DOCSLIB.ORG

D. Cultural Resources Archeological Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
D. Cultural Resources Archeological Resources 4. Environmental Setting and Impacts D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Section 4.D, Cultural Resources, considers both archeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and historic architectural resources. Archeological resources are discussed first, followed by a separate discussion of historic architectural resources that begins on p. 4.D.33. ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES This subsection assesses the potential for the presence of archeological resources within the project site, provides a context for evaluating the significance of archeological resources that may be encountered, evaluates the potential impacts (project and cumulative) of the Proposed Project on archeological resources, and provides mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce potential impacts on archeological resources. An independent consultant has prepared an Archeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) for the project site.1 The research and recommendations of the ARDTP are the basis for the information and conclusions of this EIR section with respect to archeological resources. The information in the ARDTP used in the preparation of this subsection was obtained from regional databases, plans, and reports relevant to the Proposed Project, including the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park photographic collection; the San Francisco History Center at the San Francisco Public Library; Sanborn Fire Insurance maps;2 San Francisco newspapers; the California Digital Newspaper Collection, sponsored by the University of California, Riverside; the Online Archive of California; the Union Iron Works Historic District National Register Nomination Form; the Library of Congress; and the David Rumsey Map Collection, which also provided useful sources of online maps, including those from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Geological Survey, and official City and County survey maps. Other relevant primary references include (but are not limited to) historic photographs and aerial images, City directories, U.S. Census data, and municipal reports. 1 ESA, Pier 70 Mixed-Use District Project, City and County of San Francisco, Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan, June 2015. 2 Sanborn Maps is an American publisher of maps of U.S. cities and towns. The maps were initially created to estimate fire insurance risks, and are now used as a record of roads and structures extant at the time. December 21, 2016 Pier 70 Mixed-Use District Project Case No. 2014-001272ENV 4.D.1 Draft EIR 4. Environmental Setting and Impacts D. Cultural Resources Archeological Resources ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC CONTEXTS The following discussion outlines the prehistoric context of the project site, based on relevant chronological prehistoric archeological sites on the San Francisco peninsula and in the San Francisco Bay Area. Prehistoric Context The oldest evidence of human occupation in San Francisco includes two isolated human skeletons discovered 45 years apart deep below City streets in marine deposits. In October 1969, fragmentary human bones were encountered during construction of the BART Civic Center Station in downtown San Francisco. Radiocarbon dating of associated organic material indicated the remains were nearly 5,000 years old. The skeleton was discovered 75 feet below ground surface within a 40-foot-thick clayey silt stratum (bay deposits), approximately 26 feet below mean sea level. More recently, an intact human skeleton was found during construction of the Transbay Transit Center in February 2014. The human remains were encountered at a depth of 58 feet below ground surface within a compressible marine clay known as Bay Mud deposits, and are estimated to be between 5,000 to 7,000 years old. The majority of known prehistoric sites in San Francisco are no more than 2,000 years old and were found buried at depths of approximately 10 to 20 feet below ground surface. Near the southeastern shoreline of San Francisco, most of the prehistoric sites are shell midden sites, which have their greatest known concentrations in the South of Market neighborhood (north of the project site) and the Hunters Point-Bayview-Candlestick Point-Visitacion Valley area (south of the project site). A National Register-eligible district that incorporates several prehistoric sites is within sand dunes formed along the north side of historic Mission Bay, within the South of Market neighborhood approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. These sites are considered to represent elements of a large prehistoric multi-village community. No prehistoric archeological sites have yet been encountered on the project site. California prehistory consists of following periods: the Terminal Pleistocene period (11,500- 9,600 B.C.), characterized by small and highly mobile populations of hunter-gatherers; the Early Holocene period (9600-5700 B.C.), characterized by semi-mobile hunter-gatherers who used flaked stone tools and ground stone implements; the Middle Holocene period (5700-1800 B.C.), characterized by substantial settlements, isolated burials, distinct cemeteries, milling slabs, mortars and pestles, and the fabrication and use of shell beads and other ornaments; and the late Holocene period (1800 B.C.-A.D. 1780), characterized by establishment of large shellmounds, exploitation of deer, sea otter, mussels, and clams (by the Yelamu Ohlone tribe in the San December 21, 2016 Pier 70 Mixed-Use District Project Case No. 2014-001272ENV 4.D.2 Draft EIR 4. Environmental Setting and Impacts D. Cultural Resources Archeological Resources Francisco peninsula), and brought to a close by disruption of the Mission system, disease, and displacement with European contact. Historic Context Spanish Period (1776-1820) The historic period begins with the first European expedition into the San Francisco Bay Area in 1772 by Pedro Fages and his party. During the Spanish Period (1776-1820), the Spanish established Mission San Francisco de Asís (also known as Mission Dolores) in 1776 on land occupied seasonally by the Yelamu Ohlone. No permanent Ohlone or Spanish settlements were present in the vicinity of the project site during the Spanish Period. The Spanish missionaries used portions of what are now the Potrero Hill and Dogpatch neighborhoods, including the territory around the project site, as pasture for livestock known as Potrero Nuevo, or “new pasture.” Mexican Period (1821-1848) During the Mexican Period (1821-1848), following the ceding of Spain’s North American colonial outposts to the newly independent Republic of Mexico in 1822, Upper California became a province of the Republic of Mexico. In 1833–1834, the Mexican government secularized the Spanish missions, and many mission lands were also subsequently granted to wealthy and politically influential individuals who established vast cattle raising estates, or ranchos. During the Mexican period, Potrero Hill, including Potrero Point, became part of a large rancho known as Rancho Potrero de San Francisco, which was granted by the Mexican government to the sons of Francisco de Haro. Potrero Point is the geographical name for the eastern arm of the Potrero Hill natural landmass extending into San Francisco Bay. It includes those portions of the project site that are not on filled land, the Illinois Parcels and the southeastern area of the 28-Acre Site. The project site remained undeveloped throughout the 1840s. War between the United States and Mexico broke out in 1846. American attempts to seize control of California quickly ensued, and within two months California was taken by the United States. Skirmishes between the two sides continued until California was officially annexed to the United States on February 2, 1848. Gold Rush Period (1849-1959) The discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada in 1848 began the Gold Rush Period (1849-1959). During this period, immigrants poured into the California territory seeking gold or associated opportunities. To accommodate the growing population, the City soon spread out in all directions. During the early Gold Rush period, the project site was located far beyond the sparsely populated southern edge of development that was concentrated to the north. The project site remained undeveloped throughout the 1850s, with the exception of a single structure in the December 21, 2016 Pier 70 Mixed-Use District Project Case No. 2014-001272ENV 4.D.3 Draft EIR 4. Environmental Setting and Impacts D. Cultural Resources Archeological Resources northern portion of the project site and a dirt track that traversed the southwestern corner. A powder magazine (a place used for artillery storage) along with several other structures and piers were present just south of the project site in 1859. In addition, the Tubbs Cordage Company’s rope-making facility, which was established in the mid-1850s and included a 1,000-foot-long rope walk, was approximately 0.25 mile south of the project site. Historic maps and charts of San Francisco indicate that at the time of the Gold Rush and in the decade following, land reclamation off Potrero Point had not yet begun, and the eastern and northern portions of the project site were within San Francisco Bay. Late Nineteenth Century (1860-1899) In the late nineteenth century, development of the project site occurred at a steady pace. Industrial complexes were established in the northern and eastern portions of the project site, and residential and commercial neighborhoods were founded on Irish Hill in the southern and western portions, as described below. INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES Little
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
    IV. Environmental Setting and Impacts H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Environmental Setting The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department maintains more than 200 parks, playgrounds, and open spaces throughout the City. The City’s park system also includes 15 recreation centers, nine swimming pools, five golf courses as well as tennis courts, ball diamonds, athletic fields and basketball courts. The Recreation and Park Department manages the Marina Yacht Harbor, Candlestick (Monster) Park, the San Francisco Zoo, and the Lake Merced Complex. In total, the Department currently owns and manages roughly 3,380 acres of parkland and open space. Together with other city agencies and state and federal open space properties within the city, about 6,360 acres of recreational resources (a variety of parks, walkways, landscaped areas, recreational facilities, playing fields and unmaintained open areas) serve San Francisco.172 San Franciscans also benefit from the Bay Area regional open spaces system. Regional resources include public open spaces managed by the East Bay Regional Park District in Alameda and Contra Costa counties; the National Park Service in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties as well as state park and recreation areas throughout. In addition, thousands of acres of watershed and agricultural lands are preserved as open spaces by water and utility districts or in private ownership. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 400-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major toll bridges in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Table S1: Developed Sites Comprising the 1998 Baseline and Subsequent Changes Last Updated: 3/31/2015
    Supplemental Table S1: Developed Sites Comprising the 1998 Baseline and Subsequent Changes Last Updated: 3/31/2015 Table S1. Developed sites (name and type) comprising the 1998 baseline and subsequent changes per Bear Management Subunit inside the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone (Developed sites that are new, removed, or in which capacity of human-use has been modified since 1998 are highlighted and italicized). Bear Management Admin Name and type of developed sites subunit Unit Developed Campgrounds: Cave Falls. Trailheads: Coyote Meadows, Hominy Peak, S. Boone Creek, Fish Lake, Cascade Creek. Major Developed Sites: Loll Scout Camp, Idaho Youth Services Camp. Administrative or Maintenance Sites: Squirrel Meadows Guard Station/Cabin, Porcupine Guard Station, Badger Creek Seismograph Site, and Squirrel Meadows CTNF GS/WY Game & Fish Cabin. Other Developed Sites: Grassy Lake Dam, Tillery Lake Dam, Indian Lake Dam, Bergman Res. Dam, Loon Lake Disperse sites, Horseshoe Lake Disperse sites, Porcupine Creek Disperse sites, Gravel Pit/Target Range, Boone Creek Disperse Sites, Tillery Lake O&G Camp, Calf Creek O&G Camp, Bergman O&G Camp, Granite Creek Cow Camp, Poacher’s TH, Indian Meadows TH, McRenolds Res. TH/Wildlife Viewing Area/Dam. Bechler/Teton #1 Trailheads: 9K1 and Cave Falls. Administrative or Maintenance Sites: South Entrance and Bechler Ranger Stations. YNP Other Developed Sites: Union Falls and Snake River picnic areas. Developed Campgrounds: Grassy Lake Road campsites (8 individual car camping sites). Trailheads: Glade Creek, Lower Berry Creek, Flagg Canyon. Major Developed Sites: Flagg Ranch (lodge, cabins and Headwater Campground with camper cabins, remote cistern and sewage treatment plant sites). Administrative or Maintenance Sites: Flagg Ranch Ranger GTNP Station, Flagg Ranch employee housing, Flagg Ranch maintenance yard.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Fill in San Francisco: a History of Change
    SDMS DOCID# 1137835 BAY FILL IN SAN FRANCISCO: A HISTORY OF CHANGE A thesis submitted to the faculty of California State University, San Francisco in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Gerald Robert Dow Department of Geography July 1973 Permission is granted for the material in this thesis to be reproduced in part or whole for the purpose of education and/or research. It may not be edited, altered, or otherwise modified, except with the express permission of the author. - ii - - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Maps . vi INTRODUCTION . .1 CHAPTER I: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF SAN FRANCISCO’S TIDELANDS . .4 Definition of Tidelands . .5 Evolution of Tideland Ownership . .5 Federal Land . .5 State Land . .6 City Land . .6 Sale of State Owned Tidelands . .9 Tideland Grants to Railroads . 12 Settlement of Water Lot Claims . 13 San Francisco Loses Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 14 San Francisco Regains Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 15 The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Port of San Francisco . 18 CHAPTER II: YERBA BUENA COVE . 22 Introduction . 22 Yerba Buena, the Beginning of San Francisco . 22 Yerba Buena Cove in 1846 . 26 San Francisco’s First Waterfront . 26 Filling of Yerba Buena Cove Begins . 29 The Board of State Harbor Commissioners and the First Seawall . 33 The New Seawall . 37 The Northward Expansion of San Francisco’s Waterfront . 40 North Beach . 41 Fisherman’s Wharf . 43 Aquatic Park . 45 - iii - Pier 45 . 47 Fort Mason . 48 South Beach . 49 The Southward Extension of the Great Seawall .
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3-‐1 Historic Resources Evaluation
    Appendix 3-1 Historic Resources Evaluation HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION SEAWALL LOT 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Development Project San Francisco, California April 11, 2016 Prepared by San Francisco, California Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall Lot 337 & Pier 48 Mixed-Use Project, San Francisco, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Methods ................................................................................................................................... 1 III. Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 3 IV. Property Description ................................................................................................... ….....6 V. Historical Context ....................................................................................................... ….....24 VI. Determination of Eligibility.................................................................................... ……....44 VII. Evaluation of the Project for Compliance with the Standards ............................. 45 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 58 IX. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 59 April 11, 2016 Historic Resource Evaluation Seawall
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
    State of California & The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial Page 1 of 32 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Potrero Point Historic District D1. Historic Name Potrero Point/Lower Potrero D2. Common Name: Central Waterfront *D3. Detailed Description (Discuss coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of district.): The Potrero Point Historic District (also referred to as the Central Waterfront) is located in the Potrero Hill district of San Francisco on the western side of San Francisco Bay in the City of San Francisco between Mission Creek on the north and Islais Creek to the south. The approximately 500-acre area is more precisely described as a roughly rectangular district bounded by Sixteenth Street to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east, Islais Creek to the south, and U.S. Interstate 280 to the west. The area measures approximately 1.3 miles from north to south, and approximately 0.6 miles wide from east to west. (See Continuation Sheet, Pg. 2) *D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.): The Potrero Point (Central Waterfront) area is enclosed within a rectangle formed by the following streets and natural features: Beginning at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania and Sixteenth streets, the northern boundary of the area extends east along Sixteenth Street into San Francisco Bay. The boundary turns ninety degrees and heads south through the bay encompassing the entirety of Piers 70 and 80. At Islais Creek Channel, the boundary makes a ninety degree turn and heads west along the southern shore of the channel.
    [Show full text]
  • India Basin Survey
    INDIA BASIN SURVEY SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT REPORT PREPARED FOR BAYVIEW HISTORICAL SOCIETY May 1, 2008 KELLEY & VERPLANCK HISTORICAL RESOURCES CONSULTING 2912 DIAMOND STREET #330, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94131 415.337.5824 // WWW.KVPCONSULTING.COM Historic Context Statement India Basin Survey San Francisco, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 A. PURPOSE................................................................................................................................ 1 B. DEFINITION OF GEOGRAPHICAL AREA ................................................................................ 1 C. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC CONTEXTS AND PERIODS OF SIGNIFICANCE .....................2 II. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................. 3 III. IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS............................................................... 4 A. HERE TODAY.........................................................................................................................4 B. 1976 CITYWIDE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY ............................................................................4 C. SAN FRANCISCO ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE......................................................................4 D. ARTICLE 10 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE .......................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey Summary Report and Draft Context Statement
    Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey San Francisco Planning Department October 2000–September 2001, Page 1 Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey Summary Report and Draft Context Statement Figure 1: View from Jones and California Streets, looking toward Mission Bay, c. 1867. The activity which is the subject of this Cultural Resources Survey has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. October 2000 – October 2001 Prepared by: San Francisco Planning Department Acknowledging the contributions of: Central Waterfront Survey Advisory Committee San Francisco Architectural Heritage Dogpatch Neighborhood Association Page and Turnbull, Architects Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey San Francisco Planning Department October 2000–September 2001, Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. Planning Commission Anita Theoharis, President William Fay, Vice-President Roslyn Baltimore Hector Chinchilla Cynthia Joe Myrna Lim Jim Salinas, Sr. Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Tim Kelley, President Suheil Shatara, Vice-President Ina Dearman Paul Finwall Nancy Ho-Belli
    [Show full text]
  • 25 JUL 2021 Index Aaron Creek 17385 179 Aaron Island
    26 SEP 2021 Index 401 Angoon 17339 �� � � � � � � � � � 287 Baranof Island 17320 � � � � � � � 307 Anguilla Bay 17404 �� � � � � � � � 212 Barbara Rock 17431 � � � � � � � 192 Index Anguilla Island 17404 �� � � � � � � 212 Bare Island 17316 � � � � � � � � 296 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Ser- Bar Harbor 17430 � � � � � � � � 134 vice � � � � � � � � � � � � 24 Barlow Cove 17316 �� � � � � � � � 272 Animas Island 17406 � � � � � � � 208 Barlow Islands 17316 �� � � � � � � 272 A Anita Bay 17382 � � � � � � � � � 179 Barlow Point 17316 � � � � � � � � 272 Anita Point 17382 � � � � � � � � 179 Barnacle Rock 17401 � � � � � � � 172 Aaron Creek 17385 �� � � � � � � � 179 Annette Bay 17428 � � � � � � � � 160 Barnes Lake 17382 �� � � � � � � � 172 Aaron Island 17316 �� � � � � � � � 273 Annette Island 17434 � � � � � � � 157 Baron Island 17420 �� � � � � � � � 122 Aats Bay 17402� � � � � � � � � � 277 Annette Point 17434 � � � � � � � 156 Bar Point Basin 17430� � � � � � � 134 Aats Point 17402 �� � � � � � � � � 277 Annex Creek Power Station 17315 �� � 263 Barren Island 17434 � � � � � � � 122 Abbess Island 17405 � � � � � � � 203 Appleton Cove 17338 � � � � � � � 332 Barren Island Light 17434 �� � � � � 122 Abraham Islands 17382 � � � � � � 171 Approach Point 17426 � � � � � � � 162 Barrie Island 17360 � � � � � � � � 230 Abrejo Rocks 17406 � � � � � � � � 208 Aranzazu Point 17420 � � � � � � � 122 Barrier Islands 17386, 17387 �� � � � 228 Adams Anchorage 17316 � � � � � � 272 Arboles Islet 17406 �� � � � � � � � 207 Barrier Islands 17433
    [Show full text]
  • Papilio (New Series) #12, Some O
    (NEW Dec. 3, PAPILIO SERIES) 2008 GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION AND NEW TAXA OF WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLIES, ESPECIALLY FROM COLORADO By James A. Scott & Michaels. Fisher, with some parts by David M. Wright, Stephen M. Spomer, Norbert G. Kondla, Todd Stout, Matthew C. Garhart, & Gary M. Marrone Introduction and Abstract Michael Fisher is currently updating the 1957 book Colorado Butterflies, by F. Martin Brown, J. Donald Eff, and Bernard Rotger (Fisher 2005a, 2005b, 2006). This project has emphasized the necessity of naming certain butterflies in Colorado and vicinity that are distinctive, but currently have no name, as part of our goal of applying correct species/ subspecies names to all Colorado butterflies. Eleven of those distinctive butterflies are named here, in the genera Anthocharis, Neominois, Asterocampa, Argynnis (Speyeria), Euphydryas, Lycaena, and Hesperia. New life histories are reported for species or subspecies of Neominois & Oeneis & Euphydryas & Lycaena that were recently described or recently elevated in status. Lycaena jlorUs differs in hostplant, egg morphology, and somewhat in a seta on 151 -stage larvae. We also report the results ofresearch elsewhere in North America that was needed to determine which of the current subspecies names should be applied to other butterflies in Colorado, in the genera Anthocharis, Neominois, Apodemia, Callophrys, At/ides, Euphilotes, PlebeJus, Polites, & Hylephila. This research has added additional species to the total of Colorado butterflies. Nomenclatural problems in Colorado Lycaena & Calloph1ys are settled with lectotypes and designations of type localities and two pending petitions to suppress toxotaxa. Difficulties with the ICZN Code in properly applying names to clines are explored, and new terminology is given to some necessary biological solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Port of San Francisco
    The Port of San Francisco Caught Between Public Trust and Private Dollars June 2014 City and County of San Francisco Civil Grand Jury 2013-2014 City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl, San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone 415-554-6630 MEMBERS OF THE 2013-2014 CIVIL GRAND JURY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Elena Schmid, Foreperson Robert van Ravenswaay, Foreperson Pro Tem Thomas Duda, Recording Secretary Maryta Piazza, Corresponding Secretary Larry Bush Hans Carter Daniel Chesir Barbara Cohrssen Mike Ege John Finnick Kai Forsley Charles Head David Hoiem Joseph Kelly Mazel Looney Claudia O’Callaghan Ernestine Patterson Michael Skahill ii THE CIVIL GRAND JURY The Civil Grand Jury is a government oversight panel of volunteers who serve for one year. It makes findings and recommendations resulting from its investigations. Reports of the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals by name. Disclosure of information about individuals interviewed by the jury is prohibited. California Penal Code, Section 929 STATE LAW REQUIREMENT California Penal Code, section 933.05 Each published report includes a list of those public entities that are required to respond to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 60- to 90 days, as specified. A copy must be sent to the Board of Supervisors. All responses are made available to the public. For each finding the response must: 1) agree with the finding, or 2) disagree with it, wholly or partially, and explain why. As to each recommendation the responding party must report that: 1) the recommendation has been implemented, with a summary explanation; or 2) the recommendation has not been implemented but will be within a set timeframe as provided; or 3) the recommendation requires further analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • November, 1966
    ~.1 ~ ! ; ' ·: .· . Your Vote Counts On Nov. 8 ·--------------------------------------------------------------------------- INEERS PUBLISHED TO PROM·OTE THIE GENERAL WIElFARE OF • &UAM, WHERE AMER ICA'S STATE OF HAWAII, NOR THERN CALIFORNIA, THE GOLDEN STATE NORTHERN NEVADA, UTAH, THE BEEH IVE STATE, DAY BEGINS TH E 50TH STATE THE SILVER STATE H EART OF THE ROCK I ES Vol. 25 - No. 11 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA November, 1966 ·LaJ Upholds the V to WASHINGTON - President Lyndon B. Johnson has upheld the veto of Gov. Manuel F. L. Guer­ rero, Guam, on the controversial "right-to-work" measure, passed by the Island's legislators. The issue, falling under control of Section 14 (b) of the Taft­ Hartley Act, would have become law if the 90-day period in which • the President had to act, would have run out. The President's reasons for up­ holding the veto were outlined in a letter to the governor. He said in the letter in his opinion the bill would inhibit development of the free collective bargaining neces­ sary to protect and advance the welfare of working men and women on Guam. The controversial measure had been passed by tl1e Territory's leg­ islature earlier this year, after which Gov. Guerrero immediately vetoed it, but the legislature over­ • rode his veto, making a final de­ cision necessary by the President. Johnson hailed Guerrero for his leadership and good judgment, which he said had "encouraged, supported and strengthened" the progress being made on Guam. The President's decision to take action and uphold Gov. Guer­ President Johnson has upheld Gov. Guerrero's (inset) veto of veto will permit co nti nued economic gains on th e island.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Rental List 03-26-18.Xlsx
    PROPERTY RENTAL LIST Property Name Address Phone Number County Senior/Family Northern California 25 Sanchez 25 Sanchez Street (415) 522-0203 San Francisco Senior San Francisco, CA 94114 255 Woodside 255 Woodside Avenue (415) 682-7101 San Francisco Senior San Francisco, CA 94127 3850 18th Street 3850 18th Street (415) 872-9001 San Francisco Senior San Francisco, CA 94114 462 Duboce 462 Duboce Avenue (415) 703-0146 San Francisco Senior San Francisco, CA 94117 474 Natoma 474 Natoma Street (415) 541-9600 San Francisco Family San Francisco, CA 94103 Acorn Town Center & Couryards 1143 Tenth Street (510) 268-4917 Alameda Family Oakland, CA 94607 Alemany 938 Ellsworth Street (415) 285-2860 San Francisco Family San Francisco, CA 94110 Almaden Lake 978 Almaden Lake Drive (408) 323-8020 Santa Clara Family San Jose, CA 95123 Alta Torre 3895 Fabian Way (650) 493-4700 Santa Clara Senior Palo Alto, CA 94303 Alto Station Apts. 290 Camino Alto Court (415) 388 2337 Marin Family Mill Valley, CA 94941 Armstrong Place Senior 5600 3rd Street (415) 822-1260 San Francisco Senior San Francisco, CA 94124 Arroyo Point Apts. 1090 Jennings Avenue (707) 526-6141 Sonoma Family Santa Rosa, CA 95401 AvéVista Apartments 460 Grand Avenue (510) 628-0002 Alameda Family Oakland, CA 94610 Belvedere Place Apts. 162 Belvedere Street (415) 456-6243 Marin Family San Rafael, CA 94901 Casa Vista 55 Fairfax Street (415) 453-5531 Marin Family San Rafael, CA 94901 Centertown 855 C Street (415) 455-8141 Marin Family San Rafael, CA 94901 Chelsea Gardens Apts. 1220 McMinn Avenue (707) 526-6849 Sonoma Family & Senior Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Chestnut Creek Senior Apts.
    [Show full text]