Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix 4.04-2, Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic DistrictAppendix 4.4-2: Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District i August 2021 ICF 00082.20 City of South San Francisco Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District August 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Section A Introduction .......................................................................................................... A-1 A.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................. A-1 Section B Methodology ........................................................................................................ B-1 B.1 Assessment Assumptions ................................................................................... B-1 B.2 Research Methods .............................................................................................. B-1 Section C Historic Context .................................................................................................... C-1 C.1 South San Francisco Industrial History ............................................................... C-1 C.2 Chronology of Major Events ............................................................................... C-8 C.3 20th Century Industrial Architecture ................................................................... C-9 Section D Potential District Parameters ................................................................................ D-1 D.1 Potential District Area ....................................................................................... D-1 D.2 Period of Significance ........................................................................................ D-3 D.3 Potential District Character ............................................................................... D-3 Section E Research Questions ............................................................................................... E-1 E.1 Supplemental Historic Research ......................................................................... E-1 E.2 Refining the Broad Parameters........................................................................... E-1 E.3 Criteria for Evaluating Significance ..................................................................... E-2 E.4 Additional Significance Thresholds ..................................................................... E-2 E.5 Identifying Contributing Properties .................................................................... E-2 E.6 An Assessment of Integrity ................................................................................. E-3 Section F Preparers ................................................................................................................ F-1 Section G Bibliography ......................................................................................................... G-1 Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District A-1 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Section A Introduction This report provides a preliminary assessment of a potential historic district located in the City of South San Francisco (City). South San Francisco is recognized and embraced as the “Industrial City,” and the potential historic district is associated with the City’s 19th and 20th century industrial development and heritage. This assessment was initiated as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis for the Southline Specific Plan project (project), prepared by ICF in 2021 for purposes of evaluating the project’s potential impacts to historical resources. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a historical resource includes buildings, sites, structures, objects, or districts, which may have historical, pre-historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. In the course of preparing the Draft EIR for the Southline Specific Plan project, ICF historians and architectural historians identified information indicating the presence of the potential historic district that is the subject of this report. A.1 Purpose The purpose of this document is to inform the analysis of potential historic resource impacts related to implementation of the project as analyzed in the Southline Specific Plan Draft EIR. This document provides a general preliminary assessment of the historical significance of the potential historic district. It examines the broad characteristics that would qualify the potential district as a CEQA historical resource. It does not constitute a complete historic district evaluation, which would be beyond the scope of information required to evaluate the project’s potential impacts. The parameters outlined in this assessment are intentionally broad in order to provide conservative conclusions both as to the boundary of the potential district and the significance criteria utilized to identify potentially contributing elements. These parameters may be used as a starting point for a complete evaluation of the potential historic district in the future should the City decide to undertake a complete evaluation as part of its General Plan update or at a future time. The presence of a qualifying historic district can only be confirmed by a complete historic district evaluation, which could confirm or modify the findings of this assessment. The City retains discretion as to whether it will proceed with further assessment at a future date, unrelated to the project. Refer to Section E for additional criteria that should be considered in a complete historic district evaluation. Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District B-1 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Section B Methodology B.1 Assessment Assumptions This potential historic district assessment is based on the following assumptions, which are intentionally conservative given the preliminary nature of this research. These assumptions would need to be further confirmed and refined at a later date in order to complete a full historic district evaluation: ⚫ A potential historic district associated with the City’s industrial development is present. ⚫ Thresholds of eligibility for potential contributing properties within the district are broad, and can be refined based on additional research and definition collected as part of a complete historic district evaluation. ⚫ The potential district area is large and may need to be narrowed and refined as part of a complete historic district evaluation (Figure 1). ⚫ All industrial development within the potential district area has the potential to contribute to the potential district. ⚫ The period of significance for the potential district spans a broad period and could be narrowed and refined as part of a complete historic district evaluation. ⚫ The potential district does not intersect with the residential neighborhoods in the City. ⚫ The potential district retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its historical significance. B.2 Research Methods Research was conducted for this assessment using available online resources such as ancestry.com, digital newspaper archives, academic journal articles, DavidRumsey.com (historical map collection), historicaerials.com, maps from the United States Geological Survey, historical aerials from the collections of University of California Santa Barbara, and fire insurance maps produced by the Sanborn Map Company. The assessment was also informed by research conducted for the Southline Specific Plan EIR on 16 individual buildings within the Southline Specific Plan area. Specifically, ICF architectural historians reviewed available building permits and directory information compiled by the City’s public library for the buildings to determine building age, alterations, ownership, and occupancy over time. Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-1 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Section C Historic Context C.1 South San Francisco Industrial History South San Francisco’s industrial history began in the 1890s when the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company acquired land from what was part of Henry Miller and Charles Lux’s vast empire to build stockyards, meat packing facilities, and a company town. Since those beginnings, the meat packing industry has given way to steel, metals and construction, manufacturing, chemicals, and eventually biotechnology. Development within the City resulting from each industry gradually influenced the other industries and shaped the overall profile of South San Francisco as it exists today. South San Francisco industrial history can be broadly separated into two eras, a pre-World War II era defined by meat packing, steel production, ship building, and heavy manufacturing (often driven by war production), and a post-World War II era, defined by the chemical industry, light manufacturing and construction technologies (driven by post-war expansion and suburbanization), and biotechnology. C.1.1 Pre-World War II Industry Industrial development in the pre-World War II era in South San Francisco was shaped by the City’s geographical proximity to the San Francisco Bay and to markets in San Francisco. The meat, steel, and manufacturing industries served markets in the growing metropolis and provided the materials for the rebuilding of the City after the 1906 earthquake. As South San Francisco developed more towards heavy industry, it began attracting businesses previously located in San Francisco. The Meat Industry and the Founding of the Industrial City South San Francisco’s first large industry was launched when Gustavus Swift, the meat magnate who developed the first refrigerated freight car, visited the area in 1887 with the aim of establishing meat packing houses and an industrial suburb in San Mateo County. He selected a location near Baden, the village built around Charles Lux’s ranch. The location had several advantages for Swift’s operation: it was close enough to San Francisco to reach the City’s markets, but far enough away to ensure commercial and political independence from the City. In addition, South San Francisco was geographically situated in a way which would mitigate the noxious fumes and effluents generated by industry. In 1891, the area, which Swift named South San Francisco, began filling with workers from “Butchertown,” located to the north in San Francisco’s Bayview Neighborhood, who were moving into the City’s industrial suburbs (Blum 1984). The South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, which Swift and investors had incorporated for this new venture, added stockyards, an abattoir, and water works to their 82-acre property. The company dredged a shipping channel and hired J. A. Worthen, a civil engineer, to survey, sub-divide, and grade the streets in the commercial, residential, and industrial areas of town, making it more attractive for other businesses and residents to relocate to the area. As population and industry expanded, meat packing developed City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-2 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 spin-off industries in South San Francisco, including tanneries, wool pulleries, and fertilizer plants, with many of the businesses relocating from San Francisco’s Bayview neighborhood. The Selby Smelting and Lead Company & Incorporation The Selby Smelting and Lead Company paved the way for the metallurgical industries in South San Francisco. Thomas H. Selby began his iron business in 1849, working out of a tent in gold-rush era San Francisco (San Francisco Examiner 1901). By 1865, he had constructed a lead smelter at the foot of Hyde Street and a 200-foot-tall shot tower (used for making lead ammunition and ballast) on Howard Street. Selby also owned and operated the first major chemical plant on the West Coast among the tenements in the South of Market Area (Brechin 1999). Selby became a prominent man in San Francisco and one the largest dealers of iron and steel. He served as mayor between 1869 and 1871 and was considered as a candidate for California Governor (St. Johnsbury Caledonian 1875). However, in 1875, four years after the end of his mayoral term, Thomas Selby died and his business properties were combined as the Selby Smelting and Lead Company, owned and operated by his son Prentiss Selby, and his son-in-law A.J. Ralson, with significant investment from California’s mining magnates (San Francisco Examiner 1901). In 1906, the Selby Smelting and Lead Company planned to relocate to South San Francisco and purchased land on San Bruno Point for the construction of a copper smelter (Blum 1984). By 1907, property owners and others concerned about the health impacts of smelter fumes began organizing to block the proposed facility. Under pressure from these interests, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance in 1908 prohibiting the smelter. In response, the South San Francisco Improvement Club (which represented many major land and industrial interests) proposed to incorporate South San Francisco, thus removing the City from the county’s jurisdiction and permitting the smelter to be constructed. They succeeded, and the City of South San Francisco incorporated in 1908, exempting the City from the ordinance; however, the smelter was never built. In 1910, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company sued the Selby Smelting and Lead Company, claiming that the Land Company cleared a townsite, laid a railroad, and put in water connections to facilitate the Selby Company’s original plans but then never completed the project (San Francisco Examiner 1910). Yet the incorporation of the City along with the improvements at the site made the area more amenable for other industrial uses which soon followed, allowing the City’s development to rapidly expand. By the 1920s, South San Francisco was already celebrating its heavy industry, installing the first sign on Sign Hill reading “SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THE INDUSTRIAL CITY” in 1923, and replacing it with sixty-foot high concrete letters in 1929 (Bamburg ND). Steel Production and Wartime Expansion Steel production began in South San Francisco in 1903 when the Pacific Jupiter Steel Company established the first steel casting plant west of St. Louis on San Bruno Point. The company produced industrial mining equipment, including gold dredgers, anchors, and rock crusher shoes, along with gears and pinions (Blum 1984). In 1909, Pacific Coast Steel opened its rolling mills just north of the Pacific Jupiter Steel Company, producing millions of tons of reinforcing steel for large infrastructure projects, railroad bridges, and buildings. Soon the Pacific Coast Steel Company became the most complete steel making plant on the west coast, converting pig iron and local scrap into steel for its own rolling mills, and employing up to 1,000 workers on five acres of their 20-acre tract (San Francisco Call 1911). In 1923, Pacific Coast Steel was expanding in other cities, installing a docks and terminals at its Long Beach harbor property (Long Beach Telegram 1923) and in 1929, Pacific City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-3 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Coast Steel was taken over by Bethlehem Steel. Under the new ownership, the South San Francisco plant remained busy in the following decades (the Bee 1974). In 1943, Bethlehem Steel was hiring mill helpers, hearth stockers, and yard laborers in support of the war effort at its South San Francisco plant (San Francisco Examiner 1943:39). The steel, metals, and materials industries received a boost from defense spending during both world wars. With South San Francisco’s population doubling as defense workers poured into the City during WWII, the Federal Government built temporary worker housing at several locations. The developments were cheaply constructed and densely packed. Lindenville, a 720-unit development for 4,200 people, was constructed between Victory and Railroad Avenues as a series of barrack-like row units (Bamburg ND; Kious ND). Related Manufacturing Businesses With close proximity to steel producing facilities, and with the 1907 opening of a rail line on the western edge of the factory district, San Bruno Point began attracting other related metal workers and industrial manufacturers, often making a similar exodus from San Francisco. The group of new businesses included the Doak Sheet Metal Company, which began operating at San Bruno Point circa 1911. David P. Doak, president of the Doak Sheet Metal Company, also served as vice president of the Standard Corrugated Pipe Company (Berkeley Gazette 1911; San Francisco Call 1911), which employed 25 metal workers at their South San Francisco plant. The Doak Sheet Metal Company pursued City contracts for metal culverts as far away as Stockton (Evening Mail 1911). The Meese & Gottfried Company relocated their San Francisco works in 1911 to become another addition to the growing number of industrial manufacturers moving their operations to San Bruno Point (San Francisco Call 1911). Incorporated in 1898, the Meese & Gottfried Company produced gears, pulleys, and power transmission equipment for industrial work sites (The Record-Union 1898; Archive Grid 2021). While new to San Bruno Point, Meese & Gottfried Company’s board of directors included Jesse W. Lillienthal, a San Francisco attorney for the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, who had been among the original investors in Swift’s South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (Santa Rosa Republican 1909). The Lillienthals were a prominent San Francisco family whose wealth derived from selling grains as well as ownership of Crown Distilleries, a wholesale liquor business (Blum 1984). Lillienthal also served as president of the United Railways of San Francisco (The Oregon Daily Journal 1913) and was president of San Francisco Council of the Boys Scouts of America (San Francisco Examiner 1919). Constant Meese, director and company name-sake, began his career as a manufacturer of ice plant equipment (Bakersfield Morning Echo 1903), before becoming vice-president of the National Association of Manufacturers (New York Tribune 1920), as well as the international director of the Altrurians (Sacramento Bee 1927), a benevolent organization of Christian Socialists inspired by the novels of William Dean Howells (Budd 1956). Company directorship was also shared with Charles C. Volberg, partner in Schlueter & Volberg carpet merchants and founder of Alameda Building and Load Association (Gustine Standard 1916). The E. H. Edwards Wire Rope Company started in San Francisco on Howard Street in 1913 but relocated to San Bruno Point and by 1925 was fully established in South San Francisco. The company manufactured wire rope used in fish trapping, lumber, petroleum, and the construction industries. The South San Francisco location allowed the company to use raw material from the nearby Colorado Fuel & Iron Company and Bethlehem Steel (San Francisco Examiner 1953b). City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-4 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 During the post-WWII period, the company continued to increase in sales volume, and diversified its product line into wire for furniture and spring manufacturers as well as steel hangers and tie wire for box crates. By the mid-1950s, the E. H. Edwards Wire Rope Company was expanding its South San Francisco plant with a 3,600 square foot office building and two strand machines for making core rope (San Francisco Examiner 1953b). Ship Building The proximity to the water and steel rolling mills made San Bruno Point a suitable area for shipbuilding, and the industry expanded with the United States entry into World War I. In 1917, Schaw-Batcher Company was awarded a government contract to construct an Emergency Fleet of eighteen 8,800-ton steamer ships and purchased 172 acres in South San Francisco to create a shipyard. This massive undertaking required improvements, including the dredging of a 6,000-foot canal. The shipyard became a large employer in the City, producing on average one ship a month at the plant, and employing between 2,000 and 3,000 workers (San Francisco Examiner 1917). The launching of a completed steamer ship was a community event, with thousands gathering at the shipyards to watch the launch to the accompaniment of a brass band. The freighters were crucial to the war effort and were often illustrated with jingoistic phrases. The freighter Nantahalz was launched with “Another nail in the Kaiser’s coffin. This is the keel plate for the next hell” written in white letters on the side of the ship (Santa Barbara Daily News 1918). By 1920, the Schaw-Batcher plant had completed the last of the eighteen steamers required for the government contract and rumors were circulating that the plant was closing (Long Beach Telegram 1920). However, by 1939, the promise of shipbuilding returning to South San Francisco was reignited as plant owners submitted another bid to the federal government with the country was again facing conflict in Europe (The Times 1939). Building Materials and Ceramics South San Francisco also developed construction materials businesses beginning in the mid-1890s, when the Baden Brick Factory, the Molath Brick Company, and the South San Francisco Lumber Company established themselves in the City (Bamburg ND). The Steiger Brothers Pottery Works, who moved to an 8-acre parcel on San Bruno Point after a fire at their San Jose plant, renamed themselves the Steiger Terra Cotta and Pottery Works, and created many of the distinctive terracotta details on San Francisco buildings, including the Monadnock Building and the Ghirardelli Chocolate Factory. W. P. Fuller and Company’s established a lead and color works on a one-acre tidewater parcel, which grew to be the largest paint and varnish works on the West Coast (Blum 1984). Demand for construction materials continued to grow through both world wars and took off with the suburbanization of California. Vannucci Brothers Concrete Construction Company maintained a South San Francisco office while supplying concrete for the development of California’s massive freeway system (San Francisco Examiner 1966:56). C.1.2 Post-World War II Industry In 1955, when Governor Goodwin Knight presented the “Man of Industry” award in front of 400 civic and industrial leaders he said, “For better or for worse, San Mateo county has made its choice for industry. You have voted to see smokestacks rather than geraniums.” (The Times [San Mateo] 1955:1). However, his choice of recipient – M.W. Reece, vice-president of the South San Francisco’s Reinhold Chemical Corporation – illustrated a transition away from the smokestacks which had City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-5 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 defined the City through two world wars and towards the emergence of chemical manufacturers, light industry, distribution centers, and office parks. The “industrial city” was giving way to more light industry plants (like Stuart Manufacturing, Sun Tube Corp., Sees Candy, and Ray Winther Co.) as well as distribution business connected to the San Francisco International Airport, which was constructed in 1953 (City of South San Francisco 2020). By the 1960s, heavy industry in South San Francisco was already winding down (City of South San Francisco 2020). Tanneries The Poetsch & Peterson Tannery connects South San Francisco’s pre-WWII meat packing industry (in their use of hides) to the later development of a chemicals industry. In 1883, German-born Herman Poetsch and his Swedish partner Gustave Peterson chose San Francisco’s Mission District, at Harrison and Army Street (present day Caesar Chavez Street), for the location of their tanning business. At the time, the area was largely industrial with close proximity to butcher shops and animal markets that supplied hides to the fledgling business. Poetsch & Peterson employed workers from Italy, Greece, Germany, and the Guadalajara region of Mexico to produce a leather called latigo, used for boots, shoes, and machinery (San Francisco Examiner 1985:157). Herman and Ella A. Poetsch had three sons - William (b. 1888), Herman (b. 1891), Albert (b. 1892), and a daughter - all of whom carried on the business of Poetsch & Peterson when Herman Sr. passed away in 1929 (San Francisco Examiner 1953a:10). William Poetsch, the eldest son, taught himself the chemical formulas necessary for the production of their distinct brand of leather, handwriting them in a series of notebooks which he kept until the late 80s. Poetsch & Peterson continued to operate in San Francisco through WWI – in which Albert served in the Navy – and through the 1930s. WWII brought difficulties to Poetsch & Peterson as leather was on the government list of goods embargoed for military use, leaving hides in short supply (San Francisco Examiner 1985:157). In 1943, Poetsch & Peterson relocated to 325 South Maple Avenue in South San Francisco. The South San Francisco location allowed Poetsch & Peterson more space and provided closer proximity to the slaughterhouses and ancillary businesses upon which Poetsch & Peterson depended. Following the war, union activity brought on a series of strike actions in many South San Francisco industries, including a 1947 Butcher’s Union No. 508 strike over pay increases (The Times [San Mateo] 1947:15) and an Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen’s Union strike (San Francisco Examiner 1947:6) which impacted Poetsch & Peterson. However, Poetsch & Peterson were able to resolve the conflicts with its unions and through the 1950s and 1960s, production increased at the tannery, but business really took off beginning in the mid-1970s when fashion choices created high demand for latigo bags and sandals. At their height, Poetsch & Peterson were a $1.2 million a year business employing approximately 100 union workers. However, the combination of foreign competition, stricter environmental regulations, and South San Francisco’s push for more “clean” industrial parks ultimately shuttered the business by the mid-1980s (San Francisco Examiner 1985:157). At that point, they were the last tannery on the peninsula. The Decline of Heavy Industry After the WWII, most of the temporary housing units at Lindenville were demolished. Likewise, by the 1950s the big players in the region were considering moves to other locations. The best example to illustrate the trend is Bethlehem Steel, who began to focus away from its South San Francisco plant and towards its facilities in Los Angeles and Seattle (Blum 1984). In the early 1960s, the plant made efforts to modernize its equipment, installing a new roll threader capable producing 40 rods per minute (San Francisco Examiner 1960) and a “non-shaking bag house” smog control device (San City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-6 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Francisco Examiner 1961). However, by 1962, steel making mostly ceased in South San Francisco, and Bethlehem Steel closed down its last operation in 1977 (Blum 1984). In 1981, the Bethlehem Steel building was torn down (City of South San Francisco 2020). Chemicals South San Francisco’s chemical industry began developing in the mid-1930s but expanded in the City in the post-WWII era, when Klix, Gamlen, and E.F. Houghton & Company relocated to the City. In 1935, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company won out against Los Angeles County in enticing the E.I. du Pont de Nemours Company to purchase a seven-acre area on Linden Avenue (including the parcel within the Southline Specific Plan area containing 160 South Linden Avenue) to construct a varnish and lacquer plant (San Francisco Examiner 1935:4) which was constructed by 1940. Meanwhile, other chemical companies were establishing local facilities on the west coast, often in the Bayview district of San Francisco. In 1935, the Gamlen Chemical Company, founded by Harry Gamlen, a Canadian-born engineer and inventor, began its operations in San Francisco (San Francisco Examiner 1973:41). E.F. Houghton & Co, a Pennsylvania chemical corporation specializing in industrial lubricants, mining lubricants, textile processing oils, tannery oils, and heat treating products, also located in San Francisco at Quint Street and Davidson Avenue (Oakland Tribune 1942:30). Following WWII, many of the light industry and chemical businesses located in San Francisco Bay View began to relocate to South San Francisco to take advantage of the large industrial yards now available for non-war time production. In 1949, du Pont expanded a further 5.8 acres in South San Francisco, occupying a corner of Dollar and Tanforan Avenues no longer used for war production to expand its west coast business operations. The post war boom brought demand for chemical products such as finishes for consumer products like cars, ships, and refrigerators (The Times [San Mateo] 1940:4). In 1951, Klix Chemical Company moved from San Francisco to South San Francisco (The Times 1956). By the mid-1950s, Gamlen Chemical had relocated to 321 Victory Avenue (The Times [San Mateo] 1955:1) and E. I. du Pont de Nemours Paint was expanding at 160 South Linden Avenue. In 1958, the City of South San Francisco reported a record year for building permits, doubling the previous year’s amount (The Times [San Mateo] 1958:15). E.F. Houghton & Company opened their 300,000 square-foot manufacturing plant, laboratory, office building and storage yard, at the site of the former American Brake Shoe Company at 54 Tanforan Avenue in 1960 (The Times [San Mateo] 1960:11) and were soon launching a new line of aluminum lubricants (The Times [San Mateo] 1963:24). The 1960s also found Merk and Company’s Marine Magnesium Plant expanding in the City (City of South San Francisco 2020). By the mid-1970s, E. F. Houghton & Company were hiring local chemistry and physics graduates and becoming something of an industry thought-leader, employing Gerald Loeb – the “Wizard of Wall Street”, a financial author credited with predicting the 1929 stock market crash- as a senior consultant (The Times [San Mateo] 1972a: 21). Gamlen Chemical also expanded operations in the City during the 1970s, constructing a 2-story, 7,200-square foot international headquarters which would house its technical, customer service, and electronic data processing staff (The Times [San Mateo] 1972b:21) and later expanded its central marketing and development operations (The Times [San Mateo] 1975: 25). Industry in South San Francisco took a further turn in the 1970s, when venture capitalist Robert A. Swanson and biochemist Dr. Herbert W. Boyer formed Genentech, a company pioneering recombinant DNA technology (Genentech 2021). The pair located their headquarters in South San City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-7 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Francisco’s San Bruno Point, where a century earlier Gustavus Swift’s meat packing plants once stood. Genentech’s biotechnological discoveries allowed for the production of biological molecules in large fermentation tanks, akin to what is used to make beer. Rather than the traditional method of extracting molecules from plants and animals (for instance, insulin was harvested from cow and pig pancreases), biotechnology allowed for the mass production of these molecules in these enormous and highly sophisticated fermentation tanks (Labiotech.eu 2021). The turn toward biotechnologies illustrates a move away from the chemical manufacturing that defined the post-WWII era, and toward a new and different form of manufacturing and innovation. C.1.3 Summary of Known Industries Historically Located in South San Francisco by Type Metallurgical Industries ⚫ Bethlehem Steel ⚫ Metal and Thermite Corporation ⚫ Pacific Coast Steel ⚫ Pacific Jupiter Steel Company ⚫ Superior Electrocast Foundry Co ⚫ The Selby Smelting and Lead Company ⚫ Wildberg Bros Smelting and Refining Co ⚫ Colorado Fuel and Iron Meat Packing ⚫ Swift and Company ⚫ Western Meat Company Manufacturing ⚫ American Brake Shoe and Foundry ⚫ Doak Sheet Metal company ⚫ E. H. Edwards Co. ⚫ Edward Wire Rope Co ⚫ Enterprise Foundry Company ⚫ Meese & Gottfried Company ⚫ Pacific Car and Equipment Company ⚫ The Prestolie Co Inc ⚫ Poetsch & Peterson Tannery City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-8 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Ship Building ⚫ Schaw-Batcher Company Chemicals ⚫ E. I. du Pont de Nemours Company ⚫ E.F. Houghton & Company ⚫ Gamlen Chemical ⚫ Klix Chemical ⚫ Marine Magnesium Products Corp. ⚫ Sun Chemicals Corporation ⚫ W. P. Fuller and Company’s lead and color works Building Supplies/ Construction Materials ⚫ South City Lumber and Supply ⚫ Steiger Brothers Pottery Works ⚫ Vannucci Brothers Concrete C.2 Chronology of Major Events Date Timeline 1862 San Francisco and San Jose Railroad line constructed from San Francisco to the south. 1887 Baden, a village built around Charles Lux’s ranch in South San Francisco, is chosen as site for Swift’s industrial company town. 1890 South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company buys up 3,400 acres of land. 1891 J. A. Worthen, a civil engineer, lays out, surveys, and sub-divides, and grades streets and alleys in the commercial, residential, and industrial areas of town. 1892 The Baden meat-packing plant opens (eighty-two acres including stockyards and related facilities). 1893 Steiger Brothers Pottery Works opens on San Bruno Point (8 acres), closes in 1896. 1894 The Baden meat plant, stockyards, and related facilities are incorporated as Western Meat Company. 1898 W. P. Fuller and Company’s Lead and Color Works (one-acre tidewater site at San Bruno Point). 1903 The Pacific Jupiter Steel Company establishes first steel casting plant on San Bruno Point. 1906 Selby Smelting and Lead Company purchases a parcel of land for a smelter at San Bruno Point. 1907 New rail line (Bay Shore Cut Off) to South San Francisco runs past western edge of the factory district. City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-9 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Date Timeline 1908 San Mateo County Board of Supervisors passes ordinance preventing smelter. City of South San Francisco is incorporated, bypassing ordinance and allowing smelter. 1909 Pacific Coast Steel opens rolling mills (taken over by Bethlehem Steel in 1929). 1911 Manufacturing companies locate to South San Francisco, including the Pacific Car and Equipment Company, the Meese & Gottfried Company, and the Doak Sheet Metal Company. 1917 The Schaw-Batcher Company acquires property for a shipyard. 1925 E. H. Edwards Wire Rope Company fully established on San Bruno Point. 1939 Schaw-Batcher bids for construction of additional ocean liners. 1940 Du Pont constructs chemical plant at 160 South Linden Avenue. 1943 Poetsch & Peterson Tannery moves to South San Francisco. 1948 Hunt foods leaves South San Francisco for Hayward after a warehouse fire. 1949 Du Pont expands another 5.8 acres at corner of Dollar and Tanforan. 1949 Schaw-Batcher Co taken over by United States Steel Corporation. 1951 Klix Chemical company relocates to South San Francisco. 1954 San Francisco International Airport terminal opens to large crowds. 1955 Gamlen Chemical relocates to South San Francisco. 1957 Bethlehem Steel moves focus of operations from South San Francisco plant to Los Angeles and Seattle. 1958 South San Francisco has a record year for building permits. 1959 South San Francisco businesses form a traffic club to coordinate transportation and shipping. 1960 E.F. Houghton & Company opens manufacturing plant, laboratory, office building and storage yard in South San Francisco. 1961 Bethlehem steel installs air pollution control devices. 1972 Gamlen Chemical expands South San Francisco operations, adding international headquarters. 1977 Bethlehem Steel closes down its last operation in South San Francisco. 1978 Genentech moves to South San Francisco. Source: Chronology Period Plans were created by ICF, 2021. See Bibliography for research sources. C.3 20th Century Industrial Architecture The forms of industrial buildings have historically reflected their functions. Industrial buildings have housed a myriad of uses which include printing, manufacturing, food processing, and warehousing in the early 20th century, as well as later light-industrial functions such as auto repair in the post- World War II era (Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2009:90). The production processes conducted inside have determined the buildings’ design and organization, in which exterior ornament remained subordinate to more utilitarian concerns. City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-10 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Improvements in building materials and techniques over time have affected industrial form through allowing for bigger and highly functional industrial buildings. Following earlier load-bearing brick construction, reinforced concrete provided for new innovation in industrial building design during the early 20th century. Builders and owners remained wary of reinforced concrete construction until its benefits were clearly revealed when representative buildings survived major earthquakes and fires. Employing reinforced concrete in the design of a new type of industrial production building—the automobile factory—Detroit’s Albert Kahn distinguished himself as the first significant 20th century American industrial architect. Establishing a new precedent for industrial design, Kahn worked in close consultation with production experts and engineers to fit the massive hyper-functional building to the needs of the manufacturing process. Kahn’s design principles influenced industrial design throughout the early and mid-20th century. His principles included building configurations that included administrative wings, parking lots, and landscape setbacks fronting shed, sawtooth, or convex-roofed factories so as to obstruct their visibility from streets and highways (Bradley 1999:156–58; Munce 1960:40; Rappaport 2004:433). Other early techniques were exemplified by design accomplishments overseas. Peter Behrens and Mies van der Rohe created a new steel and glass curtain wall system for a turbine factory in Berlin in 1908–1909 that maximized natural lighting, freely exposing the building’s steel skeletal framing, that proved highly influential in the field of industrial building design. Only a few years after its construction, industrial buildings widely implemented the steel industrial sash window system (SurveyLA 2018: 198). Over the next several decades, innovations in prefabrication and framing enabled the design of industrial buildings that appeared lighter and incorporated more windows on both exterior facades and roofs (Martinson 2009:283; Rappaport 2004:433). During World War II, the design of industrial production buildings began to shift away from maximization of natural lighting and ventilation. As Bradley explains, “the new model was based on the utilization of artificial lighting, air-conditioning, and forced air circulation to optimize working conditions in structures with few openings” (Bradley 1999:4). Industrial building design in the post- World War II era was characterized by a proliferation of sprawling one-story factory buildings, a product of wartime production that responded to demand for low-cost construction and the increasingly horizontal orientation of production processes. As architectural historian Nina Rappaport explains, “the one-story shed-type building allowed for larger machines and more flexible and open floor plans for the new horizontal assembly-line production, which could then be shifted easily to the truck- and train-based transportation systems, with train lines running close to or even through a manufacturing plant.” During this period in the United States, manufacturing industries also began to relocate from urban cores to booming suburbs or other peripheral zones of new development. Even in the face of a changing industrial environment, the new factory facilities continued to reflect some of the planning principles pioneered by Kahn in the early 20th century, including roof forms, setbacks, parking areas, and minimal to non-existent architectural ornament. However, emerging corporate emphasis on teamwork and organizational psychology led to the introduction of post-war amenities such as cafeterias, athletic facilities, and lounges for workers, as well as a trend away from the earlier separation of administrative offices from factory production spaces. Throughout the 20th century, the priority of industrial architectural design has remained rooted in efficiency and profit. Industrial processes and products are constantly refined to maximize return on investment. Consequently, industrial properties are frequently altered to accommodate new product manufacturing processes or updated technologies. Full or partial demolition is commonplace, City of South San Francisco Historic Context Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District C-11 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 resulting in industrial areas characterized by buildings with widely varying dates of construction and reflecting different industries and contexts over time. C.3.1 Key Characteristics This section extrapolates the description above and summarizes it in bullet points. If a building or structure exhibits multiple characteristics included in this list, it likely exhibits industrial architecture. These characteristics include but are not limited to: Buildings and Structures ⚫ rectangular footprint; ⚫ 1-5 stories in height with emphasis on horizontal massing (1 story buildings gained in prevalence following WWII); ⚫ boxed, simple massing that accommodates additions; ⚫ raised foundation with loading docks; ⚫ flexible, open floor plans; ⚫ roll-up doors for vehicular use, especially in post-WWII construction; ⚫ loading docks; ⚫ smokestacks; ⚫ bays of large industrial sash windows, skylights, or monitor glazing in older buildings that emphasized natural light and ventilation; ⚫ steel industrial sash window systems; ⚫ minimal fenestration or lack of windows in post-WWII buildings; ⚫ utilitarian style, often with no ornamentation; ⚫ brick or reinforced concrete construction; ⚫ prefabricated construction; ⚫ roof forms including flat roofs, sawtooth roofs, shed roofs, monitor roofs, or convex-roofs; ⚫ cladding of brick, corrugated metal, or wood boards; ⚫ exposed metal piping or ducting; ⚫ administrative wings in pre-WWII construction; ⚫ cafeterias, athletic facilities, and lounges for workers in post-war construction; Site Features ⚫ expansive onsite surface paving for parking, loading, or other industrial purposes; ⚫ auxiliary site structures such as storage tanks or sheds, trestles, rail spurs, and pump houses; ⚫ landscaped setbacks near administrative entrance or on street-facing façades; ⚫ proximity to urban markets and transportation infrastructure (i.e. docks or wharves, canals, highways, and railroads). Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District D-1 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Section D Potential District Parameters The following framework provides broad parameters for understanding the extent of the potential historic district in South San Francisco. D.1 Potential District Area Industrial development in South San Francisco can be broadly mapped over time. Early industrial development, including stock yards and meat processing, was principally concentrated in the vicinity of San Bruno Point. Shipbuilding developed in South San Francisco in 1917 in connection with the first World War and centered around the Oyster Point area. As additional industry relocated to the City from San Francisco and the Southern Pacific Railroad expanded throughout the region, industrial development densified and moved south along Linden Avenue towards the Southline Specific Plan area. Following World War II chemical manufacturing and other types of light industrial development expanded east again, across the SPRR track, to infill former marshland. The nature of the industry impacted the character of the built environment. The areas in orange in Figure 1 below represent the full extent of industrial expansion in South San Francisco, which, for purposes of this preliminary assessment, represent the full extent of the potential historic district area comprising roughly 1,840 acres. Potential contributing properties are likely to have been built during the historic period within this general area. The exact boundary, size, and number and locations of contributing properties within the potential historic district are unknown; a complete historic district evaluation would be required to identify these features. It is likely that the boundary would be refined as part of a full historic district evaluation, once date of construction, significance, and integrity for individual parcels or properties are assessed further. As shown in Figure 2, the majority of the project site falls within the potential district area, while some off-site improvements located in San Bruno are outside of the potential district area; note that the off-site improvement areas do not contain any structures and therefore do not contain any potential contributors to the potential historic district. Properties within the Specific Plan area that could contribute to the potential historic district area are shown in Table 1. Recognizing that the character of the potential district area varies greatly on either side of the U.S. 101 freeway, the area has been further divided into Zone 1, located west of the freeway and totaling approximately 470 acres, and Zone 2, located east of the freeway and totaling approximately 1,370 acres (refer to Figure 1). The levels of integrity likely differ between Zone 1 and Zone 2 due to the different types of industry that operated in each location in the past, and the presence of more recent development that has affected the industrial character east of the freeway. Generally speaking, Zone 1, which includes the Lindenville area, may be more likely to have retained integrity than Zone 2, which has been more heavily developed with biotechnology uses since the 1970s. (See Section E.6 for additional discussion of integrity.) Should the City decide to undertake a complete evaluation as part of its General Plan update or at a future time, this distinction between Zone 1 and Zone 2 should be carefully weighed in defining the parameters of any historic district. City of South San Francisco Potential District Parameters Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District D-2 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Figure 1. The areas in orange (inclusive of both Zone 1 and Zone 2) represent the total approximate area where industrial development occurred in South San Francisco during the historic period. Source: ICF, 2021. Figure 2. The majority of the project site falls within the potential district area; some off-site improvements located in San Bruno are outside of the potential district area. Source: ICF, 2021. City of South San Francisco Potential District Parameters Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District D-3 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Table 1. Southline Specific Plan Area property information. This table includes the potential historic district contributors within the proposed Specific Plan boundary. Source: ICF, 2021. APN Address Use Type Location on Parcel Year Built 014-250-090 30 Tanforan Ave.* Administrative office Southwest corner 1963 40 Tanforan Ave.* Industrial warehouse Center c. 1956 337 S. Maple Ave. Industrial warehouse Northeast corner c. 1965 339 S. Maple Ave. Industrial warehouse Northeast corner 1959 014-250-080 50 Tanforan Ave.* Industrial warehouse West boundary 1959 014-250-050 54 Tanforan Ave.* Industrial warehouse Center c. 1943 014-241-030 240 Dollar Ave.* Industrial factory Center c. 1943/ 1956/1965 180 Linden Ave.* Industrial warehouse West boundary 1956/1982 014-241-040 160 S. Linden Ave.* Chemical plant Southeast corner 1940/1958 160 S. Linden Ave.* Ancillary building Southeast corner c. 1940 325 S. Maple Ave. Industrial warehouse Southwest corner 1946/1957 * Property addresses marked with an asterisk symbol are located partially or fully within the Phase 1 site. D.2 Period of Significance Industrial development in South San Francisco began in 1890 with meat packing and stockyards. Steel production, manufacturing, and shipbuilding arrived during the first half of the 20th century, while chemicals, warehousing, and other light industry proliferated in the post-WWII era. When Genentech moved into South San Francisco in 1978 it marked a new era of development in the City. Neighborhoods that had been historically occupied by heavy industry began to see commercial and office development instead. As such, potential contributing properties are likely to have been built between 1890 and 1978. D.3 Potential District Character Properties that contribute to the district would exhibit physical characteristics that are typical of industrial development in the region. It is unlikely that the earliest industrial building types (such as tanneries, stockyards, or pulleries) remain extant due to continual development in the City during the 20th century. However, facilities that house production, distribution and repair activities often exhibit the characteristics that are outlined under Section C.3 of this assessment. These industrial properties typically lack highly stylized ornament and are focused on functionality instead. Industrial building types in South San Francisco include but are not limited to: ⚫ Warehouses ⚫ foundries ⚫ factories City of South San Francisco Potential District Parameters Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District D-4 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 ⚫ manufacturing facilities ⚫ processing plants ⚫ chemical plants ⚫ auto shops Site features indicating industrial use may include but are not limited to: ⚫ Administrative wings ⚫ loading docks ⚫ rail spurs ⚫ storage tanks ⚫ pump houses ⚫ minimally landscaped setbacks Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District E-1 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Section E Research Questions The broad parameters presented in Section D set the stage for understanding a potential historic district relating to industrial development in South San Francisco. These parameters will need to be further researched and refined in order to provide a complete historic district evaluation. The research questions below outline areas where further investigation is warranted and highlight specific metrics that would be included in a complete historic district evaluation. Excellent guidance on how to approach these research questions, including how to evaluate a property within its historic context and understanding the aspects of integrity, is outlined in the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin 15: How To Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation 1997). E.1 Supplemental Historic Research Information gaps remain relating to City-wide industrial development in South San Francisco. For example, the following events and trends may have had an influence on the industrial character of the City: local zoning, establishment and expansion of San Francisco International Airport, the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR), and socio-economic influences. A better understanding of these trends, among others, would inform the assessment of historical integrity and could influence modifications to the potential district boundary or period of significance in a complete historic district evaluation. E.2 Refining the Broad Parameters The thresholds used for identifying whether a property may contribute to the district as described in this assessment are limited to: ⚫ general potential district area; ⚫ a broad historic era that aligns with heavy industrial development; ⚫ a list of localized property types and site features that characterize industrial development. Within these parameters further refinement is required to complete a complete historic district evaluation. For instance, supplemental historic research could determine a narrower district boundary than what is illustrated under Section D.1, based on integrity and prevalence of building types. Further research may also determine that not enough extant buildings are present from the earliest phase of development (meat packing and stockyards) to represent that era, and the boundary and period of significance could be refined to align with the onset of shipbuilding in South San Francisco instead. City of South San Francisco Research Questions Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District E-2 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 E.3 Criteria for Evaluating Significance Following supplemental historic research and a re-assessment of the potential district parameters, a complete historic district evaluation should include a full evaluation for historic significance under the National or California register criteria. The National and California registers of historic properties include evaluation criteria that identify the range of resources and levels of significance that quality properties for listing. The criteria are written broadly to recognize the wide variety of historic properties associated with pre-history and history and provide for a conservative analysis. They include: ⚫ Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. ⚫ Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. ⚫ Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. ⚫ Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. E.4 Additional Significance Thresholds As noted above, the thresholds used in this assessment to determine if a property may contribute to the potential district are broad in order to provide for a conservative analysis. To complete a full historic district evaluation, additional significance factors relating to industrial development should be considered. Additional factors would include analysis of the influence of specific industries or industrialists in South San Francisco. It is likely that certain industries or industrialists had a heavier hand in the development of the City than others (e.g., companies that had larger impacts because they located their headquarters in South San Francisco as opposed to elsewhere, or companies that engineered new products or new technologies that influenced industrial production in the City). An understanding of what contributed to the development of the region within its industrial context is an important factor in clarifying its historic significance. E.5 Identifying Contributing Properties A historic district possesses a concentration of linked properties (sites, buildings, structures, etc.) that are associated through their shared history and in some cases, physical characteristics. A complete historic district evaluation that looks at industrial heritage in South San Francisco should include a list of properties that share an association with the City’s industrial development, and contribute to the significance, eligibility, and integrity of the district. Properties that are likely to contribute to the potential district would be determined through collecting an initial data set using the broad parameters outlined in this assessment. The research questions listed above would then help narrow down the data set to a final list of properties using refined criteria and assessment. City of South San Francisco Research Questions Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District E-3 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 E.6 An Assessment of Integrity This preliminary assessment assumes that the potential historic district retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under one or more of the criteria outlined above. A full assessment of integrity would provide further clarity regarding this assumption. It would also help to narrow the district parameters, as prescribed under Section E.2, which may have the effect of limiting the area of the potential historic district and reducing the number of properties included therein. To assess integrity, the National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a historically significant property (i.e., a historic district) must possess enough of the following qualities to convey the reasons for its significance: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association. The historic district in South San Francisco would need to retain enough properties that are associated with the City’s industrial development (as defined by the parameters in Section 2 and the criteria referenced above) to physically convey that history. Some aspects of integrity may be more important than others. Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District F-1 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Section F Preparers Gretchen Hilyard Boyce (Senior Advisor), has 15 years of experience in cultural resources compliance for private and agency clients includes: managing large-scale cultural resource surveys; preparing National/California register evaluations, cultural landscape assessments, and CEQA/NEPA/Section 106 technical documentation; evaluating projects for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and project impacts under CEQA/NEPA. Prior to joining ICF, Ms. Hilyard Boyce was a Preservation Technical Specialist with the San Francisco Planning Department. Her specialty in cultural landscapes demonstrates her unique big-picture perspective on cultural resource management and bridges the divide between traditional built, cultural and natural resource practices. Gretchen received a B.A. in architectural history from the University of Virginia and an M.S. in historic preservation from the University of Pennsylvania. Gretchen teaches adult continuing education courses in historic preservation and landscapes and has spoken widely at professional conferences and trainings. She was a co-author of the National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide (2009). Gretchen exceeds the Secretary of the Interiors professional qualification standards for architectural history and history. Eleanor Cox (Technical Review) is an architectural historian and senior historic preservation specialist with more than nine years of professional experience in cultural resources management. Ms. Cox holds a Master of Science degree in historic preservation from Columbia University in the City of New York and a certificate in cultural landscape preservation and management from UC Berkeley Extension. She has technical experience in report production and stakeholder consultation and has served as lead historian or project manager on multiple historic resource surveys that included evaluation and documentation work under Section 106 of the NHPA and CEQA. Eleanor exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the areas of history and architectural history. Patrick Maley (Historian) is a Senior Environmental Planner with 12 years of experience working with private and public sector clients researching, writing, and editing sections of California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) documents, performing built resources surveys, conducting property research, and writing historical contexts as well as DPR 523A and 523B forms. Patrick is a thorough and comprehensive writer and researcher with strong analytical skills. Patrick meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in the area of history. Alex Ryder (Historian) is an historic preservation specialist with a multidisciplinary background. He is experienced in evaluating the eligibility of both built and archeological resources for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), Washington Historic Register (WHR), and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). He has strong geospatial analysis skills and is proficient with a number of geographic information system (GIS) software platforms. He meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History. Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District G-1 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Section G Bibliography Bamburg, B. L. ND. South San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey 1985 – 1986: A Comprehensive Study of History and Architecture. City of South San Francisco: CA. Blum, J. 1984. South San Francisco: The Making of an Industrial City. In California History 63(2): Pages 114-134. Bradley, Betsy Hunter. 1999. The Works: The Industrial Architecture of the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Bradley, Betsy Hunter. 2004. Warehouse. In R. Stephen Sennott (ed.), Encyclopedia of Twentieth- Century Architecture, Volume 3, P-Z. R. Fitzroy Dearborn, New York, New York. City of South San Francisco. 2020. Historic Articles: General History. Available here: https://www.ssf.net/our-city/about-south-san-francisco/history/historical-articles. Accessed: June 23, 2020. Genentech. 2021.Our Founders. Available here: https://www.gene.com/about-us/leadership/our- founders. Assessed: June 2, 2021. Kious, J. ND. “Lindenville.” Available here: https://www.ssf.net/our-city/about-south-san-francisco/history/historical-articles. Accessed: June 23, 2020. Labiotech.eu. 2021. Humble Beginnings: The Origin Story of Modern Biotechnology. Available here: https://www.labiotech.eu/in-depth/history-biotechnology-genentech/. Accessed: June 2, 2021. Mainfreight San Francisco. 2020. About Us. Available here: https://www.mainfreightsfo.com/about- us/. Accessed: July 1, 2020. Martinson, Tom. 2009. Atlas of American Architecture. Rizzoli Publications, New York, New York. Mozingo, Louise A. 2011. Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Munce, James F. 1960. Industrial Architecture: An Analysis of International Building Practice. F. W. Dodge Corporation, New York, New York. National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 1997. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. (NETR). 1956. 30 Tanforan Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. Aerial photograph. Historic Aerials Viewer. Available: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed: June 26, 2020. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 1946–2005. 160 South Linden Avenue, CA. Aerial photograph. Historic Aerials Viewer. Available: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed: July 1, 2020. ———. 2016. 30 Tanforan Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. Aerial photograph. Historic Aerials Viewer. Available: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed: June 26, 2020. City of South San Francisco Bibliography Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District G-2 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California). 1942. “Lubricant Firm Opens S.F. Plant” June 26. Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2009. South of Market Area, San Francisco, California Historic Context Statement. Final. Prepared for City and County of San Francisco Planning Department. Rappaport, Nina. 2004. Factory. In R. Stephen Sennott (ed.), Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Architecture, Volume 1, A-F. R. Fitzroy Dearborn, New York, New York. Reid, Kenneth. 1951. “Factory Design Offers a Challenge to Every Architect,” in Industrial Buildings: The Architectural Record of a Decade. New York: F.W. Dodge Corporation. Sanborn-Perris Map Company. 1892. Baden [South San Francisco], California. Available: https://fims-historicalinfo-com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/ Accessed: Feb. 9, 2021. Sanborn Map Company. 1910. South San Francisco, California. Available: https://fims-historicalinfo- com.ezproxy.sfpl.org. Accessed: Feb. 9, 2021. ———. 1925. South San Francisco, California. Available: https://digitalsanbornmaps-proquest- com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/. Accessed: Feb. 9, 2021. ———. 1950. South San Francisco, California. Available: https://digitalsanbornmaps-proquest- com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/. Accessed: Feb. 9, 2021. San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California). 1935b. “Du Pont Purchase Largest In Years.” July 27. ———. 1943b. “Help Wanted.” July 11. ———. 1947. “Six Tanneries Hit By Strikes.” January 21. ———. 1953. “Mrs. Poetsche Estate Filed.” February 24. ———. 1966. “Lawrence Vannucci At 77.” January 16. ———.1973. “Harry Gamlen Rites.” January 15. ———. 1985. “Foreign Competition, environmental laws tanned their hide.” December 4. S.F. Enterprises. 2020. Home. Available here: http://www.sfenterprises.net/. Accessed: July 12, 2020. Schreck, Christopher J. 2018. “CF&I Timeline.” Available: https://scalar.usc.edu/works/the- colorado-fuel-and-iron-company/cfi-timeline. Accessed: June 23, 2020. South San Francisco. 1959-1985. Building Division permits (relevant building permits issued for the subject parcel). SurveyLA. 2018. Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Industrial Development, 1850-1980. Prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources. September 2011, revised February 2018. The Times San Mateo. 1949. “DuPont Plans SSF Expansion” April 1. ———. 1947. “Deadlock in Tan Strike.” January 30. ———. 1955. “$75,000 Fire Razes SSF Chemical Plant.” June 12. City of South San Francisco Bibliography Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District G-3 August 2021 ICF 00082.20 ———.1958. “Building in S.S.F. Heads For Record.” August. ———.1959. “Word Awaited For Walkout Wednesday.” ———.1960. “S.S.F. Opening New Company.” April 23. ———. 1962. “Firm Honors F.B. Keyston.” April 26. ———.1963. “New Product for S.S.F. Firm.” August 26. ———.1972a. “Companies Told To Push Negative.” April 24. ———.1972b. “New Headquarters Started.” April 24. ———. 1975. “Gamlen Chemical Expands.” January 24. UC Santa Barbara. 2020a. “FrameFinder.” Flight DDB, Frame 2B-135, October 11, 1943. Accessed June 19, 2020. Available: http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. ———. 2020b. “FrameFinder.” Flight CAS-65-130, Frame 1-51, May 11, 1965. Accessed June 19, 2020. Available: http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. ———. 2020c. “FrameFinder.” Flight HM, Frame 1123-215, June 26, 2000. Accessed June 19, 2020. Available: http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/. United States Geological Survey. 1892. San Mateo Quadrangle. California. Available: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/. Accessed: Feb. 9, 2021. ———. 1915. San Mateo Quadrangle, California. Available: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/. Accessed: Feb. 9, 2021. ———. 1947. San Francisco South Quadrangle, California. 7.5 Minute Series (1:24,000) Topographic Quadrangle Map.