Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEIR Appendix D - Cultural Resources - Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting InformationCity of South San Francisco—General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Draft Program EIR FirstCarbon Solutions Appendix D: Cultural Resources-Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of South San Francisco—General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Draft Program EIR FirstCarbon Solutions D.1 - Sacred Lands File Search THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 916-373-3710 916-373-5471 – Fax nahc@nahc.ca.gov Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: ______________________________________________________________________ County:______________________________________________________________________ USGS Quadrangle Name:_______________________________________________________ Township:__________ Range:__________ Section(s):__________ Company/Firm/Agency:_________________________________________________________ Street Address:________________________________________________________________ City:______________________________________________ Zip:______________________ Phone:_____________________________________________ Fax:_______________________________________________ Email:_____________________________________________ Project Description: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 March 27, 2022 Lisa Davison FirstCarbon Solutions Via Email to: ldavison@fcs-intl.com Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4, South San Francisco General Plan Update Project, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Davison: Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties. Government Code §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans. The law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law. The NAHC also believes that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as: 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: • A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded or are adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: • Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Luiseño VICE CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash PARLIAMENTARIAN Russell Attebery Karuk SECRETARY Sara Dutschke Miwok COMMISSIONER William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain Apache COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoan COMMISSIONER Buffy McQuillen Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, Nomlaki COMMISSIONER Wayne Nelson Luiseño COMMISSIONER Stanley Rodriguez Kumeyaay EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Christina Snider Pomo NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov Page 2 of 2 All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code §6254.10. 3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we are able to assure that our consultation list remains current. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Cody.Campagne@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Cody Campagne Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson 3030 Soda Bay Road Lakeport, CA, 95453 Phone: (650) 851 - 7489 Fax: (650) 332-1526 amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com Costanoan Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Tony Cerda, Chairperson 244 E. 1st Street Pomona, CA, 91766 Phone: (909) 629 - 6081 Fax: (909) 524-8041 rumsen@aol.com Costanoan Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA, 95024 Phone: (831) 637 - 4238 ams@indiancanyons.org Costanoan Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD Contact 1615 Pearson Court San Jose, CA, 95122 Phone: (408) 673 - 0626 kanyon@kanyonkonsulting.com Costanoan Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546 Phone: (408) 464 - 2892 cnijmeh@muwekma.org Costanoan Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546 Phone: (408) 205 - 9714 marellano@muwekma.org Costanoan The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan, P.O. Box 3388 Fremont, CA, 94539 Phone: (510) 882 - 0527 Fax: (510) 687-9393 chochenyo@AOL.com Bay Miwok Ohlone Patwin Plains Miwok Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson 1179 Rock Haven Ct. Salinas, CA, 93906 Phone: (831) 443 - 9702 kwood8934@aol.com Foothill Yokut Mono 1 of 1 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4 et seq for the proposed South San Francisco General Plan Update Project, San Mateo County. PROJ-2022- 001509 03/27/2022 11:20 AM Native American Heritage Commission Tribal Consultation List San Mateo County 3/27/2022 City of South San Francisco—General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Draft Program EIR FirstCarbon Solutions D.2 - Historic Context Document THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK       Historic Context of the City of South San Francisco   (History of the City of South San Francisco 1848 to 1972)    Prepared by:  Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P., Principal Investigator  FirstCarbon Solutions  1350 Treat Blvd, Suite 380  Walnut Creek, CA 94597     Prepared for:  Billy Gross  Planning Division   City of South San Francisco  315 Maple Avenue  South San Francisco, CA  94080      June 2022    1    Preamble    The purpose of preparing a Historic Context for the built‐environment resources (buildings,  structures, features, objects, or landscape) for the City of South San Francisco is to create a  narrative for why, where, when, and how those resources in the City came to be.  With a  history of how and why the City of South San Francisco was established, the pattern of the  buildings, streets, and communities within the City can be investigated for historic significance  based upon their ability to convey the history of the community.     At the time of European contact in the 1700s, the South San Francisco area was occupied by  various tribelets that were part of the Ohlone (called by the Spaniards “Costanoans,” or coast‐ dwellers [costeños]) group of California Native Americans.  The group that most likely occupied  the project area was the Salson triblet of the Ramaytush linguistic subdivision of the Ohlone  people.  Native American archaeological sites located in this area of San Mateo County tend to  be situated near the historic margin of bay tidal marshland and along creeks that drain upland  terrain bordering the Bay shore plain.    The various Ohlone tribelets were hunter‐gatherers, and relied on local terrestrial and marine  flora and fauna for subsistence.  Food sources included acorns, berries, elk, bear, deer, as well  as fish and waterfowl.  The Ohlone constructed watercraft from tule reeds and possessed bow  and arrow technology. They fashioned blankets from sea otter pelts, fabricated basketry from  twined reeds of various types, and assembled a variety of stone and bone tools. Ohlone villages  typically consisted of domed dwelling structures, communal sweathouses, dance enclosures,  and assembly houses constructed from thatched tule reeds and a combination of wild grasses,  wild alfalfa, and ferns.    The mandate of the Franciscan Order of the Spanish Church was to bring Christianity to the  native population of Alta California, and many Ohlone were moved from their tribal territory  and resettled outside the walls of the California Missions. The hoards of Anglo men coming into  Alta California during the Gold Rush brought disease to the native inhabitants thereby  decimating their populations.  By the 1850s, nearly all of the traditional ways of life in Ohlone  communities had been replaced by American economies based on cash income.  Hunting and  gathering activities continued to decline and were rapidly replaced with occupations based on  ranching and farming.    For Americans and Western Europeans, establishing a homestead in Alta California during the  eighteenth‐century required a number of conditions to be in place. Usually, a  homestead/hacienda would be located close to a transportation corridor, fresh water, and the  ability to graze cattle or raise crops.  When Father Junípero Serra, Padre Francisco Palóu and  Gaspar de Portolá traveled northward from San Diego Bay in the 1760s, they most likely  traveled on paths created by the indigenous people of that region, and those paths would  eventually become roads with small settlements located along its route.        2    In the nineteenth‐century, the narrow paths turned into dirt roads as more settlers reached  Alta California, and stagecoaches and wagons became more commonplace, traveling between  towns and rural communities.  The San Francisco‐San José Road became the north‐south route  between those two cities, and travelers on that route would pass by the hacienda José Antonio  Sanchez occupied in the 1830s.  Sanchez’s hacienda was located within his Buri‐Buri Rancho,  approximately 12 miles south of Mission San Francisco de Assisi.      In 1856, Charles Lux bought 1,925 acres of the Buri Buri Rancho from Sanchez’s estate, and  called his country home "Baden."  Cattleman Henry Miller also purchased about 40 acres of the  Buri Buri Rancho lands situated along the San Francisco‐San José Road.  Cowboys and their  families, livery stable operators, fence builders, storekeepers, and blacksmiths would have  settled nearby to support Lux's country home and Miller's cattle ranch.  However, even with the  completion of the San Francisco & San José Railroad in 1864 between those two cities, the area  around Baden had remained sparsely inhabited when Lux died in 1887.      Meanwhile, in the City of San Francisco, a group of investors was scooping up the excess  government lands not wanted by the Southern Pacific Railroad to create the South San  Francisco Homestead and Railroad Association (SSFHRA).  In 1849, this group had defined the  location of a community known as “South San Francisco” to be generally southeast of Mission  Street to the shore of San Francisco Bay.   Housing lots were plotted within the SSFHRA  holdings, as well as an area for industrial shops and stockyards along the shore of San Francisco  Bay.      Associated with the stockyards were abattoirs, wholesale butchers, tanneries, and tallow  renderers, who killed horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry, and other mammals, for meat and by‐ products.  Due to the noxious fumes, offal, and other foul waste products that resulted from  the activities at butchering facilities, these types of businesses were usually relegated to the  most distant area of a city or town.  Known locally in San Francisco as "Butchertown," this  community, located south of Market Street, was continually pushed south of the residential  areas of San Francisco as the City expanded year after year.  Even as the physical buildings and  structures of Butchertown moved southward, the community continued to be referred to as  being in “South San Francisco”.  By the 1860s, Butchertown and “South San Francisco” were  located in the Potrero District.     By the 1880s, the local wholesale butchers of Butchertown had formed a unified front against  dressed meat being sold to the retail butchers in San Francisco from meat suppliers located  outside of Butchertown.  Butchertown had gone so far as to issue threats of withholding credit  from retail butchers if they were found to be selling meat not dressed in Butchertown.  With  the establishment of the transcontinental railroad system in 1869, and the ability to ship meat  across the county in refrigerated boxcars, major meatpackers from Chicago and Omaha, such as  Armour and Swift, made moves to invade the Butchertown sales region.  Just as the “meat war”  was reaching a tipping point in San Francisco, Charles Lux, owner of the country estate “Baden”  in San Mateo County, died in 1887.            3    The South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (SSFLIC) was created by wealthy  investors who purchased Lux’s 1,600 acres and an additional 1,600 acres from other holders of  Buri Buri Rancho land adjoining Lux’s land.  Many of the shareholders of SSFLIC were the same  persons as the investors in the now‐defunct SSFHRA, and had  direct ties to the Union Stock  Yards in Chicago.  Phillip D. Armour Sr. and Gustavus Swift Sr. of the Union Stock Yards were  active participants of SSFLIC, which planned to create its own town near Baden.  SSFLIC would  establish a massive meat processing operation and plot a town where laborers of the  meatpacking plants could build and own modest houses. In 1892, the new town near Baden  was first called South City, but because of its direct and continued relationship with the  meatpacking industry, the new town was eventually named South San Francisco even though it  was no longer located in the City or county of San Francisco.      When a large copper smelter and refinery were planned for construction at Point Bruno in  1906, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted against it because of the great harm it  could cause the residents and countryside from toxic fumes and by‐products. SSFLIC had  courted the American Smelting and Refining Company, owned by the Guggenheim Family, to  construct the massive smelting facility in South San Francisco, as the project would require the  purchase of over 500 acres of land owned by SSFLIC.  It is not an exaggeration to say that the  future direction and vision for the growth of the City of South San Francisco was decided on  September 4, 1908, when the citizens of South San Francisco voted to repudiate the goals of  SSFLIC.   Instead, the City of South San Francisco immediately addressed the goals of building a  town hall, schools, churches, a library to improve the lives of its residents.     The City of South San Francisco has grown considerably from a small town of 1,800 residents in  1908, to a major San Francisco Bay Area suburban community with a population of  approximately 67,000 residents today.         4    Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric Setting    Archaeological investigations in Northern California have documented human occupation and  activity dating from 9,000 to 11,500 years ago. Early archaeologists in the San Francisco Bay  Area concentrated on recording and excavating large coastal shell mounds, including the  Emeryville Shellmound (Alameda County) and the Ellis Landing Site (Contra Costa County). They  discovered deeply buried stratified sites with numerous burials and associated funerary objects.  The data they recovered would later help other archaeologists to develop chronological and  cultural frameworks to define the region’s archaeological sites and to understand the complex  movements and interactions of the indigenous people in this region.1    The San Francisco Bay Area supported a dense population of hunter‐gatherers over thousands  of years, leaving a rich and varied archaeological record.  The Bay Area was a place of incredible  language diversity, with at least seven languages spoken when the Spanish settled in the area in  1776.  At the time of Spanish contact, the people of the Bay Area were organized into local  tribelets that defended fixed territories under independent leaders. Typically, individual Bay  Area tribelets included 200 to 400 people distributed among three to five semi‐permanent  villages, within territories measuring approximately 10 to 12 miles in diameter.     At the time of European contact, the South San Francisco area was occupied by various tribelets  that were part of the Ohlone/Costanoan group of California Native Americans. Evidence of   indigenous hunter‐gatherers exists from as early as 5,600 years before the present (BP). The  Ohlone group designates a language family consisting of eight branches of the Ohlone  language, with each being related to its geographically adjacent neighbors. These groups lived  in approximately 50 separate and politically autonomous tribelet areas, each with one or more  permanent villages situated across the region between North San Francisco Bay and the lower  Salinas River.2    The group that most likely occupied the project area was the Salson triblet of the Ramaytush  group of Ohlones.3  Native American archaeological sites located in this area of San Mateo  County tend to be situated near the historic margin of bay tidal marshland and along creeks  that drain upland terrain bordering the Bay shore plain.4    The various Ohlone groups subsisted as hunter‐gatherers and relied on local terrestrial and  marine flora and fauna for subsistence.5 The predominant plant food source was the acorn, but  they also exploited a wide range of other plants, including various seeds, buckeye, berries, and  roots. Protein sources included grizzly bear, elk, sea lions, antelope, and black‐tailed deer as    1 Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press. 2 Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.   5    well as smaller mammals such as raccoon, rabbits, ground squirrels, and wood rats. Waterfowl,  including Canada geese, mallards, green‐winged teal, and American widgeon, were captured in  nets using decoys to attract them. Fish also played an important role in the Ohlone diet and  included steelhead, salmon, and sturgeon.6    The Ohlone constructed watercraft from tule reeds and possessed bow and arrow technology.  They fashioned blankets from sea otter pelts, fabricated basketry from twined reeds of various  types, and assembled a variety of stone and bone tools. Ohlone villages typically consisted of  domed dwelling structures, communal sweathouses, dance enclosures, and assembly houses  constructed from thatched tule reeds and a combination of wild grasses, wild alfalfa, and ferns.    The Ohlone were politically organized into autonomous tribelets that had distinct cultural  territories. Individual tribelets contained one or more villages with a number of seasonal camps  for resource procurement within the tribelet territory. The tribelet chief could be either male or  female, and the position was inherited patrilineal, but approval of the community was required.  The tribelet chief and council were essentially advisors to the community and were responsible  for feeding visitors, directing hunting and fishing expeditions, ceremonial activities, and warfare  on neighboring tribelets.     The mandate of the Franciscan Order of the Spanish Church was to bring Christianity to the  native population of Alta California, and many Ohlone were moved from their home territory  and resettled outside the walls of the California Missions. The hoards of men coming into Alta  California during the Gold Rush brought disease to the native inhabitants decimating their  populations.  By the 1850s, nearly all of the traditional ways of life in Ohlone communities had  been replaced by American economies based on cash income. Hunting and gathering activities  continued to decline and were rapidly replaced with occupations based on ranching and  farming.7    Spanish Mission Period (1769‐1821)  Father Junípero Serra arrived in Alta California in 1769 with a military expedition led by Gaspar  de Portolá.  Portolá and Serra had been tasked by Spanish King Carlos III to create a chain of  missions and mission outposts in Alta California to bring Christianity to the indigenous  population and create a foothold for Spanish colonization of the region. This move by Spain was  intended to protect their Pacific Coast shipping routes and the coastal region of Alta California  from aggression by Russia or Great Britain.  Beginning in San Diego, the expedition surveyed the  lands as far north as Sonoma to secure sites for future missions and settlements.  Mission San  Francisco de Assisi was established in 1776, near Arroyo de los Dolores (Dolores Creek), in what  is now referred to as the Mission District of the City of San Francisco.       6 Jones, T.L. and Kathryn A. Klar. 2007. California Prehistory. Lanham: AltaMira Press; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 7 Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.   6    Although what we consider today to be Serra’s and Portola’s route through California may not  be exact, the road known as El Camino Real generally follows the path used by the Portolá  expedition as they made their way north and south through Alta California.  The section of the  historic path that ran approximately north‐south through San Mateo and San Francisco County  was simply identified in the 1800s as the San José‐San Francisco Road, or the "old mission  road."  It was along this road, approximately 12 miles south of Mission San Francisco, where a  hacienda was built as part of a rancho by a Spanish soldier.      The Mexican Period (1821–1848)  After years of internal fighting, Mexico achieved its independence from Spain in 1821, and Alta  California became the northern frontier of the State of Mexico.  The mission padres were  forced to swear allegiance to Mexico in 1822.  Secularization of the missions took place over the  next decade, and the former mission lands were transferred to the Mexican government.  The  vast acres of land once owned by the missions were divided into ranchos and were gradually  shifted to being under Mexican oversight in the 1830s.      Once the ranchos were secularized, the Mexican government began granting vast tracts of the  original mission properties to members of prominent families and retired military leaders, with  the primary mission of ranchos to be raising cattle.  Herds of long‐horn cattle were brought  from Texas to Alta California, and they would graze on grasses found in the hills and valleys,  from San Diego to Sonoma.     José Antonio Sanchez had been awarded a grant of 14,600 acres in 1833 by the Mexican  government as a reward for his military service in California.8  The land, known as the Buri Buri  Rancho, had been a former soldier’s ranch, which Sanchez came to occupy in 1825.  While he  may have run cattle on the land, he was unique for also tilling the land and raising crops.9  On  his rancho, Sanchez built an embarcadero, or boat landing, for shipping his hides and tallow to  points along San Francisco Bay.  His cattle herd, initially about 2,000 head, multiplied  significantly over the years.  His son, Francisco Sanchez, received title to Rancho San Pedro,  located west of Rancho Buri Buri, in 1839.  At the age of 32, Francisco Sanchez became captain  of the militia at the Presidio of San Francisco, and two years later, in 1842, he became alcade,  or mayor, of Yerba Buena.10     José Antonio Sanchez died in 1843 at 68 years of age.  At the time of his death, a will could not  be found, so the local courts were put in charge of dispersing his rancho and personal property  (belongings, livestock, farm equipment, etc.).  Approximately 50% of his rancho lands were sold  to persons outside of the family.  The will of José Antonio Sanchez was eventually discovered in  1937, almost 90 years after he died, and far too late to address any mistakes issued by the  court.11     8 San Francisco Chronicle. “Descendant of José Sanchez is Dead at 98”; January 24, 1940. 9 Postel, Mitchell P. San Mateo County: a sesquicentennial history. Star Publishing Company, Inc.; 2007. Page 81. 10 Postel, page 82. 11 Ibid.   7      The Mexican Period ended in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,  ending the Mexican‐American War. California then became a territory of the United States.    City of San Francisco‐San Francisco County 1850‐1856  When statehood for California was granted by Congress in 1850, 27 counties were mapped  across the entire State.  The County of San Francisco covered all territory between the most  northern point of the peninsula to the northern borders of Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz  County.  The rural residents of San Francisco County complained about their lack of  representation in State and federal matters, and petitioned the governor to create a new  county “to be formed south of the Abbey House.”12  The Abbey House was located on the San  Francisco‐San José Road ‐ in what is now Daly City.  Abbey House was considered "Mile One  House" as a milepost and waystation on the road heading south from Mission San Francisco.    In 1856, State Assemblyman Horace Hawes of San Francisco proposed a bill to the California  Legislature to consolidate the City and County of San Francisco into one entity.  When the bill  made it to the Senate floor for passage, a proposal to create a new county from the existing San  Francisco County was attached to Hawes’ bill.  The Senate passed the Act on April 11, 1856, and  it was signed by Governor John N. Johnson on April 19, 1856.13  Redwood City was made the  County Seat of the newly formed “San Mateo County” having won the selection over the town  of Belmont, which was considered "corrupt and void."14 Rancho Buri Buri was now located  within the boundary of San Mateo County.                                         12 Postel, page 17. 13 Ibid, page 18, 19, 20. 14 Ibid, page 33.   8    Figure 1: Plat map of Buri Buri Rancho, 1864. (Source: Bureau of Land Management, General  Land Office documents.)        9    Baden, San Mateo County 1856‐1887  The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad was awarded a charter in 1827 to build a steam railroad west  from Baltimore, Maryland, to a point on the Ohio River.15  During the 1830s along the eastern  seaboard of the U.S., local railroad lines and companies were established for steam engines to  pull railroad cars carrying passengers, goods, supplies, or even livestock.  With the entrance of  California to the Union in 1850, the United States Congress became concerned with “where to  build” the new railroad routes, as Congress foresaw the immense social, political, and economic  consequences of the path/s that were chosen.      In 1853, Congress authorized and funded the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, to prepare a  study of the best routes between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean.  One of the five  studies was the survey of lands west of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California, from  San Diego northward to Seattle, Washington.  This study was performed by Lieutenant Robert  S. Williamson and Lieutenant John Parke.  The resulting surveys were published by the U.S. War  Department starting in 1855.  Their publication allowed persons interested in the future of  railroads as an investment, or business opportunity, to use these studies to create partnerships  and syndicates to undertake such projects.      In 1859, Peter Donahue, Charles Polhemus, and Timothy G. Phelps helped form the San  Francisco & San José Railroad.  Two other companies were created to hold the real estate  assets along the path of the railroad, the Bay View Turnpike Company and the South San  Francisco Homestead and Railroad Association (SSFHRA).16  The California Legislature and the  citizens of three counties voted in favor of issuing bonds in order that the railroad could begin  construction.  Anticipating growth along the tracks, company director Charles Polhemus bought  land in the San Mateo area and laid out the original plan that is downtown San Mateo today.17    The company broke ground for the San Francisco & San José Railroad on May 1, 1861.   Construction started at Redwood City, with roadbed crews of the Bay View Turnpike Company  grading the road towards the north and south.  Original plans called for a Bay shore route, but  due to the substantial effort to cross, or go through, the San Bruno Mountains, the railroad  company chose to build the tracks following the path of the San José‐San Francisco Road and  the old mission trail.     In 1863, a lawsuit was filed in the County of San Mateo to “obtain a decree for the partition of  the Buri Buri or Sanchez Rancho……bounded and described as follows: east by the Bay of San  Francisco, north by the Visitacion and De Haro Ranches, west by the San Pedro Rancho, and  south by the San Mateo Rancho, and containing about fifteen thousand acres of land.”18  There  were over 130 persons listed in the newspaper posting, among them: Charles Lux, Henry Miller,    15 Stover, John F. The Routledge Historical Atlas of the American Railroads. Routledge; New York; 1999. Page13. 16 Daily Alta California. “Legal Notices”; September 12, 1863; Daily Alta California, June 17, 1864. 17 Postel, page 112. 18 San Francisco Bulletin. “Legal Notices”; April 8, 1864.   10    D. Ogden Mills, members of the Sanchez Family, members of the Vallencia Family, Torrivio  Tanforan, and the Spring Valley Water Company.      The suit was filed to settle into law the legal owners of land within the Buri Buri Rancho  boundary and the size of each individual claim.  This action was taken in advance of the State  Assembly allowing the SSFHRA, the San Francisco & San José Railroad, and/or the Southern  Pacific Railroad to claim any abandoned or "certain overflowed" lands in the Buri Buri Rancho.19  The State Assembly subsequently approved an act in 1864 to authorize "certain overflowed  lands" to be conveyed to the SSFHRA.20  The new railroad began service with a daily run in  1863, and the full length of the line was completed in 1864.    In the meantime, Congress had passed the Pacific Railway Act in 1862, thereby committing  federal support (funding) of the future railroad and telegraph lines built west of the Missouri  River, near Omaha, Nebraska.  With the federal government now underwriting the costs of  building a railroad system in the western states, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company (SPRR)  purchased San Francisco & San José Railroad Company when its rail system was completed in  1864.  The new SPRR line would cut the time of travel from San Francisco to San José by horse  or carriage, from 12 hours to less than three hours.     Figure 2: Map of San Francisco & San José Railroad, 1862. (Source: Daggett, Stuart. Chapters on  the History of the Southern Pacific.  New York; The Ronald Press Company, 1922. Page 121)          19 Ibid. 20 Sacramento Daily Union, March 16, 1864.   11    In the mid 1850s the area of Baden (located southeast of the present‐day intersection of El  Camino Real [State Route 82] and Chestnut Avenue in South San Francisco) became known for  its livestock with both beef and dairy cattle.  James Johnston came to the U.S. from Scotland in  1833 and settled with his family in Pennsylvania.21  After a number of adventures, James moved  to San Francisco County with his brother Thomas in 1849.22  James decided to settle along the  coast south of the City of San Francisco in 1852 and establish a dairy farm to provide products  to the City of San Francisco and its surrounding areas.  While beef cattle had been brought into  California from Texas, James and his brothers were the first to herd 800 head of dairy cattle  across the upper plains and mountains into San Francisco County in 1853.23     Charles Lux, a wholesale butcher in San Francisco, purchased approximately 1,925 acres of the  Buri Buri Rancho in 1856.24  Charles Lux had been born in Alsace, France, in 1823 and had  immigrated to New York City when he was a boy.  He started working in the meat industry as a  delivery boy for a butcher in the Fulton Street Markets of New York City and continued to learn  the trade. Lux headed west to San Francisco in the early 1850s and opened a shop in  Butchertown. Based upon his early success, he was able to purchase the land of the Buri Buri  Rancho near where the Sanchez’s had a hacienda.  He created a country estate for himself and  his wife that he named “Baden” after the German town very near the border of Alsace, France.    “Charles Lux’s rancho, on the San Mateo Road, was located 12 miles from town [San Francisco],  and was known at the “12‐Mile Stop” on the historic road.25     Another wholesale butcher in San Francisco was Henry Miller.  Miller had been born in  Brackenheim, Germany, and arrived in San Francisco County in September 1850.  He worked as  a journeyman butcher.  After a fire in June 1854 destroyed most of the wholesale butchering  establishments, he went into business for himself on Jackson Street, between DuPont and  Stockton.  In a few years, he was the leading wholesale butcher in the State.26  Because of the  small number of butchers in San Francisco and of their shared European heritage, Miller and  Charles Lux may have started a friendship in the early 1850s.  Henry Miller married Nancy  Wilmont Sheldon, the sister of Charles Lux’s wife, in 1856.27      Miller formed a business partnership with Charles Lux in 1858, and they purchased their first  herd of cattle that same year.28  The herd consisted of 1,600 head of large Texas steers for  which they paid $67.50 a head.29  Miller purchased 48.9 acres of land for the Miller & Lux  Company, and for himself, near Lux’s Baden estate in the Buri Buri Rancho.30/31  During the    21 Ibid, page 22. 22 Ibid, page 22. 23 Ibid, page 22. 24 A Survey Map Made for P. E. Iler of lands purchased in the Buri Buri Rancho and Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 Township 3 South, Range 5 West; Located in San Mateo County, California; 1890. 25 Sacramento Daily Union. “No title”; November 30, 1858. 26 San Francisco Chronicle. “Henry Miller”; October 17, 1916. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 ”Ranch Buri Buri” [1860]. United States District Court (California: Northern District). Property of Bancroft   12    drought of 1861‐1862, the firm of Miller & Lux lost two‐thirds of its herds spread across  California due to a lack of water.  Lux was ready to shut down operations, but Miller knew they  could recover and prosper if they purchased large parcels of grazing land that had access to  water.      In 1870, the California Board of Equalization re‐assessed the value of major landholdings in the  “First Township” of San Mateo County.  "First Township" is the most northern part of the  county but does not cover all of the Buri Buri Rancho, which extended down to Burlingame.   The posting of the notice in the Sacramento Daily Union of re‐assessment provided information  as to who held large parcels of the Buri Buri Rancho.32  The notice in the newspaper provided  the following information for the assessment of the property owners but did not provide the  acreage and value for every property owner:     Visitacion Land Company, 4,313 acres, $130,440  Spring Valley Water Co., 490 acres  Burr & Natha[m], 812 acres (Buri Buri) $28, 55533  Cabannus & Dupuy, (Buri Buri) $38,070  City Extension Homestead Association, 175 acres $17,500  Charles Lux, 1663 acres and buildings (Buri Buri) $66,520  Lux & Miller Cattle Company, 48 acres $1,920  F. Pierce, (Buri Buri) 160 acres $9,600  Heirs of Francisco Sanchez (Buri Buri) 8920 acres $114,630    The townsite known as Baden, or Baden Station, in San Mateo County, continued to be sparsely  populated and maintain its rural identity into the late 1880s.      San Francisco 1856‐1887  Meanwhile, just seven miles to the north, the SSFHRA, one of the companies closely associated  with the San Francisco‐San José Railroad Company), had completed a survey in 1849 of the area  that would be known as “South San Francisco” within the City of San Francisco’s boundary.   “The site is located on the Bay of San Francisco, two miles southerly of the city of San Francisco,  and in plain sight of the shipping in the harbor”.34   In 1851, a small article in the Daily Alta  California noted that from the top of the newspaper's new building, "you can see the hills of  Contra Costa, [and] the straggling houses of South San Francisco."35   Generally speaking, the  area within the City of San Francisco that was south of Market Street was known as "South San    Library, University of California Berkeley, accessed at Online Archive of California, September 2021. 31 A Survey Map Made for P. E. Iler of lands purchased in the Buri Buri Rancho and Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 Township 3 South, Range 5 West. Located in San Mateo County, California; 1890. 32 Sacramento Daily Union. “The State Defrauded – Reduction of county Assessments”; December 3, 1870. 33 Ephraim W. Burr was a “capitalist (speculator/investor)” and Edward F. Northam was a real estate professional. Both men worked and lived in San Francisco. San Francisco City Directories; 1867. 34 Weekly Alta California. “Real Estate”; August 30, 1849. 35 Daily Alta California. “A Fine View”; August 19, 1851.   13    Francisco," and "South San Francisco" included the neighborhoods of Butchertown and  Potrero.36    It would be several more years before SSFHRA would complete the process to be a recognized  corporation in the State of California.  SSFHRA eventually filed for incorporation with the  Secretary of State on November 12, 1862, and stated that the goal of SSFHRA was to "purchase  certain lands in South San Francisco [City of San Francisco] for homestead purposes making  them accessible by railroad and improving them.”37  Within just a year, SSFHRA was  “contemplating constructing a railroad from the end of the Market Street road, down to  Hunter’s Point.”38  Unlike the San Francisco‐San José Railroad, this railroad would be an inter‐ urban service provider.  “It is considered as a settled thing that the construction of a horse  railroad to South San Francisco will be commenced next year.”39     The first pile of a bridge to connect the southern areas of San Francisco, with Rincon Point and  the Potrero, was driven by the Mission Bay Bridge Company in 1865.40   “The bridge will be one‐ mile in length and thirty feet in width, with a draw bridge over the channel of Mission Creek  twenty‐five feet [deep] in the span.”41  The Mission Bay Bridge Company also had the right to  construct a bridge across Islais Bay to the land owned by SSFHRA.42  Even with a bridge being  constructed to cross Mission Creek, it was still necessary to hire a small sailboat if one wished  to go to Hunter’s Point or other points south of the City along the Bay.43      In 1865, the primary SSFHRA lands to be developed were located in a narrow strip along San  Francisco Bay, south of the Potrero.44  The land was to be used for both residential housing and  to attract factories and businesses to the area. The SSFHRA lands in the Potrero and South San  Francisco were designed so that factories and heavy industries would co‐exist with residential  neighborhoods where laborers could reside.45  SSFHRA owned 500 lots that measured 75 feet  by 100 feet, and they would divide the lots among the Association’s shareholders in June of  1865.46  Besides the lots owned by SSFHRA, 700 lots in the area of Potrero, across the street  from the Associations’ lots, measuring 25 feet by 100 feet, would be sold by J.J. Haley.47      One industry that the City of San Francisco wanted to move as far away from the city center as  possible was the wholesale meat vendors and butchers, situated in a neighborhood known as    36 The appellation of an area of the City of San Francisco being labeled as “South San Francisco” is to make future researchers aware that South San Francisco in San Mateo County didn’t become an official geographical place until 1908. 37 Daily Alta California. “Court Proceedings”; November 14, 1862. 38 Daily Alta California. “Homestead Meeting”; November 3, 1863. 39 Daily Alta California. “South San Francisco Horse Railroad”; May 31, 1865. 40 Daily Alta California. "Mission Bay Bridge," February 7; 1865. 41 Ibid. 42 Daily Alta California. “Mission Bay Bridge”; February 7; 1865. 43 Daily Alta California. “Communication with South San Francisco”; June 5, 1865 44 Daily Alta California. “City Items”; May 31, 1865. 45 Daily Alta California. “Location of the Factories”; June 8, 1865. 46 Daily Alta California. “South San Francisco Homesteads”; May 31, 1865. 47 Daily Alta California. “Haley’s Sale”; May 31, 1865.   14    "Butchertown."  The meat that made it onto the tables in the City had to be herded on foot or  brought in by wagonload to the abattoir, where they would be slaughtered.  The carcasses  would be dressed by the butchers and prepared for retail sale or to be packed in metal  containers.  All parts of the animal that were not used for consumption were sent to nearby  facilities for rendering or treated for some future use.  The parts of the animals that could not  be used were dumped into the Bay along with any fecal matter and bio‐waste.48     In 1870, the wholesale meatpacking industry was scheduled to be moved from the site of old  Butchertown "to the new location in South San Francisco," with the relocation effort estimated  to take two months.49  Once Butchertown was established on the land owned by the SSFHRA,  those butchers (such as Miller & Lux, Sedgely, and Dunphy) who had been investors in SSFHRA  placed themselves as the nominal leaders of the "community," and set rules on the number of  butchers and related buildings allowed within the slaughterhouse district.50 The original  members of the new Butchertown felt that they had the greatest financial investment in the  community, from the cost of the land to the expense of building pilings, piers, and structures on  what had been marshland.51    By 1877, this group of well‐known “senior” butchers was deciding what work their fellow  butchers could pursue and where they could set up shop.  This was not well accepted by  newcomers to the San Francisco meat industry.  The so‐called “butchers ring” had also taken a  firm stand against any meat coming from wholesalers outside of their select circle of vendors.  “The occasion of such a disposition was the introduction of beef carcasses from Nevada.  The  ring gave notice to the retailers [butcher shops/meat markets] that anyone who purchased this  outside meat should have no more from them but that they should be put upon the black list  for six months.”52  The retailers were forced to obey the butchers ring, as the wholesale  butchers had a financial hold over the retailers from allowing them to purchase meat on credit.   The majority of meat and poultry retailers in the City of San Francisco were in debt to the  wholesalers and didn't dare buy their meat elsewhere.53          48 Upton Sinclair would publish his book The Jungle in 1906. Sinclair wrote the exposé to make Americans aware of the horrendous working conditions present in the meatpacking and processing industry of the late nineteenth century. 49 Marysville Daily Appeal; April 14, 1870. 50 Daily Alta California. “Butchertown”; April 15, 1877. 51 Ibid. 52 Pacific Rural Press. “Back-Sets and Gambrels”; November 3, 1877. 53 Ibid.   15    Figure 3: Butchertown, 1887. (Source: San Francisco Chronicle. “Beyond the Bridge: A Busy  Section of San Francisco”; January 1, 1887.)         Charles Lux died in March of 1887 at his home at the corner of Jackson and Gough Streets in  San Francisco.  Although the cause of death was noted as typhoid pneumonia, it was thought  that his "large size," and the effects of a fall that occurred when he fell from a wagon at his  private estate at Baden the year before, had exacerbated his ill health. At the time of Lux's  death, Miller & Lux owned over 700,000 acres of good grazing land spread over California,  Oregon, and Nevada.  They owned approximately 80,000 head of cattle, and the company was  estimated to be worth over $10,000,000.  To keep a handle on their operations, Miller & Lux  had over 700 miles of private telegraph lines to connect their ranches. Lux’s survivors included  his wife, a brother in San Jose, and a brother and sister still in Germany.54      Lux’s will was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 21, 1887, the day it was to be  filed for probate.55 His will stated that at the time of his death, the real estate in San Mateo  County (Baden) and the house in San Francisco would be passed directly to his widow, and she  could dispose of it as she saw fit.56  In regards to the partnership of Miller & Lux, Henry Miller  would continue to have complete control of the company, in its entirety, for the rest of his  life.57  Since Charles Lux had come to trust Miller’s management of the company, especially in  times of turmoil, Lux had made a prudent decision for the future of the firm.  Unfortunately,  Lux’s heirs felt differently and would hound Miller until he died in 1916, with lawsuits trying to    54 San Francisco Chronicle. "Death of Charles Lux"; March 15, 1887. 55 San Francisco Chronicle. “Will of Charles Lux”; March 21, 1887. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid.   16    get control of Lux's share of the company.58  At the time Lux died, Miller & Lux would be valued  at $40,000,000.59      South San Francisco, San Mateo County 1887 to 1906  In February of 1888, news came to San Francisco that John P. Jones, the U.S. Senator from  California, had secured a controlling interest in the new pork‐packing establishment to be  created in Oakland at Point Pinole.  The associated big news was that Philip Armour, of Armour  Packing Company, was to build a major meatpacking house in Oakland at the foot of B Street.60   It was said that the project would commence once Armour’s architect arrived from Chicago.61   Armour had previously built a pork‐packing plant in San Francisco, situated on Clay Street.62    The San Francisco Chronicle announced in May 1890 that the pork‐packing facility backed by  Senator Jones at Point Pinole was, in reality, just one of several stockyards and packinghouses  to be established in Omaha, Ogden, and other cities by a syndicate of "Sioux City capitalists.”63   At the same time, it was announced that Philip Armour had decided to build a large pork‐ packing establishment on the San Francisco side of the Bay that would rival his famous facility  at the Union Stock Yards in Chicago.64  The San Francisco Chronicle reported that:      The Armour establishment….will cause the annihilation of Butchertown.  The Miller  & Lux company and one or two others of the leading firms doing business in South  San Francisco [Butchertown] have become stockholders in the Armour Company,  and the others remaining in Butchertown will probably be compelled to go out of  business being unable to compete with the big establishment.  It is an open secret  among local financiers that the Southern Pacific Company is indirectly interested in  the Armour enterprise. The railroad has made repeated attempts to secure the  waterfront property known as Butchertown, but without success.  The establishment  of the Armour plant at Hunter’s Point, which will wipe out Butchertown as the  packing and butchering center out of existence, will make it an easy matter for the  Southern Pacific Company [SPRR] to secure the much coveted property.  It was with  this object in view that the railroad, it is said, readily consented to join the Armour  people in their mammoth enterprise. 65      After teasing the financiers of San Francisco with the decision to build a large meatpacking  plant on the San Francisco coast of the Bay, it was reported on May 25, 1890, that appointed  agents of Philip Armour, Peter E. Iler of Omaha and Obed How of Chicago, had arrived in San    58 In 1896, the heirs of Charles Lux sued his widow over the amount of monthly stipend the court had determined was commensurate with Lux's will, and the income from Miller & Lux. The heirs had filed this suit even though Miranda Lux had died in 1894.  San Francisco Chronicle.  “Lux Estate Litigation”; August 20, 1896. 59 “Will of Charles Lux”. 60 San Francisco Chronicle. “No Title”; February 3, 1888. 61 Ibid. 62 San Francisco Chronicle. “Confiscation of Hams”; February 9, 1890. 63 San Francisco Chronicle. “Rival Stock Yard”; May 24, 1890. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid.   17    Francisco.66  Although Philip Armour and the Armour Packing Company were named as the  project holders, in reality, the project was under the control of the Union Stock Yards syndicate.   The newspaper stated that….     ….the company has already purchased 2000 acres of land for their abattoirs, cold‐ storage warehouses, and packing and canning works, and has also purchased a  large tract of land from the Lux estate at Baden on the east branch of the Southern  Pacific Railway [SPRR].  Here a thriving town will take the place of the humble  railroad station now known as Baden.  Hundreds of houses for the workmen to be  employed at the stock yards will be built as soon as possible, and these together  with the immense buildings and warehouses of the company, will give employment  to several thousand men. All the necessary arrangements with the Southern Pacific  Company [SPRR] have already been made, and extensive side tracks and railway  buildings will be erected at Baden station.67    Figure 4: A Survey Map Made for P. E. Iler of lands purchased in the Buri Buri Rancho and San  Mateo County, California; 1890.68 This map notes the owners, and size of the parcels that  created the foundation land holdings of the SSFLIC in 1890.      66 San Francisco Chronicle. “The Stock Yards”; May 25, 1890. 67 Ibid. 68 Buri Buri Rancho and Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 Township 3 South, Range 5 West, San Mateo County, 1890. Source: San Mateo County Maps Volume 2, Page 33.   18    Surveyors for SPRR began working in late May to build a dedicated track from San Bruno to  Sierra Point for the new Armour Packing Company’s site in Baden.  “The Armour syndicate has  purchased all the lands between the Lux ranch and San Bruno, on the bayside, and will proceed  immediately with work on the buildings.”69    In August, Peter Iler, the local manager of the syndicate's project, stated that they proposed to  have a short line of railroad built from its site in Baden into San Francisco, and SPRR had agreed  to begin the construction at an early date.  “Such a line would be of very great importance to  the syndicate, as it would lessen by several miles the distance between the city and its  proposed new town, which it expects to make a residence as well as a business suburb.”70  Iler  also noted that the syndicate had recently bought an additional 200 acres of land, bringing their  total holdings in Baden to 3,500 acres, and that “architects and draughtsmen in Chicago are  now completing plans and specifications for the packinghouses, exchange building and yards.”71   The only structures being constructed at this time were the carpentry and blacksmith shops,  and a boarding house for 300 men.72    Across the Bay at Point Pinole, a similar project was underway for the construction of a large‐ scale meatpacking operation.  Both projects were underwritten by the Union Stock Yard  syndicate, and those independent operators who wished to be tenants of either packing plant  were instructed in June of 1890 that…    …should parties now engage in slaughtering at Butchertown or Oakland desire  ground at the stockyards on which to build and operate slaughtering houses, the  stockyard company will donate to such firms building sites.  It will be necessary for  such parties to contract with the stockyard company first to purchase all stock which  they slaughter out of the stockyards….The stockyard company will provide a line of  refrigerator cars for the use of packers and slaughterers located at the yards to  enable them to ship their product to the leading markets on the Pacific coast.73    With this announcement, the Union Stock Yards had publically advised Butchertown that they  now held the monopoly on all meat processed for sale in San Francisco and Oakland.         69 San Francisco Chronicle. “The Armour Packing Company”; May 31, 1890. 70 San Francisco Chronicle. “The Shore Railroad”; August 17, 1890. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 San Francisco Chronicle. “Union Stock Yard Company”; June 25, 1890.   19    Figure 5: Political cartoon of the Meat Trusts [Monopoly] in the United States. Note that  “Baden” is attached to one of the tentacles (Source: The Bancroft Library, University of  California – Berkeley, CA).          The South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (SSFLIC), or Baden Company as it was  also referred to by the San Francisco Chronicle, was incorporated in February 1891.74  The new  company was the real estate arm of the Union Stock Yard syndicate in Baden, and the company  stated they held approximately 4,000 acres around Baden.  The land is intended to “establish  stockyards and abattoirs, to erect livery and sale stables for the sale of horses, and to build a  hotel for the accommodation of stockmen and others who may go to Baden on business or  pleasure.”75  The actual purpose of the corporation was to purchase, acquire and deal in lands  and all kinds of dwelling houses, stores, hotels and other buildings; to construct canals, ships  and docks for the proper carrying on of its manufacturing interests; to carry on a general  storehouse and merchandise business; to loan money; to supply fresh water to people for  various purposes; to deal in canals, aqueducts, water rights, other water conveyance features;  and to carry on a lighting business.76         74 San Francisco Chronicle. “The Baden Company”; February 18, 1891. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid.   20    Figure 6:  Advertisement for South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company (Source: San  Francisco Chronicle, January 8, 1892).        In other words, the SSFLIC was creating a company town where it would control every aspect of  a resident’s life, such as that built by George Pullman in 1898 for his Pullman Railroad Car  Company in Chicago.  A worker at the packinghouse would be encouraged to buy a lot for  building a house or purchase a house already constructed.  The SSFLIC would control their  mortgage, water, sewage, street services, and utilities.  The SSFLIC was in the position of  making sure the worker did his job, "toed the line," and never considered being part of any  worker's collective for better conditions or increased pay.  If a worker lost his job due to  behavior not acceptable to the SSFLIC, the SSFLIC was in a position to make life for him and his  family extremely difficult.  It's also interesting to note that in the articles of incorporation,  SSFLIC does not agree to build, or make land available for schools, parks, community halls, or  churches.  The firm of Merriman‐Cammet Company was the primary agent handling the sales of  SSFLIC residential and commercial properties.77      The articles of incorporation for Western Meat Company were filed on March 16, 1894.78  The  SSFLIC had created Western Meat Company from a roster of its own stockholders, and the new  company would be responsible for the refrigeration, packing, and canning of meat at Baden.79   Stockholders of Western Meat Company included Henry Miller, H.S. Crocker, Philip Armour,    77 San Francisco Chronicle. “Advertisement for Merriman-Cammet Co.”; April 23, 1892. 78 San Francisco Chronicle. “Armour’s Business”; March 16, 1894. 79 Ibid.   21    Cudahy, Louis Swift, Philip Lilienthal, and Iler.  The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the  Western Meat Company packing house would soon be running at full capacity and that "if  necessary a meat war would be started" against local, independent competitors.80    While the facilities and infrastructure associated with construction of the slaughterhouse and  meatpacking operations were underway east of San Bruno Avenue, a new town was laid out  just to the northeast of Baden/Baden Station.  San Bruno Avenue was the main north‐south  road dividing the residential and mercantile area from the industrial part of the land controlled  by SSFLIC.  Grand Avenue was designed to be the location of the business district supporting  the residential part of the town.       In 1895, SPRR had finished the spur line they promised the Union Stock Yard syndicate in Baden  as an inducement to build its large packing plant.  The San Francisco and San Mateo Railroad  Company built a streetcar system southward from Market and Stuart Streets in San Francisco,  and by 1893 the streetcars were picking up riders from Baden Station.81  By 1899, the W.P.  Fuller Oil and Lead Company (also known as the Fuller Paint Company) had moved from San  Francisco to Oyster Point and built a large paint and solvents factory, with dock access to San  Francisco Bay.  Fuller Paint would become one of the largest paint and solvent manufactures  and distributors on the West Coast using their docks to ship products all along the Pacific  coastline.    The Baden Brick Company was established nearby in the industrial section of Baden, and  employed nearly 450 men in 1899.82  South San Francisco Lumber Company was established in  1898 to meet the building needs for construction of the bustling city.  Although not strictly  within the new community of South San Francisco, the Tanforan Race Track opened in  November of 1899, and that would have brought men and women to the area for sports  entertainment besides all the trainers, grooms, jockeys, and blacksmiths associated with a  horse racing facility.83    Steiger Pottery Works, originally located in San José, suffered a catastrophic fire at its factory in  San José in 1894.  Known for the design and production of exceptionally fine architectural terra  cotta and for the production of terra cotta pipe and shingles, Steiger Pottery Work’s owner,  Adam Steiger, never recovered from the disaster, and the company was dissolved from  bankruptcy in 1896.  The new company of Steiger Terra Cotta Pottery was organized in 1903  and built a new factory in South San Francisco.  When the new factory opened, they had 103  men on the payroll.84          Small independent shops and cafes started to spring up along Grand Avenue, and “The  Enterprise” newspaper began circulation in 1895 to replace the “South San Francisco News”    80 Ibid. 81 Postel, page 123. 82 San Francisco Chronicle. “No Title”; December 31, 1899. 83 San Francisco Chronicle. “Racing Begins on the New Track at Tanforan Park”; November 5, 1899. 84 San Francisco Chronicle. “No Title”, July 26, 1903.   22    that had only run from March 1892 to September 1893.  Grace Episcopal Church had built a  church at Grand and Spruce Avenues in 1896, and All Souls Catholic Church established a house  of worship at Linden and California Avenues in 1902.  Saint Paul’s Methodist Church would be  constructed in 1906 at the corner of Grand and Maple Avenues, and South San Francisco  General Hospital was constructed on the opposite corner of Grand and Maple Avenues in 1905.       The Bank of South San Francisco was established in 1905 by some of the same partners of  SSFLIC including Lewis Swift and Edward Swift of the Swift Meat Packing Company, and  descendents of Gustav F. Swift.85  The SSFLIC, through its own Bank of South San Francisco,  would have had the power to approve or deny loans or mortgages requested by home or  business owners.  Besides the power of SSFLIC through the Bank of South San Francisco, the  SSFLIC would have had control over the number, type, and offerings of the commercial  enterprises along Grand Avenue (including the number of retail butcher shops) to be built since  they owned all the land along Grand Avenue.    Figure 7: Bank of South San Francisco, circa 1905 (Source: South San Francisco Public Library;  Bits of History).                        85 San Francisco Chronicle. Advertisement for The Bank of South San Francisco, January 16, 1918.   23    South San Francisco 1906 to 1910  The earthquake in San Francisco on April 18, 1906, would prove to be a blessing and a curse for  the SSFLIC and the new community known as "South City" or South San Francisco.  The stores,  factories, and packinghouses of South San Francisco would benefit greatly from supplying what  was needed in the disaster‐stricken City, and the residents of San Francisco sought safer  communities where they could build new homes.  To take advantage of the opportunity to sell  hundreds of vacant SSFLIC building lots and make a return on their investment, SSFLIC had to  sell to persons not employed or directly associated with the industries located in South San  Francisco.    Figure 8: Advertisement for Western Meat Company one month after the San Francisco  Earthquake (Source: San Francisco Chronicle, May 2, 1906).        In March of 1906, just prior to the San Francisco earthquake,  the Amalgamated Smelting and  Refining Company (ASRC), owned by the Guggenheim Family of New York, announced that it  was planning on building a massive copper smelting and refining plant at Point San Bruno, in  San Mateo County.  The ASRC already owned the Selby Smelter Company, a copper smelting  refinery on the Contra Costa shore of the Carquinez Straights, and their plan was to process  more than 150,000 tons of ore a month between the two refineries.86           86 Ibid.   24    The Guggenheims had been actively pursued by the SSFLIC to build their new smelter in South  San Francisco: “the purchase for the smelter consisted of 200 acres which was obtained on  exceedingly advantageous terms, as the South San Francisco Land Company had a lot of land  suitable for manufacturing purposes and was anxious to have the Guggenheims locate there.”87   The Guggenheims stated for the San Francisco Chronicle that as the business grew in the future,  it would be necessary to purchase more land in South San Francisco.     By June of 1906, ASRC had issued over $500,000 worth of contracts to workmen and vendors  for grading the land and constructing buildings, wharves, and docks.88  Two thousand tons of  steel rails were on‐site, ready to be put in place for the construction of a ten‐mile series of  tracks for the plant and associated spur lines.89      While ASRC was breaking ground for the new plant in South San Francisco in June of 1906, the  State of California was preparing a case against the Selby Smelter Company’s factory in Contra  Costa County “on account of the fumes crossing the straits proving dangerous and unhealthful”  to the residents of Vallejo, in Solano County.90  Smelters produce sulfur dioxide gas,  wastewater, and slag, and release such toxic metals as copper, silver, iron, cobalt, and selenium  into the atmosphere.    The Superior Court of Solano County handed down their decision in August of 1907 and  determined that the fumes of the Selby Smelter were indeed causing irreparable harm to the  residents, farms, and orchards surrounding the facility.  The court ordered that the Shelby  Smelter be permanently shut down.91         Meanwhile, ASRC was making the claim that the prevailing winds from the west would blow  fumes from the tall smokestacks of their new plant in South San Francisco directly across San  Francisco Bay towards San Leandro "and would not be injurious to health or vegetation."92    Almost coincidentally, a number of well‐funded and organized groups raised opposition to the  construction of the smelter to be built by ASRC in South San Francisco.  As South San Francisco  was unincorporated, the proposed project needed to be approved by the Board of Supervisors  of San Mateo County before the smelter and refinery could be constructed.  The Board of  Supervisors was petitioned by the San Francisco Real Estate Board, the Board of San Mateo  County Park Commissioners, the residents of Burlingame, and the Home Protection Company of  Burlingame, to oppose the construction of the smelter, based upon the documented dangers of  a smelters by‐products.93/94    87 San Francisco Chronicle. “Smelter will be Finest in the World”; March 18, 1906. 88 San Francisco Chronicle. “Guggenheim Smelter is to Locate at San Bruno Point”; June 24, 1906. 89 Ibid. 90 San Francisco Chronicle. “Learned Men Argue About Smelter Fumes”; August 9, 1906. 91 San Francisco Chronicle. “Renew War on Smelter Fumes”; August 5, 1907. 92 San Francisco Chronicle. “The Five Million Dollar Smelter”; August 12, 1906. 93 San Francisco Chronicle. “Oppose the Smelter”; July 31, 1907. 94 San Francisco Chronicle. “Work Stopped on Smelter Plant”; September 22, 1907.   25    By September of 1907, ASRC had invested over $1 million into laying the groundwork for the  new smelter and refining plant.  Hills had been leveled, marshes had been dredged, wharves  and docks had been built, railroad lines had been laid, and a 20,000 square‐foot general  machine shop had been constructed and outfitted with equipment.  A number of small cottages  had been built as well to house workers at the plant.95  Daniel Guggenheim personally visited  the new plant site in September and stated that ASRC would walk away from the project if the  residents of San Mateo County, and those living around San Francisco Bay, continued to oppose  the project.”96    Figure 9: Map of South San Francisco Land & Improvement Company map of holdings, compiled  and drawn by Punnett Bros; lithographed by Britton & Rey, 1907 (Source: David Rumsey Map  Collection, Stanford University).          95 Ibid. 96 Ibid.   26    San Mateo County stated its opposition to the project in January of 1908 when the Board of  Supervisors passed an ordinance prohibiting the Guggenheims from erecting their proposed  smelter within the county.97  Not to be deterred from having a project they strongly supported  from going forward, the SSFLIC petitioned the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to  review their decision and to consider the $750,000 investment that ARSC had already made in  South San Francisco.  In addition, a representative of SSFLIC went so far as to threaten that  South San Francisco would secede from San Mateo County and accept an invitation made by  San Francisco County to come into their sphere of influence, if the smelter project was not  allowed to go forward.98  Even with the threat by SSFLIC, the Board of Supervisors stood by its  passage of the ordinance against smelters in San Mateo County at its meeting on January 21,  1908.99    The SSFLIC then came up with the plan to have the unincorporated community of South San  Francisco incorporated as a city in San Mateo County.  By incorporating South San Francisco,  the future City of South San Francisco could make sure that the land where ASRC wished to  build their massive smelter was within the city’s boundary, and the operation of the smelter  and its fumes were operated under the auspices of the City of South San Francisco, not the  restrictive ordinance adopted by San Mateo County.      The lawyer for San Mateo County was reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, August 1, 1908,  as saying…    We do not resist the incorporation of that settlement, but we do resist the use of  incorporation as a mere subterfuge to rid the smelter of the operation and effect of  the ordinance which the people of the county have enacted for the safety of their  lives and properties.100      The lawyer continued by pointing out that if South San Francisco were to vote to incorporate,  the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors was required to give or withhold approval for the  action, and that the Board of Supervisors was unlikely to approve any action that would allow  the smelter to operate outside of the restrictions of the County ordinance.101    A special election was held on September 3, 1908, to decide whether to incorporate the  community of South San Francisco and to choose the first slate of city officials.  The proposition  put before the voters of South San Francisco was if they would incorporate without the  possibility of the ASRC smelter being constructed within the city limits.  Of a population of 2,000  residents, with only men being allowed to vote, the tally was 218 for incorporation and 38  against.102  The infusion of residents from San Francisco after the earthquake concerned more    97 San Francisco Chronicle. “Protest Strong Against Smelter”; January 9, 1908. 98 San Francisco Chronicle. “Feeling Shown at Smelter Hearing”; January 21, 1908. 99 Ibid. 100 San Francisco Chronicle. “Incorporate to Assist Smelter”; August 1, 1908. 101 Ibid. 102 San Francisco Chronicle. “New City Will Be Incorporated”; September 4, 1908.   27    with the quality of life for their families may have helped push the vote away from the  construction of the smelter. As the new City of South San Francisco would be opposed to the  smelter, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors was prepared to certify the results and  send the application to the Secretary of State.103    Figure 10: Advertisement from the San Francisco Chronicle for South San Francisco Land and  Improvement Company “Factory Sites”.  San Francisco Chronicle, May 2, 1906.        The other boon to the community was the completion of the Bay Shore Cut‐Off of the SPRR line  from the City of San Francisco to the City of San José in December of 1907.104  “Four miles and  seventeen minutes will be eliminated, and grades climbing nearly 300 feet will be wiped out by  this remarkable piece of railroad engineering.”105  The Cut‐Off opened up the potential for the  residents of communities in San Mateo County to commute to their jobs in San Francisco by a  short train ride and made owning a home in South San Francisco a possibility for blue‐collar and  lower‐management workers.    When the marshes from South San Francisco to Dumbarton point are filled with  manufacturing plants and yards, and docks and piers supplement the transportation  facilities offered by the railroad, the rising ground west of the rails will be filled with  homes, the dwellings of the thousands of workmen who will earn their bread in this  spreading city of factories. 106      103 Ibid. 104 San Francisco Chronicle. “Bay Shore Cut-Off Reduces Distance and Time”; December 7, 1907. 105 Ibid. 106 Ibid.   28    South San Francisco 1910 to 1945  The Sanborn Fire Insurance Company (Sanborn) was established in 1867 to create detailed  maps of the built‐environment in urban settlements for the purpose of informing insurance  agents of the degree of fire hazard associated with a particular property.107  For example: a  wood‐frame building located next to a livery stable in 1880, would have a much higher risk of  being destroyed if the livery stable were to catch fire; whereas a building with solid brick walls  would have a lower risk of being burned to the ground.  The maps would note the owner or use  of a building in the city if the information had been provided by local subscribers.108        The Sanborn maps published in 1910 for the City of South San Francisco (and the community of  Baden) provide a detailed record of the residential, commercial and industrial growth of the  City since it had been established in the 1890s.  The City had been planned with the main  commercial district lining both sides of Grand Avenue from where it ran west from Cypress  Avenue towards Maple Avenue, and the industrial enterprises were located east of San Bruno  Boulevard (State Route 101 [SR101]) towards San Francisco Bay.  Residential properties that  included rooming houses, boarding houses, hotels, and single‐family residential properties  were primarily located west of San Bruno Road, north and south of Grand Avenue.     Figure 11:  Excerpt from the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of South San Francisco, 1910.  The  location and facilities of the Western Meat Company are shown to the east of San Bruno Road,  on San Francisco Bay.        107 “Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps; History and Use”. Accessed April 2, 2022: https://maps.uflib.ufl.edu/collections/sanborns/ 108 “Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps”, collection of all California maps at Berkeley Library University of California. Accessed April 3, 2022: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=335862&p=2259377. The Library of Congress also provides access to digital versions of the Sanborn maps online at: https://www.loc.gov/maps/?q=Sanborn&st=gallery   29    The Western Meat Company had built a 2 ½‐story hotel to house the men that built and worked  at the vast complex, but most men working in the City lived in one of the many lodging options  across San Bruno Road.  The higher‐end lodging rooms would have included access to a  communal dining hall, and limited indoor toilet facilities.  The least expensive options would  have provided only rudimentary sleeping arrangements and no indoor toilet or running water.   The “guest” at a boarding house would have procured their meals and refreshment at one of  the local bars or taverns, and barbershops and bathhouses made bathing facilities available for  a small fee.  Among the houses of hospitality noted on the Sanborn map for South San  Francisco in 1910 are the Armour Hotel, Alpine Hotel, Baden Hotel, Bay Shore Road House,  Grand Hotel, Linden House, Union Hotel, and Verandah Hotel.    Figure 12: Grand Avenue looking west from Linden Avenue circa 1910.  Advertisement for  “Pecks Lots” is painted on the side of the Post Office (right hand side of the photograph.   (Source: South San Francisco Library, Bits of History).           The residential houses, scattered along the avenues north and south of Grand Avenue west of  San Bruno Road, were mostly comprised of modest, but stylish, bungalows in the Italianate and  Queen Anne styles of architecture.  Farther south, along Commercial Avenue, west of Magnolia  Avenue, the maps show in that area of the City, small, narrow, 1‐story houses had been  constructed with each of the buildings having an unattached outhouse/latrine.  The residential  building lots of “Pecks Addition” located north of the SSFLIC boundary, and south of the San  Bruno Mountains, became available for sale in April of 1907.109  Protecting the community was  Hose House #1 that in 1910 had a horse drawn hose, hook and ladder truck; Hose House #2    109 San Francisco Chronicle. “Advertisement for Peck & Garrett”; April 27, 1907.   30    outfitted with a hose cart pulled by men to a fire; and Hose House #3 outfitted with portable  fire extinguishers.    Figure 13:  View along Grand Avenue looking west showing the construction of sidewalks and  planting of trees along the street.  (Source: South San Francisco Historical Society)        The first school in the area had been constructed in 1894 in the community of Baden, and its  four classrooms provided education to grade 6.  The Grand Avenue School, part of the San  Bruno School District, was constructed in 1908.  Until 1913, when South San Francisco High  School was opened on Spruce Avenue, high school students would have had to travel to San  Bruno or elsewhere for education at the upper grades.    Two companies appear to have profited by the decision of Guggenheim Copper to leave South  San Francisco in 1908, after Guggenheim had invested millions into the construction of a  factory and docks in the marshes along San Francisco Bay.  Factories and docks for Pacific Coast  Steel and Jupiter Steel Works had been established in South San Francisco in 1908.  Both  companies would – within a few years – be part of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and in  turn, with United States Shipbuilding Company.  Shaw‐Batcher Steel Pipe Company would join  the other steel manufacturing companies on the shore of South San Francisco in 1913.  From  the time of their construction, both Shaw‐Batcher and Bethlehem Steel either built entire boats  and ships, or fabricated parts for these ocean‐going vessels.  A source of local pride was a result  from both companies building, outfitting, and launching ships for the U.S. Government during  World Wars I and II.      31    These major industrial factories would have needed numerous small‐scale businesses to  support their day‐to‐day operations by supplying tool and die machine works, blacksmiths,  electricians, plumbers, and shops that could repair automobiles, trucks, and small engines.  Coffee shops and small restaurants would have been located in the industrial neighborhood to  supplement and provide a diversity of food from what was available from company canteens.   To take care of the workers and residents, Dr. Henry Plymire converted his home at Grand and  Spruce Avenues into a private hospital in 1914, and in 1918 South San Francisco built a more  modern hospital at Spruce and Grand as well.    Figure 14:  Inside the Pacific Coast Steel Company factory circa 1919 (Source: South San  Francisco Public Library; Bits of History).           To the northwest of South San Francisco, the north portion of San Mateo County became Daly  City in 1911.  The town of Lawndale/Colma was incorporated in 1924.  Construction of the El  Camino Highway (SR101) between San Bruno and Burlingame was started in 1912, and the  improvements to the old San Francisco‐San José Road gave suburban residents an alternative to  traveling by rail.110        110 Postel, page 130.   32    With the popularity and availability of automobile ownership, construction began on Skyline  Boulevard in 1922 and on the Bayshore Highway in 1924.  The project to build a modern  highway between San Francisco and San Mateo County would involve the most up‐to‐date  engineering design and construction techniques, and took years to build.111  When the  Bayshore Highway was completed in October of 1929 (shortly after the Stock Market Crash of  1929), the highway was lauded as the major connector between San Francisco, San Mateo, and  Santa Clara Counties that would make the cities of Burlingame and San Mateo “true suburbs of  San Francisco”.112      Figure 15:  Aerial view of South San Francisco in 1921, looking west from San Bruno Road  (Source: South San Francisco Library, Bits of History).        As the Bayshore Highway ran along the path of the old San Bruno Road through the City of  South San Francisco, the industrial and commercial enterprises of South San Francisco would  have directly benefitted from the improvements to the major transportation corridor.   Bayshore Highway would become SR101 in 1937, and the old El Camino Real path of Highway  101 north of San Bruno would be reassigned as a by‐pass route of SR101.         111 San Francisco Chronicle. “Peninsula Travel Speeded to Mills Field and San Mateo County”, October 19, 1929. 112 San Francisco Chronicle. “S.F. Cities Closely Knit”, October 19, 1929. .   33    The City of San Francisco purchased Mills Field, from the Mills Estate in San Mateo County, for  the construction of a modern airport in 1930.113  United Airlines began service to San Francisco‐ Oakland Airport (SFO) in 1932, but the effects of the Great Depression caused the airport and  air travel to suffer up to the entrance of the United States into World War II.  As there was a  Pacific front to the war after the attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. War Department took  control of SFO.  The U.S. Government invested 10 million dollars worth of improvements that  included reclaiming over 100 acres of wetlands.114      Figure 16:  Excerpt from Thomas Guide of South San Francisco, published in 1938 (Source: David  Rumsey Map Collection, Stanford University).        During World War II, Bethlehem Steel and other military contractors had nearly 10,000 workers  at their plants and factories in South San Francisco.  “Some 48 ships were built there, including  four escort aircraft carriers.”115  The U. S. Government constructed “emergency housing” for  Federal wartime defense workers in the area known as Lindenville in 1942.  These homes were  constructed so poorly that they were abandoned in 1957 and later demolished.116       113 Postel, page 133. 114 Ibid. 115 Postel, page 132. 116 San Francisco Chronicle. “Lindenville Ends in a Burst of Profit”, June 2, 1957.   34      The first “modern” tract homes were constructed in South San Francisco in the late 1930s and  early 1940s to house the influx of workers in the factories along San Francisco Bay.  The  townhomes of City Park Addition (Circle Court) were constructed in 1938;  the tract homes of  “Southwood – Land of American Homes” were constructed in 1940;  the tract homes of South  City Village were constructed in 1944; and the tract homes of Mayfair Village Map #1 were also  constructed in 1944.    Figure 17:  Map representing the buildings remaining in South San Francisco from before 1908  to 1975.  The map was created to present how the residential neighborhoods of the City grew  outward for the historic core along Grand Avenue, and that the majority of the industrial area  of the city is relatively “new”, dating from when the old heavy industries (steel factory, paint  factory, meat processor) started to be removed from the area east of San Bruno Road after the  end of World War II.              35    South San Francisco 1945 to 1975  By the end of World War II, the pollution problem in California had become unbearable.  Raw  sewage was still being dumped in San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.  In 1947, the State  Board of Public Health refused to issue permits for the disposal of untreated waste in  California.117  In response, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board was  created, but even then, many businesses in San Mateo County remained some of the worst  polluters in the State.118  The public environmental efforts, such as “Save the Bay” in the 1960s,  finally pushed politicians into creating serious regulations and laws to protect the Bay with the  establishment of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.119  These  efforts and the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act and the California  Environmental Quality Act in 1970 pushed polluters and heavy industry into changing their  practices or moving away from protected waters.    Figure 18:  Aerial view of the area “east” of San Bruno Road in 1946 (Source: NETR Historic  Aerials).        117 Postel, page 65. 118 Postel, page 66. 119 Postel, page 67.   36    Under the pressure to move heavy industry out of South San Francisco, the firm of Cabot, Cabot  and Forbes from Boston, created the plan for a light‐industrial park on the land where  Bethlehem Steel had once had their massive steel furnaces and production facilities.  Light  machinery and warehouses moved into the new industrial park.    In 1946, SFO was providing 6,000 jobs and was the largest employer on the peninsula.120 Many  of the workers at the airport would have been attracted to living in nearby South San Francisco.   After the end of World War II, vacant lands located outside of South San Francisco’s historic  core were quickly developed by large housing projects. Commercial stripmalls were constructed  along Mission Road in the early 1960s with buildings designed in Mid Century Modern and  International style architecture.  By the late 1970s almost all of the lands for residential housing  in the City were developed with single‐family homes, townhomes, and some duplexes.       Figure 19:  View of South San Francisco looking northwest across State Highway 101 in 1970  (Source: South San Francisco Public Library, Bits of History).               120 Ibid.   37    General Bibliography    Ancestry.com. Digital archives of U.S. Census data, City Directories, Voter Registers, Birth  Certificates, Death Certificates, etc.    California Digital Newspaper Collection.  A digital archive of newspapers published in California  dating from 1846:  https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi‐bin/cdnc    Daly, Pamela.  “Historic Resource Evaluation Report for the Roundabout Project at Fifth Street  and Fourth Avenue, Gustine, Merced County, California; Federal Aid Project Number CML‐ 5230(008)”  Prepared for the City of Gustine, 95322. Natural Investigations Company,  Sacramento, CA; April 2019.      David Rumsey Map Collection, Stanford University:   https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/RUMSEY~8~1    GeneologyBank.com. Newspaper archives.    Postel, Mitchell P.  San Mateo County: a sesquicentennial history.  Star Publishing Company,  Inc.; 2007.    San Mateo County Assessor’s Office.  Historic tract maps of the City of South San Francisco.    South San Francisco Public Library.  “Bits of History” Digital photograph collection:  https://www.ssf.net/our‐city/about‐south‐san‐francisco/history/photos‐and‐documents    San Francisco Chronicle archives:  https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/search/subscriber/      City of South San Francisco—General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Draft Program EIR FirstCarbon Solutions D.3 - Letter Sent to Native American Tribes THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 CITY COUNCIL 2022 MARK NAGALES, MAYOR (DIST. 2) FLOR NICOLAS, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, MEMBER JAMES COLEMAN, MEMBER (DIST. 4) EDDIE FLORES, MEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Department E-MAIL: planning@ssf.net January 14, 2022 Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson Amah Mutsun Tribal Band 789 Canada Road Woodside, CA 94602 Subject: City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Senate Bill (SB) 18 Tribal Consultation The City of South San Francisco is going through a comprehensive General Plan Update process and is notifying you in case your tribe wishes to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18. The proposed project is comprised of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision- makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community-wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. Please see the attached Project Description and accompanying exhibits. In coordination with the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, the City of South San Francisco is also preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report. The project will require public hearings before both the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Page 2 of 2 Subject: SSF General Plan Update – SB 18 Tribal Consultation 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Your comments regarding decisions, which may affect ancestral tribal sites, are important to the City. If your tribe would like to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18, please respond in writing within 90 days of the date of this letter to the following: Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: 650.877.8535 Email: billy.gross@ssf.net In accordance with SB 18, please provide written comments to me within 90 days (April 14, 2022). Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that your tribe has declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Billy Gross Principal Planner Enclosed: Attachment A: Project Description South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Project Location The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, in San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The City is located in a basin bounded by the San Bruno Mountains to the north, the Pacific Coast Ranges to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The City is bordered by the City of Brisbane to the north, Daly City, City of Pacifica, and the Town of Colma to the west, and the City of San Bruno to the south (Exhibit 2). San Francisco International Airport is located immediately to the south but falls within City and County of San Francisco’s jurisdictional boundaries. Existing Conditions The City encompasses 31 square miles, approximately 5,000 acres, and is primarily built out with only about 3.4 percent of the land classified as vacant. Colma Creek flows in a west–east direction through the City from its origin in the San Bruno Mountains to its terminus in the San Francisco Bay. Regional access to the City is via highways and major roadways, including Interstate 280 (I-280), U.S. Highway 101 (US-101), and El Camino Real. In addition, the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is also a gateway into the City, with approximately 842 passengers entering South San Francisco via this station on an average weekday.1 Additionally, 452 passengers enter South San Francisco from Caltrain on an average week day.2 SamTrans, a bus service that operates throughout San Mateo County and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto, has three bus lines that run through South San Francisco and serves approximately 24,077 passengers per day.3,4 The San Francisco Bay Ferry also provides public transit service to and from the City and other locations around the San Francisco Bay to approximately 6,027 passengers per day.5,6 1.1.1 - Unincorporated Areas The City has two unincorporated islands within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). One island is bound by I-280 on the west, Westborough Boulevard to the north, Orange Avenue roughly to the east, and Ponderosa Road to the south. Most of this area is owned by the City and County of San Francisco and is the site of the California Golf Club of San Francisco. Ponderosa Elementary School is also situated in this unincorporated island on land owned by the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). The other island is roughly bound by Conmur Street to the west, Country Club Drive to the north, Alida Way to the east, and Northwood Drive to the south, and consists primarily 1 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2021. Monthly Ridership Reports (October 1, November 1, December 1). Website: https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership. Accessed January 3, 2022. 2 Caltrain. 2019. Caltrain 2019 Annual Passenger Count Key Findings. Website: https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/2019+Annual+Key+Findings+Report.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 3 SamTrans. 2022. Ridership. Website: https://www.samtrans.com/about/Bus_Operations_Information/Ridership.html. Accessed January 3, 2022. 4 8,788,180 riders divided by 365 days per year. 5 San Francisco Ferry Riders. 2022. Monthly Operating Statistics Report. Website: https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/sites/sfbf/files/opsreport/April2021.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 6 2.2 million riders divided by 365 days per year. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 4 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx of single-family residential uses and religious facilities on larger lots. Both islands are part of unincorporated San Mateo County and within the City’s SOI. 1.1.2 - Existing Land Use Existing land use refers to the way land is currently being used in the City, or in other words, land uses that are currently (as of 2022) “on the ground.” Existing land uses are mapped in Exhibit 3 and Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of each type of land use in the City. As shown in Exhibit 3 and Table 1, the most prevalent land use in the City is Residential (occupying 39.8 percent of land area), followed by Industrial/ Research and Development (29.5 percent); Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens (9.9 percent); and Public/Institutional (6.6 percent). There are only about 150 acres of vacant land (3.4 percent of the City). Table 1: Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Within City of South San Francisco 4,226.1 94.8 Residential 1,773.5 39.8 Single-family Residential 1,506.5 33.8 Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 66.5 1.5 Multi-family 183.4 4.1 Mobile Home Park 17.1 0.4 Commercial 250.5 5.6 Hotel 57.0 1.3 General Retail/Service 110.9 2.5 Auto Retail 43.2 1.0 Food Retail 32.9 0.7 Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) 6.5 0.1 Industrial/Research and Development 1,313.7 29.5 Office 190.0 4.3 Biotech/Research and Development 322.1 7.2 Warehouse 639.5 14.4 Manufacturing/Processing 162.1 3.6 Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens 442.4 9.9 Public and Institutional 292.9 6.6 Vacant 153.1 3.4 Within Sphere of Influence 230.0 5.2 Single-family residential 41.4 0.9 Golf Course 183.4 4.1 South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Public and Institutional 4.7 0.1 Vacant 0.5 0.0 Grand Total 4,456.1 100.0 Notes: 1. Totals do not include utilities and transportation infrastructure. 2. Totals may not add due to rounding Project Description 1.1.3 - Proposed Project The proposed project consists of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision-makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The Proposed Land Use Map for the General Plan Update is attached as Exhibit 4. The Proposed Land Use Map depicting only the changes from the Existing Land Use Map is attached as Exhibit 5. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community- wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. The State of California requires that the General Plan contain eight mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. The South San Francisco General Plan Update will include all of the State-mandated elements and three optional elements, as described below. •Land Use and Community Design Element—This element provides a framework for the land use designations and the standards for density, intensity, and design, in order to maximize opportunities for residential infill development, encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office uses near Caltrain and BART stations, and maintain the Downtown as the symbolic center of the City. •Mobility (Circulation) Element—This element focuses on enhancing the City’s existing circulation and transportation system and contains policies and actions to provide increased access to mobility services, including transit, bike and pedestrian networks, access between neighborhoods, and traffic safety. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 6 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Housing Element— This element adopts a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City and provide suitable, decent, and affordable housing for residents, as well as preserve and enhance existing residential areas. The 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted in April 2015. The process to update the existing Housing Element for the 2023- 2031 cycle is underway and will be completed as part of this General Plan Update and will reflect the updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that were finalized December 2021.7 •Open Space and Conservation Element—This element identifies policies and actions to address the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, protect sensitive cultural and historic resources, improve water quality and stormwater management, address air quality, and enhance open space areas including Colma Creek and the shoreline. •Noise Element—This element includes policies and actions to preserve the quality of life and reduce potential noise exposure to persons living and working in the City. The noise element also includes goals, policies, and actions to protect sensitive land uses and historic structures from construction-related vibration. •Safety Element—The element establishes a framework of proactive and coordinated programs to protect against foreseeable natural and human-caused hazards. This element also addresses potential hazards related to sea level rise and inland flooding, as well as considering how climate change could affect and potentially exacerbate the impacts associated with other hazards. •Health and Environmental Justice Element—This element includes policies celebrating the cultural diversity of South San Francisco, access to health care and food, social equity and environmental justice concerns, and social services. •Social Equity Element—This element addresses engaging all residents, analyzing, and improving policies and programs. It focuses on being a leader across jurisdictions and departments to incorporate equity considerations into policies and programs and engaging residents in decisions that impact their lives. •Sustainability and Climate Action Element—This element includes an integrated policy framework for sustainability, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, and carbon sequestration. This includes goals and policies for reducing GHG emissions, such as carbon-free energy, decarbonized buildings, zero waste, fossil-fuel free transportation, and carbon sequestration. Given the cross- cutting nature of these issues, there will points of integration with other policy frameworks, including Land Use, Safety, Conservation, and Social Equity, among others. •Public Facilities and Parks Element—This element addresses the provision of public services and facilities, libraries, parks, and recreational facilities and includes future infrastructure planning. 7 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Website: Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2022. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Economic Development Element—This element provides a framework to promote business diversification, create an innovation district, retain local businesses, promote early childhood development, and provide jobs training. The Vision and Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update were identified through a collaborative effort between the City and its residents and are described below. Revised Citywide Vision Statement South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have an equitable opportunity to reach their full potential. Guiding Principles •Affordable, safe, attractive, amenity-rich neighborhoods •High-quality and accessible services, facilities, and amenities for residents at all stages of their lives •A safe, convenient, and accessible transportation network that is well-connected to the region •A resilient community •A prosperous downtown + local economy I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 1_regional_context.cdr Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, November 2019. 380 280 35 82 101 Airpo rtB lv dChestnut AveE Grand Ave Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd SAi rpor t Blv d Hil l s id e B lv d ForbesBlvd Gateway B l v d DNAWa ySisterCitiesBlvd El C a min o R e alJunipero Serr a Bl vdW e s t b o ro ug hBlvd C alla n B lv d Hickey Blvd Spruce A v e S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd San Bruno Creek C o l m a C r e e k Ferry Terminal San Francisco Bay California Golf Club Unincorporated Area Pacifica San Bruno Colma Daly City Brisbane San FranciscoInternational Airport Legend Streams Centennial Way Trail Parks/Open Space San Bruno Mountain State and County Park BART Caltrain Highway Transportation Features Arterial Local Street 50000006 • 12/2021 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd Exhibit 2Local Vicinity Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOGENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNOTICE OF PREPARATION 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet City of South San Francisco Other City Boundaries Jurisdictional Boundary Sphere of Influence I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 3_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 3 Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, June 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 4_proposed_LU.cdr Exhibit 4 Proposed Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 5_proposed_LU_changes_only_from_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 5 Proposed Land Use Map - Changes Only From Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 CITY COUNCIL 2022 MARK NAGALES, MAYOR (DIST. 2) FLOR NICOLAS, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, MEMBER JAMES COLEMAN, MEMBER (DIST. 4) EDDIE FLORES, MEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Department E-MAIL: planning@ssf.net January 14, 2022 Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of SF Bay P.O. Box 360791 Milpitas, CA 95036 Subject: City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Senate Bill (SB) 18 Tribal Consultation The City of South San Francisco is going through a comprehensive General Plan Update process and is notifying you in case your tribe wishes to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18. The proposed project is comprised of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision- makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community-wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. Please see the attached Project Description and accompanying exhibits. In coordination with the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, the City of South San Francisco is also preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report. The project will require public hearings before both the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Page 2 of 2 Subject: SSF General Plan Update – SB 18 Tribal Consultation 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Your comments regarding decisions, which may affect ancestral tribal sites, are important to the City. If your tribe would like to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18, please respond in writing within 90 days of the date of this letter to the following: Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: 650.877.8535 Email: billy.gross@ssf.net In accordance with SB 18, please provide written comments to me within 90 days (April 14, 2022). Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that your tribe has declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Billy Gross Principal Planner Enclosed: Attachment A: Project Description South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Project Location The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, in San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The City is located in a basin bounded by the San Bruno Mountains to the north, the Pacific Coast Ranges to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The City is bordered by the City of Brisbane to the north, Daly City, City of Pacifica, and the Town of Colma to the west, and the City of San Bruno to the south (Exhibit 2). San Francisco International Airport is located immediately to the south but falls within City and County of San Francisco’s jurisdictional boundaries. Existing Conditions The City encompasses 31 square miles, approximately 5,000 acres, and is primarily built out with only about 3.4 percent of the land classified as vacant. Colma Creek flows in a west–east direction through the City from its origin in the San Bruno Mountains to its terminus in the San Francisco Bay. Regional access to the City is via highways and major roadways, including Interstate 280 (I-280), U.S. Highway 101 (US-101), and El Camino Real. In addition, the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is also a gateway into the City, with approximately 842 passengers entering South San Francisco via this station on an average weekday.1 Additionally, 452 passengers enter South San Francisco from Caltrain on an average week day.2 SamTrans, a bus service that operates throughout San Mateo County and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto, has three bus lines that run through South San Francisco and serves approximately 24,077 passengers per day.3,4 The San Francisco Bay Ferry also provides public transit service to and from the City and other locations around the San Francisco Bay to approximately 6,027 passengers per day.5,6 1.1.1 - Unincorporated Areas The City has two unincorporated islands within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). One island is bound by I-280 on the west, Westborough Boulevard to the north, Orange Avenue roughly to the east, and Ponderosa Road to the south. Most of this area is owned by the City and County of San Francisco and is the site of the California Golf Club of San Francisco. Ponderosa Elementary School is also situated in this unincorporated island on land owned by the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). The other island is roughly bound by Conmur Street to the west, Country Club Drive to the north, Alida Way to the east, and Northwood Drive to the south, and consists primarily 1 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2021. Monthly Ridership Reports (October 1, November 1, December 1). Website: https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership. Accessed January 3, 2022. 2 Caltrain. 2019. Caltrain 2019 Annual Passenger Count Key Findings. Website: https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/2019+Annual+Key+Findings+Report.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 3 SamTrans. 2022. Ridership. Website: https://www.samtrans.com/about/Bus_Operations_Information/Ridership.html. Accessed January 3, 2022. 4 8,788,180 riders divided by 365 days per year. 5 San Francisco Ferry Riders. 2022. Monthly Operating Statistics Report. Website: https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/sites/sfbf/files/opsreport/April2021.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 6 2.2 million riders divided by 365 days per year. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 4 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx of single-family residential uses and religious facilities on larger lots. Both islands are part of unincorporated San Mateo County and within the City’s SOI. 1.1.2 - Existing Land Use Existing land use refers to the way land is currently being used in the City, or in other words, land uses that are currently (as of 2022) “on the ground.” Existing land uses are mapped in Exhibit 3 and Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of each type of land use in the City. As shown in Exhibit 3 and Table 1, the most prevalent land use in the City is Residential (occupying 39.8 percent of land area), followed by Industrial/ Research and Development (29.5 percent); Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens (9.9 percent); and Public/Institutional (6.6 percent). There are only about 150 acres of vacant land (3.4 percent of the City). Table 1: Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Within City of South San Francisco 4,226.1 94.8 Residential 1,773.5 39.8 Single-family Residential 1,506.5 33.8 Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 66.5 1.5 Multi-family 183.4 4.1 Mobile Home Park 17.1 0.4 Commercial 250.5 5.6 Hotel 57.0 1.3 General Retail/Service 110.9 2.5 Auto Retail 43.2 1.0 Food Retail 32.9 0.7 Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) 6.5 0.1 Industrial/Research and Development 1,313.7 29.5 Office 190.0 4.3 Biotech/Research and Development 322.1 7.2 Warehouse 639.5 14.4 Manufacturing/Processing 162.1 3.6 Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens 442.4 9.9 Public and Institutional 292.9 6.6 Vacant 153.1 3.4 Within Sphere of Influence 230.0 5.2 Single-family residential 41.4 0.9 Golf Course 183.4 4.1 South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Public and Institutional 4.7 0.1 Vacant 0.5 0.0 Grand Total 4,456.1 100.0 Notes: 1. Totals do not include utilities and transportation infrastructure. 2. Totals may not add due to rounding Project Description 1.1.3 - Proposed Project The proposed project consists of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision-makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The Proposed Land Use Map for the General Plan Update is attached as Exhibit 4. The Proposed Land Use Map depicting only the changes from the Existing Land Use Map is attached as Exhibit 5. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community- wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. The State of California requires that the General Plan contain eight mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. The South San Francisco General Plan Update will include all of the State-mandated elements and three optional elements, as described below. •Land Use and Community Design Element—This element provides a framework for the land use designations and the standards for density, intensity, and design, in order to maximize opportunities for residential infill development, encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office uses near Caltrain and BART stations, and maintain the Downtown as the symbolic center of the City. •Mobility (Circulation) Element—This element focuses on enhancing the City’s existing circulation and transportation system and contains policies and actions to provide increased access to mobility services, including transit, bike and pedestrian networks, access between neighborhoods, and traffic safety. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 6 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Housing Element— This element adopts a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City and provide suitable, decent, and affordable housing for residents, as well as preserve and enhance existing residential areas. The 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted in April 2015. The process to update the existing Housing Element for the 2023- 2031 cycle is underway and will be completed as part of this General Plan Update and will reflect the updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that were finalized December 2021.7 •Open Space and Conservation Element—This element identifies policies and actions to address the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, protect sensitive cultural and historic resources, improve water quality and stormwater management, address air quality, and enhance open space areas including Colma Creek and the shoreline. •Noise Element—This element includes policies and actions to preserve the quality of life and reduce potential noise exposure to persons living and working in the City. The noise element also includes goals, policies, and actions to protect sensitive land uses and historic structures from construction-related vibration. •Safety Element—The element establishes a framework of proactive and coordinated programs to protect against foreseeable natural and human-caused hazards. This element also addresses potential hazards related to sea level rise and inland flooding, as well as considering how climate change could affect and potentially exacerbate the impacts associated with other hazards. •Health and Environmental Justice Element—This element includes policies celebrating the cultural diversity of South San Francisco, access to health care and food, social equity and environmental justice concerns, and social services. •Social Equity Element—This element addresses engaging all residents, analyzing, and improving policies and programs. It focuses on being a leader across jurisdictions and departments to incorporate equity considerations into policies and programs and engaging residents in decisions that impact their lives. •Sustainability and Climate Action Element—This element includes an integrated policy framework for sustainability, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, and carbon sequestration. This includes goals and policies for reducing GHG emissions, such as carbon-free energy, decarbonized buildings, zero waste, fossil-fuel free transportation, and carbon sequestration. Given the cross- cutting nature of these issues, there will points of integration with other policy frameworks, including Land Use, Safety, Conservation, and Social Equity, among others. •Public Facilities and Parks Element—This element addresses the provision of public services and facilities, libraries, parks, and recreational facilities and includes future infrastructure planning. 7 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Website: Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2022. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Economic Development Element—This element provides a framework to promote business diversification, create an innovation district, retain local businesses, promote early childhood development, and provide jobs training. The Vision and Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update were identified through a collaborative effort between the City and its residents and are described below. Revised Citywide Vision Statement South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have an equitable opportunity to reach their full potential. Guiding Principles •Affordable, safe, attractive, amenity-rich neighborhoods •High-quality and accessible services, facilities, and amenities for residents at all stages of their lives •A safe, convenient, and accessible transportation network that is well-connected to the region •A resilient community •A prosperous downtown + local economy I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 1_regional_context.cdr Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, November 2019. 380 280 35 82 101 Airpo rtB lv dChestnut AveE Grand Ave Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd SAi rpor t Blv d Hil l s id e B lv d ForbesBlvd Gateway B l v d DNAWa ySisterCitiesBlvd El C a min o R e alJunipero Serr a Bl vdW e s t b o ro ug hBlvd C alla n B lv d Hickey Blvd Spruce A v e S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd San Bruno Creek C o l m a C r e e k Ferry Terminal San Francisco Bay California Golf Club Unincorporated Area Pacifica San Bruno Colma Daly City Brisbane San FranciscoInternational Airport Legend Streams Centennial Way Trail Parks/Open Space San Bruno Mountain State and County Park BART Caltrain Highway Transportation Features Arterial Local Street 50000006 • 12/2021 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd Exhibit 2Local Vicinity Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOGENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNOTICE OF PREPARATION 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet City of South San Francisco Other City Boundaries Jurisdictional Boundary Sphere of Influence I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 3_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 3 Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, June 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 4_proposed_LU.cdr Exhibit 4 Proposed Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 5_proposed_LU_changes_only_from_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 5 Proposed Land Use Map - Changes Only From Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 CITY COUNCIL 2022 MARK NAGALES, MAYOR (DIST. 2) FLOR NICOLAS, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, MEMBER JAMES COLEMAN, MEMBER (DIST. 4) EDDIE FLORES, MEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Department E-MAIL: planning@ssf.net January 14, 2022 Tony Cerda, Chairperson Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe 240 E 1st St Pomona, CA 91766 Subject: City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Senate Bill (SB) 18 Tribal Consultation The City of South San Francisco is going through a comprehensive General Plan Update process and is notifying you in case your tribe wishes to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18. The proposed project is comprised of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision- makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community-wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. Please see the attached Project Description and accompanying exhibits. In coordination with the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, the City of South San Francisco is also preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report. The project will require public hearings before both the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Page 2 of 2 Subject: SSF General Plan Update – SB 18 Tribal Consultation 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Your comments regarding decisions, which may affect ancestral tribal sites, are important to the City. If your tribe would like to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18, please respond in writing within 90 days of the date of this letter to the following: Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: 650.877.8535 Email: billy.gross@ssf.net In accordance with SB 18, please provide written comments to me within 90 days (April 14, 2022). Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that your tribe has declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Billy Gross Principal Planner Enclosed: Attachment A: Project Description South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Project Location The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, in San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The City is located in a basin bounded by the San Bruno Mountains to the north, the Pacific Coast Ranges to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The City is bordered by the City of Brisbane to the north, Daly City, City of Pacifica, and the Town of Colma to the west, and the City of San Bruno to the south (Exhibit 2). San Francisco International Airport is located immediately to the south but falls within City and County of San Francisco’s jurisdictional boundaries. Existing Conditions The City encompasses 31 square miles, approximately 5,000 acres, and is primarily built out with only about 3.4 percent of the land classified as vacant. Colma Creek flows in a west–east direction through the City from its origin in the San Bruno Mountains to its terminus in the San Francisco Bay. Regional access to the City is via highways and major roadways, including Interstate 280 (I-280), U.S. Highway 101 (US-101), and El Camino Real. In addition, the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is also a gateway into the City, with approximately 842 passengers entering South San Francisco via this station on an average weekday.1 Additionally, 452 passengers enter South San Francisco from Caltrain on an average week day.2 SamTrans, a bus service that operates throughout San Mateo County and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto, has three bus lines that run through South San Francisco and serves approximately 24,077 passengers per day.3,4 The San Francisco Bay Ferry also provides public transit service to and from the City and other locations around the San Francisco Bay to approximately 6,027 passengers per day.5,6 1.1.1 - Unincorporated Areas The City has two unincorporated islands within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). One island is bound by I-280 on the west, Westborough Boulevard to the north, Orange Avenue roughly to the east, and Ponderosa Road to the south. Most of this area is owned by the City and County of San Francisco and is the site of the California Golf Club of San Francisco. Ponderosa Elementary School is also situated in this unincorporated island on land owned by the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). The other island is roughly bound by Conmur Street to the west, Country Club Drive to the north, Alida Way to the east, and Northwood Drive to the south, and consists primarily 1 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2021. Monthly Ridership Reports (October 1, November 1, December 1). Website: https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership. Accessed January 3, 2022. 2 Caltrain. 2019. Caltrain 2019 Annual Passenger Count Key Findings. Website: https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/2019+Annual+Key+Findings+Report.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 3 SamTrans. 2022. Ridership. Website: https://www.samtrans.com/about/Bus_Operations_Information/Ridership.html. Accessed January 3, 2022. 4 8,788,180 riders divided by 365 days per year. 5 San Francisco Ferry Riders. 2022. Monthly Operating Statistics Report. Website: https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/sites/sfbf/files/opsreport/April2021.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 6 2.2 million riders divided by 365 days per year. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 4 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx of single-family residential uses and religious facilities on larger lots. Both islands are part of unincorporated San Mateo County and within the City’s SOI. 1.1.2 - Existing Land Use Existing land use refers to the way land is currently being used in the City, or in other words, land uses that are currently (as of 2022) “on the ground.” Existing land uses are mapped in Exhibit 3 and Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of each type of land use in the City. As shown in Exhibit 3 and Table 1, the most prevalent land use in the City is Residential (occupying 39.8 percent of land area), followed by Industrial/ Research and Development (29.5 percent); Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens (9.9 percent); and Public/Institutional (6.6 percent). There are only about 150 acres of vacant land (3.4 percent of the City). Table 1: Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Within City of South San Francisco 4,226.1 94.8 Residential 1,773.5 39.8 Single-family Residential 1,506.5 33.8 Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 66.5 1.5 Multi-family 183.4 4.1 Mobile Home Park 17.1 0.4 Commercial 250.5 5.6 Hotel 57.0 1.3 General Retail/Service 110.9 2.5 Auto Retail 43.2 1.0 Food Retail 32.9 0.7 Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) 6.5 0.1 Industrial/Research and Development 1,313.7 29.5 Office 190.0 4.3 Biotech/Research and Development 322.1 7.2 Warehouse 639.5 14.4 Manufacturing/Processing 162.1 3.6 Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens 442.4 9.9 Public and Institutional 292.9 6.6 Vacant 153.1 3.4 Within Sphere of Influence 230.0 5.2 Single-family residential 41.4 0.9 Golf Course 183.4 4.1 South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Public and Institutional 4.7 0.1 Vacant 0.5 0.0 Grand Total 4,456.1 100.0 Notes: 1. Totals do not include utilities and transportation infrastructure. 2. Totals may not add due to rounding Project Description 1.1.3 - Proposed Project The proposed project consists of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision-makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The Proposed Land Use Map for the General Plan Update is attached as Exhibit 4. The Proposed Land Use Map depicting only the changes from the Existing Land Use Map is attached as Exhibit 5. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community- wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. The State of California requires that the General Plan contain eight mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. The South San Francisco General Plan Update will include all of the State-mandated elements and three optional elements, as described below. • Land Use and Community Design Element—This element provides a framework for the land use designations and the standards for density, intensity, and design, in order to maximize opportunities for residential infill development, encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office uses near Caltrain and BART stations, and maintain the Downtown as the symbolic center of the City. • Mobility (Circulation) Element—This element focuses on enhancing the City’s existing circulation and transportation system and contains policies and actions to provide increased access to mobility services, including transit, bike and pedestrian networks, access between neighborhoods, and traffic safety. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 6 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx • Housing Element— This element adopts a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City and provide suitable, decent, and affordable housing for residents, as well as preserve and enhance existing residential areas. The 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted in April 2015. The process to update the existing Housing Element for the 2023- 2031 cycle is underway and will be completed as part of this General Plan Update and will reflect the updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that were finalized December 2021.7 • Open Space and Conservation Element—This element identifies policies and actions to address the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, protect sensitive cultural and historic resources, improve water quality and stormwater management, address air quality, and enhance open space areas including Colma Creek and the shoreline. • Noise Element—This element includes policies and actions to preserve the quality of life and reduce potential noise exposure to persons living and working in the City. The noise element also includes goals, policies, and actions to protect sensitive land uses and historic structures from construction-related vibration. • Safety Element—The element establishes a framework of proactive and coordinated programs to protect against foreseeable natural and human-caused hazards. This element also addresses potential hazards related to sea level rise and inland flooding, as well as considering how climate change could affect and potentially exacerbate the impacts associated with other hazards. • Health and Environmental Justice Element—This element includes policies celebrating the cultural diversity of South San Francisco, access to health care and food, social equity and environmental justice concerns, and social services. • Social Equity Element—This element addresses engaging all residents, analyzing, and improving policies and programs. It focuses on being a leader across jurisdictions and departments to incorporate equity considerations into policies and programs and engaging residents in decisions that impact their lives. • Sustainability and Climate Action Element—This element includes an integrated policy framework for sustainability, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, and carbon sequestration. This includes goals and policies for reducing GHG emissions, such as carbon-free energy, decarbonized buildings, zero waste, fossil-fuel free transportation, and carbon sequestration. Given the cross- cutting nature of these issues, there will points of integration with other policy frameworks, including Land Use, Safety, Conservation, and Social Equity, among others. • Public Facilities and Parks Element—This element addresses the provision of public services and facilities, libraries, parks, and recreational facilities and includes future infrastructure planning. 7 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Website: Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2022. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Economic Development Element—This element provides a framework to promote business diversification, create an innovation district, retain local businesses, promote early childhood development, and provide jobs training. The Vision and Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update were identified through a collaborative effort between the City and its residents and are described below. Revised Citywide Vision Statement South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have an equitable opportunity to reach their full potential. Guiding Principles •Affordable, safe, attractive, amenity-rich neighborhoods •High-quality and accessible services, facilities, and amenities for residents at all stages of their lives •A safe, convenient, and accessible transportation network that is well-connected to the region •A resilient community •A prosperous downtown + local economy I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 1_regional_context.cdr Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, November 2019. 380 280 35 82 101 Airpo rtB lv dChestnut AveE Grand Ave Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd SAi rpor t Blv d Hil l s id e B lv d ForbesBlvd Gateway B l v d DNAWa ySisterCitiesBlvd El C a min o R e alJunipero Serr a Bl vdW e s t b o ro ug hBlvd C alla n B lv d Hickey Blvd Spruce A v e S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd San Bruno Creek C o l m a C r e e k Ferry Terminal San Francisco Bay California Golf Club Unincorporated Area Pacifica San Bruno Colma Daly City Brisbane San FranciscoInternational Airport Legend Streams Centennial Way Trail Parks/Open Space San Bruno Mountain State and County Park BART Caltrain Highway Transportation Features Arterial Local Street 50000006 • 12/2021 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd Exhibit 2Local Vicinity Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOGENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNOTICE OF PREPARATION 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet City of South San Francisco Other City Boundaries Jurisdictional Boundary Sphere of Influence I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 3_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 3 Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, June 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 4_proposed_LU.cdr Exhibit 4 Proposed Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 5_proposed_LU_changes_only_from_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 5 Proposed Land Use Map - Changes Only From Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 CITY COUNCIL 2022 MARK NAGALES, MAYOR (DIST. 2) FLOR NICOLAS, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, MEMBER JAMES COLEMAN, MEMBER (DIST. 4) EDDIE FLORES, MEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Department E-MAIL: planning@ssf.net January 14, 2022 Andrew Galvan The Ohlone Indian Tribe PO Box 3152 Fremont, CA 94539 Subject: City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Senate Bill (SB) 18 Tribal Consultation The City of South San Francisco is going through a comprehensive General Plan Update process and is notifying you in case your tribe wishes to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18. The proposed project is comprised of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision- makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community-wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. Please see the attached Project Description and accompanying exhibits. In coordination with the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, the City of South San Francisco is also preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report. The project will require public hearings before both the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Page 2 of 2 Subject: SSF General Plan Update – SB 18 Tribal Consultation 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Your comments regarding decisions, which may affect ancestral tribal sites, are important to the City. If your tribe would like to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18, please respond in writing within 90 days of the date of this letter to the following: Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: 650.877.8535 Email: billy.gross@ssf.net In accordance with SB 18, please provide written comments to me within 90 days (April 14, 2022). Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that your tribe has declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Billy Gross Principal Planner Enclosed: Attachment A: Project Description South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Project Location The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, in San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The City is located in a basin bounded by the San Bruno Mountains to the north, the Pacific Coast Ranges to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The City is bordered by the City of Brisbane to the north, Daly City, City of Pacifica, and the Town of Colma to the west, and the City of San Bruno to the south (Exhibit 2). San Francisco International Airport is located immediately to the south but falls within City and County of San Francisco’s jurisdictional boundaries. Existing Conditions The City encompasses 31 square miles, approximately 5,000 acres, and is primarily built out with only about 3.4 percent of the land classified as vacant. Colma Creek flows in a west–east direction through the City from its origin in the San Bruno Mountains to its terminus in the San Francisco Bay. Regional access to the City is via highways and major roadways, including Interstate 280 (I-280), U.S. Highway 101 (US-101), and El Camino Real. In addition, the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is also a gateway into the City, with approximately 842 passengers entering South San Francisco via this station on an average weekday.1 Additionally, 452 passengers enter South San Francisco from Caltrain on an average week day.2 SamTrans, a bus service that operates throughout San Mateo County and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto, has three bus lines that run through South San Francisco and serves approximately 24,077 passengers per day.3,4 The San Francisco Bay Ferry also provides public transit service to and from the City and other locations around the San Francisco Bay to approximately 6,027 passengers per day.5,6 1.1.1 - Unincorporated Areas The City has two unincorporated islands within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). One island is bound by I-280 on the west, Westborough Boulevard to the north, Orange Avenue roughly to the east, and Ponderosa Road to the south. Most of this area is owned by the City and County of San Francisco and is the site of the California Golf Club of San Francisco. Ponderosa Elementary School is also situated in this unincorporated island on land owned by the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). The other island is roughly bound by Conmur Street to the west, Country Club Drive to the north, Alida Way to the east, and Northwood Drive to the south, and consists primarily 1 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2021. Monthly Ridership Reports (October 1, November 1, December 1). Website: https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership. Accessed January 3, 2022. 2 Caltrain. 2019. Caltrain 2019 Annual Passenger Count Key Findings. Website: https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/2019+Annual+Key+Findings+Report.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 3 SamTrans. 2022. Ridership. Website: https://www.samtrans.com/about/Bus_Operations_Information/Ridership.html. Accessed January 3, 2022. 4 8,788,180 riders divided by 365 days per year. 5 San Francisco Ferry Riders. 2022. Monthly Operating Statistics Report. Website: https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/sites/sfbf/files/opsreport/April2021.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 6 2.2 million riders divided by 365 days per year. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 4 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx of single-family residential uses and religious facilities on larger lots. Both islands are part of unincorporated San Mateo County and within the City’s SOI. 1.1.2 - Existing Land Use Existing land use refers to the way land is currently being used in the City, or in other words, land uses that are currently (as of 2022) “on the ground.” Existing land uses are mapped in Exhibit 3 and Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of each type of land use in the City. As shown in Exhibit 3 and Table 1, the most prevalent land use in the City is Residential (occupying 39.8 percent of land area), followed by Industrial/ Research and Development (29.5 percent); Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens (9.9 percent); and Public/Institutional (6.6 percent). There are only about 150 acres of vacant land (3.4 percent of the City). Table 1: Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Within City of South San Francisco 4,226.1 94.8 Residential 1,773.5 39.8 Single-family Residential 1,506.5 33.8 Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 66.5 1.5 Multi-family 183.4 4.1 Mobile Home Park 17.1 0.4 Commercial 250.5 5.6 Hotel 57.0 1.3 General Retail/Service 110.9 2.5 Auto Retail 43.2 1.0 Food Retail 32.9 0.7 Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) 6.5 0.1 Industrial/Research and Development 1,313.7 29.5 Office 190.0 4.3 Biotech/Research and Development 322.1 7.2 Warehouse 639.5 14.4 Manufacturing/Processing 162.1 3.6 Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens 442.4 9.9 Public and Institutional 292.9 6.6 Vacant 153.1 3.4 Within Sphere of Influence 230.0 5.2 Single-family residential 41.4 0.9 Golf Course 183.4 4.1 South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Public and Institutional 4.7 0.1 Vacant 0.5 0.0 Grand Total 4,456.1 100.0 Notes: 1. Totals do not include utilities and transportation infrastructure. 2. Totals may not add due to rounding Project Description 1.1.3 - Proposed Project The proposed project consists of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision-makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The Proposed Land Use Map for the General Plan Update is attached as Exhibit 4. The Proposed Land Use Map depicting only the changes from the Existing Land Use Map is attached as Exhibit 5. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community- wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. The State of California requires that the General Plan contain eight mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. The South San Francisco General Plan Update will include all of the State-mandated elements and three optional elements, as described below. • Land Use and Community Design Element—This element provides a framework for the land use designations and the standards for density, intensity, and design, in order to maximize opportunities for residential infill development, encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office uses near Caltrain and BART stations, and maintain the Downtown as the symbolic center of the City. • Mobility (Circulation) Element—This element focuses on enhancing the City’s existing circulation and transportation system and contains policies and actions to provide increased access to mobility services, including transit, bike and pedestrian networks, access between neighborhoods, and traffic safety. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 6 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx • Housing Element— This element adopts a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City and provide suitable, decent, and affordable housing for residents, as well as preserve and enhance existing residential areas. The 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted in April 2015. The process to update the existing Housing Element for the 2023- 2031 cycle is underway and will be completed as part of this General Plan Update and will reflect the updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that were finalized December 2021.7 • Open Space and Conservation Element—This element identifies policies and actions to address the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, protect sensitive cultural and historic resources, improve water quality and stormwater management, address air quality, and enhance open space areas including Colma Creek and the shoreline. • Noise Element—This element includes policies and actions to preserve the quality of life and reduce potential noise exposure to persons living and working in the City. The noise element also includes goals, policies, and actions to protect sensitive land uses and historic structures from construction-related vibration. • Safety Element—The element establishes a framework of proactive and coordinated programs to protect against foreseeable natural and human-caused hazards. This element also addresses potential hazards related to sea level rise and inland flooding, as well as considering how climate change could affect and potentially exacerbate the impacts associated with other hazards. • Health and Environmental Justice Element—This element includes policies celebrating the cultural diversity of South San Francisco, access to health care and food, social equity and environmental justice concerns, and social services. • Social Equity Element—This element addresses engaging all residents, analyzing, and improving policies and programs. It focuses on being a leader across jurisdictions and departments to incorporate equity considerations into policies and programs and engaging residents in decisions that impact their lives. • Sustainability and Climate Action Element—This element includes an integrated policy framework for sustainability, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, and carbon sequestration. This includes goals and policies for reducing GHG emissions, such as carbon-free energy, decarbonized buildings, zero waste, fossil-fuel free transportation, and carbon sequestration. Given the cross- cutting nature of these issues, there will points of integration with other policy frameworks, including Land Use, Safety, Conservation, and Social Equity, among others. • Public Facilities and Parks Element—This element addresses the provision of public services and facilities, libraries, parks, and recreational facilities and includes future infrastructure planning. 7 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Website: Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2022. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Economic Development Element—This element provides a framework to promote business diversification, create an innovation district, retain local businesses, promote early childhood development, and provide jobs training. The Vision and Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update were identified through a collaborative effort between the City and its residents and are described below. Revised Citywide Vision Statement South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have an equitable opportunity to reach their full potential. Guiding Principles •Affordable, safe, attractive, amenity-rich neighborhoods •High-quality and accessible services, facilities, and amenities for residents at all stages of their lives •A safe, convenient, and accessible transportation network that is well-connected to the region •A resilient community •A prosperous downtown + local economy I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 1_regional_context.cdr Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, November 2019. 380 280 35 82 101 Airpo rtB lv dChestnut AveE Grand Ave Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd SAi rpor t Blv d Hil l s id e B lv d ForbesBlvd Gateway B l v d DNAWa ySisterCitiesBlvd El C a min o R e alJunipero Serr a Bl vdW e s t b o ro ug hBlvd C alla n B lv d Hickey Blvd Spruce A v e S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd San Bruno Creek C o l m a C r e e k Ferry Terminal San Francisco Bay California Golf Club Unincorporated Area Pacifica San Bruno Colma Daly City Brisbane San FranciscoInternational Airport Legend Streams Centennial Way Trail Parks/Open Space San Bruno Mountain State and County Park BART Caltrain Highway Transportation Features Arterial Local Street 50000006 • 12/2021 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd Exhibit 2Local Vicinity Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOGENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNOTICE OF PREPARATION 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet City of South San Francisco Other City Boundaries Jurisdictional Boundary Sphere of Influence I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 3_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 3 Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, June 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 4_proposed_LU.cdr Exhibit 4 Proposed Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 5_proposed_LU_changes_only_from_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 5 Proposed Land Use Map - Changes Only From Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 CITY COUNCIL 2022 MARK NAGALES, MAYOR (DIST. 2) FLOR NICOLAS, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, MEMBER JAMES COLEMAN, MEMBER (DIST. 4) EDDIE FLORES, MEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Department E-MAIL: planning@ssf.net January 14, 2022 Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Indian Canyon Mutsun Band P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA 95024 Subject: City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Senate Bill (SB) 18 Tribal Consultation The City of South San Francisco is going through a comprehensive General Plan Update process and is notifying you in case your tribe wishes to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18. The proposed project is comprised of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision- makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community-wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. Please see the attached Project Description and accompanying exhibits. In coordination with the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, the City of South San Francisco is also preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report. The project will require public hearings before both the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. Page 2 of 2 Subject: SSF General Plan Update – SB 18 Tribal Consultation 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Your comments regarding decisions, which may affect ancestral tribal sites, are important to the City. If your tribe would like to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18, please respond in writing within 90 days of the date of this letter to the following: Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: 650.877.8535 Email: billy.gross@ssf.net In accordance with SB 18, please provide written comments to me within 90 days (April 14, 2022). Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that your tribe has declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Billy Gross Principal Planner Enclosed: Attachment A: Project Description South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Project Location The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, in San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The City is located in a basin bounded by the San Bruno Mountains to the north, the Pacific Coast Ranges to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The City is bordered by the City of Brisbane to the north, Daly City, City of Pacifica, and the Town of Colma to the west, and the City of San Bruno to the south (Exhibit 2). San Francisco International Airport is located immediately to the south but falls within City and County of San Francisco’s jurisdictional boundaries. Existing Conditions The City encompasses 31 square miles, approximately 5,000 acres, and is primarily built out with only about 3.4 percent of the land classified as vacant. Colma Creek flows in a west–east direction through the City from its origin in the San Bruno Mountains to its terminus in the San Francisco Bay. Regional access to the City is via highways and major roadways, including Interstate 280 (I-280), U.S. Highway 101 (US-101), and El Camino Real. In addition, the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is also a gateway into the City, with approximately 842 passengers entering South San Francisco via this station on an average weekday.1 Additionally, 452 passengers enter South San Francisco from Caltrain on an average week day.2 SamTrans, a bus service that operates throughout San Mateo County and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto, has three bus lines that run through South San Francisco and serves approximately 24,077 passengers per day.3,4 The San Francisco Bay Ferry also provides public transit service to and from the City and other locations around the San Francisco Bay to approximately 6,027 passengers per day.5,6 1.1.1 - Unincorporated Areas The City has two unincorporated islands within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). One island is bound by I-280 on the west, Westborough Boulevard to the north, Orange Avenue roughly to the east, and Ponderosa Road to the south. Most of this area is owned by the City and County of San Francisco and is the site of the California Golf Club of San Francisco. Ponderosa Elementary School is also situated in this unincorporated island on land owned by the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). The other island is roughly bound by Conmur Street to the west, Country Club Drive to the north, Alida Way to the east, and Northwood Drive to the south, and consists primarily 1 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2021. Monthly Ridership Reports (October 1, November 1, December 1). Website: https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership. Accessed January 3, 2022. 2 Caltrain. 2019. Caltrain 2019 Annual Passenger Count Key Findings. Website: https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/2019+Annual+Key+Findings+Report.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 3 SamTrans. 2022. Ridership. Website: https://www.samtrans.com/about/Bus_Operations_Information/Ridership.html. Accessed January 3, 2022. 4 8,788,180 riders divided by 365 days per year. 5 San Francisco Ferry Riders. 2022. Monthly Operating Statistics Report. Website: https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/sites/sfbf/files/opsreport/April2021.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 6 2.2 million riders divided by 365 days per year. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 4 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx of single-family residential uses and religious facilities on larger lots. Both islands are part of unincorporated San Mateo County and within the City’s SOI. 1.1.2 - Existing Land Use Existing land use refers to the way land is currently being used in the City, or in other words, land uses that are currently (as of 2022) “on the ground.” Existing land uses are mapped in Exhibit 3 and Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of each type of land use in the City. As shown in Exhibit 3 and Table 1, the most prevalent land use in the City is Residential (occupying 39.8 percent of land area), followed by Industrial/ Research and Development (29.5 percent); Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens (9.9 percent); and Public/Institutional (6.6 percent). There are only about 150 acres of vacant land (3.4 percent of the City). Table 1: Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Within City of South San Francisco 4,226.1 94.8 Residential 1,773.5 39.8 Single-family Residential 1,506.5 33.8 Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 66.5 1.5 Multi-family 183.4 4.1 Mobile Home Park 17.1 0.4 Commercial 250.5 5.6 Hotel 57.0 1.3 General Retail/Service 110.9 2.5 Auto Retail 43.2 1.0 Food Retail 32.9 0.7 Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) 6.5 0.1 Industrial/Research and Development 1,313.7 29.5 Office 190.0 4.3 Biotech/Research and Development 322.1 7.2 Warehouse 639.5 14.4 Manufacturing/Processing 162.1 3.6 Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens 442.4 9.9 Public and Institutional 292.9 6.6 Vacant 153.1 3.4 Within Sphere of Influence 230.0 5.2 Single-family residential 41.4 0.9 Golf Course 183.4 4.1 South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Public and Institutional 4.7 0.1 Vacant 0.5 0.0 Grand Total 4,456.1 100.0 Notes: 1. Totals do not include utilities and transportation infrastructure. 2. Totals may not add due to rounding Project Description 1.1.3 - Proposed Project The proposed project consists of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision-makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The Proposed Land Use Map for the General Plan Update is attached as Exhibit 4. The Proposed Land Use Map depicting only the changes from the Existing Land Use Map is attached as Exhibit 5. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community- wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. The State of California requires that the General Plan contain eight mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. The South San Francisco General Plan Update will include all of the State-mandated elements and three optional elements, as described below. •Land Use and Community Design Element—This element provides a framework for the land use designations and the standards for density, intensity, and design, in order to maximize opportunities for residential infill development, encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office uses near Caltrain and BART stations, and maintain the Downtown as the symbolic center of the City. •Mobility (Circulation) Element—This element focuses on enhancing the City’s existing circulation and transportation system and contains policies and actions to provide increased access to mobility services, including transit, bike and pedestrian networks, access between neighborhoods, and traffic safety. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 6 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Housing Element— This element adopts a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City and provide suitable, decent, and affordable housing for residents, as well as preserve and enhance existing residential areas. The 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted in April 2015. The process to update the existing Housing Element for the 2023- 2031 cycle is underway and will be completed as part of this General Plan Update and will reflect the updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that were finalized December 2021.7 •Open Space and Conservation Element—This element identifies policies and actions to address the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, protect sensitive cultural and historic resources, improve water quality and stormwater management, address air quality, and enhance open space areas including Colma Creek and the shoreline. •Noise Element—This element includes policies and actions to preserve the quality of life and reduce potential noise exposure to persons living and working in the City. The noise element also includes goals, policies, and actions to protect sensitive land uses and historic structures from construction-related vibration. •Safety Element—The element establishes a framework of proactive and coordinated programs to protect against foreseeable natural and human-caused hazards. This element also addresses potential hazards related to sea level rise and inland flooding, as well as considering how climate change could affect and potentially exacerbate the impacts associated with other hazards. •Health and Environmental Justice Element—This element includes policies celebrating the cultural diversity of South San Francisco, access to health care and food, social equity and environmental justice concerns, and social services. •Social Equity Element—This element addresses engaging all residents, analyzing, and improving policies and programs. It focuses on being a leader across jurisdictions and departments to incorporate equity considerations into policies and programs and engaging residents in decisions that impact their lives. •Sustainability and Climate Action Element—This element includes an integrated policy framework for sustainability, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, and carbon sequestration. This includes goals and policies for reducing GHG emissions, such as carbon-free energy, decarbonized buildings, zero waste, fossil-fuel free transportation, and carbon sequestration. Given the cross- cutting nature of these issues, there will points of integration with other policy frameworks, including Land Use, Safety, Conservation, and Social Equity, among others. •Public Facilities and Parks Element—This element addresses the provision of public services and facilities, libraries, parks, and recreational facilities and includes future infrastructure planning. 7 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Website: Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2022. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Economic Development Element—This element provides a framework to promote business diversification, create an innovation district, retain local businesses, promote early childhood development, and provide jobs training. The Vision and Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update were identified through a collaborative effort between the City and its residents and are described below. Revised Citywide Vision Statement South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have an equitable opportunity to reach their full potential. Guiding Principles •Affordable, safe, attractive, amenity-rich neighborhoods •High-quality and accessible services, facilities, and amenities for residents at all stages of their lives •A safe, convenient, and accessible transportation network that is well-connected to the region •A resilient community •A prosperous downtown + local economy I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 1_regional_context.cdr Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, November 2019. 380 280 35 82 101 Airpo rtB lv dChestnut AveE Grand Ave Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd SAi rpor t Blv d Hil l s id e B lv d ForbesBlvd Gateway B l v d DNAWa ySisterCitiesBlvd El C a min o R e alJunipero Serr a Bl vdW e s t b o ro ug hBlvd C alla n B lv d Hickey Blvd Spruce A v e S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd San Bruno Creek C o l m a C r e e k Ferry Terminal San Francisco Bay California Golf Club Unincorporated Area Pacifica San Bruno Colma Daly City Brisbane San FranciscoInternational Airport Legend Streams Centennial Way Trail Parks/Open Space San Bruno Mountain State and County Park BART Caltrain Highway Transportation Features Arterial Local Street 50000006 • 12/2021 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd Exhibit 2Local Vicinity Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOGENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNOTICE OF PREPARATION 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet City of South San Francisco Other City Boundaries Jurisdictional Boundary Sphere of Influence I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 3_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 3 Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, June 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 4_proposed_LU.cdr Exhibit 4 Proposed Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 5_proposed_LU_changes_only_from_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 5 Proposed Land Use Map - Changes Only From Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. CITY COUNCIL 2022 MARK NAGALES, MAYOR (DIST. 2) FLOR NICOLAS, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, MEMBER JAMES COLEMAN, MEMBER (DIST. 4) EDDIE FLORES, MEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Department E-MAIL: planning@ssf.net April 6, 2022 Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley BandKenneth Woodrow, Chairperson1179 Rock Haven Ct. Salinas, CA, 93906 Subject: City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Senate Bill (SB) 18 Tribal Consultation Dear Chairperson Woodrow: The City of South San Francisco is going through a comprehensive General Plan Update process and is notifying you in case your tribe wishes to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18.The proposed project is comprised of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision- makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community-wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. Please see the attached Project Description and accompanying exhibits. In coordination with the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, the City of South San Francisco is also preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report. The project will require public hearings before both the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council prior to adoption. 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Page 2 of 2 Subject: SSF General Plan Update – SB 18 Tribal Consultation 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Your comments regarding decisions, which may affect ancestral tribal sites, are important to the City. If your tribe would like to comment or consult on the Project under SB 18, please respond in writing within 90 days of the date of this letter to the following: Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: 650.877.8535 Email: billy.gross@ssf.net In accordance with SB 18, please provide written comments to me within 90 days (July 3, 2022). Should the City not receive a response within 90 days, it will be presumed that your tribe has declined consultation. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Billy Gross Principal Planner Enclosed: Attachment A: Project Description South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Project Location The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, in San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The City is located in a basin bounded by the San Bruno Mountains to the north, the Pacific Coast Ranges to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The City is bordered by the City of Brisbane to the north, Daly City, City of Pacifica, and the Town of Colma to the west, and the City of San Bruno to the south (Exhibit 2). San Francisco International Airport is located immediately to the south but falls within City and County of San Francisco’s jurisdictional boundaries. Existing Conditions The City encompasses 31 square miles, approximately 5,000 acres, and is primarily built out with only about 3.4 percent of the land classified as vacant. Colma Creek flows in a west–east direction through the City from its origin in the San Bruno Mountains to its terminus in the San Francisco Bay. Regional access to the City is via highways and major roadways, including Interstate 280 (I-280), U.S. Highway 101 (US-101), and El Camino Real. In addition, the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station is also a gateway into the City, with approximately 842 passengers entering South San Francisco via this station on an average weekday.1 Additionally, 452 passengers enter South San Francisco from Caltrain on an average week day.2 SamTrans, a bus service that operates throughout San Mateo County and into parts of San Francisco and Palo Alto, has three bus lines that run through South San Francisco and serves approximately 24,077 passengers per day.3,4 The San Francisco Bay Ferry also provides public transit service to and from the City and other locations around the San Francisco Bay to approximately 6,027 passengers per day.5,6 1.1.1 - Unincorporated Areas The City has two unincorporated islands within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). One island is bound by I-280 on the west, Westborough Boulevard to the north, Orange Avenue roughly to the east, and Ponderosa Road to the south. Most of this area is owned by the City and County of San Francisco and is the site of the California Golf Club of San Francisco. Ponderosa Elementary School is also situated in this unincorporated island on land owned by the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). The other island is roughly bound by Conmur Street to the west, Country Club Drive to the north, Alida Way to the east, and Northwood Drive to the south, and consists primarily 1 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). 2021. Monthly Ridership Reports (October 1, November 1, December 1). Website: https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership. Accessed January 3, 2022. 2 Caltrain. 2019. Caltrain 2019 Annual Passenger Count Key Findings. Website: https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Stats+and+Reports/2019+Annual+Key+Findings+Report.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 3 SamTrans. 2022. Ridership. Website: https://www.samtrans.com/about/Bus_Operations_Information/Ridership.html. Accessed January 3, 2022. 4 8,788,180 riders divided by 365 days per year. 5 San Francisco Ferry Riders. 2022. Monthly Operating Statistics Report. Website: https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/sites/sfbf/files/opsreport/April2021.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2022. 6 2.2 million riders divided by 365 days per year. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 4 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx of single-family residential uses and religious facilities on larger lots. Both islands are part of unincorporated San Mateo County and within the City’s SOI. 1.1.2 - Existing Land Use Existing land use refers to the way land is currently being used in the City, or in other words, land uses that are currently (as of 2022) “on the ground.” Existing land uses are mapped in Exhibit 3 and Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of each type of land use in the City. As shown in Exhibit 3 and Table 1, the most prevalent land use in the City is Residential (occupying 39.8 percent of land area), followed by Industrial/ Research and Development (29.5 percent); Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens (9.9 percent); and Public/Institutional (6.6 percent). There are only about 150 acres of vacant land (3.4 percent of the City). Table 1: Existing Land Use Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Within City of South San Francisco 4,226.1 94.8 Residential 1,773.5 39.8 Single-family Residential 1,506.5 33.8 Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex 66.5 1.5 Multi-family 183.4 4.1 Mobile Home Park 17.1 0.4 Commercial 250.5 5.6 Hotel 57.0 1.3 General Retail/Service 110.9 2.5 Auto Retail 43.2 1.0 Food Retail 32.9 0.7 Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) 6.5 0.1 Industrial/Research and Development 1,313.7 29.5 Office 190.0 4.3 Biotech/Research and Development 322.1 7.2 Warehouse 639.5 14.4 Manufacturing/Processing 162.1 3.6 Parks, Open Space, and Common Greens 442.4 9.9 Public and Institutional 292.9 6.6 Vacant 153.1 3.4 Within Sphere of Influence 230.0 5.2 Single-family residential 41.4 0.9 Golf Course 183.4 4.1 South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx Land Use Type Acres Area (%) Public and Institutional 4.7 0.1 Vacant 0.5 0.0 Grand Total 4,456.1 100.0 Notes: 1. Totals do not include utilities and transportation infrastructure. 2. Totals may not add due to rounding Project Description 1.1.3 - Proposed Project The proposed project consists of the South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update is a forward-looking document that will serve as the blueprint for the City’s vision through the year 2040. The goals, policies, and actions in the proposed General Plan Update will serve as a compass for decision-makers and will shape future plans and actions of the City. The City's comprehensive General Plan was initially prepared in 1999. The City’s Housing Element was certified in 2015 and is valid until 2023. The process of updating the existing Housing Element is underway and is being conducted as part of this General Plan Update. The proposed General Plan Update would replace the 1999 General Plan. The Proposed Land Use Map for the General Plan Update is attached as Exhibit 4. The Proposed Land Use Map depicting only the changes from the Existing Land Use Map is attached as Exhibit 5. The General Plan Update anticipates approximately 17,531 net new housing units and approximately 80,944 net new employment opportunities by 2040. The Climate Action Plan includes a community- wide inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and identifies strategies and measures to reduce GHG emissions generated by existing and future uses in the City to achieve State-mandated targets. The State of California requires that the General Plan contain eight mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. The South San Francisco General Plan Update will include all of the State-mandated elements and three optional elements, as described below. • Land Use and Community Design Element—This element provides a framework for the land use designations and the standards for density, intensity, and design, in order to maximize opportunities for residential infill development, encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office uses near Caltrain and BART stations, and maintain the Downtown as the symbolic center of the City. • Mobility (Circulation) Element—This element focuses on enhancing the City’s existing circulation and transportation system and contains policies and actions to provide increased access to mobility services, including transit, bike and pedestrian networks, access between neighborhoods, and traffic safety. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Notice of Preparation City of South San Francisco 6 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx • Housing Element— This element adopts a comprehensive, long-term plan to address the housing needs of the City and provide suitable, decent, and affordable housing for residents, as well as preserve and enhance existing residential areas. The 2015-2023 Housing Element was adopted in April 2015. The process to update the existing Housing Element for the 2023- 2031 cycle is underway and will be completed as part of this General Plan Update and will reflect the updated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers that were finalized December 2021.7 • Open Space and Conservation Element—This element identifies policies and actions to address the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, protect sensitive cultural and historic resources, improve water quality and stormwater management, address air quality, and enhance open space areas including Colma Creek and the shoreline. • Noise Element—This element includes policies and actions to preserve the quality of life and reduce potential noise exposure to persons living and working in the City. The noise element also includes goals, policies, and actions to protect sensitive land uses and historic structures from construction-related vibration. • Safety Element—The element establishes a framework of proactive and coordinated programs to protect against foreseeable natural and human-caused hazards. This element also addresses potential hazards related to sea level rise and inland flooding, as well as considering how climate change could affect and potentially exacerbate the impacts associated with other hazards. • Health and Environmental Justice Element—This element includes policies celebrating the cultural diversity of South San Francisco, access to health care and food, social equity and environmental justice concerns, and social services. • Social Equity Element—This element addresses engaging all residents, analyzing, and improving policies and programs. It focuses on being a leader across jurisdictions and departments to incorporate equity considerations into policies and programs and engaging residents in decisions that impact their lives. • Sustainability and Climate Action Element—This element includes an integrated policy framework for sustainability, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, and carbon sequestration. This includes goals and policies for reducing GHG emissions, such as carbon-free energy, decarbonized buildings, zero waste, fossil-fuel free transportation, and carbon sequestration. Given the cross- cutting nature of these issues, there will points of integration with other policy frameworks, including Land Use, Safety, Conservation, and Social Equity, among others. • Public Facilities and Parks Element—This element addresses the provision of public services and facilities, libraries, parks, and recreational facilities and includes future infrastructure planning. 7 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Website: Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2022. South San Francisco General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan City of South San Francisco Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000006/NOP/50000006 SSF GPU NOP - 2022 Revisions.docx •Economic Development Element—This element provides a framework to promote business diversification, create an innovation district, retain local businesses, promote early childhood development, and provide jobs training. The Vision and Guiding Principles for the General Plan Update were identified through a collaborative effort between the City and its residents and are described below. Revised Citywide Vision Statement South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have an equitable opportunity to reach their full potential. Guiding Principles •Affordable, safe, attractive, amenity-rich neighborhoods •High-quality and accessible services, facilities, and amenities for residents at all stages of their lives •A safe, convenient, and accessible transportation network that is well-connected to the region •A resilient community •A prosperous downtown + local economy I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 1_regional_context.cdr Exhibit 1 Regional Context Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, November 2019. 380 280 35 82 101 Airpo rtB lv dChestnut AveE Grand Ave Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd SAi rpor t Blv d Hil l s id e B lv d ForbesBlvd Gateway B l v d DNAWa ySisterCitiesBlvd El C a min o R e alJunipero Serr a Bl vdW e s t b o ro ug hBlvd C alla n B lv d Hickey Blvd Spruce A v e S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd San Bruno Creek C o l m a C r e e k Ferry Terminal San Francisco Bay California Golf Club Unincorporated Area Pacifica San Bruno Colma Daly City Brisbane San FranciscoInternational Airport Legend Streams Centennial Way Trail Parks/Open Space San Bruno Mountain State and County Park BART Caltrain Highway Transportation Features Arterial Local Street 50000006 • 12/2021 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd Exhibit 2Local Vicinity Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOGENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLANNOTICE OF PREPARATION 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet City of South San Francisco Other City Boundaries Jurisdictional Boundary Sphere of Influence I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 3_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 3 Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, June 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 4_proposed_LU.cdr Exhibit 4 Proposed Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. I 50000006 • 12/2021 | 5_proposed_LU_changes_only_from_existing_LU.cdr Exhibit 5 Proposed Land Use Map - Changes Only From Existing Land Use Map CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS, AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN NOTICE OF PREPARATION Source: Raimi + Associates, October 2020. City of South San Francisco—General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Draft Program EIR FirstCarbon Solutions D.4 - Cultural and Historic Resources–Existing Conditions Report December 2019 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CHAPTER X: CULTURAL RESOURCES 0 Existing Conditions Report SOUTH SAN FRANCIS CO GENERAL PLAN UPDAT E Cultural and Historic Resources December 2019 | EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 1 Existing Conditions Report Chapter 9: Cultural and Historic Resources In built environments such as South San Francisco, cultural resources often take the form of buildings, structures, and locations with historic or cultural value. Landform features such as prehistoric archeological sites and Native American artifacts can also be present in these environments. Key Findings The following are considerations with regard to cultural resources for the South San Francisco General Plan Update: • South San Francisco’s known archaeological resources are located within areas undergoing development: Terrabay and the El Camino. • The Downtown sub-area (along Grand Avenue from Airport Boulevard to Maple Street, just below City Hall) is composed of late 19th and early-mid 20th century one-, two-, and three-story commercial buildings, with a pattern of large or architecturally prominent buildings at street corners. Several structures have residential apartments above the street level. • The Historic Preservation Grant program was created to encourage property owners in South San Francisco to designate their buildings as historic resources and to assist owners of historic resources to enhance and preserve those structures. This program is in its third year. Existing Setting The South San Francisco 1999 General Plan addressed cultural resources primarily in Chapter 7, Open Space and Conservation Element (7.4), with policies and programs designed to preserve and protect these important features of the community. The City of South San Francisco strives to preserve the unique historic character of the city through the Planning Commission, as the Historic Preservation Commission referred to in the 1999 General Plan was discontinued on May 11, 2011 (Ordinance 1440-2011). In order to inform and support the South San Francisco General Plan Update process, this Existing Conditions Report describes the existing conditions related to location and quality of existing cultural resources as well as the overall cultural resources environment in the City of South San Francisco. City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 2 Cultural Resources Categories Cultural resources are buildings, objects, features, structures, or locations with historic or cultural value. Cultural resources typically include buildings or structures that are associated with an event or person that has contributed to the shaping or development of the city, or archaeological sites and objects such as Native American artifacts discovered at a particular location or area of the city. Specifically, cultural resources can be categorized in one of the following groups: • Historic Architectural Resources: Historic resources are associated with the recent past. In California, historic resources are typically associated with the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods in the State’s history and are generally less than 200 years old. • Archaeological Resources: Archaeology is the study of artifacts and material culture with the aim of understanding human activities and cultures in the past. Archaeological resources may be associated with prehistoric indigenous cultures as well as historic periods. • Tribal Cultural Resources: Tribal cultural resources include sites, features, places, or objects that are of cultural value to one or more California Native American Tribes. • Burial Sites and Cemeteries: Burial sites and cemeteries are formal or informal locations where human remains have been interred. Overall Cultural Setting Prehistoric and Ethnographic Background The eastern slopes of the San Bruno Mountain formed an attractive setting for prehistoric Ohlone cultural activity and settlement. The San Francisco Bay and extensive marshlands would have provided Native American populations with an abundance of important dietary resources, as would the upland terrain fronting the Bay. Potable water was available from creeks and perennial streams. Numerous Bayside prehistoric archeological sites have been recorded throughout the peninsula. Some are extensive shell mounds yielding artifacts and exhibiting cultural features indicating long-term permanent village habitation, while other display temporary and seasonal encampments. In 500 anno domini (AD), native peoples occupying the San Francisco Peninsula at the time of European contact, were known as Costanoan, a term derived from the Spanish term, “Costoanos,” meaning coast people. Native Americans currently living in the Bay Area, prefer the term “Ohlone,” or abalone people. These native people subsisted on hunting, fishing, and gathering mussels and other shellfish, and native plants. Their predecessors are believed to have moved to the region from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta area Based on Spanish mission records from 1770 and archeological information, it is estimated that the Ohlone had a population of 1,770 within the Ramaytush ethno-linguistic unit. At that time, the tribelets were believed to be autonomous groups with 50-500 individuals, and averaging 200 individuals. Their territories were defined by natural features, such as creeks, and commonly included one or more permanent village surrounded by temporary camps. The camps were positioned to exploit seasonally-available subsistence resources. With the entry of the Spanish into the area, the traditional way of the Ohlone rapidly deteriorated, as their numbers were decimated by newly introduced diseases, a declining birthrate, and secularization. The Ohlone transformed into agricultural laborers, living at the missions along with neighboring groups including Yokuts, Miwok, and Patwin. CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 3 Existing Conditions Report Spanish Mission Period Father Junípero Serra was sent to Alta California to create a chain of Missions and Mission outposts to bring Christianity to the indigenous population and create a foundation for Spanish colonization of the region. Located between the previously established presidios in Monterey and San Diego, Serra had military assistance in his quest and the coastal region of California came under early control. The arrival of the Portolá Expedition in 1769 marked the first efforts at extending Spanish control into Alta California through the establishment of Catholic missions. This move by the Spanish King Carlos III, was intended to protect Pacific Coast shipping against Russian or English occupation of the area. Beginning in San Diego, the padres surveyed the lands as far north as Sonoma and secured them for the Spanish Crown. Mission sites were selected on the way north by Fathers Crespi and Gomez (Hallan-Gibson 1986). The Mexican Period (1821–1848) After years of internal fighting, Mexico achieved its independence from Spain in 1821 and Alta California became the northern frontier of the State of Mexico. The Mission padres were forced to swear allegiance to Mexico in 1822. Secularization of the missions took place over the next decade and the former mission lands were transferred to Mexican elites that had laid claim to them. Administration of the California ranchos shifted to Mexican hands about 1824, but effective control did not occur until the early1830s. Once the ranchos were secularized, the Mexican administrators began granting vast tracts of the original Mission properties to members of prominent families whom had helped cut ties from the Spanish system. Regional and Local Historic Background The Mexican government gave large land grants to its supporters. In 1835, Don José Antonio Sanchez a noted soldier and Indian fighter, was granted 14,639 acres of land, known as Rancho Buri Buri, extending from the north line of South San Francisco and middle of Burlingame; and from the San Francisco Bay to the Peninsula ridge. With Sanchez’ death in 1853, the Rancho was divided amongst his ten children. In 1847 California became a United States Territory, with its surrender from Mexico to John Fremont, and the following year under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, became a part of the United States. The Qwin Act of 1951 established a commission to settle ownership over the validity of Mexican land grants. The Sanchez family ownership of the Buri Buri Rancho was upheld in 1852. Immediately, the following year, Isidro Sanchez sold 1,700 acres (now the City of South San Francisco and San Bruno,) to Charles Lux and his business partner Alfred Edmunson.1 1 San Francisco Historic Preservation Survey, 1985–1986 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 4 Old Mission Road with view toward El Camino Real, C.1890. Cattle Operations 1850–1900 Lux used the land to graze cattle before herds were driven to San Francisco via El Camino Real. It was on this property that Lux built his family a beautiful country home and named the area Baden. It consisted of six streets between El Camino Real and the later Southern Pacific Peninsula Railroad line. It grew to a settlement of six houses, a stagecoach stop (12-mile House, which was granted the first building permit in the County,) and several dairies. In 1863, the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad laid tracks through the property. In exchange for the right-of–way, Lux secured a flag stop, Baden. In 1881, the Southern Pacific Railroad established a passenger depot at that location. In 1858 Lux partnered with Henry Miller, another successful immigrant butcher, to buy land and sell beef during the California Gold Rush. The two became wealthy land barons and later organized the Pacific Live Stock Company. The firm became the largest cattle-raising operation in the State. A one-room school was opened in 1885 to serve the community, and added a wooden sidewalk at its front. In 1890, after Lux’s death, his heirs sold the land to Peter Iler of Omaha, who was representing meat packer Gustavus F. (GF) Swift. CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 5 Existing Conditions Report Swift selected a site in South San Francisco to establish a West Coast stockyard and market place, similar to his operations in South Omaha and South Chicago. Needing money, Swift aligned with several Chicago capitalists and formed two joint stock corporations: South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, and the Western Meat Company, which sought to establish meat packing plants, stockyards, and a company town. The development company supplied the town with electricity, water and sewage connections to the lots they sold. Hotels sprung up for the meat packing workers. This area became commonly referred to as Irish Town, after the many Irish workers that came from Chicago. The driving force behind the Land and Improvement Company was William J. Martin whose efforts to attract industries and workers to South San Francisco led to the city’s growth and its incorporation on September 19, 1908. Western Meat Company Stockyards, 1915. Development Within the City Following incorporation as a Town, the City of South San Francisco began to develop initially around Grand and Linden Avenues, then north to San Bruno Mountain, and down the hill to the marshes south of Railroad Avenue. Meat packing, marble brick, and paint production plants were constructed east of the newly built train yards on Point San Bruno. West of the Chestnut Avenue city limits, vegetable, flower, and duck farms spread in the old village of Baden. Dairy cattle and horses roamed the hills west of the El Camino Real stagecoach road. Major industrial facilities included the Steiger Terracotta Pottery Works, and the Baden Brick Factory (1894), Hopper and Company Lumber (1896), the Molath Brick Company (1898), the South San Francisco Lumber Company (1898), and the W.P. Fuller Paint Company (1898). In 1898, the City of South San Francisco offered a deep water port, initially enabling the Fuller Paint Company to ship its products worldwide. In recognition of the industries that were established in the City, the J. Dunn Real Estate Company installed a sign on “Sign Hill.” That sign continued to grow through 1893, and ultimately became a landmark of the city in the 1920s. City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 6 Steiger Terracotta Pottery Works, early ca. 1910. The company manufactured molded architectural sidings that gave the appearance of carved stonework. These sidings were used in many buildings in San Francisco’s financial district. Germania Hall building, 1889. The bottom floor housed small shops, and the top floor was the site of community events, including concerts and presentations by civic groups. In 1898, the Merriam Block, a major commercial building, was constructed on the northwest corner of San Bruno Avenue (now Airport Boulevard) and Grand Avenue; and the City of South San Francisco was named. The momentum of city development, and provisions of services continued through the 1890s. The South San Francisco News started publishing in 1892 and the first peace officers were listed on the payroll. The Enterprise Journal was also being published by 1895, and the first house of worship, First Grace Episcopal opened its doors in 1896. By 1900, 16 saloons were in operation. By 1904, the South San Francisco Railroad and Power began 7 Existing Conditions Report streetcar service for transporting workers along Grand Avenue. The following year streetlights were installed along the same path by the Power and Light Company. The Old Saloon and Hotel, located at the corner of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, 1910. It featured rooms for rent, a bar and a pool hall. Other industries quickly established at the turn-of-the-century including Pacific Jupiter Steel Works (1906), Pacific Coast Steel (now, Bethleham Steel) (1908), Doak Sheet Metal Company (1909), followed by several additional steel manufacturers through World War I. City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 8 Bethlehem Steel Company, exterior view. The company was located at 430 Industrial Way from 1914–1981. By 1906, a bank, a Board of Trade, a post office, a bakery (William and Poe), and numerous stores, served the population of South San Francisco. As the population grew, a city block was purchased for construction of City Hall in 1913. A design competition was held for City Hall. The winning design by Werner and Coffey was a replica of Independence Hall. In 1910, the city streets were paved. 9 Existing Conditions Report The corner of Grand Avenue and Linden Streets, ca. 1910. South San Francisco City Hall, ca. 1920. The 1920s proved to be another era of business, industrial, and civic expansion in South San Francisco. During this decade, 36 industries were in operation. As a result of the increase in population to this area, which brought families with children, a new school system was developed. The Martin School and Magnolia School were built in the mid-1920s. In 1923, the Chamber of Commerce erected a whitewashed sign above the city, celebrating its City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 10 position as the Industrial City. Six years later, these letters were replaced by 60-foot tall concrete letters, this time paid for by taxpayers, who voted for their erection. Aerial view looking north over South San Francisco, ca. 1930. In 1927, land was purchased for the McLellan Nursery, which soon became the world’s largest orchid nursery (relocated to Watsonville in 1998). Mills Field, a base for the United States Army Aircorp, also opened at this time. The growth in population, industries, and businesses was not even halted by the Great Depression. By 1938 the city measured over 7 square miles and boasted a population of 6,500, 500 of which were employed in the local industries and businesses. By 1948, the population reached 15,863 and the city had 46 industries. In an effort to meet the housing shortage, the Federal Government, which operated the South San Francisco Housing Authority, built Lindenville, a 770-unit development for 4,200 persons (demolished in 1958). Other development constructed by the South San Francisco Housing Authority in 1945 included a 152-unit Palau Village, a 176-unit Cape Esperance Village, and Industrial Village, which was designated as low-income housing; the locations for the housing sites are unknown. 11 Existing Conditions Report El Rancho Drive-in Theatre, located off Hickey Boulevard, ca. 1950. Aerial view of W. P. Fuller Paint Company, 1958. Shipbuilding With the presence of the deep-water port, the city proved itself as an ideal location for shipping and shipbuilding. The first ship was built by Halcomb and Howard in 1896. During World War I, the Shaw Batcher Company built two 8,800-ton steamers, the Isanti and Nontohala, as well as submarines, gunboats, cargo ships, and other vessels for the war effort. Subsequently, between wars, the Shaw Batcher Company built barges, dredges, and fabricated pipe, becoming one of the pioneers of automatic welding machinery. By late 1930s, the shipyard in South San Francisco had four berths from which ships were launched sideways, two on each side of a large basin at Oyster Point. Following World War II, the population boomed and a well-balanced community of industrial and residential areas developed. City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 12 Shaw Batcher Company shipyards located on Butler Road (later listed as 1050 Oyster Point Blvd) ca. 1918. During 1914–918 ships were built at Oyster Point Channel for World War I. In June 1917, the plant was bought by Western Pipe and Steel Co., which took over the site. Shaw Batcher Company employees on pipe, 1916. 13 Existing Conditions Report 1950s Development of Industrial Parks The 1950s brought modern industrial parks to the east of US-101 area, such as Cabot, Cabot & Forbes. Freight forwarding, light industries, and other airport-related businesses thrived. Publicity photo taken during construction of the Golden Gate Produce Terminal, 1962. City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 14 IBM Corporation located at 139 Marco Way, ca. 1968. 1970s Introduction of Biotech Industry A new era for the City of South San Francisco began in 1976 with the founding of Genentech by venture capitalist Robert Swanson and molecular biologist Dr. Herbert Boyer. Their objective was to explore ways of using recombinant DNA technology to create breakthrough medicines. This earned the City of South San Francisco the title of “Birthplace of Biotechnology,” and thus attracted other biotech and pharmaceutical businesses to the area, bringing economic growth and stability to the community for several years. As of 2019, over 200 Biotech companies are in operation in the City of South San Francisco. Existing Cultural Resources The City of South San Francisco was the only planned industrial city in the Bay Area. Due to restrictive development patterns of the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, a controlled development pattern was established. The city maintains a diverse patina of historic buildings and structures, constructed of a variety of materials. The earliest buildings were constructed of wood or brick, were modest in size, and most were vernacular interpretations of architectural styles popular at the time of their construction. Corrugated metal was commonplace for industrial facilities, and stucco became the preferred exterior finish, beginning from the 1920s through the 1940s. National and California Register Listed Cultural Resources Two National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed properties are located within the City of South San Francisco: the Martin Building located at 265 Grand Avenue (also known as the Metropolitan Hotel) and the South San Francisco Hillside Sign. These two properties are also the only resources listed on the California Register of Historic Places (CRHP). Details on both properties may be found in Table CUL-1(Appendix CUL) and their locations are depicted in Figure 1 15 Existing Conditions Report Figure 1: National and California Register listed properties CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 16 Existing Conditions Report Locally-Designated Historic Landmarks The City of South San Francisco recognizes 40 designated Historic Landmarks that are considered cultural resources under CEQA and should be noted for planning purposes. Details on local landmarks may be found in Table CUL-2 (Appendix CUL) and their locations are depicted in Figures 2a-c. These listed properties encompass a broad range of building types and styles, including residential homes, commercial buildings (Mexico Tipico, Bank of South San Francisco), institutional buildings (City Hall, Grand Avenue Library), industrial facilities (South City Lumber), and commemorative monuments and features (Donors Sidewalk of Names, Martin Memorial Fountain). CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 17 Existing Conditions Report Figure 2a: Overview of Locally Designated Historic Landmarks City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 18 Figure 2b: Detail of Locally Designated Historic Landmarks (West Downtown) 19 Existing Conditions Report Figure 2c: Detail of Locally Designated Historic Landmarks (East Downtown) CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 20 Existing Conditions Report Historic District One historic district is situated within the City of South San Francisco, the Grand Avenue Commercial Historic District. A historic district consists of two or more structures considered to collectively have historic merit. Details on this historic district may be found in Table CUL-3 (Appendix CUL) and its location is depicted in Figure 3. CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 21 Existing Conditions Report Figure 3: Historic District CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 22 Existing Conditions Report Potential Historic Resources A total of four potential historic resources are situated within the City of South San Francisco. The potential historic resources include residential properties (located along Baden, Pine and Miller Avenues) and the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. Details on potential historic resources may be found in Table CUL-4 (Appendix CUL) and their locations are depicted in Figure 4. Eligible Historic Architectural Resources Historic era buildings and structures, typically over 50 years in age, may be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP and CRHP. Those found eligible either through survey or evaluation are considered historic resources under CEQA and should be taken into account during the planning process. Approximately 250 eligible historic architectural resources are located within the City, the majority of which are not included within the City’s register, but were determined eligible through environmental reviews. Details on these properties are listed in Table CUL-5 (Appendix CUL), and include residential homes, commercial buildings, medical facilities, fraternal organizations, civic, educational, religious, and transportation infrastructure. These buildings and structures are distributed evenly across the city. Evaluated resources determined to be ineligible for listing have been excluded from Table CUL-5. Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Archaeological resources span both historic and prehistoric periods, and differ from built environment cultural resources in that they are largely sub-surface, and are most often encountered by pedestrian survey, archaeological testing, or during project related ground disturbance. Tribal Cultural Resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Both resource types may be included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, a local register of historical resources, or be determined significant by a lead agency. A cultural landscape that meets these criteria is a Tribal Cultural Resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. Historical resources, unique archaeological resources, or non-unique archaeological resources may also be Tribal Cultural Resources if they meet these criteria. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21082.3(c)(2), the locations of known archaeological resources within the City of South San Francisco must be kept confidential and cannot be disclosed to the public. A listing of known archaeological and tribal cultural resources may be found in Tables CUL-6 and CUL-7 (Appendix CUL). Consultation with local stakeholders, including tribal authorities, on the location, nature and mitigation required to protect these non-renewable resources, constitutes a vital part of the planning process. Infrastructure and Engineering Resources Infrastructure and engineering structures, such as roads and bridges exceeding 50 years in age, may be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and/or a local register of historical resources. Thirty-six such resources, per the Caltrans Bridge Inventory listings, exist within the City of South San Francisco and are listed in Table CUL-8 (Appendix CUL). Of the 36 resources, 35 have been determined not to be eligible for listing on the NRHP, and one has not had its significance determined (P-41-002439, Airport Boulevard Underpass; Local Bridge). The Cut Stone Bridge is a culvert portal of cut granite stones located just north of Spruce Avenue at the BART right of way. It was originally constructed in 1863 by the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad. When BART was constructed in the 1960s, this historic structure was removed and put back into place. The Cut Stone Bridge is the oldest surviving historic structures in the City. 23 Existing Conditions Report Cemeteries There are two recorded cemeteries containing known burial sites within the City of South San Francisco: Hoy Sun Ning Yung Cemetery and Tung Sen Cemetery. Both cemeteries are listed in Table CUL-9 (Appendix CUL) and locations are noted in Figure 5. CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 24 Existing Conditions Report Figure 4: Potential Historic Resources CHAPTER 9: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 25 Existing Conditions Report Figure 5: Cemeteries Appendix CUL: Compendium of Cultural Resources Table CUL-1: Cultural Resources Listed on the California Register within the City of South San Francisco Primary/P roperty Number Other Identifiers Informatio n Source Resource Description Statu s Code s P-41- 000975; 005605 NPS-97000043-0000; DOE-41-90-0023- 0000; HUD900625J; 4080-0136-0019; N1973 CRHR; HPD; NRHP Martin Building; Metropolitan Hotel; 265 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1912 1S; 2S2; 3S P-41- 000953; 005583 NPS-96000761-0000; 4080-0132-0000; N1952; NAC 123861564 CRHR; HPD; NAHC; NRHP South San Francisco Hillside Sign; California SP South San Francisco Hillside Sign; Park Way; Constructed 1929 1S; 7W; 3S Note: CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources HPD = Historic Property Data NAHC = Native American Heritage Commission NRHP = National Register of Historic Places Table CUL-2: City-designated Historic Landmarks Case File No. Address Property Name HR-88-001 314-316 Baden Avenue Bertucelli House HR-97-023 425 Baden Avenue Johnson Home (c. 1892) HR-93-017 478 Baden Avenue Cavassa Home HR-96-022 805-809 Baden Avenue Bungalow Court HR-99-002 429 Commercial Avenue Home (c 1900) HR-88-002 210 Eucalyptus Avenue Spangler House HR-88-003 211 Eucalyptus Avenue Peck’s Residence HR-93-019 223 Grand Avenue Mexico Tipico/Lind Market HR-88-008 263-265 Grand Avenue Metropolitan Hotel HR-88-007 304 Grand Ave/301 Linden Ave Bank of South San Francisco HR-86-001 400 Grand Avenue Martin Memorial Fountain HR-86-001 400 Grand Avenue City Hall HR-90-012 409 Grand Avenue Price Furniture Company HR-88-009 411 Grand Avenue Enterprise Journal Building HR-87-001 427 Grand Avenue Plymire-Schwartz House HR-86-001 440 Grand Avenue Grand Avenue Library HR-00-001 470 Grand Avenue South San Francisco Women’s Club HR-87-001 519 Grand Avenue Dr. Plymire’s Hospital HR-98-001 643 Grand Avenue Home (c. 1892) HR-89-007 718 Grand Avenue Haaker Home HR-89-008 722 Grand Avenue Carmody Home HR-89-009 726 Grand Avenue Sassman House HR-89-010 734 Grand Avenue Doak Home HR-88-005 743 Grand Avenue Dotson Home HR-89-011 762 Grand Avenue Stickle Home HR-89-002 798 Grand Avenue McGovern Home HR-91-013 221 Laurel Avenue Shaw House HR-91-014 201 Linden Avenue State Theater HR-91-015 340 Miller Avenue “Melly” Cohan House HR-99-001 341-345 Miller Avenue Home (c. 1920) HR-86-002 Miller Avenue near Walnut Avenue Donors’ Sidewalk of Names HR-03-001 540 Miller Avenue First Church of Christ Scientist Case File No. Address Property Name HR-94-020 636 Miller Avenue C.J. Ledwith Home HR-94-021 638 Miller Avenue C.E. Stahl House HR-88-004 814 Miller Avenue Ledwith Home HR-89-006 499 Railroad Avenue South City Lumber HR-87-002 319 Spruce Avenue Eikerenkotter House HR-86-003 Sign Hill Sign Hill Letters Table CUL-3: Historic District within the City of South San Francisco Primary/ Property Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41- 002407; 145323 4080-0136-9999 ICDB; HPD Grand Avenue Commercial Historic District; Constructed 1891 3S Notes: ICDB = Information Center Database HPD = Historic Property Data Table CUL-4: Potential Historic Resources within the City of South San Francisco Primary/ Property Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41- 000819; 005449 4080-0005-9999 HPD Matched Residences; Baden Avenue; Constructed 1895 3S P-41- 000939; 005569 4080-0122-9999 HPD Vernacular Houses; Miller Avenue; Constructed 1907 5S2 P-41- 000944; 005574 4080-0123-9999 HPD Pine Avenue; Constructed 1922 7R P-41- 002557 S-048426 ICDB South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant; 195 Belle Air Road Notes: ICDB = Information Center Database HPD = Historic Property Data Table CUL-5: Eligible Historic Architectural Resources Within the City of South San Francisco Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-00813; 005443 408-0001-0000 HPD Central Hotel; 421 Airport Boulevard; Constructed 1895 7R P-41-000814; 005444 HUD970123G; 4080- 0002-0000 HPD Grand Hotel; 725 Airport Boulevard; Constructed 1893 6Y/7N P-41-001011; 005641 4080-0137-0000 HPD Southern Pacific Railroad Depot; Airport Road; Constructed 1933 3S P-41-000816; 005446 4080-0004-0000 HPD Butcher Hall; 323 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1893 5S2 P-41-000817; 005447 4080-0005-0001 HPD Bonalanza Residence, Art Gallery; 349 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1895 3D P-41-000818; 005448 4080-0005-0002 HPD Bonalanza Residence; 351 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1895 3D P-41-000820; 005450 4080-0006-0000 HPD Luchere (Pierre) House; 414 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1915 7R P-41-000821; 005451 4080-0007-0000 HPD Ernest Galli Residence; 423 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1895 5S2 P-41-000822; 005452 4080-0008-0000 HPD Pierre Fourie House; 428 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1913 7R P-41-000823; 005453 4080-0009-0000 HPD Sherins Market (demolished); 440 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1920 5S2 P-41-000824; 005454 4080-0010-0000 HPD Giovanne Bortoli Residence 5S2 P-41-000825; 005455 4080-0011-0000 HPD Manual Silveria Residence; 470 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1915 P-41-000826; 005456 4080-0012-0000 HPD Bungalow Schoolhouse; 626 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1913 3S P-41-000827; 005457 4080-0013-0000 HPD 643 Baden Avenue; Constructed 1885 7N P-41-000829; 005459 4080-0015-0000 HPD 111 Chestnut Avenue; Constructed 1910 7R Citywide List of Historic Resources Water Wells; 1 Commercial Avenue P-41-000830; 005460 4080-0016-0000 HPD 337 Commercial Avenue; Constructed 1897 7N P-41-000831; 005461 4080-0017-0000 HPD 338 Commercial Avenue; Constructed 1909 5S2 P-41-000832; 005462 4080-0018-0000 HPD 340 Commercial Avenue; Constructed 1909 5S2 P-41-000833; 005463 4080-0019-0000 HPD 344 Commercial Avenue; Constructed 1909 7R P-41-000834; 005464 4080-0020-0000 HPD 411 Commercial Avenue; Constructed 1900 7R Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-000835; 005465 4080-0021-0000 HPD 415 Commercial Avenue; Constructed 1900 7R P-41-000836; 005466 4080-0022-0000 HPD 417 Commercial Avenue; Constructed 1900 7R P-41-000838; 005468 4080-0024-0000 HPD C.J. Empina Home; 435 Commercial Avenue; Constructed 1900 7R P-41-000839; 005469 4080-0025-0000 HPD Bertolucci’s Restaurant; 421 Cyprus Avenue; Constructed 1926 5S2 P-41-000840; 005470 4080-0026-0000 HPD Industrial Hotel; 505 Cyprus Avenue; Constructed 1915 5S2 P-41-000841; 005471 4080-0027-0000 HPD 713 Cyprus Avenue; Constructed 1980 5S2 P-41-000842; 005472 HUD930120C; 4080- 0028-0000 HPD Fairway Club; 900 El Camino Real; Constructed 1912 6Y; 7R P-41-000388; 005473 DOE-41-96-0067- 0000; UMTA900828A; 4080-0029-0000; S- 017192 ICDB; HPD Wildwood; 1410 El Camino Real; Constructed 1946 6Y; 7R P-41-001506; 091166 SPHI-SMA-020; P244; H-4 CA1976; HPD; SMA1980; SPHI W.J. Martin Home; Eucalyptus Avenue; Constructed 1892 7L P-41-000844; 005474 4080-0030-0000 HPD Denning House; 201 Eucalyptus Avenue; Constructed 1920 7R P-41-000847; 005477 4080-0033-0000 HPD Hynding Home; 311 Eucalyptus Avenue; Constructed 1905 5S2 P-41-000848; 005478 4080-0034-0000 HPD Mitchell House; 410 Eucalyptus Avenue; Constructed 1910 5S2 P-41-000849; 005479 4080-0035-0000; OTIS ID 408451 ICDB; HPD Pierre Luchere Home; 527 First Lane; Constructed 1900 52S P-41-000958; 005588 4080-0136-0002 HPD China Restaurant; 115 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1918 5D2 P-41-000959; 005589 HUD880404J; 4080- 0136-0003 HPD Mario’s States Tavern; 200 Grand Avenue; Construct 1898 6Y; 7N P-41-000968; 005598 4080-0136-0012 HPD 201 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1907 7N P-41-000969; 005599 4080-0136-0013 HPD Maria’s Restaurant; 205 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1907 7N P-41-000960; 005590 4080-0136-0004 HPD Railroad Station Cocktails; 206 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1906 7N P-41-000970; 005600 DOE-41-99-0004- 0000; HUD990225Z; 4080-0136-0014 HPD Five Brothers Saloon; 219 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1914 6Y; 7R P-41-000961; 005591 4080-0136-0005 HPD Sun Dial Café; 224 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1900 7R Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-000962; 005592 DOE-41-93-0002- 0001; HUD930120a; 4080-0136-0006 HPD West’s Hotel - Senior Center; 230 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1906 2D2; 7N P-41-000972; 005602 4080-0136-0016 HPD Jenning’s Pharmacy; Liberty Bank; 231- 235 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1915 7N P-41-000963; 005593 DOE-41-93-0002- 0002; HUD930120b; 4080-0136-0007 HPD Edwin Hotel; 232-238 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1924 2D2; 7N P-41-000964; 005594 4080-0136-0008 HPD Country Cottage Café; 238 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1910; 7N 7N P-41-000973; 005603 4080-0136-0017 HPD Topper; 249 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1907 7N P-41-000966; 005596 4080-0136-0010 HPD Citizen’s Bank; Welte’s Bar; 254 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1907 7N P-41-000974; 005604 4080-0136-0018 HPD 257 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1925 7R P-41-000977; 005607 4080-0136-0021 HPD Sciandri’s Hardware; 306 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1920 7N P-41-000992; 005622 DOE-41-92-0002- 0000; HUD920727A; 4080-0136-0036; HUD20140423003; OTIS ID 408576 ICDB; HPD LangenbachBuilding; 307-315 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1899 2S2; 3S P-41-000978; 005608 HUD910515B; 4080- 0136-0022 HPD 316 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1907 6Y; 7N P-41-000993; 005623 4080-0136-0037 HPD 317 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1925 7R P-41-000979; 005609 4080-0136-0023 HPD William McCuen Building; 320-322 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1899 7N P-41-000994; 005624 4080-0136-0038 HPD commercial building; 321 Grand Avenue 5D2 P-41-000980; 005610 4080-0136-0024 HPD Galli’s Sanitary Bakery; 324-326 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1909 7N P-41-001310; 065980 DOE-41-89-0005- 0000; HUD890627P HPD Galli Building; 328 Grand Avenue 2S2 P-41-000995; 005625 4080-0136-0039 HPD 329 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1920 7R P-41-000981; 005611 4080-0136-0025 HPD commercial building; 330 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1895 3S P-41-000996; 005626 4080-0136-0040 HPD 331 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1920 7R Citywide List of Historic Resources commercial building; 332 Grand Avenue Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-000997; 005627 HUD060717F; HUD910618D; 4080- 0136-041 HPD commercial building; 333 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1910 6Y; 5D2 P-41-000982; 005612 4080-0136-0026 HPD 334 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1920 7R Citywide List of Historic Resources commercial building; 335 Grand Avenue P-41-000983; 005613 4080-0136-0027 HPD 336 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1920 7R Citywide List of Historic Resources commercial building; 337 Grand Avenue P-41-000984; 005614 4080-0136-0028 HPD St. Vincent de Paul Society; 340-346 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1920 7N P-41-000985; 005615 4080-013-0029 HPD St. Vincent de Paul Society; 348 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1924 7N Citywide List of Historic Resources St. Vincent de Paul Society; 350 Grand Avenue P-41-000986; 005616 4080-0136-0030 HPD St. Vincent de Paul Society; 352 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1924 7N P-41-000987; 005617 4080-0136-0031 HPD 354 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1924 7R P-41-000988; 005618 4080-0136-0032 HPD 356 Grand Avenue 7R P-41-000998; 005628 HUD900125A; 4080- 0136-0042 HPD 359 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1925 6Y; 7R P-41-000999; 005629 HUD940414A; 4080- 0136-0043 HPD commercial building; 363 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1925 6Y; 5D2 P-41-001000; 005630 4080-0136-0044 HPD 369 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1955 7R P-41-001001; 005631 4080-0136-0045 HPD 371 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1955 7R P-41-001002; 005632 4080-0136-0046 HPD Hynding Building; 377 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1898 5D2 P-41-001003; 005633 4080-0136-0047 HPD 381 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1925 7R P-41-000989; 005619 4080-0136-0033 HPD 382 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1955 7R P-41-001365; 067553 DOE-41-90-0027- 0001; HUD900625M; DOE-41-93-0001- 0000; HUD930729K HPD F.S. Louie Building; 387 Grand Avenue 2D2 P-41-000990; 005620 HUD910614F; 4080- 0136-0034 HPD 388 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1925 6Y; 5D2 P-41-000991; 005621 4080-0136-0035 HPD 392 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1955 7R P-41-001410; 073307 HUD910920C HPD 394 Grand Avenue 7K Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-000853; 005483 4080-0039-0000 HPD Fraternal Hall 7R Citywide List of Historic Resources Carrie Winterhalter Tree; 420 Grand Avenue P-41-000857; 005487 4080-0043-0000 HPD Wald Medical Building; Constructed 1941 5S2 P-41-000859; 005489 4080-0045-0000 HPD Antoniazzi; Bowler Property; 465 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1916 7R P-41-000858; 005488 4080-0044-0000 HPD McEwen Carriage House; Hogan Bowler Property; 467 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1895 7R P-41-000860; 005490 4080-0046-0000 HPD commercial building; 469 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1933 5S2 P-41-000863; 005493 4080-0049-0000 HPD Ferko House; 524 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1925 7R P-41-000864; 005494 4080-0050-0000 HPD McGraw House; 529 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1893 3S P-41-000865; 005495 4080-0051-0000 HPD Conrad House; 536 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1907 7R Citywide List of Historic Resources Magnolia School; 600 Grand Avenue P-41-000867; 005497 4080-0053-0000 HPD Lawrence Champi House; 624 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1910 5S2 P-41-000868; 005498 4080-0054-0000 HPD T.L. Hickey House; 630-632 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1895 5S2 P-41-000869; 005499 4080-0055-0000 HPD Kaufman House; 639 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1905; Constructed 1905 7R P-41-000874; 005504 4080-0060-0000 HPD Traux Home; 730 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1918 7R P-41-000876; 005506 4080-0062-0000 HPD Britton Home; 739 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1907 5S2 P-41-000877; 005507 4080-0063-0000 HPD Holston Home; 741 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1907 5S2 P-41-000881; 005511 4080-0067-0000 HPD McSweeney Home; 799 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1910 7N P-41-000882; 005512 4080-0068-0000 HPD Scott Home; 820 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1906 3S P-41-000883; 005513 4080-0069-0000; OTIS ID 408485 ICDB; HPD 1053 Grand Avenue; Constructed 1860 7N P-41-000956; 005586 4080-0135-0000 HPD home; 225 Juniper Avenue; Constructed 1880 5S2 Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-000886; 005516 4080-0072-0000 HPD The Bottini’s House; Bottini House; 242 Juniper Avenue; Constructed 1928 7R P-41-001387; 070264 HUD910329E HPD 203 Linden Avenue 7K P-41-001005; 005635 4080-0136-0049 HPD John & Kathy’s Restaurant; 207 Linden Avenue; Constructed 1918 5D2 P-41-001007; 005637 4080-0136-0051 HPD Old Post Office Building; 219 Linden Avenue 3S P-41-001008; 005638 4080-0136-0052 HPD Loaf & Ladle; 310 Linden Avenue; Constructed 1948 5D2 P-41-001010; 005640 4080-0136-0054 HPD Post Office; 322 Linden Avenue; Constructed 1940 3S Citywide List of Historic Resources two flats; 411-413 Linden Avenue P-41-000889; 005519 4080-0075-0000 HPD Daggett House; 413 Linden Avenue; Constructed 1893 3S P-41-000890; 005520 4080-0076-0000 HPD commercial building; 701 Linden Avenue; Constructed 1928 7R P-41-000891; 005521 4080-0077-0000 HPD Liberty Marker; 812 Linden Avenue; Constructed 1910 7R P-41-000892; 005522 4080-0078-0000 HPD Queen Anne; 470 Lux Avenue; Constructed 1908 5S2 P-41-000896; 005526 4080-0082-0000 HPD Joe Caputo/Kerr Home; 307 Magnolia Avenue; Constructed 1925 7R P-41-000893; 005523 4080-0079-0000 HPD Buehler Apartments; 209 Maple Avenue; Constructed 1918 7R P-41-000894; 005524 4080-0080-0000 HPD Saint Paul’s Methodist Church; 312 Maple Avenue; Constructed 1906 5S2 P-41-000895; 005525 4080-0081-0000 HPD 410 Maple Avenue; Constructed 1928 5S2 P-41-000897; 005527 4080-0083-0000 HPD Foley House; 217 Miller; Constructed 1891 3S P-41-000898; 005528 4080-0084-0000 HPD 219 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1895 5S2 P-41-000899; 005529 4080-0085-0000 HPD AA Building; 221 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1906 7N P-41-000900; 005530 4080-0086-0000 HPD Daggett Home; 306 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1895 5S2 P-41-000901; 005531 4080-0087-0000 HPD 308 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1898 7R P-41-000903; 005533 4080-0089-0000 HPD Tracie Home; 314 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1875 7R P-41-000904; 005534 4080-0090-0000 HPD John Penna Home; 323 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1890 7N Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-000907; 005437 4080-0093-0000 HPD The Ratto House; 510 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1920 7R P-41-000908; 005538 4080-0094-0000 HPD Carriage House; 511 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1902 7R P-41-000909; 005539 4080-0095-0000 HPD 514 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1915 7R P-41-000910; 005540 4080-0096-0000 HPD The Lautze House; 516 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1916 7R P-41-000911; 005541 4080-0097-0000 HPD 517 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1923 7R P-41-000912; 005542 4080-0098-0000 HPD 521 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1917 7R P-41-000913; 005543 4080-0099-0000 HPD Sands House; 525 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1923 7R P-41-000915; 005545 4080-0101-0000 HPD The Schmidt House; 543 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1917 7R P-41-000916; 005546 4080-0102-0000 HPD Old Whittemore House; 550 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1915 7R P-41-000917; 005547 4080-0103-0000 HPD Minucciani House; 555 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1919 5S2 P-41-000918; 005548 4080-0104-0000 HPD Lucio House; 567 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1919 7R P-41-000919; 005549 4080-0105-0000 HPD Schenone House; 573 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1919 7R P-41-000920; 005550 4080-0106-0000 HPD Atzori Raffaelo; 606 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1907 7R P-41-000921; 005551 4080-107-0000 HPD F.M. Hunter; Lieutenant Rhiley House; 609 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1905 7R P-41-000922; 005552 4080-0108-000 HPD C.E. Stahl Home; 632 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1899 5S2 P-41-000925; 005555 4080-0111-0000 HPD Frank Vincenzini; 652 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1907 5S2 P-41-000926; 005556 4080-0112-0000 HPD Grover Sites; 666 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1907 7R P-41-000927; 005557 4080-0113-0000 HPD N.J. Fink Home; 670 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1928 5S2 P-41-000928; 005558 4080-0114-0000 HPD Chris Ramos Home; 675 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1928 5S2 P-41-000929; 005559 4080-0115-0000 HPD John Figoni; 678 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1928 7R P-41-000930; 005560 4080-0116-0000 HPD William Belloni Home; 754 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1915 3S P-41-000931; 005561 4080-0117-0000 HPD 758 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1912 5S2 Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-000932; 005562 4080-0118-0000 HPD Charles Evans Home; 760 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1901 7R P-41-000933; 005563 4080-0119-0000 HPD 800 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1900 5S2 P-41-000934; 005564 4080-0120-0000 HPD 810 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1907 5S2 P-41-000936; 005566 4080-0122-0001 HPD DeSoto Home; 820 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1907 5D2 P-41-000937; 005567 4080-0122-0002 HPD home; 822 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1907 5D2 P-41-000938; 005568 4080-0122-0003 HPD home; 824 Miller Avenue; Constructed 1907 5DS P-41-000946; 005576 4080-0125-0000 HPD Santo Cristo Hall; 41 Oak Avenue; Constructed 1900 5S2 P-41-000947; 005577 4080-0126-0000 HPD Lux Kitchen; Weiss Home; 90 Oak Avenue; Constructed 1903 5S2 P-41-001512; 091172 SPHI-SMA-029; P435; H-2 CA1976; HPD; SMA1980; SMA1984; SPHI Twelve Mile House; 1076 Old Mission Road; Constructed 1851 7L P-41-000948; 005578 4080-0127-0000 HPD E. C. Collins House; 701 Olive Avenue; Constructed 1896 7N Citywide List of Historic Resources George Bisset Home; 710 Olive Avenue P-41-000949; 005579 4080-0128-0000 HPD 716 Olive Avenue; Constructed 1928 7N P-41-000950; 005580 4080-0129-0000 HPD Eschelback Home; 303 Orange Avenue 3S P-41-001402; 005570 HUD910709A HPD 212 Pine Avenue; Constructed 1945 6Y P-41-000940; 005570 HUD890707C; 4080- 0123-0001 HPD 313 Pine Avenue; Constructed 1922 6Y; 7R P-41-000941; 005571 4080-0123-0002 HPD 317 Pine Avenue; Constructed 1922 7R P-41-000942; 005572 4080-0123-0003 HPD 321 Pine Avenue; Constructed 1922 7R P-41-000943; 005573 4080-0123-0004 HPD 323 Pine Avenue; Constructed 1922 7R P-41-000390; 101759 DOE-41-96-0069- 0000; UMTA900828A; S-017192 ICDB; HPD Southern Pacific Railroad Bridge; South Spruce Street; Constructed 1863 2S2 P-41-000955; 005585 4080-0134-0000; OTIS ID 408539 ICDB; HPD 312 Tamarack Avenue; 312-318 Tamarack Avenue; Constructed 1935 7R P-41-000854; 005484 4080-0040-0000; OTIS ID 408456 ICDB; HPD 423 West Grand Avenue; Constructed 1928 5S2 P-41-000406 S-018468 ICDB Spruce School; 501 Spruce P-41-000407 S-018468 ICDB Ponderosa School; 295 Ponderosa P-41-000408 S-018468 ICDB Martin School; 35 School Street Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-000412 S-017993 San Francisco & San Jose Railway; Peninsula Commute Service; CT-3 P-41-000497 CA-SMA-000357H; S- 022986; S-027930; S- 031824; S-048738 ICDB C-San Francisco South-C P-41-002073 S-025226 ICDB Hope United Methodist Church; Buri Buri Community; Aljdersgate United Methodist Church; 115 El Camp Drive P-41-002255 S-037303 ICDB 1256 Mission Road P-41-002256 S-037303 ICDB 1262-1268 Edgewood Way P-41-002318 S-040268; S-043491; S-047838; S-050668; S-051368 ICDB T-Mobile West LLC SF73113B; PG&E Airport Boulevard; 811 Airport Boulevard; P-41-002433 S-043525 ICDB Signal Bridge North of Grand Avenue Overpass MP 09.07 P-41-002434 S-043525 ICDB 129 Sylvester Road P-41-002437 S-043525 ICDB 175 Sylvester Road P-41-002438 S-043525 ICDB 145 Sylvester Road P-41-002440 S-043525 ICDB Bridge South of Airport Boulevard at MP 09.64; Bridge Over Colma Creek at MP 09.72 P-41-002480 S-048710 ICDB South San Francisco Municipal Building; 33 Arroyo Drive P-41-002481 S-048710 ICDB Pet Club; 1 Chestnut Avenue P-41-002520 S-048738 ICDB 123 South Linden Avenue; 2499 P-41-002554 S-048810 ICDB South San Francisco Elks Lodge; Elks Lodge #2091; 920 Stonegate Drive P-41-002558 S-048426 ICDB 210-218 Littlefield Avenue; APE Map No. 10 P-41-002559 S-048426 ICDB 222 Littlefield Avenue; APE Map No. 11 P-41-002560 S-048426 ICDB 240 Littlefield Avenue; APE Map No. 12 P-41-002561 S-048426 ICDB 258 Littlefield Avenue; APE Map No. 13 P-41-002562 S-048426 ICDB 260-270 Littlefield Avenue; APE Map No. 14 P-41-002563 S-04826 ICDB 301 North Access Road; APE Map No. 2 P-41-002564 S-048426 ICDB North Access Road; APE Map No. 3 P-41-002565 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; APE Map No. 4 P-41-002566 S-048426 ICDB 135 North Access Road; APE Map No. 5 P-41-002567 S-048426 ICDB 140 Belle Air Road; APE Map No. 6 Primary Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-002568 S-048426 ICDB 451 South Airport Boulevard; APE Map No. 7 P-41-002569 S-048426 ICDB 200 Littlefield Avenue; APE Map No. 8 P-41-002570 S-048426 ICDB 202 Littlefield Avenue; APE Map No. 9 P-41-002571 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 11- 1 P-41-002572 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 17 P-41-002573 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 18 P-41-002574 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 20 P-41-002575 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 21 P-41-002576 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 22 P-41-002577 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 23- north P-41-002578 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 3 P-41-002579 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 3- east P-41-002580 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map No. 7 P-41-002581 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map, between No. 3 and 3 P-41-002582 S-048426 ICDB 195 Belle Air Road; Sketch Map, south of No. 9 P-41-002655 S-050653 ICDB T-Mobile West; LLC Candidate SF03180A (SF 180 PG&E Tower South; PG&E Lattice Tower; 177 Gateway Boulevard — NAC 7388274 NAC South San Francisco Radio Station; NA CA 114; 11-9 — NAC 6229225 NAC Naval Radio Station; 5750/1– NAVRADSTA — HAER CA-263 HABS Cut Stone Bridge, Southern Pacific Railroad Line Spanning Runoff Channel at South Spruce Avenue — NAC 2792887 NAC M-California 218—Western Pipe and Steel Company Notes: ICDB = Information Center Database HPD = Historic Property Data SPHI = State Point of Historical Interest CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources NAC = Neighborhood Advisory Committee NRHP = National Register of Historic Place HABS = Historic American Building Survey SSFHR = South San Francisco Historic Resources Table CUL-6: Pre-Contact Archaeological Resources within the City of South San Francisco Primary/ Property Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41- 000042 CA-SMA-000038 ICDB Nelson 377; AP01 — P-41- 000043 CA-SMA-000039 ICDB Nelson 378; AP01 — P-41- 000044 CA-SMA-000040; S- 001784; S-004925; S- 005052; S-005949; S- 007125; S-010097; S- 014725; S-019783; S- 019927; S-020096; S- 022986; S-026045; S- 027930 ICDB AP15; Shellmound — P-41- 000045 CA-SMA-000041; S- 049125 ICDB Nelson 380; AP01 — P-41- 000046 CA-SMA-000042 ICDB Nelson 381; AP01 — P-41- 000047 CA-SMA-000043; S- 049125 ICDB Nelson 382; AP01 — P-41- 000048 CA-SMA-000044 ICDB Nelson 383; AP01 — P-41- 000049 CA-SMA-000045 ICDB Nelson 384; AP01 — P-41- 000050 CA-SMA-000046 ICDB Nelson 385; AP01 — P-41- 000051 CA-SMA-000047 ICDB Nelson 386; AP01 — P-41- 000095 CA-SMA-000092; S- 001784; S-004925; S- 005052; S-005949; S- 010097; S-014725; S- 010097; S-022986; S- 02605; S-027930 ICDB San Bruno Mountain State & County Park; AP16 — P-41- 000409 CA-SMA-000299; S- 016687; S-016688; S- 022258; S-022259; S- 027930; S-039770 ICDB Colma Creek; AP15; AP16; This resource is located along Colma Creek; its location is not clear at this time — P-41- 000495 CA-SMA-000355: S- 022656; S-022972; S- 023271; S-027930; S- 03361 ICDB Colma Creek; Chestnut; AP11; AP15 — P-41- 002164 CA-SMA-002164; S- 031689 ICDB North Colma Creek; AP01; AP11; AP15 — Primary/ Property Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41- 002207 CA-SMA-000386; S- 035507; S-038684; S- 047838; S-050668; S- 051368 ICDB Airport & Armour Buried Site; AP15 — Notes: ICDB = Information Center Database Table CUL-7: Historic-Era Archaeological Resources within the City of South San Francisco Primary/P roperty Number Other Identifiers Informatio n Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41- 002147 CA-SMA-000353H; FTA040913A; S- 030760; S-031824; S- 048738 ICDB Colma Creek Site; PN-1 — Notes: ICDB = Information Center Database Table CUL-8: Caltrans Bridge Inventory Listings within the City of South San Francisco Primary/ Property Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes P-41-002439 35C0017; S- 036747; S-043525 ICDB; LBI Airport Boulevard Underpass; Local Bridge; Constructed 1927; Historical significance not determined — 35C0021 LBI Colma Creek; Local Bridge; Constructed 1977; Bridge not eligible for NRHP — 35C0031 LBI Colma Canal; Local Bridge; Constructed 1974; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0032 LBI Dunman Street Overcrossing; Local Bridge Constructed 1965; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0044 LBI San Bruno Canal; Local Bridge; Constructed 1949; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0046 LBI San Bruno Channel; Local Bridge; Constructed 1986; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0047 LBI San Bruno Channel (E); Local Bridge; Constructed 1986; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0048 LBI Colma Creek; Local Bridge; Constructed 1960; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0078 LBI Colma Creek; Local Bridge; Constructed 1975; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0079 LBI Colma Canal; Local Bridge; Constructed 1976; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0101 LBI Colma Creek; Local Bridge; Constructed 1975; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0126 LBI Branch of Colma Creek; Local Bridge; Constructed 1955; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0148L LBI Grand Avenue OH; Local Bridge; Constructed 1984; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0148R LBI Grand Avenue OH; Local Bridge; Constructed 1984; Bridge not eligible for NRHP Primary/ Property Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes 35C0164 LBI San Bruno Channel; Local Bridge; Constructed 1948; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35C0173 LBI Oyster Point Boulevard OH; Local Bridge; Constructed 1994; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0094L SBI South San Francisco OH; State Bridge; Constructed 1948; Bridge not eligible for NRHP P-41-002435 35 0094R; S- 043525 ICDB; SBI South San Francisco OH; State Bridge; U.S. 101 Viaduct, M.P. 09.40; Constructed 1948; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0118 SBI Colma Creek; State Bridge; Constructed 1947; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0119 SBI Colma Road Undercrossing; State Bridge; Constructed 1947; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0121 SBI South SF Belt Railway OH; State Bridge; Constructed 1948; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0130S SBI Sierra Point Off-Ramp OH; State Bridge; Constructed 1982; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0131S SBI Sierra Point Off-Ramp Separation; State Bridge; Constructed 1957; Bridge not eligible for the NRHP 35 0212L SBI Westborough Boulevard UC; State Bridge; Constructed 1967; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0212R SBI Westborough Boulevard UC; State Bridge; Constructed 1967; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0228L SBI Avalon Drive UC; State Bridge; Constructed 1971; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0228R SBI Avalon Drive UC; State Bridge; Constructed 1971; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0255L SBI Route 380/101 Separation; State Bridge; Constructed 1976; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0281F SBI W380-N101 Connector; State Bridge; Constructed 1976; Bridge not eligible for NRHP Primary/ Property Number Other Identifiers Information Source Resource Description Status Codes 35 0307 SBI Oyster Point Drain; State Bridge; Constructed 1995; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0316 SBI Oster Point Boulevard OC; State Bridge; Constructed 1994; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0317K SBI Oyster Point Boulevard Off-Ramp SEP&OH; State Bridge; Constructed 2004; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0318K SBI Oyster Point Boulevard On-Ramp SEP&OH; State Bridge; Constructed 2004; Bridge not eligible for NRHP 35 0321S SBI Oyster Point Boulevard On-Ramp; State Bridge; Constructed 1995; Bridge not eligible for NRHP Notes: ICDB = Information Center Database SBI = LBI = Table CUL-9: Cemeteries within the City of South San Francisco Cemetery Name Address Hoy Sun Ning Yung Cemetery 1 Longford Drive South San Francisco, CA 94080 Tung Sen Cemetery 1 Longford Drive San Francisco, CA 94080 Appendix NAT: List of Special-status Species within the Vicinity of the City of South San Francisco Table NAT-1: Special-status Plant Species in the City of South San Francisco Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status Rare Plant Rank Allium peninsulare var. francisanum Franciscan onion None None 1B.2 Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck None None 1B.2 Arabis blepharophylla coast rockcress None None 4.3 Arctostaphylos franciscana Franciscan manzanita Endangered None 1B.1 Arctostaphylos imbricata San Bruno Mountain manzanita None Endangered 1B.1 Arctostaphylos montana ssp. ravenii Presidio manzanita Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita None None 1B.2 Arctostaphylos pacifica Pacific manzanita None Endangered 1B.1 Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii ocean bluff milk-vetch None None 4.2 Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch None None 1B.2 Carex comosa bristly sedge None None 2B.1 Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant None None 1B.2 Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata San Francisco Bay spineflower None None 1B.2 Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower Endangered None 1B.1 Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle None None 1B.2 Cirsium occidentale var. compactum compact cobwebby thistle None None 1B.2 Collinsia corymbosa round-headed Chinese- houses None None 1B.2 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia None None 1B.2 Equisetum palustre marsh horsetail None None 3 Erysimum franciscanum San Francisco wallflower None None 4.2 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None None 1B.2 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status Rare Plant Rank Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis blue coast gilia None None 1B.1 Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia None None 1B.2 Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima San Francisco gumplant None None* 3.2 Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella None None 1B.2 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant None None 1B.2 Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia short-leaved evax None None 1B.2 Heteranthera dubia water star-grass None None 2B.2 Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg’s horkelia None None 1B.1 Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia None None 1B.2 Iris longipetala coast iris None None 4.2 Layia carnosa beach layia Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon None None 1B.1 Lessingia germanorum San Francisco lessingia Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow None None 1B.2 Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens northern curly-leaved monardella None None 1B.2 Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris’ popcornflower None None 1B.2 Sanicula maritima adobe sanicle None Rare 1B.1 Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort None None 2B.2 Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri Scouler’s catchfly None None 2B.2 Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion None None 1B.2 Suaeda californica California seablite Endangered None 1B.1 Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover Endangered None 1B.1 Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl’s- clover None None 1B.2 Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella None None 1B.2 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status Rare Plant Rank Notes: * San Francisco gumplant has a State rank of S1: Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the State because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State. California Rare Plant Rankings: 1A Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere 3 Plants about which we need more information—A Review List 4 Plants of limited distribution—A Watch List Threat Ranks: 0.1—Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2—Moderately threatened in California (20–80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3—Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Table NAT-2: Special-status Wildlife Species in the City of South San Francisco Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status CDFW Status Adela oplerella Opler’s longhorn moth None None** None Banksula incredula incredible harvestman None None* None Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee None None*/** None Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee None None* None Caecidotea tomalensis Tomales isopod None None None Callophrys mossii bayensis San Bruno elfin butterfly Endangered None None Cicindela hirticollis gravida sandy beach tiger beetle None None** None Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat None None Species of Special Concern Dufourea stagei Stage’s dufourine bee None None* None Emys marmorata western pond turtle None None Species of Special Concern Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine None None None Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status CDFW Status Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby Endangered None Species of Special Concern Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly Threatened None None Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon Delisted None Fully Protected Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat None None Species of Special Concern Hydroporus leechi Leech’s skyline diving beetle None None None Ischnura gemina San Francisco forktail damselfly None None** None Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat None None None Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail None Threatened Fully Protected Lichnanthe ursina bumblebee scarab beetle None None** None Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow None None Species of Special Concern Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead None None Species of Special Concern Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant None None Watch List Plebejus icarioides missionensis Mission blue butterfly Endangered None None Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway’s rail Endangered Endangered Fully Protected Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Threatened None Species of Special Concern Riparia riparia bank swallow None Threatened None Speyeria callippe callippe callippe silverspot butterfly Endangered None None Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt Candidate Threatened None Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake Endangered Endangered Fully Protected Trachusa gummifera San Francisco Bay Area leaf-cutter bee None None* None Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status CDFW Status Notes: * State Rank S1: Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the State because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. ** State Rank S2: Imperiled—Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or State. */** S1/S2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK