4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter describes the environment that would be affected or existing conditions in the Project Corridor.  How the Project alternatives would effect the environment during the operation phase along with the Project’s cumulative effects and mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 5.0.  All construction effects and their mitigation are contained in Chapter 6.0.

4.1 LAND USE

4.1.1 Adopted Plans and Policies

Adopted land use goals and policies that currently guide development in the Study Area are contained in the various elements and area plans that comprise the San Francisco General Plan.  Adopted plans of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Port of San Francisco, San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) also guide development in the Study Area.  In addition, under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), local projects that would affect the coastal zone and use federal funding or require federal approval must, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent with BCDC’s management program.

Adopted local plans relevant to the Central Subway Project have not substantially changed since the Third Street Light Rail FEIS/FEIR was certified in 1998, however a new draft plan has been developed for the Eastern Neighborhoods.  Local plans are described below, as well as relevant regional plans adopted by BCDC and MTC. 

City and County of San Francisco

This section describes various elements of the San Francisco General Plan (General Plan), as well as specific Area Plans, that contain the land use goals and policies that guide development in the Central Subway Corridor.  The General Plan elements reviewed below include the Commerce and Industry Element, the Transportation Element, the Environmental Protection Element, and the Recreation and Open Space Element.  The area plans reviewed are the South of Market, Northeastern Waterfront Plan, Rincon Hill, Downtown, Chinatown Plans and the Eastern Neighborhoods Community Plan.  Redevelopment Plans that affect portions of the Study Area are also described.  Descriptions are provided for San Francisco’s recently adopted Bicycle Plan, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s (SFCTA) Strategic Plan, and the Port of San Francisco’s Waterfront Land Use Plan.

General Plan

Commerce & Industry Element.  The Commerce and Industry Element of the General Plan guides both the public and private sector in making decisions related to economic growth and change in the City.[1]

The element contains eight objectives, three of which are general guidelines for citywide economic planning.  The remaining five objectives relate to specific sectors of the San Francisco economy: industry, maritime, neighborhood commerce, government health and education services, and visitor trade.  The overriding goals of the Commerce and Industry Element are continued economic vitality, social equity, and environmental quality for San Francisco.

Transportation Element.  The Transportation Element of the General Plan focuses on meeting the travel needs of residents and visitors, and improving the environment.[2]  Objectives and policies in this element focus on nine separate issues: 1) the general transportation system; 2) regional transportation; 3) congestion management; 4) vehicle circulation; 5) transit; 6) pedestrians; 7) bicycles; 8) citywide parking; and 9) the movement of goods.  A primary objective of the Transportation Element is to develop transit as the “primary mode of travel to and from Downtown and all major activity centers within the region.”  Policy 1.3 states “Give priority to public transit and other alternatives to the private automobile as the means of meeting San Francisco’s transportation needs, particularly of commuters.”  Policy 21.2, which also supports this objective, states that “where a high level of transit ridership or potential ridership exists along a corridor, existing transit service or technology should be upgraded to attract and accommodate riders.”  The Rail Transit map in the Transportation Element includes future rail/fixed guideway transit along the Third Street Corridor that connects with rail transit along the Geary Corridor and the Chinatown/North Beach Corridor.

In 1973, the Planning Commission adopted a Transit-First Policy for San Francisco.  The Transit-First Policy is a set of principles that underscore the City’s commitment that travel by transit, by bicycle and on foot be given priority over the private automobile.  These principles are embodied in the policies and objectives of the Transportation Element and they have guided the planning and development in San Francisco for the past three decades.  In 1998, the voters amended the City Charter (Section 16.102) to incorporate the Transit-First Policy into the charter.  All City boards, commissions and departments are now required by law to implement Transit-First principles in conducting City business.

Environmental Protection Element.  The Environmental Protection Element addresses the impact of urbanization, including the use of oil and gas resources and the production of hazardous waste, on the natural environment.[3]  The element has three sections:  the first section addresses natural resource conservation, the second transportation noise, and the third is an energy management plan.  While the element does not specifically address the Central Subway Project, it does “encourage the development and use of urban mass transportation systems in accordance with the objectives and policies of the Transportation Element.”  The Environmental Protection Element also includes a policy to increase the use of transportation alternatives to the automobile.

Recreation and Open Space Element.  The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan is focused on maintenance of the existing open space system and on acquisition and development of new parks to better serve the City.[4]  Improving accessibility to regional parks by improving public transit service (Policy 1.3) is considered key to making it easier for people to make use of existing parks and open space resources.

Area Plans

The six area plans that are relevant in the Study Area are described below.  See Figure 4-1 for the boundaries of the area plans. 

South of Market.  South of Market (SOMA) is an economically, socially, and culturally diverse plan area of approximately 350 acres.  SOMA is an irregularly shaped area extending roughly from Mission Street on the north to Townsend Street on the south and from Highway 101 on the west to First Street on the east.  A portion of the proposed Central Subway would lie within the boundaries of the South of Market plan area.

Primary goals of the City’s South of Market Plan are to protect and facilitate the expansion of industrial, artisan, home and business service, neighborhood-oriented retail, and community service activities; to protect the area’s economic, social and cultural diversity; to preserve existing housing and encourage the development of new affordable housing; and to improve the area’s livability for residents, workers and visitors.[5]  The plan states that, on the whole, SOMA is well served by transportation facilities; freeways,  

FIGURE 4-1

AREA PLAN BOUNDARIES

rail lines, maritime facilities, regional and local mass transit facilities are located within and along the periphery of the plan area.  The plan states that portions of the plan area are somewhat better served by transportation facilities, particularly mass transit, than others. For example, the area between Second and Fourth Streets has considerably better transit service than the area west of Fourth Street and south of Mission Street.  The plan suggests that the City examine the possibility of establishing new local transit lines in the north-south direction between Fifth and Eighth Streets to enhance transit travel opportunities for residents and employees in western SOMA.

Northeastern Waterfront.  The Northeastern Waterfront Plan area extends south from the Municipal Pier in the Fisherman’s Wharf area along the waterfront to Pier 46 in North China Basin.[6]  The primary goal of the Northeast Waterfront Plan is to create a physical and economic environment in the Northeastern Waterfront area that will use the area’s resources and potential in a manner that will best serve the needs of the community.  Three planning principles of the plan include:  1) provide for those uses which positively contribute to the environmental quality of the area and contribute to the economic health of the Port and City; 2) preserve and enhance the unique character of the area and take advantage of the unique economic opportunity provided by San Francisco Bay; and 3) provide the maximum possible visual and physical access to San Francisco Bay while minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of existing and new activity.  To accommodate the movement of people and goods, Policy 9.5 of the Plan calls for improving transit service between Fisherman’s Wharf and China Basin.

Rincon Hill.  The Rincon Hill Plan covers a twelve-block area close to the San Francisco Downtown.[7]  The Plan area is a highly visible gateway to the City bounded by Folsom Street, The Embarcadero, Bryant Street, Beale Street, Essex Street, and the approaches to the Bay Bridge.  The Plan called for transition of the area from an older industrial area with many parking lots to a mixed-use neighborhood with a significant housing presence.  The Plan envisioned 10,000 new residents in this area.  The Plan also calls for a more residentially scaled street pattern as redevelopment progresses in this neighborhood.

Downtown.  The Central Subway bisects the Downtown Plan area.[8]  The Downtown Plan is one of the City’s most flexible plans, permitting almost every type of use except for manufacturing and automotive services in the plan area.  The Downtown Plan is designed to manage growth in Downtown San Francisco and maintain the area’s distinctive character, as well as its livability.  The plan encourages more residential development within the planning area and also identifies locations for future commercial and secondary office uses in the area west of the Yerba Buena Center.

The City’s Transit-First policy calls for accommodating future job growth in the Downtown with public transit rather than private automobiles.  The Downtown Plan states that employment growth should not be accommodated by expanding street or bridge capacity or by lengthening the peak commute period.  Instead, plan objectives and policies are aimed at encouraging an increase in the number of commuters per automobile and increasing the number and percentage of commuters using public transit.  The plan also includes a policy to build and maintain rapid transit lines from Downtown to all suburban corridors and major activity centers in San Francisco.

Chinatown.  The Chinatown Plan area is bounded roughly by Powell Street on the west, Broadway to the north, Columbus Avenue to the northeast, and California Street to the south (with a thin leg of the plan area extending along Grant Avenue to Bush Street).[9]

The Central Subway lies partially within the Chinatown Plan area. Many of the plan objectives and policies relate to the overarching goals of maintaining and/or enhancing the area’s livability, and preserving the area’s historic and aesthetic resources.  The plan also states that the need for more frequent, less crowded bus service and better east-west links is often expressed by residents.  [begin deletion] Chinatown’s role as a residential and commercial neighborhood, visitor center and “capital city” is highlighted in the Chinatown Plan. [end deletion]

[begin deletion] Section 812.1.39b of the San Francisco Planning Code prohibits demolition of residential apartment units in the Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial District.  The Chinatown Station site at 933-949 Stockton Street is located in this zoning district and would require an amendment to the Planning Code for the demolition of the residential units at this location. [end deletion]

Eastern Neighborhoods Community Plan.  The Eastern Neighborhoods Community planning process began in January, 2002 in response to growing land use conflicts in the Mission, East SOMA, Showplace Square/Potrero, and Central Waterfront areas of the City.  The primary goal was to develop new zoning controls for the industrially-zoned land in these neighborhoods.  The portion of the Central Subway Corridor on Third and Fourth Streets between Townsend and Folsom Streets passes through the East SOMA area of the Eastern Neighborhoods plan area.

In East SOMA, the Eastern Neighborhoods Community Plan goals include encouraging an appropriate mix of uses, encouraging more neighborhood-serving businesses, attracting jobs for local residents, encouraging a mix of incomes in renter and owner-occupied housing, increasing affordable housing opportunities, improving the character of streets, encouraging pedestrian safety, improving community facilities, enhancing open spaces, and offering a variety of transportation options.[10]  Based on the Draft East SOMA Area Plan, proposed land use in the area generally bounded by Harrison and Townsend Streets to the north and south and Third and Fourth Streets to the east and west is designated as mixed-

use with an affordable overlay.[11]  Affordable and group housing would be allowed as a permitted use and the Mayor’s Office of Housing will work to facilitate affordable housing development in this area.  Market rate housing would not be permitted in this area.  The mixed-use designation would protect and facilitate the expansion of commercial, manufacturing, production distribution and repair (PDR) uses in the area.  The EIR for the Eastern Neighborhoods Community Plan is being prepared and is expected to be completed in 2007.  Upon adoption of the Eastern Neighborhoods Community Plan, it would be incorporated into the General Plan.

Redevelopment Plans

There are several Redevelopment Plans that control development in the Study Area.  See Figure 4-2 for the boundaries of the Redevelopment Plans.

Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan.  Yerba Buena Center is a 87-acre combined rehabilitation and new development project located between Market, Harrison, Second, and Fourth Streets. The Central Subway would run through this redevelopment area.  The Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1966 and the proposed redevelopment project is now in the final stages of completion.[12]

The Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan proposed mixed-use development around the Yerba Buena Gardens, incorporating major hotel, office, housing, retail, recreational and cultural uses.  The plan designated the northern and eastern portions of Yerba Buena Center as Downtown office space, the south-central and western portion for housing (business and light industry as alternate uses), the southern portion for business services and light industry (housing as the alternate use) and the central and eastern portions as “Special Use.”

The Yerba Buena Center, which serves as a business and cultural center for the City, includes the Moscone Convention Center and the recently completed Moscone West annex.  Other facilities in the Center include: the 1,500-room Marriott Hotel; 425-room W Hotel; Sony Metreon Entertainment Center, a 350,000 square foot retail and entertainment complex with 15 movie screens and 9 restaurants; 6 acres of gardens; Yerba Buena Center for the Arts; and the 5-acre Rooftop at Yerba Buena Gardens.  The Rooftop includes a child care center, an ice rink, bowling center, an arts and technology center for children and youth called Zeum, the historic Playland-at-the-Beach carousel, and a two-acre interactive play garden.  The Four Seasons Hotel and condominiums occupy a site fronting Market Street between Third and Fourth Streets.  Construction of the Jewish Museum began in July 2006 and the museum is set

FIGURE 4-2

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN BOUNDARIES

to open in 2008 on Mission Street directly across from the Yerba Buena Gardens.  The Mexican Museum hopes to begin construction by 2009 at Mission and Third Streets.

Over 2,500 housing units have been created in the Yerba Buena redevelopment area since it’s creation, and more than 1,400 of them are for low to moderate-income residents.  Among them is a 257-unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing development at Third and Harrison Streets and a 500-unit residential tower at the northeast corner of Third and Mission Streets.

Rincon Point/South Beach Redevelopment Plan.  Rincon Point/South Beach is an existing redevelopment project area, containing residential and commercial uses, the Giants AT&T Ballpark, marina and other park facilities along the northeastern waterfront.  The Redevelopment Plan for this area, which followed on the heels of the Northeastern Waterfront Plan, was adopted in 1982.[13]  The purpose of the Plan was to assist the area’s transition from a predominantly industrial/warehouse area with ties to the maritime industry, to a mixed-use residential, commercial, and recreational community.  The plan calls for a total of 2,800 new housing units to be built, with 25 percent for low and moderate income households.  In addition, the area has over a million square feet of commercial space.  Rincon Point/South Beach is composed of two non-contiguous areas along the northeastern waterfront.  The northern area is generally bounded by Harrison Street on the south, Spear Street on the west, Mission Street on the north, and the bay on the east.  The southern area is located directly east of the Mission Bay Development with a northern boundary at Bryant Street and extending south to encompass the ballpark and the South Beach Marina.

Mission Bay Redevelopment Plans.  The Mission Bay Plan adopted by the City in 1991 was subsequently amended when Catellus joined with the Redevelopment Agency to develop a new plan for the area.  Two related redevelopment plans, Mission Bay South and Mission Bay North Redevelopment Plans were evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report certified in 1998 and were adopted by the Redevelopment Agency that same year.[14]^{, [15]}  The new plans feature the following elements:

Mission Bay North:

· Up to 3,000 residential units (20 percent affordable)

· 505,000 square feet of commercial retail and entertainment space next to the Giants Ballpark

· 6 acres of public open space

Mission Bay South:

· New 43-acre medical research campus for the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), containing 2,650,000 square feet of instruction, research and administrative uses

· 14.5-acre Mission Bay Hospital with a planned capacity of 550 beds[16]

· Up to 3,090 residential units (37 percent affordable)

· 500-room hotel

· 295,000 square feet of retail

· 5,954,000 square feet of research and development, light industrial and office use

· 22 acres of public open space

· New 500-student public school

Adoption of these plans required amendments to various elements of the General Plan and replaced the original Mission Bay Plan.

Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan.  The Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the San Francisco Redevelopment Commission in October 2005.[17]  The 14-block plan area area extends from Fourth Street on the east to Tenth Street on the west and zigzags along the Market Street Corridor.  The plan focuses on historic preservation and seismic retrofitting issues and development of several large vacant parcels in the plan area, such as those at on Mission Street at Seventh and Eighth Streets.  There are no formal actions before the Board of Supervisors at this time for the adoption of the Plan.  Analysis undertaken for the Plan would need to be updated prior to its adoption.[18]

San Francisco Bicycle Plan

The San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) adopted the San Francisco Bicycle Plan Policy Framework (Bicycle Plan) in June, 2005.[19]  This Plan updated the first Bicycle Plan adopted by the City in 1997.  The fundamental goal of the Bicycle Plan is to guide San Francisco in becoming a more “bicycle friendly” city.  The plan describes the existing City policies, procedures, practices and infrastructure capabilities and constraints that affect bicycling. Recommendations for making bicycling safer and more convenient in San Francisco include street improvements, bicycle parking facilities, new city policies, education programs, promotional efforts and improved transit access.  Street improvements for bicycles include a comprehensive system of bicycle routes developed for integration into the City’s General Plan.

The plan states that, wherever possible, bike routes should be established on streets without transit or heavy truck traffic.  In some parts of the City, however, this is not possible due to geography or other factors. 

There are five bike routes designated in the Bicycle Plan in the vicinity of the Central Subway (refer to Figure 3-4). 

Route 11 - Columbus Avenue.  Route 11 runs the length of Columbus Avenue between North Point and Washington Streets, connecting Aquatic Park and Fisherman’s Wharf with North Beach and the Financial District.  Although Columbus Avenue has narrow lanes and high traffic volumes, it provides a direct and flat route connecting these districts. 

Route 17 - Stockton Street.  Route 17 begins at Broadway and continues south along Stockton Street to the Sutter/Post Street one-way couplet.  This route is intended to serve Chinatown, Union Square and the Financial District.  This route is centrally located between the routes on The Embarcadero and Polk Street.  The light rail would operate in a subway at this section.

Route 19 - Fifth and Fourth Streets.  Route 19 begins in Mission Bay South at Third and Owens Streets, and then continues west on Owens to Fourth Street, north on Fourth Street to Townsend Street, west on Townsend Street to Fifth Street, and then north on Fifth Street to its terminus at Fifth and Market Streets.   

Route 30 - Howard and Folsom Streets.  Route 30 cuts across on the surface of the Central Subway Corridor with dedicated bicycle lanes on Howard and Folsom Streets.  The light rail would operate in a subway at this section.

Route 36 - Townsend Street.  Route 36 follows Townsend Street between Third and Eighth Streets.  The Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) are discussing bicycle upgrades for a segment on Townsend Street west of Third Street.  In this segment bikes and autos share an extra wide curb lane.  Various options for a proposal to convert the shared lane to a dedicated bike lane with parking next to the curb have been presented to the public and are under consideration.

Route 50 - Market Street.  Route 50 travels along Market Street through the Study Area and would cross over the subway portion of the Corridor.

The Bicycle Plan, as amended in June 2005, proposes a modification to Route 19 that would directly affect Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Street Alignment.  The amended plan recommends re-striping Fifth Street with two northbound lanes and one southbound lane to provide two six-foot bike lanes, suggesting that adjacent streets appear to have enough capacity to absorb the diversion of southbound traffic.  Traffic diversion to Fourth Street as a result of the implementation of bicycle lanes on Fifth Street could potentially impact the implementation of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment alternative because traffic lanes and capacity would need to be reduced on Fourth Street to accommodate rail operation.  The Bicycle Plan also recommends improvements for Route 11 on Columbus Avenue and for Route 17 on Stockton Street.[20]  On Columbus Avenue, improvement options include installing “Bikes Allowed Use of Full Lane” signage and exploring better pavement markings for the cable car tracks.  On Stockton Street, improvement options include re-striping and exploration of a short contra-flow lane between Sutter and Post Streets.

On November 3, 2006, the Superior Court ruled that the City must complete a full environmental review of the entire Bicycle Plan and its cumulative impacts.  This ruling has not altered the initial scope or nature of the proposed bike facility improvements or the proposed network that will be reviewed.  At this point, it is not clear how long this environmental review process will take, or when the planned improvements, once reviewed and certified would be expected to be approved and completed.

San Francisco County Transportation Authority Strategic Plan

In 1989, San Francisco voters passed Proposition B, a local ballot measure authorizing a one-half percent sales tax increase to fund specific transportation improvements.  The SFCTA prepared a Strategic Plan in 1993, which is to be updated every two years, to verify funding commitments to specified transportation improvement projects. [21]  The 1995 Strategic Plan Update identified the Third Street Light Rail Project as one of four major programs or projects to which over 70 percent of the Proposition B revenues would be committed through 2004.[22]  In addition, in June 1995 the SFCTA passed a resolution adopting the Four

Corridor Plan, effectively designating the Bayshore Corridor (Third Street), as the top priority for fixed guideway projects funded with Proposition B revenues.  The Four Corridor Plan identified four corridors--Bayshore, Van Ness, Geary and North Beach--to be upgraded with fixed guideway transit lines over a 20-year period.  The Bayshore (Third Street) Corridor was listed as Phase One of the long range plan to construct rail transit in all four corridors.  All of the projects were eligible, at least in part, for Proposition B funding.[23]

The Four Corridor Plan recommended that the Bayshore Corridor (Third Street) rail line begin at the San Francisco/San Mateo county line, run along the median of Third Street, transition to a subway between Brannan and Bryant Streets, cross Market Street and cross under Stockton/Kearny Streets to a terminus near California Street.  The plan recommended that, if leveraged funds were not available, an initial surface segment be constructed from the county line to Third and King Streets, to connect with existing light rail tracks on King Street and The Embarcadero.  The plan stated that this portion of the line (the IOS) could be constructed with Proposition B funds alone (a large percentage for construction of the IOS came from Proposition B sales tax monies).[24]

In November 2003, San Francisco voters approved Proposition K, which reauthorized the half-cent sales tax for 30 years, to pay for transportation improvements outlined in a New Expenditure Plan.  The Expenditure Plan outlines eligibility requirements and maximum Prop K funds available for specific projects and programs that implement the priorities of the Countywide Transportation Plan.  The Plan includes four major investment categories: Transit, Streets and Roads, Paratransit, and Transportation System Management/Strategic Initiatives.  Prop K identified $70 million in funds for the Third Street Light Rail IOS (Phase 1) and an additional $126 million for the Phase 2 Central Subway.[25]

The Port of San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan

In November 1990, the voters of San Francisco adopted Proposition H, which required preparation of a comprehensive waterfront land use plan.  The Port of San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan covers the 7.5 mile waterfront area from Fisherman’s Wharf to India Basin, all of which is under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco.[26]  The plan area is divided into five waterfront subareas: 1) Fisherman’s Wharf; 2) Northeast; 3) Ferry Building; 4) South Beach/China Basin; and 5) Southern.  The EIR for this plan was certified in January 1997 and the Port Commission adopted the plan in June 1997.

Although the Waterfront Land Use Plan was developed to meet the requirements of Proposition H, the policies, objectives and site specific land use designations contained in the plan are consistent with the state, regional, and local regulations which govern waterfront land use including the City’s General Plan and Planning Code, as well as the BCDC plans described below.

The overarching goal of the Waterfront Land Use Plan is to “reunite the City with its waterfront.”  To this end, land use objectives and policies in the plan are guided by seven subgoals to establish: 1) a working waterfront; 2) a revitalized port; 3) a diversity of activities for residents and visitors; 4) improved access to and along the waterfront; 5) preservation of the waterfront’s historic character; 6) urban design worthy of the waterfront setting; 7) and economic access to the area that reflects the diversity of San Francisco’s population.  The plan states that improved waterfront access will involve a “network of parks, plazas, walkways, open spaces and integrated transportation improvements... to improve access to, and enhance the enjoyment and appreciation of the Bay environment.”

Discussion of the Ferry Building subarea also states that the Port “should promote a direct, continuous transit line between the northern and southern waterfront and, in particular, between the F-line and the Muni Metro extension when funding permits.  Direct continuous transit lines are promoted to encourage the public to use transit rather than private cars.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

The McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 grants BCDC permit authority over the San Francisco Bay, a band of land 100 feet from the shoreline of the Bay, saltponds, managed wetlands and certain specified waterways.  Any project or development proposed for these areas must be reviewed by BCDC for consistency with the plans described below.  In addition, under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), BCDC has the authority to review local projects that would affect the “coastal zone” and that use federal funding or require federal approval to ensure that the projects are, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with BCDC’s coastal management program.  Under this law, the coastal zone in the San Francisco Bay area has historically been interpreted to include priority use areas identified in the San Francisco Bay Plan, as well as, areas within the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan.  The Waterfront Special Area Plan extends from Hyde Street Pier in the north to India Basin and includes all areas within the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco.  Thus, for certain projects, the CZMA effectively extends BCDC’s area of jurisdiction, for certain projects, beyond the 100-foot band of shoreline specified in the McAteer-Petris Act.[27]

San Francisco Bay Plan

The San Francisco Bay Plan (Bay Plan)is the policy document of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission that specifies land use goals, objectives, and policies for the San Francisco Bay waterfront, as well as for other BCDC jurisdictional areas.[28]  The plan’s area of jurisdiction is defined in the McAteer-Petris Act (the enabling legislation for BCDC and the Bay Plan) as the San Francisco Bay, a band of land 100 feet from the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, saltponds, managed wetlands and certain specified waterways. Portions of the Central Subway Corridor--roughly between China Basin and Market Street--are within the plan’s area of jurisdiction. 

The Bay Plan addresses the effects of filling and development on the Bay, as well as the issue of public access to the Bay.  The plan concludes that the remaining water volume and surface area of the Bay should be maintained to the greatest extent feasible for the benefit and protection of Bay fish and wildlife. The plan details specific water-oriented uses allowed on the Bay, as well as non-priority uses allowed in the shoreline band.

San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan

The San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Special Area Plan), developed by BCDC, is an amendment to the Bay Plan.[29]  The Special Area Plan does not supersede either the Bay Plan or the provisions of the McAteer-Petris Act.  Any new development proposed for the area within BCDC’s jurisdiction must be consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act, the Bay Plan and the Waterfront Special Area Plan.  The Special Area Plan recommends uses for the land and water located along the existing San Francisco shoreline, from the Hyde Street Pier to India Basin, including all areas within the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco. While the Special Area Plan examines all of the land in this area, the policies in the plan apply only to those areas within the jurisdiction of the BCDC, i.e. the 100-foot band of land along the shoreline.  The plan was developed to help public agencies and private parties seeking BCDC permits identify when and where fill, dredging or changes in land use appear to be consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan.  The Central Subway Corridor lies within the plan boundaries at various points, generally between China Basin and Market Street.  The plan contains no specific policies or recommendations about general transportation services, or the Third Street Light Rail Project (including Phase 2 Central Subway).

The San Francisco Waterfront -- Piers 7 through 24--Total Design Plan

The San Francisco Waterfront Total Design Plan (Total Design Plan) is another amendment to the Bay Plan.[30]  The Total Design Plan was developed to provide more detailed planning for the Ferry Building area, particularly for the uses of replaced piers, than what was provided in the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan.  The Total Design Plan was a joint effort of the San Francisco Planning Department, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, the Port of San Francisco and BCDC.  The area covered by the plan includes the water and the band of shoreline within BCDC’s jurisdiction.  The plan encourages development of continuous rail transit service along the length of the waterfront in the future.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the nine-county regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area.  The Commission is responsible for development of regional transportation plans and for making regional recommendations in transportation investments.

Regional Transportation Plan

The Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area is the long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for transportation projects and identifies planned transportation investments for the region over the next 25 years. [31]  The plan identifies transportation projects that can be built with funds expected to be available over the 25-year time frame of the plan and those that are of priority to the region, but are not yet fully funded. Goals and objectives from the RTP are aimed at improving safety, reliability, access to the system, promoting livable communities, clean air and providing for efficient freight travel. The fully-funded or Tier 1 portion of the RTP includes a fixed guideway extension for the Third Street Light Rail Project (Phase 1 IOS service initiated in April 2007) and the Phase 2 Central Subway in San Francisco. The plan describes a mixture of local, regional and federal funds to be used for the two-phase project and notes that an updated cost estimate for the Phase 2 Central Subway will be provided following selection of a new locally-preferred alternative (LPA).  Updated cost estimates have been developed and will be incorporated into the RTP once a project has been adopted.

4.1.2 proposed Plans and Projects in the corridor

There are a number of major developments that have either occurred since certification of the 1998 EIS/EIR or are proposed for construction in the northeastern quadrant of San Francisco and in the Downtown area by 2030.  In addition, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is conducting studies on a proposed new Redevelopment Plan Area near the Corridor.  Refer to Figure 4-2 for the locations of these major proposed developments and redevelopment areas, which are described below.

Major Development Activity Since 1998

Mission Bay

As described in the previous section for Redevelopment Plan Areas, Mission Bay is an approximately 300-acre site located just south of the rapidly developing South of Market area of San Francisco.  The site, which had been characterized mainly by abandoned railroad yards and other industrial uses, is owned primarily by a single developer, the Catellus Corporation.  The redevelopment of these areas is directed by two plans–the Mission Bay North Redevelopment Plan and the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan.  The Redevelopment Plan for Mission Bay North addresses the 65-acre area north of Mission Creek channel between Third and Seventh Streets, but excludes the China Basin Building and the Caltrain Terminal.  The proposed Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan addresses the portion of the plan area south of the Mission Creek channel and does not address the Central Subway phase of the Third Street Light Rail Project. 

The Mission Bay North Redevelopment project began construction in mid-1998, with the first building opening in 2000.  The plan provides for a maximum of 3,000 residential units, with 20 percent of these units to be set aside as affordable housing.  The residential area will be adjacent to the South Beach area and west of the ballpark.  (The ballpark, located northeast of Mission Bay boundaries is not part of the Mission Bay development.)  A total of 600,000 square feet of retail/commercial space is proposed for this area, including 350,000 square feet for a retail complex close to the ballpark.  Approximately six acres along the north shore of the channel will be in open space.

Construction is complete on many commercial, residential, and open space projects in Mission Bay.  As of July 2006, projects completed included:[32]

· 1,224 residential units (288 affordable)

· 63,000 square feet of office space

· 118,450 square feet of retail space

· 465,000 square feet of commercial development

· 3 UCSF life science buildings totaling 707,000 square feet

· 430 UCSF student housing units

· 155,000 square feet of campus community center

· 6 acres of park land

Giants Ballpark

The San Francisco Giants opened their new baseball stadium in April 2000.  The ballpark, along with associated entertainment-oriented retail development, is located between Second and Third Streets south of King Street.  The ballpark has a capacity of approximately 40,000 seats.  The 13-acre site includes a playing field, stadium seating and commercial space.  The Giants and the City formed a partnership to promote public transit as a major means of transportation to the new ballpark.  The ballpark is directly served by regular Muni Metro and bus service, as well as supplemental Metro service on game days.  In addition, Phase 1 of the Third Street Light Rail Project now serves the ballpark.  Current estimates place access to the ballpark by non-auto modes (transit, bicycle, walking, etc.) at approximately 50 percent of total trips.  The ballpark also represents an important source of employment for local residents, as does the associated restaurants and retail establishments.

Transbay Redevelopment Plan

The removal of The Embarcadero Freeway and the reconfiguration of the I-80 Terminal Separator Structure in the early 1990s created surplus vacant land in the vicinity of Transbay Terminal.  To facilitate new development around the Terminal, the area bounded roughly by Spear, Market, Third, and Bryant Streets was designated a redevelopment survey area.  A Transbay Terminal Concept Plan developed in 1996 for the Redevelopment Agency outlined a vision for a new regional transit and commercial center for the Terminal area, as well as an educational/cultural campus, several mixed use residential neighborhoods and an integrated system of parks, plazas and pedestrian ways.[33]

In March 2003, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (JPA) selected an alternative that proposed rebuilding the terminal facility on a larger site with new elevated viaducts leading to the Bay Bridge, a 1.3-mile subsurface extension of Caltrain commuter rail service from its present terminal at Fourth and Townsend Streets to the new terminal, and a development plan that provided for up to 4,700 residential units and two million square feet of commercial space as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).  The FEIR for this project was certified in April 2004 and the FTA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the EIS in February 2005.[34]

The Transbay JPA completed preliminary engineering for the Terminal improvements and in late 2006 initiated a design and development competition for a Transbay Transit Center and Tower. A design/development team will be selected in late 2007.  The TJPA will have responsibility for the transportation related improvements and the Redevelopment Agency will have responsibility for the remaining development.

The new Transbay Transit Center will accommodate significant expansion of the region's commuter bus service, including the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) transbay service, the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) service, and San Mateo County's SamTrans service.  The terminal will enhance connectivity with expanded Muni service and promote ridership growth for Greyhound, paratransit, and other transit providers.  The rail terminal will be capable of accommodating future high-speed and conventional intercity and corridor rail service to and from Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Central Valley, and the East Bay.

Key terminal characteristics include:

· 600,000 square foot multi-modal transit facility

· 80,000 daily train/bus passengers on opening day

· 300,000 daily train/bus passengers capacity

· 225,000 square feet of retail joint development in terminal

Relocation of the GGBHTD daytime bus storage facility for buses serving the Transbay Terminal will also be completed as part of the redevelopment of the Transbay Terminal.  The new bus storage facility will be located under the I-80 freeway adjacent to the Central Subway Corridor on the blocks bounded by Fourth, Perry, Second, and Stillman Streets.  Access to the bus storage site from Fourth Street will be directly affected by the Central Subway Project and the location of the subway portal under Alternative 3B.  MTA is coordinating with GGHBTD and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority on the portal design to ensure access to the bus storage facility is maintained (refer to Section 3.2.2 Traffic Impacts of Alternative 3B for a more detailed discussion of the effect and mitigation).

The new facility will also provide for a future Downtown extension of Caltrain, which will serve commuters as far south as Monterey County.  From the current terminus at Fourth and Townsend Streets, Caltrain would be extended easterly under Fourth Street and continue under the Townsend Street right-of-way to Second Street where the rail would swing north under Second Street to approach the Transbay Terminal.  The rail alignment would cross under the Central Subway surface operation on Fourth Street, at Townsend Street, for all Build Alternatives and also under Third Street for Alternative 2.

A phased implementation of the project is proposed; with Phase I including construction of the new Transbay Bus Terminal.  Construction is expected to begin in 2010 and be completed in 2014.  Phase 2, the Caltrain Downtown Extension is not yet fully funded; other funds will need to be secured to complete the project.  The Downtown Extension is not included in the 2005 RTP and therefore was not assumed as part of the 2030 transportation network.  Design of the Central Subway will take into account the future extension of Caltrain, but a detailed analysis of the project and its design have not been undertaken at this point as the implementation of the Downtown Extension is expected to occur well after the construction of the Central Subway is completed.

4.1.3 Existing Land Uses In The Corridor

A broad range of land uses exist along the Central Subway Corridor, including residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.  The sections below describe land uses along the proposed light rail alignment, moving from south to north.  Figure 4-3 illustrates current generalized land uses.

South of Market, Union Square, and Downtown

South of Market

This area is expected to experience strong growth over the next two decades, with high density residential, high-tech office and a variety of retail uses continuing to fill in sites formerly occupied by industrial uses.  Significant amounts of new development have occurred in the South Beach area, as well as at Yerba Buena Center (refer to Figure 4-3).  Between Berry and Harrison Streets, just north of I-80, land uses are primarily commercial and industrial, with restaurants, banks, and multi-story industrial buildings.  There are also several loft live-work buildings.  South Park, with its mixed-use residential, loft and commercial environment, is located just east of Third Street in this area.  Exceptions to the general land use pattern are the I-80 ramps at Fourth Street and the Caltrain Terminal west of Fourth Street

FIGURE 4-3

generalized LAND USE

between King and Townsend Streets.  The Giants Ballpark is located east of Berry and Third Streets intersection.

Land uses along Harrison Street between Third and Fourth Streets are primarily industrial with the exception of two large office buildings on the north side.  There are also several high density residential buildings mid-block between Harrison and Folsom Streets.  North of Harrison Street, uses along the west side of Third Street include modern commercial, multi-story residential, the Moscone Convention Center and the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts.  On the east side, office buildings dominate, but land uses also include modern multi-story residential development with ground-floor retail use and parking lots.  The new San Francisco Museum of Modern Art is located between Howard and Mission Streets in this segment.  West of Moscone Center, land uses are mixed with multi-story residential buildings as well as industrial, retail, and office commercial buildings.

Uses along Fourth Street are primarily commercial and multi-story residential.  Many of the residential buildings include ground floor commercial space.  Between King and Townsend Streets, the Caltrain terminal occupies the west side of Fourth Street and a multi-story residential building with a first floor supermarket occupies the east side.  Between Bryant and Harrison Streets, the I-80 freeway crosses Fourth Street with on- and off-ramps on the west side of Fourth Street.  The Yerba Buena Community Center is on the east side of Fourth Street between Harrison and Folsom Streets, opposite another multi- story residential building with a first floor supermarket.  Continuing north, the Moscone Convention Center South including the Yerba Buena Ice Skating and Bowling Center and the Zeum arts and technology center is on the east side of Fourth Street between Folsom and Howard Streets.  The west side of this segment consists of a gas station at the corner of Fourth and Folsom Streets and a multi-story residential building with ground floor retail.  The Metreon Center is located along the east side of Fourth Street between Howard and Mission Streets, opposite the Moscone Convention Center West and a multi-story parking garage.  Approaching Market Street, land uses are a mix of residential and commercial with several hotels and office buildings. 

Downtown

This is San Francisco’s Central Business District, the densest and most transit-accessible downtown on the West Coast.  The “Financial District” section of Downtown alone contains approximately 320,000 jobs or about 30 percent of all jobs in the City.[35]

The Corridor from Market Street to the Stockton Tunnel traverses the Union Square retail district, a major tourist attraction in the City.  Union Square is the City’s primary retail district – a dense pedestrian and transit-oriented district with large and small retail establishments, office, hotels, theaters, and some high-density residential uses.  Union Square plaza, which is located at the heart of this district and serves as the district’s primary focal point, was rebuilt in 2003 to make it more accessible to the street and the many visitors in the district.  The Union Square below-grade garage and multi-story Sutter-Stockton garage are also in this segment of the Corridor.

Chinatown

With over 100 housing units per net acre, Chinatown is one of the most densely populated areas in the City.  Although Chinatown is a major tourist destination, Stockton Street between Sacramento Street and Broadway is considered the “Main Street” for the Chinatown neighborhood and is the heart of the Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial District (San Francisco Planning Code Sec. 812.1).  Land uses along Stockton Street in Chinatown, north of the Sacramento Street portal of the Stockton Tunnel, remain primarily commercial, with some buildings containing residential uses over ground-floor commercial.  Cross streets have primarily residential and residential uses over ground-floor commercial.  A preschool and several community service agencies are located in a multi-story building at the southwest corner of Stockton and Sacramento Streets.  [begin insertion] Other exceptions to the primary land uses include a [end insertion] [begin deletion] A [end deletion] Post Office and several schools, including the Chinese Central High School and Gordon Lau Elementary School [begin deletion] are located [end deletion] between Clay and Washington Streets.  The St. Mary's Chinese Catholic Center is located on the northeast corner of Stockton and Clay Streets and the Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hall is on the east side of Stockton Street.  The Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground (formerly Chinese Playground), on Sacramento Street just east of Stockton Street, is the only open space along the Corridor north of Union Square. [begin deletion]   These institutions are an integral part of Chinatown, the historic heart of the Chinese-American community. [end deletion]

North Beach

The North Beach neighborhood is located just north of Chinatown.  The area is a popular tourist destination known for its many restaurants, cafes, shops and nightlife attractions.  Land use along Columbus Avenue in North Beach are primarily commercial with some buildings containing residential uses over ground-floor commercial.  Cross streets are primarily residential.  Washington Square, a large public park, is bordered by Stockton Street and Columbus Avenue to the east and west and Filbert and Union Streets to the north and south.  The north side of Washington Square is bordered by Saints Peter and Paul Church, School, and Parish Offices.  A Post Office and Italian Athletic Club are located on Stockton Street along the east side of Washington Park, while various commercial uses are located along the southern edge of the park on Union Street. 

4.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 

The socioeconomic characteristics described for the Study Area include population, housing and households, employment and income.  A brief description of neighborhoods is also included.  For the purpose of this analysis, the Study Area is defined as the Central Subway alignment plus up to 1,500 feet around proposed stations.  The data presented are primarily from the 2000 U.S. Census.  Although this information is from 2000, there have not been any major developments that have significantly changed the general population and employment information or the relative relationship between neighborhoods.

The Central Subway Corridor passes through thirteen census tracts, proceeding north from approximately Fourth and King Streets to Chinatown.  The Central Subway includes five census tracts - 179.01, 176.02, 180, 178 and 176.01 - south of Market Street and eight census tracts on the north side of Market Street – 125, 123, 121, 119, 118, 117, 114, and 113.  The North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant area includes two additional census tracts - 106 and 107.

4.2.1 POPULATION

San Francisco demographic characteristics are shown in Table 4-1.  Relative to other cities in California, it is more densely populated, with a population of approximately 776,730 in an area covering only 49 square miles.  The central city of a nine county region containing close to seven million people, San Francisco contains about 11.5 percent of the regional population.  Between 1990 and 2000, San Francisco's population increased approximately seven percent; while the regional population growth was almost twice that rate.  Compared to regional population characteristics, San Francisco’s population is older on average.  Fifteen percent of the residents are under 18 compared to 24 percent in the region, and 14 percent are over the age of 65, somewhat above the 11 percent average for the region.

The Central Subway Corridor has a population of approximately 52,000.  Population characteristics here are distinct from the Third Street Light Rail Corridor.  The population of the segment as a whole is over half minority.  Several census tracts along Stockton Street are over 85 percent Asian.  Seventeen percent of the population of the Central Subway segment is at least 65 years old, and eight percent are under the age of 18.  Similarly, the North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant segment has greater percentages of Asians and older residents than the San Francisco averages.  The combined Central Subway and North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant segments have approximately 62,000 residents, or about eight percent of the City’s population.

TABLE 4-1

POPULATION, RACE, HISPANIC ORIGIN AND AGE: 2000

Note:       Percentages do not add to 100% because American Indian and "Other" are not included and because "Hispanic" is not counted as a separate race in the U.S. Census. 

Source:    U.S. Census 2000.

4.2.2 Housing and Household Characteristics

Compared to San Francisco totals, both the Central Subway and the North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant segments have lower percentages of owner occupied units and higher percentages of overcrowding and buildings with five or more units as shown in Table 4-2.  In the Central Subway segment, only about 9 percent of the housing units are owner-occupied, well below the City average of 35 percent.  The U.S. Census reported a high vacancy rate in this segment of nine percent, which reflected several large new (and not yet fully occupied) developments south of Market Street.  The average household size in the Central Subway segment is 1.7 persons. The vast majority (93 percent) of the housing units in the Central Subway segment are in buildings with five or more units.  Approximately 20 percent of the households in this segment are considered to be overcrowded (with more than one resident per room).

TABLE 4-2

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS:  2000

Note:        Overcrowded is defined as more than one person per room. 

Source:     U.S. Census 2000.

In the North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant segment, only eight percent of the housing units are owner occupied.  The vacancy rate in this area is consistent with the San Francisco average of five percent.  The average household size is 2.0 persons.  Approximately 72 percent of the housing units in the North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant segment are in buildings with five or more units and 27 percent of households in this area are considered to be overcrowded.

4.2.3 Employment

According to the U.S. Census and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) data, there were approximately 427,820 employed San Francisco residents in 2000 (see Table 4-3).[36]  San Francisco serves as a major employment hub for the Bay Area.  Although 322,000 of the San Francisco employed residents work in the City, an additional 261,000 people from other counties commute to jobs in San Francisco, bringing the total daily workforce to approximately 583,000.[37]  Approximately 55 percent of all jobs in San Francisco are located downtown.

In the census tracts adjacent to the Central Subway alignment, nearly 24,790 residents were employed in 2000, with 37 percent in management, 19 percent in service, 23 percent in sales, and 9 percent in production jobs.  The unemployment rate along this segment was nine percent.  This is nearly 50 percent higher than the citywide unemployment rate.

TABLE 4-3

RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS BY SEGMENT:  2000

Source:    U.S. Census 2000.

Along the North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant segment almost 4,600 residents were employed, with 29 percent in management, 21 percent in service, 24 percent in sales, and 15 percent in production.  The unemployment rate along this segment was seven percent, compared to a citywide unemployment rate of 5 percent. 

4.2.4 Fiscal and Economic Characteristics

Income Levels

Average household incomes in both the Central Subway and North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant segments were considerably below the City average of $55,220 in 2000, as shown in Table 4-4.  The per capita income was also generally lower than the citywide figure of $34,560. 

TABLE 4-4

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS BY SEGMENT:  2000

Source:    U.S. Census 2000.

In the Central Subway segment, the average household income was $30,400 and the average per capita income was $26,920.  Twenty-three percent of residents were below the poverty line and 72 percent did not own vehicles.  The median household incomes ranged from a low of $12,000 in Tract 125 along Market Street to a high of $78,000 in Tract 179.01, which includes new waterfront development in the South Beach area of the South of Market.

In the North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant segment, the average household income was approximately $24,890 and the average per capita income was approximately $20,600.  Nineteen percent of residents were below the poverty line and 34 percent did not own vehicles. 

Fiscal Environment 

The 2006/2007 General Fund budget for the City and County of San Francisco is $2.6 billion, and the total budget including capital and enterprise accounts is $5.7 billion.  This represents an increase of 7.3 percent over the previous fiscal year’s budget.

Sources of revenue for the General Fund include various taxes and state subventions.  Approximately 32 percent of the General Fund comes from property taxes, 18 percent from state government, 17 percent from other local taxes, and 13 percent from business taxes.  The remainder comes from other taxes such as motor vehicle and utility taxes, hotel taxes, traffic fines, departmental fees, and major federal and state subventions for social service and health care programs.

The General Fund does not include activities that are considered enterprise accounts, which raise revenues to cover their costs through direct charges, fees, or other revenue sources.  Examples of enterprise accounts are the Airport, Port, Water Department, Hetch Hetchy, General Hospital, and Laguna Honda Hospital.  The Airport, Water Department, and Hetch Hetchy meet all costs with fee revenues, while the Hospitals receive subsidies from other governmental agencies as well as fee revenues.

According to the Mayor's 2006/2007 budget summary, 38 percent of the General Fund is allocated to public works, transportation and commerce; 21 percent to community health; 17 percent to public protection; 13 percent to human welfare and neighborhood development; and the remainder is allocated to a variety of programs and activities, including culture and recreation, general administration and finance, and general city responsibilities.[38]

4.2.5 environmental justice considerations

The environmental justice analysis considered Project impacts on minority and/or low-income populations.  Determination of the presence of environmental justice populations and the potential effects on those populations rely, to a large degree, on analysis of demographic information, such as the U.S. census data and information gathered through public involvement and outreach activities.

Regulatory Setting

Federal laws and regulations guide the analysis of environmental justice.  These include:

· Executive Order No. 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994) directs Federal agencies to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects of the programs, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations of the United States and assuring that Project information is available to those populations.

· Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.  Direct property acquisition under the Central Subway Project alternatives would require implementation of this Act along with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.

The environmental justice analysis was prepared following Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994).  The methodology was based on FHWA Order 6640.23 (December 2, 1998).  Ethnic and racial minority and/or low-income population groups in the affected community are identified in this report using 2000 U.S. Census data that describe racial and income characteristics, and project impacts that disproportionately affect these groups, if any, are evaluated.

As defined in Executive Order 12898 and subsequent agency guidance, the term “minority” includes any individual who is an American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander (including Native Hawaiian), Black/African American (not of Hispanic origin), or Hispanic/Latino.  The term “low-income” is defined in accordance with Executive Order 12898 and agency guidance as a person with household income at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines.[39]

Minority and/or low-income populations are identified when (a) the minority or low-income population of the affected area exceeds fifty percent or (b) the minority or low-income population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority or low-income population percentage in the general population.  For the purposes of this analysis, this difference was assumed to be more than ten percentage points.  The Study Area for environmental justice analyses was based on U.S. Census Tracts within the Corridor as previously defined.  The minority and/or low-income populations within these census tracts were compared to San Francisco and the Bay Area as a whole.

Community outreach and participation have been integrated into the Project development process from the beginning, including public scoping, alternatives development, public and agency involvement and environmental analysis.  Efforts have been made to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations, as well as, to address community concerns by refining the Project alternatives.

Identification of Minority and Low Income Communities

The Project Corridor was divided into three neighborhood areas based on census tracts and the definitions of neighborhoods according to the San Francisco Planning Department.  The three neighborhoods and corresponding census tracts include South of Market (census tracts 176.01, 176.02, 178, 179.01, and 180), Downtown/Financial District (census tracts 117, 119, 121, 123, 123, and 125), and Chinatown (census tracts 113, 114, and 118).  A fourth neighborhood, North Beach (census tracts 106 and 107), is included to cover the North Beach Tunnel Construction Variant associated with the Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Options.

The demographic characteristics of the Central Subway Study Area are presented in Table 4-5.

According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the overall population of San Francisco in 2000 was approximately 49.7 percent white, with just over 50 percent of the City’s 2000 population composed of minority populations.  For the Central Subway Corridor, approximately 39.6 percent of the population is white, with the remaining approximately 60 percent of the population composed of minorities.  In the Central Subway neighborhood of Chinatown, the minority (largely Asian) population is even higher at about 92 percent.  Minority populations in the Downtown and South of Market neighborhoods are about 52 percent, with a larger concentration of African American residents in South of Market.  Similarly, for the North Beach segment, approximately 24 percent of the population is white with approximately 76 percent of the population composed of minority populations.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines a low-income household as one in which income is 80 percent, or less, of the County median income.  The median household income for San Francisco in 2000 was approximately $55,000 as noted in Table 4-6, and 80 percent of this figure is approximately $44,000.  Within the Corridor the majority of census tracts are considered low-income (106, 107, 113, 114, 117, 118, 121, 123, 125, 176.01, and 178).  Even though three of the five South of Market census tracts have median incomes above the City median, each neighborhood in the Study Area contains low-income tracts.

South of Market and Downtown

In recent years, the South of Market district (refer to Figure 4-2) has become one of the most economically vibrant in the City, with a mix of industrial, commercial, residential, and public uses.  The area includes older industrial buildings that have been modernized for office commercial and live/work space, new office buildings, and new residential development, particularly along Third Street, the South Beach area along The Embarcadero, and the Mission Bay North development along King Street.  These uses co-exist with remaining industrial uses that range from business services to clothing manufacturing to artisans.  The Moscone Convention Center (East and West), San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and Yerba Buena Center, and the Sony Metreon Entertainment Center are also contributing to the transformation of the South of Market area.

TABLE 4-5

population and race/ethnicity characteristics, 2000

Note:       Percentages do not add to 100% because Hispanic is not counted as a separate race in the U.S. Census.  Census categories of “Some Other Race” or “Two or more Races” were also unaccounted for

Source:    2000 U.S. Census

The Downtown District includes both the Financial District, dominated by high-rise office buildings with ground floor banking and retail activity, and the Union Square Downtown retail core, one of the most vibrant retail districts in the country.  Geary, Post, and Stockton Streets represent key arteries of the retail district, with multi-floor retail uses and hotels the primary uses.

Chinatown

Chinatown is a vibrant mixed-use area, combining high density residential, neighborhood- and regional-serving specialized shopping, central religious and social service functions for the Chinese community,

TABLE 4-6

Income Characteristics, 2000

Note:       Percentage below poverty is based on the U.S. Census Bureau definition of poverty status which is determined by weighted average thresholds.

Source:  2000 U.S. Census

and a prominent visitor destination.  Stockton and Grant Streets are the center of retail and community service functions, with residential uses above retail and business uses and along the crossing east-west streets from Sacramento Street to Pacific Avenue.  Approximately 10,000 to 15,000 residents live in the district, many of them elderly and/or recent immigrants.

North Beach

Situated adjacent to the north of Chinatown is North Beach.  The high density North Beach area, known as San Francisco’s Little Italy, is a popular tourist destination filled with restaurants, cafes, nightclubs and bars.  The area also has a large residential make-up with approximately 10,000 people living in the area.

Community Participation

The Central Subway Project has been conducted with extensive public participation throughout the project development and environmental review process.  Meetings were conducted within affected neighborhoods on the Corridor to ensure that residents who would be most affected by the Project had an opportunity to comment.  Special outreach efforts have been taken to encourage participation by minority and low-income residents of the Corridor.  Since 2004, there have been over 100 presentations to neighborhoods, community organizations, and individual stakeholders.  Community meetings have been held in the immediate vicinity of each of the proposed four stations to update the community and impacted residents on the Project, as well as to hear any concerns or issues they may have.  Formal presentations at the community meetings were preceded by open house sessions where attendees could ask staff general questions about the Project.  All locations for the community meetings have been ADA accessible.  Further discussion of community coordination and consultation can be found in Chapter 11.0.

Project meeting announcements and informational materials were available in English, Chinese, and Spanish.  Translation services at public meetings were available with a 72-hour notice.  Four newsletters were published in English, with approximately 15,000 copies of each issue distributed by mail.  These newsletters were also available in Spanish and Chinese.

In September 2006, the Central Subway information phone line was updated so callers could leave a message of any length.  The caller can select English, Chinese, or Spanish and have their call returned no later than the next business day.

In Chinatown, additional outreach efforts were conducted to ensure appropriate participation by the Chinese community.  Approximately 3,000 copies of each Project newsletter were published in Chinese and distributed by mail, as well as door-to-door and at community meetings.  Chinese-translated meeting notices and Project fact sheets were hand-delivered to community groups or posted on community bulletin boards at recreation and senior centers, public housing, and other appropriate posting locations throughout the community.  In addition to this outreach effort, the MTA had bus car cards in English, and Chinese in the vehicles that served the Chinatown community.  Information for all public meetings was included on all postings.

4.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

The Community Facilities and Services section identifies and describes the existing public facilities, parklands, recreational centers, and institutions that lie within one block of the proposed Central Subway alignments on Third, Fourth and Stockton Streets, as well as the public services provided by these facilities.  Figure 4-4 indicates the location of these community facilities.

4.3.1 Public and Community Facilities

The Central Subway Corridor contains numerous public and community facilities, such as community centers, libraries, health centers, post offices, transportation centers, cultural and religious institutions, and social service centers.  Table 4-7 lists those facilities that are within one block of the proposed Central Subway alignments on Third, Fourth and Stockton Streets.  The list includes the location, jurisdiction, and brief description of the activities occurring at the facility, for each community in the Corridor.

4.3.2 Police, Fire, and Emergency Services

The Central Subway alignment alternatives contain several police and fire stations.  Emergency response services are provided by the San Francisco Fire Department, which assigns medical personnel to local fire stations and is responsible for ambulance dispatch.  Table 4-7 identifies the location of the police and fire stations within one block of the Central Subway alignments.

4.3.3 Parks and Recreational Facilities

The Central Subway alignments include parks, playgrounds, recreational centers, public squares, and open spaces (refer to Figure 4-4).  Those that are near the proposed Project alignments are described below.

South Park

Surrounded by residences and commercial uses, South Park lies mid-block between Third and Second Streets, south of Bryant Street.  The 0.85-acre park is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and contains a children’s playground and picnic tables.  This park is only near the Alternative 2 alignment on Third Street and is not within one block of Alternatives 3A and 3B on Fourth Street.

FIGURE 4-4

PUBLIC FACILITIES ALONG CENTRAL SUBWAY CORRIDOR

TABLE 4-7

PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR

Source:  PB/Wong, Consultants, December 2006.

Yerba Buena Gardens

This 5.5-acre landscaped garden is owned and maintained by the San Francisco Redevelop­ment Agency and serves as the center piece of the Yerba Buena complex.  The garden, which is bordered by the Center for the Arts, the Moscone Convention Center, the Sony Metreon Entertainment Center, and the Contemporary Jewish Museum (under construction) on Mission Street, contains meadows, unique gardens, public art, an outdoor area for staging performances, a tribute to the native Ohlone Indians, and a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Union Square

Union Square, bounded by Geary, Powell, Post, and Stockton Streets, is in the heart of the San Francisco Downtown retail core.  The 2.6-acre public park is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and contains flower beds and sitting areas as well as an area for staging outdoor exhibits and performances.  On the east side of the plaza, Union Square is elevated above street level to cover a 985-space underground parking garage administered by the Department of Parking and Traffic.  Union Square is also identified as a California State Landmark (No. 623).  (See also Union Square description in Section 9.0 of this document.)

Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground

The Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground (formerly known as the Chinese Playground) is approximately 0.60 acres of park space consisting of two sand play areas, a basketball court, tennis court, volleyball court, two play structures, and a community recreation center and indoor gym on multi-levels of park.  The recreation center runs an after school program that helps children with homework and offers various activities.  The playground is located between Clay and Sacramento Streets one-half block east of the proposed alignment for the Central Subway on Stockton Street, and adjacent to the parcel indentified for the Chinatown station in Alternative 2 and 3A. 

Woh Hei Yuen Recreation Center

The Woh Hei Yuen Recreation Center located on Powell Street at John Street (near Jackson Street) provides educational and recreational activities for children and adults.  The two-story facility includes, a basketball court, auditorium, meeting/recreation room, kitchen, outdoor basketball court, court yard, children’s play structure, and weight training facility.

Portsmouth Square

Portsmouth Square has historically been known as the Heart of San Francisco as it was the site of the first public square of the community of Yerba Buena, which eventually became San Francisco.  Located along Kearny Street between Washington and Clay Streets, the square features numerous statues, markers and plaques, an open plaza and children’s playground.  Below the square is the four-level, 500-space Portsmouth Square Parking Garage.

Washington Square

Washington Square is a 2.26-acre park bordered by Filbert and Union Streets to the north and south and Columbus Avenue and Stockton Street to the west and east.  The park is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department and features strolling paths, small gathering areas, a greensward, seating throughout, historic sculptures, restrooms and a children's playground.  In 1999 the park was designated as a Landmark, requiring it to undergo specific reviews by the San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board for any future potential changes.  The small triangular area bounded by Columbus Avenue, and Union, Filbert and Powell Streets was once part of the original Washington Square, but was severed in the 1870’s with the construction of Columbus Avenue.  Known as Marini Plaza, the small area features plants, sculpture and a pond.  Washington Square park includes several mature trees, some along Columbus Avenue.  To date, none of these trees have been designated by the City as historic landmark trees.

4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources include buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects having historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance.  Technical reports produced for the 1998 environmental document include an Archaeological Survey Report (Hupman and Chavez 1997) and a Historic Architectural Survey Report conducted by Dames & Moore (Corbett et al. 1997); also produced was a Historic Property Survey Report (December 1997) that summarizes the information in the technical reports.  These reports examined the same alignments as the Alternative 2 (Enhanced EIS/EIS Alignment) of the Central Subway segment of Phase 2 of the Third Street Light Rail Project.   Additional research resulting in a Historic Context and Archaeological Survey Report (HCASR), Anthropological Studies Center (ASC), 2007 and a Historic Architectural Evaluation Report (Garcia and Associates, 2007) was completed for this supplemental environmental document.  These reports are on file at the San Francisco Planning Department.

4.4.1 Regulatory Framework

This cultural resources section of the SEIS/SEIR meets both state and federal environmental requirements, including the CEQA, as amended (PRC Section 21000 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (CCR 14 Section 15000 et seq.); NEPA, as amended (42 USC 4321-43470); and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1969 (36 CFR 800).

The first step in complying with these laws is the identification of resources and evaluation of their significance based on the criteria of the above legislation and its guidelines.  The Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (46 FR 44716.44740) provide the relevant standards by which these activities are carried out.  Historic properties include the buildings, districts, structures, objects, and sites that are listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).  Properties eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) are called historical resources; the evaluation criteria of the CRHR closely follow those of the NRHP.  In addition to resources determined eligible under these evaluation criteria, the CRHR also includes properties listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks, and properties of local significance designated under a local preservation ordinance. CEQA states that it is the policy of the state of California to “take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with . . . historic environmental qualities . . . and preserve for future generations examples of the major periods of California history” (PRC Section 21001[b], [c]).  CEQA Section 21084.1 states that “A project that  may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.”  CEQA defines an historical resource as one which “is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources,” and also states that historical resources included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, are “presumed to be significant” unless the preponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise.  “Unique archaeological resources” are considered under PRC Section 15064.5 (c)(3) and 21083.2.

The City and County of San Francisco’s Planning Department and Commission maintain a list of significant historic architectural resources, historic districts, and conservation districts; these lists are found in Articles 10 and 11 of the Planning Code.  The boundaries of Article 10 historic districts and Article 11 conservation districts do not correspond with the NRHP and CRHR boundaries, because the locally identified boundaries tend to be larger and more inclusive.  A Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board makes recommendations to the Planning Department about properties to be added to the list of significant properties and they maintain a stewardship role to protect landmarks from inappropriate modifications.

Previous Approvals

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) approved an Area of Potential Effects (APE) for archaeologic and historic resources for the Central Subway and Third Street Light Rail Project in 1997.  At that time, only one build alignment for the Central Subway phase of the project was being considered.  This SEIS/SEIR evaluates three build alternatives for the Central Subway:  an Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative and a Fourth/Stockton Alternative with two options for portal location and surface operations.

The Programmatic Agreement for the construction of the Third Street Light Rail (including the Central Subway) was signed on 1999 by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO, FTA, and the San Francisco Planning Department, pursuant to 36 CRF 800.6  This agreement identified measures to mitigate the effects of the Project on historic properties (Appendix C).

This section of the SEIS/SEIR discusses Archaeological Resources first, followed by Historic Architectural Resources.

4.4.2 archaeological resources

Archaeological APE

The SHPO reviewed and approved the APE for the three alternatives in March 2007 (see Appendix D for copies of the APE maps and SHPO approval letter).  The APE for archaeology is defined both horizontally and vertically to include all areas where potential ground-disturbing activities may affect historic properties, with the vertical and horizontal extent of these activities varying within and between alternatives. These locations include proposed tunnels, stations, ventilation structures, surface tracks, and temporary construction facilities. A five-foot buffer was imposed outside the planned construction to account for voids behind tunnel panels, grouting, and other tunnel and trench shoring cuts. The APE for Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B are 12,900, 10,800, and 9,800 feet in length, respectively. The width of surface tracks and tunnels for all alignments ranges from 35 to 75 feet, not including stations. The vertical APE for archaeology varies within and between alignments, from surface to depths of nearly 120 feet below street level.  Larger scale APE maps are available for review, by appointment, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

Expected Archaeological Resources within the APE

The HCASR provides a summary of archaeological research in the APE, a discussion of the prehistoric and historical archaeological resources background of the Study Area; a description and listing of known prehistoric and historical resources within a 1/2-mile radius of the APE; identification of anticipated property types that may be present within the Study Area; and a discussion of expected prehistoric and historical archaeological resources in the APE. Several methods were used to collect and analyze this information.  To identify known prehistoric and historical resources, a records search (Northwest Information Center (NWIC) Search No. 06-461) was conducted on December 15, 2006 with the NWIC, California Historical Resources Information System.  The records search provided the mapped locations and descriptions of all recorded archaeological sites, as well as reports describing archaeological research. Review of these reports and archaeological literature also allowed identification of archaeological sites that have not been formally recorded, including several locations of shipwreck remains.  SHPO’s list of historic properties in San Francisco was checked for any resources that fall within the APE, including updated listings for State Historic Landmarks and NRHP properties; the CRHR was also checked.

The NWIC records search revealed that 11 prehistoric, 43 historical archaeological resources, and 4 prehistoric/historic archaeological sites have been recorded within 1/2 mile of the APE; these are mentioned below, followed by a discussion of the sites within or adjacent to the APE.

Known Prehistoric Archaeological Resources In or Adjacent to the APE

At least 33 prehistoric archaeological sites or components have been recorded on the northern San Francisco peninsula, most located in sheltered coves or near streams within 1/2 mile or less of the historic margins of San Francisco Bay. To provide context for discovery and evaluation of prehistoric archaeological sites, records searches typically include all archaeological sites recorded within a given radius of a project APE. Because prehistoric archaeological sites can often be much larger than their surface remains suggest, it is also prudent to consider that sites some distance away might extend into the APE.

The records search indicated that 11 prehistoric sites have been recorded within 1/2 mile of the APE; most were found from about 6 to 20 feet below ground surface.  All but one of the sites are residential shell middens, three of which contain human remains; the exception is CA-SFR-28, a single, isolated human burial discovered during construction of the Civic Center BART station approximately 75 feet below ground.  CA-SFR-28 is over 5,000 years old and is the oldest to date encountered prehistoric archaeological resource in San Francisco.

The locations of two prehistoric sites, CA-SFR-2 and CA-SFR-154/H, are located within or adjacent to the APE.  A third site, CA-SFR-114, is located almost midway between the alternatives.  Table 4-8 summarizes which alternatives would potentially impact known archaeological resources.

Table 4-8

Known Archaeological Resources within or adjacent to the APE

Parentheses = Resource that may extend in or near the APE

CA-SFR-2, the only known prehistoric archaeological site clearly situated within the project horizontal APE, is located at Third and Harrison Streets.  The site is a shell midden deposit that was first documented by U.C. Berkeley archaeologist Nels C. Nelson in 1909.  Cultural materials, as well as human remains, were encountered at a depth of about 6 feet below the ground surface during construction excavation in the 1920s (Gifford 1929; Rudo 1982:20).  The site is located immediately northeast of the large, prehistoric marsh associated with Mission Bay and the mouth of Mission Creek.  Given the site’s apparent high density of faunal remains, diversity of artifacts, and human remains, intact deposits from CA-SFR-2 would likely be considered eligible to the NRHP/ CRHR under Criterion D/4.

CA-SFR-154/H was discovered and excavated during pre-construction investigations for the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) West Approach Project, at the east end of the block bounded by Third and Fourth and Harrison and Bryant.  It is a midden site with a low density of artifacts.  The site was evaluated as eligible to the NRHP/ CRHR under Criterion D/ 4 (Martin 2006).  Although the midden deposit at CA-SFR-154/H was completely removed during these investigations, it is possible that other associated remains are present.

CA-SFR-114 (called the Moscone/Yerba Buena or Surprise Shellmound) was recorded on the north side of Howard Street between Third and Fourth Streets, approximately midway between the alternatives. Discovered at a depth of 10 to 21 feet, the midden site has yielded a possible sweathouse feature and at least 11 human burials, one with extensive grave goods (Holman & Associates 1995; Walsh 1988).  Radiocarbon dates (Pastron, Gottsfield, and Vanderslice 2004:27) and diagnostic artifacts indicate that the site was occupied between about 1,000 and 2,500 years ago. Given the density and diversity of artifacts and the human remains, intact deposits from CA-SFR-114 would likely be considered eligible to the NRHP/ CRHR under Criterion D/ 4.  It is unclear whether the site deposit extends to the APE.

Known Historical Archaeological Resources In or Adjacent to the APE

The 43 known historical sites or components within 1/2 mile of the APE represent an array of types, such as a cemetery; dumpsite; buried ship and artifacts; hotel and bathhouse refuse; and several Chinese residential or commercial sites, including a Chinese Fishing Village dating from 1850 to 1852.  There are also several large sites that are the remains of city blocks comprising historical ground surfaces and hollow-filled features from 19th-century working-class families.  Of these 43 known sites, 5 are within or adjacent to the APE for one or more of the Project alternatives; some sites have been entirely removed by previous archaeological data recovery.  These sites are listed below; only CA-SFR-137H is located within the APE, for Alternatives 3A and 3B.

CA-SFR-137H consists of buried remains of a historic city block (bounded by Fourth, Fifth, Harrison, and Bryant Streets) uncovered during archaeological investigations for SF-80 Bayshore Viaduct Project (Praetzellis 2004).  The resource includes the remains of residential and commercial buildings, 1906 earthquake/fire debris, intact ground surfaces, and hollow-filled features from the 1870s.  The site was determined eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D and eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 4.

CA-SFR-153H was recorded on historic city block (bounded by Second, Third, Harrison, and Bryant Streets) on the SFOBB West Approach Project (Praetzellis 2006a).  The resource includes 1906 earthquake and fire debris, intact ground surfaces, and hollow-filled features from 1870s; and deposits from the first free kindergarten west of the Rocky Mountains.  The site was determined eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D and eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 4.

CA-SFR-154/H is on the city block (bounded by Third, Fourth, Harrison, and Bryant Streets) recorded on the SFOBB West Approach Project (Praetzellis 2006b).  Includes 1906 fire-scarred building foundations; 25 artifact-filled privies; and 2 deep wells; the resources are below at least 8 feet of fill (McIlroy 2004). Targeted areas include domestic occupation sites, stores, Chinese laundries, a hotel, and a restaurant.  A prehistoric midden site is also present.  The site was determined eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D and eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 4.

P-38-004294 consists of archaeological features associated with San Francisco Glass Works (SFGW), 1865–1868, found on block bounded by Third, Fourth, King, and Townsend Streets during monitoring for the Mission Bay Development Project (Beevers 2003). SFGW was destroyed in July 1868, just months before a major earthquake.  Excavated features included the remains of two brick furnaces and a brick chimney; two artifact deposits were covered in a burn layer possibly related to 1868 quake. The site may be eligible to the NRHP/ CRHR under Criterion D/ 4.

Jessie Square Garage Feature #1 is a deposit of carbon rods recorded during construction monitoring inside the Jessie Street substation, on Jessie Street between Market, Third, and Fourth Streets (Pastron, Gottsfield, and Vanderslice 2004).  These rods are thought to be associated with the California Electric Light Company founded in June 1879; the first in the U.S. to offer central-station electric service distribution to the public.  The deposit contained various sizes and types of rods used in arc lamps.  The site was determined eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D; it is also eligible to the CRHR under Criteria 1 and 4.

Identifying Archaeological Resource Sensitivity

It is unlikely that archaeological resources—either known sites or previously undiscovered ones—can be identified until the Project is under construction, as they are buried under city streets and substantial quantities of fill.  Consequently one important goal of the archaeological investigation and historic context report was to identify where subsurface historic properties are likely to be found.  The methods used in the archaeological survey report for predicting prehistoric and historical archaeological resource locations are summarized below.  For prehistoric archaeological sites, the assessment was based on the archaeological sensitivity of specific geological landforms, as determined from ongoing geoarchaeological research in the northern San Francisco Peninsula.  For historical archaeological sites, predictions were based on historic maps, other historical documents, and prior archaeological investigations in urban settings.  The impacts that the Central Subway Project might have on these predicted resources are discussed in Section 5.4 of this document.

Expected Prehistoric Archaeological Resources. The HCASR presents an overview of the paleoenvironmental history of the northern San Francisco Peninsula, a discussion of how these changes have affected the age and distribution of archaeological sites, and a summary of previous geoarchaeological studies in the area. Based on these studies, it is clear that people were present in the Study Area by 5,000 years ago and possibly much earlier, and that intensive occupation sites were established as early as 2,000 years ago.  Additional unidentified prehistoric sites are almost certainly associated with dunes, bay marsh margins, alluvial deposits, or other landforms that have been buried by natural geologic processes near the margins of San Francisco Bay.

The assessment of potential Project effects on prehistoric sites has been based on a review and analysis of (1) selected historic maps (Coast Survey maps 1852/53 and 1857/59); (2) modern geologic maps and other data (Knudsen et al. 2000; Schlocker 1974); (3) relevant geoarchaeological studies; (4) logs from soil borings conducted for the Project; and (5) preliminary geologic sections of the proposed alignments (Geomatrix 2003, 2006).  Approximately 100 subsurface borings, as well as other data sources, were used to create the geologic sections, including previously collected geotechnical data, as well as new information gathered from an additional 22 subsurface borings.   The borings do not provide a continuous profile of the APE, however, and only preliminary assessments of archaeological sensitivity in specific Project impact areas are possible.

Using these data, prehistoric archaeological sensitivity was predicted based on the geoarchaeological units present within the APE.  The units identified include the Colma Formation, colluvial deposits, alluvial deposits, bay mud and marsh deposits, Late Holocene sand dunes, and artificial fill.  The sensitivity of each geologic unit depends on its age and the length of time the surface was exposed, and thus available to human occupation.  This is determined by radiocarbon dating or the degree of soil development, or inferred from underlying or overlying units. Much of this information was generated from previous geoarchaeological studies in the vicinity of the APE (Mc Ilroy, Meyer, and Praetzellis 2001; Meyer 2003; Praetzellis 2004).  The sensitivity of these units is summarized below.

The Colma Formation was deposited before the arrival of humans in the San Francisco Bay Area and therefore represents the area’s “cultural basement.”  Geologic units that are earlier than this formation have little or no potential to contain buried prehistoric archaeological resources.  Only the top 3 feet of the Colma Formation is considered of high archaeological sensitivity.

Colluvial deposits are mapped only in isolated areas around Nob Hill. No archaeological materials have been recovered in colluvial deposits on the northern San Francisco Peninsula.  These deposits may contain stable ground surfaces when occurring as ravine fill, but this is unlikely when occurring as slope debris.  Consequently, this geological unit is considered to have a low to moderate sensitivity for archaeological resources.

One meter or more of alluvium overlies the Colma Formation throughout much of the APE.  The various natural resources associated with alluvial deposits, including the presence of fresh water, have long attracted humans, and numerous Bay Area prehistoric archaeological sites are associated with alluvial soils.  Alluvial deposits in the APE, which can reach considerable depth, have a moderate to high sensitivity.  As this unit is probably the result of numerous episodes of deposition and may contain several former surfaces and soils, the entirety of this geologic unit is considered sensitive for archaeology.  This alluvium may date to the Late Pleistocene and therefore may represent the cultural basement in some areas.

Although bay mud and marsh deposits do not represent a stable landform, portions of this geologic unit are sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources.  The lower vertical margin and lateral margins (as well as immediately adjacent units such as alluvium or sand dunes) of this unit are considered to have a high sensitivity, while the middle and upper vertical margins of this unit (open water bay mud rather than marsh) have low sensitivity.  Where bay mud and marsh deposits are encountered, a 3-foot zone at the lower margin of the deposit is highly sensitive for archaeology.

Sand dunes are mapped as overlying alluvial and bay deposits, and underlying artificial fill throughout much of the southeastern portion of the APE.  While several episodes of dune stability and soil formation occurred from the Late Holocene to the historic period, two time periods—dating to 2,000 and 1,000 years ago—are important in that they reflect discrete periods of landform stability.  Each has a different degree of sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological deposits: the earlier deposition represents a relatively stable landform, while the latter is generally unstable.  Based on previous geoarchaeological studies, dunes in the southeastern end of the APE are known to represent the more recent deposition (the Latest Holocene), while the sand dunes in the Market Street area are likely from the Late Holocene, overlain by the more recent, “latest” deposits.  Thus, sand dune units in the Market Street area are considered highly sensitive, whereas those in the southeastern portion of the APE are of low sensitivity for archaeology.

Prehistoric archaeological remains that have been documented within artificial fill are the result of secondary deposition related to historic cutting and filling.  Therefore, this unit is considered to have very low sensitivity to contain intact prehistoric archaeological resources.

The HCASR details the locations and sensitivity of the six reaches defined for the Study Area within each of the alternatives.  Each alternative contains from 5 to 15 locations of moderate to high prehistoric archaeological sensitivity, with a few locations considered of low sensitivity.  A summary of these results and of the Project effects on potentially important prehistoric sites is provided in Section 5.4 of this document.

Expected Historical Archaeological Resources.   The assessment of historical archaeological sensitivity in the Project APE was based on review and analysis of historic maps, municipal reports, and other documents to identify historic land use and the area’s evolving topography.  Historical development along each section of roadway was characterized using information from a variety of sources in order to identify the potential types of historic archaeological deposits that may be present within or adjacent to the APE.  The primary sources included: U.S. Coast Survey maps (1852/53, 1857/59, 1869); Sanborn Company fire insurance maps (1887-1899, 1899-1900, 1913-1915); San Francisco Board of Engineers city grades report (1854); San Francisco Board of Supervisors street grades report (1877); San Francisco Board of Supervisors Special Committee report on Chinatown (1885); San Francisco Office of the City and County Surveyor report (1887/88); San Francisco City Directories (various dates); and San Francisco Municipal Reports (various dates).  Information for blocks previously studied for the Third Street Light Rail Project, identified as Alternative 2, has been drawn from that report (Hupman and Chavez 1997). These sections typically include information after 1906.  Research for blocks on Alignment Alternatives 3A and 3B are focused on the built environment prior to 1906, based on the following assumptions:

· Artifact deposits in the form of domestic or commercial refuse are less likely to be deposited in hollow-filled features within street alignments once a street is paved. Refuse is also less likely to remain in situ on a paved street.

· Paving dates listed in the 1877 Board of Supervisors report indicate established ultimate grade.

· The presence of sewer lines does not necessarily indicate abandonment of privies and connection to city sewer, only the potential to do so.

· Domestic and commercial artifact caches, especially those in hollow-filled features, are more likely to be found dating prior to rather than after post-1906 redevelopment.

Property types identified from the block-by-block research include Domestic Occupation Sites, Domestic Architecture Sites, Commercial Sites, Institutional Sites, Industrial Structures/Architecture, Industrial Features, Gardens and Parks, Landfills and Dumps, and pre-Gold Rush and Gold Rush-period sites that may contain some or all of the above types.  In most cases, the importance of individual resources representing these property types will depend on the ability of the data they contain to address important research issues as required by Criterion D of the NRHP and Criterion 4 of the CRHR.

The locations described below are all considered highly sensitive for historical archaeological resources.  The sensitivity of these and other archaeological resources with respect to the effects of specific project components is presented in Section 5.4 of this document.

· Just south of Market on Third Street was the end of Happy Valley, an informal settlement of tents and improvised dwellings.  Low areas at Third Street and further south may contain sheet refuse and archaeological features associated with the people who occupied the area in the first years of the Gold Rush.

· South of Market Street, the Fourth Street alignment passes through a former area of undulating dunes adjacent to marshlands at Mission Bay.  The roadway and surrounding lands were cut or filled to extend the City during the 1850s and 1860s.  Filled areas of the marsh and bay may also contain the remains of abandoned small watercraft.  Some blocks were filled with debris after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire; historical artifacts are expected within the fill layers.

· A row of buildings stood on the west side of Fourth Street between Clementina and Folsom Streets at the proposed Moscone Station location beginning in the 1850s until 1906. Commercial establishments and households within these structures are likely to have left various archaeological deposits and features that may have survived to the present.

· On Stockton Street near Union Square, areas between Nob Hill and former sandhills toward Market Street, and within Market Street itself, were filled by the 1860s to improve street grades; filled spots may contain remains from the Gold Rush period.  Between 1852 and 1859, a building was constructed within the Stockton Street alignment in a low spot at the base of a sandhill.  Archaeological resources associated with this structure, including privies, architectural and garden remains, and domestic, commercial, and industrial features, may have survived within Stockton Street.

· Where Stockton Street passes over the saddle between Russian Hill and Telegraph Hill was an elite residential enclave for many of the city’s early merchants.  The sidewalks shown are an irregular combination of dirt, planks, and paving, and archaeological deposits could be encountered below modern sidewalks.

· The section of APE from Broadway to Clay was part of Chinatown by 1885.  Both station locations and the area within the roadways have the potential for archaeological resources, including architectural, domestic, commercial, industrial, garden, and Gold Rush period archaeological deposits.  The parcel containing the pre-Gold Rush Paty–Hinckley Adobe lies within Stockton Street between Clay and Jackson Streets, while a trail from Yerba Buena Cove to the Presidio passed through this area.  This section of Stockton Street is highly sensitive for archaeological resources associated with Yerba Buena (1835-1848).

· Three Great Fires that occurred in 1849 and 1850 were the impetus for organizing fire companies and the construction of water cisterns.  The Coast Survey maps of 1852/53 and 1857/59 shown the locations of cisterns built at intersections throughout the City.  Many of the original cisterns were built of wood; most were rebuilt in brick. The cisterns were constructed at depths ranging from 10 to 27 feet (Boden 1936).  There are five potentially affected cisterns within the APE.

· Columbus Avenue (historically Montgomery Avenue) cut through several city blocks—including that bounded by Stockton, Union, Powell, and Green Streets—that contained many buildings by the 1850s.  When the roadway was cut through the block between 1873 and 1875, it affected at least 10 lots, including buildings and yards.  Due to the depth of the tunnel at this location, the only potential historical archaeological resources that may be encountered are artifacts from filled wells.

· At the TBM retrieval shaft in Columbus Avenue at Washington Square, the roadway (originally Montgomery Avenue) was cut through between 1873 and 1875, bisecting Washington Square.  Deposits related to the early years of Washington Square as a public space and park may be present.

4.4.3 historic architectural resources

Historic Architectural APE

An APE for historic buildings was defined to guide background research and field inventory for the Phase 2 Central Subway Project.  The proposed APE conforms to the approach used for the Central Subway segment of the Third Street Light Rail Project historic architectural investigation conducted by Dames & Moore (Corbett et al.1997), which was approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).  The APE is defined as the first row of parcels or buildings fronting either side of the street for each alignment alternative.  For the proposed station and vent locations, the APE was expanded to include two rows of parcels and buildings because it is possible that new construction could visually and/or physically impact the historic integrity of buildings or structures.  The APE was approved by SHPO in March 2007 (see Appendix D for SHPO approval letter and copy of APE maps).

Historic Architectural Resources Methods

This section of the SEIS/SEIR summarizes information contained in the Historic Architectural Evaluation Report (HAER) prepared for this Project (Garcia and Associates 2007).  Prior to undertaking field studies, background research was initiated to identify previous studies conducted in and around the Study Area.  Numerous reports and studies have been researched for this environmental document and references are listed in Appendix F.  Previous studies, site records, historic maps, NRHP listings, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historic Landmarks, the Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) Directory of Historic Properties in the Historic Property Data File, and other applicable material was compiled from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Sonoma State University, California.  The Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Francisco County, updated on September 18, 2006 contains a current inventory of historic properties and their associated NRHP status.  This directory was the primary resource used to determine if properties had been previously evaluated for significance.  The data file includes information regarding properties listed in the NRHP and CRHR; note that the NRHP was also independently reviewed to confirm inclusion and status noted in the OHP’s Directory.[40]  Other registers, including the California Historical Landmarks (1995) and California Points of Historical Interest (2004), were also consulted to determine if the Study Area contains important listed historic properties.  The San Francisco Planning Department’s list of existing historic preservation districts and surveys was also a resource.

In order to determine NRHP eligibility, historical research pertaining to each property within the APE was compiled.  Information relevant to the construction history, history of use, and affiliation with important historical figures was gathered for each property using resources at the San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco Assessor’s Office, San Francisco Architectural Heritage Commission, and the San Francisco Planning Department.  Additional information was gathered through website searches. 

Resource materials consulted at the San Francisco Public Library included: Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps; San Francisco City Directories; the Architect and Engineer journal; San Francisco Handy Block Books; historic newspapers comprising the San Francisco Call, San Francisco Chronicle, and San Francisco Examiner; the San Francisco Blue Book directories (billed as “the fashionable private address directory”); and special subject books.

Databases consulted at the San Francisco Assessor’s Office included recorded dates of construction, property ownership transactions, and names and addresses of current owners.  Assessor’s parcel maps were also reviewed to cross-check lot numbers and addresses.

At the archives of the San Francisco Architectural Heritage Commission and the San Francisco Planning Department, existing records of Study Area properties were reviewed, and the information was incorporated into the current research.  These records include Articles 10 and 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code; the San Francisco Citywide Architectural Survey (San Francisco Planning Department 1976); Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage Survey (Hasbrouck and Hall 1978); San Francisco Downtown Architectural Survey: C-3 Zoning District (FSF Heritage 1982); Architectural/Historical Survey of Unreinforced Masonry Building Construction from 1840 to 1940 (Marsh 1990); San Francisco Chinatown Historic Survey (Choy and Yip 1979); Chinatown Historic District Case Report (Choy, McGrew, and Marsh 1994) and North Beach Historic Properties Survey- Completion Report (Bloomfield 1982).  The book, Splendid Survivors: Downtown San Francisco Architectural Heritage, was also an important reference for this project (Corbett 1979).

Historic Architectural Resources within the APE

There are eight existing or proposed historic districts of local or national importance, and one local conservation district that would be crossed by the Central Subway alternatives (see Table 4-9 and Figure 4-5).  A historic district is a group of neighboring buildings that meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.  Historic districts include a cohesive collection of buildings that represent a particular period or architectural style that serves to characterize a neighborhood.  Locally-established conservation districts are groupings of buildings based on their architectural quality and contribution to the built urban environment. There is a potential for impacts to historic properties or, in the case of the conservation district, architecturally-significant properties within the districts that are crossed by segments of the alternative alignments that are either above ground or in the portal and station areas where the surface disturbance would take place.  NRHP eligible historic districts are a cohesive

TABLE 4-9

HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN THE APE

BY ALTERNATIVE

¹ Part of San Francisco Apartment Hotel District

² Proposed districts; not presently on any city, state, or federal lists

grouping of buildings that share a common history, visual appearance, or development.  Historic districts can be contiguous or non-contiguous groupings of buildings.  Each of these districts is described below. 

South End Historic District and Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Industrial Warehouse District

Historic buildings that are eligible as contributors to the South End Historic District also appear to be within the boundaries of the Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Industrial Warehouse District (refer to Figure 4-5).  The South End Historic District was listed as an Article 10 Historic District in 1990, with boundaries that generally include Stillman Street to the north, First Street to the east, Ritch Street to the west, and King Street to the south.  The Rincon Point/South Beach Historic District is a CRHR-listed property and NRHP- eligible district identified and evaluated by Caltrans in 1983 for the I-280 Transfer Concept Project.  Its boundary is larger and more inclusive than the CRHR boundary of the Rincon Point/South Beach Industrial Warehouse Historic District. The Rincon Point/South Beach district boundaries extend from First Street to Third Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets, with portions extending to King and Bryant Streets.

figure 4-5

historic districts

In the 1850s-1860s, while hilltops were leveled and streets were graded in the retail area of San Francisco, attempts were made south of Market Street to dispose of the excess fill material and create buildable lots. During that time, warehouses began to increase in the area.  These districts currently include industrial warehouses that date from 1880 to 1915, when warehouses, dry docks, and shipyards were developed in response to construction of a new seawall during the period of 1878 to 1924.  After the 1906 earthquake and fire, what had been predominantly industrial warehouses became mixed with apartments, hotels, and family businesses.

Six contributors to the two overlapping districts front the area where surface tracks would be located in the center of Third Street for the Enhanced EIR/EIS Alignment (see Table 4-10).  

South Park Historic District (Proposed)

South Park, a small, oval-shaped park, was created in the 1850s, and is now surrounded by industrial buildings and warehouses.  The South Park neighborhood was established as one of the most exclusive areas in San Francisco, but after the 1906 disaster it was unable to regain its former luster.  Nonetheless, all of the post-1906 buildings fronting and adjacent to the park represent a cohesive grouping, unified by their association with the park.  Only one historic property within the Study Area, 166 South Park, is considered to be a contributor to this proposed historic district.  The building fronts South Park Avenue before it splits to surround South Park.  South Park Street bisects the block bounded by Second, Third, Bryant, and Brannan Streets.  This building is in the second row of buildings east of the NB Portal for the Enhanced EIR/EIS Alignment (Table 4-11).

Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District

The Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter (KMMS) Conservation District, as depicted in Article 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code, covers an irregular area which encompasses much of the downtown retail district of San Francisco with Union Square in the center (refer to Figure 4-5).

The Kearny-Market-Mason- Sutter (KMMS) Conversation District, while not presently determined to be a NRHP-eligible district, has numerous buildings within its boundaries that are eligible for listing.  In keeping with the City of San Francisco’s intent to designate Conservation Districts to recognize and protect architecturally-significant buildings, this collection of historic buildings is exquisite, as many were constructed during the City’s Beautification Movement.  The buildings convey a sense of unity as architectural forms created by prominent architects influenced by the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris.  Within the KMMS Conservation District, there are three types of buildings, including hotels, department stores, and retail lofts.  The majority of buildings included in the APE are retail lofts, which are generally

TABLE 4-10

NATIONAL REGISTER-LISTED OR -ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE area of

potential effect (APE) IN THE SOUTH END HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE RINCON

POINT/SOUTH BEACH HISTORIC INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DISTRICT

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, by appointment, at

the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

multi-storied buildings with display windows and flexible floor plans (Corbett et al. 1997:21).  Union Square serves as the heart of the KMMS Conservation District and it is also eligible for the NR and it is listed as California State Landmark No. 623.

Twenty-six buildings within the KMMS Conservation District are within the Project APE.  These properties are summarized in Table 4-12.  Twenty-four of these buildings are identified as properties

TABLE 4-11

NATIONAL REGISTER-LISTED OR -ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE APE IN THE

proposed SOUTH PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT

¹   Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

eligible for individual listing.  However, they also qualify as a cohesive collection of buildings within the conservation district.  With the exception of Union Square and two buildings, each of these buildings has been rated as being either significant (Categories I or II) or contributory (Categories III or IV) under the Category I – V classification system established in Article 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code. 

Seven of the buildings are in the first row of buildings along Stockton Street, but they are outside the potential station impact area. They include 700-706 Market Street, 722-742 Market Street, 146 Geary Street, 152 Geary Street, 156 Geary Street, 417 Stockton Street, and 423-439 Stockton Street.  Two more, outside the station areas, are in the second row, including 825-833 Market Street, and 785 Market Street.  The remaining 17 historic buildings either front the proposed station locations within each of three alternatives or they are in the second row of buildings; although, there is some overlap of buildings between alternatives.

Union Square is recognized as State Historical Landmark No. 623, and has been proposed for designation as a San Francisco Landmark.[41]  Union Square has not been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, which was enacted by legislation to automatically include State Historic Landmark No. 770 and all succeeding State Historic Landmarks.  (For State Historical Landmarks preceding No. 770, the State Historic Preservation Officer must review each structure’s eligibility in accordance with State Office procedures.)  Union Square is also not individually included in a local register of historical resources, since it has not been designated a Landmark by the Board of Supervisors, although the Square is within the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, established by ordinance in 1985.

TABLE 4-12

NATIONAL REGISTER-LISTED OR -ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE APE

KEARNY-MARKET-MASON-SUTTER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers in the APE maps that are available for public review, by appointment, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

Union Square is not “rated” as a Category I, II, III, IV, or V resource within the Conservation District, but Appendix E to Article 11 of the City Planning Code calls Union Square “an integral part of the District,” and “a unique resource” ranking with the finest open spaces in the country (Section 5(d)).  Appendix E also states:  “The District is further defined by the location of Union Square in its heart.  This square is, in many ways, the premier public open space in the City, as well as a primary public forum” (Section 5(b)).  The Dewey monument has received an “A” rating from the Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage.

While Union Square does not technically meet CEQA’s definition of an historical resource on an individual basis, it is clearly an important element of a designated Conservation District, and therefore an important component of a larger historical resource warranting particular attention.  Little of Union Square’s importance is derived from its internal configuration or landscape features, however.  The

Square is significant because of its relationship to surrounding buildings and the urban setting, its history as one of San Francisco’s first public squares, and the successful integration of an underground garage, which was the first of its kind in the world.[42]

Five additional buildings in the KMMS Conservation District front the Union Square Station in the Enhanced EIR/EIS Alignment, and another four properties occupy the second row of buildings.  Nine contributors to the KMMS Conservation District front the Union Square/Market Street Station under the Alternative 3A Alignment, and four more are within the second row of buildings. Six contributors to the  KMMS Conservation District front the Alternative 3B Alignment, and one contributor is in the second row.

The two remaining contributing properties occupy the first row of building on Fourth Street under the Alternatives 3A and 3B alignments.

Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel District

The Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel District is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is part of the larger San Francisco Apartment Hotel District that is on the CRHP.  The historic district contains 295 buildings and one structure within an area of 570 acres.  The approximate extent of the historic district boundaries is 590-1209 Bush Street, 680-1156 Sutter Street, and 600-1099 Post Street, and the intersecting cross streets, including Stockton Street. 

There are eleven buildings within the Central Subway APE that are contributors to the Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel District (see Table 4-13).  These buildings represent a grouping of apartments and/or hotels that replaced the earlier mansions after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire.  The majority of buildings within the present Study Area are apartments designed for individuals employed in the nearby retail and financial districts.  These buildings are within the limits of the fireproof zone, so fireproof materials were used in their construction.  The use of similar materials, construction methods, design, and function serves to unify this collection of buildings.

TABLE 4-13

NATIONAL REGISTER-LISTED OR -ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE APE

LOWER NOB HILL APARTMENT HOTEL DISTRICT

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

Each of these buildings fronts the APE along Stockton Street.  Two of the buildings, 417 Stockton Street and 423-439 Stockton Street, overlap the boundaries of the KMMS Conservation District.   None of the eleven buildings are within a station or portal area.

Chinatown Historic District

Buildings within the Chinatown District generally occupy a small lot and have three or more stories with storefronts on the ground floor and residential flats, offices, or meeting rooms upstairs.  Some buildings within the area are schools or churches.  Most of the buildings are brick two- or three-part block vertical compositions.  In some cases, the brick is now covered with stucco and Moderne influences have been infused with the formerly Renaissance/Baroque forms.  A National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form was completed for the Chinatown Historic District in 1979 (Gardner 1979) and the district boundaries were refined in 1994 (Choy et al. 1994).  The Chinatown Historic District is listed on the California Register of Historic Resources with a status code rating of “3D”.

Twenty-five significant buildings are within the APE in and around the proposed station locations of the Chinatown Historic District; together, they qualify as a cohesive collection of buildings within the historic district (see Table 4-14).  They include buildings that either front the proposed station locations within each of three alternatives or they are in the second row of buildings.  Some of the buildings are affected by more than one alternative. 

Nine contributors to the Chinatown Historic District front the Chinatown Station in both the Enhanced EIR/EIS Alignment and the Alternative 3A Alignment, and another one property occupies the second row of buildings.  Seven contributors to the Chinatown Historic District front the Alternative 3B Alignment, and six additional contributors are in the second row.  Another contributor in Block 211 is in the third

TABLE 4-14

NATIONAL REGISTER-LISTED OR -ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE APE

CHINATOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

row from Stockton Street, but only one building separates it from the proposed station location.  Two buildings are proposed for demolition and removal in the Chinatown Historic District: one in the first row of the Enhanced EIR/EIS and 3A alignments, and another in the first row of the 3B Alternative Alignment.  One additional resource, the Washington Street Street Lights, is within the Alternative 3B Alignment.

Various surveys have identified the Chinatown Historic District as having expansive boundaries that encompass an area of several blocks.  Corbett et al. (1997) identified 814-828 Stockton Street and 933-949 Stockton Street and other surrounding buildings as contributors to a NRHP eligible historic district in Chinatown.  These buildings are linked through their association with the development of the Chinatown community.  Each of the two buildings lies within an area known to be a part of Chinatown

since at least the 1880s and has continuously remained a vibrant part of the community.  Constructed in 1923, 814-828 Stockton Street is noted for initial Chinese ownership in the 1920s, use of its basement as a Chinese school, and it housed the World Journal Chinese newspaper during the 1970s and 1980s.  Designed by S.H. Woodruff and erected in 1906, 933-949 Stockton Street served the immediate need of lodging and use of the storefronts by Chinese merchants in the aftermath of a natural disaster.

There are architectural similarities shared with a large percentage of the Chinatown buildings.  The architecture is loosely tied to the significance of the Chinatown Historic District, although it is not exclusive to this part of the City.  Most convey Renaissance or Baroque design influences produced by architects whose designs were found throughout the City.  Visual differences expressed in Chinatown include bright banners and awnings, and in some cases, Chinese design elements have been infused in the architecture.  933-949 Stockton Street conforms to the two-part commercial block composition also found in other areas of San Francisco.  The architectural design of the 824-828 Stockton Street building, with one story fronting Stockton Street, is less common.

Especially in the case of 814-828 Stockton Street, the visual representation of the building is less important than its history.  However, within that block (Block 225), the three remaining buildings on the east side of Stockton Street are also contributing elements to a historic district, as are many of the properties across the street.  Equally important buildings also surround 933-949 Stockton Street.  Removal of either building breaks up the continuity of contextually linked buildings on the two blocks.

North Beach Historic District, Washington Square Historic District, and Powell Street Historic District

The North Beach Historic District was proposed by Bloomfield in 1982.  Within the North Beach Historic District, four historic sub-districts have been identified: the Upper Grant Avenue Historic District, Jackson Square Historic District Extension, Powell Street Shops Historic District, and Washington Square Historic District.  Each of these historic sub-districts has been determined to be eligible for the NRHP.  Of these four sub-districts, only the Powell Street Shops Historic District and the Washington Square Historic District are within the Project Area boundaries.

The Washington Square Historic District was also proposed by Bloomfield in 1982.  The Washington Square Historic District includes historic properties that surround the park.  Washington Square Park is listed as San Francisco Landmark No. 226.  It is bounded by Filbert, Union, Powell, and Stockton Streets, and creates a visual focal point for historic buildings that front the park. With the exception of a Catholic Church on the north side, these properties exhibit the same architectural forms as those found throughout North Beach. 

The Powell Street Shops Historic District is a block-long section on the west side of the1800 block of Powell Street from Filbert to Greenwich Streets, consisting of eleven street-level shops in eight buildings, with flats and apartments above.  The block is remarkable for the nearly intact state of most of its storefronts; the whole streetscape is virtually unaltered since its construction early in the twentieth century.  However, none of the buildings in the Powell Street Shops Historic District are located within 200 feet of the extraction shaft.

North Beach was one of the first areas to rebuild after the 1906 earthquake and fire, and thereafter, developed into the center of San Francisco’s Italian American community.  The vast majority of new buildings were wood-framed flats of two or three stories, built on row-house lots whose narrow dimensions remained unchanged from before the earthquake.  These buildings usually had bay windows, with either rounded or slanted sides, that overhung the sidewalk.  Many were decorated with Classical Revival ornamentation, including classical cornices that wrapped around the bay windows, subordinate cornices at the second floor level, and columns at the porches. The proposed North Beach Historic District encompasses the Washington Square Historic District, although its boundaries are imprecisely defined.

Washington Square Park and the associated Washington Square Park Triangle are the only properties in close proximity to the Tunnel Boring Machine extraction shaft that would be placed in the middle lanes of Columbus Avenue between Union and Powell Streets for the Alternative 3A and 3B Alignments (see Table 4-15). Washington Square Park is listed as locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation (Bloomfield 1982).  Five additional properties, considered contributors to the Washington Square Historic District, are located within 200 feet of the extraction shaft.

TABLE 4-15

NATIONAL REGISTER-LISTED OR -ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE APE

North beach, WASHINGTON SQUARE, AND powell street HISTORIC DISTRICTS

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

San Francisco Planning Code Resources within the Project Area

Historic buildings in the C-3 Downtown Commercial districts have been rated using a classification system under Article 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code.  The rating system assessed the architectural design, history of the property, and aesthetic value to devise four categories.  The highest rated buildings are Category I and II buildings, which are identified as “Significant Buildings.”  Category I and II buildings are exempt from demolition unless their condition prevents them from being economically viable for rehabilitation and reuse.  Category III and IV buildings represent “Contributory Buildings.”  Although they are important as contributors to the C-3 Downtown Commercial districts, the standards for demolition are slightly less restrictive.  A third category, Category V is used for buildings that are designated as unrated.

The rating system differs from the criteria used to evaluate historic buildings for the NRHP. For instance, of the twenty-six properties within the Project APE, twenty-one are also NRHP-eligible buildings within the boundaries of the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter District (refer to Table 4-12).  Of those, eight are Category I, three are Category II, and ten are Category IV buildings.  One the two buildings that overlap in the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District and the Lower Nob Hill Apartment Historic District is NRHP-eligible and the other is a contributor to the historic district, but they both are rated Category IV.  Six more rated buildings within the APE are outside the boundaries of a Historic District or Conservation District (see Table 4-16). 

In accordance with Article 10 of the Planning Code, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) maintains a list of historic landmarks.  The LPAB and the San Francisco Planning Commission review proposed plans for modifications to listed historic landmarks and make recommendations.  Article 10 identifies seven San Francisco landmarks in the Study Area as depicted in Table 4-17.

National Register and California Register Properties within the Project Area

In the Study Area there are historic buildings, structures, and objects that are listed in state and federal registers, including the California Register of Landmarks, California Register of Historic Resources, and the National Register of Historic Places (see Tables 4-18, 4-19, and 4-20, respectively).  One California Historical Landmark (No. 623) has been identified in the Study Area.  Union Square, though it has not been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, is also proposed for designation as a San Francisco Landmark (No. 210).  Union Square is not “rated” as a Category I, II, III, IV, or V resource within the Conservation District.

TABLE 4-16

CATEGORY RATED BUILDINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT APE

NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A HISTORIC DISTRICT OR A CONSERVATION DISTRICT

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

TABLE 4-17

SAN FRANCISCO LANDMARKS IN THE study AREA

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

TABLE 4-18

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL LANDMARKS IN THE study AREA

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

TABLE 4-19

HISTORIC RESOURCES LISTED IN THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

TABLE 4-20

NATIONAL REGISTER-LISTED HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE study AREA

¹ Reference numbers correspond to property numbers on the APE maps that are available for public review, on request, at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco.

Historic properties listed in the NRHP have been recognized to be nationally significant properties using criteria for evaluation developed by the National Park Service.  The existing historic property that was identified in the Study Area is the Lotta Crabtree Fountain (which is also a San Francisco Landmark).  The fountain, which includes a cast iron statue, was presented to the City in 1875 by Lotta Crabtree, a noted entertainer. The Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel District is a NRHP-listed historic district and it includes contributing buildings within the district.  Table 4-13, above, provides a list of the eleven historic buildings of the Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel District within the Project APE.

Summary of Historic Architecture within the Study Area

There are 376 properties located within the APE, including buildings, structures (e.g., Lotta’s Fountain), and linear features (e.g., street lights, Stockton Tunnel).  Of the 376 properties, 161 of the properties and six historic districts were included in the Study Area previously evaluated by Corbett et al. in 1997 for the Central Subway segment of the Third Street Light Rail Project.  These were identified as reference numbers 1 through 158 on the APE map (in some instances, more than one property was assigned to the same reference number; e.g., 66, 66A).  Refer to Corbett et al. (1997) for additional information regarding historic architectural properties reviewed in that study.

The Central Subway HAER (as summarized in this SEIS/SEIR) has updated the findings of the Corbett et al. (1997) study by conducting significance evaluations on those additional properties included in the 1997 study that have become historic (45 years of age) in the intervening years (“newly historic”) and eliminating from further study those previously evaluated properties that were demolished between 1997 and 2006.  It was also necessary to reevaluate properties in close proximity to the proposed station locations that were previously assigned a NRHP code of 4S (might become eligible for a separate listing in the National Register when more historical or architectural research is performed on the property) or 4D (might become eligible as contributor to a fully documented district when more historical or architectural research is performed on the district), so an explicit determination could be made about eligibility. As a result, 218 additional properties have been identified and categorized within the APE (see Table 4-21).

The remaining 218 properties in the APE of the Central Subway Project (reference numbers 159 to 376 on the APE maps) are the main focus of this SEIS/SEIR.  A review of the Directory of Historic Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Francisco (SHPO 2006) revealed 59 properties out of the 218 have been evaluated prior to the start of this SEIS/SEIR.  Of those, 49 properties were evaluated as eligible for the NRHP (Item No. 1 in Table 4-21); nine properties were evaluated as ineligible for the NRHP; and one property was determined to be eligible for local listing only (Item No. 2).  Another 55 properties have been eliminated from consideration because they have been identified as being less than 45 years of age and do not appear to possess exceptional significance to qualify them as eligible for the NRHP/CRHR (Item No. 3).  These include 42 buildings and nine vacant parcels or parking lots that did not require evaluation.  Another four properties have been demolished since the previous study (Item No. 4).  After eliminating these 114 properties from further review; 104 properties of the 218 properties required further evaluation for historic significance for this SEIS/SEIR (Item Nos. 5

Table 4-21

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE APE

IN ADDITION TO THOSE EVALUATED IN CORBETT ET AL. (1997)

Source: Garcia and Associates, February 2007.

and 6).  It was determined that 42 of the properties appear eligible for listing on the NRHP and the remaining 62 properties appear to be ineligible.

4.5 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES

4.5.1 Viewshed

The viewshed for the Central Subway Corridor consists of the actual area in which Project features (track, overhead catenary, stations and station entries, vent shafts) would be visible.  Due to changes in topography and adjacent buildings in the surrounding built environment the viewshed varies in character and in the extent of visible areas along the Corridor.  In general the viewshed consists of urban landscapes along Third Street, Fourth Street, Geary Street, Market Street, Stockton Street, Columbus Avenue and those streets which run perpendicular to the Corridor where views of Project features would be prominent.  Sensitive viewing points within the viewshed include parks, residential buildings, historic properties and sidewalks that offer a view of the urban landscapes making up the viewshed.

4.5.2 Visual Character

The visual character of the Central Subway Corridor reflects the built-up features of San Francisco’s urban landscape.  The landscape is characterized by streets and buildings typical of a densely built-up urban area, interspersed with some open spaces, plazas, alleyways and parking areas.  Overhead utilities and signage as well as freeway overpasses, bridges, tunnels and elevated roadways punctuate the visual landscape.  Views from vantage points along Third Street, Fourth Street, Stockton Street, and Columbus Avenue are summarized for each segment of the Corridor.  Views are described as foreground, middle-ground or background.  Generally, foreground views are of within one-quarter mile of the viewer; middle-ground views are within one mile; and the background views are beyond one mile.

South of Market Segment

The Central Subway landscape from the southern-most connection with the T-Third line at Fourth Street and King Street along surface alignments on Third and Fourth Streets to where the Project would be in subway can be characterized as a landscape in transition, from previously undeveloped vacant land and warehouses until the mid to late 1990s, to newly developed mixed commercial and residential properties and the brick-clad ballpark.  Also in the foreground of the Corridor segment looking south is the elevated structure of the I-280 on- and off-ramps at King and Sixth Streets, the Caltrain tracks and station at King and Fourth Streets, and the elevated I-80 freeway viaduct between Bryant and Harrison Streets looking north from Third and Fourth Streets.  The area under the I-80 freeway ramp and elevated structure between Bryant and Harrison Streets (where the tunnel portal and construction staging area is proposed for Alternative 3B) is an unpaved gravel and dirt area. The landscape in this segment is also characterized by billboards and signs and low-rise commercial buildings. Downtown highrise buildings to the east and north form the background for views in this segment (see Figure 4-6).  The viaduct for the

FIGURE 4-6

FOURTH STREET LOOKING TO I-80 (TUNNEL & STAGING AREA)

Source:  PB/Wong

I-80 Freeway and Bay Bridge ramps and support towers break the view of Downtown from many vantage points along Third and Fourth Streets. 

Foreground landscapes along both Third and Fourth Streets are characterized by newly constructed multi-family residential buildings and by office buildings, with commercial properties often located on the streetfront.  North of Harrison Street is Moscone Center, a light colored concrete complex, located between Third, Fourth, Mission, and Folsom Streets.  This complex is a visually dominating feature in the landscape.

Market Street to Chinatown (Stockton Street tunnel) Subway Segment

This segment of the Project corridor is characterized by densely developed large buildings, typical of the Downtown commercial area of the City.  Also characteristic of this segment are congested streets and sidewalks, with many large delivery trucks and buses, blocking all but foreground views of the landscape. 

The one exception is Union Square at Stockton, Geary, Powell and Post Streets, where the 1998 redesigned plaza is characterized by a hardscape open space with palm trees, a cafe, a ticket center, and seating areas elevated above the street level and accessed by a series of steps and lawn terraces around the perimeter of the Park (see Figures 4-7 and 4-8).  The Union Square Improvement Project was granted a Negative Declaration by the San Francisco Planning Department on August 18, 1998 (Case 98.257E). 

FIGURE 4-7

union square LOOKING WEST

Source:  PB/Wong

FIGURE 4-8

UNION SQUARE FROM MAIDEN LANE

Source:  PB/Wong

The improvements included removal of all existing park features, except for the Dewey Monument, and replacing them with new paving, vegetation, and landscape elements and improved connections to surrounding sidewalks.  The ratio between hard and softscape increased from 50/50 to 70/30.  Vistas from Union Square are of large department stores along adjacent streets, with display windows facing the plaza and streets and the St. Francis Hotel to the west.  Views of the eastern side of Union Square are prominent from Maiden Lane, the eastern side of Stockton Street, the northern side of Post Street, and the southern side of Geary Street.  Views to the north along Stockton Street include hotels and retail/office buildings up to the Stockton Street tunnel in the background.

Chinatown to North Beach Subway Segment

From the Stockton Street tunnel under Pine and California Streets, the Project Corridor shifts from the densely developed downtown commercial area characterized by multi-story large buildings, to Chinatown, characterized by a colorful shopping and residential streetscape that is heavily congested with pedestrians and vehicles, and food and merchandise displays and bright banners and awnings extending out of the storefronts onto the sidewalks (see Figure 4-9).  Most buildings, with the exception of a few taller structures, are two to four stories high, with commercial uses along the street level and residential uses above.  Several churches, banks, and schools are located along Stockton Street between Sacramento Street and Broadway and many of the buildings have a historic architectural character of old Chinatown.  One public park, called Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground (the former Chinese Playground), is located one-half block to the east of Stockton Street between Sacramento and Clay Streets.  Views of Pagoda Alley and Hang Ah Alley and the back of the row of buildings fronting Stockton Street (station location under Alternative 2 and 3A) are available from the Playground tennis and volleyball courts (see Figure 4-10).  

As described in the previous Section 4.4.3, Historic Architectural Resources, there are architectural similarities shared with a large percentage of Chinatown buildings.  Most convey Renaissance or Baroque design influenced by architects whose designs are found around the City.

Views of the two-story building (station location under Alternative 3B) on Stockton and Washington Streets are available from the playground of the Gordon Lau Elementary School to the west of Stockton Street.  Distant views looking east of the Bay and the TransAmerica building are available from streets perpendicular to Stockton Street (Clay, Sacramento, and Washington Streets).

FIGURE 4-9

CHINATOWN, STOCKTON STREET AT SACRAMENTO

814-828 Stockton Street location

Source:  PB/Wong

FIGURE 4-10

Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Park Playground View

Source:  PB/Wong

North Beach Segment (Construction Tunnel Variant Option)

The streetscape from Green Street to Columbus Avenue at Union Street is representative of the historic North Beach neighborhood and is characterized by restaurants and shops.  Columbus Avenue is a wide, four-lane thoroughfare and is heavily used by buses, trucks and automobiles. Tables and chairs dot the sidewalks and are used by coffee houses, cafes and restaurants for added table space and are a buzz of activity on most days of the week.  Street banners and colorful signage characterize this streetscape.  At the end of the Study Area, along Columbus Avenue, between Union and Filbert Streets, is Washington Square (see Figure 4-11).  This historic park is lined with mature trees, statues, a children’s playground and a pond (southwest corner).  This open green-space is regularly used to walk dogs, do Tai Chi in the mornings, sun bathe in the good weather, and is also used for art shows and festivals.  The large cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul is the dominant landscape feature at the north side of the park.

Figure 4-11

Washington Square Park

Source:  PB/Wong

[1]     San Francisco Planning Department, Commerce & Industry Element of the General Plan.  Adopted June,1978, last, amended December, 2004.

[2]     San Francisco Planning Department. Transportation Element of the General Plan.  Adopted June, 1978, last amended February, 2005.

[3]     San Francisco Planning Department.  Environmental Protection Element of the General Plan.  Adopted 1973, last amended December, 2004.

[4]       San Francisco Planning Department.  Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.  Adopted September 27, 1990, last amended May 25, 2005.

[5]     San Francisco Planning Department.  South of Market Area Plan.  Adopted February, 1990, last amended July, 1995.

[6]     San Francisco Planning Department.  Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan.  Adopted January, 1977, last amended July 2003.

[7]     San Francisco Planning Department.  Rincon Hill Plan.  Adopted July, 1995, last amended May 2005.

[8]     San Francisco Planning Department.  Downtown Plan.  Adopted November, 1984, last amended May, 2005.

[9]     San Francisco Planning Department.  Chinatown Area Plan.  Adopted February, 1987, last amended July, 1995.

[10]  San Francisco Planning Department, Community Planning in the Eastern Neighborhoods.  February, 2003

[11]   San Francisco Planning Department, Draft East SOMA Area Plan. October 3, 2006.

[12]   San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan.  Adopted April, 1966, last amended October, 2000.

[13]   San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Rincon Point – South Beach Redevelopment Project. http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfra_page.asp?id=5601

[14]   San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.  Redevelopment Plan for the Mission Bay North Redevelopment Project, October 26, 1998 and Redevelopment Plan for the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Project, November 2, 1998.

[15]   San Francisco Planning Department and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Mission Bay Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, 96.771E, Certified September 17,1998.

[16]     Kevin Beauchamp, Director of Planning, UCSF, April 2007.  The Mission Bay South Plan was amended in 2005 to incorporate the proposed hospital.

[17]   San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Redevelopment Plan for the Mid-Market Redevelopment Project, October 18, 2005.

^[18]     Lisa Zayas-Chein, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, May 4, 2007.

[19]   San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic and San Francisco County Transportation Authority, San Francisco Bicycle Plan Policy Framework, May, 2005, prepared by Alta Planning and Design.

[20]   San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic.  Network Improvement Document.  Adopted June, 2005.

[21]   San Francisco County Transportation Authority.  Strategic Plan.  May, 1993.

[22]   San Francisco County Transportation Authority.  1995 Strategic Plan Update.  October, 1995.

[23]   San Francisco County Transportation Authority.  The Four Corridor Plan.  June, 1995.

[24]   San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Resolution 95-22.  June 19, 1995.

[25]   San Francisco County Transportation Authority.  New Transportation Expenditure Plan for San Francisco. July, 2003.

[26]   Port of San Francisco.  Waterfront Land Use Plan.  Adopted June, 1997.

[27]   Blanchfield, Jeff.  Chief Planner, BCDC.  Personal communication, November, 1997.

[28]   San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.  San Francisco Bay Plan.  Adopted January, 1969, last amended January 2006.

[29]   San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.  San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan. Adopted April, 1975, amended March, 1996.

[30]   San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.  The San Francisco Waterfront -- Piers 7 through 24 -- Total Design Plan. Adopted June, 1980, amended August, 1990.

[31]   Metropolitan Transportation Commission.  Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. February, 2005.

[32]   Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Francisco, Project Overview Mission Bay Redevelopment Study Area, July 2006.

[33]   San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and San Francisco Planning Department with Simon Martin-Vegue Winkelstein Moris. Transbay 20/20 Concept Plan.  December, 1996.

[34]   U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration and the City and County of San Francisco, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension /Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR/Section 4(f) Evaluation, March 18, 2004.

[35]   Census “Transportation Planning Package” (CTPP, 2000) available http//www.mtc.ca.gov/news/press releases/archive/rel263.htm.

[36]   Employed residents is defined as the employed civilian population residing in San Francisco 16 years old and over.

[37]   ABAG, The Census Transportation Planning Package 2000 (CTPP 2000) , available.

[38]   Mayor’s Office of Public Policy and Finance.  Mayor’s Proposed Budget 2006/2007.  June, 2006.

[39]   California Department of Transportation, Desk Guide: Environmental Justice in Transportation Planning and Investments, January 2003

[40]   National Register of Historic Places website, http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ca/San+Francisco/state.html, accessed February 2007.

[41]   On May 3, 1995, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board initiated the nomination under resolution No. 470, and on September 19, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal, and voted to continue the matter.  No subsequent action has been taken.  Information regarding the Landmark nomination may be found in the case file number 95.233L at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street.

[42]   San Francisco Beautiful, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Nomination Form, April 1995.  Charles Hall Page Assoc., State Department of Recreation & Parks Historic Resources Inventory Form, September 1978.  Application for Registration of Historical Point of Interest.  Copies of these materials are available for review in the project case file at the San Francisco Planning Department,  1650 Mission Street.