HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.E._Cultural_Resources (2)IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft EIR describes existing historic and cultural resources within the existing 22.7-
acre Gateway Business Park Master Plan area, information on regulations relating to these issues, and an
analysis of potential impacts related to historic and cultural resources resulting from implementation of
the Gateway Business Park Master Plan. Where appropriate, this section provides project level analysis
for the Phase 1 Precise Plan, and program level analysis for the remainder of development proposed by
the Gateway Business Park Master Plan. Where appropriate, this section provides project level analysis
for the Phase 1 Precise Plan, and program level analysis for the remainder of development proposed by
the Gateway Business Park Master Plan. A regulatory framework is also provided in this section
describing applicable agencies and regulations related to cultural resources.
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the proposed Gateway
Historic Property
Business Park Master Plan; City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999); and the
and Archeological Inventory Report for the South San Francisco Gateway Business Park Project–August
2008
prepared by Holman and Associates Archeological Consultants (included as Appendix D to this
Draft EIR).
No comment letters related to cultural resources were received in response to the June 16, 2008 Notice of
Preparation (NOP) or the October 22, 2008 Revised NOP circulated for the project. The NOP and
comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physical Setting
The Gateway Business Park project area is located in South San Francisco’s “East of 101" area, which
has historically been the industrial, manufacturing, and commercial area of the city. The project area
coincides exactly with the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area and contains 22.7 acres (in the Master
Plan area; Kenkay Associates 2008), bounded on the north by Oyster Point Boulevard and three business
parcels on that road, on the west by Gateway Boulevard, on the east by the former Southern Pacific
Railroad railbed easement (now a vacant narrow strip), and on the south by a parcel occupied by a hotel.
Uses of the East of 101 area have changed through time since it was initially the location of large meat
processing and packing houses in the 1890s, followed by various other heavy and light industries (steel,
ship building, paint factories) and succeeded by other uses, the latest being most notably biotech and
information technology. The proposed project area is the next in this line of changes in land use.
The East of 101 area is contained on the U.S. Geological Survey “San Francisco South” 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangle, a portion of which is reproduced here as “Map 1,” and is in Township 3 South,
Range 5 West (Mt. Diablo M&B). The project area contains four parcels currently designated as 700, 750,
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-1
City of South San Francisco October 2009
800, 850, 900, and 1000 Gateway Boulevard. The property currently is already named the “Gateway
Business Park,” and is entirely developed, with the exception of the narrow SPRR easement, with six
buildings, streets and parking, landscaping and ancillary features covering the entire area. Access to the
project area is off both Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevards. The project area is served by municipal
utilities (California Water Service, South San Francisco Sanitary District, PG&E) but also has private
wastewater and storm drain pipelines.
Topographic Features
The project area is on what was once a near-island in San Francisco Bay. In the 1800s the East of 101
area was a hilly peninsula, Point San Bruno, with elevations reaching over 150 feet, surrounded by Bay
marshlands at the northwest, southwest and south, and by open Bay waters to the east, connected to the
Peninsula by a narrow neck of dry land (Bache 1854; Hoffman 1873; Anonymous 1895-98; USGS 1897).
The low marshy areas are now almost entirely filled and on the south side have been developed for over a
century. The project area still has the generally northwest aspect of the aboriginal landform, rising gently
from south to north and east to west; elevation now ranges from less than 30 feet msl along Oyster Point
Boulevard to about 60 feet along the easterly boundary. The natural contours have been entirely altered
by development; the slope was originally more pronounced and both lower at the northwest and higher at
southeast. The property is currently terraced for building pads and parking lots, but elevation of the pads
varies little.
Geologic Features
Franciscan Complex metamorphosed marine rocks compose the bedrock of Point San Bruno, overlain by
Pleistocene Colma Formation indurated sandstone, bedded sands, and clay and mudstones. Fill overlies
the project area, derived from Colma Formation materials that “comprised the hills of Point San Bruno
that were removed prior to construction of the [existing] industrial park” (Dames and Moore 1998:i). The
original topography was extensively altered beginning in the late nineteenth century, the upper soils,
indurated sands and clay, and rock removed to permit construction and for use as bay fill (Anonymous
1895-98). In 1930 the project area had been extensively graded and filled and was occupied by several
heavy industries (Mark Group 1989). By 1939 the area was traversed by at least two railroad spurs and
Oyster Point Boulevard (then Butler Road) was on the current alignment (USGS 1939). By 1947 steel
company buildings are in the vicinity but not on the project area, which was being redeveloped for other
industrial uses (USGS 1947). A circa 1954 aerial photo shows the area covered by large buildings
associated with the Bethlehem Steel Company (South San Francisco Historical Society 2004:111), but the
1955 USGS maps shows the buildings gone and the area covered by numerous rail spurs, a condition
which remained until the 1968 map was issued (USGS 1955, 1968). A recent geotechnical assessment of
the project area concludes that the area is “characterized by the subsurface conditions consisting of the
following general profiles: bedrock exposed at the ground surface; native dense sand over bedrock;
compacted fill of native dense sand over bedrock; compacted fill over bedrock” (Kenkay Associates
2008:7). These various impacts over recent history have significantly reduced the archaeological potential
of the project area; see discussion below.
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-2
City of South San Francisco October 2009
Biophysical Features
Prior to the European arrival, the project area would have likely been a windswept grassy hillside, perhaps
supporting a few trees and probably willows in any wet spots. Located on a near-island surrounded by the
Bay and Bayside marshes, the area would have been used for gathering of specific resources but was
unlikely to have been the location for habitation, either seasonal or permanent, due to the slope and
exposure to the prevailing northwest winds. Now fully developed, the project area supports no native
plants unless they have been replanted as landscaping, most of the property being covered by pavement
and buildings.
Ethnographic Setting
The Native Americans who owned the San Francisco Bay region, Santa Cruz Mountains and East Bay
Hills, and the Monterey Bay area at the 1769 Spanish invasion are now most commonly known as
"Ohlones," a name taken from a coastal village between Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay. Archaeological
evidence indicates the ancestral Ohlones arrived in the San Francisco Bay region–depending on location–
somewhere around A.D. 500 (Moratto 1984), possibly from the lower Sacramento Valley/Delta, and in
the Santa Cruz/Monterey Bay region somewhat later, displacing earlier populations. Anthropologists and
the Federal Government labeled these people "Costanoans," from the Spanish "costanos" or coast-
dwellers, a linguistic term coined to describe groups speaking related languages, occupying the coast from
the Golden Gate to Point Sur and inland to about the crest of the Diablo Range. Some Indian descendants
of these people still prefer the term “Costanoan,” while others prefer “Ohlone” or more readily identify
with more specific tribelet names such as Muwekma or Rumsen/Rumsien.
Currently the best available information indicates that, at the Spanish arrival, the Urebure tribelet of the
Ohlones/Costanoans held the general project area vicinity. The Urebure group, with alternative spellings
Wuriwuri, Buri Buri, and others, inhabited “the San Bruno Creek are just south of San Bruno Mountain
on the San Francisco Peninsula.” They “were entirely absorbed into the Mission San Francisco
community by the end of 1785. The Mexican land grant of Buriburi, patented in the year 1826, included
lands from the present city of Millbrae to the present city of South San Francisco” (Milliken 1995: 258-
259). Clearly the project area vicinity was permanently occupied, probably supporting both permanent
and seasonally occupied villages, and very likely had been for several millennia or more; whether any of
the project area was a location of permanent or seasonal habitation is unknown but seems unlikely. There
are indications that the project vicinity was used aboriginally for specific tasks, such as gathering and
processing food resources, and the banks of permanent and seasonal streams and the shores of the Bay
contain nearly continuous archaeological sites, so the entire project vicinity would have been considered
sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources had the development history discussed not been the
case.
Natural resources of their home areas provided for nearly all the needs of the aboriginal Ohlone
populations. The prehistoric Ohlones were "hunters and gatherers," a term which may connote a transient,
unstable and "primitive" life, materially poor, constantly fending off starvation. While undoubtedly
recurrent lack of resources and cultural strife did not make life perpetually easy, in many ways the Indians
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-3
City of South San Francisco October 2009
of Central California practiced a lifestyle similar to contemporary agricultural peoples elsewhere. The
Ohlones had adapted to and managed their abundant local environment so well that some places were
continuously occupied for literally thousands of years. Compared to modern standards, population density
always remained relatively low, but the Ohlone area, especially around Monterey and San Francisco
Bays, was one of the most densely lived-in areas of prehistoric California for centuries. The Ohlones had
perfected living in and managing myriad slightly differing environments, varying with location, some rich
enough to allow large permanent villages of "collectors" to exist, others less abundant and more
encouraging of a more mobile "forager" way of life. Littoral (shoreline) and riparian environments were
obviously more productive and were therefore most sought out, most intensively utilized and occupied,
and most jealously defined and guarded. Uplands and redwood areas were less productive and less
intensively used and occupied than the ocean and Bay coasts and riparian corridors. As throughout
Central California, the acorn was the dietary staple of the Ohlones, with Black and Tanoak most favored,
but a huge number of floral and faunal resources were utilized. Like other native Californians, the Ohlone
managed their environment to improve it for their use; for example, by burning grass and brush lands
annually to improve forage for deer and rabbits, keep the land open and more safe from predators and
their neighbors, and improve productivity of many resources they used.
The basic unit of Ohlone society was the "tribelet," a small independent group of usually related families
occupying a specific territory and speaking the same language or dialect. An incredible diversity of
languages had evolved in Central California, evidence of centuries of in-place divergence of very small
social groups. Early linguists encountered some groups of only 50-100 people speaking distinct languages
sometimes, but not generally, unintelligible to their neighbors. Inter-tribelet relationships were socially
and economically necessary however, to supply both marriage partners and goods and services not
available locally. Trade and marriage patterns were usually but not always dictated by proximity;
traditional enemies were usually also defined by proximity. Regional festivals and religious dances would
bring groups together during periods of suspended hostilities.
Traditional trade patterns thousands of years old were operating when the Spanish invaded. Trade
supplied the Ohlones with products from sources sometimes several hundred kilometers distant and
allowing export of products unique to their region. Historically, Ohlone groups traded most with each
other, but also exchanged regularly with the Plains and Coast Miwok, Yokuts, Salinans and Esselens to
the south, and North Coast Ranges groups such as the Pomo. Of particular interest archaeologically are
imported obsidian and exported marine mollusk shell beads and ornaments. Obsidian has the useful
property of each source having a unique chemical "fingerprint," allowing obsidian artifacts to be sourced
to a specific locality of origin, as well as being datable by technical methods (“hydration”). Obsidian was
obtained by the Ohlones from the North Coast Ranges and Sierran sources, in patterns that changed
through time. By 1769, the Ohlones had been trading for or buying finished obsidian arrowheads of
specific forms, manufactured by North Coast Range tribes, for hundreds of years. Shell beads and
ornaments, a major export from the Ohlone regions, were made primarily from the shells of abalone
(Haliotis), Purple Olive snail (Olivella), and Washington clam (Saxidomus), all ocean coast species. Shell
beads and ornaments evolved through many different and definable types through the millennia, allowing
chronological typing of these common artifacts to serve as a key to the age and relative cultural position
of archaeological complexes. These beads were traded for thousands of years, and have been found in
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-4
City of South San Francisco October 2009
prehistoric sites up and down California and many kilometers east, into the Great Basin, showing that
prehistoric peoples on the coast were tied into an "international" system of trade. At the time of the
Spanish invasion, some Central Californians had developed a system of exchange currency or "money"
based on clam shell disk beads; the extent to which the Ohlones related to that system is unknown.
The small tribelet groups were at once independent and interdependent. Trade with neighbors in goods,
and wives, is strongly attested in both the archaeological record and ethnographic accounts. These
relationships often moved both goods–particularly obsidian and shell beads–and sometimes individuals
long distances, though again proximity was always the key factor in intensity of interaction (Milliken
1995). As noted, control of territory and resources was jealously guarded. Such interaction also included a
significant component of interpersonal and intergroup violence, from individual disputes and clan feuds
up to a level reasonably described as warfare (with the goal of displacing neighbors and laying claim to
their desirable resources). The most typical weapons were the short thrusting spear and the bow and
arrow, and archaeological evidence of use of both on human victims is not lacking. The Spanish also
reported ongoing multigenerational feuds or warfare in Ohlone territory. Such violence was accorded
social approval and prestige, as exemplified by the practice of dismembering dead foes, taking and
displaying trophy heads, and composing powerful “songs of insult or vengeance” toward one’s enemies
(Kroeber 1925:468-469). Postmortem dismemberment of human remains has been documented at several
Ohlone area sites (Wiberg 1993, 2002; Grady et al. 2001; Hylkema 2002). The too-common stereotype of
Central California natives as altogether peaceable and passive in the face of threats–such as the Spanish
invasion–is contradicted by both historic and archaeological evidence. As everywhere, the struggle for
resources and territory, as well as individual disputes, often led to violence in the Ohlone tribelets
Absolute and relative dating of archaeological sites, the linguistic diversity, and demonstrably ancient
trade patterns all indicate that the Ohlones and other Central California groups had reached a state of
demographic and social stability unimaginable to modern city-dwellers – a state in which the same family
groups occupied the same location continuously for hundreds or even thousands of years with few if any
changes in population size or profile. This long term stability is reflected in the homogeneity of
archaeological sites spanning wide geographic and temporal ranges
Archeological and Prehistoric Context
Prehistoric archaeological sites typically occur at locations offering suitable combinations of
characteristics and resources needed by ancient populations; the more favorable characteristics occur at a
given location, the more likely it was to have been used, with intensity and longevity of use–and hence,
archaeological visibility–also varying with those criteria. Such locations that offered reliable fresh water,
plant and animal resources, lithic resources, and defensibility but also the possibility of contact with
neighbors, and suitable physical traits such as relatively level land, accessibility, and good weather, also
varied through time as California’s environment varied, so locations now favorable may not have been so
in the distant past and vice versa. Environmental change thus caused sites to be clustered in different
locations during different time periods. However, some places appear to have been favored–or
disfavored–for long periods, often thousands of years. Sites over 9000 years old have been found in
interior Santa Clara and Santa Cruz County in locations perhaps later unlikely to harbor permanent
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-5
City of South San Francisco October 2009
aboriginal habitation, while other locations exhibit sporadic or virtually constant habitation from even that
early to the present day. Still, generally still-extant natural landforms will provide the best clues to the
locations of potential archaeological sites. As elsewhere, more recent sites are more likely to be
discovered due to being more numerous, in better states of preservation, nearer or on the surface, and less
likely to have been covered or erased by erosion or rising water levels. It appears likely that many older
sites once created on the ocean coast are now inundated by the ocean rising over the last several thousand
years.
As evidenced by the antiquity of a few sites, the Santa Cruz and San Mateo coasts and general Bay Area
have been hospitable to human populations for at least six millennia. Prehistoric sites are found in most
environmental zones from the ocean coast and coastal terrace well up into the steep hills to the east, and
then back down the drainages and all around the margin of the Bay. Sites are most numerous along the
few perennial streams on the Peninsula Bayside such as Colma, San Bruno, San Mateo, Laurel, and San
Francisquito Creeks, and around marshlands such as formerly existed around large portions of the Bay.
Locations such as the project area–hilly, probably grass covered, and subject to the cold prevailing
northwest winds–would still have offered some resources attractive to prehistoric populations during parts
of each year and would have been used, but were less attractive than other nearby areas of concentrated
resources along perennial streams and the Bay margin. An old Bayside site (>5000 years) is found next to
former Bay marshland at the foot of San Bruno Mountain, numerous sites occur along Colma Creek just
to the south, and Nelson’s 1909 map of Bay Area shell mounds shows sites at the north and south shores
of Point San Bruno, but no prehistoric sites are recorded in or very near the project area (Clark 1998;
Nelson 1909).
Results of Records Search and Historic Resources Survey
Records Search
A new records search was conducted in July 2008 at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) for the Gateway Business Park Project. The
records search was completed by the NWIC staff, revealing that several archaeological surveys had been
nearly adjacent to the project area but none were recorded within the area; numerous other surveys are
recorded within 500 meters of the project area. Numerous South San Francisco historic resources are
recorded at various levels (Office of Historic Preservation Directory, California Inventory, State Points of
Historical Interest, CHRIS records, California Register of Historic Resources, National Register of
Historic Places, County and City historic resources listings, etc.); however none are recorded inside or
within 500 meters of the project area.
Most of the archaeological or historic resource surveys near the project area have been lineal, for road
improvement, pipelines, fiber optic cables, etc. (Brown et al. 2003; Leach-Palm and Byrd 2005, 2006;
BioSystems Analysis 1989; Hatoff et al. 1995; Sawyer et al. 2000; Nelson et al. 2002; Clark 2002, 2002a,
2005, 2005a, 2005b), with only one covering a contiguous nonlinear project area near Oyster Point
(William Self Associates 2005). None of the surface surveys recorded either prehistoric or historic
archaeological resources or historic properties. Two survey reports evaluated subsurface potential on
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-6
City of South San Francisco October 2009
Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards, concluding that the portions of Oyster Point Boulevard built on
fill over Bay margin marshlands, perhaps including the intersection with Gateway, might have
archaeological potential (Clark 2002, 2002a).
The NWIC File Number for the Phase II Records Search is 07-1782. A copy of this report will be
submitted for inclusion in the permanent CHRIS archives.
Archival Research
Historic research for the Gateway Business Park project area shows the property to have been initially
impacted by development late in the nineteenth century, and to have undergone several episodes of
redevelopment at a quickening pace into the twenty-first century. Study of historic maps, historic and
aerial photos, City Engineering Division records, and analyses conducted for the proposed development
and previous developments in the East of 101 Area show that the entire project area has undergone
extensive alterations, such that it is unlikely that any portion of the area contains undisturbed native soils,
either exposed or covered by fill. The property has basically been graded and stripped, built on, then those
features demolished, the area graded again, built on, redeveloped, built on again, and is about to be
cleared and redeveloped once again.
Field Survey
A pedestrian reconnaissance for archaeological or other historic resources was conducted of the project
area. The entire project area, as described, is developed and no portion of the land surface afforded an
examination of possible native soils or even natural, historic contours. The entire project impacts zone is
covered by buildings and other structures, pavement, and modern landscaping.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Register of Historical Places
Primarily Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 governs federal
regulations for cultural resources. Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council’s implementing
regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties,” are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are
determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which is the nation’s
master inventory of known historic resources. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service.
The NRHP includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic,
architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-7
City of South San Francisco October 2009
Resources (structures, sites, buildings, districts and objects) over fifty years of age can be listed on the
NRHP. However, properties under fifty years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors
to a district can also be included on the NRHP. The following list of definitions is relevant to any
discussion of the NRHP.
A structure is a work made up of interdependent and interrelated parts in a definite pattern of
organization. Generally constructed by man, it is often an engineering object large in scale.
A site is defined as the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or
activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself
maintains historical or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure.
Buildings are defined as structures created to shelter human activity.
A district is a geographically definable area—urban or rural, small or large— possessing a
significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, and/or objects
united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district may also
comprise individual elements separated geographically but linked by association or history.
An object is a material thing of functional, aesthetic, cultural, historical, or scientific value that
may be, by nature or design, moveable yet related to a specific setting or environment.
There are four criteria under which a structure, site, building, district or object can be considered
significant for listing on the NRHP. These include resources that:
1)Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
history (such as a Civil War Battlefield or a Naval Ship Building Center);
2)Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past (such as Thomas Jefferson's
Monticello or the Susan B. Anthony Birthplace);
3)Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (such as Frank
Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin or the Midwestern Native American Indian Mounds);
4)Have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history (such as
prehistoric ruins in Arizona or the archaeological sites of the first European settlements in St.
Augustine, Florida, or at the Presidio of San Francisco).
A resource can be considered significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and
culture. Once a resource has been identified as significant and potentially eligible for the NRHP, its
historic integrity must be evaluated. Integrity involves seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association. These aspects closely relate to the resource’s significance and must
be intact for NRHP eligibility.
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-8
City of South San Francisco October 2009
When nominating a resource to the NRHP, the significance of that resource must be clearly evaluated and
stated. A resource can be individually eligible for listing on the NRHP for any of the above four criteria.
A resource can also be listed as contributing to a group of resources that are listed on the NRHP. In other
words, the resource is part of an historic district, as defined above.
Districts are comprised of resources that are contributing and non-contributing. Some resources within the
boundaries of the district may not meet the criteria for contributing to the historic character of the district
but the resource is within the district boundaries.
State
California Environmental Quality Act
Historical Architectural Resources
Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource (including both built
environment and prehistoric archaeological resources) is presumed significant if the structure is listed on
the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or has been determined to be eligible for listing
by the State Historical Resources Commission. A historical resource may also be considered significant if
the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence, that the resource meets the criteria for
inclusion in the CRHR. The criteria are as follows:
1)The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2)The resource is associated with lives of persons important in our past;
3)The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic
values; or
4)The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Archaeological Resources
Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, archaeological resources, not otherwise determined
to be historical resources, may be significant if they are unique. Pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2, a unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site
about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge,
there is a high probability that it meets one of the following criteria:
1)The resource contains information needed to answer important scientific questions and there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information;
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-9
City of South San Francisco October 2009
2)The resource has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type; or
3)The resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or
historic event or person.
A non-unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet
the above criteria. Non-unique archaeological resources receive no further consideration under CEQA.
Human Remains
According to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are a significant resource.
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies
procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are spelled out
under Public Resources Code Section 5097.
Paleontological Resources
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a significant effect if it would
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
California Historic Register
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR). The CRHR is the State’s authoritative guide to significant California historical and
archeological resources. The State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) has designed this program
for use by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identify, evaluate, register and protect
California's historical resources. The CRHR program encourages public recognition and protection of
resources of architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources
for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding,
and affords certain protections under CEQA.
Types of resources eligible for nomination for listing in the CRHR are buildings, sites, structures, objects,
or historic districts. All resources listed in or formally determined eligible for the NRHP are eligible for
the CRHR. An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or
more of the following criteria that are defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 3,
Chapter 11.5, Section 4850:
1)It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United
States; or
2)It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-10
City of South San Francisco October 2009
3)It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4)It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of
the local area, California or the nation.
The CRHR criteria are similar to NRHP criteria. Any resource that meets the above criteria is considered
a historical resource under CEQA.
Local
Historic Preservation Commission
The City has a Historic Preservation Commission that designates historic resources, reviews applications
for altering or demolishing historic structures, disseminates information to the public concerning
structures, sites and areas deemed worthy of preservation, and considers and recommends to the City
Council methods for encouraging and achieving historical or architectural preservation. The City of South
San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission also maintains a Historic Resources Survey (1986),
which focuses on historic buildings, architecture, and sites of significance in the City. The Historic
Resources Survey does not list any resources in or near the project area, nor any in the entire East of 101
area.
South San Francisco General Plan
The South San Francisco General Plan serves as an outline for the City of South San Francisco’s long-
range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the
community. The General Plan provides a detailed analysis of key issues in South San Francisco, and sets
policies specifically designed to guide development within the City. The Open Space and Conservation
Element establishes the goals, policies, programs, and guidelines to protect, manage and conserve natural
and community resources. The following are policies related to cultural resources:
7.5-G-1 Conserve historic, cultural, and archeological resources for the aesthetic, educational,
economic, and scientific contribution they make to South San Francisco’s identity and
quality of life.
7.5-G-2 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and support for South San
Francisco’s historic, cultural, and archeological resources.
7.5-I-4 Ensure the protection of know archeological resources in the city by requiring a records
review for any development proposed in areas of known resources.
7.5-I-5 In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and
monitoring program by a qualified archeologist in the event that archeological resources
are uncovered.
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-11
City of South San Francisco October 2009
East of 101 Area Plan
Policy LU-28 The. City shall protect buildings, sites, and land uses which are historically significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Methodology
Historic Resources
Potentially adverse effects on historic structures or features are evaluated by determining the presence or
absence of historic status with respect to the feature in question, and then determining the potential for the
project to affect the structure or feature if it possesses historic status.
Archaeological Resources (including human remains)
This analysis is based on the possibility, based on the archaeological survey conducted, that an
archaeological resource or human burial would be affected by activities that disturb the ground surface or
subsurface, including grading or excavation.
Paleontological Resources
This analysis is based on professional knowledge that paleontological resources could be affected by
activities that disturb the ground surface or subsurface, including grading or excavation. For the purposes
of this Draft EIR, impacts on paleontological resources are assessed in terms of significance based upon
whether these resources meet the definition of a “unique paleontological resource” found in Section
21083.2(g) of the PRC.
Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines
In accordance with Appendix G of the , the proposed project would have a significant
impact related to cultural resources if it would:
(a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5;
(b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5;
(c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature;
or
(d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-12
City of South San Francisco October 2009
Project Impacts
Impact IV.E-1: The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5
A records search for historic resources was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the Gateway Business
Park Master Plan area or environs had been previously studied for resources or contained recorded
historic resources. Additional archival research was completed at the San Mateo County Historical
Association Archives, the archives of the City of South San Francisco’s Engineering Division in the
Department of Public Works, and by utilizing other published sources. A pedestrian surface survey of the
project area was also completed.
The project area was not found to contain any recorded historic resources. This area was not part of the
historic development either of the residential/commercial portion of the City (west of Highway 101), nor
of the earliest industrial development east of Highway 101. In addition, this area has been developed and
redeveloped more than once in the twentieth century, processes that have virtually completely removed
potential for and make the property quite unlikely to contain significant historic resources that would be
impacted by the proposed project. Although no historic resources were found in the project area, the
entire project site would be subject to ground disturbance through various phases of the project and it is
possible that subsurface deposits may exist or that evidence of such resources has been obscured by more
recent natural or cultural factors and could be uncovered during construction of the Precise Plan or Master
Plan. Historic resources are protected from unauthorized disturbance by State law and supervisory and
construction personnel should therefore be made aware of the possibility, however low, of encountering
historic materials in this location. Historic materials older than 45 years–bottles, artifacts, privy and
disposal pits, structural remains, etc.–may also have scientific and cultural significance and should be
more readily identified.
Therefore, although the potential to impact historic resources is unlikely, mitigation measures to reduce
this impact are required. The construction contractor will halt surrounding excavation activities if
evidence of historic or cultural resources is discovered and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to
the site to investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying historic resources. Upon
implementation of these steps as described further in Mitigation Measure E-1.1 below, this impact would
less than significant
be.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-1.1 Unknown Historic or Cultural Resources
In order to avoid impacts to unknown historic or cultural resources, if during the proposed construction of
historic or cultural
the Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the Master Plan any evidence of
resources
is uncovered or encountered, all excavations within 10 meters/30 feet of the discovery shall be
halted. In order to protect these resources from damage, a qualified archaeologist approved by the City
shall determine whether this resource is a “unique archaeological resource” under 36 CFR 800, CEQA
Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-13
City of South San Francisco October 2009
determined to be a “unique archaeological resource,” the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan
that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code
21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan and/or
recovery of the resource.
If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource,
work can resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the
California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center.
The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan,
following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the
California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center.
Impact IV.E-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
A records search for archeological resources was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC)
of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the Gateway
Business Park Master Plan area or environs had been previously studied for resources or contained
recorded archaeological resources. Additional archival research was completed at the San Mateo County
Historical Association Archives, the archives of the City of South San Francisco’s Engineering Division
in the Department of Public Works, and by utilizing in-house resources and other published sources. A
pedestrian surface survey of the project area was completed.
The Gateway Business Park project area was not found to contain any recorded archaeological resources.
Although no archaeological resources were found in the project area, it is possible that subsurface
deposits may exist or that evidence of such resources has been obscured by more recent natural or cultural
factors and would be uncovered during construction of the Precise Plan or subsequent phases of the
Master Plan since ultimately the entire site would be subject to ground disturbance. Archaeological
resources are protected from unauthorized disturbance by State law and supervisory and construction
personnel should therefore be made aware of the possibility, however low, of encountering archaeological
materials in this location. In this area, the most common and recognizable evidence of prehistoric
archaeological resources are deposits of shell and/or bones, usually in fragments, and usually in a darker
fine-grained soil (midden); chert, obsidian and other stone flakes left from manufacturing stone tools, or
the tools themselves or ground stone (mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, arrowheads and spear points), other
artifacts (shell beads, bone tools, etc.), and human burials, often as dislocated bones.
Nevertheless, since archaeological resources could be located in the subsurface, and impacts to these
resources would be unknown until encountered during excavation, impacts to such resources would be
potentially significant. The construction contractor will halt surrounding excavation activities if evidence
of archaeological resources is discovered and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to
investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying unique archaeological resources.
less than
Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-2.1 listed below, this impact would be
significant
.
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-14
City of South San Francisco October 2009
Mitigation Measure IV.E-2.1 Unknown Archaeological Resources
If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during construction of the Precise Plan or any
subsequent phases of the Master Plan, a qualified archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall
conduct further archival and field study to identify the presence of archaeological resources in the area
surrounding the discovery. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, auguring, and
monitoring construction activities as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of
archaeological resources in a fully developed urban area.
If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during any phases of construction, a qualified
archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall first determine whether this resource is a “unique
archaeological resource” under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a “unique archaeological resource,”
the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA
Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume at
the completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource.
If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource,
work will resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the
California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center.
The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan,
following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the
California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center.
Impact IV.E-3: The proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
The project site is located in an area underlain by sheared rock of the Franciscan Complex, which is a
very common geological feature. As described previously, the original topography of the project site has
been extensively altered and the project site is primarily overlain by fill derived from Colma Formation
materials that “comprised the hills of Point San Bruno that were removed prior to construction of the
[existing] industrial park.” The original topography was extensively altered beginning in the late
nineteenth century, the upper soils, indurated sands and clay, and rock removed to permit construction
and for use as bay fill. However, according to the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History (LACM), no
vertebrate fossil localities exist on the San Francisco peninsula, thus, no unique paleontological resource
less
or unique geologic features are anticipated to exist within the project area and this impact would be
than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
Impact IV.E-4: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.
While there is no evidence that human remains are present on the project site, there is still the potential
that the construction phases of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan could encounter
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-15
City of South San Francisco October 2009
human remains, which in turn could result in a potentially significant cultural resource impact. The
construction contractor will halt ground-disturbing activities if human remains are discovered so that the
County's Medical Examiner can investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying cultural
resources or Native American remains. Therefore, project impacts related to a disturbance of human
less than significant
remains would be with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.E-4.1.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-4.1 Disturbance of Human Remains
In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone during construction of the
Precise Plan or any subsequent phases of the Master Plan, all excavation or grading within 100 feet of the
find shall halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected, and the project applicant immediately
shall notify the San Mateo County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of PRC Section
5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary. Work
may resume once the area is protected or the body is removed.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impacts related to historical resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The
City of South San Francisco would require the applicants of future development subject to CEQA to
assess, determine, and mitigate any potential impacts related to historical resources that could occur as a
result of development, as necessary. Through compliance with the existing laws and the mitigation
measures listed previously, project impacts associated with historic resources, archaeological resources,
paleontological resources, unique geologic features, and human remains would be less than significant.
The occurrence of these less than significant impacts would be limited to the project site and would not
contribute to any potentially significant cultural resources impacts that could occur at the sites of future
development subject to CEQA. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to any potential
cumulative impacts related to cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to cultural
less than significant
resources would be .
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.E-2.1 through IV.E-4.1 identified in this section would
adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to cultural resources. These impacts would also be
less-than-significant
reduced to a level.
Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.E. Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.E-16