5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

This chapter of the SEIS/SEIR identifies and evaluates the potential environmental operational and cumulative consequences of each of the Central Subway alternatives described in Chapter 2.0:  Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM, Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, and Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment with Options A and B.  Mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid impacts are then described for each potential adverse impact identified.  All construction impacts and mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 6.0, Construction.

Consistent with CEQA, the San Francisco Planning Department considers mitigation measures when necessary and feasible in order to reduce or eliminate potentially significant environmental effects.  Improvement measures may also be proposed to further minimize the affects of impacts that are less-than-significant reducing those effects even further.  Under NEPA and FTA procedures, mitigation measures may be recommended to address project-related adverse effects even if impacts would not necessarily be considered significant.[1]  This section identifies mitigation measures intended to reduce Project impacts to comply with both CEQA and NEPA requirements. For CEQA purposes, Chapter 7.0 provides the determination of significance and distinction between mitigation and improvement measures.

5.1 LAND USE

5.1.1 INTRODUCTION

An adverse impact on land use would occur if the Project would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, regulation, or zoning code; have a substantial adverse impact upon the existing character of the project’s vicinity; or physically divide an established community.  An impact would be considered generally significant if it were to change land use in a manner that would be incompatible with surrounding land uses.

The Project alternatives could affect surrounding land use in a variety of ways, both during the construction and operational phases.  These impacts include the physical impacts of the right-of-way and ancillary facilities, such as mid-street portals, emergency ventilation shafts, electrical substations, station entrances and the surface street station platform south of Market Street.

In this section, potential land use impacts are assessed in terms of Corridor, neighborhood, and site-specific impacts.  The Project alternatives are assessed against the existing and planned developments in the Corridor and surroundings areas, in order to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed facilities with neighboring land uses.  The land use analysis incorporates a 300-foot area along either side of the proposed alignments and a 1,500-foot area around the boundaries of the proposed light rail stations.

Other considerations include whether the Project would disrupt access to neighborhoods, physically divide or isolate some areas within a neighborhood from others.  The operation of the Project could adversely affect businesses by disrupting access or by separating a business from its customers.  The potential direct and indirect impacts and benefits of the operation on neighborhoods and on business communities are described below.

5.1.2 Consistency with ADOPTED Plans AND POLICIES and land use compatibility

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative would be consistent with many of the adopted plans and policies reviewed in Section 4.1.1.  For example, the No Project/TSM Alternative would support policies contained in San Francisco’s General Plan aimed at encouraging the development and use of urban mass transportation systems, such as Objective 1, Policy 1.3 contained in the Transportation Element - “Give priority to public transit and other alternatives to the private automobile as the means of meeting San Francisco’s trans­portation needs, particularly those of commuters.”  Similarly, this alternative would be consistent with goals and objectives contained in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), including the following: “Improve mobility of persons and freight” and “Support transportation investments that promote community social and economic objectives” through transportation system improvements.

The No Project/TSM Alternative would include a variety of roadway and Muni service improvements, including the operation of the T-Third line as an extension of the Castro Shuttle to Visitacion Valley, extension of N-Judah rail service to a turnaround loop at 18th, Illinois, 19th and Third Streets to serve expected UCSF and Mission Bay ridership volumes, and bus service modifications that would occur independent of this Project.  As no new project-related fixed rail facilities would occur, there would be no change in the physical environment and therefore no adverse impacts to land use or neighborhood character associated with this Alternative.

Under the No Project/TSM Alternative, however, transit services would not keep pace with future travel demand in the Study Area. As the quality and efficiency of public transit service deteriorates (see Section 3.0 Transit Impacts), users could be attracted to alternative modes of transportation, including use of private vehicles.  For this reason, the No Project/TSM Alternative would be inconsistent with transportation policies contained in Area Plans, including the South of Market Plan, Northeastern Waterfront Plan, Downtown Plan, Chinatown Plan, and Eastern Neighborhoods Community Plan, that encourage accommodating future employment and population growth in San Francisco through transit, rather than private automobiles.

While the No Project/TSM Alternative would generally support locally adopted “Transit First” policies, it would not support the specific policies that are aimed at providing fixed rail service in the corridor, e.g., as reflected on the Rail Transit map in the Transportation Element, in the San Francisco Transportation Authority’s Strategic Plan and Four Corridor Plan, and in the MTC Regional Transportation Plan.  It may also not accommodate future employment and population growth in transit as effectively as the Build Alternatives.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would be generally consistent with San Francisco’s “Transit First” policy, as well as regional government policies aimed at improving transportation access to job centers and recreational opportunities.  The alternative also would be consistent with rail project funding priorities identified in the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s Strategic Plan and Four Corridor Plan as well as MTC’s RTP, which “supports transportation investments that promote community social and economic objectives.”

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would be consistent not only with General Plan policies aimed at developing transit as the primary mode of transportation within San Francisco, but also with specific policies that encourage the provision of a light rail transit service along the Third Street Corridor from Visitacion Valley in the south to Chinatown in the north.  Such policies are contained in the Transportation Element – Rail Transit Plan of the General Plan.  Area Plans such as the South of Market Plan, Northeastern Waterfront Plan, Downtown Plan, Chinatown Plan, and Eastern Neighborhoods Community Plan, all have policies focused on improvements to transit service.

Operation Impacts

Since the Project would be primarily an underground operation, the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would not have significant impacts on surface land uses, disrupt neighborhood character, or physically divide or isolate areas of a neighborhood.  Stations would be located in urban areas that are already substantially built out.  Land uses in the vicinity of stations could benefit from and be supported by the Central Subway, by making it easier and more efficient for riders to access commercial and residential development in the vicinity of stations.

Along the surface segment, there would be no changes to the land uses and no physical division to the neighborhood because the light rail would be in the existing street right-of-way.  The light rail would serve as a unifying element as it will draw pedestrians to the stations.

In the subway segment, the main station entries and emergency ventilation shafts would generally be at off-street locations.  The Market Street Station would require new entrances to the station on the south side of Market Street at Third Street and would require the elimination of parking spaces at the Hearst Garage (located at the southeast corner of Stevenson and Third Streets) to accommodate vent shafts.  The entrance to the Union Square Station in the plaza would result in a potential loss of 29 parking spaces out of 985 spaces in the Union Square Garage and additional foot traffic in the park.  The removal of parking spaces from the Hearst and Union Square garages would not hinder their continued use as parking facilities.  (Specific impacts on parking are discussed in Chapter 3.0 Transportation).

Private and public right-of-way would be required to accommodate the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment station entries and ventilation shafts, but would minimally affect land use.  Further discussion of property acquisition is found in Section 5.2.

Cumulative Impacts

The Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment is not expected to have any long-term cumulative impacts on land use or neighborhood character, since it would primarily serve fully developed, urban areas and would not physically divide existing neighborhoods. 

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

Like the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would be generally consistent with the adopted plans and policies contained in the General Plan and Area Plans aimed at improving transit service in corridors with high potential ridership.  The Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would be consistent with the Downtown Plan’s “Transit First” policy, as well as with rail project funding priorities identified in the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s Strategic Plan and Four Corridor Plan, as well as in the MTC RTP.  The additional transit capacity would better provide for increased transit demand associated with growth in the corridor.

Operation Impacts

Since the proposed Project would be primarily an underground operation, the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would not significantly impact surface land uses, disrupt neighborhood character, or physically divide an existing neighborhood.  Stations would be located in urban areas that are already substantially built out.  Land uses in the vicinity of stations could benefit from and be supported by the subway, by making it easier and more efficient for riders to access commercial and residential development in the vicinity of stations.

Along the surface segment, the width of the roadway will be maintained and no changes to the adjacent land uses would be required, however, some loss of on-street parking would occur on blocks with station entrances or tunnel portals (see Section 3.2.4, Parking).  The roadway would be modified to accommodate surface light rail operations within the street right-of-way, but this would not be expected to disrupt the character of the neighborhood or to physically divide it.

As with the EIS/EIR Enhanced Alignment, in the subway segment, the main station entries and emergency ventilation shafts would be at off-street locations.    There would also be street and sidewalk modifications, such as bulb-outs, at certain subway station locations to provide secondary entries.  Construction of the Moscone Station would require the accommodation of stairs on the west side of Fourth Street at Howard Street and one elevator on the east side of Fourth Street at Howard Street, but would not disrupt adjacent land uses.  The station entrance in the Union Square plaza would add foot traffic in the plaza and would result in a loss of 29 out of 985 parking spaces in the Union Square Garage, but would not hinder its continued use as a parking facility.  (Specific impacts on parking are discussed in Chapter 3.0, Transportation.)

Acquisition of private property and use of public right-of-way would be required to accommodate Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A station entries and ventilation shafts at certain locations, but would minimally affect land use.  Sub-sidewalk basements in the public right-of-way along Stockton Street between Geary and Ellis Streets would need to be eliminated to accommodate the Union Square/Market Street Station.  Further discussion of property acquisitions is found in Section 5.2.

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 2.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

The consistency with adopted plans and policies would be the same as described for Alternative 3A.

Operation Impacts

Operation impacts on land use are the same as for Alternative 3A [begin deletion] , except that an amendment of the Planning Code, which prohibits the demolition of residential apartment units, at this location would be required for the Chinatown Station.  The impacts would be the same as those discussed in Section 6.5.2, Property Acquisition [end deletion] .”

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts on land use would be the same as for Alternative 3A.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

5.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The potential impacts and potential benefits of each Project alternative on population and employment patterns and economic development are described in this section.  A socioeconomic impact is considered significant if the alternative would induce substantial growth or concentration of population or if it would displace a large number of people.

5.2.1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Major projects can impact a region's or a city's economy.  A large construction labor force may not be available, requiring workers to temporarily relocate to the Project vicinity.  This could have an effect on housing markets, school enrollment, and many other neighborhood characteristics.  Likewise, a major project can generate jobs and local revenues, and this can affect the economy of a city or a neighborhood.  Table 5-1 identifies the construction employment impacts of the Project Alternatives.  Potential demographic and economic impacts associated with each of the Central Subway Project Alternatives are described below.

TABLE 5-1

CONSTRUCTION and EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS

(costs in $millions)

Note:  Costs in 2007 Dollars

Source:  PB/Wong, 2007

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project Alternative/TSM would not generate the local revenues compared to the Build Alternatives shown in Table 5-1 above.  This alternative would not affect neighborhoods or businesses along the Corridor.  However, the lack of transit improvements could result in a long-term degradation of mobility along the Corridor, and transit services with the adjacent community; particularly relative to other San Francisco neighborhoods that have the benefit of Muni light rail or BART service.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

Operation Impacts

The operation of Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would generate approximately 40 jobs for station operation and maintenance.[2]  This would be a beneficial impact.

In addition, the new rail connections to Chinatown provided under the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative would facilitate residential and employment growth planned for the Study Area, particularly around station areas and in the South of Market area along the Third and Fourth Street corridors, by improving transit reliability and services; reducing transit travel times to Chinatown; and improving access to Downtown employment opportunities.  These Project goals and objectives would be met by this alternative.

Cumulative Impacts

No long-term cumulative impacts on the labor market or resources would be expected to occur.

Mitigation Measures

No substantial adverse impacts on demographic or economic conditions are anticipated from the operation of the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment.  While beneficial to the City and region in terms of employment opportunities and income, the long-term direct employment impacts are not considered to be substantial.  No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

Operation Impacts

The operation of the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would generate approximately 40 additional jobs; like the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alternative.  This would be a beneficial impact.

The economic benefits under the Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would be the same as those identified for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, except they would be focused along Fourth Street in the South of Market area and around stations at Moscone, Union Square, and Chinatown.  Greater travel time savings would occur under this alternative, but would not be substantial enough to result in major economic benefits when compared to other alternatives.

Cumulative Impacts

No long-term cumulative impacts on the labor market or resources would be expected to occur.

Mitigation Measures

As with Alternative 2, no mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

Operation Impacts

The operation of the Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would be the same as those identified for Alternative 3A.

Cumulative Impacts

No long-term cumulative impacts on the labor market or resources would be expected to occur.

Mitigation Measures

As with Alternative 2, no mitigation measures would be required.

5.2.2 ACQUISITION AND DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING USES

The acquisition and relocation of businesses or residents as a result of the Project would be a construction-related impact and is discussed in Section 6.5.2.

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative would not require the acquisition of any property for stations or ancillary facilities and therefore, would not have any displacement impacts.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

There would be no operation or cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

There would be no operation or cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

There would be no operational or cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

5.2.3 environmental justice findings

Several of the defined goals for the Central Subway Project – achieving equity in transit investments, obtaining community acceptance and political support, and supporting economic revitalization efforts for the Central Subway Corridor – relate to environmental justice principles.  Input from community meetings has revealed that the Project is perceived by many area residents as an overdue public investment that will improve transit accessibility in neighborhoods that have been overlooked in the past and will strengthen local businesses.  For these reasons, the Project has considerable local support and is viewed by many as a means of mitigating past environmental “injustices” that the City’s minority neighborhoods located along the Corridor may have experienced. (See Tables 11-1 and 11-2 in Section 11.0, Coordination and Consultation.)

A transportation project must consider potential effects to human health or the environment on a community composed of  minority or low-income populations.  This section includes a discussion of Project impacts on low-income and minority neighborhoods to determine whether or not these are “disproportionate” in comparison with impacts on other neighborhoods within the Corridor.

The population and household income information provided in Section 4.2, indicates that almost the entire Central Subway Corridor traverses low-income and minority neighborhoods, as well as a major retail district and pockets of higher-income neighborhoods in the South of Market area.  Implementation of the Central Subway Project would include direct mobility benefits to all of these neighborhoods that are expected to be equitably shared across communities by various demographic groups.  The section below considers whether the Project would have disproportionate health and environmental impacts on the high minority or low-income neighborhoods identified as defined by Executive Order No. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.[3]

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative would not directly impose adverse health or environmental impacts disproportionately on any of the minority or low-income neighborhoods identified.  However, with increases in transit service limited to bus service, this alternative would result in increased traffic congestion, more noise and emissions, and slower travel times throughout the Central Subway Corridor.  Adjacent neighborhoods, with the exception of the Financial District, would remain underserved by transit in comparison to other parts of San Francisco under this alternative.  Failure to implement the Project would do little to address the lack of public investment in the underserved low-income and minority communities traversed by the Project Corridor.

All Build Alternatives

The Project is intended to provide a long-term improvement in transit mobility and accessibility in the Study Area.  Adverse impacts identified in this section of the SEIS/SEIR are distributed throughout the Corridor, which traverses minority and low-income neighborhoods, as well as a major retail district.  Adverse impacts do not unduly impact any one neighborhood, except for residential and business displacement.  Each of the Build Alternatives would displace [begin insertion] residential dwellings and [end insertion] small businesses [begin deletion] and Alternative 3B would displace residential units [end deletion] in the predominantly minority and low-income Chinatown District.  To mitigate these impacts, it is recommended that redevelopment on the station sites incorporate affordable housing [begin deletion] and ground floor retail where possible [end deletion] .  Other mitigation measures proposed are consistent throughout the Corridor.

Operation Impacts

The Build Alternatives would require limited acquisition of properties to accommodate station entrances.  Acquisition of one parcel with a gas station at 266 Fourth Street would be required in the South of Market area for the Fourth/Stockton Alignment, Options A and B alternatives.  In order to accommodate a station in Chinatown and bring the benefits of the subway to the neighborhood, between 8 and 10 businesses and up to 17 residential units would be displaced in this area of minority concentration.  While the greatest impact on businesses and residences would occur in Chinatown, [begin insertion] the number of relocations is not substantial and [end insertion] the community has expressed strong support of the Project.  The impact of these acquisitions would be mitigated through existing relocation assistance programs and through opportunities for developing affordable housing on the Chinatown Station site.

Cumulative Impacts

The Project would not contribute substantially to cumulative changes in population or employment in San Francisco, but would serve the existing population in a built-out, urban environment, rather than stimulate new population growth.  While the Project would create new operation and maintenance jobs, neither direct nor indirect employment would contribute substantially to cumulative employment growth.  (See Section 7.4 for additional discussion of cumulative population and employment impacts.)  The Build Alternatives would result in a potential loss of affordable housing units in Chinatown for the Chinatown station.  If affordable housing units are incorporated into the redeveloped station, then the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact on low-income or affordable housing.

Community Participation

As noted in Section 4.2.5 and Chapter 11.0, an extensive community participation effort was undertaken to provide information to the public and solicit input during the development of the Project alternatives. This effort will continue through the Project implementation phase.  Not only have over 100 presentations been made to neighborhood groups, community and business organizations, and individual stakeholders, but printed materials have been made available in Chinese and Spanish as well as English.  The Central Subway telephone information line provides responses in English, Chinese, and Spanish.

Community meetings have been held in each of the neighborhood areas surrounding proposed stations and Project alternatives have been refined based on community input to ensure that community concerns are addressed.  The breadth and depth of community outreach has ensured equal access to the process regardless of income level or ethnicity to ensure the Project is consistent with Environmental Justice objectives.

5.3 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

5.3.1 Introduction

Impacts on community services and facilities would result if the Project displaced or physically altered a community facility, restricted access to that facility, or hindered the operation or services offered at the facility, either on a short-term or long-term basis. 

Parks and recreational facilities would be affected if they were altered or displaced or their use or function was diminished.  In addition, parkland and recreational facilities are subject to guidelines established by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (USC 1653 (f)) (refer to Chapter 10.0, Section 4(f) Evaluation).  Taking of parkland or recreational properties for the implementation of the Central Subway Project would be an adverse impact, requiring consultation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of the Interior, and San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. 

For police and fire services, an impact would be considered adverse if the alternative would require additional equipment or personnel to maintain acceptable service levels or if access to police or fire stations or emergency vehicle routes were impeded.

5.3.2 Public and ComMunity Facilities

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

For the No Project/TSM Alternative, congestion along the Corridor’s roadways and highways is expected to increase, adversely affecting mobility and travel times within the Corridor (refer to Section 3.2).  As transit and auto traffic slow, the time required to reach public and community facilities would increase.  In addition, by 2030, transit operating along Third, Fourth and Stockton Streets is expected to be over capacity, thereby constraining demand and potentially impairing the accessibility and mobility of transit dependent residents who are not within walking distance of these facilities.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

Operation Impacts

The placement of vent shafts, station entrances, and elevators in Union Square plaza would permanently remove an estimated 1,517 square feet of open space out of a total 112,256 square feet–or 1.35 percent–for transportation purposes.  The pedestrian traffic in the plaza would also increase to access the escalator on the east side.  Otherwise, operation of the Central Subway Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would not adversely affect the community and public facilities that are situated along the alignment or near other subway stations.  Access to these facilities by transit would improve.

Cumulative Impacts

The continued growth in the Mission Bay, South of Market and Eastern Neighborhood areas would put increased demand on existing community facilities.  Improved transit access to community facilities serving neighborhoods within the Study Area would be consistent with the City’s Transit-First policies, but could also increase use of these facilities.  This potential increase in use of community facilities due to accessibility improvements would not be so substantial that it could not be managed.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

Operation Impacts

Operation impacts of the Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would be the same as those described for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of the Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A would be the same as those described for Alternative 2.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

Operation Impacts

Operation impacts of the Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would be the same as those described for Alternative 2 and 3A, except that less than 1,690 square feet or 1.51 percent of open space would be permanently removed for transportation purposes from Union Square.  The vent shafts under this alternative would be located in the Ellis/O’Farrell garage rather than in Union Square.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of the Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would be the same as those described for Alternative 2 and 3A.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

5.3.3 Police, Fire and Emergency Services

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative could adversely affect response times for police, fire, and emergency services since traffic congestion on Corridor roadways is expected to increase substantially by 2030 (refer to Section 3.2).  The increased response times would also impede the ability of these City departments to quickly respond to safety and security problems involving Muni patrons or facilities.

Cumulative Impacts

An increased demand for police, fire, and emergency services may result from cumulative development in the Study Area, including new development in the South of Market, Eastern Neighborhood, and Mission Bay areas, but the demand would not be affected by the lack of a rail transit investment.  Muni provides its own security officers, who would respond to safety incidents in the transit system.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation would be required.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

Operation Impacts

Operation of the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would require the development of security and emergency response systems that can be integrated with Muni’s existing procedures and facilities.  For example, Muni provides its own (contracted) security guards for patrolling its fixed facilities and uses a closed circuit system for monitoring subway stations.  In addition, Muni in concert with the San Francisco Fire Department and the Department of Public Health, holds two to three emergency drills per year and emergency orientation sessions to ensure a coordinated response effort for emergencies occurring in the Market Street Subway.  Expanding these services to include the Central Subway is not expected to require additional police, fire, or emergency services personnel.  However, if the surveillance system were expanded to include the Central Subway, additional Muni resources would be required.  Muni will provide the resources necessary to secure the stations and other fixed facilities associated with the Central Subway.  As an added safety measure, ventilation shafts for all new stations will be placed in secure above-grade locations.

Cumulative Impacts

An increased demand for police, fire, and emergency services may result from cumulative development in the Study Area including new development in the South of Market, Eastern Neighborhood, and Mission

Bay areas.  Muni provides its own security officers, who would respond to safety incidents in the Central Subway system, therefore implementation of the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would not result in an increased demand for emergency services.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A(LPA)

Operation Impacts

The operation impacts would be the same as described above for Alternative 2 [begin deletion] , except improvements to the existing Powell Street station, as needed for the connection to the UMS Station, will be addressed in cooperation with BART during final design of the station connections.  This will include assessment and, if necessary, implementation of improvements to the existing  vertical circulation, platform capacity, lighting, ventilation system, fire suppressant system, and way-finding will be assessed in cooperation with BART during final design of the station connections. the emergency ventilation system shall be designed and operating procedures written/revised and tested to ensure that the UMS  and Powell Street station emergency ventilation systems do not adversely affect each other during an emergency event or system test [end deletion] .

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts would be the same as described above for Alternative 2.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

Operation Impacts

The operation impacts would be the same as described above for Alternative [begin insertion] 2 [end insertion] [begin deletion] 3A [end deletion] .

Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts would be the same as described above for Alternative 2.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

5.3.4 Parks and Recreational Facilities

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

No impacts to parks and recreational facilities would result from the No Project/TSM Alternative.  However, access and parking for these facilities may moderately be impaired because of the increase in Corridor roadway congestion causing travel delays and increasing parking demand along the streets adjacent to parks.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

Operation Impacts

Parks and recreational facilities, such as Yerba Buena Gardens, would not be displaced nor would land be acquired for the construction of Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment.  However, Union Square Station entries, elevators, and vent shafts would be located at the east edge of the Union Square plaza, taking about 1,517 square feet of the 112,256 square foot plaza (1.35 percent), displacing 29 of 985 parking spaces in the garage below, but providing direct and convenient transit access to the park (see Chapter 10.0, Section 4(f) Report).  This alternative could result in additional pedestrian traffic through the park to access the station entry. 

At the Chinatown Station, secondary access to the station would be provided via Hang Ah Alley, an alleyway under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Parks Department.  While pedestrian traffic would increase on Hang Ah and Pagoda Alleys, which provide secondary access to Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground (primary access is from Sacramento Street), there would be no reduction in the alley or playground areas.  Public access to the parks and recreational facilities near station locations for the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment would be improved.

The use of Union Square plaza and Hang Ah Alley for station access facilities would require a Section 4(f) determination of impact on the parks and recreational resources by the Recreation and Parks Department.  If the Recreation and Parks Department does not make a “de minimis” finding, the Section 4(f) report would be subject to review by the Department of Interior.

Cumulative Impacts

No other proposed projects were identified in the Study Area that would impact the same parks and recreational facilities, so no additional cumulative impacts were identified for this alternative.

Mitigation Measures

To reduce the impacts of additional pedestrian traffic on Hang Ah and Pagoda Alleys, the secondary access to the Chinatown Station could be eliminated. 

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

Operation Impacts

The operation impacts would be the same as described above for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Impacts

No additional cumulative impacts were identified for this alternative.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures would be the same as described above for Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

Operation Impacts

The Union Square Station entries and elevators located at the east and southeastern edge of the Union Square plaza, would take about 1,690 square feet of the park, or 1.51 percent, (compared with 1.35 percent for Alternatives 2 and 3A), displacing parking spaces below, but providing direct and convenient transit access to the park.  The vent shafts in this alternative have been located at the Ellis/O’Farrell Garage.  Pedestrian access to the station entry would be from Geary Street, and would not result in increased pedestrian traffic through the plaza.  Public access to the parks and recreational facilities near station locations for Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would be improved.  There would be no impacts to Willie “Woo Woo” Wong playground or to Hang Ah Alley for this alternative.

The use of Union Square plaza for station access would require a Section 4(f) determination of impact on the parks and recreational resources by the Recreation and Parks Department.  [begin insertion] If t [end insertion] [begin deletion] T [end deletion] he Recreation and Parks Department [begin insertion] does not make a [end insertion] [begin deletion] has concurred with the [end deletion] “de minimis” finding [begin insertion] , [end insertion] [begin deletion] for this alternative, which satisfies [end deletion] the Section 4(f) [begin insertion] report would be subject to review by the Department of Interior [end insertion] [begin deletion] review requirements (see Appendix J) [end deletion] .

Cumulative Impacts

No additional cumulative impacts were identified for this alternative.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures would be the same as described above for Alternative 2 and 3A.

5.4 cultural resources

5.4.1 Introduction

In the context of a federally reviewed and permitted project, the significance of architectural and archaeological resources is measured with reference to the evaluation criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These criteria state that the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects which possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and which

· are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

· are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

· embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

· have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4).

The criteria are essential to evaluation of NRHP eligibility because they “indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 CFR 60.2). Any action that, as part of an undertaking, could affect significant cultural resources is subject to review and comment under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).  All projects in California undergoing environmental review must also address the cultural resources requirements of CEQA, with resources evaluated under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria, which are similar to those of the NRHP.  Under CEQA, if a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource or archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA, it may have a significant effect on the environment. 

In addition, cultural resources are subject to guidelines established by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (USC 1653(f) (refer to Chapter 10.0, Section 4(f) Evaluation).  Taking of cultural resources for implementation of the Central Subway would be an adverse impact requiring consultation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Interior, San Francisco Historic Preservation Officer, and SHPO.

5.4.2 Prehistoric and Historical Archaeological Resource Impacts

The methods used to identify known and potential archaeological resources within the Central Subway APE are described in Section 4.4.  Archaeological impacts and mitigation measures are generally construction-related and are discussed in Section 6.7.  The prehistoric and historical archaeological resources that may be affected by the Project construction are also described in Section 6.7 and Section 7.3.3.

Alternative 1 – No Project/TSM

No subsurface disturbance would take place with operation of the No Project/TSM Alternative. No impacts to prehistoric or historical archaeological resources would occur with this alternative.

Alternative 2 – Central Subway Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

Operation Impacts

Because operation of the proposed light rail system for Alternative 2 will not involve subsurface disturbance, no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated.

Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 – Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

Operation Impacts

No operation impacts on archaeological resources are anticipated.

Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

Alternative 3 – Central Subway Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

Operation Impacts

No operation impacts on archaeological resources would be expected to occur.

Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would occur.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required.

5.4.3 Historic Architectural Resource Impacts

An impact to historic architectural resources would result from acquiring, demolishing, or altering the integrity of individual architectural properties within the APE for the project, or altering a property that is a contributor to a historic district, or a district that is eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR.[4] 

Historic architectural resources described in Section 4.4 of this SEIS/SEIR and identified in the Project APE for Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B include buildings, structures or objects that qualify as either individual buildings that appear eligible for the NRHP or CRHR or as contributing elements to a NRHP-eligible or CRHR-eligible historic district.  The Project crosses through eight listed or proposed historic districts and one local conservation district, including the South End Historic District, Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Industrial Warehouse District, South Park Historic District, Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel District (part of the larger CRHR listed San Francisco Apartment Hotel District), Chinatown Historic District, North Beach Historic District, Washington Square Historic District, and Powell Street Shops Historic District.  The South End Historic District is a City of San Francisco-identified Article 10 historic district and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter (KMMS) District is a locally-identified Article 11 conservation district.  Their boundaries are larger and more inclusive than the NRHP and CRHR boundaries.  For that reason, there is an overlap of the local South End Historic District and the Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Industrial Warehouse District, which is on the CRHR.

In this section, potential impacts to historic properties in each alternative are discussed first and then impacts to contributors of the NRHP, CRHR, and local historic districts.  It should be noted that although the Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel District is included within the Study Area, it is not located within an area proposed for stations or portals.  As a result, no impacts to the historic buildings in this district would result from the Project.

Alternative 1 – No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative would not result in adverse effects to historic architectural resources, given that the Alternative does not include new rail operations.

Alternative 2 – Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

Operation Impacts

During operation of the Central Subway along the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, vibrations from passenger trains would not constitute an adverse effect to historic properties, as indicated in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Section 5.12).  There would not be substantial visual impacts to historic architectural resources because most of the Central Subway would be underground, and the surface tracks on Third and Fourth Streets – in addition to the tunnel portals – would be in the center of the existing streets and would be visually compatible with existing street features.   

In the Market Street Station area, the escalators and stairs would be in the sidewalk area, with the elevators positioned next to them, on the southwest corner of Market and Third streets.  Their placement next to the street would not create visual impacts to 703-705 Market Street and the other neighboring historic buildings.  The ventilation shaft ductbanks, extending 26 feet above the roofline of the Ellis/ O’Farrell parking garage, would not visually detract from any of the historic buildings in the area because they would be located at the back end of the roof.

In the Union Square Station area, the Stockton Street station entry, station vents along the eastern side of Union Square, and two elevators north of the northern-most vent shaft would not constitute substantial impacts to the historic character of the KMMS conservation district, or to the park, which was substantially altered in 2002.  (See also Visual Impacts, Section 5.3.3 and Chapter 10.0, Section 4(f) Evaluation.)  No significant changes to the historic use of the NRHP-eligible subterranean Union Square garage are proposed.  The two additional station entries are located in the sidewalk area next to Stockton Street at either side of Maiden Lane, in front of 218-222 Stockton Street and 234-240 Stockton Street, both NRHP-eligible properties.  The station entries would not constitute a substantial impact to these historic buildings in the KMMS District.  Although Union Station features would be visible from historic buildings on Maiden Lane, they would blend with the existing landscape features of the recently renovated plaza and would not adversely affect the KMMS District. 

A Negative Declaration (Case # 98.257E), prepared for the Union Square Improvement Project in 1998, described Union Square’s historic importance as “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,” and not “from its internal configuration or landscape features.”  Extensive physical alterations to Union Square occurred in 2002, including the replacement of the grass lawns and nearly all existing park features with concrete terraces, paving, plants, palm trees, buildings, a new café, and a ticket booth.

Because the proposed station entry and elevators and vent shafts would be introduced to a modernized Union Square, which has lost historic integrity, the impacts would not constitute an adverse impact on Union Square or the underground garage.  As such, modifications to Union Square that conform to its present physical character would not adversely impact buildings within the KMMS Conservation District, many of them NRHP-eligible properties. 

As discussed under Construction Impacts (Chapter 6.7), in the Chinatown Station area, where a new Muni station building would replace an existing historic building, the potential for adverse effects to historic architectural resources exists.  Demolition of building 814-828 Stockton Street would be considered a significant adverse effect because of the building’s status as a contributor to a NRHP-eligible Chinatown district.  Removal of the building would create a break in the cohesive grouping of contextually-related buildings and would visually isolate the corner building at 800-810 Stockton Street.

NRHP eligible historic districts are a cohesive grouping of buildings that share a common history, visual appearance, or development.  Historic districts can be contiguous or non-contiguous groupings of buildings; in this instance, the Chinatown Historic District is contiguous.  Demolition of contributing elements to a NRHP-eligible district constitutes an adverse effect under Section 106 and under the California Environmental Quality Act.  Under Criterion A, 814-828 Stockton Street is contextually important for its association with the development of the Chinatown community. This area has been 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 its initial Chinese ownership in the 1920s, use of its basement as a Chinese school, and for housing the World Journal Chinese newspaper during the 1970s and 1980s. 

The visual representation of this building is less important than its history. Under Criterion C, 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 of these buildings conform to two-part commercial block compositions also found in other areas of San Francisco, and they 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.  In this case, although many of its storefronts retain some integrity, the building suffers from integrity issues due to the removal of ornamental elements on the upper portion of the façade.

Mitigation Measures

The design for each of the stations will be reviewed by the Environmental Review Officer, the City Historic Preservation Officer, and a historic architect hired by MTA for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards based on their compatibility with the character-defining features of each of the districts.  New buildings would be designed to reinforce the established character of the historic district and visual continuity of the streetscape and an historic architectural specialist would be consulted during design development.  

Alternative 3 – Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

Operation Impacts

Operation impacts would be the same as described above for Alternative 2.

Mitigation Measures

The same mitigation measures would apply as those described for Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 – Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

Operation Impacts

There would not be substantial visual impacts to historic architectural resources from the operation of the Alternative 3B because the surface tracks and tunnel portals would be located in the center of existing streets south of Market Street and in subway north of Bryant Street and would not detract from the historic context of the buildings. 

In the Chinatown Station area, where a new Muni station building would replace an existing historic building, there is the potential for visual impacts to the historic context of architectural resources in Block 211.  Demolition of building 933-949 Stockton Street would be considered a significant adverse effect because of the building’s status as a contributor to a NRHP-eligible district, and its removal would create a break in the cohesive grouping of important buildings within the block and the neighboring block on the west side of Stockton Street.

The placement of a station entry along the Geary Street side of the recently renovated Union Square would not impact the historic context or use of the Square and underground garage.  Impacts will be further minimized for this alternative because the emergency vents would be placed inside an air well in the Ellis/O’Farrell garage.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures would be the same for Alternative 3B as those described above for Alternative 3A.  The mitigation measures identified for 814-828 Stockton Street under Alternative 2 would also apply to 933-949 Stockton Street for this alternative.

5.5 visual and aesthetic resources

5.5.1 Introduction

Visual impacts were identified by comparing plan and profile drawings, visual simulations and shadow analysis for the proposed facilities with photographs and descriptions of the existing setting.  Field visits were conducted at sites where proposed Central Subway structures might cast shadows, alter the scale or visual context of the surrounding landscape or distract from visual resources that distinguish landscapes in the project viewshed.  Examples of such visual changes were created using computer simulation techniques at three locations: the tunnel portal at Third and Brannan Streets, station entries at Union Square and in Chinatown.  The visual simulations offer the reader an impression of the scale of the proposed facility relative to the surrounding visual features in the existing landscape.  These simulations are not to be assumed to show how the future buildings may actually be configured.  Other visual changes are described in the text.

5.5.2 IMPACT CRITERIA

The following criteria for identifying potentially significant impacts to visual and aesthetic resources were used to assess the Project impacts.  Would the Project:

· Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

· Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, degrade, or obstruct publicly accessible views and resources?

· Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

· Substantially contrast with the scale or visual context of the surrounding landscape?

· Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

In San Francisco, a project is determined to have a significant shadow effect if it were to result in a substantial new shadow on public open space under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission during the one hour before sunrise to one hour before sunset at any time of the year, or if shadows were cast so as to obscure direct sunlight on certain downtown sidewalks.

5.5.3 Visual IMPACTS

Using the criteria described above, and the visual simulations and shadow analysis, visual impacts are described below for each alternative.

Alternative 1 - No Project/TSM

The No Project/TSM Alternative would not alter or change the existing landscape.  Therefore, no visual impacts would occur.

Alternative 2 - Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment

Operation Impacts

For the Enhanced EIS/EIR Alignment, the subway would begin at tunnel portal locations, in the center of the street, between Brannan and Bryant Streets on Third and Fourth Streets.  The wide streets are surrounded by commercial and live/work, and industrial structures, parking facilities and signage.  The portals would introduce a new visual element in the streetscape as presented by the computer simulation of a tunnel at Third Street (see Figure 5-1).  The visual impact of the portal on Fourth Street would be similar.  The portals would be visible to motorists and pedestrians and adjacent live/work properties but would not significantly detract from the dominant features of existing buildings, street trees, and Moscone Center because the portal walls would rise less than three feet from the street.  The portal would be visible from the historic Hotel Utah on Fourth and Bryant Streets, but would not detract from the existing landscape setting or character-defining features for the hotel.

A surface station with a side platform would be located on Third Street, just north of King Street, across from the ballpark.  The surface platform on Third Street and tracks and overhead catenaries for surface alignments along Third and Fourth Streets would be visually compatible with existing transit features in the surrounding landscape.

The Enhanced SEIS/SEIR Station entries at Moscone, Market Street, and Union Square would be located in pedestrian alleyways or in sidewalks where escalators and stairs would be protected with low-walls.  Entrances at these stations may be designed with canopy covers, as shown in the simulations.

The Moscone Station entrance (escalators and stairs) would be in Tehama Pedestrian Way next to retail bays on the north side of the Moscone Garage (see Figure 5-2).  Two elevators would be located at street level at the northwest corner of the garage. Two ventilation shaft ductbanks would extend east of Third Street under Clementina Street, rising along the southeast exterior of the Moscone Convention Center Garage to a height 16 feet above the garage roof.  Neither the station entry, nor the ventilation shafts would detract from existing landscape features in scale, color or visual context of the existing landscape, nor would these features substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area.  There are no public parks near the vent shaft where shadows would be a concern.

FIGURE 5-1

Tunnel ALTERNATIVE AT third/bryant - Visual simulation

Alternative 2

Source:  1998 EIS/EIR

If the siphon and pumping station were selected as the mitigation for the North Point trunk sewer line relocation (refer to Section 5.6), two approximately eight-foot high utility cabinets would be installed in the sidewalk on the east and west sides of the Mission and Third Street intersection.  These cabinets, which would house pumping and ventilation equipment, would have an exterior design that conforms to existing kiosks in the Yerba Buena Gardens area.  The new utility cabinets would be visible to pedestrians.  However, these new features would be unobtrusive compared with the surrounding densely-developed mid- and high-rise buildings.  The remainder of the siphon facilities would be underground.

For the Market Street Station, the main street entrances (escalators and stairs) would be located in the sidewalk area on the south side of Market Street just west and east of Third Street (see Figure 5-3).  Two

 
FIGURE 5-2

MOSCONE GARAGE - simulation of station entry

ALTERNATIVE 2

 Source: Kwan Henmi

elevators would be located on the southwest corner of Market and Third Streets next to the escalators and stairs.  A subsurface pedestrian connection would be provided between the Market Street Station and the BART/Muni Metro Montgomery Station and would have no surface visual impacts.  Two ventilation shaft ductbanks would extend east of Third Street under Stevenson Street, rising at the northeast interior corner of a private garage (Hearst) to a height 26 feet above the roofline.  The design features of the Market Street Station would be compatible with existing landscape features in this Downtown location. The vent shaft would not cast shadows on any public park.

FIGURE 5-3

market street station entry simulation

ALTERNATIVE 2

For Union Square Station, the main pedestrian entry would be located on the eastern edge of the Union Square plaza, in a stairway leading to the plaza, near the Plaza café.  It would include escalators and stairs (and possible canopy), rising from the sidewalk level at Stockton Street to the plaza entrance.  Two elevators would be located north of the northern-most vent shaft with access from the sidewalk on Stockton Street (Figure 5-4). Additional station entries would be located in sidewalk bulb-outs north (stairs) and south (escalators) of Maiden Lane.  Two vent shafts would be integrated into the plaza terrace between the plaza café and the sidewalk on the west side of Stockton Street.  Vent shafts would be located on either side of the escalators and stairs.  The vent shafts would be about 11 feet high, but would not rise above the plaza because of their location on the terraced eastern edge of the park.  These station features would be visible from Maiden Lane and the sidewalk on the east side of Stockton Street, but would not significantly distract from the Union Square landscape character in the foreground that was renovated in 2002, or from the dominant features of surrounding retail buildings and hotels that are the dominant character defining features that characterize the historic Union Square landscape.  Union Square is considered historic as an open space, which would not change.  The designs shown in the visual simulations are representative only and final design would undergo design review to ensure that the

FIGURE 5-4

union square station entry simulation

ALTERNATIVEs 2 and 3a

Source:   Kwan Henmi

Project features not distract from the existing features of the park and Historic District.  Because of their location and height, the vent shafts would not cast shadows on Union Square Park. 

The Chinatown Stations would be centered on Clay Street at Stockton Street, and would have a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] level and one platform level.  The main pedestrian entrance would be in a building that Muni would construct on Stockton Street near Sacramento Street to accommodate escalators, stairs, two elevators, and two emergency ventilation shafts (see Figure 5-5).  The Muni facility would require only one story, however, for the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that a structure 40-foot in height would be constructed on this parcel.  The maximum allowable height for this property is 65-feet, but Muni would restrict the building height to 40 feet to meet the height constraints of

Proposition K and minimize casting shadows on the Willy “Woo Woo” Wong Playground located to the east of the station property. 

FIGURE 5-5

chinatown station entry simulation

ALTERNATIVEs 2 and 3a

Source: Kwan Henmi

The vent shafts would rise to a height 10 feet above the development roofline (or 50 feet above ground level) on the southeast end of the parcel near Pagoda Alley.  This station would be visible from Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground and Hang Ah Alley, but because the station building would replace an existing building of similar scale, and would be visually compatible in scale with surrounding buildings, it would not substantially degrade or obstruct publicly accessible views or vistas and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (see Figure 5-6).  This visual assessment focuses on scenic resources, and visual character, unlike the previous Historic Architectural

FIGURE 5-6

CHINATOWN STATION simulation viewed from pagoda alley

ALTERNATIVEs 2 and 3a

Source: Kwan Henmi

Resource section, Section 5.1.1, that assessed changes to historic character-defining features in the Chinatown Historic District.  These two are not mutually exclusive, but use different criteria in the assessment of impacts.  There would be some minor shading of the playground tennis courts as shown in the shadow analysis during some months of the year and some times of the day, however, this shading would not be substantial in the context of existing shading from adjacent four- to six-story buildings surrounding the Playground (see Figure 5-7).  Existing shadows on the playground would increase by 3 percent in March, 1 percent in June, 4 percent in September, and 3 percent in December.  Similarly, the station building viewed from Stockton Street would not distract from adjacent buildings in terms of building scale or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area.

Cumulative Impacts

Because no other major projects have been identified in the station Study Area for Alternative 2, no cumulative visual impacts have been identified. 

Mitigation Measures

Architectural treatment of the station escalator canopy, elevator exterior treatment and vent shaft exterior finish at Union Square would be developed in consultation with the Recreation and Parks Department, the Planning Department and the Union Square business associations.  Exterior treatment of the Chinatown Station and vent shaft would be developed in consultation with the Planning Department, architectural historians, the City Historic Preservation Officer, and the Chinatown community during preliminary and final design.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A (LPA)

Operation Impacts

For Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A, the subway would begin at the portal location in the center of Fourth Street between Townsend and Brannan Streets.  The street is bordered by commercial, live/work, industrial structures, parking facilities, and signage.  The tunnel portal would introduce a new visual element in the streetscape as represented in the computer simulation of Fourth Street at this location (see Figure 5-8, refer to Figure 4-8 for existing conditions).  The portal would be visible by motorists and pedestrians and adjacent properties, but would not detract from other dominant features because the portal walls would rise less than three feet from the street.  Unlike Alternative 2, this alternative would not have a tunnel portal or surface alignment on Third Street, further reducing the visual presence of the light rail features in the South of Market neighborhood.  

FIGURE 5-7

shadows on Willy “Woo Woo” wong playground

ALTERNATIVEs 2 and 3a

The same as for Alternative 2, Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A station entries at the Union Square/Market Street Station would be located in pedestrian areas or in sidewalks where escalators and stairs would be protected with low walls.  Elevator entrances at these stations may be protected by canopy cover [begin deletion] s [end deletion] .  At Moscone and Chinatown Stations, the stairs, escalators and elevators would be located in off-street buildings.  As with Alternative 2 above, these new features would blend with the surrounding landscape features in the South of Market and Downtown area.

FIGURE 5-8:  FOURTH STREET portal simulation

ALTERNATIVE 3A

The Moscone Station entries (escalators, stairs, and elevators) would be located entirely within an off-street property that Muni would acquire, currently the site of a gas station west of  Moscone Center at 266 Fourth Street (see Figure 5-9).  The Muni facility would require only one story and would house two ventilation shafts.  The station entry would be located in a 40-foot high building with a setback of 85-feet for the vent shaft tower as permitted under existing zoning.  The vent shafts would rise 26 feet above the 40-foot roofline on the north end of the parcel or to a height of 66 feet.  An additional stair set would be located in the sidewalk on the west side of Fourth Street just north of Howard Street and on the south side of Howard Street just west of Fourth Street.  A third elevator would be located directly across the street on the east side of Fourth Street near the corner of Howard Street.  Neither the station entry, nor the ventilation shafts would detract from existing landscape features dominated by Moscone Center buildings in scale, color or context.  

The same as Alternative 2 described above, the station entry at Union Square for Alternative 3A would be located on the eastern edges of the Union Square plaza, centered within the stairs leading to the plaza, near the existing café.  The station entry would include escalators and stairs, rising from the sidewalk level at Stockton Street to the plaza entrance.  Additional entries would be located in sidewalk bulb-outs on the east side of Stockton Street, north (stairs) and south (escalators) of Maiden Lane.  Two vent shafts would be integrated into the plaza terrace between the plaza café and the sidewalk on the west side of Stockton Street.  Vent shafts would be located on either side of the escalators and stairs.  The vent shafts would be about 11 feet high, but would not rise above the plaza because of their location on the terrace grade.  Two elevators would be located south of the southern-most vent shaft with access from the sidewalk on Stockton Street.  The same as Alternative 2 above, the Central Subway features would be compatible with design features of the plaza and would not detract from the open-space and landscape features of Union Square or the dominant features of surrounding retail buildings and hotels and Historic KMMS District. 

The same as for Alternative 2 above, the Chinatown Station [begin deletion] entrance [end deletion] for Alternative 3A would be located on the east side of Stockton Street between Sacramento and Clay Streets in a new facility replacing an existing two-story building.  The [begin deletion] building above the [end deletion] new station would be [begin deletion] limited to [end deletion] [begin insertion] less than [end insertion] 40 feet tall to reduce possible shadows on the playground and tennis courts (Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground ) to the east of the station [begin insertion] al [end insertion] location.  The shadow analysis for this location is shown in Figure 5-7 above).  Though the station would be visible from viewing points within the playground and alley, it would be compatible with the surrounding buildings and would not substantially damage, degrade or obstruct publicly accessible views or vistas from the park or cast significant shadows on park uses.  The same as

FIGURE 5-9

moscone station entrance simulation

ALTERNATIVEs 3a and 3b

Source: Kwan Henmi

Alternative 2 described above, the proposed station in Chinatown for Alternative 3A would not detract from the dominant features or visual character or quality along Stockton Street in the Chinatown Historic District. 

Cumulative Impacts

No other projects have been identified that would effect the visual character of the station areas.  No cumulative visual impacts have been identified. 

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures would be the same as identified above for Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B (Modified LPA)

Operation Impacts

In Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B, the operation impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative 3A, except the portal would be located between Bryant and Harrison Streets (see Figure 5-10,  refer to Figure 4-6 for existing conditions).  The location of the Union Square/Market Street and Chinatown Stations would also vary as noted below.

A combined Union Square/Market Street Station would be located under Stockton Street between Geary and Market Streets, with an underground platform centered on O’Farrell Street.  At the north end of the station the main entrance would be located at the southeast corner of Union Square on Geary Street just west of Stockton Street.  The entry would include escalators and stairs.  This station entry design is different from Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A described above and would not be visible from Maiden Lane.  The station entry would be located within the terraced edge of the Plaza and would be visible from some vantage points along the sidewalks on Geary Street.   Two elevators would be located on the western edge of Union Square in the terraced level along Stockton Street near the corner at Geary Street.  A second set of stairs would be located in the sidewalk on the north side of Geary Street, just east of Stockton Street, behind an existing Muni bus stop.  Two emergency ventilation ducts would extend west of Stockton Street under Ellis Street, rising inside the air-well of the Ellis/O’Farrell Garage to a height of 26 feet above the garage roof.  The same as Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option A above, the Option B station features would be designed to blend with existing architectural features of Union Square and would not detract from the dominant features of the surrounding landscape (see Figure 5-11).  Because the vent shafts would not be located along the western edge of Union Square as in Alternative 2 and 3A, the visual impacts to the Park would be less than the other alternatives.  The station entry would not be visible from Maiden Lane.

The [begin deletion] access to the [end deletion] Chinatown Station for Fourth/Stockton Alignment Option B would be located on the west side of Stockton Street between Washington and [begin insertion] Jackson [end insertion] [begin deletion] Clay Streets [end deletion] (see Figures 5-12 and 5-13).  [begin deletion] The underground station platform would extend to Jackson Street. [end deletion]   It would not be visible from Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground on the east of Stockton Street.   This underground station would have a mezzanine [begin deletion] and [end deletion] [begin insertion] ( [end insertion] concourse [begin insertion] ) [end insertion] and one platform level for north and southbound trains.  The main pedestrian entrance would be in a building that Muni would construct on the west side of Stockton Street at the corner of Washington Street to accommodate escalators, stairs, two elevators, and two emergency ventilation shafts.  This station location is adjacent to Gordon Lau elementary school playground (not a

public park) and would be across from the Mandarin Tower, one of the tallest buildings in Chinatown.  The Muni facility would require only one story.  For the purposes of this analysis it is

FIGURE 5-10:  FOURTH STREET PORTAL simulation

ALTERNATIVE 3B

FIGURE 5-11

Union square station Geary Street entry simulation

ALTERNATIVE 3B

Source: Kwan Henmi

assumed to be part of a 65-foot high building as permitted under existing zoning.  The vent shafts would rise 26 feet above the development roofline on the southwest end of the parcel.  The proposed station and vent shafts would be compatible in scale with existing architectural features in the surrounding landscape and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area (not including the historic character-defining features discussed in Section 5.1.1).

Cumulative Impacts

No cumulative visual impacts have been identified. 

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures would be the same as identified under Alternative 2.

Figure 5-12

CHINATOWN STATION stockton street entry simulation

Alternative 3B

Source: Kwan Henmi

Figure 5-13

CHINATOWN STATION simulation looking east from WASHINGTON STREET

Alternative 3B

Source: Kwan Henmi

[1]     Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Federal Register, 18026, 1981.

[2]     Dan Rosen, MTA, April 2007.

[3]     Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Addressing Environmental Justice in the Environmental Impact Statement, May 9, 1997.

[4]     NRHP – National Register of Historical Places; CRHP – California Register of Historic Places.