Written comments should be sent to:
Paul Maltzer
Environmental Review Officer
San Francisco Planning Department
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94103
MARKET AND OCTAVIA
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Planning Department Case No. 2003.0347E
State Clearinghouse No. 2004012118
June 25, 2005
Draft EIR Publication Date: June 25, 2005
Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: July 28, 2005
Draft EIR Public Comment Period Ends: August 9, 2005
San Francisco Planning Department
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Case No. 2003.0347E
i
Section Page
1.0 SUMMARY 1- 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2- 1
2.1 Project and EIR Overview 2- 1
2.2 CEQA Review 2- 1
2.3 EIR Organization 2- 3
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3- 1
3.1 Project Sponsors’ Objectives 3- 1
3.2 Project Overview 3- 3
3.3 Project Location 3- 4
3.4 Project Characteristics 3- 8
3.5 Implementation Program and Schedule 3- 34
3.6 Project Approvals 3- 35
3.6.1 Environmental Impact Report 3- 35
3.6.2 Plan Adoption 3- 35
3.6.3 Required Approvals 3- 36
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 4- 1
4.1 Plans and Policies 4- 1
4.2 Land Use and Zoning 4- 29
4.2.1 Environmental Setting 4- 29
4.2.2 Impact Analysis 4- 42
4.3 Population, Housing, and Employment 4- 63
4.3.1 Environmental Setting 4- 64
4.3.2 Impact Analysis 4- 64
4.4 Urban Design and Visual Quality 4- 75
4.4.1 Environmental Setting 4- 75
4.4.2 Impact Analysis 4- 96
4.5 Shadow and Wind 4- 113
4.5.1 Shadow 4- 113
Environmental Setting 4- 113
Impact Analysis 4- 119
4.5.2 Wind 4- 130
Environmental Setting 4- 130
Impact Analysis 4- 133
4.6 Historical Resources 4- 137
4.6.1 Historical Context 4- 137
4.6.2 Archaeological Resources 4- 142
Impact Analysis 4- 152
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Case No. 2003.0347E
ii
4.6.3 Architectural Resources 4- 158
Impact Analysis 4- 168
4.7 Transportation 4- 179
4.7.1 Environmental Setting 4- 181
4.7.2 Impact Analysis 4- 203
4.8 Air Quality 4- 245
4.8.1 Environmental Setting 4- 245
4.8.2 Impact Analysis 4- 252
4.9 Noise 4- 261
4.9.1 Environmental Setting 4- 261
4.9.2 Impact Analysis 4- 268
4.10 Hazardous Materials 4- 279
4.10.1 Environmental Setting 4- 279
4.10.2 Impact Analysis 4- 289
4.11 Geology, Soils and Seismicity 4- 299
4.11.1 Environmental Setting 4- 299
4.11.2 Impact Analysis 4- 307
4.12 Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities 4- 317
4.12.1 Parks and Open Space 4- 317
Environmental Setting 4- 317
Impact Analysis 4- 318
4.12.2 Utilities 4- 322
Environmental Setting 4- 322
Impact Analysis 4- 325
4.13 Other Topics Considered 4- 329
4.13.1 Hydrology 4- 329
4.13.2 Biology 4- 334
4.14 Growth Inducement 4- 337
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 5- 1
5.1 Plans and Policies 5- 1
5.2 Land Use and Zoning 5- 2
5.3 Population, Housing, and Employment 5- 2
5.4 Urban Design and Visual Quality 5- 2
5.5 Shadow and Wind 5- 2
5.6 Historical Resources 5- 4
5.7 Transportation 5- 14
5.8 Air Quality 5- 19
5.9 Noise 5- 20
5.10 Hazardous Materials 5- 20
5.11 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 5- 21
5.12 Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities 5- 21
5.13 Other Topics Considered 5- 21
5.14 Growth Inducement 5- 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Case No. 2003.0347E
iii
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 6- 1
6.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the
Proposed Project is Implemented 6- 1
6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be
Involved in the Proposed Action Should It be Implemented 6- 2
7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7- 1
7.1 No Project Alternative 7- 1
7.2 Reduced Height/ Reduced Density Alternative 7- 9
8.0 DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 8- 1
8.1 Draft EIR Recipients 8- 1
8.2 Recipients of the Draft EIR Notice of Availability 8- 5
9.0 APPENDICES 9- 1
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation / EIR Requirement 9. A- 1
Appendix B: Project Description 9. B- 1
Appendix C: Transportation 9. C- 1
Appendix D: Air Quality 9. D- 1
Appendix E: Noise 9. E- 1
Appendix F: Geology, Soils, Seismicity 9. F- 1
10.0 EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS; ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS
CONSULTED 10- 1
10.1 EIR Authors 10- 1
10.2 EIR Consultants 10- 1
10.3 Project Sponsor 10- 3
10.4 Other Contributors 10- 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- 1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1- 9
Table 3- 1 Proposed Market and Octavia Zoning Districts 3- 14
Table 3- 2 Proposed Market and Octavia Neighborhood Height Minimums 3- 16
Table 3- 3 Proposed Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Bulk Limits 3- 17
Table 3- 4 Proposed Zoning for Central Freeway Parcels 3- 19
Table 4- 1 Project Land Uses by Category in the Project Area ( 2025) 4- 44
Table 4- 2 Existing and Future Conditions ( 2025): Population, Housing, and Employment 4- 67
Table 4- 3 Future Conditions ( 2025): Project Area Employment Growth by Sector 4- 70
Table 4- 4 Seasonal Wind Frequency in Percent and Average Speed in Knots 4- 131
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Case No. 2003.0347E
iv
Table 4- 5 Expected Archaeological Resources: Project Area 4- 145
Table 4- 6 Expected Archaeological Resources: Central Freeway Corridor 4- 149
Table 4- 7 Expected Archaeological Resources: Public Street Improvements 4- 150
Table 4- 8 Expected Archaeological Resources: Open Space Improvements 4- 151
Table 4- 9 San Francisco Landmarks in the Project Area 4- 163
Table 4- 10 Structures of Merit in the Project Area 4- 164
Table 4- 11 National Register- Listed Buildings and Districts in the Project Area 4- 165
Table 4- 12 California Historical Landmarks in the Project Area 4- 165
Table 4- 13 Muni Screenlines Existing Year Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 193
Table 4- 14 Muni Corridor Analysis – North/ South Corridors
Existing Year Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 195
Table 4- 15 Muni Corridor Analysis – East/ West Corridors
Existing Year Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 196
Table 4- 16 Regional Screenline Analysis Existing Year Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 199
Table 4- 17 Project Trip Generation by Mode- Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 209
Table 4- 18 Summary of Residential Units and Parking Demand Rate 4- 211
Table 4- 19 Estimated Increase in Parking Demand 4- 211
Table 4- 20 Plan’s Contribution to 2025 with Plan Traffic Volumes
For Intersections with LOS E or F Conditions 4- 221
Table 4- 21 Muni Screenline Analysis 2025 without Plan and 2025 with Plan 4- 225
Table 4- 22 Muni Corridor Analysis 2025 without Plan and 2025 with Plan 4- 226
Table 4- 23 Regional Screenline Analysis 2025 without Plan and 2025 with Plan 4- 228
Table 4- 24 2025 Project Area Estimated Net New Parking Supply 4- 231
Table 4- 25 2025 Project Area Parking Supply and Demand
Weekday Midday Conditions 4- 232
Table 4- 26 2025 Project Area Parking Supply and Demand
Weekday Evening Conditions 4- 233
Table 4- 27 2025 Project Area Parking Supply and Demand with Reduced Vehicle
Ownership Rate – Weekday Midday Conditions 4- 235
Table 4- 28 2025 Project Area Parking Supply and Demand – Weekday Evening
Conditions with Reduced Vehicle Ownership Rate 4- 236
Table 4- 29 2025 Project Area Parking Supply and Demand – Weekday Midday
Conditions – One Parking Space per One Housing Unit 4- 236
Table 4- 30 2025 Project Area Parking Supply and Demand – Weekday Evening
Conditions – One Parking Space per One Housing Unit 4- 237
Table 4- 31 Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status 4- 247
Table 4- 32 Air Quality Summary Arkansas Street San Francisco Station 2002- 2003 4- 251
Table 4- 33 Estimated Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Major Intersections 4- 257
Table 4- 34 Representative Sound Monitoring Data within Project Area 4- 267
Table 4- 35 Summary of Modeled Peak- Hour Traffic Sound Levels 4- 271
Table 4- 36 Day- Night Equivalent Sound Levels Corresponding
To Drops in Peak Hour LOS 4- 273
Table 4- 37 Existing Parks in the Project Area 4- 318
Table 4- 38 Existing Parks Adjacent to the Project Area 4- 319
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Case No. 2003.0347E
v
Table A- 1 Market & Octavia Public Scoping Comments 9. A- 13
Table B- 1 Recommended Plan Policies for Land Use Improvements 9. B- 2
Table B- 2 Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Transportation Project List 9. B- 15
Table C- 1 Level of Service Descriptions 9. C- 2
Table C- 2 Intersection Level of Service – Weekday PM Peak Hour 9. C- 3
Table C- 3 Muni Lines Operating in Project Area 9. C- 4
Table C- 4 Regional Operators and Access to the Project Area 9. C- 5
Table C- 5 Existing Year Publicly Available Off- Street Parking 9. C- 6
Table C- 6 Project Area Intersections and Pedestrian Safety 9. C- 7
Table C- 7 Daily Plan- Related Person Trip and Vehicle Trip Generation 9. C- 7
Table C- 8 Distribution of Plan- Related Trips – Weekday PM Peak Hour 9. C- 8
Table C- 9 Intersection Level of Service – Weekday PM Peak Hour 9. C- 9
Table E - 1 Sound Levels of Typical Community Noise Sources 9. E- 2
Table E - 2 Summary of Acoustical Technical Terms 9. E- 3
Table E - 3 Threshold Limit Values for Noise 9. E- 4
Table E - 4 Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria 9. E- 4
Table E - 5 Representative Sound Monitoring Data within the Project Area 9. E- 5
Table E - 6 Distances to Construction Equipment 85 dBA Leq Noise Contours 9. E- 9
Table F- 1 Modified Mercalli Scale 9. F- 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3- 1 Location Map 3- 5
Figure 3- 2 Plan Area Boundary 3- 6
Figure 3- 3 Proposed Use Districts 3- 12
Figure 3- 4 Proposed Pedestrian and Open Space Improvements 3- 25
Figure 3- 5 Proposed Transit Improvements 3- 28
Figure 3- 6 Proposed Bicycle Improvements 3- 30
Figure 3- 7 Proposed Traffic Circulation 3- 32
Figure 4- 1 Existing Land Use 4- 32
Figure 4- 2 Existing Use Districts 4- 38
Figure 4- 3 Existing Generalized Height Districts 4- 40
Figure 4- 4 Proposed Generalized Height Districts 4- 52
Figure 4- 5 Viewpoint Location Map 4- 76
Figure 4- 6 Existing Viewpoints 1 and 2 4- 78
Figure 4- 7 Existing Viewpoints 3 and 4 4- 80
Figure 4- 8 Existing Viewpoints 5 and 6 4- 82
Figure 4- 9 Existing Viewpoints 7 and 8 4- 84
Figure 4- 10 Existing Viewpoints 9 and 10 4- 86
Figures 4- 11 Existing Viewpoints 11 and 12 4- 87
Figures 4- 12 Existing Viewpoints 13 and 14 4- 92
Figure 4- 13 Existing Viewpoints 15 and 16 4- 95
Figure 4- 14 Viewpoint S1: Market Street, Looking East 4- 101
Figure 4- 15 Viewpoint S2: Market Street, Looking Southeast 4- 103
Figure 4- 16 Viewpoint S3: Octavia Boulevard, Looking North 4- 109
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Case No. 2003.0347E
vi
Figure 4- 17 Existing and Proposed Parks and Open Space 4- 114
Figure 4- 18 Archaeological and Historic Districts 4- 148
Figure 4- 19 Proposed Transportation Changes 4- 180
Figure 4- 20 Existing Year Level of Service, Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 186
Figure 4- 21 Existing Year Transit Service 4- 187
Figure 4- 22 Existing Year Off- Street Public Parking 4- 199
Figure 4- 23 2025 without Project Level of Service – Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 213
Figure 4- 24 2025 with Project Level of Service – Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 215
Figure 4- 25 2025 with Central Freeway Parcels Level of Service – Weekday PM Peak Hour 4- 218
Figure 4- 26 Background Ambient Sound Measurement Locations 4- 269
Figure 4- 27 Geologic Map 4- 300
Figure 4- 28 Slope Stability Map 4- 302
Figure 4- 29 Liquefaction Hazard Map 4- 304
Figure 7- 1 Reduced Height/ Density Alternative 7- 10
Figure C- 1 Traffic Analysis Boundaries and Market/ Octavia Districts 9. C- 10
1.0 SUMMARY
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 1
1.0 SUMMARY
Project Description
This document is a program level Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) for the Market and Octavia
Neighborhood Plan – Draft for Public Review ( the Plan) published by the San Francisco Planning
Department ( Project Sponsor) in December 2002. The City’s overriding goal as sponsor of the Plan
is to realize the vision for the Project Area embodied in the Plan:
An urban neighborhood that provides for a mix of people of various ages, incomes, and lifestyles – a place where
everyday needs can be met within a short walk on a system of public streets that are easy and safe to get around
on foot, on bicycle, and by public transportation. A place intimately connected to the city as a whole, where
owning a car is a choice, not a necessity, and streets are attractive and inviting public spaces. A neighborhood
repaired and rejuvenated by building on the strengths of its long- standing character, yet inherently dynamic,
creative, and evolving.
The proposed Plan is a means for implementing an innovative set of land use controls, urban design
guidelines, and public space and transportation system improvements to create a dense, vibrant and
transit- oriented neighborhood. The controls encourage new housing and enhance the urban
environment in a variety of ways. The Plan will function as a model for reweaving the urban fabric
in other neighborhoods that are interested in amplifying the benefits of a vibrant transit- oriented
settlement pattern for such neighborhoods.
This document is also a project level EIR for the redevelopment of the 22 vacant Central Freeway
parcels created as a result of the removal of the elevated Central Freeway and a limited number of
near- term public street and open space improvements in the Project Area.
The Project Sponsor has identified the following project level objective for development of the
Central Freeway parcels:
Promote new development on the Central Freeway parcels that heals the physical fabric of the neighborhood and
adds to its character and quality.
The EIR covers adoption of the Plan, amendments to the San Francisco Planning Code and Zoning
Maps, amendment to the San Francisco General Plan, and adoption of urban design guidelines.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 2
The EIR program level analysis is based on a set of assumptions regarding future development that
could occur subsequent to adoption of the Plan. Individual projects that could occur in the future
under the Plan would undergo project level evaluation to determine if they would result in further
impacts specific to the development proposal, the site, and the time of development and additional
environmental review would be required. This EIR project level analysis provides a worst- case
analysis of the limited number of projects identified above based on the proposals provided in the
Plan. To the extent these projects stay within the range of assumptions, impacts, and mitigations
outlined in this EIR, further environmental review would not be required. If new potentially
significant environmental impacts are identified prior to implementation of the projects, the
Planning Department would make a determination as to the level of additional environmental review
required. Long- term public improvements identified in the Plan, but not currently proposed for
approval or implementation, would be subject to additional environmental review when specific
plans have been adopted for each improvement. These projects are listed in Appendix 9- B, Table
B- 2, page 9. B- 15.
Program Level
The Project Area of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan ( Project Area) is located within
northeast San Francisco ( the city). The Project Area lies to the west of the city’s downtown financial
district and is bordered on the northeast by the City’s Civic Center area. The Project Area
encompasses approximately 376 acres of land and 89 Assessor’s Blocks ( in entirety or in part) in an
irregularly shaped area. The Project Area extends two to three blocks in width along Market Street
for ten blocks and extends north along the former Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Street for
ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Project Area boundaries extend from Ninth and Larkin Streets
in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west.
The Plan would govern future developments and public improvements in portions of the Hayes
Valley, Duboce Triangle, South of Market West ( SoMa West), Mid- Market, and Upper Mission
neighborhoods in San Francisco. The Plan proposes a set of land use controls, urban design
guidelines, and public open space and transportation improvements aimed at encouraging new
housing developments and enhancing the existing urban neighborhoods. Implementation of the
Plan could result in an increase of approximately 4,440 new housing units and approximately 60 new
jobs in the Project Area by the year 2025. The Plan was developed based on three primary concepts:
The Plan proposes mixed- use zoning districts and a concentration of activities along established
commercial streets, small- scale neighborhood- serving retail uses clustered at street intersections, and
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 3
other commercial- service uses in residential districts. New housing is encouraged close to transit
and services. Design guidelines are proposed for new private development to activate street
frontages and for public improvements to create safe streets that are at a comfortable scale for
pedestrian use. The Plan contains proposed design guidelines and height limits, which are generally
based on the existing built form for the area and its surroundings and the natural topography of the
land.
The elements of the Plan are summarized below:
Land Use and Urban Form
The Plan would create three new zoning districts: Downtown Residential ( DTR), Residential
Transit- Oriented ( RTO), and Neighborhood Commercial- Transit ( NCT) and would amend the
Hayes- Gough, Upper Market, and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts ( NCDs).
Generally, DTR districts would replace Downtown Office ( C- 3) districts in the area around Market
Street and Van Ness Avenue. NCT would replace existing residential and commercial designations
in moderate density neighborhoods including Hayes Valley, Upper Market Street, and SoMa West
that are well served by transit. RTO districts would replace Residential Mixed- Use ( RM) and
Residential Three- Family ( RH- 3) Districts in the Hayes Valley, SoMa West, and Upper Market Street
neighborhoods. Small areas of existing Residential One- Family ( RH- 1) and Residential Two- Family
( RH- 2) zoning would remain unchanged under the Plan. The proposed zoning changes would
eliminate residential density controls to allow for residential infill within a prescribed building form,
refine height and bulk controls, implement urban design guidelines that preserve mid- block open
spaces and sunlight to streets, and establish building forms compatible with the existing
neighborhood character.
The height rezoning proposed by the Plan would generally allow taller heights around the Van Ness
Avenue and Market Street intersection and in the Civic Center area ( up to a maximum 400 feet at
highest points compared to the existing 320- foot maximum height limit). The proposed Plan would
reduce heights in many established residential areas in Hayes Valley and South of Market and
establish minimum height requirements to encourage the provision of housing on upper floors.
The Plan proposes separate bulk controls for towers above the street wall height ( the height equal to
the width of the street) in the SoMa West area. At the street wall height, up to 100 percent lot
coverage would be allowed for non- residential uses and a 20 percent rear yard would be required at
residential levels. Above the street wall height, tower separation of 82.5 feet would be required with
a 10 percent volume reduction for buildings that are 300 feet or taller.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 4
Overall, the proposed use and height reclassifications would increase the potential for residential
development in the Project Area. This potential would generally be smaller in existing residential
districts and more concentrated in the Van Ness Avenue/ Market Street/ Mission Street/ South Van
Ness Avenue intersection and SoMa West areas and extending out along Market and Mission
Streets.
Housing
The Plan’s proposed policies encourage infill housing development, particularly on the 22 parcels
made available by removal of the Central Freeway. The Plan would encourage preservation of
existing sound housing stock by limiting demolition, removal, or clearing of housing and
discouraging dwelling unit mergers. New housing stock would be encouraged by eliminating
housing density maximums; establishing a minimum residential- to- commercial use ratio of two- to-one
in the DTR district; requiring housing for all building areas above the street wall height in some
areas; encouraging new housing above the second floor; reducing residential parking requirements
and establishing a maximum parking cap; encouraging new accessory units in existing residential
uses through additions or garage conversions, without the requirement for additional parking; and
reducing discretionary review and conditional use requirements for new housing.
Sense of Place
The Plan would encourage buildings that contribute aesthetically to the Project Area and the quality
of public street space. Building and site design would be regulated to control the elements that
affect the overall scale and character, as well as pedestrian activities of the street and neighborhood.
The Planning Code and Zoning Map changes proposed by the Plan would require that most new
buildings be built to the property lines of public rights- of- way; taller buildings have a defined base,
middle, and top; building façades have three- dimensional detailing and high- quality building
materials, and buildings facing on public spaces be articulated with strong vertical elements.
Buildings on sloping sites would be required to step up with the underlying natural topography,
reflecting the city’s natural landforms. Special building elements such as towers would be located at
intersections or near important public spaces. Towers would be recommended to be light in color;
provide wind protection; and be articulated above the street wall height with a change in vertical
plane.
Mixed- use development, with ground- floor retail and visually interesting façades, would be
encouraged on proposed Neighborhood Commercial streets within the Project Area. Limitations
would be proposed on the use of street frontage for parking and garage access. Design guidelines
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 5
for buildings on the alley network in the Project Area would limit garage access and parking and
encourage ground floor residential uses. The NCT and DTR districts would encourage larger
buildings on Market Street with active uses that contribute to the vitality and life as a major civic
space. Residential open space requirements at upper housing levels would be required.
Streets and Open Space
In recognizing the needs of competing travel modes and the constrained capacity of the street
network, the Plan proposes to: reclaim street space for pedestrian use where possible; create new
public open spaces and improve sidewalks; facilitate transit use; and prioritize the safe and effective
movement of people. The Plan recommends traffic calming strategies on residential streets and
alleys, street tree planting, sidewalk widening, street furniture, public art on streets and public spaces,
and new medians and pedestrian refuges.
Transportation
The proposed policies in the Plan would encourage new development to build on the Project Area’s
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit accessibility and discourage driving. Where travel demand is greatest,
street space would be prioritized for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements for efficient
movement of people and goods. The Plan proposes to improve the function and design of essential
transit facilities and transfer nodes.
Transit Improvements
The Plan proposes improvements to transit operations by disallowing curb cuts on transit
preferential streets; upgrading of streetcar platforms on Church Street and Duboce Avenue;
redesigning Muni Metro entrances to impart a sense of identity; and using design treatments, color
overlays, to distinguish transit lanes on Market Street.
Parking
The Plan recognizes that parking availability influences mode choices and therefore proposes to
limit the amount of required on- site parking and discourage new parking facilities. Minimum
parking requirements would be eliminated and replaced by caps on the amount of parking permitted
in new development ( generally 0.75, 0.5, and 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit, for the RTO, NCT, and
DTR districts, respectively, with the ability to increase the amount of parking provided by 0.25
spaces per unit through Conditional Use authorization). These requirements would provide
flexibility to build less than one- to- one parking for the residential developments in areas within
walking distance to transit and services. Minimum required parking for commercial uses would also
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 6
be replaced by maximum parking caps ( equivalent to the current minimum parking requirements) of
about one parking space per 2,500 square feet of commercial use in the NCT and RTO districts and
about one space per 4,500 square feet of commercial use in DTR districts. In the DTR district,
parking would be limited to below grade locations.
Other parking proposals would require changes in citywide parking policy. These proposals include
requiring separate tenant leases for parking; enforcing existing laws forbidding subsidized employee
parking on land leased from third parties; pricing parking in city- owned parking facilities to
encourage short- term use; discouraging new parking facilities in the Project Area; reserving adequate
public parking for the disabled; maintaining sufficient short- term public parking spaces; discouraging
commuter parking; revising the Residential Parking Permit program; providing residential parking
along the curb; accommodating car sharing at feasible locations; eliminating code requirements for
independently accessible parking spaces; and restricting new driveway curb cuts.
Parking policies specific to the Civic Center area include: making access and safety improvements,
including new security personnel at the Civic Center garage; maintaining sufficient parking for
institutions in the area and pricing parking at downtown rates; phasing out public subsidies at
garages serving institutions; relocating and reducing reserved on- street parking around City Hall; and
implementing parking management strategies at public garages, including real time availability and
valet and parking shuttle services at Civic Center Garage.
Bicycle Improvements
Proposed bicycle improvements include a new bike path on the east side of the Central Freeway
touchdown ramp to link the Valencia Street and Octavia Boulevard bike lanes; bike lanes on both
sides of Howard Street to Fourteenth Street; pedestrian scale street lighting and access
improvements on Duboce Avenue; bicycle parking at activity centers and new developments; and
shower and locker facilities in new commercial development.
Traffic Improvements
Traffic improvements proposed in the Plan would include: converting Fell and Hayes Streets to two-way
operations; adding additional southbound capacity on Gough Street south of Market Street; and
separating local and regional traffic on Otis Street. The new Octavia Boulevard ( approved and
under construction) would be the centerpiece of the neighborhood, accommodating both regional
and local traffic.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 7
Infill Development
The Plan encourages development on the former Central Freeway parcels and the parcels at the
corner of Church and Market Streets. These developments would integrate into the physical fabric
of the neighborhood and would add to its character and quality. The redevelopment strategy for
Block 3536, bounded by Market Street, Church Street, and Duboce Avenue ( the Market Street
Safeway site) proposes building a street wall adjacent to Market and Church Streets at a height
appropriate for the street scale and integrating the supermarket into a mixed- use development with
housing.
SoMa West
New zoning would encourage mixed- use high- density residential uses, neighborhood serving retail
services, and a limited amount of office uses on lower floors in SoMa West. Improvements to
pedestrian safety and traffic calming throughout the area and the addition of public open space
through the reclamation of street space for pedestrians are encouraged and major street
improvements on South Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street are proposed in the Plan.
Project Level
Central Freeway Parcels
About seven acres of vacant land have been transferred to the city for infill development under the
Plan as a result of the removal of the elevated Central Freeway. Specific zoning regulations and
development guidelines have been developed for each of the 22 Central Freeway parcels.
Public Street Improvements
The following near- term transportation improvements are evaluated at a project level in this EIR:
§   Converting Fell Street from one- way to two- way operations, with two lanes eastbound and one
lane westbound between Franklin Street and Van Ness Avenue and restriping to provide two
westbound lanes and one lane eastbound between Franklin Street and Octavia Boulevard;
§   Converting Hayes Street from one- way to two- way operation with one lane eastbound and three
lanes westbound between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street and two lanes westbound and
one lane eastbound between Franklin Street and Octavia Boulevard;
§   Converting Gough Street, between Market and Otis Streets from a two- way street with two
lanes in each direction to a two- way street with three lanes southbound and one lane
northbound.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 8
§   Separating regional from local traffic on Otis Street, between South Van Ness Avenue and
Mission Street, through use of a planted median;
§   Prohibiting new curb cuts on transit preferential streets;
§   Creating a bike path at the Central Freeway touchdown to connect the Valencia Street bike lanes
with the improved bike routes along Octavia Boulevard;
§   Installing bike lanes on both sides of Howard Street between Division Street, South Van Ness
Avenue, and Fourteenth Street. Bicycles traveling southbound at the intersection of Howard
and Division Streets would be routed to a stripped box at the front of the crosswalk for storage
during the red- signal phase.
Open Space Improvements
In the near- term, the Plan proposes creation of new public open spaces including: Octavia Plaza on
Market Street adjacent to and to the west of the new Central Freeway touchdown; McCoppin Square
off the McCoppin Street right- of- way west of Valencia Street that was vacated as part of the Central
Freeway Replacement Project; and Brady Park at the center of the block bounded by Market,
Twelfth, Otis and Gough Streets ( at the northeast corner of the Brady and Colton Streets
intersection). These improvements are evaluated at a project level in this EIR.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
The following topics are addressed in this EIR: Plans and Policies; Land Use and Zoning;
Population, Employment, and Housing; Urban Design and Visual Quality; Shadow and Wind;
Historical Resources; Transportation; Air Quality; Noise; Hazardous Materials; Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity; Public Facilities, Services and Utilities; Hydrology; Biology; and Growth Inducement. A
summary of the identified significant impacts and the proposed mitigation measures is included in
Table 1- 1.
Areas of Known Controversy
Preparation of the EIR identified the following areas of controversy or unresolved issues regarding
implementation of the Plan or specific near- term projects.
§   Proposed increases in building heights, particularly in the vicinity of the Market Street/ Van Ness
Avenue intersection could compound existing wind conditions in this area.
§   Mitigation of some significant traffic impacts in the Hayes Valley Neighborhood can only be
achieved if the two- way traffic operations proposed on Hayes Street as part of the Plan are
eliminated.
§   The elimination of minimum residential parking requirements and the establishment of parking
caps in the Project Area remains a controversial issue.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 9
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Shadow and Wind
Shadow - War Memorial Open Space –
Development on Franklin Street
could cast mid- afternoon shadows
year round on this open space that
could result in a potentially significant
impact.
X 5.5. A2:
New buildings and additions to existing buildings in the Project Area
where the building height exceeds 50 feet shall be shaped, consistent
with the dictates of good design and without unduly restricting the
development potential of the site in question, to reduce substantial
shadow impacts on public plazas and other publicly accessible
spaces other than those protected under Section 295 of the Planning
Code.
In determining the impact of shadows, the following factors shall be
taken into account: the amount of area shaded, the duration of the
shadow, and the importance of sunlight to the type of open space
being shaded.
Potentially significant
and unavoidable
impacts.
Shadow - United Nations Plaza –
Incremental shading of the plaza
from towers at the Market Street and
Van Ness Avenue intersection would
occur in late winter afternoons
resulting in a potentially significant
impact.
X 5.5. A2:
New buildings and additions to existing buildings in the Project Area
where the building height exceeds 50 feet shall be shaped, consistent
with the dictates of good design and without unduly restricting the
development potential of the site in question, to reduce substantial
shadow impacts on public plazas and other publicly accessible
spaces other than those protected under Section 295 of the Planning
Code.
In determining the impact of shadows, the following factors shall be
taken into account: the amount of area shaded, the duration of the
shadow, and the importance of sunlight to the type of open space
being shaded.
Potentially significant
and unavoidable
impacts.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 10
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Wind - The Plan would result in a
potentially significant wind impact
due to the potential for development
of major buildings in the Project
Area, particularly those allowed up to
400 feet around the Market Street and
Van Ness Avenue intersection.
X X 5.5. B1:
To minimize adverse wind impacts related to new development,
design guidelines shall be required as part of the proposed Plan for
buildings in excess of 85 feet in height. Guidelines shall include the
following requirements:
§   Where possible, align long axis or faces of the buildings along
a west- east alignment to reduce exposure of the wide faces of
the building to westerly winds. Utilize wind shelter offered by
existing upwind structures as much as possible. Avoid
continuous western building faces.
§   Articulate and modulate southwest, west and northwest
building faces through the use of architectural techniques
such as surface articulation, variation of planes, wall surfaces
and heights, as well as the placement of stepbacks and other
features. Substantial setbacks in west- facing facades ( at lower
levels) are an effective means of reducing the amount of
ground- level wind induced by a building.
§   Utilize properly located landscaping to mitigate winds in all
pedestrian open spaces. Porous materials ( vegetation, hedges,
screens, latticework, perforated or expanded metal) offer
superior wind shelter compared to a solid surface.
§   Avoid narrow gaps between buildings, which may accelerate
westerly winds.
§   Avoid “ breezeways” or notches at the upwind corners of the
building, which may focus wind energy at pedestrian levels.
Less than significant
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 11
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
5.5. B2
The following standards for reduction of ground - level wind currents
shall be applied to all new construction in the Project Area:
§   New building and additions to existing buildings shall be
shaped, or other wind baffling measures shall be adopted, so
that the development will not cause year- round ground- level
wind currents to exceed, more than 10 percent of the time
between 7: 00 AM and 6: 00 PM, the comfort level of 11 mph
equivalent wind speed in areas of pedestrian use and seven
mph equivalent wind speed in public seating areas. When
pre- existing ambient wind speeds exceed the comfort levels
specified above, the building shall be designed to reduce the
ambient wind speeds in efforts to meet the goals of this
requirement.
§   An exception to this requirement may be permitted, but only
if and to the extent that the project sponsor demonstrates
that the building or ad dition cannot be shaped or wind
baffling measures cannot be adopted without unduly
restricting the development potential of the building site in
question.
- The exception may permit the building or addition to
increase the time that the comfort level is exceeded, but
only to the extent necessary to avoid undue restriction of
the development potential of the site.
- Notwithstanding the above, no exception shall be allowed
and no building or addition shall be permitted that causes
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 12
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
equivalent wind speeds to reach or exceed the hazard level
of 26 mph for a single hour of the year.
§   For the purpose of this Section, the term “ equivalent wind
speed” shall mean an hourly wind speed adjusted to
incorporate the effects of gustiness or turbulence on
pedestrians.
Historical Resources
Archaeological – Soils Disturbing
Activities in Archaeological Documented
Properties
The proposed higher residential
densities, elimination of residential
density limits, and increased
subsurface excavation associated with
infill development on several blocks
within the Project Area: 817, 831,
832, 838, 839, 853, 855, 3502, 3503,
3507, 3513, and 3514, which include
the following Central Freeway
parcels, A, C, H, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q,
R, S, T, U, and V, could have a
potentially significant adverse impact
on archaeological documented
resources.
X X 5.6. A1:
This measure shall apply to those properties within the Project Area
for which a final Archaeological Research Design/ Treatment Plan
( ARD/ TP) is on file in the Northwest Information Center and the
Planning Department. Properties subject to this Mitigation Measure
include all lots within the following Assessor’s Blocks: 817, 831,
832, 838, 839, 853, 855, 3502, 3503, 3507, 3513, and 3514, which
also include the Central Freeway Parcels: A, C, H, K, L, M, N, O, P,
Q, R, S, T, U, and V.
Any soils- disturbing activities proposed within this area shall be
required to submit an addendum to the respective ARD/ TP
prepared by a qualified archaeological consultant with expertise in
California prehistoric and urban historical archaeology to the
Environmental Review Officer ( ERO) for review and approval.
The addendum to the ARD/ TP shall evaluate the potential effects
of the project on legally- significant archaeological resources with
respect to the site- and project- specific information absent in the
ARD/ TP. The addendum report to the ARD/ TP shall have the
following content:
Less than significant
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 13
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
1. Summary: Description of subsurface effect of the proposed
project and of previous soils- disturbing activities;
2. Historical Development: If demographic data for the project
site is absent in the discussion in the ARD/ TP, the addendum
shall include new demographic data regarding former site
occupants;
3. Identification of potential archaeological resources: Discussion
of any identified potential prehistoric or historical
archaeological resources;
4. Integrity and Significance: Eligibility of identified expected
resources for listing to the California Register of Historical
Resources ( CRHR); Identification of Applicable Research
Themes/ Questions ( in the ARD/ TP) that would be addressed
by the expected archaeological resources that are identified;
5. Impacts of Proposed Project;
6. Potential Soils Hazards: Update discussion for proposed
project;
7. Archaeological Testing Plan ( if archaeological testing is
determined warranted): the Archaeological Testing Plan ( ATP)
shall include:
A. Proposed archaeological testing strategies and their
justification
B. Expected archaeological resources
C. For historic archaeological resources
1) Historic address or other location identification
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 14
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
2) Archaeological property type
D. For all archaeological resources
1) Estimate depth below the surface
2) Expected integrity
3) Preliminary assessment of eligibility to the CRHR
E. ATP Map
1) Location of expected archaeological resources
2) Location of expected project sub- grade impacts
3) Areas of prior soils disturbance
4) Archaeological testing locations by type of testing
5) Base map: 1886/ 7 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
map
Archaeological – General Soils Disturbing
Activities
Construction activities on those
properties that have no
Archaeological Assessment Report or
for minor soils disturbance in the
Mission Delores Archaeological
District could significantly impact
archaeological resources.
X X 5.6. A2:
This measure shall apply to any project involving any soils-disturbing
activities including excavation, installation of foundations
or utilities or soils remediation and located within those properties
within the Project Area for which no archaeological assessment
report has been prepared. This mitigation measure shall also apply
to projects within the Mission Dolores Archaeological District
( MDAD) involving only minor soils disturbance ( three feet or less
below the existing surface).
For projects to which this mitigation measure applies, a Preliminary
Archaeological Sensitivity Study ( PASS) shall be prepared by an
archaeological consultant with expertise in California prehistoric and
Less than significant
at program level;
may require further
evaluation of
archaeological
resources at a project
level.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 15
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
urban historical archaeology. The PASS shall contain the following:
1. The historical uses of the project site based on any previous
archaeological documentation and Sanborn maps;
2. Types of archaeological resources/ properties that may have
been located within the project site and whether the
archaeological resources/ property types would potentially be
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources ( CRHR);
3. If 19th or 20th century soils- disturbing activities may adversely
affect the identified potential archaeological resources;
4. Assessment of potential project effects in relation to the depth
of any identified potential archaeological resource;
5. Assessment of whether any CRHR- eligible archaeological
resources could be adversely affected by the proposed project
and, as warranted, appropriate action.
Based on the PASS, the Environmental Review Officer ( ERO) shall
determine if an Archaeological Research Design/ Treatment Plan
( ARD/ TP) shall be required to more definitively identify the
potential for CRHR- eligible archaeological resources and determine
the appropriate action necessary to reduce the potential effect of the
project on archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
The scope of the ARD/ TP shall be determined in consultation with
the ERO and consistent with the standards for archaeological
documentation established by the State Office of Historic
Preservation for purposes of compliance with CEQA.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 16
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Archaeological – Soils Disturbing
Activities in Public Street and Open Space
Improvements
Public street and open space
improvements could have a
potentially significant adverse impact
on archaeological resources as a result
of soil disturbances in excess of four
feet.
X X 5.6. A3:
This measure shall apply to the proposed public street and open
space improvement projects proposed in the Plan involving soils
disturbance in excess of four feet in depth.
The project sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified
archaeological consultant having expertise in California prehistoric
and urban historical archaeology. The archaeological consultant shall
undertake an archaeological monitoring program. All plans and
reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be
submitted first and directly to the Environmental Review Officer
( ERO) for review and comment, and shall be considered draft
reports subject to revision until final approval by the ERO.
Archaeological monitoring and/ or data recovery programs required
by this measure could suspend construction of the project for up to
a maximum of four weeks. At the direction of the ERO, the
suspension of construction can be extended beyond four weeks only
if such a suspension is the only feasible means to reduce to a less
than significant level potential effects on a significant archaeological
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 ( a)( c).
Archaeological Monitoring Program ( AMP)
The archaeological monitoring program shall, at a minimum, include
the following provisions:
1. The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall
meet and consult on the scope of the Archaeological
Monitoring Program ( AMP) reasonably prior to any project-related
soils disturbing activities commencing. The ERO, in
Less than significant
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 17
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
consultation with the project archaeologist, shall determine
what project activities shall be archaeologically monitored.
2. The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors
to be on the alert for evidence of the presence of the expected
resource( s), of how to identify the evidence of the expected
resource( s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of
apparent discovery of an archaeological resource;
3. The archaeological monitor( s) shall be present on the project
site according to a schedule agreed upon by the archaeological
consultant and the ERO until the ERO has, in consultation
with the archaeological consultant, determined that project
construction activities could have no effects on significant
archaeological deposits;
4. The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to
collect soil samples and artifactual/ ecofactual material as
warranted for analysis;
5. If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils
disturbing activities in the vicinity of the deposit shall cease.
The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily
redirect potentially damaging activity until the deposit is
evaluated. The archaeological consultant shall immediately
notify the ERO of the encountered archaeological deposit. The
archaeological consultant shall, after making a reasonable effort
to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the
encountered archaeological deposit, present the findings of this
assessment to the ERO.
If the ERO, in consultation with the archaeological consultant,
determines that a significant archaeological resource is present and
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 18
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
determines that a significant archaeological resource is present and
that the resource could be adversely affected by the proposed
project, at the discretion of the project sponsor either:
§   The proposed project shall be redesigned so as to avoid any
adverse effect on the significant archaeological resource; or
§   An archaeological data recovery program shall be
implemented, unless the ERO determines that the
archaeological resource is of greater interpretive than research
significance and that interpretive use of the resource is
feasible.
If an archaeological data recovery program is required by the ERO,
the archaeological data recovery program shall be conducted in
accord with an Archaeological Data Recovery Plan ( ADRP). The
project archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall
meet and consult on the scope of the ADRP. The archaeological
consultant shall prepare a draft ADRP that shall be submitted to the
ERO for review and approval. The ADRP shall identify how the
proposed data recovery program will preserve the significant
information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. That
is, the ADRP will identify what scientific/ historical research
questions are applicable to the expected resource, what data classes
the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data
classes would address the applicable research questions. Data
recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the historical
property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project.
Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 19
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are
practical.
The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements:
§   Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field
strategies, procedures, and operations.
§   Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected
cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures.
§   Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for
field and post- field discard and deaccession policies.
§   Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on- site/ off- site public
interpretive program during the course of the archaeological
data recovery program.
§   Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect
the archaeological resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally
damaging activities.
§   Final Report. Description of proposed report format and
distribution of results.
§   Curation. Description of the procedures and
recommendations for the curation of any recovered data
having potential research value, identification of appropriate
curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of
the curation facilities.
Human Remains, Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 20
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated
funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing activity shall
comply with applicable State and Federal Laws, including immediate
notification of the Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco
and in the event of the Coroner’s determination that the human
remains are Native American remains, notification of the California
State Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) who shall
appoint a Most Likely Descendant ( MLD) ( Public Resources Code
§ 5097.98). The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and
MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for
the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and
associated or unassociated funerary objects ( CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064.5( d)). The agreement shall take into consideration the
appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, curation,
possession, and final disposition of the human remains and
associated or unassociated funerary objects.
Final Archaeological Resources Report.
The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft Final
Archaeological Resources Report ( FARR) to the ERO that
evaluates the historical of any discovered archaeological resource
and describes the archaeological and historical research methods
employed in the archaeological testing/ monitoring/ data recovery
program( s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any
archaeological resource shall be provided in a separate removable
insert within the draft final report.
Copies of the Draft FARR shall be sent to the ERO for review and
approval. Once approved by the ERO copies of the FARR shall be
distributed as follows: California Archaeological Site Survey
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 21
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
distributed as follows: California Archaeological Site Survey
Northwest Information Center ( NWIC) shall receive one copy and
the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the
NWIC. The Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning
Department shall receive two copies of the FARR along with copies
of any formal site recordation forms ( CA DPR 523 series) and/ or
documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places/ California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of
high public interest or interpretive value, the ERO may require a
different final report content, format, and distribution than that
presented above.
Archaeological – Soils Disturbing
Activities in the Mission Dolores
Archaeological District
The increase in residential densities
and subsurface basements would
increase the potential for soil
disturbances which could adversely
affect archaeological resources within
the Mission Dolores Archaeological
District.
X 5.6. A4:
This measure applies to any project within the Mission Dolores
Archaeological District ( MDAD) involving installation of
foundations, construction of a subgrade or partial subgrade structure
including garage, basement, etc, grading, soils remediation,
installation of utilities, or any other activities resulting in substantial
soils disturbance.
The project sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified
archaeological consultant having expertise in California prehistoric
and urban historical archaeology. The archaeological consultant
shall undertake an archaeological testing program as specified herein.
In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an
archaeological monitoring and/ or data recovery program if required
pursuant to this measure. The archaeological consultant’s work shall
be conducted in accordance with this measure at the direction of the
Environmental Review Officer ( ERO). All plans and reports
Less than significant
at program level;
may require further
evaluation of
archaeological
resources for project
level.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 22
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted
first and directly to the ERO for review and comment, and shall be
considered draft reports subject to revision until final approval by
the ERO. Archaeological monitoring and/ or data recovery
programs required by this measure could suspend construction of
the project for up to a maximum of four weeks. At the direction of
the ERO, the suspension of construction can be extended beyond
four weeks only if such a suspension is the only feasible means to
reduce to a less- than- significant level potential effects on a
significant archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064.5 ( a)( c).
Archaeological Testing Program
The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit, as
determined by the ERO, either an Archaeological Research
Design/ Testing Plan ( ARD/ TP) or an Archaeological Testing Plan
( ATP) to the ERO for review and approval. The archaeological
testing program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved
ARD/ TP or ATP. The ARD/ TP or ATP shall identify the property
types of the expected archaeological resource( s) that potentially
could be adversely affected by the proposed project, the testing
method to be used, and the locations recommended for testing. The
purpose of the archaeological testing program will be to determine
to the extent possible the presence or absence of archaeological
resources and to identify and to evaluate whether any archaeological
resource encountered on the site constitutes an historical resource
under CEQA.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 23
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the
archaeological consultant shall submit a written report of the
findings to the ERO. If based on the archaeological testing program
the archaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological
resources may be present, the ERO in consultation with the
archaeological consultant shall determine if additional measures are
warranted. Additional measures that may be undertaken include
additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring, and/ or
an archaeological data recovery program. If the ERO determines
that a significant archaeological resource is present and that the
resource could be adversely affected by the proposed project, at the
discretion of the project sponsor either:
1. The proposed project shall be re- designed so as to avoid any
adverse effect on the significant archaeological resource; or
2. A data recovery program shall be implemented, unless the ERO
determines that the archaeological resource is of greater
interpretive than research significance and that interpretive use
of the resource is feasible.
Archaeological Monitoring Program
If the ERO, in consultation with the archaeological consultant,
determines that an archaeological monitoring program shall be
implemented, the archaeological monitoring program shall
minimally include the following provisions:
1. The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall
meet and consult on the scope of the AMP reasonably prior to
any project- related soils disturbing activities commencing. The
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 24
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant shall
determine what project activities shall be archaeologically
monitored. In most cases, any soils- disturbing activities, such
as demolition, foundation removal, excavation, grading, utilities
installation, foundation work, driving of piles ( foundation,
shoring, etc.), site remediation, etc., shall require archaeological
monitoring because of the risk these activities pose to potential
archaeological resources and to their depositional context;
2. The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors
to be on the alert for evidence of the presence of the expected
resource( s), of how to identify the evidence of the expected
resource( s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of
apparent discovery of an archaeological resource;
3. The archaeological monitor( s) shall be present on the project
site according to a schedule agreed upon by the archaeological
consultant and the ERO until the ERO has, in consultation
with project archaeological consultant, determined that project
construction activities could have no effects on significant
archaeological deposits;
4. The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to
collect soil samples and artifactual/ ecofactual material as
warranted for analysis;
5. If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing
activities in the vicinity of the deposit shall cease.
The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to temporarily
redirect demolition/ excavation/ pile driving/ construction
activities and equipment until the deposit is evaluated. If in the
case of pile driving activity ( foundation, shoring, etc.), the
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 25
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
case of pile driving activity ( foundation, shoring, etc.), the
archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the pile driving
activity may affect an archaeological resource, the pile driving
activity shall be terminated until an appropriate evaluation of
the resource has been made in consultation with the ERO. The
archaeological consultant shall immediately notify the ERO of
the encountered archaeological deposit. The archaeological
consultant shall make a reasonable effort to assess the identity,
integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological
deposit, and present the findings of this assessment to the
ERO.
Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered,
the archaeological consultant shall submit a written report of the
findings of the monitoring program to the ERO.
Archaeological Data Recovery Program
The archaeological data recovery program shall be conducted in
accord with an archaeological data recovery plan ( ADRP). The
archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and
consult on the scope of the ADRP prior to preparation of a draft
ADRP. The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ADRP to
the ERO. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery
program will preserve the significant information the archaeological
resource is expected to contain. That is, the ADRP will identify
what scientific/ historical research questions are applicable to the
expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to
possess, and how the expected data classes would address the
applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, should be
limited to the portions of the historical property that could be
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 26
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
limited to the portions of the historical property that could be
adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data
recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the
archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practical.
The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements:
§   Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field
strategies, procedures, and operations.
§   Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected
cataloguing system and artifact analysis procedures.
§   Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for
field and post- field discard and deaccession policies.
§   Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on- site/ off- site public
interpretive program during the course of the archaeological
data recovery program.
§   Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect
the archaeological resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally
damaging activities.
§   Final Report. Description of proposed report format and
distribution of results.
§   Curation. Description of the procedures and
recommendations for the curation of any recovered data
having potential research value, identification of appropriate
curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 27
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
the curation facilities.
Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects
The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated
funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing activity shall
comply with applicable State and Federal laws. This shall include
immediate notification of the Coroner of the City and County of
San Francisco and in the event of the Coroner’s determination that
the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the
California State Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC)
who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant ( MLD) ( Public Resources
Code § 5097.98). The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and
MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for
the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and
associated or unassociated funerary objects ( CEQA Guidelines
§ 15064.5( d)). The agreement should take into consideration the
appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis,
custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains
and associated or unassociated funerary objects. If non- Native
American human remains are encountered, the archaeological
consultant, the ERO, and the Office of the Coroner shall consult on
the development of a plan for appropriate analysis and recordation
of the remains and associated burial items since human remains,
both Native American and non- Native American, associated with
the Mission Dolores complex ( 1776- 1850s) are of significant
archaeological research value and would be eligible to the CRHR.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 28
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Final Archaeological Resources Report
The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft Final
Archaeological Resources Report ( FARR) to the ERO that evaluates
the historical significance of any discovered archaeological resource
and describes the archaeological and historical research methods
employed in the archaeological testing/ monitoring/ data recovery
program( s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any
archaeological resource shall be provided in a separate removable
insert within the final report.
Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be
distributed as follows: California Archaeological Site Survey
Northwest Information Center ( NWIC) shall receive one ( 1) copy
and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to
the NWIC. The Major Environmental Analysis division of the
Planning Department shall receive three copies of the FARR along
with copies of any formal site recordation forms ( CA DPR 523
series) and/ or documentation for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places/ California Register of Historical
Resources. In instances of high public interest in or the high
interpretive value of the resource, the ERO may require a different
final report content, format, and distribution than that presented
above.
5.7 Transportation
Traffic – Hayes/ Gough Streets
Intersection
The Hayes/ Gough Streets
X X 5.7. A:
To mitigate the 2025 with Plan and 2025 with Central Freeway
Parcel/ Near- Term Transportation Improvements intersection
Significant and
unavoidable impact,
unless the existing
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 29
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
intersection would degrade from LOS
C to LOS F in the PM peak hour,
resulting in a significant impact.
operating conditions at the intersections of Hayes and Gough
Streets, an additional westbound travel lane would be required.
With the reestablished westbound travel lane ( and no eastbound
lanes), 2025 with Plan conditions at this intersection would improve
to LOS C.
This mitigation measure would effectively eliminate the Plan’s
proposed changes along Hayes Street ( which would provide an
eastbound lane on Hayes Street between Gough Street and Van
Ness Avenue by eliminating a westbound lane). As such, in order to
maintain acceptable intersection level of service operations, the Plan
could not be implemented on Hayes Street.
street configuration
is maintained.
Traffic – Hayes/ Franklin Streets
Intersection
The Hayes/ Franklin Streets
intersection would degrade from LOS
D to LOS F in the PM peak hour,
resulting in a significant impact.
X X 5.7. B:
To mitigate the 2025 with Plan and 2025 with Central Freeway
Parcel/ Near- Term Transportation Improvements intersection
operating conditions at the intersections of Hayes and Franklin
Streets, an additional westbound travel lane would be required.
With the reestablished westbound travel lane ( and no eastbound
lanes), 2025 with Plan conditions at this intersection would improve
to LOS D.
This mitigation measure would effectively eliminate the Plan’s
proposed changes along Hayes Street ( which would provide an
eastbound lane on Hayes Street between Gough Street and Van
Ness Avenue by eliminating a westbound lane). As such, in order to
maintain acceptable intersection levels of service operations, the
Plan could not be implemented on Hayes Street.
Significant and
unavoidable impact,
unless the existing
street configuration
is maintained.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 30
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Traffic – Laguna/ Market/ Hermann/
Guerrero Streets Intersection
The Laguna/ Market/ Hermann/
Guerrero Streets intersection would
degrade from LOS D to LOS E in
the PM peak hour, resulting in a
significant impact.
X 5.7. C:
To improve operating conditions to acceptable levels and mitigate
impacts, new protected left- turns could be provided for northbound
Guerrero Street and southwest- bound Market Street. At both
locations, the left- turn movements already have pockets; as such,
new signals would be required to provide the protected left- turn
phases. Implementation of signal timing changes would be
dependent upon an assessment of transit and traffic coordination
along Market Street to ensure that the changes would not
substantially affect Muni bus operations, signal progressions,
pedestrian minimum green time requirements, and programming
limitations of signals.
Significant and
unavoidable impact,
as the feasibility of
the signal timing
changes has not been
fully assessed.
Traffic – Market/ Sanchez/ Fifteenth
Streets Intersection
Market/ Sanchez/ Fifteenth Streets
intersection ( LOS E) would
experience increased delays in the PM
peak hour, resulting in a significant
impact.
X 5.7. D:
Minor changes to the signal timing at the intersection of
Market/ Sanchez/ Fifteenth Streets to allow more time for impacted
movements may improve intersection conditions. Implementation
of signal timing changes would be dependent upon an assessment of
transit and traffic coordination along Market Street to ensure that
the changes would not substantially affect Muni bus operations,
signal progressions, pedestrian minimum green time requirements,
and programming limitations of signals.
The addition of a right- turn pocket on the westbound approach on
Fifteenth Street, in conjunction with the signal retiming, would
improve intersection operations to LOS D.
Significant and
unavoidable impact,
as the feasibility of
the signal timing
changes has not been
fully assessed.
Traffic – Market/ Church/ Fourteenth
Streets Intersection
X 5.7. E:
Minor changes to the signal timing at the intersection of Market/
Significant and
unavoidable impact,
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 31
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Market/ Church/ Fourteenth Streets
intersection ( LOS E) would
experience increased delays in the PM
peak hour, resulting in a significant
impact.
Church/ Fourteenth Streets to allow more time for impacted
movements may improve intersection conditions. Implementation
of signal timing changes would be dependent upon an assessment of
transit and traffic coordination along Market Street to ensure that
the changes would not substantially affect Muni bus operations,
signal progressions, pedestrian minimum green time requirements,
and programming limitations of signals.
as the feasibility of
the signal timing
changes has not been
fully assessed.
Traffic – Mission Street/ Otis Street/
South Van Ness Avenue Intersection
Mission Street/ Otis Street/ South
Van Ness Avenue intersection ( LOS
F) would experience increased delays
in the PM peak hour, resulting in a
significant impact.
X 5.7. F:
Minor changes to the signal timing at the intersection of Mission
Street/ Otis Street/ South Van Ness Avenue to allow more time for
impacted movements may improve intersection conditions.
Implementation of signal timing changes would be dependent upon
an assessment of transit and traffic coordination along South Van
Ness Avenue and Mission Streets to ensure that the changes would
not substantially affect Muni bus operations, signal progressions,
pedestrian minimum green time requirements, and programming
limitations of signals.
It may be possible to add right- turn pockets to the southbound
approach on Mission Street and the northbound approach on South
Van Ness Avenue in conjunction with the signal timing changes.
Under 2025 with Plan conditions, with this change, the level of
service would be LOS F with less delay than under 2025 without
Plan conditions.
Significant and
unavoidable impact,
as the feasibility of
the signal timing
changes has not been
fully assessed.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 32
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Traffic – Hayes Street/ Van Ness Avenue
Intersection
Hayes Street/ Van Ness Avenue
intersection ( LOS F) would
experience increased delays in the PM
peak hour, resulting in a significant
impact.
X 5.7. G:
At the intersection of Hayes Street and Van Ness Avenue, under
2025 without Plan conditions the intersection would operate at LOS
F. Under 2025 with Plan conditions, delay would increase due to
configurations changes and as the Plan would add vehicles to
impacted movements ( northbound and southbound through on
Van Ness Avenue). In order to improve operating conditions to
acceptable conditions and mitigate impacts, two alternative
mitigation measures are possible. Each of these mitigation measures
would be made in conjunction with mitigations at the Hayes Street
intersections with Franklin and Gough Streets.
5.7. G1
The westbound travel lane could be reestablished, which would
eliminate the Plan’s proposed changes to Hayes Street. With the
reestablished westbound travel lane ( and no eastbound lanes), 2025
with Plan conditions would improve the level of service at the
intersections of Hayes Street with Van Ness Avenue, Franklin
Street, and Gough Street to 2025 without Plan conditions.
This mitigation measure would effectively eliminate the Plan’s
proposed changes along Hayes Street ( which would provide an
eastbound lane on Hayes Street between Gough Street and Van
Ness Avenue by eliminating a westbound lane). As such, in order to
maintain acceptable intersection levels of service operations, the
Plan could not be implemented on Hayes Street.
5.7. G2
Changes could be made to traffic patterns. The Plan calls for Hayes
Significant and
unavoidable impact,
as the feasibility of
the signal timing
changes has not been
fully assessed.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 33
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Street to be converted from one- way to two- way operations with the
elimination of one westbound lane and the creation of one
eastbound lane between Van Ness Avenue and Gough Street. This
change would enhance local circulation but would substantially
affect conditions in the corridor. To improve the situation, vehicles
traveling westbound at Hayes Street/ Van Ness Avenue intersection
and destined for westbound Fell Street would need to be re-distributed
to other east- west streets. Westbound vehicles on Fell
Street could be re- distributed from Hayes Street to Fell Street via
southbound Van Ness Avenue. Westbound vehicles on Fell Street
could be redistributed from Hayes Street to Fell Street via
southbound Van Ness Avenue. As such, these vehicles would not
travel through the impacted intersections of Hayes Street at Franklin
and Gough Streets, thereby mitigating the significant impacts.
To determine a redistribution plan, an origin- destination study
would need to be conducted of the current routing of vehicles. This
study would determine the best way to re- route vehicles from Van
Ness Avenue and Franklin, Hayes, and Fell Streets and the effects of
re- routing to all streets in the immediate vicinity. It is likely that in
addition to a re- routing plan, some intersection improvements
would be needed, including:
§   Geometric changes, such as a southbound right- turn pocket
at Van Ness Avenue/ Fell Street, an eastbound left- turn
pocket at Franklin/ Fell Streets, and a westbound left- turn
pocket at Fell/ Gough Streets.
§   Signal timing changes may be necessary to provide additional
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 34
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
time for east- west movements.
As a result of the combination of these improvements, it may be
possible to mitigate the Plan’s significant impacts at the intersections
of Hayes Street/ Van Ness Avenue, Hayes/ Franklin Streets, and
Hayes/ Gough Streets.
Transit – Transit Service Degradation
Degradation to transit service would
occur as a result of increase in delays
at Hayes Street intersections at Van
Ness Avenue ( LOS F to LOS F with
increased delays); Franklin Street
( LOS D to LOS F); and Gough
Street ( LOS C to LOS F) PM peak
hour
X X 5.7. H:
§   Changes could be made to the street configuration and traffic
patterns, as presented above in the traffic mitigation measures
5.7. A., 5.7. B., and 5.7. G.
§   Instead of re- routing vehicles from westbound Hayes Street
to southbound Van Ness Avenue and westbound Fell Street,
similar measures could be taken to re- route the Hayes- 21 bus
along the same path. With this plan, the 21- Hayes would
continue westbound on Fell Street to Laguna Street, where it
would turn northbound and return to Hayes Street
westbound. By avoiding the intersections of Hayes/ Franklin
Streets and Hayes/ Gough Streets, the 21- Hayes would not be
impacted by the Plan. To implement this measure, an
assessment of transit coordination would need to be
conducted by Muni to ensure that these changes would not
substantially affect Muni vehicles operations. The 21- Hayes
vehicles are trolley coaches and in order to re- route this
service it would be necessary to add overhead wires to the
new route. There would be other issues with this mitigation,
including possible operating delays and costs, and confusion
for transit riders expecting the 21- Hayes to remain on Hayes
Street.
Significant and
unavoidable impact,
as the feasibility of
the signal timing
changes has not been
fully assessed.
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 35
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Street.
Air Quality
Air Quality – Particulate Emissions
During Construction
Construction activities in the Project
Area and on specific projects would
result in short- term PM10 and PM 2.5,
emissions.
X X 5.8. A:
Program or project level construction activities in the Project Area
shall be required to implement particulate emission mitigations
recommended by the BAAQMD. These measures include:
§   Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. To
meet the City’s Ordinance 175- 91 requirements for the use of
non- potable water for dust control, established May 6, 1991,
contractors shall be required to obtain reclaimed water from
the Clean Water Program for this purpose.
§   Cover all trucks hauling loose materials and require all trucks
to maintain a two- foot freeboard.
§   Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non- toxic soil
stabilization to all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at construction sites.
§   Sweep daily ( with water sweepers) all paved access roads,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
§   Sweep daily ( with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
§   Hydroseed or apply ( non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas ( previously graded areas inactive for ten
days or more).
§   Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply ( non- toxic) soil
Less than significant
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 36
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
binders to exposed stockpiles ( dirt, sand, etc.).
§   Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
§   Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent
silt runoff to public roadway.
§   Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
§   Install wheel washers or wash down the wheels of all trucks
exiting the site.
§   Install windbreaks, or plant tress/ vegetative windbreaks at
windward sides of construction areas.
§   Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds
( instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
Air Quality – Short- Term Exhaust
Emissions
Construction activities in the Project
Area and on specific projects would
result in short- term emissions related
to operation of fossil fuel burning
equipment.
X X 5.8. B:
To reduce program or project level short- term exhaust emissions
from construction equipment, the following mitigation measures
shall be implemented for construction activities in the Project Area.
§   Confine idle time of combustion engine construction
equipment to five minutes at the construction site.
§   Maintain and properly tune construction equipment in
accordance to manufacturer’s specifications.
§   Use alternative fueled or electrical construction equipment at
the project site when feasible.
§   Use the minimum practical engine size for construction
Less than significant
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 37
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
equipment.
§   Equip gasoline- powered construction equipment with
catalytic converters when feasible.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials – Construction
Activities
The proposed development would
increase the potential for demolition
and renovation activities within the
Project Area. To the extent that the
Plan would encourage new
construction, temporary impacts or
risks would occur during the
demolition phase of development
induced by the Plan or project
development.
X X 5.10. A:
Program or project level mitigation measures would vary depending
upon the type and extent of contamination associated with each
individual project. Mitigation measures to protect the community
generally shall include:
§   Airborne particulates will be minimized by wetting exposed
soils, as appropriate, containing runoff, and tarping over-night
and weekends.
§   Storage stockpiles shall be minimized, where practical, and
properly labeled and secured.
§   Vehicle speeds across unpaved areas shall not exceed 15 mph
to reduce dust emissions.
§   Activities shall be conducted so as not to track contaminants
beyond the regulated area.
§   Misting, fogging, or periodic dampening shall be utilized to
minimize fugitive dust, as appropriate.
§   Containments and regulated areas shall be properly
maintained.
Less than significant
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
1.0 Summary
Chapter 1.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
1- 38
TABLE 1- 1:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Program
Level
Project
Level
Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Significance
Determination
Soils – Construction Activities
Soil exposed during construction may
be subject to erosion.
X X 5.11. A:
Program or project level temporary construction related impacts
would be mitigated through the implementation of the following
measures:
Best Management Practices ( BMP) erosion control features shall be
developed with the following objectives and basic strategy:
§   Protect disturbed areas through minimization and duration of
exposure.
§   Control surface runoff and maintain low runoff velocities.
§   Trap sediment on- site.
§   Minimize length and steepness of slopes.
Less than significant
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
2- 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project and EIR Overview
The proposed project and subject of this Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) is the Draft Market
and Octavia Neighborhood Plan ( hereinafter referred to as the Plan). 1 The Plan is an outgrowth of a
general planning approach initiated by the Planning Department in the late 1990’ s to address
housing and job needs and identify positive land use characteristics and qualities of San Francisco
that might be replicated in future development. The Better Neighborhood Program identified three
neighborhoods experiencing development pressures, where positive models for providing housing
through transit- oriented development could be introduced. The Market and Octavia neighborhood
was one of the three communities identified by this program.
The Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan is the product of a three- year community planning
effort led by the Planning Department’s Better Neighborhoods Program. The Plan proposes a set
of land use controls, urban design guidelines, and public street and open space improvements aimed
at encouraging new housing developments and enhancing urban neighborhoods.
The Plan is an implementation tool for the San Francisco General Plan. 2 It establishes a policy
framework for new zoning and planning code controls for the Market Octavia project area
( hereinafter referred to as the Project Area), including urban design guidelines, housing policies, and
public space and transportation improvements.
2.2 CEQA Review
The California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) applies to all discretionary activities to be carried out
or approved by a public agency in the State of California. Under the San Francisco Administrative Code,
Chapter 31, the Planning Department’s Office of Environmental Review is responsible for CEQA
review of all City and County of San Francisco projects and serves as the lead agency.
1 The Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Draft for Public Review was published by the San Francisco Planning
Department in December 2002. Copies of the report are available for public review at the San Francisco Planning
Department, 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco.
2 San Francisco General Plan, last revised on January 15, 1998.
2.0 Introduction
Chapter 2.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
2- 2
Based on preliminary review of the Plan and the environmental review application, the Planning
Department Office of Environmental Review ( known as the Major Environmental Analysis [ MEA]
division) determined that the Plan constituted a project under CEQA and that implementation of
the Plan and its associated public improvements may result in significant environmental impacts.
Preparation of an EIR is therefore required.
MEA held a public scoping meeting for the EIR on November 18, 2003. A public transcript of the
meeting was prepared. Written comments were also received by the Planning Department during
and following the public scoping meeting. The Planning Department published a Notice of
Preparation ( NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report on January 23, 2004. Copies of the public
meeting notice and the NOP are included in Appendix A.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063, no Initial Study was prepared as an EIR was
clearly required. The following topics are addressed in this EIR: Land Use and Zoning; Population,
Housing and Employment; Urban Design and Visual Quality; Shadow and Wind; Historical
Resources; Transportation; Air Quality; Noise; Hazardous Materials; Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity; Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities; Hydrology and Biology; and Growth Inducement.
This EIR has been prepared under the direction of MEA and responds to comments that were
raised during the public scoping process.
This EIR is a “ program” EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168. A program EIR
may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project that are related
geographically; as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; and in connection with issuance
of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program.
The program EIR enables the lead agency ( the Planning Department) to examine the overall effects
of a proposed program ( the Plan) and to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental effects related to
that program. The lead agency would be required to examine the individual activities, proposed
within the program, to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in the program EIR. If
the activities would have no effects beyond those analyzed in the program EIR, the lead agency
could determine that no further CEQA compliance would be required. If the activities would have
effects not examined in the program EIR, then additional environmental review would be required.
Appendix B includes a listing of all of the recommended Plan policies for land use improvements in
the Project Area and the transportation improvements that are analyzed at a program level.
This EIR is also a project level EIR. In addition to analyzing the Plan at a program level, this EIR
analyzes the development of 22 Central Freeway parcels and a limited number of proposed public
2.0 Introduction
Chapter 2.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
2- 3
street and open space improvements from the Plan at a project level. More detailed project level
environmental evaluation is included in this EIR to specifically address the effects associated with
these individual projects. The proposed public improvements are summarized in Chapter 3, Project
Description, and the project level transportation improvements are also specifically enumerated in
Appendix 9- B, Table B- 2, page 9. B- 15.
Long- term transportation improvements identified in the Plan, but not currently proposed for
approval or implementation would be subject to additional environmental review when specific
plans have been developed for each improvement. These projects are also listed in Appendix 9- B,
Table B- 2, page 9. B- 15.
The EIR is a public informational document intended to disclose to decision makers and the general
public the significant environmental effects of a proposed project and to present mitigation
measures and feasible alternatives to avoid or reduce the environmental effects of that project.
Upon completion of environmental review and certification of the EIR by the San Francisco
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission will consider the findings in the EIR in its decision
to adopt the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan and to subsequently amend the General Plan
and Planning Code. Other city departments, such as the Department of Public Works and the
Municipal Transportation Agency, will use the EIR in their decisions regarding implementation of
public improvements outlined in the Plan.
2.3 EIR Organization
This EIR is organized into 10 chapters, including Technical Appendices. The Summary, Chapter 1,
which precedes this chapter, provides a summary of the project’s significant environmental impacts
and proposed mitigation measures and summarizes areas of known controversy, including issues
raised by agencies and the public and unresolved issues. This Introduction, Chapter 2, is followed
by Chapter 3, Project Description, which presents the key elements of the proposed Market and
Octavia Neighborhood Plan and summarizes the specific public improvements that could be carried
out upon adoption of the Plan. Chapter 3 also identifies the Project Sponsor and the Project
Objectives.
Chapter 4, Environmental Setting and Impacts, describes the existing conditions in the Project Area
at the time the Notice of Preparation was published in January, 2004. The existing conditions serve
as the baseline for analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from implementation of
the Plan. In addition, Population, Housing, and Employment; Transportation; Air Quality; and
Noise impacts of the Plan are evaluated for 2025 with Plan and 2025 without Plan conditions,
2.0 Introduction
Chapter 2.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
2- 4
accounting for the development that would occur in the Project Area independent of the proposed
Plan. This chapter also includes a discussion of methodological approaches used in the assessment
of impacts.
Chapter 5, Mitigation Measures, identifies mitigation measures proposed to minimize potential
adverse effects of the Plan. Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, addresses other topics
required by CEQA guidelines, including unavoidable and irreversible significant impacts associated
with the Plan. Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, describes and analyzes two
alternatives, the No Build alternative and the Reduced Height/ Reduced Density alternative that
could avoid or lessen identified significant impacts. Chapter 8 includes the distribution list of all
agencies and organizations that received a copy of the DEIR. Chapter 9 includes the Technical
Appendices and Chapter 10 identifies the EIR authors and those agencies, organizations, and
individuals contacted in preparation of the EIR.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Sponsors’ Objectives
The Planning Department of the City and County of San Francisco is the sponsor of the Market and
Octavia Neighborhood Plan ( the Plan) 1. The City’s overriding goal as sponsor of the Plan is to realize
the vision for the Project Area embodied in the Plan:
An urban neighborhood that provides for a mix of people of various ages, incomes, and lifestyles – a place where
everyday needs can be met within a short walk on a system of public streets that are easy and safe to get around
on foot, on bicycle, and by public transportation. A place intimately connected to the city as a whole, where
owning a car is a choice, not a necessity, and streets are attractive and inviting public spaces. A neighborhood
repaired and rejuvenated by building on the strengths of its long- standing character, yet inherently dynamic,
creative, and evolving.
The proposed Plan is a means for implementing an innovative set of land use controls, urban design
guidelines, and public space and transportation system improvements to create a dense, vibrant and
transit- oriented neighborhood. The controls encourage new housing and enhance the urban
environment in a variety of ways. The Plan will function as a model for reweaving the urban fabric
in other neighborhoods that are interested in amplifying the benefits of a vibrant transit- oriented
settlement pattern for such neighborhoods.
The Project Sponsor’s objectives for the Plan and for the public street and open space
improvements that are planned for near- term implementation and are analyzed at a project level in
the EIR are as follows:
§   Create a dense, vibrant and transit- oriented neighborhood that capitalizes on all of the
unique characteristics and development opportunities of the Project Area.
§   Strengthen the community’s supply of housing by increasing well- designed infill housing.
§   Strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and the community by increasing
neighborhood- serving retail and service businesses throughout the Project Area.
1 San Francisco Planning Department, The Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan, Draft for Public Review, as part of the
Better Neighborhood Program, December 2002.
3.0 Project Description
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 2
§   Focus design attention especially on the development needs and opportunities in two
subareas: ( 1) reintegrating the vacant Central Freeway parcels into the neighborhood and ( 2)
creating a high- density new neighborhood around South Van Ness Avenue, Market Street
and Mission Street that takes advantage of that area’s high height potential and elegantly
designed residential towers.
§   Increase the mix of land uses and the density required to create a successful vibrant transit-oriented
neighborhood reflecting the unique character of the Project Area.
§   Revise the height districts throughout the Project Area to sculpt an urban form that
maximizes housing opportunities mediated by building type, street- level livability, views, and
skyline effects.
§   Improve the area’s public streets and open spaces necessary for a vibrant transit oriented
neighborhood, including incorporating traffic calming strategies, street tree planting, new
park creation, and streetscape improvements.
§   Improve the operation and convenience of all transportation modes required for a vibrant
transit- oriented place, with a focus on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movements.
§   Within the controls required to create a vibrant and transit oriented neighborhood, provide
flexibility in the development of the Project Area so that development can respond to
market conditions over time.
§   Undertake the public improvements proposed in the Plan in a manner that makes them
affordable to the City by using innovatively the full range of public financing tools to
support the City in meeting its share of the planning and development responsibility for the
quality and character of the public realm.
§   Learn from the implementation of the Plan and revise its controls as needed to better
achieve the goals of the plan.
The Project Sponsor has also identified project level objectives for development of the Central
Freeway parcels. The general objective for the Central Freeway parcels is:
Promote new development on the Central Freeway parcels that heals the physical fabric of the neighborhood and
adds to its character and quality.
Project Sponsor’s objectives specific to the development of the Central Freeway Parcels are as
follows:
§   Parcels A, A- 1, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I – Maximize housing.
§   Parcels J, K, L, O, P Q, T, U, and V – Maximize housing above neighborhood- serving retail,
community services, and other active, pedestrian- oriented uses required on the ground floor
along Hayes Street.
3.0 Project Description
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 3
§   Parcel M, N, R, and S – Promote housing and other active uses tha t can be accommodated.
If the construction of new buildings proves infeasible, additions to existing, adjacent
buildings are encouraged, provided they meet the parcel- specific design guidelines in the
Plan.
§   Parcel E - st – Reestablish public right- of- way connecting the two ends of Ash Alley.
3.2 Project Overview
This EIR analyzes the Plan at a program level. The Plan would govern future developments and
public improvements in portions of the Hayes Valley, Duboce Triangle, South of Market West
( SoMa West), Mid- Market, and Upper Mission neighborhoods in San Francisco. The Plan proposes
a set of land use controls, urban design guidelines, and public street and open space improvements
aimed at encouraging new housing developments and enhancing the existing urban neighborhoods.
The EIR is also a project level EIR that analyzes the redevelopment of the 22 Central Freeway
parcels vacated by the removal of the elevated Central Freeway in Hayes Valley and a limited
number of short- term public street and open space improvements in the Project Area to be built in
the near future.
This EIR does not analyze long- term transportation improvements that are identified in the Plan,
but are not currently proposed for approval or for implementation. These long- term transportation
improvements, which are listed in Appendix B, Table B- 2, would be subject to additional
environmental review when specific plans have been developed for each improvement.
Impacts of the Plan and the proposed short- term projects were assessed by comparing the
conditions associated with the implementation of the Plan to the existing conditions. For the
Population, Housing, and Employment; Transportation; Air Quality; and Noise assessments,
forecasts of 2025 development were made in Land Use Allocation 2002 by the Planning Department
based on ABAG Projections 2002. Future development forecasts were translated into projected
trips for 2025 to complete the Transportation, Air Quality, and Noise analyses.
Implementation of the Plan would result in a net increase of approximately 4,440 new housing units
and 60 new jobs in the Project Area by the year 2025. There would be a total 8.9 million gross
square feet of floor area in the Project Area; 7.1 million gross square feet of residential uses and 1.8
million square feet of non- residential uses in 2025. Of the total floor area, 5.3 million net new gross
square feet of residential development would be attributable to the Plan implementation. This
3.0 Project Description
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 4
amount of development would result in the addition of a range of new parking spaces from 0 to
3,160, depending on the individual development proposals.
3.3 Project Location
The project area of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan ( Project Area) is located within northeast
San Francisco ( the city). The Project Area lies to the west of the city’s downtown financial district
and is bordered on the northeast by the Civic Center area. See Figure 3- 1 for the location of the
project.
The Project Area encompasses approximately 376 acres of land in an irregularly shaped area in
northeast San Francisco. See Figure 3- 2 for the Project Area boundaries. The Project Area extends
two to three blocks in width along Market Street for ten blocks and extends north along the former
Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Street for ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Project Area
boundaries extend from Ninth and Larkin Streets in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west.
The boundary jogs north along Noe Street, Duboce Avenue, Scott Street, Waller Street, Webster
Street, Oak Street, Buchanan Street, and Grove Street; continues north along the former Central
Freeway alignment to Turk Street between Laguna and Franklin Streets; and east of Franklin Street
jogs south to Grove and Larkin Streets. The Project Area boundary extends south of Market Street
along Ninth Street to Howard Street. Extending west along Howard Street, the Project Area
boundaries jog along Division, Mission, Fourteenth, Guerrero, Sixteenth, Dolores, Church,
Seventeenth, Sanchez, and Sixteenth Streets.
The Project Area is comprised of 89 Assessor’s Blocks in entirety or in part: the whole of Blocks
759, 761, 768, 770, 783, 785, 792 to 794, 806 to 819, 830 to 841, 850 to 858, 863 to 876, 3501 to
3514, 3532 to 3538, 3541 to 3545, 3556 to 3559, 3565; and a portion of 3566. There are 17 different
existing use districts represented in the Project Area: Residential, Single- Family ( RH- 1); Residential,
Two- Family ( RH- 2); Residential, Three- Family ( RH- 3); Residential Mixed District, Low Density
( RM- 1); Residential Mixed District, Moderate Density ( RM- 2); Residential Mixed District, Medium
Density ( RM- 3); Neighborhood Commercial District ( NC- 1); Moderate- Scale Neighborhood
Commercial Shopping District ( NC- 3); Hayes- Gough, Upper Market, and Valencia Street
Neighborhood Commercial Districts ( NCD); Downtown Commercial General ( C- 3- G); Downtown
Commercial ( C- 3- S); Heavy Commercial ( C- M); Public Use District ( P); Residential Enclave District
( RED); and Service/ Light Industrial/ Residential Mixed Use District ( SLR). There are 22 different
height and bulk districts in the Project Area: OS ( Open Space), 40- X, 50- X, 65- X, 70- X, 80- A, 80-
B, 80- E, 80- J, 80- X, 96- X, 105- E, 105- J, 120- F, 120- X, 130- G, 130- L, 150- S, 160- H, 180- M, 200- S,
80
280
101
101
BROADWAY
CALIFORNIA
GEARY
FELL
1ST
STANYAN
MARKET
HARRISON
KING
3RD
GUERRERO
POTRERO
CESAR CHAVEZ
COLUMBUS
THE EMBARCADERO
VAN NESS
OCTAVIA
DIVISADERO
HAYES
VALLEY
Figure 3- 1
Location Map
SOURCE: EnviroTrans Solutions
0 4000
FEET
Project Boundary
Western Addition A- 2 Boundary
Mid- Market Redevelopment Boundary
SoMa West
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
Pacific
Ocean
Novato
San
Rafael
Hayward
San Alameda
Francisco
Daly
City
Berkeley
Vallejo
Redwood
City
San
Mateo
PROJECT Oakland
AREA
Richmond
NOT TO SCALE
Van Ness Ave South Van Ness Ave
Franklin St
Gough St
Octavia St
Laguna St
Turk St
Golden Gate Ave
Eddy St
McAllister St
Fulton Ave
Grove St
Hayes St
Page St
Haight St
Market St
Mission St
14th St
15th St
14th St
15th St
16th St 16th St
17th St 17th St
Dolores
Guerrero St
Valencia St
Mission St
Howard St
Folsom St
Harrison St
Bryant St
Division St
12th St
11th St
10th St
9th St
8th St
7th St
Howard St
Folsom St
Sanchez
Church St
Castro St
Webster St
Fillmore St
Steiner St
Pierce St Pierce St
Scott St
Divisadero St
Polk St
Larkin St
Buchanan St
Noe St
Fell St
Oak St
Waller St
Duboce Ave
A
B
C
D
F
E- st E
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
R
O
P
Q
S
T
V
U
 0 1000
FEET
Figure 3- 2
Plan Area Boundary
Project Boundary
Central Freeway Parcels
( named by letter, from ' A' to ' V' running north to south)
SOURCE: EnviroTrans Solutions
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3.0 Project Description
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 7
and 320- S. The Project Area also includes a portion of the Mid- Market Redevelopment Plan Area,
proposed for designation as a redevelopment area by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, in
the eastern Project Area and a portion of the Western Addition A- 2 Redevelopment Plan Area in
the northern Project Areas ( see Figure 3- 1, page 3- 5).
The Project Area sits at the junction of three of the city’s transportation grid systems. The north of
Market, south of Market, and Mission grids meet at Market Street, creating a distinct pattern of
irregular blocks and intersections. Traffic from these three grids converges at Market Street, one of
the main east/ west arterials connecting downtown San Francisco with the neighborhoods in the
western part of the city. Market Street also serves as a primary ceremonial space for the city.
Other major transportation thoroughfares in the area include Franklin, Gough, Fell, Oak, Mission,
Eighth, and Ninth Streets and Van Ness and South Van Ness Avenues. The Bay Area Rapid Transit
District ( BART) line and San Francisco Municipal Railway ( Muni) Metro run under Market Street.
The Civic Center BART Station is located at Eighth and Market Streets. The Muni Metro stops at
the Civic Center station at Eighth and Market Streets, at Van Ness Avenue and Market Street, and at
Church and Market Streets. Several Muni lines run on surface streets in the area; 13 surface and five
subway lines run on Market Street. The Interstate 80 ( I- 80) and US 101 freeways provide regional
access to the Project Area.
The Project Area is bordered on the northeast by the Civic Center, home to many of San Francisco’s
major institutions and government buildings, including City Hall; the performing arts complex
consisting of Davies Symphony Hall, the Opera House, and Herbst Theater; the Asian Art Museum;
the Main Library; and state and federal office buildings. The Project Area is bordered by the
Western Addition neighborhood on the north and west, by the Castro District on the west, by the
Mission District and South of Market area on the south, and downtown on the east.
The Project Area north of Market Street in Hayes Valley is a dense urban neighborhood with mixed
residential and commercial uses. The established development pattern is one of individual buildings
with narrow frontages on small lots. About 13 square blocks of the area, centered on Buchanan and
Oak Streets, lie within the Hayes Valley Historic District, which is eligi ble for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
The removal of the Central Freeway, north of Market Street in Hayes Valley, has resulted in a
corridor of approximately seven acres of vacant land along Octavia Street that has been transferred
to the city for redevelopment. Construction of the Octavia Boulevard Project, which began in
3.0 Project Description
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 8
March 2004 and is scheduled for completion in 2005, will bring the regional traffic back to the
surface street network, but will introduce new landscaping and pedestrian improvements along the
Octavia Boulevard corridor to minimize the disruption caused by through traffic movement.
The SoMa West area is generally bounded by Market Street, Valencia Street, Duboce Avenue,
Division Street, Howard Street, Minna Street, and Eleventh Street ( see Figure 3- 1, page 3- 5). This is
an area where the South of Market street grid meets the Mission Street grid. The Central Freeway
structure, which once was elevated over Division Street, was demolished from the most northern
point to the junction with Mission Street in 2003. This structure is being rebuilt from Mission Street
north to Market Street as part of the Central Freeway Replacement Project. Caltrans began
construction on the replacement ramp in early 2004 and construction is scheduled for completion in
2006.
The SoMa West area houses a wide variety of land uses, considerable housing, and a handful of new
residential developments. The area is characterized by large lots with mid- rise office buildings, many
with ground- floor wholesale, manufacturing and retail establishments.
A portion of the proposed Mid- Market Redevelopment Plan Area is located in the Project Area.
This area is generally bounded by the following blocks: mid- way between Tenth and Eleventh
Streets on the west, Market Street on the north, Ninth Street on the east, and mid- way between
Mission and Howard Streets on the south. This area contains many large lots which are
underutilized. Large- scale buildings are located between Market and Mission Streets, while the
structures on the south side of Mission Street tend to be smaller commercial structures with
relatively narrow lot widths. The area’s historical street pattern with alleys crossing east- west
through large blocks is largely intact.
3.4 Project Characteristics
The Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan is intended to result in quality housing, choices in
transportation modes, and neighborhoods that provide a full range of services and amenities close to
where people live and work. Page 14 of the Plan contains a bulleted list of proposals on which the
Plan was based.
Elements in the Plan have been classified in the following three categories for the purpose of
environmental review:
3.0 Project Description
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 9
§   Elements Analyzed at a Program Level in this EIR- Plan elements analyzed at a program
level in this EIR include land use and parking controls that involve recommended changes to
the Planning Code and Zoning Map, urban design guidelines, and modest public improvements;
§   Near- Term Improvements Analayzed at a Project Level in this EIR – The Central Freeway
parcel development and near- term public street and open space improvement are analyzed at
a project level in this EIR; and
§   Long- Term Transportation Improvements Not Analyzed in this EIR – Long- term
transportation improvements identified in the Plan, but not currently proposed for approval
or for implementation would be subject to additional environmental review when specific
plans have been developed for the long- term transportation improvements. These
improvements are listed in detail in Appendix B, Table B- 2.
At a program level, the Plan would introduce land use controls, urban design guidelines, and
transportation, pedestrian, and open space improvements aimed at encouraging new housing
developments and enhancing urban neighborhoods. Implementation of these mechanisms would
encourage and support projected levels of development under the Plan, but would not necessarily
result in construction of specific development projects. Specific projects would be subject to market
factors, private development proposals, and future environmental review and city approval.
Near- term projects included in the proposed Plan would be initiated by, or under the control of, the
city. These include infill development on the 22 Central Freeway parcels, and public street and open
space improvements as identified below:
Public street and open space improvements analyzed at a project level include the following:
Roadway Changes
§   Convert Fell Street from one- way to two- way operations, with two lanes eastbound and one
lane westbound between Franklin Street and Van Ness Avenue, and restripe to provide two
westbound lanes and one lane eastbound between Franklin Street and Octavia Boulevard.
§   Convert Hayes Street from one- way to two- way operations with one lane eastbound and
three lanes westbound between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street and two lanes
westbound and one lane eastbound between Franklin Street and Octavia Boulevard.
§   Convert Gough Street, between Market and Otis Streets, from a two- way street with two
lanes in each direction to a two- way street with three lanes southbound and one lane
northbound.
§   Separate regional from local traffic on Otis Street, between South Van Ness Avenue and
Mission Street, through use of a planted median.
3.0 Project Description
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 10
Transit Changes
§   Prohibit new curb cuts on transit preferential streets.
Open Space/ Pedestrian Changes
§   Create new pedestrian plaza ( Octavia Plaza) adjacent to the new Central Freeway touchdown
at Market and McCoppin Streets.
§   Create open space improvements ( McCoppin Square) on McCoppin Street, which would
dead end between Valencia Street and US 101.
§   Create a public park ( Brady Park) on the block which is bordered by Market, Gough,
Twelfth, and Otis Streets.
Bicycle Changes
§   Create a bike path at the Central Freeway touchdown to connect the Valencia Street bike
lanes with the improved bike routes along Octavia Boulevard.
§   Install bike lanes on both sides of Howard Street between Division Street, South Van Ness
Avenue, and Fourteenth Street. Bicycles traveling southbound at the intersection of Howard
and Division Streets would be routed to a stripped box at the front of the crosswalk for
storage during the red- signal phase.
All proposed public street and open space improvements are discussed in greater detail in the
following section.
The Plan contains seven elements that are based on the overall goals for the Project Area. The Plan
elements are: Land Use and Urban Form; Housing People; Building with a Sense of Place; Streets
and Open Spaces; Balancing Transportation Choices; Infill development on Key Sites; and A New
Neighborhood in SoMa West. This section describes the Plan elements and the objectives of each
element. This section also identifies those parts of the Plan Elements that will be analyzed at the
program level and those parts that will be analyzed at the project level.
Element 1 - Land Use and Urban Form
Objective 1.1: A land use plan that embraces the Market and Octavia neighborhood’s potential as a mixed- use urban
neighborhood.
Objective 1.2: An urban form that reinforces the plan area’s unique place in the city’s larger urban form and
strengthens its physical fabric and character.
3.0 Project Description
Chapter 3.0 6/ 25/ 2005
Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR Case No. 2003.0347E
3- 11
Program Level
The Plan proposes continued mixed uses and concentration of activities along established
commercial streets. New housing is encouraged close to transit and services. Design guidelines are
proposed for new private development to activate street frontages and for public improvements to
create safe streets that are at a comfortable scale for pedestrian use. The overall land use concept
for the Project Area is intended to recognize and build on the Project Area’s strengths as a centrally
located mixed- used neighborhood with a high level of transit accessibility. The Plan contains
proposed urban form and height limits which are generally based on the existing built form for the
area and its surroundings and the natural topography.
The Plan would create three new zoning districts and amend the Hayes- Gough, Upper Market, and
Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts ( NCDs). See Figure 3- 3 for the proposed zoning
designations in the Project Area.
The area around the Market Street and Van Ness Avenue intersection would be zoned Downtown
Residential ( DTR) which envisions a transit- oriented high- density mixed- use neighborhood. The
DTR zoning would permit a range of moderate- and large- sized commercial activities on lower
floors, with active retail, eating, and entertainment activities encouraged on the ground- floor.
Commercial establishments would be limited to those compatible with housing and automobile-oriented
uses would not be allowed. Residential and other uses would be permitted throughout new
buildings, but above the fourth floor only residential uses would be allowed. Height and bulk limits
would determine housing density. Heights would range from 160 to 400 feet with residential towers
permitted along the Market and Mission Streets corridor.
The proposed Residential Transit- Oriented ( RTO) district would consolidate former RM and RH- 3
districts located near transit into one flexible residential district. These RTO districts would include
moderate- density multi- family residential infill compatible with the existing neighborhood scale.
The proposed RTO districts are located within walking distance of transit services and
neighborhood commercial areas. The Plan allows for and encourages some new housing to be
added without new parking, placing a cap on the maximum amount of parking permitted at 0.75
spaces per dwelling unit, with an increase up to 1.0 spaces per dwelling unit allowed by conditional
use authorization. Under RTO zoning, the building envelope, open space requirement