DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Archaeological Resources Report 300 Spear Street Project San Francisco, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Archaeological Resources Report 300 Spear Street Project San Francisco, California Final Archaeological Resources Report 300 Spear Street Project San Francisco, California PREPARED BY: WILLIAM SELF ASSOCIATES, INC. ORINDA, CALIFORNIA May 2007 Final Archaeological Resources Report 300 Spear Street Project San Francisco, California Final Report Prepared for Major Environmental Analysis, Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco On behalf of Tishman Speyer Prepared by: Eric Strother, Allen Estes, Aimee Arrigoni, James M. Allan and William Self With Contributions from James Delgado Illustrations by Angela Cook and Thomas Young GIS Analysis and Maps by Nazih Fino May 2007 Cover photo: Stern of the Candace ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The 300 Spear Street Project ranks as one of the most significant archaeological investigations in the City of San Francisco’s history. Unique among other major archaeological projects that have been conducted in the City, the 300 Spear Street project provided a tangible and highly diverse glimpse into San Francisco’s history, from the early days of the Gold Rush through the development of the modern South of Market neighborhood. Beginning with the preliminary discussion with Tishman Speyer through the completion of field work, our goal was to coordinate the archaeological requirements of the project with construction to avoid unnecessary delays, while maximizing the recovery of information on the historic features anticipated being present on the project site. This naturally involved coordination among many individuals, including project directors, engineers, construction management, project architects, and the archaeologists. The successful completion of this project is a result of those efforts, and the contributions of these many individuals should be recognized. Many thanks to the following individuals. From an archaeological perspective, the 300 Spear Street Project had the unique advantage of a project sponsor that recognized the importance and significance of the historic information that was encountered as project excavations unfolded. Artfully balancing the financial and construction constraints of the project with the responsibility of recovering for posterity the irreplaceable historic information buried on the site, Tishman Speyer far exceeded the norms of good corporate citizenship, and has provided an example to which, hopefully, future developments will refer. Ross Asselstine, Project Manager for Tishman Speyer, provided the impetus for much of what we were able to accomplish. His inimitable approach to solving problems in the field, resolving potential conflicts between construction schedules and the needs of the archaeologists, and his oversight and determination in addressing the unique issues surrounding the discovery of a ship buried in the middle of the project area were invaluable, and for that we are very grateful. From the very beginning of the project, Drew Sullins, Sandy Reek, and Chuck Wright of Tishman Speyer provided support and an interest in the archaeological process that were both appreciated and highly beneficial in the completion of our work. Many of the Webcor and Ryan Engineering construction personnel assisted in making our work on the project flow smoothly. The equipment operators from Ryan went out of their way to assist us with the work, and the assistance and direction provided by Jim Ryan was especially helpful. Jim Romero and Jim Aarhus of Webcor were unfailingly helpful in every situation we encountered. Seldom have we had the pleasure of working with such supportive and interested construction supervisors. Experts from the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park were very gracious with their time and advice regarding the recovery and disposition of the ship and ship parts encountered during project excavations. Steve Canright, Curator of Collections and Dave Casebolt, Conservator, are always welcome additions to any project site, and in the 300 Spear Street project, were particularly helpful in assisting with the identification of the ship and the conservation of the hull. We were particularly fortunate to have the wisdom and insight of our friend Dr. James P. Delgado, then Director of the Vancouver Maritime Museum, to identify the remains of the buried ship as those of the Candace. Few are more knowledgeable about California’s Gold Rush-era maritime history than Jim, and there is no one more qualified to have undertaken such a task. It was one of the great educational experiences working with him, and we look forward to doing so again on other projects. A special debt of gratitude is owed to Gil Castle and Jerome Dodson, then Executive Director and President, respectively, of the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society, for having the vision to see the potential in accepting the remains of the Candace for inclusion in the collection of the future Museum of San Francisco. Many WSA staff members worked on the project over the five months we were in the field. During that period, over 4,600 person-hours were spent on the archaeological aspects of the project. Field archaeologists and archaeological monitors included David Buckley, Angela Cook, Nazih Fino, Christopher Hilgers, Kyle Kearney, Amanda Maples, Leigh Martin, Connie Moreno, Jenni Price, Trevor Self, Cory Stevenson, Tom Young, and McGhie Allan. Many thanks for their tireless efforts and good humor while digging through the mud. Dr. Allen Estes directed all field efforts during the Phase 1 pre-construction testing and data recovery program with his usual high-level of competence and efficiency, and oversaw the preparation of the project’s Archaeological Testing Report, which formed the basis of the subsequent monitoring and data recovery program that was implemented during construction. Aimee Arrigoni served as project historian, providing valuable insights into the past uses of the project site that helped explain much of what was encountered during project excavations. In addition, Aimee worked as a field archaeologist and when called upon, graciously stepped into the role of temporary project manager when the need arose. She is also responsible for directing the artifact analysis and photography that enhances this report. A special thanks to Allen and Aimee for their fine work on this project. In addition to their excellent field work, Angela Cook and Tom Young undertook the task of preparing the graphics for this report, which add immeasurably to its ability to convey what we encountered on the site. We owe a particular debt of gratitude to Angela for the care and artistic flair she brought to the design and preparation of the ship parts illustrations, which are beautiful, accurate, and informative. Eric Strother served as Project Manager, generously stepping into this role when Dr. Estes’ research responsibilities took him out of the country. From the beginning of the project’s mass excavation, Eric supervised all aspects of the archaeological work conducted on the site, from construction monitoring, to excavations of the numerous archaeological features that were encountered, to data recovery, and documentation. He is also the principal author of this report. Despite the difficulty of conducting these tasks under the scheduling constraints inherent in such a large construction project, Eric was unfailingly of good humor and managed to keep his crew in a similar state of mind. His professional and careful handling of every aspect of the archaeology conducted on behalf of the project was exemplary, and is one of the principal reasons we can look back at the successful completion of this project with pride and a sense of a job well done. Thanks, Eric. James M. Allan, Ph.D. WSA Principal TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description and Location.............................................................................. 1 1.2 Construction Methodology ....................................................................................... 2 2.0 PROJECT SETTING.................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................. 3 2.2 Cultural Setting ......................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Ethnography............................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Regional History...................................................................................................... 11 2.5 History of the Project Area....................................................................................... 15 3.0 RESULTS OF THE RECORDS AND LITERATURE SEARCH............................. 18 3.1 Native American Heritage Commission Consultation............................................ 18 3.2 Known Cultural Resources in the Project Vicinity................................................. 18 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING PROGRAM (PHASE 1)...................................... 27 4.1 Rationale for the Archaeological Testing Program ................................................ 28 4.2 Methods Utilized in the Archaeological Testing Program ..................................... 33 4.3 Results of the Archaeological Testing Program ..................................................... 37 4.4 Discovery of Human Remains...............................................................................
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]
  • Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021
    Weekly Projects Bidding 8/13/2021 Reasonable care is given in gathering, compiling and furnishing the information contained herein which is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but the Planroom is not responsible or liable for errors, omissions or inaccuracies. Plan# Name Bid Date & Time OPR# Location Estimate Project Type Monday, August 16, 2021 OUTREACH MEETING (VIRTUAL) EVERGREEN VALLEY COLLEGE (EVC) STUDENT SERVICES Addenda: 0 COMPLEX (REQUEST FOR SUB BIDS) SC 8/16/21 10:00 AM 21-02526 San Jose School ONLINE Plan Issuer: XL Construction 408-240-6000 408-240-6001 THIS IS A VIRTUAL OUTREACH MEETING. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. SEE FLYER FOR DETAILS. The 74,000 sf Student Services Complex at Evergreen Valley College is part of the San Jose Evergreen Community College District's Measure X Bond Program. This is a new ground-up two -story complex including collaboration spaces, offices, storage, restrooms and supporting facilities. All subcontractors must be prequalified with XL Construction to bid the project. Please email [email protected] for a prequalification application link, and [email protected] if you are an Under Utilized Business Enterprise (SBE, WBE, MBE, VBE...). REFINISHING GYM AND STAGE FLOORS AT CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND Addenda: 0 8/16/21 12:00 PM 21-02463 Fremont State-Federal Plan Issuer: California Department of Education - Personnel Service Division 916-319-0800 000-000-0000 Contract #: BF210152 The Contractor shall provide all labor, equipment and materials necessary for preparing and refinishing the stage and gym floors, twice a year, at the California School for the Blind (CSB), located at 500 Walnut Avenue, Fremont.
    [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]
  • Notes of a Voyage to California Via Cape Horn, Together with Scenes in El Dorado, in the Years of 1849-'50
    Notes of a voyage to California via Cape Horn, together with scenes in El Dorado, in the years of 1849-'50. With an appendix containing reminiscences ... together with the articles of association and roll of members of "The associated pioneers of the territorial days of California." By Samuel C. Upham. With forty-five illustrations NOTES OF A VOYAGE TO CALIFORNIA VIA CAPE HORN, TOGETHER WITH SCENES IN EL DORADO, IN THE YEARS 1849-'50. WITH AN APPENDIX Containing Reminiscences of Pioneer Journalism in California—California Day at the Centennial Exhibition, Philadelphia, Sept. 9th, 1876—Re-Unions and Banquets of the Associated Pioneers of California, in New York, January 18th, 1877 and 1878—Celebration of Admission Day, at Long Branch, N. J., Sept. 8th, 1877— Reception to GENERAL JOHN C. FREMONT, Aug. 1st, 1878 and to Hon. PHILIP A. ROACH, June 19th, 1876—Dedication of the Lick Monument at Fredericksburg, Pa., April 22d, 1878— Notes of a voyage to California via Cape Horn, together with scenes in El Dorado, in the years of 1849-'50. With an appendix containing reminiscences ... together with the articles of association and roll of members of "The associated pioneers of the territorial days of California." By Samuel C. Upham. With forty-five illustrations http://www.loc.gov/resource/calbk.149 Extracts from the Manuscript Journal of the “KING's ORPHAN,” in the year 1843—Pioneer and Kindred Organizations; TOGETHER WITH THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND ROLL OF MEMBERS OF “THE ASSOCIATED PIONEERS OF THE TERRITORIAL DAYS OF CALIFORNIA.” By SAMUEL C. UPHAM. WITH FORTY-FIVE ILLUSTRATIONS.
    [Show full text]
  • BART Market Street Canopies and Escalators Modernization Project
    Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration BART Market Street Canopies and Escalators Modernization Project San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District April 30, 2018 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration BART Market Street Canopies and Escalators Modernization Project Prepared for San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 300 Lakeside Drive, 21st floor Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared by 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 April 30, 2018 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Date of Publication of Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: April 30, 2018 Project Title: BART Market Street Canopies and Escalators Modernization Project Sponsor and Lead Agency: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Contact Person and Phone Number: Janie Layton, (510) 874-7423 Project Location: Downtown San Francisco BART Stations (Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street, and Civic Center/UN Plaza). Project Description: The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), in cooperation with the City and County of San Francisco, is working to improve escalator durability and security at station entrances/exits along Market Street leading to the underground Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street, and Civic Center/UN Plaza station concourses. The existing entrances/exits consist of variations of side-by-side stairs and escalators leading down to the underground concourse level, and are currently uncovered and exposed to inclement weather and discarded trash leading to frequent breakdowns of the existing escalators. The proposed improvements would include the installation of canopy covers over the entrances/exits, as well as replacement and refurbishment of existing street-level escalators. Each protective canopy would also be equipped with a motorized security grille that would lock at the sidewalk level of the station entrance/exit when the stations are closed.
    [Show full text]
  • W • 32°38'47.76”N 117°8'52.44”
    public access 32°32’4”N 117°7’22”W • 32°38’47.76”N 117°8’52.44”W • 33°6’14”N 117°19’10”W • 33°22’45”N 117°34’21”W • 33°45’25.07”N 118°14’53.26”W • 33°45’31.13”N 118°20’45.04”W • 33°53’38”N 118°25’0”W • 33°55’17”N 118°24’22”W • 34°23’57”N 119°30’59”W • 34°27’38”N 120°1’27”W • 34°29’24.65”N 120°13’44.56”W • 34°58’1.2”N 120°39’0”W • 35°8’54”N 120°38’53”W • 35°20’50.42”N 120°49’33.31”W • 35°35’1”N 121°7’18”W • 36°18’22.68”N 121°54’5.76”W • 36°22’16.9”N 121°54’6.05”W • 36°31’1.56”N 121°56’33.36”W • 36°58’20”N 121°54’50”W • 36°33’59”N 121°56’48”W • 36°35’5.42”N 121°57’54.36”W • 37°0’42”N 122°11’27”W • 37°10’54”N 122°23’38”W • 37°41’48”N 122°29’57”W • 37°45’34”N 122°30’39”W • 37°46’48”N 122°30’49”W • 37°47’0”N 122°28’0”W • 37°49’30”N 122°19’03”W • 37°49’40”N 122°30’22”W • 37°54’2”N 122°38’40”W • 37°54’34”N 122°41’11”W • 38°3’59.73”N 122°53’3.98”W • 38°18’39.6”N 123°3’57.6”W • 38°22’8.39”N 123°4’25.28”W • 38°23’34.8”N 123°5’40.92”W • 39°13’25”N 123°46’7”W • 39°16’30”N 123°46’0”W • 39°25’48”N 123°25’48”W • 39°29’36”N 123°47’37”W • 39°33’10”N 123°46’1”W • 39°49’57”N 123°51’7”W • 39°55’12”N 123°56’24”W • 40°1’50”N 124°4’23”W • 40°39’29”N 124°12’59”W • 40°45’13.53”N 124°12’54.73”W 41°18’0”N 124°0’0”W • 41°45’21”N 124°12’6”W • 41°52’0”N 124°12’0”W • 41°59’33”N 124°12’36”W Public Access David Horvitz & Ed Steck In late December of 2010 and early Janu- Some articles already had images, in which ary of 2011, I drove the entire California I added mine to them.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]