features showing its architectural significance; and/or

6. Recognized as possessing distinctive stylistic characteristics or workmanship significant for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of native materials; and/or

7. Retains sufficient integrity to accurately convey its significance.

The district is:

8. Recognized as a geographically definable area possessing a significant concentration of buildings that are well designed and other structures, sites, and objects which are united by past events or by a plan or physical development; or is

9. Recognized as an established and geographically definable neighborhood united by culture, architectural styles or physical development.
d. Upon the initiation of an amendment to the Historic Building Survey to add a building or buildings, no zoning or building or demolition permit shall be issued for a period of sixty days or until final action by the city council, whichever occurs first. An exception may be made where public health and safety require it. A public hearing shall be held upon any initiation of an amendment to the Historic Building Survey.

In 2013, the 1926 building within the Project Area was approved by the City Council for local listing within the city’s historic resources registry, but this same year, the owner of the building opted-out of the listing.

METHODS
The HRE was completed by EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. Ms. De Shazo served as Project Manager, and Mr. Matuk served as the Architectural Historian on the project. Mr. Matuk completed the local literature search and review that included documentation available at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Assessor and Office of the Recorder, as well as information on file at the EDS office, Online Archive of California, and various other online sources to ensure the document provides a thorough understanding of the history of the

30.400
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 8 property. Mr. Matuk also conducted a site survey to document and assess the current condition of the property and to provide physical characteristics and character-defining features of the associated built environment at the Project Area, including the 1926 building, the two ca. 2007 sheds, and the 1981 commercial building. Updated Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for the 1926 building were prepared for the Project Area (Appendix A).

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The following historical setting provides an overview of broader historical themes and specific history associated with the built environment resources within the Project Area.

Spanish Period (1772 - 1821)
The earliest European accounts of the Santa Cruz area include the Spanish expedition of Juan Cabrillo and Sebastian Vizcaino, who in 1542 and 1602 (respectively) entered Monterey Bay while charting the Pacific coast. One-hundred and sixty-seven years later, in October of 1769, Gaspar de Portola and Father Crespi arrived at Monterey Bay, not realizing it was Monterey Bay, as it did not fit Sebastian Vizcaino’s 1602 description of a sheltered harbor. Upon their arrival in the area Father Crespi, the groups’ priest blessed a creek in the name of Santa Cruz (The Holy Cross). However, being unable to verify his arrival at Monterey, the Portola expedition continued north and reached Point San Pedro (on what is now the San Francisco Bay) three weeks later. On November 11, Portolá and his men headed south again. They stopped at Monterey Bay from November 28 to December 11, and although they still did not think it was Monterey Bay, Portolá set up a large wooden cross on a hill near the beach before returning to San Diego in January 1770. Discovering he had reached his desired destination, the expedition quickly returned to Monterey Bay and established a small settlement. On August 28, 1791, the Mission de la Exaltacion de la Santa Cruz (The Mission of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross) was established on the banks of the San Lorenzo River by Padre Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. The twelfth mission in California, the location was also the site of a previous Native American village called Uypi. 12 Six years later in 1797, the secular town of Villa de Branciforte was established on the opposite side of the San Lorenzo River from the mission. It was one of three Spanish cities established by Spain in Alta California13, including San Jose (1777) and Los Angeles (1781), and was named after Don Miguel de la Grua Talamanca Branciforte, aka, the Marques de Branciforte, the 53rd Viceroy of Spain who supervised Spain’s American Colonies from 1794 to 1798. It was intended to be a diverse community of civilians and soldiers. However, when the Spanish government found it difficult to recruit settlers, they offered convicts their freedom in exchange for moving to the Villa. This led to an undesirable element within the population of Branciforte. 14 The intent to assign soldiers to Villa de Branciforte who would eventually settle there was prevented by an outbreak of hostility between Spain and England. 12 Andrew, E. Pulcheon, Timothy Jones, and Michael Konzak, Cultural Resources Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update. Unpublished report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, CA. 2006.
13 Alta California was a polity of New Spain founded in 1769 and became a territory of Mexico after the end of the Mexican War of Independence on 1821.
14 Mid-County Post, 27 June 2006.

30.401
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 9 The first occupants of the Villa de Branciforte arrived in November 1797, and consisted of nine men from Guadalajara who had been condemned for petty crimes.15 Amongst them were three tailors, three farmers, a miner, a saddler and a carpenter; and upon their arrival they were provided with two carts, oxen, and tools for farming, carpentry and iron work.16 By December 1797 the population of the Villa had increased to forty people, including four retired soldiers and their families. In 1768, twenty-two convicts from Guadalajara and Guanajuato, Mexico arrived at the Villa de Branciforte. The Villa centered near what is now Branciforte Elementary School and houses lined what is now North Branciforte Street.

The Villa was bounded by what is now Seabright on the south, De Lavega Park on the north, Branciforte Creek on the west, and Morrissey Boulevard on the east.17 In 1802, the Villa’s residents established a civil government with the election of an alcalde (mayor), perhaps the first election held in Alta California.
18 This was also the year the Spanish Crown ceased
providing supplies to the Villa. Within a decade of being established, Spain became concerned with conditions and events at the Villa, and in 1803 Governor Jose de Arrillaga sent José de la Guerra to report on the conditions at the Villa de Branciforte. “De la Guerra found the houses of the town constructed without solidity, arranged without symmetry, and located on a poorly chosen site, namely, a little level spot on the extremity of a small hill. Of the twenty-five houses, only one was built of Adobe.

The rest were made of palisades covered with mud and were roofed with tule.” 19 In 1803, the town
consisted of 101 individuals. By 1811, the population had dwindled to thirty-seven individuals, and in 1815 there were fifty-three people living at the Villa. The decline and eventual demise of the Villa de Branciforte is believed to be due to the lack of arable land.20 In 1818, following report of attacks on other Spanish settlements in Alta California carried out by the Argentinian pirate Hippolyte Bouchard, residents of the Villa who were left to protect the Santa Cruz Mission, looted it instead, taking most of the assets and garnering further mistrust from Mission officials.

Mexican Period (1821 - 1848)
In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain with the signing of the Treaty of Córdoba and took possession of "Alta California". Dramatic changes occurred in Alta California during the Mexican Period due to the lack of strong oversight and strict military rule imposed by the Spanish who had previously ruled over Alta California. In addition to secularization in 1834 that saw mission land and property dissolved, new opportunities arose for trade because foreign ships that had previously been held off by Spanish guarded military ports were allowed to dock and so a variety of provisions were made available to local settlers. As a result, tea, coffee, sugars, spices, spirits of all kinds, as well as a variety of 15 Daniel Garr, “Villa de Branciforte: Innovation and Adaptation on the Frontier,” The Americas 35(1), 1978, 105. 16 Florian Guest, “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte,” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962, 36-37.
17 Phil Reader, “Branciforte History Chronology,” Santa Cruz County Historical Journal 3 (Santa Cruz, Calif.:

Museum of Art and History, 1997.
18 Villa de Branciforte Preservation Society, “Recognize, preserve and appreciate historical landmarks” [Electronic document], 2004. http://www.villadebranciforte.org/. Accessed April 17, 2019. 19 Florian Guest, “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte,” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962, 45.
20 Florian Guest, “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte,” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962, 45-46.

30.402
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 10 manufactured goods made their way into the region; and the taxes on these imported goods became the main source of revenue for the Mexican government in Alta California. Likewise, products produced in Alta California were exported, which bolstered the hide and tallow trade that became the primary business activity in California during this time.

The Mexican colonial authorities also encouraged settlement of Alta California by permitting foreigners to settle and issuing politically prominent Mexican citizens and military leaders large land grants called ranchos. Because of this, the 20 or so ranchos that had been granted during the Spanish period increased to roughly 800 ranchos that varied in size between 10,000 and 50,000 acres. Since the income of the rancho was dependent on the amount of hide and tallow produced, a family's wealth was determined by the size of their rancho, number of cattle they owned, and the availability of a labor force, which consisted mostly of Indians and poor Mexicans who depended on the rancho owners for their basic needs during this time.

After secularization in 1834 the Santa Cruz Mission and the Villa were joined together in a separate parish known as the Pueblo de Figueroa. By 1845, the name Pueblo de Figueroa had been replaced by the name Santa Cruz.21 Title to the former Villa de Branciforte land began to be settled in 1864 when the county judge, Augustine W. Blair, ordered the county surveyor to make a full survey of the village, including the lots and parcels and owners or occupants of those lots.22 Claimants of those lots needed to file their claim with the County of Santa Cruz to retain them.

During the 1840s, the lumber industry in Santa Cruz County initiated commerce in the area, beginning with Francisco Lajeunesse, a French Canadian, Joseph L. Majors, a Mexican citizen, Isaac Graham and Henry Neale, both Americans.23 All four were granted Rancho Zayatane in 1841, and that same year, Majors and a syndicate that included Graham had constructed a sawmill near Mount Herman—the first lumber mill in the County. The Lumber industry accelerated rapidly by statehood and became Santa Cruz County’s major industry in the mid-nineteenth century.

American Period (1848 - present)
In 1850, when California received its statehood, Santa Cruz County was formed as one of the original 27 counties in the state. Although the lumber industry had got its start during the Mexican Era, the vast stands of old-growth redwood forests in the nearby Santa Cruz mountains also provided an economic opportunity for the newly formed town of Santa Cruz during the beginning of the American Period. In 1851, a wharf (name unknown) was built to facilitate the growing lumber industry, and a small business district soon developed around the wharf. The wharf was located south of Water Street, between Front Street and the San Lorenzo River—approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project Area.24 By 1864 approximately 28 lumber mills were in operation within Santa Cruz County. In addition to mills, tanneries and lime quarries operated on the edges of the town and soon brought a number of workers, 21 Daniel Garr, “Villa de Branciforte: Innovation and Adaptation on the Frontier,” The Americas 35(1), 1978, 108. 22 Edward Martin, Illustrated Complete in One Volume, Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California. 1911 23 Susan Lehmann, Fully Developed Context Statement for the City of Santa Cruz. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Development Department, 20 October 2000, 5. 24 Lehmann, Context Statement, 19.; This area of Front Street was located north of Bridge Street (now, Soquel Avenue), and the section of Front Street that is currently south of Soquel Avenue did not exist until around ca. 1895.

30.403
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 11 and entrepreneurs who further expanded the growing town. In 1866, the Town of Santa Cruz was incorporated, which later became a City in 1876. A large population influx in the 1870s spurred greater development in Santa Cruz, with the center for city commerce focusing on Pacific Street, located to the west of Front Street (Figure 2).
25 During this transition, Front Street was designated a “secondary street” and saw the development of the City’s Chinatown in this area. 26 Figure 2: ca. 1900 photograph of Pacific Street in Santa Cruz (courtesy of California State Library).

In 1876, the Santa Cruz Railroad launched its first train along a narrow-gauge track that was constructed using local financing to connect the Southern Pacific rail line between Watsonville, Gilroy, and Salinas.

By the 1880s, the rail line led to the decline of the wharf’s importance, as maritime shipping was no longer the only means of interregional commerce. The rail line was bought by the Southern Pacific in 1888, and the latter two decades of the nineteenth century saw a dramatic increase in Santa Cruz’s beachfront tourism industry, as tourists were able to reach Santa Cruz by train. During this time the birth of the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk (today California’s oldest amusement park), along with the construction of casinos and hotels added to the city’s growing tourism industry. By the 1890s, commerce was centered around Pacific Street and Soquel Avenue; however, on April 14, 1894, a devastating fire swept through downtown, and destroyed the Chinatown area that was focused on Front Street.27
25 Lehmann, Context Statement, 19.
26 Ibid, 22.
27 Lehmann, Context Statement, 20.

30.404
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 12 Tourism continued became a major player in the local economy, as Santa Cruz became a destination for its seaside recreation, with additional resorts, grand hotels, and associated facilities constructed to accommodate and entertain the visitors (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Santa Cruz was envisioned by local developers as the West Coast version of New York’s Coney Island, and tourism thrived in the city until the Great Depression. Around this time, the automobile took over as the preferable way to travel, and accommodations in Santa Cruz shifted to meet these needs. With the construction of auto courts and motels came the decline of the grand hotels and casinos that were so closely tied to railroad tourism.

Figure 3: Undated postcard (likely ca. 1900) of “The Auditorium” casino along the beach at Santa Cruz (courtesy of Santa Cruz Public Library).

30.405
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 13 Figure 4: 1900 photograph of the pier at Santa Cruz (courtesy of California State Library).

Development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” (ca. 1920 – ca. 1945) During the 1920s, automobile travel in U.S. and California had increased significantly as cars became more affordable. This was the result of automobile manufacturers mass producing automobiles and the innovation of the Model T Ford, which made car ownership available to the average American. During this time, roads throughout the U.S. and California were improved as part of the “good roads” movement, which also helped improve access to the City of Santa Cruz(Figure 5). 28 At this time, the City
of Santa Cruz and real estate developers, and automotive businesses sought to capitalize on the new automobile culture, and the City of Santa Cruz, like many other cities through the U.S., saw the construction of auto courts and auto camps, which replaced the grand hotels that once served tourists, who had previously arrived by railroad.29
28 Lehmann, Context Statement, 26.
29 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Planning and Community Development, March 2013, 20.

30.406
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 14 Figure 5: ca. 1935 automobile routes map published by the Automobile Club of Southern California (AAA) (courtesy Santa Cruz Trains).

The rise of the affordable automobile also signaled the rise of automobile showrooms and repair garages in Santa Cruz. The automobile showrooms that focused on the sale of cars were primarily located on the section of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street where the Project Area is located. A 1932 Santa Cruz Sentinel article about Front Street’s emergence as the city’s “Automobile Row” cited the Palomar Garage as the first automobile centric building that spurred further such development along Front Street—mostly constructed of reinforced concrete.30 Headlines in the Santa Cruz Sentinel such as “Modern Cement Buildings Grace Front Street, Now a Regular Automobile Row,” and “Front Street Rapidly Taking Place As Modern “‘Automobile Row’” chronicled the development of Front Street during the late 1920s through the early 1940s.31 The development along this section of Front Street is noted within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013):
30 “Brunetti Building Latest Substantial Structure on Front Street,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 20 February 1932. 31 “Brunetti Building Latest Substantial Structure on Front Street,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 20 February 1932.; “Front Street Rapidly Taking Place As Modern “‘Automobile Row’,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, 20 February 1932.

30.407
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 15 “Later, as the automobile became increasingly prevalent in urban centers during the interwar period, commercial sales and services clusters began to appear in Santa Cruz, primarily on Front Street. Prominent local architects such as Lee Dill Etsy and C. J. Ryland designed buildings for clients in the automobile business, including auto repair shops (Huston & Weymouth Garage, 418 Front Street) and auto showrooms (Thrash Pontiac Motors, 429 Front Street). In 1936 the nineteenth-century county jail was replaced with a Modern edifice designed by Albert Roller (now the Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center, 725 Front Street).”32
While there are several automobile-centric buildings along Front Street that remain from the ca. 1920s to ca. 1945, including auto repair shop Huston & Weymouth Garage, 418 Front Street, and auto showroom, Thrash Pontiac Motors, 429 Front Street) that are listed within the Santa Cruz Historic Buildings Survey, Volume III – March 2013,
33 many have been demolished or repurposed for various
commercial businesses. Currently, Front Street is not within or part of any listed or eligible national, state, or local historic district associated with the history of automobiles or the event of “Economic Development 1850‐1950”, which is one of three themes detailed within the Santa Cruz Historic Buildings Survey, Volume III – March 2013.

ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
The following section provides a brief understanding of the Automobile Showroom property type as it relates to the 1926 building. While the source for this context includes that attained from an historic context statement for the City of Los Angeles, the applicable information regarding the Automobile Showroom Property Type can be accurately applied to the 1926 building, as the property type was prevalent in many urban areas of both northern and southern California in the 1920s and 1930s.

Automobile Showroom Property Type
The following context regarding the Automobile Showroom property type is quoted from the SurveyLA historic context statement related to the theme “Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910- 1970”. While this historic context was prepared for the City of Los Angeles, its description of the property type and historic events that led to its popularity apply to automobile showrooms throughout California. For these reasons, this historic context regarding the automobile showroom property type is relevant to the 1926 building and is used to evaluate the significance of the building for its architecture.

Specific excerpts that are local-specific have been removed from this section, as they do not apply to the 1926 building.
“Buying an automobile was first done through a livery stable, carriage dealer, or bicycle shop. These early car vendors were businessmen who obtained a license to sell a particular brand of auto. Once purpose-built automobile dealerships began to appear, just before the First World War, they fit into the existing pre-automobile streetscape. They were 32 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, 18. 33 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, 18.

30.408
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 16 essentially storefronts on a commercial street with a large entrance door and windows to show the product.34
Unlike the service station, the showroom retained throughout the 1920s a central business district location and a traditional relationship to the street. The auto manufacturers chose to remain urban and to adopt the historicist styles that characterized the elite architecture of the city. Most potential customers did not yet own cars and therefore relied on public transportation to reach a dealership; the impressive revivalist architecture assured them of a reputable vendor.

The auto manufacturers first experimented with building what one historian has referred to as ‘object-lesson’ salesrooms in certain cities to show locally-owned dealerships what could be done. These corporate-sponsored buildings were designed to resemble banks and first-class office buildings, clad in traditional styles. ‘Exteriors often sported bas-reliefs, grand ornamental cornices, and entrance porticoes, while inside cars were sold in elegant surroundings in large, opulent sales salons.’35
During the early twenties these urban dealerships began combining auto servicing and repair with sales. To fit onto their city sites, they constructed multi-storied buildings complete with ramps and auto-sized elevators for access to the upper levels. The facades sported historicist detailing; generally, the only feature on the street front that identified the building as an auto-service facility was the use of factory sash for the large windows on the upper floors.”
“Along with the multi-level downtown dealerships, the car companies built smaller outlets in outlying business districts. These more suburban showrooms continued the traditional pattern of being set hard against the street and of clothing themselves in historicist garb.

The common façade composition consisted of an elaborate center entrance and symmetrically flanking show windows. These smaller showrooms were in essence singlestory versions of the multi-story central business district dealerships, and maintained a footprint much like that of the earlier livery stable.” “By the mid-1930s, the auto showroom adopted the Streamline Moderne. In an attempt to encourage flagging sales during the Depression, some of the older downtown showrooms replaced their historicist ornament, at least at the showroom level, with abstract lines, curves, and circles. More important, however, was a rethinking of location for those few new dealerships that were built in the 1930s. Most potential customers already owned cars, so there was no need to be close to streetcar lines. Now ease of auto access and adequate parking were needed.36
The auto showroom moved to the strip. Instead of remaining on a tight lot in the central or local business district, it placed itself on an arterial road that allowed it to spread horizontally. The common arrangement was a showroom in the front, complete with large 34 Chester H. Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), 75-76.
35 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 79.
36 Ibid, 86-88.

30.409
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 17 expanses of glass, service bays to the rear, and adequate parking alongside for used cars and customer circulation. The showroom itself, with its expanses of glass, maintained its position directly on the street, without a setback. It was dressed in Streamline Moderne detailing, with an integral sign featuring the name and emblem of the brand sold within.37”
“Though construction of new dealerships ceased during the Second World War, anticipating a surge of new car customers, the auto companies studied the problem of designing attractive facilities. As early as 1944, before the end of the war, there appeared Post-War Housing and Facilities for Studebaker Dealers by that now vanished brand. In 1945 Ford published Plans for New and Modernized Sales and Service Buildings. That same year General Motors held a “Design Competition for Dealer Establishments” and three years later issued Planning Automobile Dealer Properties based on the submissions to the competition.38
These planning manuals carefully considered issues of location and design. Not only should dealerships be placed along arterials on large plots of land, a common practice since the 1930s, manuals decreed, but they should sit on the far side of an intersection on the homeward-bound side of a commuter route. Potential customers could have full view of the showroom while waiting for red lights and then, with free time after work, pull in and inspect the autos on display. There should be a procession of visual delights to greet customers: first the new cars, seen through a glare-free expanse of glass, and then the service wing, providing potential customers with the assurance of care in the future. The final element should be the used car lot, arranged with the best models in front.39 Much of this advice came from studying the few dealerships that were built in the 1930s.

But there were a number of subtle and not so subtle changes. A subtle change was the shrinking size of the showroom, with just a few of the best looking models on display, and the growing respectability of the parts and service department, with attractive counters and waiting areas. A not so subtle change was in the dealership’s primary identifying sign.

The sign in the 1930s, while an important design element, tended to be integrated into the architecture. By the 1950s the sign often detached itself from the building and became a free-standing, and increasingly dominant, element.40” “During the first years of construction, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, auto showrooms were typically subdued Mid-Century Modern designs, with flat roofs and plain surfaces.

The mammoth glass windows showing off the cars provided character.” “Over the next fifteen years the most important design development was the separation of the sign from the structure. The detached sign occasionally took on Googie-like extravagance to attract attention, but generally the need to exhibit the brand emblem 37 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 86-88.
38 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 88.
39 Ibid, 88-89.
40 Ibid, 88-90

30.410
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 18 and name had precedence. The detached sign, enormous by earlier standards, was generally limited to serving as a giant billboard for the corporate logo.

This reticence extended to the showroom structure itself. The Googie style could occasionally be seen in an exaggerated roof line or a canopy extended over the service drive but this was relatively rare. The point was to call attention to the cars on sale and not to the architecture. The same was true when New Formalism, with its classicizing proportions and details, began to appear in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Again, the architecture was secondary to the merchandise and thereby kept subdued.

From the mid-1950s onward the most common architectural approach was to treat the showroom as a minimalist Mid-Century Modern container.” “As with other auto-related building types, the auto showroom underwent a change after the mid-1960s in response to both growing conservatism and, more importantly, the changing nature of the automobile industry. To be sure, the showroom remained the place to purchase and service a car but increasingly as a structure showroom retreated from the road, behind parking lots, and became less visible. Instead, motorists were greeted by row upon row of new cars parked outside, displayed like cans of soft drinks on a supermarket shelf. This mode of selling required great amounts of space. Most of the existing dealerships simply were not large enough. The result was the abandoning of locations that, in 1950, seemed quite adequate for vast lots on the outskirts of development. This was accompanied by a massive reduction in the number of dealerships as American-made brands disappeared and those few remaining consolidated facilities. The showroom and the service bay took on a utilitarian form and only the dealer sign, free-standing and standardized for the brand, attracted attention.”41 42

RECORD SEARCH AND REVIEW
As part of the HRE, research was completed at the NWIC, local repositories, as well as online resources to review published local histories, maps, photographs, and other available information that revealed the property history associated with the built environment at the Project Area to provide additional context for the evaluation. The results of the record search and review are within the section below.

NWIC
EDS Principal Archaeologist Sally Evans, M.A. conducted a record search at the NWIC on March 15, 2019 (NWIC File #18-1952).
43 According to information on file at the NWIC, there are no records at the NWIC that indicate the Project Area has been previously evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. However, there have been sixteen cultural resources studies, and there are five built environment resources within ¼ mile of the Project Area including three built environment resources that are either listed or eligible for 41 Liebs, Main Street to Miracle Mile, 90-93.
42 City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development, 1850- 1980, Theme: Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910-1970. Prepared for SurveyLA, August 2016, 35-39.
43 Additional details related to this record search are provided in the CRS by EDS.

30.411
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 19 the NRHP, and two built environment resource documented on DPR523 forms.

The five built environment resources are detailed in the following table:

Table 1: NRHP and CRHR listed resources and Historic Districts, and other surveyed properties, within approximately 1/4- mile radius of the Project Area, on records on-file at the NWIC Name/Primary
Record Number/
Status
Address NRHP CRHR Historic District Local Historic
Building Survey List
Hotel Metropole
(P-44-000227)
(NR-79000553)
(not extant)
44 1111 Pacific
Avenue
X X Contributor to
the Pacific
Avenue
Historic District
N/A
Early 1940s
Commercial
Building
- CA-2073A
(P-44-000554)
709 Center Street N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pacific Avenue
Historic District
(P-44-000853)
(NR-87000004,
delisted in 1991)
45 Various addresses
on Pacific Avenue
and Cooper and
Front Streets
X
(delisted)

X X N/A
Santa Cruz
Downtown
Historic District
(P-44-000939)
(NR-89001005)
Rincon and
Chestnut Streets &
Cedar, Laurel,
Myrtle

X X X N/A
San Lorenzo River
Bridge – Bridge
36C0102
(P-44-001128)
Laurel Street across
San Lorenzo River

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Local Research
Local research was conducted on April 9, 2019, by Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. and again in May 2022, to review primary source documents available at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder, as well as at the City of Santa Cruz Public Library to review documents such as the Polk's City Directories for City of Santa Cruz, historic maps, and photographs, and additional documentation provided by the City related to the history of the Project Area and its vicinity. In addition, EDS reviewed documents such as books, maps, and digital files available at the EDS office to assist in developing a context associated with the history of the property and surrounding area, as well as the built environment resources within the property.

The results of the local research revealed details regarding land ownership within the Project Area and assisted in the development of history of the area along Front Street. 44 Demolished after it was severely damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. 45 The Pacific Avenue Historic District was de-listed from the National Register of Historic Places in 1991 due to the loss of several contributors because of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.

30.412
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 20 Online Research
In addition to local research, online research was conducted in 2019, and again in 2022, which included the following sources:
• www.newspapers.com
• www.ancestry.com
• www.calisphere.com (University of California)
• http://www.library.gov/ (California State Library)
• http:// history.santacruzpl.org/ (Santa Cruz Public Libraries Local History) • http://www.library.ca.gov/ (California State Library) • https://www.cityofsantacruz.com (City of Santa Cruz)
Online research conducted by EDS provided additional context to assess the resources within the Project Area, including the history and development of the area, the City of Santa Cruz, and the subject property.

RESULTS OF THE PROPERTY SPECIFIC HISTORY RESEARCH
As part of the literature search, EDS reviewed historic maps, newspapers, city directories, and documents available online to obtain information regarding ownership and occupancy history associated with the subject property and the 1926 building within the Project Area, as well as Front Street. The results are detailed in the section below.

Property History
During the 1880s and 1890s, Front Street initially terminated at Soquel Avenue until ca. 1895 when it was extended southward along the San Lorenzo River. The 1926 building originally had the address of 227 Front Street and appeared to have been constructed immediately adjacent to the Armory of the 4th Division Naval Militia N.G.C, before the Armory was demolished due to a fire in 1920. Based on a photograph from ca. 1900, the 1926 building replaced an existing commercial building along Front Street that we constructed in ca. 1895 when this section of Front Street was constructed (Figure 6).

Although the exact businesses in these previous buildings could not be determined, it is likely there was a mix of commercial storefront businesses.

30.413
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 21 Figure 6: ca. 1900 photograph of the buildings that existed on the subject parcel prior to the construction of the 1926 building—situated between the Armory building at left and the Sun Fat Laundry at right. (Photo from Santa Cruz County: Parade of the Past by Margaret Koch) Owner and Occupancy History
The first business located in the 1926 building, then located at 227 Front Street, was shown in a June 23, 1926, issue of the Santa Cruz Evening News, which describes the following: “Harvey Bryan has opened an auto repair shop at 227 Front Street and would like to meet all his old friends and patrons there. Expert repairing.”46 Soon afterward, on July 10, 1926, the Santa Cruz Evening News published an advertisement for “The Whippet”, described as being “America’s First European-Type Light Car,” along with the address of the showroom “227 Front St.”. However, the advertisement lacked any particular business name associated.47 By August 6, 1926, the 1926 building was associated with Santa Cruz Auto Sales. An advertisement displayed the Overland Six automobile and associated the business with “R. W.

Plyer,” referring to Ralph W. Plyer.48 Plyer’s Santa Cruz Auto Sales business was previously located at 14 Soquel Avenue (today, between Pacific Avenue and Front Street), as shown in the 1925 Polk’s City Directory of Santa Cruz.
49 By April 30, 1927, the 1926 building was occupied by the “Hutchings & Dodson”, a dealership that sold Pontiac Six automobiles produced by General Motors, as shown in the Santa Cruz Evening News advertisement (Figure 8).
50 The “Hutchings & Dodson” automobile dealership was owned by A. J.

Hutchings and Dr. C. Dodson, who previously operated an automotive business in Santa Cruz from 46 “Announcement,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 23 June 1926. 47 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 10 July 1926. 48 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 6 August 1926. 49 Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1925 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1925).
50 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 30 April 1927.

30.414
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 22 within the Sisson Building on Pacific Avenue.
51 Around this time, a non-extant building to the east of the 1926 building was used as the offices for Hart Bros., a business selling and delivering washed sand and gravel, which is also shown on the 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (Figure 8). 52 In July 1927, Dr. C.

Dodson and son R. C. Dodson sold their interest in the Hutchings & Dodson company to W. W. Kirby of Los Banos, who owned Kirby Motor Company.53 This change in ownership interest also led to the change in business name to reflect Kirby’s existing business—Kirby Motor Company—which shows in an advertisement in the Santa Cruz Evening News on August 1, 1927.54 However, during the late 1920s, the area adjacent and near the 1926 building within the Project Area consisted of Chinese Laundry (no longer extant), a gasoline station (no longer extant), an automotive repair shop (no longer extant), automotive sales and services building (no longer extant), several commercial storefront buildings (mostly no longer extant), and a “dwelling” (no longer extant) (see Figure 8) and had not yet developed into an area where automobile related business were located.

Figure 7: Advertisement in the Santa Cruz Evening News from April 30, 1927 for the Hutchings & Dodson automobile dealership at the 1926 building.
51 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 29 September 1926.; “New Dealers Will Achieve Success,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 2 October 1926.
52 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 2 May 1927. 53 “Oakland-Pontiac Agency Bought By Kirby Motor Co.” Santa Cruz Evening News, 2 July 1927. 54 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 1 August 1927.

30.415
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 23 Figure 8: 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, showing the 1926 building with a red arrow. The gravel business operated out of the rear, with the “gravel bunners” visible to the east of the 1926 building. At this time, the area had not fully developed into an area centered around the automobile.

30.416
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 24 By 1928, Kirby Motor Company is listed in the Polk’s City Directory associated with the 1926 building, along with Bryan & Churchill, an auto repair company likely operating out of the rear of the building.55 By 1929, however, Kirby Motor Company was no longer operating out 227 Front Street, as the Polk’s City Directory from that year showed Bate Motor Company operating out of the front portion of the 1926 building within the Project Area. An April 26, 1930 article in the Santa Cruz Evening News announces the building permit for a reinforced concrete garage on the west side of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Cathcart to house the Kirby Motor Company.56 The Bate Motor Company’s tenancy in the 1926 building was short-lived, and are shown operating at 227 Front Street through at least June of 1931 (Figure 9).
57 Figure 9: Advertisement within the “Business Guide” section of the 1931 Polk’s City Directory, showing Bate Motor Company operating at the 1926 building.

By September 1931, the front of the 1926 building housed Ward & Thrash, an Oakland-Pontiac dealer that took over the appointment as the Oakland-Pontiac dealer for Santa Cruz from the Bate Motor Company.58“Ward & Thrash” referred to owners Maurice Ward and Sylvan Thrash (Figure 10). At this time, the rear of the building also appears to have been occupied by Ward & Thrash, who according to a post in the Santa Cruz Evening News, spent over $700 “in making their shop one of the most modern and up-to-date in Santa Cruz” with new machinery for servicing, though it appears this may have been the continuation of the business operations of Dunn & Ward. Dunn & Ward was an established auto repair shop that was previously operating at 267 Front Street, and owned by D. “Skinny” Dunn and Maurice Ward.59 By 1933, Thrash bought out Ward’s interest in the business, and the dealership was renamed S. L. Thrash, with Ward & Dunn continuing to operate their auto repair business in the building. 60 an “automotive specialist” business out of the same building. 61 However, while an advertisement for Dunn & Ward shows the business at the same 1926 building alongside S. L. Thrash, 55 Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1928 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1928).
56 “Building Permits Exceed $20,000 in Program of Week,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 26 April 1930. 57 Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1930 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1930).; “Notice,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 18 June 1931. 58 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 12 September 1931.; “Ward and Thrash Shop is Equipped For All Repairs,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 3 October 1931.
59 [Advertisement], Santa Cruz Evening News, 24 June 1930.; “New Equipment Is Installed By Ward and Thrash,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 26 September 1931.
60 “General Notices,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 21 November 1934. 61 “New Today,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 9 March 1933.

30.417
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 25 the business of Dunn & Ward is not listed in any Polk City Directories associated with the building. It appears that S. L. Thrash is selling Pontiac and Packard automobiles by 1936 and continues to operate in the 1926 building until 1939.62 From 1933-1935 it appears the rear of the building is operated by Derrel T. Lake’s auto repair business. In 1938, an $1100 permit was issued by an individual named Isaac Gold “for reroofing the public garage at 227 Front Street,” likely referring to the rear portion of the building.63 By 1939, the auto repair business at the rear changes to Hemingway & Bryant, with E. R. Rice, Jr. also occupying part of the 1926 building with a welding business.64 Figure 10: Advertisement in the Santa Cruz Evening News dated September 12, 1931, for Ward & Thrash automobile dealership operating in the 1926 building.
62 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1935 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1935).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1937 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1937.; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1939 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1939).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1940 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1940). 63 “Huxtable Will Remodel Unit,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 7 April 1938. 64 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1939 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1939).

30.418
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 26 By 1940, the 1926 building is occupied by Russ Samuels, Inc., which was an automobile dealership owned by Russell R. Samuels selling the Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln makes. Samuels had also purchased the building in 1940,65 and applied for a sign permit that same year (Figure 11). 66 Russ Samuels, Inc.
remained in the building until sometime in the mid-1940s.

Figure 11: Advertisement within the “Business Guide” section of the 1941 Polk’s City Directory, showing Russ Samuels, Inc. operating at the 1926 building.

By 1946, it appears that Russ Samuels may have sold his business to George H. Scofield, as the Polk City Directory from that year shows G. H. Scofield Motor Company—a dealership selling Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln automobiles—occupying the 1926 building.
67 From the listing in the 1946 Polk City Directory, it appears that Scofield’s business also operated a service garage out of the rear of the building. It was this same year that the building was sold by four individuals—Walter A. Huston, L. Fern Huston, Alvin L.

Weymouth and Lois A. Weymouth—to Benjamin F. Kelley and Alice B. Kelley.68 It is likely that the G. H.

Scofield Motor Company remained in the building until at least 1958.69 By 1959, it appears that the building’s owner Benjamin F. Kelley opened an auto parts and service business in the building named Kelley’s Auto Parts Service, also sometimes referred to as Kelley’s Service Inc.70 The Kelley’ssold the 1926 building to Robert P. Chandler in 1972, but continued to operate 65 Deed of Trust between Russell R. Samuels and Kathleen T. Samuels (Trustor) and K. D. Daubenbis and Bruce L.

Sharpe (Trustee), dated March 23, 1940. On-file at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder. 66 “Building Permits,” Santa Cruz Evening News, 27 May 1940. 67 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1946 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1946). 68 Joint Tenancy Deed between Walter A. Huston, L. Fern Huston, Alvin L. Weymouth, and Lois A. Weymouth (Grantor) and Benjamin F. Kelley and Alice B. Kelley (Grantee; Joint Tenants), dated May 24, 1946. On-file at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder.
69 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1953 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1953).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1954 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1954).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1956-57 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1956).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1958 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1958).
70 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1959 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1959).; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1964 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1964).

30.419
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 27 the auto parts and service business until at least 1977.71 Beginning in 1976, it appears that a business named Best Auto Parts was operating out of the 518 Front Street address, while Kelley’s Service Inc. was operating out of the 516 Front Street address.72
By 1978, the 1926 building was occupied solely by Best Auto Parts, as there is no mention of Kelley’s Service in the Polk City Directory from that year, nor is there a listing for any business at the 516 Front Street address—suggesting that 516 Front Street had become vacant. 73 It appears that Best Auto Parts
continued to operate in the 1926 building until at least 1981, and by 1982 the building was listed in the Polk City Directory as being vacant.

Around 1982, the building was reconfigured to accommodate three individual storefronts, as the city directory shows three separate businesses by 1985—each with a respective address of 514, 516, and 518.74

HISTORIC ARCHITECTUAL SURVEY
On April 9, 2019, EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S., completed a survey of the property located at 514-518 Front Street that includes the 1926 building, and two contemporary garbage sheds from ca. 2007.
75 There is also a 1981 commercial building and vacant parking lot at 530 Front Street that are within the Project Area but these built environment resources are not over 45 years in age, which is a recognized age within the OHP guidelines, providing a five-year gap to the NRHP’ 50 years age rule under the NRHP. It was determined by the Principal Architectural Historian that, based on the California OHP instructions for recording historic resources, the 1981 building, nor the ca. 2007 sheds, or parking lot warranted recordation based on age, and do not appear to exhibit any potential for consideration for exceptional significance for consideration under any criterion. 76 As such, the 1981 building, ca. 2007 sheds, and parking lot were not documented.

The following section documents the results of the architectural survey of the Property.

Property
The Property consists of a 1926 building, and a contemporary garbage shed to the northeast of the 1926 building (Shed 1), a contemporary garbage shed to the southeast of the 1926 building (Shed 2). The current neighborhood that surrounds the Property is generally characterized as a low-rise commercial, generally developed in the 1920s through 1940s, with many areas that consist of paved surface parking lots.
71 Deed between B. F. Kelley Trust (Grantor) and Robert P. Chandler (Grantee) dated October 25, 1972. On-file at the County of Santa Cruz Office of the Recorder.; Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1977 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L.

Polk & Co., 1977).
72 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1976 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1976). 73 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1978 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1978). 74 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1982-83 (San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1982). 75 Available aerial photographs from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 suggest that these garbage sheds were constructed in ca. 2007.
76 Please note that CEQA does not include the NRHP Criterion G, or any of the additional criterion for “exceptional” consideration.

30.420
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 28 1926 “Automobile Showroom” Building
The 1926 building is a one-story commercial building designed as an Automobile Showroom property type. The 1926 building is constructed of reinforced concrete, with an L-shape plan that appears to be defined by a main rectangular building form with a gabled wing near the northern end of the east elevation (rear wing). The building has stepped parapets at all elevations, and aerial photographs suggest that the main building form has a very low pitch font-gable roof, with the rear wing has a moderate pitch front-gable roof. It appears that both roof forms are clad in a modified bitumen roof.

The exterior appears to consist of stucco at the front, west elevation, and painted board-formed concrete at the north, east, and south elevations, with painted concrete masonry units at the east elevation of the rear wing.

The building’s west elevation (Primary Façade) is defined by three distinct bays facing Front Street, with a parapet that displays a low-pitch gable above the center bay (Figure 12). The stucco exterior displays diamond- and rectangular-shape appliques attached to the west elevation parapet just below the coping, which appear to be constructed of painted wood. The west elevation has four contemporary signs marking each business currently in the building—with one sign centered at each end bay, and two signs at the center bay. Contemporary gooseneck lights attached to the parapet hang down to illuminate the contemporary signage along this west elevation. The three distinct storefront bays are denoted by changes in the pitch of the parapet along the front, west elevation, and are each denoted with separate addresses—514, 516, and 518 Front Street from south to north. The two end bays (514 and 518 Front Street) appear to be identical in size, and flank the larger center bay (516 Front Street).

The southernmost bay consists of a central pair of contemporary glazed wood double doors that are flanked on either side by contemporary wood-frame plate-glass storefront windows (Figure 13 and Figure 14). Two wood-frame plate-glass transom windows are located above the doors, but within separate frames. Spanning the width of the southernmost bay is a wood-frame multilight clerestory window, located above the storefront and transom windows (Figure 15). The center bay currently has two businesses within the bay, and is defined by a deep-recess entrance that is slightly off-center from the otherwise nearly symmetrical composition of the west elevation (Figure 16). All fenestration at this center bay is topped by contemporary, traditional-shape fabric awnings with valances. The recessed entrance appears to have been altered in 1982, and is located within what appears to be an original wood-frame archway that has a transom consisting of a pair of single-light windows within the same frame, with a four-light clerestory window located above the transom (Figure 17). Within the recess is a set of contemporary glazed wood double-doors facing north, a wood-frame plate-glass storefront window facing west, and another set of contemporary glazed wood double-doors facing south (Figure 18 and Figure 19). The exterior within the recess is clad in contemporary horizontal droplap wood siding, and the floor consists of what appears to be contemporary concrete tile flooring. Flanking either side of the recessed entry are pairs of wood-frame plate-glass windows with six-light wood-frame clerestory windows located above (Figure 20 and Figure 21). There is an additional pair of wood-frame plate-glass windows and clerestory at the northern end of this center bay. The northernmost bay is located within a slight recess from the remainder of the elevation, and consists of what appears to be a set of contemporary glazed metal doors, with a pair of transom windows located above; however, the transom windows are located within individual wood-frames (Figure 22 and Figure 23). Flanking either side of the double doors are wood-frame plate-glass windows. Above both plate-glass windows and the

30.421
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 29 pair of transom windows are three sets of three-light clerestory windows, which appear to all be in individual frames.

The north elevation consists of a painted board-formed concrete exterior, with a parapet that steps downward toward the east (Figure 24). Near the western end of this elevation is a single diamondshaped applique, and a contemporary sign attached to the exterior with a gooseneck light attached to the parapet that hangs down for illumination (Figure 25). Further east on this north elevation is a circular painted mural, which is located adjacent to a contemporary sign affixed to the exterior from 1993 that states the title of the artwork, “Bioregional mural project of Santa Cruz Mural #2”, as well as a description of the purpose and contributors of the piece (Figure 26 and Figure 27). 77 There is a cluster
of 75 ribbed glass blocks located near the center of the north elevation that appear to not be original, given the visible repairs to the concrete that surround the cluster (Figure 28 and Figure 29). Near the eastern end of this north elevation are what appear to be two metal multi-light windows with operational awning sashes (Figure 30).

The east elevation of the rear wing appears to be constructed of concrete masonry units, and consists of a stepped parapet, and no fenestration (Figure 31). There is a contemporary chain link fence located near the northern end of this east elevation of the rear wing and appears to serve as a partial enclosure for mechanical equipment. The east elevation of the main building form (Figure 32) consists of a rear entry, located within the corner where the rear wing meets the main building form, and consists of two metal-clad slab doors situated in different frames, and sheltered by a wood frame awning (Figure 33).

To the south of this rear entry is a contemporary sliding sash window that appears to have been installed in a previous door opening that has been partially infilled with horizontal wood siding (Figure 34). The original wood door frame that bordered this previous opening is still extant. To the south of this window is a contemporary metal roll-up garage door within what appears to be an original wood frame—similar in shape to that which has been partially infilled directly to the north. To the south of this roll-up garage door are two aluminum multilight windows that appear to have operational awning sashes.

The south elevation of the rear wing consists of a large metal roll-up garage door within a wood frame (Figure 35). Directly to the west of the garage door is a contemporary shed-roof addition that is clad in vertical wood siding with asphalt shingle roofing. The east elevation of this addition has a six-panel wood door, while the south elevation has a single-hung vinyl window. Under the awning at the corner where the main building form meets the rear wing, there appears to be a slight bump-pout that is clad in vertical wood siding, and consists of a narrow door—likely providing access to mechanical equipment, given the metal ventilation pipe that extends above the awning at this location. The south elevation of the main building form consists of a board-formed concrete exterior with a set of metal-clad doubledoors that are nearly centered on the elevation (Figure 36). Toward the western end of this elevation is an area that appears to have been a door opening, which has since been infilled. To the west of this infilled door is utility equipment with conduits attached to the building exterior, leading to the roof.

This utility equipment is protected by nine metal bollards. At the very western edge of this south elevation is a contemporary business sign that is identical to that on the north elevation, which is similarly illuminated by a gooseneck lamp affixed to the parapet, with a diamond-shape applique affixed to the exterior just below the parapet (Figure 37).
77 Recenly the mural was painted over and as such is no longer extant.

30.422
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 30 Figure 12: The west elevation of the 1926 building, facing east.

Figure 13: The west elevation at the southernmost bay, facing northeast.

30.423
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 31 Figure 14: Detail of the contemporary doors and transom windows at the southernmost bay of the 1926 building.

Figure 15: Detail of clerestory at the southernmost bay of the 1926 building, along the west elevation, facing southeast.

30.424
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 32 Figure 16: The center bay at the west elevation, facing east.

Figure 17: Detail of transom windows and clerestory windows above the recessed entrance in center bay on the west elevation.

30.425
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 33 Figure 18: Detail of recessed opening within the center bay, showing the south-facing double doors and plateglass window, facing northeast.

Figure 19: Detail of recessed opening within the center bay, showing the plate-glass window and north-facing double doors facing southeast.

30.426
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 34 Figure 20: Detail of the pair of plate-glass windows located to the north of the recessed entry within the center bay of the 1926 building, facing southeast.

Figure 21: Detail of clerestory window above plate-glass storefront window at center bay of the 1926 building.

30.427
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 35 Figure 22: The northernmost bay at the west elevation of the 1926 building, facing north-northeast.

Figure 23: Detail of the contemporary metal double doors at the northernmost bay of the 1926 building.

30.428
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 36 Figure 24: The western portion of the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing southeast.

Figure 25: Detail of the diamond appliques on both the north and west elevations, with the contemporary business sign and gooseneck lamp at the north elevation visible at left.

30.429
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 37 Figure 26: Detail of the contemporary painted mural at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

Figure 27: Detail of the signage associated with the contemporary painted mural at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

30.430
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 38 Figure 28: Center portion of the north elevation of the 1926 building, showing the contemporary painted mural at right, and the cluster of glass blocks at center, facing southeast.

Figure 29: Detail of the cluster of glass blocks at the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing south.

30.431
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 39 Figure 30: Detail of the two metal multi-light windows near the eastern end of the north elevation of the 1926 building, facing southwest.

Figure 31: East elevation of the rear wing, facing north-northwest.

30.432
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 40 Figure 32: East elevation of the main building form, with the south elevation of the rear wing visible at far right, facing northwest.

Figure 33: Detail of rear entry doors at the east elevation of the main building form, facing northwest. The contemporary shed-roof addition at the south elevation of the rear wing is also visible at right.

30.433
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 41 Figure 34: A portion of the east elevation of the main building form, showing one of the two multilight windows at left, the roll-up garage door at center, the infilled garage door with window at right, facing northwest.

Figure 35: South elevation of the rear wing, facing north, also showing the east elevation of main building form visible at left.

30.434
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 42 Figure 36: South elevation of the 1926 building, facing northwest.

Figure 37: Western corner of the south elevation of the main building form, facing north.

Contemporary Buildings
There are three contemporary buildings within the Property that were constructed in ca. 2007. While these buildings do not reach the 50-year age criteria for CRHR-eligibility, they are nevertheless documented below for clarification of the extant built-environment at the Project Area. ca. 2007 Shed 1
This rectangular plan shed-roof building is located to the southeast of the 1926 building, with the south elevation directly abutting the neighboring commercial building at 512 Front Street (Figure 38 and

30.435
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 43 Figure 39). The building is situated on a poured concrete foundation, with an exterior clad in vertical wood siding, and a roof consisting of corrugated metal. The only fenestration occurs at the north elevation, and consists of a large opening with corrugated metal double doors that provides access to refuse dumpsters stored at the interior.

Figure 38: North and west elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, with the neighboring building at 512 Front Street visible at right, facing southeast.

Figure 39: East and north elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, with the neighboring building at 512 Front Street visible at left and right of the ca. 2007 Shed 1, facing southwest.

30.436
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 44 ca. 2007 Shed 2
This rectangular plan building is located to the northeast of the 1926 building, and has a metal chainlink fence attached to its south elevation (Figure 40). The building is situated on a poured concrete foundation, with an exterior clad in vertical wood siding. The roof was not visible at the time of the survey, but appears to be nearly flat, with wood fascia that wraps around all elevations. The only fenestration consists of a metal slab door at the north elevation.

Figure 40: North and west elevations of the ca. 2007 Shed 2, facing southeast.

Previous Documentation (2013 Archives and Architects)
In 2013, the 1926 building was identified by Archives & Architects as eligible for local designation as part of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013). The property was identified with the following description:
“Front Street was a major hub of the evolving automobile sales and services commercial sector for the Santa Cruz area beginning in the 1920s. This vernacular commercial building was constructed in 1927, with its primary tenant being an Oakland and Pontiac auto dealership. Originally Hutchings & Dodson, the dealership quickly changed to Kirby Motor Co. and then Ward & Thrash. By 1935, Sylvan Thrash had taken over as sole proprietor of the dealership at this location, and he remained at this site until building a new showroom across the street at 429 Front Street in 1948. Other mostly auto‐related tenants occupied this building over subsequent years. In the early 1980s, the building was renovated for pedestrian‐oriented retail uses, as it exists today.”78
78 Archives & Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III, 52.

30.437
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 45 2013 Resource Details:

Resource Name: Ward & Thrash Oakland Pontiac
Architect: Unknown
Builder: Unknown
Significance Theme: Commercial Development
Period of Significance: 1927-1948
Applicable Criterion: None
2013 Signifiance and Recommendation for Local Listing:

Although the 2013 DPR records completed by Archives and Architects state there is no “Applicable Criterion” and the Significance Theme of “Commercial Development” is not a fully developed theme within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), 79 the findings of the Historic Building Survey were accepted by the Santa Cruz City Council as part of Resolution NS-28,621, which included a provision allowing specific property owners to “opt-out” of listing in the Historic Building Survey. As part of this Resolution, the property owner of 514-518 Front Street elected to “opt-out” of local listing in the Historic Building Survey and is currently not considered to be a locally designated resource.

As such, while the 1926 building was previously determined to be eligible for local designation, it does not appear that based on the descrepcenies within the 2013 evaluation, it would qualify as a Historical Resource under CEQA. In addition, EDS suggests that based on the clause in resolution NS-28,621 that allows for owners to “opt-out” of a local listing, and disqualify the Property from being “subject to the City historic preservation regulations” (Resolution No. NS-28.621).

However, the City of Santa Cruz can still consider the to 1926 building a historical resource according to CCR § 15064.5 if the following applies,
“A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements PRC § 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.”
As such, the 1926 building may still qualify as a historical resource under CCR § 15064.5, though local historic preservation regulations would not apply. EDS also recognizes the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC § 5020.1(k) or identified in a historical resources survey meeting the criteria in PRC § 5024.1(g) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC § 5020.1(j) or § 5024.1.

As such, for the City of Santa Cruz (as the lead agency) to conclude that the 1926 building is a locally significant resource would have to be based on substantial evidence, which has not been provided by the 79 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and

30.438
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 46 city.

In April 2022, the city requested that EDS provide a “local” re-evalation of the 1926 building, which is included in the evaluation section of this report.

EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Project Area as a whole, which includes the 1926 building and the two ca. 2007 sheds, and the 1981 commercial building were surveyed, and the 1926 building and the two ca. 2007 sheds were documented and evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The 1926 building is the only building within the Project Area that meets the age requirement for CRHR-eligibility and was determined to warrant evaluation. The ca. 1926 building is evaluated for individual eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The following section provides an overview of historic significance of the built environment resources within the Project Area.

An Archaeological Study was also completed by EDS that encompasses the entire Project Area.80 California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the CRHR through several methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the CRHR. Properties can also be nominated to the CRHR by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.

To qualify for listing in the CRHR, a property must possess significance under one of the four criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining integrity consists of evaluating seven variables or aspects that include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. According to the OHP, the criteria for evaluation for eligibility for listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria and include seven characteristics are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. • Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property.
• Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s).
• Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.
• Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
80 Sally Evans, M.A. and Gilbert Browning, M.A., Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Project at 516 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, Evans & De Shazo, Inc. 2019.

30.439
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 47 The following section examines properties eligibility for listing on the CRHR.

CRHR Evaluation
The following section evaluates the 1926 building for eligibility for listing in the CRHR under four applicable CRHR criteria, utilizing significant themes that were found to be potentially associated with the 1926 building. The Project Area was evaluated for site-specific historical significance, as well as under the following themes and associated periods of significance: development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from ca. 1920 to ca. 1945, and architecture as it relates to an Automobile Showroom property type constructed during the Interwar Period, 1918-1939, between the end of World War I and the beginning of the United States’ involvement in World War II, with a period of significance associated with the 1926 date of construction.

The ca. 2007 sheds, 1981 building, and vacant parking lot were not evaluated for historical significance.

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage
The 1926 building is associated with the development of the Front Street “Automobile Row” from ca. 1920 to ca. 1945, where automobile showrooms and repair garages were constructed between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street. The development along this section of Front Street with businesses associated with automobiles was indicative of the rise of the automobile in the culture of America that began in early 1920s with the mass production of automobiles and availability of new affordable cars such as the Ford Model-T. This type of development was widespread through most large and medium sized cities in California, as well as the U.S., and although the rise of the automobile resulted in the create of numerous businesses, including gas stations. Motels, roadside attractions, automobile repair shops, and automobile showrooms, as well as infrastructure such as bridges, and highways, the 1926 building alone within the Project Area does not have the ability to convey this significance them. As such, although the 1926 building reflects these larger development trends in California and in Santa Cruz along Front Street, the 1926 building does not appear to convey significance under this theme to warrant individual eligibility in the CRHR. Additionally, there are very few buildings remaining on Front Street from the development period of ca. 1920 to ca. 1945 that are related to the automobile, and it does not appear that there would be sufficient extant contributors to collectively embody this significant theme as an historic district.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1.

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Despite extensive research, it does not appear that the Project Area as a whole, nor the 1926 building, are associated with the lives of individuals or families that are important to local, California, or national history to warrant eligibility under the CRHR. There is no information was found to show that any owners of the building or owners of the businesses associated with the 1926 building made important, identifiable contributions to local, State, or National history in a way that is directly associated with the Project Area.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 2.

30.440
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 48

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.

The 1926 building is a fairly good example of an Automobile Showroom property type designed in the Interwar Period between 1918-1939, with a period of significance tied to its date of construction of 1926. The 1926 building exhibits the typical one-story, three-bay plan of the automobile showrooms of the 1920s, which were sometimes indistinguishable from repair garages of the same period and took on the plan and general design of livery stables. The 1926 building was designed as a typical automobile showroom of the 1920s, with the typical large central opening flanked by display windows to showcase the automobiles located inside, as well as the automobile repair and service functions operating at the rear of the building. While the 1926 building has undergone alterations over time, including converting the automobile showroom to four separate businesses in separate retail bays, the building continues to display the distinctive characteristics of the automobile showroom property type of the 1920s. However, despite retaining integrity to its date of construction, the 1926 building is not eligible for individual listing in the CRHR, as the building does not appear to be “an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history” and does not demonstrate “an important phase of the architectural development of the area of community in that it had an impact as evidenced by later buildings.”81
Therefore, the 1926 building appears does not appear eligible for individual listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3.

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criterion 4 most commonly applies to resources that contain or are likely to contain information bearing on an important archaeological research question. While most often applied to archaeological sites, Criterion 4 can also apply to buildings that contain important information.

For a building to be eligible under Criterion 4, it must be a principal source of important information, such as exhibiting a local variation on a standard design or construction technique can be eligible if a study can yield important information, such as how local availability of materials or construction expertise affected the evolution of local building development.

The 1926 building does not have the ability to convey information that is unique or unknown in regard to an architectural style, as such, it does not appear eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 4. In addition, the property was evaluated for archaeology, and the associated report82 provides details related to information potential associated with archaeological resources. 81 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Division, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1990, revised 1997), 18.
82 Sally Evans, M.A. and Gilbert Browning, M.A., Results of an Archaeological Study for the Proposed Project at 516 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California, Evans & De Shazo, Inc. 2019.

30.441
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 49 Integrity
The following section provides details that specifically address the integrity of the 1926 building. While the 1926 building was found ineligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria, it appears to be most associated with the automobile showroom property type, with a period of significance reflective of its date of construction and was previously locally listed but removed from listing. To ensure due diligence, the integrity of the 1926 building is assessed to provide an understanding of changes to the property since its 1926 construction.
• Location. The 1926 building has not been moved since its original construction.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of location. • Design. The 1926 building was designed as a three-bay plan automobile showroom, with a large central entrance flanked by large display windows and parapets typical of California architecture of the 1920s. While the design of the 1926 building was altered during changes in the 1980s to convert the building to four separate retail uses, most of the design elements remain from the date of construction, including the three-bay plan, parapets, clerestory windows, and large central opening.

While other elements have been altered, including the retail doors at the end bays and adjacent windows and transoms, the 1926 building retains its general design to represent an automobile showroom property type constructed in the 1920s.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of design. • Setting (Setting refers to the physical environment of a historic property) The setting along this block of Front Street has changed over time, with the construction of several buildings and the demolition of other buildings since 1926. While the area retains some of the buildings that were extant in 1926 and continues to retain the general low-rise commercial and industrial nature of the area, the setting appears to remain sufficiently intact from the 1926 building’s date of construction though the area has changed.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains some integrity of setting, but not to its date of construction. • Materials. The 1926 building experienced several alterations when converted in the 1980s to accommodate four retail storefronts, which necessitated the replacement of several original materials and the introduction of contemporary materials, including new retail doors, new transom windows, and exterior cladding within the recessed main entrance. Despite these changes, the 1926 building appears to retain the general material palette from its date of construction, including the board-formed concrete at the side elevations, the stucco cladding at the front and west elevation, and wood-frame windows that face the front street.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of materials. • Workmanship. The 1926 building shows workmanship in various design elements, including the board-formed concrete at the side elevations, stucco-clad exterior at the west elevation, and the wood-frame clerestory windows. Despite the changes over time, the 1926 building retains these elements that represent the general craftsmanship of the period.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of workmanship. • Feeling. Feeling is the quality that a historic property has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of

30.442
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 50 a past period. The 1926 building retains the general design elements and materials that evoke an automobile showroom property type constructed in the 1920s, despite alterations in the 1980s that converted the building for four retail uses.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of feeling. • Association. The 1926 building was constructed as an automobile showroom during a period of development of Front Street between Soquel Avenue and Laurel Street where businesses were increasingly associated with automobile sales and service. As the 1926 building continues to evoke the characteristics of the automobile showroom property type from the 1920s, the 1926 building appears to retain the association with this property type.

Therefore, the 1926 building retains integrity of association.

Although the 1926 building was not found to be eligible under any CRHR criteria, however, its integrity was nevertheless assessed to the building’s date of construction to present an understanding of the impact that alterations to the Property and surrounding environment have had over time. As such, the 1926 building appears to retain some aspects of integrity.

Local Review and Evaluation
The following section provides a review of the 2013 documentation and evaluation for local listing completed by Archives and Architects and the re-evaluation by EDS for local listing. 2013 Archives and Architects - 1926 Building Evaluation (DPR page 4 of 5) In 2013, Archives and Architects documented and evaluated the 1926 building on DPR 523 forms for local significance. According to Archives and Architects, “When considered for listing within the Historic Building Survey of the City of Santa Cruz, the property [sic 1926 building] meets the following criteria:

1. The building is a significant example of the built environment heritage of the city as a representative of late 1920s buildings constructed to serve the emerging auto service industry; and

7. The building retains sufficient integrity to accurately convey its significance.

EDS Analysis and Recommendations:

1. The local significance theme appears to be – “emerging auto service industry” – though this is not a significance theme defined within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013). In addition, the BSO DPR form completed in 2013 states the signifance theme is “Commercial Development”.

7. The 2013 CRHR and Local integrity “analysis” conflict significantly with what each states within the DPR forms.
2013 CRHR Signifiances Evaluation (DPR page 4 of 5)
“The building is not individually significant to the development of the downtown area, and although it was one of a number of auto-oriented uses along Front Street, the important pattern of development of this portion of the downtown has lost much of its historic setting, thus would not appear to be eligible under Criterion (1). The personages

30.443
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 51 associated with the original auto body shop on this property are not known to be historically significant, therefore the property would not appear to be eligible under Criterion (2). The building is not a distinctive representative of its time, as a vernacular commercial building of Mission Revival design and has also been altered throughout the years, and does not appear eligible under Criterion 3.” EDS Review and Recommendations:

EDS suggests that Archives and Architects should have considered the significance findings and integrity for the CRHR, as the local significance findings and integrity vary considerably, as detailed in the following section. In addition, the 2013 DPR 523 records completed by Archives and Architects state there is no “Applicable Criterion” for significance for the CRHR under the theme of “Commercial Development from 1927 to 1948”. Also, the theme " Commercial Development” is not a fully developed theme within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), 83 which is the context from which
significance is derived. However, the theme of “Economic Development” is detailed in the context report.

As such, a sub-theme under Economic Development should have been included – such as the “early automobile industry” or “commercial development related to the automotive industry”.

Unfortunately currently the 2013 DPR evaluation of significance theme does not connect to a theme within the context from the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013).84 In addition, EDS suggests there is an “Applicable Criterion”, which is Criteria 1. 2013 Integrity Analysis by Archives & Architects (DPR page 5 of 5) “The property maintains most, but not all, of its historical integrity as per the National Register's seven aspects of integrity. It maintains its original location on Front Street, in downtown Santa Cruz at the edge of the San Lorenzo River; it is still surrounded by much, but not all of its apparent historic setting, including surrounding commercial buildings of similar age, scale and design and parcels with similar setbacks, parking, and streetscape.

It retains its Interwar era commercial scale and feeling and continues, through its form, massing and materials, to illustrate its associations with minor patterns of commercial design in the twentieth century. Although altered, the front fa ade retains its integrity with the vernacular Mission Revival commercial style, including the shaped parapet and symmetrical design. The storefronts include what appear to be original character-defining doors, and although it has been altered, the basic integrity of the subject property appears to have been preserved.”85
83 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 84 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 85 Archives and Architects, “Ward & Thrash Oakland Pontiact” (DPR 523 records), 2013.

30.444
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 52 EDS Review and Recommendations:

The integrity analysis completed within the 2013 DPRs was completed to support the local listing significance theme; however, it is not supported by the context within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), or the historical context within the 2013 DPR 523 forms. In addition, the significance findings associated with setting and design (assuming materials and workmanship though not called out) and for local listing, the 1926 building 2013 integrity analysis conflicts with the CRHR integrity analysis, as detailed below.
2013 Archives and Architect CRHR and Local Evaluation - Conflicting Details • CRHR (2013 DPR page 4 of 5) - “although it was one of a number of auto-oriented uses along Front Street, the important pattern of development of this portion of the downtown has lost much of its historic setting, thus would not appear to be eligible under Criterion (1).” • Local (2013 DPR page 5 of 5) - “it is still surrounded by much, but not all of its apparent historic setting, including surrounding commercial buildings of similar age, scale and design and parcels with similar setbacks, parking, and streetscape.”
• CRHR (2013 DPR page 4 of 5) – “The building is not a distinctive representative of its time, as a vernacular commercial building of Mission Revival design and has also been altered throughout the years, and does not appear eligible under Criterion (3).” • Local (2013 DPR page 5 of 5) – “Although altered, the front facade retains its integrity with the vernacular Mission Revival commercial style, including the shaped parapet and symmetrical design. The storefronts include what appear to be original character-defining doors, and although it has been altered, the basic integrity of the subject property appears to have been preserved.”
EDS suggests that integrity should not change based on its evaluation ‘level”, either federal,state, or local.

Also, EDS could not find anywhere within the City of Santa Cruz ordinances that would state there was something other than the NRHP guidelines is utilized to complete a local integrity analysis in support of local significance findings.

EDS Additional Review and Recommendations
The architecture noted within the 2013 DPR 523 form (page 5 of 5) states the 1926 building is a “Vernacular Mission Revival commercial style”, but this “style” does not coincide with the local Santa Cruz design called out in the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013),86 which states the 1926 buiding is a “Commercial Vernacular”
First, “Vernacular Mission Revival commercial style” is not a known architectural style and is not a known local vernacular in Santa Cruz or the Region, and is not defined within any city context or within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013). 87 Although Archives and Architects may be implying the design is a vernacular form (i.e., commercial building) with Mission Revival elements, the 86 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 87 EDS also recommends that the use of the term vernacular within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013) has been mis-used or over-used and suggests a review of the Vernacular Architectural Forum and in the future, update this document accordingly.

30.445
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 53 term vernacular is not correctly understood or utilized within the 2013 DPRs.

Therefore, due to discrepancies and conflicting statements within the 2013 DPRs as detailed within this section, EDS completed a re-evaluation of the 1926 building for local signifiances to provide recommendations to the city on its current eligibility for listing on the City of Santa Cruz Registry. The reevaluation was completed based on current City of Santa Cruz historic preservation guidelines and requirements for a local listing, as detailed in the section below. 2022 EDS Local Re-Evaluation
The 1926 building was considered under local significance categories 1 through 5 (listed below) utilizing the adopted historical context documents (2000 and 2013) written on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz that identify important resources and historical themes.

1. Recognized as a significant example of the cultural, natural, archaeological, or built heritage of the city, state, or nation
EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013),88 within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building is a significant example of built heritage that should be recognized by the city, state, or nation.

2. Associated with a significant local, state, or national event The following context was taken from pages 17 and 18 of the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013) under “Front Street” sub-heading. “While initial development of the city center was near the Santa Cruz Mission and the plaza, after 1853 Main Street (later Front Street) developed as the main business street.

The prominence of Main Street was short lived, and by 1866, with the Foreman & Wright survey, the name was changed to Front Street and it was designated as a secondary street. Front Street did not initially connect to the wharves, but eventually connected to Pacific Avenue at the bottom of Beach Hill in 1932. The Foreman & Wright survey also changed the name of Willow Street to Pacific Avenue and designated it as the primary business street. Businesses began to move to Pacific Avenue and newly vacant buildings along Front Street were occupied for a time by the Chinese ethnic community. The Front Street Chinatown was the largest in the city and lasted until 1894 when it was destroyed by fire. After the 1894 fire, the displaced Chinese community moved closer to the San Lorenzo River. They continued to reside in this area until the December 1955 flood.

The north end of Front Street had served as a municipal center providing the then site for the county jail and the extant Hall of Records in the late nineteenth century, as well as Santa Cruz City Hall, Fire Department, and Bell Tower. Later, as the automobile became increasingly prevalent in urban centers during the interwar period, commercial sales and services clusters began to appear in Santa Cruz, primarily on Front Street.

Prominent local architects such as Lee Dill Esty and C. J. Ryland designed buildings for 88 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and

30.446
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 54 clients in the automobile business, including auto repair shops (Huston & Weymouth Garage, 418 Front Street) and auto showrooms (Thrash Pontiac Motors, 429 Front Street). In 1936 the nineteenth‐century county jail was replaced with a Modern edifice designed by Albert Roller (now the Museum of Art & History at the McPherson Center, 725 Front Street). Today, Front Street has lost most of its auto related businesses and continues to serve as a secondary street to Pacific Avenue. However, it retains many structures associated with commercial development during the first half of the twentieth century.

EDS Local Re-Evaluation
Based on the City of Santa Cruz’ Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013),89 and survey and research completed as part of the EDS HRE, it was determined that the 1926 building is associated with the development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s and the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz. As such, these are the significance themes.

To assess these significance themes, EDS utilized the adopted historical context documents (2000 and 2013) written on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz that identify important resources and historical themes.

The section below provides of analysis of the context documents that should support these themes for local listing.

Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013) There is little historical context within the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), that supports the following significance themes, development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s and the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz.

However, the theme of “Economic Development 1850‐1950” is identified as important to the City of Santa Cruz, which includes a small section entitled “Front Street”, which states it is an area that developed “Later, as the automobile became increasingly prevalent in urban centers during the interwar period, commercial sales and services clusters began to appear in Santa Cruz, primarily on Front Street.” Unfortunately, this statement is not enough to support the significance theme. Furthermore, within the context written in 2013, there is little mention of the importance of the automobile industry in Santa Cruz or on Front Street
“Historic Context Statement”, City of Santa Cruz (2000) EDS also reviewed the “Historic Context Statement” for the City of Santa Cruz (2000),90to ascertain any historical context related to the automobile industry or the importance of Front Street as part of an automobile row that would be important to the city. EDS found that the automobile is discussed in 89 The significance theme defined within Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey that this building would be associated with appears to be “Economic Development 1850‐1950” and 90 Susan Lehmann, “Historic Context Statement”, City of Santa Cruz (October 20, 2000), https://www.cityofsantacruz.com, accessed May 10, 2022.

30.447
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 55 relation to tourism in Chapter 3, the “Economic Development of the City of Santa Cruz, City 1850-1950”.

However, this does not support the local significance.

Analysis of Integrity
The significance of a local resource must also be supported by integrity, which is often posed by asking a question, such as does the 1926 building retain enough integrity to convey significance associated with the development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s and/or the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz? EDS Integrity Analysis: Although the building does retain some integrity, alterations to the 1926 building have affected the materials and workmanship of the building and the setting has changed from an automobile row to a commercial area with large swaths of parking lots due to the demolition of buildings, which has affected the overall integrity of setting to support the significance statement.

EDS Local Evaluation Recommendations: The 1926 building does not have the integrity to be considered a “significant local, state, or national event” associated with the development of Front Street as “Automobile Row” from the 1920s through the 1940s or the automobile industry related to the economic development of Santa Cruz.

Therefore, the 1926 building does not appear to qualify for local listing under this category.

3. Associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; and/or
EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building is associated with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation.

4. Associated with an architect, designer, or builder whose work has influenced the development of the city, state, or nation; and/or
EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building is associated with an architect, designer, or builder whose work has influenced the development of the city, state, or nation.

5. Recognized as possessing special aesthetic merit or value as a building with quality of architecture and that retains sufficient features showing its architectural significance; and/or EDS Analysis and Recommendation: The 1926 building is associated with Automobile Showroom design.

Though it is not a locally recognized architectural type and is miscategorized as “vernacular Mission Revival commercial style”, it does not appear to possess special aesthetic merit or value as a building with quality of architecture, and that retains sufficient features showing its architectural significance. In addition, there is no evidence presented with this document or provided by the city or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building qualifies under this category.

6. Recognized as possessing distinctive stylistic characteristics or workmanship significant for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of native materials; and/or EDS Analysis and Recommendation: There is no evidence presented with the EDS HRE, the Santa Cruz

30.448
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 56 Historic Building Survey, Volume III (March 2013), within additional documentation provided by the city, or found as part of the research, survey, or evaluation that the 1926 building has the distinctive stylistic characteristics or workmanship significant for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of native materials to be listed under this category.

Summary of Local Re-Evaluation
Based on the local evaluation completed by Archives and Architects in 2013, the City of Santa Cruz had previously recommended that the 1926 building is eligible for local listing for on a local level for its association with development of Front Street from the 1920s through the 1940s as automobile row.

However, based on the lack of local context to support this previous recommendation for local listing and discrepancies in the integrity analysis, EDS completed a re-evaluation of the 1926 building for local eligilbility. Based on the current context adopted by the City of Santa Cruz in 2013, and context within the HRE completed by EDS, it does not appear 1926 building is eligible for local listing.

However, this determination is a decision by the City of Santa Cruz and as such, to consider the 1926 building as a historical resource would require the lead agency to find the building historically significant “if supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record,” even if the resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR (PRC 5024.1), or in a local register of historical resources (PRC 5020.1(k).

CONCLUSIONS
In compliance with CEQA regulations and guidelines, and the City of Santa Cruz’s historic preservation policies and ordinances, EDS Principal Architectural Historian Stacey De Shazo, M.A. and EDS Senior Architectural Historian Brian Matuk, M.S. conducted research and a survey to evaluate the built environment that is at least 45 years in age, recommended by the OHP as a threshold, within the Project Area to determine if any of the built environment qualifies for listing on the CRHR.

The CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. 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 significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850).

The Project Area consists of three adjacent parcels, including one parcel at 514-516 Front Street, within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 005-151-37, which includes the 1926 building, and two parcels at 530 Front Street, within APNs 005-151-47 and 005-151-44, which include a 1981 commercial building and paved parking lot, located within the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County; however, only the Property that includes the 1926 building was evaluated as part of this HRE, as it is the only building within the Project Area that is at least 45 years of age, and in accordance with the OHP Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, it was determined by EDS not to warrant evaluation.

The results of the HRE determined that the 1926 building is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria. In 2013, the 1926 building was determined to be a historical resource eligible for local listing. But, currently, the 1926 building is not locally designated or listed as the property owners elected to “opt

30.449
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 57 out”91 of local listing. Furthermore, due to discrepancies within the 2013 evaluation, the city requested EDS complete an updated local evaluation. Based on city guidelines, OHP guidelines, and NRHP guidelines for evaluating cultural resources, EDS recommends that the 1926 building is not eligible for local listing.

In summary, the 1926 building at 514-518 Front Street is not individually eligible for listing in the CRHR and is recommended not eligible for local listing. As such, neither the 1926 building nor any other built environment resources located within the Project Area qualify as historical resources under CEQA. 91 City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621 (passed and adopted March 2013).

30.450
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archives & Architecture. Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey – Volume III. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Planning and Community Development. March 2013.

City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development, 1850-1980, Theme: Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910-1970. Prepared for SurveyLA. August 2016.

City of Santa Cruz. City Council Resolution No. NS-28,621. Passed and adopted March 2013.

Garr, Daniel. “Villa de Branciforte: Innovation and Adaptation on the Frontier.” The Americas, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1978.

GoogleEarth Aerial Photographs
2005 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.
2006 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.
2007 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.
2008 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.
2009 Aerial photograph of Santa Cruz.

Guest, Florian. “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte.” California Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 1962.

Heron, David W. “Bancirforte: The Viceroy From Sicily.” Santa Cruz County Historical Journal 3. Santa Cruz, CA: Museum of Art and History, 1997.

Lehmann, Susan. Fully Developed Context Statement for the City of Santa Cruz. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development Department. October 20, 2000.

Liebs, Chester H. Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Mid-County Post. 27 June 2006.

Pulcheon, Andrew, E., Timothy Jones, and Michael Konzak. Cultural Resources Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity Map for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update. Unpublished report on file at the Northwest Information Center, Rohnert Park, CA. 2006.

R. L. Polk & Co.

Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1925. San Francisco, Calif.: R.

L. Polk & Co., 1925.

Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1928. San Francisco, Calif.: R.

L. Polk & Co., 1928.

Polk’s Directory of Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz County 1930. San Francisco, Calif.: R.

L. Polk & Co., 1930.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1935. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1935.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1937. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1937.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1939. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1939.

30.451
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 59 Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1940. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1940.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1946. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1946.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1953. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1953.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1954. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1954.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1956-57. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1956.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1958. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1958.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1959. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1959.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1964. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1964.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1976. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1976.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1977. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1977.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1978. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1978.

Polk’s Santa Cruz City Directory 1982-83. San Francisco, Calif.: R. L. Polk & Co., 1982.

Reader, Phil. “Branciforte History Chronology.” Santa Cruz County Historical Journal 3. Santa Cruz, CA:

Museum of Art and History, 1997.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. July 1886. 1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. May 1888. 1892 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. July 1892. 1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1905.
1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1928.
1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Santa Cruz. 1928, updated August 1950.

Santa Cruz County Office of the Recorder
Deed between B. F. Kelley Trust (Grantor) and Robert P. Chandler (Grantee), dated October 25, 1972.

Deed of Trust between Russell R. Samuels and Kathleen T. Samuels (Trustor) and K. D. Daubenbis and Bruce L. Sharpe (Trustee), dated March 23, 1940.

Joint Tenancy Deed between Walter A. Huston, L. Fern Huston, Alvin L. Weymouth, and Lois A.

Weymouth (Grantor) and Benjamin F. Kelley and Alice B. Kelley (Grantee; Joint Tenants), dated May 24, 1946.

Santa Cruz Evening News
[Advertisement]. 10 July 1926.
[Advertisement]. 6 August 1926.
[Advertisement]. 29 September 1926.
[Advertisement]. 30 April 1927.

30.452
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 60 [Advertisement]. 2 May 1927.
[Advertisement]. 1 August 1927.
[Advertisement]. 12 September 1931.
“Announcement.” 23 June 1926.
“Building Permits.” 27 May 1940.
“Building Permits Exceed $20,000 in Program of Week.” 26 April 1930. “General Notices.” 21 November 1934.
“Huxtable Will Remodel Unit.” 7 April 1938.
“New Dealers Will Achieve Success.” 2 October 1926.
“New Equipment Is Installed By Ward and Thrash.” 26 September 1931. “New Today.” 9 March 1933.
“Notice.” 18 June 1931.
“Oakland-Pontiac Agency Bought By Kirby Motor Co.” 2 July 1927. “Ward and Thrash Shop is Equipped For All Repairs.” 3 October 1931.

Santa Cruz Sentinel
“Brunetti Building Latest Substantial Structure on Front Street.” 20 February 1932. “Front Street Rapidly Taking Place As Modern “‘Automobile Row’.” 20 February 1932. “Santa Cruz Yesterdays.” 3 September 1950.
“Santa Cruz Yesterdays.” 17 March 1957.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Division. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.:

United States Department of the Interior, 1990, revised 1997.

Villa de Branciforte Preservation Society, “Recognize, preserve and appreciate historical landmarks” [Electronic document], 2004. http://www.villadebranciforte.org/. Accessed April 17, 2019.

30.453
HRE for 514-518 Front Street, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County 61 Appendix A:

DPR Forms

30.454