Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix CUL Appendix CUL Cultural Resources Technical Memo  Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 510 834 4455 OFFICE [email protected] www.rinconconsultants.com E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s January 15, 2020 Project No: 19-08481 Christy Usher Consultant Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division City Hall Annex, P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, California 94083 Subject: Cultural Resource Assessment for the 499 Forbes Boulevard Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Dear Ms. Usher: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of South San Francisco to perform a Phase I cultural resources assessment for the 499 Forbes Boulevard Project located at 499 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The purpose of this letter report is to document the results of the tasks performed by Rincon, specifically: a site visit, evaluation, cultural resources records search, and Native American outreach. This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the City of South Francisco acting as the lead agency. This study was completed in accordance with CEQA and applicable local requirements and guidelines. Project Description The project site consists of two parcels that will be merged and are located at 499 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. The property lies within the San Francisco South Quadrangle, Township 3 South, Range 5 West Section 22 (Figure 1, Attachment A). The project site is located in the East Side region of South San Francisco, an area characterized by its industrial buildings and factories. The project site is currently occupied by a single commercial property that is over 50 years of age. At the time of this letter report, the property was approximately 75% demolished. Methods On November 22, 2019, Rincon Biologist Anastasia Ennis conducted a pedestrian field survey of the project site. During the survey, Ms. Ennis examined the area and took extensive photographs recording the project site. As a result of the survey, one built environment property over 45 years of age was identified within the project area. This resource was recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms and evaluated for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, and for local designation. In addition to the survey, as part of the background research process of identifying cultural resources for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search of the project site and vicinity. Additionally, Rincon conducted a records search City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page 2 of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton. The results of these searches are discussed in more detail below. Regulatory Setting CEQA PRC §5024.1, Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and PRC §§21083.2 and 21084.1 were used as the basic guidelines for this cultural resources study. CEQA (§21084.1) requires that a lead agency determine if a project could have a significant effect on historical resources. A historical resource is one listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (§21084.1), included in a local register of historical resources (§15064.5[a][2]), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (§15064.5[a][3]). Resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically listed in the CRHR. According to CEQA, impacts that adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. These impacts could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[b][2][A]). National Register of Historic Places The NRHP was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (CFR 36 CFR 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it meets the Criteria: Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page 3 In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined in the following manner: Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR was created by Assembly Bill 2881, which was established in 1992. The California Register is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the National Register criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(b)). Certain properties are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the CRHR by operation of law, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register. The CRHR consists of properties that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The CRHR automatically includes the following: Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Criterion 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 Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC §21083.2[a], [b]). PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page 4 demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: Criterion 1: Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information Criterion 2: Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type Criterion 3: Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person Local Adopted in 1986, the City of South San Francisco Historic Preservation Ordinance establishes the designation criteria for local historic landmarks and districts. The ordinance was updated in 2011. Section 1440 of the ordinance identifies historic landmarks as are those properties that meet one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; and Criterion B: Its location as a site of a significant historic event; or Criterion C: Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the city, the state or the nation; or Criterion D: Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life; or Criterion E: Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in the city; or Criterion F: Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose efforts have significantly influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the nation; or Criterion G: Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic, architectural and/or engineering design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship; or Criterion H: Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the integrity of the other historic resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity and character should be protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood); or Criterion I: Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of the city; or Criterion J: Its potential of yielding significant information of archeological interest; or Criterion K: Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of the city, the state, or the nation. For example, an area retained in or developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or some other feature which contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page 5 Cultural Resources Records Search A search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University was completed on November 6, 2019. The search was performed to identify all previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list. A summary of the results are included in Attachment B. The NWIC records search identified 14 previously conducted cultural resources studies that have been performed within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site; no studies overlap with the project site (Table 1). Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5 mile of the Project Site Report Number Author(s) Year Title Relationship to Project Site S-023551 McKale, George and S. Gillies 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California Outside S-023551a Allen, James 2000 Paleontological Resources Assessment, Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California Outside S-023551b McKale, George and S. Gillies 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment, Phase I, United Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California Outside S-023551c McKale, George and S. Gillies 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment, Phase II, United Gold Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California Outside S-023551d McKale, George and S. Gillies 2000 Paleontological Resources Assessment Phase II United Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California Outside S-027930 Brown, Kyle, A. Marlow, J. Allan, and W. Self 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment of Alternative Routes for PG&E's Jefferson-Martin Transmission Line, San Mateo County, California Outside S-030163 William Self Associates, Inc. 2005 Historic Property Survey Report, San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority, South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project, Oyster Point Marina and Park, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Outside S-030163a Estes, Allen and A. Arrigoni 2005 Archaeological Survey Report San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project Oyster Point Marina and Park, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Outside City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page 6 Report Number Author(s) Year Title Relationship to Project Site S-035285 Clark, Matthew 2008 Historic Property and Archaeological Inventory Report for the South San Francisco Gateway Business Park Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Outside S-035458 Clark, Matthew 2008 City of South San Francisco East of 101 Sewer Improvements, Initial CEQA Historic Resources Research for East Grand, Allerton, Forbes & DNA Way Sanitary Sewer Project Outside S-037275 Billat, Lorna 2010 New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, East Grandview Water Tank, SF- 53638A Outside S-038706 Cohen, David 2011 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION a Delaware Corporation Candidate SF03113-A (Eccles Joint Pole SSF), R.O.W. In front of 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, San Francisco County, California (letter report) Outside S-048738 Jurich, Denise and A. Grady 2011 California High-Speed Train Project, Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Draft: San Francisco to San Jose Section, Archaeological Survey Report, Technical Report Outside S-048738a Grady, Amber and R. Brandi 2011 California High-Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Draft: San Francisco to San Jose Section Historic Architectural Survey Report, Technical Report Outside Source: Northwest Information Center 2019 Additionally, the NWIC records search identified two previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5- mile radius of the project site, neither of which is recorded within the project site (Table 2). Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources within 0.5 mile of the Project Site Primary Number Trinomial Resource Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s) Relationship to Project Site NRHP/CRHR Status P-41- 000043 CA-SMA- 39 Prehistoric Insufficient information N. Nelson (ca. 1905) Outside Unknown P-41- 000884 - Multi- building resource Industrial Complex; since demolished The Firm of Bonnie L. Bamburg (1986) Outside Potentially eligible for NRHP Source: Northwest Information Center 2019 City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page 7 Native American Outreach On October 31, 2019, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) and a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project area. The NAHC emailed a response on November 13, 2019 stating that the SLF search was returned with negative results. Rincon sent letters to the NAHC-listed contacts on November 14, 2019, inquiring about potential cultural resources within the project’s vicinity that may be impacted by the project. No responses from these contacts have been received prior to the submission of this memorandum. Attachment C provides the full results of the outreach effort. Findings and Recommendations As a result of the field survey, one built environment property was recorded and evaluated to determine if it qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA. The building at 499 Forbes Boulevard is a former food processing facility which was constructed and operated by the Columbus Salame Company from 1968 through approximately 2011. At the time of this report, the subject property has been approximately 75% demolished and does not retain sufficient extant features, and therefore integrity, to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or for designation as a City of South San Francisco Landmark (Landmark). Each of these registers requires a property retain sufficient integrity to be able to convey the reasons for its significance. Although research does not suggest the subject property possessed any associations with important events or persons, or was an exemplification of a notable architectural style, the near total demolition of the building has resulted in such a loss of physical integrity that the building is not eligible for local, state, or federal designation (Attachment D). As a property that is ineligible is for federal, state, and local designation, 499 Forbes Boulevard is not considered a historical resource under CEQA. There are no other built environment features on the project site; therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Based on the findings of the cultural resources records search and Native American outreach, no archaeological resources have been identified within the project site. The results of the NWIC records search indicate the presence of one prehistoric resource (CA-SMA-39) within the project vicinity, located approximately 500 meters east of the project site. However, the site record for CA-SMA-39 does not contain any information on the nature or extent of the site. Given the prior development of the property and level of disturbance, there is relatively low potential for intact subsurface archaeological deposits to be encountered during construction. However, unanticipated discoveries during construction are possible. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of less than significant impact to archaeological resources with mitigation for the purposes of CEQA. The following mitigation measures are recommended in the case of unanticipated discoveries during ground-disturbing activities. City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page 8 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and provide recommendations for treatment to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access. Please do not hesitate to contact Rincon with any questions regarding this study. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. Alexandra Madsen, MA Mark Strother, MA Architectural Historian Associate Archaeologist Steven Treffers, MHP Senior Architectural Historian Hannah Haas, MA, RPA Archaeologist Attachments Attachment A Figures Attachment B CHRIS Cultural Resource Report List Attachment C NAHC SLF Results Attachment D California DPR Series 523 Forms City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page 9 References American Institute for Architects 1962 American Architects Directory. Accessed on November 1, 2019 at: https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/overview 1970 American Architects Directory. Accessed on November 1, 2019 at: https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/overview City of South San Francisco 2005a City Building Permit No. B05-1115. Issued on July 6, 2005. 2005b City of South San Francisco Building Permit No. B05-1116. Issued on July 6, 2005. N.d. “History: Timeline.” Accessed on November 1, 2019 at: https://www.ssf.net/our-city/about- south-san-francisco/history Desert Sun 1994 “Warning out on salami brands.” December 4. Garlington, Phil 1968 “Off Broadway: Salami People Squeezed Out.” San Francisco Examiner. 17 June. NETROnline 1968 Historic Aerials. Accessed on October 31, 2019 at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer San Francisco Examiner 1967 Realty Review. May 7. San Francisco Examiner 1984 Advertisement. September 21. San Francisco Examiner 1997 Advertisement. September 15. The Times 1956 “$750,000 In New Industry Is Seen for South City.” 4 July. UCSB Frame Finder 1930 Flight C_888. Frame 15. February 28, 1930. 1941 Flight C_6660. Frame 331. March 22, 1941. 1965 Flight CAS_65_130, Frame 1-134. April 30, 1965. Attachment A Figures City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page A-1 Figure 1 Regional Location Map City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page A-2 Figure 2 Topographic Project Location Map City of South San Francisco Cultural Resource Assessment, 499 Forbes Boulevard Page A-3 Figure 3 Aerial Project Location Map Attachment B CHRIS Cultural Resource Report List Primary No.Trinomial Resource List Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by P-41-000043 CA-SMA-000039 Resource Name - Nelson 378 Site Prehistoric AP01 (Unknown) P-41-000884 Resource Name - W.P. Fuller; OHP Property Number - 005514; OHP PRN - 4080-0070-9999; OTIS Resource Number - 408486 Building, District Historic HP08 1986 ([none], The Firm of Bonnie L. Bamburg) Page 1 of 1 NWIC 11/6/2019 1:25:06 PM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs S-023551 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California LSA Associates, Inc.George McKale and Sara E.P. Gillies Submitter - LSA Project # WZI030; Voided - S-23552, S- 23204, S-23263, and S-23264 S-023551a 2000 Paleontological Resources Assessment, Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California LSA Associates, Inc.James R. Allen S-023551b 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment, Phase I, United Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California LSA Associates, Inc.George McKale and Sara E. P. Gillies S-023551c 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment, Phase II, United Gold Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California LSA Associates, Inc.George McKale and Sara E. P. Gillies S-023551d 2000 Paleontological Resources Assessment Phase II United Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California LSA Associates, Inc.James R. Allen S-027930 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment of Alternative Routes for PG&E's Jefferson-Martin Transmission Line, San Mateo County, California William Self Associates, Inc.Kyle Brown, Adam Marlow, James Allan, and William Self 41-000044, 41-000077, 41-000079, 41-000093, 41-000094, 41-000095, 41-000103, 41-000104, 41-000149, 41-000172, 41-000207, 41-000283, 41-000302, 41-000401, 41-000402, 41-000404, 41-000409, 41-000410, 41-000487, 41-000495, 41-000497, 41-001376, 41-002115, 41-002116, 41-002163 S-030163 2005 Historic Property Survey Report, San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority, South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project, Oyster Point Marina and Park, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. William Self Associates, IncWilliam Self Associates, Inc. S-030163a 2005 Archaeological Survey Report San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project Oyster Point Marina and Park, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California William Self AssociatesAllen Estes and Aimee Arrigoni Page 1 of 4 NWIC 11/6/2019 1:23:24 PM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs S-035285 2008 Historic Property and Archaeological Inventory Report for the South San Francisco Gateway Business Park Project, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California Holman & AssociatesMatthew Clark S-035458 2008 City of South San Francisco East of 101 Sewer Improvements, Initial CEQA Historic Resources Research for East Grand, Allerton, Forbes & DNA Way Sanitary Sewer Project Holman & AssociatesMatthew R. Clark S-037275 2010 New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, East Grandview Water Tank, SF- 53638A Earth Touch, Inc.Lorna Billat S-038706 2011 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit for T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION a Delaware Corporation Candidate SF03113-A (Eccles Joint Pole SSF), R.O.W. In front of 475 Eccles Avenue, South San Francisco, San Francisco County, California (letter report) Michael Brandman Associates David R. Cohen Page 2 of 4 NWIC 11/6/2019 1:23:24 PM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs S-048738 2011 California High-Speed Train Project, Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Draft: San Francisco to San Jose Section, Archaeological Survey Report, Technical Report PBS&JDenise Jurich and Amber Grady 38-000015, 38-004638, 38-005487, 38-005488, 41-000009, 41-000105, 41-000230, 41-000231, 41-000281, 41-000310, 41-000311, 41-000465, 41-000491, 41-000497, 41-000498, 41-000506, 41-001350, 41-001351, 41-001541, 41-001582, 41-002116, 41-002147, 41-002160, 41-002395, 41-002396, 41-002397, 41-002398, 41-002399, 41-002400, 41-002401, 41-002402, 41-002488, 41-002489, 41-002490, 41-002491, 41-002492, 41-002493, 41-002494, 41-002495, 41-002496, 41-002497, 41-002498, 41-002499, 41-002500, 41-002501, 41-002502, 41-002503, 41-002504, 41-002505, 41-002506, 41-002507, 41-002508, 41-002509, 41-002510, 41-002511, 41-002512, 41-002513, 41-002514, 41-002515, 41-002516, 41-002517, 41-002518, 41-002519, 41-002520, 41-002521, 41-002522, 41-002523, 41-002524, 41-002525, 41-002526, 41-002527, 41-002528, 41-002529, 41-002530, 41-002531, 41-002532, 41-002533, 41-002534, 41-002535, 41-002536, 41-002537, 41-002538, 41-002539, 41-002540, 41-002541, 41-002542, 41-002543, 41-002544, 41-002545, 41-002546, 41-002547, 41-002548, 41-002549, 41-002550, 41-002551, 43-000021, 43-000028, 43-000042, 43-000050, 43-000595, 43-000619, 43-000669, 43-002193, 43-003137, 43-003172, 43-003475, 43-003477, 43-003577, 43-003690, 43-003691, 43-003692, 43-003693, 43-003694, 43-003695, 43-003696, 43-003697, 43-003698, 43-003699, 43-003700, 43-003701, 43-003702, 43-003703, 43-003704, 43-003705, 43-003706, 43-003707, 43-003708, 43-003709, 43-003710, 43-003711, 43-003712, 43-003713, 43-003714, 43-003715, 43-003716, 43-003717, 43-003718, 43-003719, Page 3 of 4 NWIC 11/6/2019 1:23:24 PM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs 43-003721, 43-003722 S-048738a 2011 California High-Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Draft: San Francisco to San Jose Section Historic Architectural Survey Report, Technical Report PBS&JAmber Grady and Richard Brandi Page 4 of 4 NWIC 11/6/2019 1:23:24 PM Attachment C NAHC SLF Results Attachment D California DPR Series 523 Forms State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code____6Z______________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _5_ Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 499 Forbes Boulevard P1. Other Identifier: N/A *P2. Location: Not for Publication ◼Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo County *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad: San Francisco South Date: 1995 *c. Address 499 Forbes Boulevard City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080 *e. Other Locational Data: APN 015082040; 015232460 *P3a. Description: The subject property contains the remains of a single 1.5-story commercial building with a slightly irregular footprint. Positioned on a north-south axis, at the time of this survey, approximately 75% of the building was demolished. The below description records the building’s appearance and characteristics prior to its demolition, as visible in photographs included on Continuation Sheet page 4. Prior to demolition, the building had a flat roof with parapet and concrete exterior. The generally rectangular building was minimally ornamented with slightly raised pilasters that lined the exterior elevations. Its primary façade was accessible from Forbes Boulevard via a concrete walkway and was defined by a low entry arcade with a flat roof and rectilinear columns. A double industrial door was flanked by floor-to-ceiling fixed windows at the primary entrance. Some windows were removed and replaced with plywood panels at an unknown date. A utility shed was located at the southwest corner of the building and featured a raised flat roof upheld by rectangular columns, creating a stepped appearance next to the entrance arcade. The utility shed is also currently in the stages of demolition. Other elevations were relatively nondescript with occasional industrial-sized loading doors. Fenestration was comprised of aluminum hopper windows and louvered metal vents to provide passive air flow. An addition with standing seam exterior was situated along the north elevation. Landscaping was comprised of mature trees, low shrubs, and swaths of grass along the south side of the building. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4. Resources Present: ◼Building Structure Object Site District Other P5b. Photo: South façade, camera facing northeast. January 2019. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ◼historic 1968 *P7. Owner and Address: Unknown *P8. Recorded by: Alexandra Madsen and Steven Treffers Rincon Consultants, Inc. 250 East 1st Street Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90012 *P9. Date Recorded: January 15, 2020 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive Survey *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”): Madsen, Alexandra, Mark Strother, Steven Treffers, and Hannah Haas. 2019. Cultural Resources Assessment for 499 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map ◼Continuation Sheet ◼Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information P5a. Photo: (See Continuation Sheet page 4) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ LOCATION MAP Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 2_ of 5_ Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 499 Forbes Boulevard *Recorded by Alexandra Madsen and Steven Treffers *Date January 15, 2020  Continuation  Update DPR 523L State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 3 of 5 *CHR Status Code__6Z____ *Resource Name or #: 499 Forbes Boulevard B1. Historic Name: 499 Forbes Boulevard B2. Common Name: 499 Forbes Boulevard B3. Original Use: Commercial B4. Present Use: Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: No Discernible Style *B6. Construction History: The 45,000-square-foot building was built by architect Howard A. York in 1968 (San Francisco Examiner 1967). Additions were added to the northeast and southwest corners between 1968 and 1980. In 2005, the building’s drop ceiling was removed and a new hard lid ceiling was installed. Additional interior work, including the relocation of sinks and addition of a center island, was completed that same year (City of South San Francisco 2005). As of November 2019, the building was approximately 75% demolished. *B7. Moved? ◼No Yes Unknown Date: N/A Original Location: N/A *B8. Related Features: N/A B9a. Architect: Howard A. York b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Context/Theme N/A Area: N/A Period of Significance: N.A Property Type: N/A Applicable Criteria N/A The subject property is a 45,000-square-foot building located in the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park that was built by architect Howard A. York and completed in 1968 (San Francisco Examiner 1967). The building was developed for the San Francisco Sausage Factory, a long-standing San Francisco Bay-area company. Originally located in San Francisco on Davis Street in 1917, the San Francisco Sausage Factory moved to Broadway in 1933 where it was in operation until 1968. Company owner Ernest DeMartini blamed the congested streets and bustle of San Francisco for the company’s relocation to South San Francisco, also paying lip service to the tax cuts he would likely see in his new location. The company’s move out of North Beach was not free from nostalgia. As described in San Francisco Examiner article “Off Broadway: Salami People Squeezed Out,” the area was once the “capital of the City’s tightly-knit salami empire” but an increase in tourism had forced “salami makers to less congested locations” (Garlington 1968). The newspaper also ran a photograph of DeMartini alongside Tony Scafani and Ralph Biagi labeled “They’re Salami Men,” (Garlington 1968). Other owners of the company included Albert L. Picetti and Felix Gatto. The company appears to have changed names a number of times. Originally known as the San Francisco Sausage Factory, the company was renamed the San Francisco Sausage Company in 1984 and the Columbus Salame Company by 1997 (San Francisco Examiner 1984; San Francisco Examiner 1997). (See Continuation Sheet page 4) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A *B12. References: (See Continuation Sheet pages 5-6) B13. Remarks: N/A *B14. Evaluator: Alexandra Madsen, MA and Steven Treffers, MHP *Date of Evaluation: January 15, 2020 Sketch Map: (Subject Building Outlined) (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 4_ of 5_ Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 499 Forbes Boulevard *Recorded by Alexandra Madsen and Steven Treffers *Date January 15, 2020  Continuation  Update P5a. Photo (continued): Building prior to demolition *B10. Significance (continued): With the company’s moved in the 1960s, the newspaper also ran a photograph of DeMartini alongside Tony Scafani and Ralph Biagi labeled “They’re Salami Men,” (Figure 1; Garlington 1968). Figure 1 Photograph of Company and Workers, 1968 The company was one of many businesses to move to South San Francisco, a trend which dates to the late 19th century when the community was developed as a hub for the meat-packing industry. Industrial development in South San Francisco experienced a boom in the 1950s and 1960s. As reported in a 1956 article of The Times: South San Francisco—The flood of industrial plants moving to the few available acreages in the industrial section here reached a new peak this month with over $750,000 in new plants being constructed or announced. The building rush includes a drug firm, an electronics company, a truck body plant, a grocery wareh ouse addition, a New York masonry block manufacturer, a steel company, an addition to an existing rubber company warehouse and additions to two steel tank companies (The Times 1956). Historic aerial photographs from 1965 and 1968 evidence the industrial development of the area and the site of 499 Forbes Boulevard (Figure 2; UCSB 1965; NETROnline 1968). State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 5_ of 5_ Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 499 Forbes Boulevard *Recorded by Alexandra Madsen and Steven Treffers *Date January 15, 2020  Continuation  Update *B10. Significance (continued): Figure 2 Historical Aerial Photographs Prior to and Post Construction, 1965 and 1968 It is assumed that the subject building was vacated in 2011 when the company developed another property in Hayward. The building’s architect Howard A. York was not listed in the 1962 or 1970 American Architects Directory (American Institute for Architects 1962, 1970). Archival research failed to identify additional projects associated with this architect. Evaluation At the time of this report, the subject property has been approximately 75% demolished and does not retain sufficient extant features, and therefore integrity, to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or for designation as a City of South San Francisco Landmark (Landmark). Each of these registers require a property retain sufficient integrity to be able to convey the reasons for its significance. Although research does not suggest the subject property possessed any associations with important events or persons, or was an exemplification of a notable architectural style, the near total demolition of the building has resulted in such a loss of physical integrity that the building is not eligible for local, state, or federal designation. B12. References (continued): American Institute for Architects. 1962 and 1970. American Architects Directory. Accessed on November 1, 2019 City of South San Francisco. 2005. City Building Permit No. B05-1115. Issued on July 6, 2005. City of South San Francisco. 2005. City of South San Francisco Building Permit No. B05-1116. Issued on July 6, 2005. City of South San Francisco. N.d. “History: Timeline.” Accessed on November 1, 2019 at: https://www.ssf.net/our-city/about-south- san-francisco/history Desert Sun. 1994. “Warning out on salami brands.” December 4. Garlington, Phil. 1968. “Off Broadway: Salami People Squeezed Out.” San Francisco Examiner. 17 June. NETROnline. 1968. Historic Aerials. Accessed on October 31, 2019 at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer San Francisco Examiner. 1967. Realty Review. May 7. San Francisco Examiner. 1984. Advertisement. September 21. San Francisco Examiner. 1997. Advertisement. September 15. The Times. 1956. “$750,000 In New Industry Is Seen for South City.” 4 July. UCSB Frame Finder. 1930. Flight C_888. Frame 15. February 28, 1930. UCSB Frame Finder. 1941. Flight C_6660. Frame 331. March 22, 1941. UCSB Frame Finder. 1965. Flight CAS_65_130, Frame 1-134. April 30, 1965.