APPENDIX D CULTURAL REPORT - California

APPENDIX D

CULTURAL REPORT

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT

HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION

HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION 2100 STONE VALLEY ROAD

ALAMO, CALIFORNIA

TIM KELLEY CONSULTING

HISTORICAL RESOURCES

2912 DIAMOND STREET #330

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131

415.337-5824

[email protected]

HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 2100 STONE VALLEY ROAD ALAMO, CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Summary ....................................................................................................................................2 II. Introduction...............................................................................................................................2 III. Methodology ............................................................................................................................2 IV. Description .............................................................................................................................. 3

356668

121313141414141415161616161717181818181819

A. Site................................................................................................................................. B. Exterior........................................................................................................................... C. Interior ...........................................................................................................................

V. Historic Context ........................................................................................................................ A. Alamo............................................................................................................................. B. Project Site History ........................................................................................................ C. Construction Chronology............................................................................................. D. Owners and Occupants ..............................................................................................

VI. Evaluation of Historic Status .................................................................................................. A. Individual Eligibility ......................................................................................................

• Criterion 1 (Events)...................................................................................................... • Criterion 2 (Persons) ................................................................................................... • Criterion 3 (Architecture)............................................................................................. • Criterion 4 (Information Potential)................................................................................

VII. Integrity................................................................................................................................. VIII. Evaluation of Project Specific Impacts under CEQA...........................................................

A. Proposed Project ......................................................................................................... B. Status of Existing Building as a Historical Resource ................................................... C. Determination of Significant Adverse Change under CEQA ....................................... D. Analysis of Cumulative Impacts under CEQA .............................................................

IX. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. X. Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................

Interview........................................................................................................................... Maps ................................................................................................................................ Published ......................................................................................................................... Public Records.................................................................................................................

XI. Appendix, aerial photos, 1974 -1993 ....................................................................................

NOVEMBER, 2010 TIM KELLEY CONSULTING -1-


I. SUMMARY

2100 Stone Valley Road is not individually eligible for listing on the California Register and is

not otherwise a Historical Resource for CEQA purposes. Nor is it located within a potential

historic district. The proposed project of demolishing the extant building and replacing it with a

new fire station would not cause a direct negative impact on a Historical Resource, or

contribute to a cumulative negative impact.

II. INTRODUCTION

Tim Kelley Consulting was engaged by San Ramon Valley Fire District to conduct an Historical

Resource Evaluation (HRE) of 2100 Stone Valley Road, a single-family, one-story ranch style

residence in connection with the proposed project of demolishing the existing building and

replacing it with a new Fire Station. This report examines the property in order to determine if it

is eligible for listing in the California Register or is a Historical Resource for CEQA purposes;

and to evaluate the impact of the proposed project on historical resources.

III. METHODOLOGY

1. The Northwest Information Center was queried for existing information on historic properties

within the area of potential effects, with none being found.

2. Architectural Historian Karin Sidwell made a site visit to the 2100 Stone Valley Road on

October 20, 2010. The exterior of the subject building was surveyed to document the existing

structure. For determining construction dates and ownership history, several repositories were

consulted including the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office, the Contra Costa County

Department of Conservation and Development, and the Contra Costa Historical Society. More

widely available sources that were consulted for the building history include Sanborn Fire

Insurance maps, Contra Costa County cadastral maps and historic aerial maps. For more

general information on the history of the Contra Costa County and the town of Alamo,

repositories consulted included the Contra Costa County Historical Society, the Museum of San

Ramon Valley, as well as standard secondary sources on the development of the

unincorporated Contra Costa County. A complete bibliography has been compiled and appears

at the end of this report.



3. As stated above, the Contra Costa County Historical Society and the Museum of San Ramon

Valley were contacted regarding any knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties in the

area. No historic properties were identified in the immediate area of 2100 Stone Valley Road.

IV. DESCRIPTION

A. Site

2100 Stone Valley Road is located on the northeast corner of Miranda Avenue and Stone Valley

Road on a 1.25 acre lot (Figure 1). The building rests above street-grade at the top of a knoll

roughly located in the center of the parcel. The primary façade faces west on Miranda Avenue

and an aggregate and brick pathway arches around the primary façade and leads to a

courtyard on the south façade, an outdoor living area with porch on the north façade and a

swimming pool at the north end of the parcel. A detached one-and-a-half-story garage rests on

the south side of the building and the rear half of the garage is in use as an apartment. A stone

wall runs the length of the western edge of the parcel (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Stone Wall view facing west



A large portion of the parcel is open space with no formal landscaping and most of the trees

and shrubbery are clustered near the San Ramon Creek at the north end of the parcel (Figure

3 and 4).

Figure 3. Rear of the parcel view facing north

Figure 4. Rear façade and surrounding open space, view facing south.



B. Exterior

This building is a one-story single-family ranch-style house, irregular in-plan, clad in shiplap

wood siding and capped with a cross-gable roof. The building is accessed by a wide,

aggregate and brick driveway that slopes upward toward the two-car and apartment living-

space garage and continues to the north ending at the base of the tiered pathway leading to

the primary entrance. Square stone pillars flank the tiered pathway. The primary entrance, on

the western façade, is sheltered by an enclosed entryway with square wooden columns. The

entrance features a modern glazed and wood door and a semi-circular window on the left side.

Three grouped, fixed, wood-sash windows punctuate the right side of the façade, which is

recessed behind the main volume of the primary façade, and a tri-part metal casement window

accents the left side.

On the north side of the primary façade is a wing that projects outward to the north. This wing

is punctuated by wood-sash, multi-paned French doors with multi-paned sidelights. A modern

wooden deck extends from the French doors (Figure 5). To the right of the French Doors along

the main volume of the house is a fixed elongated window, a diamond-pane-over-one, wood-

sash double-hung window and multi-paned wood-sash French doors. The building terminates

with overhanging eaves with exposed rafter-tails.



Figure 5. North wing, left; main volume right

C. Interior

The interior was not examined for this report.

V. HISTORIC CONTEXT

A. Alamo

Alamo is an unincorporated town in the San Ramon Valley of Contra Costa County located

between the town of Danville and the city of Walnut Creek. Alamo was named by Spanish

settlers and is Spanish for poplar trees which were found in abundance near the San Ramon

Creek. Prior to the first settlers establishing the town of Alamo, the area was inhabited by the

Contra Costa Indians made up of nine tribes; Juchiyunes, Acalanes, Bolbones, Carquinez,

Pulpunes, Cholbones, Comistas, Coyboses, and Tarquimines1. Spaniards explored the area in

1772 and the first Mexican land grants were given in 1833. Mariano Castro and his uncle

Bartolome Pacheco were granted the northern section of Rancho San Ramon. Prior to the Gold

Rush, most of Contra Costa County was dedicated to cattle grazing.

1 The information available regarding the Indian Tribes of Contra Costa County is inconsistent. The list of tribes included in this report is a combination of the information recorded in Virgie Jones, Remembering Alamo, (Alamo CA: Morris-Burt Press, 1975) and F.J. Hulanski editor, The History of Contra Costa, (Berkeley: Elms Publishing Co., 1917).



Alamo is referenced as being the second oldest town in Contra Costa County; Martinez being

the oldest.2 A key pioneer settler of Alamo was John M. Jones, whose abobe home became the

first post-office between Martinez and Mission San Jose in 1852. Additionally, another key

pioneer settler was Silas Stone who purchased land about a one and a half miles east of the

village of Alamo. Several members of the Stone family purchased surrounding ranches totaling

1,000 acres and this area came to be known as Stone Valley traversed by Stone Valley Road.

In 1882, the town of Alamo was described as: “It now comprises a hotel, a store, a few shops, a

school house and a Presbyterian Church.” The total population of Contra Costa County in 1880

was 12,257 and the Township No. 2 which included Alamo consisted of 2,527.3 During the 1850

through the World War II period, Alamo and the San Ramon Valley were characteristically rural

agricultural land. The agricultural tradition began with the cattle-grazing, which evolved to the

production of hays and grains and finally cultivation of fruits and nuts. As late as 1937, orchards

dominated the landscape in Alamo.

After World War II, the farm culture and rural lifestyle shifted. Developers purchased the vast

acres of agricultural land and suburban developments sprouted up within the San Ramon

Valley. An example of a smaller tract development was the Jones tract, 13 lots divided from

eleven acres near Camille Avenue, which was developed beginning in 1948.4 These homes

were developed individually as custom homes which are typical for the development pattern in

the town of Alamo. The larger suburban tract home developments where developed in Danville

and San Ramon. In 1960, Round Hill Country Club broke ground on ranch lands owned by the

Mott sisters, located to the east of the subject property. As the population of Alamo and the San

Ramon Valley increased, improvements to roads, sewers, and water systems increased and an

interstate freeway opened in 1964 from Walnut Creek through Alamo to Danville’s Sycamore

Road. Currently the population of Alamo is roughly 16,000. Unlike the neighboring city of

Walnut Creek, which is comparatively more densely populated, Alamo is still considered a more

rural suburban town with an average lot size of about a half acre of 5,427 housing units in a

town measuring approximately 20.6 square miles.5

2 Virgie V. Jones, Remembering Alamo, (Alamo, CA: Morris-Burt Press, 1975, reprinted 2001). 3 J. P. Munro-Fraser, History of Contra Costa, California, (San Francisco: W A Slocum & Co. Publishers, 1882). 4 Jones, Remembering Alamo, 89.

5 U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing, 2000.



B. Project Site History

2100 Stone Valley Road was most likely constructed in 1938. There are no known Sanborn

Maps drawn for the subject area. Building permits for unincorporated Contra Costa County

were not required until 1947. This building was most likely constructed prior to 1947 and no

other recorded historical building information about the date of construction was located. The

approximate date of construction for this building is based on the aerial photos beginning in

1940 and parcel ownership documentation recorded at the Contra Costa County assessor’s

office. The first owner of the subject property to be documented living at 2100 Stone Valley

Road was Edward McConnell Griffith in 1942.6

The 1908 Official Map of Contra Costa County illustrates the subject property which is located

within a 38 acre parcel, lot G of the A. W. Stone Ranch (Figure 6)7.

Figure 6. 1908 Official Map of Contra Costa County location of subject property noted with arrow

The cadastral map of 1930 illustrates the Stone Family still retained ownership of the area

surrounding the subject property. According to the deed records, William A. Watson

6 California Voter Registrations for the County of Contra Costa, Alamo Precinct, 1942.

7 The A W Stone Ranch was divided into lots in 1892 according to the legal description for the subject property



purchased Lot G from the Stone Family between 1930 and 1938. The ownership of Lot G is

illustrated on the 1938 cadastral map of Contra Costa County(Figure 7).

Figure 7. 1938 Official Map of Contra Costa County location of subject property noted with arrow.

No records of William A. Watson’s residential address were located. Adelaide Griffith

purchased 1.25 acres of the Watson land in April 1938.8 Based on visible and stylistic clues of

the subject building, it is most likely Adelaide Griffith constructed this house in 1938.

Aerial photographs

1940 - This photograph shows the subject property as a roughly rectangular plan building with

orchards to the south and east, Miranda Avenue to the west, and San Ramon Creek to the

north. The closest structure to the subject property is located to the east on Stone Valley Road.

The surrounding area contains several large orchards and a few structures (Figure 8).

8 Deed of Trust No. 1239 for Edward McConnell Griffith dated January 16, 1940.



Figure 8. 1940 Aerial Map- location of subject property noted with arrow.

1946 - This photograph shows minor changes to the subject property and surrounding area.

The eastern edge of the subject property appears to contain outbuildings. According to

Winifred Camacho, whose father Philip E. Haultain purchased the property in 1945, the

property contained a stable for her horse. This building is no longer extant (Figure 9).




1958 – This photograph shows the surrounding area to the north and west containing many

more buildings than previous aerial photographs. The subject property is obscured by a large

oak tree that sheltered the house (Figure 10).


1965 – This photograph shows the surrounding area with much more development and subject

property contains stable, garage and house. The one-story master suite addition constructed

in 1953 on the northern façade is much more visible in this photo (Figure 11).




1974-1982 – The aerial photographs available for this time period highlight the growing

residential development in Alamo. Large trees obscure the subject property for this sequence

of photographs.(Appendix)

2005 – This photograph shows the subject property in its current state. The surrounding

orchards and rural landscape have been developed with much less open space than seen in

1940 (Figure 12).


C. Construction Chronology

2100 Stone Valley Road was constructed circa 1938 as a one-story single-family home roughly

rectangular in plan. The construction date of the garage is unknown and currently no

outbuildings are extant. According to Winifred Camacho (daughter of Philip E. Haultain), her

family moved to the home in 1945 and the house, at the time, was a two bedroom and one bath

house. She stated her parents added the master suite located on the northern façade in 1953

and that the garage included the small apartment unit when the Haultain family moved there in



1945. Records at the County Department of Conservation and Development indicate the

swimming pool was constructed circa 1980.

D. Owners and Occupants

The first known owner and occupant of 2100 Stone Valley Road was Edward McConnell Griffith.

He purchased the property from his mother Adelaide Griffith in 1940. Adelaide Griffith

purchased a 1.25 acre portion from William A. Watson’s 38 acre parcel in 1938. At the time,

Adelaide was a widow, who had raised her family in Berkeley, CA. Edward Griffith was the

youngest of six children. He graduated from UC Berkeley in 1939 and married his wife Helen

Elizabeth Atkinson in 1940. Edward served during World War II as a United States Naval officer

in the South Pacific. The Griffith family sold the property to Philip E. Haultain in 1945. The

Haultain family moved from Oakland, where Philip Haultain owned an automobile transmission

and belting business. Philip’s second wife, Marga, lived in the house until her death in 1999.

The house was purchased by the Poustinchian family and was maintained as investment

property until the San Ramon Valley Fire District purchased the property in 2008.

VI. EVALUATION OF HISTORIC STATUS

The subject property was evaluated to determine if it was eligible for listing in the California

Register of Historical Resources, either individually or as a contributor to an historic district.

The California Register is an authoritative guide to significant architectural, archaeological and

historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register

through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-eligible

properties (both listed and formal determinations of eligibility) are automatically listed.

Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private

organizations or citizens. This includes properties identified in historical resource surveys with

Status Codes of 1 to 5 and resources designated as local landmarks or listed by city or county

ordinance. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are

closely based on those developed for use by the National Park Service for the National

Register. In order to be eligible for listing in the California Register a property must be

demonstrated to be significant under one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1 (Event): Resources that are 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.



Criterion 2 (Person): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

The following section examines the eligibility of the subject property for listing in the California

Register under those criteria.

A. Individual Eligibility

• Criterion 1 (Events)

This building is not eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1. It is not

associated with any significant events in the history of Alamo or Contra Costa County. This

building follows a typical development pattern of rural towns and does not contribute

significantly to the development pattern of Alamo.

• Criterion 2 (Persons)

This building is not eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. This building is

not associated with any significant persons in the history of the town of Alamo or Contra Costa

County.

• Criterion 3 (Architecture)

This building is not a significant resource that embodies distinctive characteristics of a type,

period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high

artistic value. The building is a much altered vernacular structure that does not appear eligible

for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3.

• Criterion 4 (Information Potential)

This criterion ordinarily refers to potential archeological value. A full analysis of archeological

value is beyond the scope of this report. The property does not appear eligible for listing on the

California Register under Criterion 4.



VII. INTEGRITY

In addition to being determined eligible under at least one of the four California Register

criteria, a property deemed to be significant must also retain sufficient historical integrity. For

the purposes of the California Register and CEQA evaluation, historical integrity is defined as

“the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of

characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance” (California Code of

Regulations Title 14, Chapter 11.5). Since this property has no period of significance, its

integrity can not actually be measured.

For this report, a hypothetical analysis of integrity is made below in reference to the presumed

construction date and design of the house. The property is examined for seven variables or

aspects that together comprise integrity. These aspects, which are based closely on the

National Register, are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and

association. National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for

Evaluation defines these seven characteristics:

• 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.



2100 Stone Valley Road retains integrity of location only. It no longer retains integrity of design,

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

VIII. EVALUATION OF PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS UNDER CEQA

This section analyzes the project specific impacts of the proposed project on the environment

as required by CEQA.

A. Proposed Project

The owner proposes to demolish both existing buildings and build a new fire station (Figure 12).

Figure 12 . Architectural perspective at Stone Valley Road at Miranda Avenue Source: San Ramon Valley Fire District Website Architectural perspective of new Station #32

B. Status of Existing Building as a Historical Resource

As reported above, this building is not an individual Historical Resource and is not a

contributor to a potential historic district.

C. Determination of Significant Adverse Change under CEQA

According to CEQA, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in

the significance of an Historical Resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the

environment.”9 Substantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction,

relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance

9 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b).


http://www.firedepartment.org/images/projects/NewFS32After_Corner1000px.jpg�


of an Historical Resource would be materially impaired.”10 The significance of an historical

resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse

manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical

significance” and that justify or account for its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the

California Register.11

Since this building does not appear to be eligible for listing on the California Register or

otherwise qualify as a Historical Resource, either individually or as a contributor to a district,

the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the environment.

D. Analysis of Cumulative Impacts under CEQA

2100 Stone Valley Road is not an historical resource nor is it located in a potential historic

district. The proposed demolition of the subject building would not lead to a negative

cumulative impact Historical Resources.

IX. CONCLUSION

This building is not individually eligible for listing on the California Register. It is not located in a

potential historic district. The proposed demolition of the building would not have a significant

effect on Historical Resources.

10 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(1).

11 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2).



X. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Interview

Interview on the phone with Winifred Camacho conducted on October 21, 2010.

Maps

Official Maps of Contra Costa County. 1908, 1930, 1938.

Published

Hulaniski, F. J., ed. History of Contra Costa County. Berkeley: The Elms Publishing Co., 1917. Jones, Virgie V. Remembering Alamo. Alamo, CA: Morris-Burt Press, 1975. Reprint, 2002. Lane, Beverly and Ralph Cozine. San Ramon Valley: Alamo, Danville, and San Ramon. San

Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2005. Munro-Fraser, J.P. History of Contra Costa County. San Francisco: W.A. Slocum & Co.,

Publishers, 1882. San Francisco Chronicle, “Edward McConnell Griffith” Obituary Notice October 20, 2010. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to

Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, rev. ed. 1998.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 16: “How to

Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, rev. ed. 1998.

Public Records

California Voter Registrations, Alamo Precinct, 1942, 1944. Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office. “Deeds” for APN 193-130-025. United States Census, 1910, 1920, 1930




XI. APPENDIX, AERIAL PHOTOS, 1974 -1982



Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDIX D CULTURAL REPORT - California

Documents