Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 - Cultural Resources Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 8-1 8 Cultural Resources This chapter evaluates the potential impacts of the Project related to cultural resources. This chapter describes existing cultural resources in the Project Area and evaluates the extent to which development of the Project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historic or archaeological resource (as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act). Setting information is derived from the following primary sources: ● Data extracted from records reviews conducted by the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) Northwest Information Center (NWIC) for the 2002 Britannia East Grand Project (BEG) EIR, the 2007 Genentech Facilities Master EIR (MEIR), and the 2012 Supplemental MEIR (SMEIR) ● Record Search Results for the Proposed Genentech Corporate Campus 10-Year Master Plan, California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, April 23, 2018, including base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo County (Appendix 8) Pursuant to California State Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), the City has contacted those Native American tribes who have requested CEQA consultation, providing each tribe on the City’s list with a copy of this EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP). The City did not receive requests for further consultations from any of these tribes. Environmental Setting Prehistoric and Historic Background 1 Prehistoric and Ethnographic Context The area that is now South San Francisco was inhabited by a people of Penutian linguistics who spoke the Ramaytush language, and referred to as Costanoan. The term Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word Costaiios, or "coast people," but its application as a means of identifying this population is based in linguistics. Costanoan actually designates a family of eight languages. Of these, Ramaytush was the language spoken by the estimated 1,400 people who occupied the area now designated as San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Tribal groups occupying the area from the Pacific Coast to the Diablo Range and from San Francisco to Point Sur spoke the other seven languages of the Costanoan family. Modern descendants of the Costanoan prefer to be known as Ohlone, and members of the Ohlone Indian Tribe. They are named after the Oljon tribal group, which occupied the San Gregorio watershed in San Mateo County. Based on linguistic evidence, it has been suggested that the Costanoan ancestors of the Ohlone 1 The material in this summary of prehistoric and historic background is largely drawn from the 2007 Genentech Facilities Master Plan MEIR Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Page 8-2 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR arrived in the San Francisco Bay area about 500 A.D., from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. Extended families lived in domed structures thatched with tule, grass, wild alfalfa, ferns or carrizo. Subterranean sweathouses were built into pits excavated in stream banks and covered with a structure against the bank. Evidence of the success of their hunter/gatherer subsistence strategy may be seen in the number of flourishing village sites known to have existed at the time of contact with the Spanish. Estuary and marsh locales along the former bay shoreline would have offered abundant food resources to prehistoric human populations. The detritus of these sites has been found in numerous locations around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, in the form of shellmounds--large accumulations of shell, ash, human artifacts and occasionally human remains. Regional History The colonizing efforts of the Spanish government first reached the San Francisco Peninsula when an expedition led by Gaspar de Portola was attempting to explore Monterey Bay. The party reached what is now the San Francisco Bay in October 1769, and though they knew they had overshot their target when they spotted the Farallons and Point Reyes, they briefly explored the region before returning south. After traveling along the San Mateo coastline, the party turned east and traveled inland to camp along San Andreas Creek near the present City of Millbrae. Captain Fernando Rivera, a member of the Portola expedition, returned with Fray Francisco Palou in 1774 to explore the region and scout prospective sites for Spanish settlement. The party camped in the San Andreas Valley. Just two years later, in the spring of 1776, Juan Bautista de Anza, Pedro Font, and others would return to explore the area once again. The Rivera and de Anza parties traveled north up the Peninsula along the route that would become known as both El Camino Real and the San Jose Road. Once the missions at San Francisco and Santa Clara were established (in 1776 and 1777) at the northern and southern ends of the Peninsula, the trail would become a well-traveled wagon road between the two centers of activity. In addition, the road would be a determining factor in the settlement patterns of newcomers and the growth of future cities and towns within this area. The arrival of the Spanish in the San Francisco Bay Area led to the rapid demise of native California populations. Diseases, declining birth rates and the effects of the mission system served to eradicate the aboriginal life ways. Brought into the missions, the surviving Costanoans, along with former neighboring groups of Esselen, Yokuts and Miwok, were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers. With abandonment of the mission system and Mexican takeover in the 1840s, numerous ranchos were established. Generally, the few native Californians who remained were then forced, by necessity, to work on the ranchos. With this influx of European settlers, most of the native Ohlone village sites were destroyed or covered by buildings and roads at numerous locations around the bay shoreline. During the Gold Rush era, silt accumulation and historic settlement effectively filled in hundreds of acres of the original bay shoreline, including portions of the Project site. Recent Historic Context During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the East of 101 Area was developed with heavy manufacturing activities and meatpacking plants, facilitated by rail access. By the 1930s, shipping emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. In the years following World War II, the City converted marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the City. The area has been transforming for the past thirty years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing and newer research and development establishments. Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 8-3 Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources The Project Area sits partially on reclaimed Bay lands and adjacent uplands at the eastern base of San Bruno Point. The lower portions of the Project Area, including parts of South Campus, were reclaimed from the waters of the San Francisco Bay in the mid to late 1960s. This reclamation effort used compacted materials derived primarily from excavated bedrock and alluvial materials, placed over Bay Mud, which lies directly beneath the reclaimed fill material. A map cited in the 2007 MEIR illustrated the potential for the existence of paleontological resources in the general Project Area.2 This map indicates that portions of the Project Area are underlain with bedrock components, and it is possible that unique paleontological resources exist within these bedrock components, since paleontological resources typically occur within rock formations. However, the 2007 MEIR concluded that, “according to the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History, no vertebrate fossil localities exist on the San Francisco peninsula, thus, no unique paleontological resource or unique geologic features are anticipated to exist within the Study Area. No previously identified paleontological resources were found to be located at the MEIR Study Area.” 3 The 2012 SMEIR concluded that there was “no substantial change in the circumstances” regarding paleontological resources from that described in the 2007 MEIR, and there are now no known changes in circumstances pertaining to paleontological resources in the Project Area. Historic Resources 4 A record and literature search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) was conducted for this EIR in April 2018 by the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University. This record and literature search included the statewide Historical Resources Inventory database maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation, and the records maintained and managed under contract by twelve independent regional information centers. The record search included a review of site records, primary records, historic maps and manuscripts, the National Register of Historic Places Index (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historic Interest, state and local inventories, and other pertinent historical data available at the Northwest Information Center in San Mateo County. The study area for the 2018 records search included the Project Area plus a quarter-mile radius. The record search results indicate the following about the study area. Native American Resources The Project Area contains one previously recorded Native American resource (site P-41-000043), and there is one additional recorded Native American resource located within one-quarter mile of the Project Area (site P-41-000042). Both of these sites were identified by N.C. Nelson around 1906 or 1907, and the source contains very limited data.5 Nelson’s publication included descriptions of multiple shellmounds in the San Francisco Bay region. Therefore, it is likely that sites P-41-000042 and P-41-000043 are shellmounds (literature cited in the 2007 MEIR also indicates that both of these resources appear to be shellmounds). However, no additional information is known about these sites (including their size or contents) and the sites were plotted by hand on a topographic map before 1909. Therefore, these site locations should be 2 Kleinfelder Associates, Inferred Fossil Potential from Statewide Geologic Unit Map, Jennings, 2002, cited in 2007 MEIR, p. 4.10-12. 3 University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology, Paleontology Collections Data website, as cited in City of South San Francisco, Genentech Facilities Master Plan MEIR, 2007 4 California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Record Search Results for the Proposed Genentech Corporate Campus 10-Year Master Plan, April 23, 2018 5 Nelson, N. C., Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 7, No. 4. Berkeley, 1909 Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Page 8-4 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR considered approximate, and the sites may no longer exist. These sites have not been relocated since their original recordation in the early 1900s. 6 Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas populated by oak, buckeye, laurel and hazelnut, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. Sites are also found near watercourses and bodies of water. The Project Area is located at Point San Bruno on the San Francisco Bay waterfront, lies between the Oyster Point Channel and the San Bruno Channel and is less than one mile southeast of the San Bruno Mountains. Several natural drainages to the San Francisco Bay run in proximity to the Project Area. Given the similarity of one or more of these environmental factors and the presence of previously recorded sites, there is a high potential for unrecorded or non-located Native American resources in the Project Area. Historic Buildings or Structures There are no historic structures currently located within the Project Area. No federal, State or local historic resource registers or lists identify any existing historic properties in the Project Area, and there are no historic structures used to support Genentech operations. All historic structures of record within the Project Area (see discussion below) have previously been removed. Although industry has played a critical role in South San Francisco's history, no industrial buildings or sites within the East of 101 area are currently designated as historic resources. Records of historic-era buildings and structures do indicate that the Project Area and surrounding ¼-mile Study Area has previously contained recorded historic sites, as indicated below: ● The NWIC records search conducted for this EIR indicates that, “the [proposed] Project Area contains one recorded historic district (P-41-000884) that potentially contains between 9 and 28 previously unrecorded buildings or structures.” This previously recorded historic district (which includes multiple buildings) was the former, historic-era 1898 WP Fuller & Company paint manufacturing plant. The WP Fuller & Company paint and coatings manufacturing business was located near Point San Bruno (at what is now the Genentech South Campus), and became “the largest paint and varnish works on the West Coast”.7 Paint manufacturing facility resulted in extensive problems with lead contamination in the soil and in the San Bruno Channel. The O’Brien Corporation purchased the site in 1967 and remained in business through the 1990s, but then closed its operations under the oversight of DTSC and US EPA. All industrial buildings previously on that site and used in paint manufacturing associated with the 1898 W.P. Fuller & Company plant were demolished. The 2002 Britannia East Grand Project EIR (now the South Campus) found “no indications of existing historic structures associated with the former WP Fuller & Company Paint Plant.” The only buildings existing at this site in 2002 were the later-constructed O'Brien paint company’s office building and warehouse, which were not identified as historic resources and were subsequently demolished as part of the Britannia East Grand (South Campus) project. ● A second recorded historic site is the former Wildberg Bros. Refinery site, recorded at 349 Oyster Point Boulevard. This site is not within the Project Area, but instead is within the Oyster Point Specific Plan Area. In 1920, the Wildberg Bros. Company purchased a smelting plant at 349 Butler Avenue (now Oyster Point Boulevard), which operated until 1962. However, the Oyster Point Specific Plan Final EIR (dated March 2011) concluded that no structures that existed within the Oyster Point planning area at that time were “of historic age (over 50 years) or classified as historical resources.” The former Wildberg Bros. Refinery had been removed well before that time. ● The NWIC records search also notes that, “a historical inventory for San Mateo County discusses a stockyard and meat packing plant built by Gustavus Swift in the late 19th century. Though its 6 South San Francisco, 201 Haskins Way Project Draft EIR, October 2018, pertaining to site P-41-00002 7 South San Francisco Historical Society, Images of America - South San Francisco, 2004 Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 8-5 location is unclear from the literature, there is the possibility that this operation was located within the Project area and/or its one-quarter mile radius.” It is likely that meat packing plants and/or other former industrial businesses did occupy much of the entire East of 101 Area (and likely part of the Project Area and its surroundings) during the early- and mid-1900s, but none of those former business facilities remain or are identified as historic resources.8 Historic Period Archaeological Resources The Project Area contains no previously recorded historic-period archaeological resources. However, given the extent of historic-era development during the late 1800s and early 1900s in the East of 101 Area with heavy manufacturing activities, meat packing plants and other industrial development, there is high potential for unrecorded archaeological resources associated with these industrial periods within the Project Area and its one-quarter mile radius. SSF Historic Resources Survey According to the South San Francisco General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element (1999), South San Francisco has several historic homes and commercial buildings. Most are located along Grand Avenue near the Civic Center, and around the intersection of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. The City conducted a comprehensive survey of these structures in 1986. The buildings identified in this survey are representative of an architectural period, are of local historic prominence or are well-restored examples of vernacular architecture. Many of the structures in downtown South San Francisco along Linden, Baden and Miller Avenues are among those identified as potential historic resources in the 1986 survey. Although industry played a critical role in South San Francisco's history, no industrial buildings or sites are currently designated as historic resources (OSCE 1999). Historic Landmarks South San Francisco possesses one national historic landmark—Sign Hill. The sign on the regional landmark, which reads “South San Francisco the Industrial City,” is clearly visible to travelers on nearby freeways and to those flying into and out of San Francisco International Airport. Although the original version of the sign was installed in 1891, the letters that currently comprise the sign were installed in concrete in 1929. Regulatory Setting Federal The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the official federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by state offices for their historical significance at the local, state or national level. Properties listed in the NRHP or "determined eligible" for listing must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location and setting. 8 Fredricks, Darold, Rediscovering the Peninsula, accessed at: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/south-city-s- interesting-beginning/article_ba83387b-ae95-5fbf-8ec6-6392d50d3964.html. As indicated in this article, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (SSFL & I Co) was started by Gustavus Swift of Swift Meat Company, and this company owned much of what is now South San Francisco. “The eastern part, bound on three sides by the Bay waters, was where the meat- packing plants were to be built, along with other industrial businesses later. The San Bruno Toll Road (now Airport Boulevard) was to be the separation line between the anticipated industrial developments and a platted city that was to be developed for the workers of the industries.” Thus, it is likely that meat packing plants and/or other industrial businesses did occupy much of the entire East of 101 Area during the early- and mid-1900s. Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Page 8-6 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Significance is determined by four aspects of American history or prehistory recognized by the NRHP Criteria, which are listed below: ● Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history ● Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past ● Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type; period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction ● Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (See 36 CFR §60.4) Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity. Historical integrity is measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property. State The California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq. The CRHR was created to identify resources deemed worthy of preservation on a state level; it was modeled closely after the federal NRHP. Properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The criteria are nearly identical to those of the NRHP (presented above), but focus upon resources of statewide significance. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. The criteria for eligibility of a site for inclusion on the CRHR are set forth in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Sites eligible for inclusion are defined as any resource that: ● Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ● Is associated with lives of persons important in our past; ● 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 ● Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) (4) states: The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.lG) or 5024.1 California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains, as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if Native Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 8-7 American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 (e) This law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism or inadvertent destruction. The section establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission as the entity responsible to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. SB 18 (Government Code Sections 65352.3, 65352.4, and 65562.5) As approved into State law in 2004, this bill includes guidelines for consulting with California Native American tribes during the preparation of a General Plan for purposes of the preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to specified Native American places, features and objects. The bill addresses procedures for identifying the appropriate California Native American tribes, for continuing to protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features and objects, and for facilitating voluntary landowner participation to preserve and protect the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features and objects. The bill also requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a city or county General Plan, the city or county conduct consultations with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving specified places, features, and objects that are located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. The Project is not a General Plan nor an amendment to the SSF General Plan, and this regulation is therefore not applicable to the Project. Assembly Bill 52 In September of 2014, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which added provisions to the Public Resources Code (PRC) regarding the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB52 requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on “tribal cultural resources” separately from archeological resources. As defined under AB52, a tribal cultural resource is, “a site feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place or object, which is of cultural value to a Tribe, and is either on or eligible for the CRHP or a local historic register, or the lead agency, at its discretion, chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.” AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC Section 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3). Local Regulations and Policies The City has a Historic Preservation Commission that designates historic resources, reviews applications for altering or demolishing historic structures, disseminates information to the public concerning structures, sites and areas deemed worthy of preservation, and considers and recommends to the City Council methods for encouraging and achieving historical or architectural preservation. The City of South San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission also maintains a Historic Resources Survey (1986), which focuses on historic buildings, architecture and sites of significance in the City. The Historic Resources Survey does not list any resources in or near the Project area, or in the entire East of 101 area. South San Francisco General Plan The South San Francisco General Plan serves as an outline for the City of South San Francisco’s long- range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the community. The General Plan provides a detailed analysis of key issues in South San Francisco and sets policies specifically designed to guide development within the City. The Open Space and Conservation Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Page 8-8 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Element establish the goals, policies, programs, and guidelines to protect, manage and conserve natural and community resources. The following policies relate to cultural resources: ● Policy 7.5-G-1: Conserve historic, cultural and archeological resources for the aesthetic, educational, economic and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco’s identity and quality of life. ● Policy 7.5-G-2: Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation and support for South San Francisco’s historic, cultural and archeological resources. ● Policy 7.5-I-4: Ensure the protection of known archeological resources in the city by requiring a records review for any development proposed in areas of known resources….The East of 101 area, which is a likely location for new development, has the potential to contain additional resources due to the extensive marshlands that existed prior to landfill activities. Adequate policies and measures for protection of known and unknown archaeological resources that can supplement CEQA requirements may need to be incorporated into plans and development activities. ● Policy 7.5-I-5: In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event that archaeological resources are uncovered. CEQA requires the evaluation of any archaeological resource on the site of a development project. State law also protects these resources. City involvement in the identification, mitigation, and monitoring of project impacts on these resources will ensure the protection of South San Francisco’s cultural heritage. East of 101 Area Plan ● Policy LU-28: The City shall protect buildings, sites and land uses, which are historically significant. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Thresholds of Significance Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, the Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries 5. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 8-9 Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe Approach to the Analysis The Project Area is within the same study area boundaries as previously analyzed in the 2002 BEG EIR, 2007 MEIR and 2012 SMEIR. The Master Plan Update refines the boundaries of the Genentech’s Campus and its smaller neighborhood campuses, and identifies potential Opportunity Sites as locations where new development or redevelopment within the Genentech Campus is likely to occur. These Opportunity Sites include certain existing surface parking lots, older and less efficient existing buildings that underutilize their site potential, infill development at locations within the Campus where vacant infill sites exist, and existing hillsides within the Campus that were not previously contemplated for new development. The majority of these potential Opportunity Sites are in the same or similar locations as were contemplated and analyzed in the previous EIRs, and the conclusions from these previous EIRs remain valid and applicable. The Genentech Campus is fully encompassed within the study areas addressed in the previous EIRs. The analysis of the Project presented below relies upon known conditions regarding the presence, absence or probability of discovery for historic, cultural and tribal resources. There is no new information or changed circumstances related to cultural resources within the Project not previously known or identified in the previous EIRs. To the extent that Opportunity Sites have been identified that may present new or substantially more severe impacts related to cultural resources, these are specifically identified and discussed below. Historic Resources Cultural 1: Future development pursuant to the Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any known historical resources. (Less than Significant) There are no identified historic structures located within the Project Area. No federal, State or local historic resource registers or lists identify any historic properties in the Project Area; there are no historic structures used to support Genentech operations and the only historic structures of record within the Project Area were removed prior to 2002. Although industry has played a critical role in South San Francisco's history, no industrial buildings or sites within the East of 101 area are currently designated as historic resources. The Project would not require demolition or a substantial adverse change to any structure that qualifies as an historic resource. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. There is no new information or recently added historic resources, including information from recently conducted records search in April 2018 that would indicate the potential for impacts on historic resources. Paleontological Resources Cultural 2: Future development pursuant to the Project is not anticipated to uncover or disturb a known paleontological resource. (Less than Significant) As discussed in the Setting section above, the Project Area contains no record of any previously found invertebrate or vertebrate fossils. Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Page 8-10 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR The Project Area is underlain by rocks of the Franciscan Complex, which are known to contain a wide range of fossils, including radiolarians, mollusks, diatoms, foraminifers and marine vertebrates.9 However, the likelihood of encountering fossils or paleontological resources is low, given the following: ● As indicated in the Geology chapter of this EIR, much of the exposed bedrock within the Project Area is serpentine, which is formed through metamorphism. Metamorphism occurs under extremely high temperatures and pressures, which usually destroy any fossils in the parent rock. ● Sheared rocks derived primarily from serpentine and Franciscan shale and sandstone are present throughout the Project Area, but fossils are unlikely to be preserved in these sheared rocks, which have low paleontological sensitivity. ● Many portions of the Project Area contain slope debris at the surface, but such debris flows are not conducive to the preservation of scientifically significant fossils. ● Artificial fill, which has no paleontological sensitivity, makes up a large portion of the Project Area. Although certain ground-disturbing activities such as deep foundation setting may exceed the depth of artificial fill or slope debris and may encounter rocks of the underlying Franciscan Complex, the potential to damage paleontological resources is unlikely, and considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Archaeological Resources Cultural 3: During ground disturbing activities associated within the Project Area, it is possible that currently unidentified historic-period archaeological resources could be discovered and disturbed. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Given the extent of historic-era development during the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Project Area (including paint manufacturing, meat packing plants and other industrial development), there is also a high potential for unrecorded archaeological resources associated with these industrial periods to be present within the Project Area. Although the Project Area is highly developed, much of the prior development has been occupied by warehousing and distribution facilities that do not include sub-levels beneath grade. Construction activities associated with the Project have the potential to excavate and grade in areas that were previously developed, but where grading activities may not have exposed buried archaeological resources. Construction associated with the Project could result in ground disturbance associated with grading, excavating and trenching, which could damage or destroy previously unidentified, significant archaeological resources, and may uncover previously unknown and buried human remains. This impact is considered potentially significant. Regulatory Requirements All new development pursuant to the Project shall comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to accidental discoveries of archaeological resources found in 36 CFR 800, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and/or Public Resources Code (PRC) 21083.2. ● As part of conditions imposed for mitigation, the City may make provisions for archaeological sites discovered during construction. These procedures may include an immediate evaluation of the find (PRC 21083.2(i)). 9 South San Francisco, 201 Haskins Way Project Draft EIR, October 2018 Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 8-11 ● Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f), if the find is determined to be a unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of the avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be available. ● If human remains are discovered during any phase of construction, including disarticulated or cremated remains, all ground-disturbing activities should cease within 100 feet of the remains. California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to address potential discovery of archaeological resources: Mitigation Measure Cultural 3A - Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP): A qualified archaeologist should conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel prior to Project-related construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training should include basic information about the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. Mitigation Measure Cultural 3B - Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation: In the unlikely event of discovery of paleontological or historical archaeological resources during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional. Historic-period archaeological resources may include stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits or bottle dumps. a) If the qualified archaeologist determines the find is not significant and that there is no potential for the find to be a tribal cultural resource, then proper recordation and identification will ensue and the project construction activity may continue without further delay. b) If the qualified archaeologist determines the find may potentially be a tribal cultural resource, a tribal representative shall be consulted to determine whether it is in fact a tribal cultural resource (see MM Cultural 4B, below). c) If the qualified archaeologist determines an archaeological find is significant, then the archaeologist will excavate the find in compliance with state law and keeping project delays to a minimum, and shall implement specific mitigation measures to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. d) If it is determined that avoidance of the resource is not feasible, then a mitigation plan (including monitoring and data recovery) shall be prepared, with specific steps and timeframe identified. Work near the find may only resume upon completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource. Mitigation Measure Cultural 3C - In the Event of Discovery of Human Remains: In the event of a discovery of buried human remains or suspected human remains, all construction activity within 50 feet shall cease until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner. a) If the County Coroner determines that an investigation into the cause of death is required, or that the remains are Native American, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the remains until appropriate arrangements are made. Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Page 8-12 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR b) In the event that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code to identify the Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant shall be consulted as to means for treating or re-interring the human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity. Resulting Level of Significance In conjunction with the regulatory requirements for discoveries of archaeological resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures Culture-3A through 3E will reduce the impacts associated with possible disturbance or discovery of archaeological resources or unidentified human remains to a level of less than significant. Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural 4: During ground disturbing activities associated within the Project Area, it is possible that currently unidentified or non-located tribal cultural resources could be discovered and disturbed. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Data, historic-period maps and literature on file at the NWIC was reviewed in the 2007 MEIR, and supplemented by an updated 2018 NWIC records search for this EIR. Based on this information, two Native American cultural resource sites have been discovered; one in the Project Area (shellmound site P-41- 000043) and one adjacent to the Project Area (shellmound sites P-41-000042). Although precise information about the locations of these shellmound sites is unavailable, the City recently issued a Draft EIR for the 201 Haskins Way project near the Project Area’s South Campus, which indicates that the adjacent shellmound (P- 41-000042) is recorded on that site. The approximate location for site P-41-000043 is identified as being “immediately adjacent to the project area boundaries” in the 2012 SMEIR,10 suggesting that it is also in close proximity to site P-41-000042 near the shoreline and in or near the South Campus. The Project Area lies within an area once occupied by the Costanoan, or Ohlone group of Native Americans. Previously discovered tribal resources in this area of San Mateo County tend to be situated near the historic margin of Bay, in tidal marshland and along creeks that drain upland terrain bordering the Bayshore plain. Similar conditions are found within the Project Area in the South and Lower Campuses. Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and a review of features associated with known tribal resource discovery sites, there is high possibility that unrecorded tribal cultural resources exist in the Project Area, and may be discovered during Project-related construction activities in these areas. Regulatory Requirements AB 52 has added the following requirements to the CEQA process pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3 et.seq, as listed below: ● Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. The City sent a copy of the Notice of Preparation for this EIR to each tribe on its consultation list (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation). 10 Atkins, as Appendix B: Historic Resources Records Search Results, appendix to 2012 SMEIR, letter to Mr. Gerry Beaudin, South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development - Planning Division, December 15, 2011 Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page 8-13 ● The lead agency shall begin a consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is affiliated traditionally and culturally with the geographic area of the proposed project. ● The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation: a) alternatives to the project, b) recommended mitigation measures and c) significant effects. The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: d) type of environmental review necessary, e) significance of the tribal cultural resources, f) significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources, and g) if necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. ● With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to the location, description and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. The City has not received any responses to the Notice of Preparation for this EIR from any of the tribes on its consultation list, no requests for consultation have been received and no information about tribal cultural resources has been submitted by a California Native American tribe during this environmental review process. ● If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource, and whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to address potential discovery of tribal cultural resources: Mitigation Measure Cultural 3A - Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP): See details above pertaining to potential discovery of archaeological resources, which also applies to tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measure Cultural 3B - Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation: See details above pertaining to potential discovery of archaeological resources, which also applies to tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measure Cultural 3C - In the Event of Discovery of Human Remains: See details above pertaining to potential discovery of archaeological resources, which also applies to tribal cultural resources. In addition to mitigation measures applicable to all potentially discovered archaeological resources, the following mitigation measures specific to tribal cultural resources also apply: Mitigation Measure Cultural 4A - Cultural Resources Monitoring: A qualified archaeologist shall monitor all construction-related activity expected to involve excavating, drilling or trenching at depths that may reach native sediment in those areas where tribal cultural resources are likely present (i.e., along the Project’s shoreline areas within the South and Lower Campus). Monitoring will continue for the duration of such activity or until culturally sterile sediments are reached (e.g., bedrock). The qualified archaeologist may determine to decrease or increase the monitoring efforts based on sediments observed, findings or the number of large ground-disturbing machines in operation. Chapter 8: Cultural Resources Page 8-14 Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Mitigation Measure Cultural 4B - In the Event of Discovery of a Tribal Resource: If a Tribal cultural resource is uncovered during construction, work should be halted within 25 feet of the discovered materials and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. A tribal representative shall be consulted to determine an appropriate mitigation plan (including monitoring and data recovery), with specific steps and timeframe to be stipulated. Work near the found tribal cultural resource may only resume upon completion of a mitigation plan and/or recovery of the tribal cultural resource. Resulting Level of Significance In conjunction with the regulatory requirements for discoveries of archaeological resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures Culture-3A through 3CE and Mitigation Measures 4a and 4B will reduce the impacts associated with possible disturbance or discovery of tribal cultural resources to a level of less than significant. Cumulative Cultural Resource Effects The Project, in combination with other past, present and future reasonably foreseeable projects could result in cumulatively significant cumulative impacts on archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources. Compliance with regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified for the Project would ensure the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative cultural resource impacts. The Project will have no impact on historic architectural resources or paleontological resources, and thus will not contribute to cumulative effects on such resources. Multiple shellmounds have been documented throughout the San Francisco Bay region, and historic archaeological resources associated with the city’s historic industrial development may exist throughout the East of 101 Area. Similar to the Project, ground-disturbing activities associated with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, particularly along the shorelines in the East of 101 Area, have the potential to disturb historic archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources, including other shellmound sites. These cumulative construction activities could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological or tribal cultural resources. As with the Project, regulatory requirements and mitigation measures will be required of all present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in areas where such resources are likely to be present. With implementation of applicable regulatory requirements and mitigation measures, the Project in combination with other past, present, and future reasonably foreseeable projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts on archaeological or tribal cultural resources, and the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative cultural resource impacts.