SCH No.95063004 City Project No. 2000.048E VOLUME I

TRANSBAY TERMINAL / DOWNTOWN EXTENSION / REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

in the City and County of

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

Pursuant to

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, §102 (42 U.S.C. §4332); Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. §5301(e), §5323(b) and §5324(b)); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. §303); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, §106 (16 U.S.C. §4700; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; 23 CFR Part 771; Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice); and Environmental Quality Act, PRC 21000 etseq.; and the State of California CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code, 15000 et seq.

by the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

and the

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD, AND SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

March 2004

. ,- o c»uNrt

I 1 *A#:II-04 rwr-7 ...41"EaLI.ii '». 1 =74=,./MB, Fl , r r-y=.rl .t*FIAA,fil, ,aae¥=<2* Beiwv Iald' 9"..1/5//2/ ea Acknowledgement

This Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR) was prepared in part from a grant of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Transportation Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds received from the California Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. SCH No.95063004 City Project No. 2000.048E

TRANSBAY TERMINAL / CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION / REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT in the City and County o f San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa C]ara Counties

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. §102 (42 U.S.C. §4332); Fedcnil '1'ratisit Laws (49 U.S.C. §5301(e), §5323(b) and §5324(b)); Section 4(D of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. §303); National Historic Preservation Act of 1964 §106 (16 U.S.C. §4704.40 CFR Parts 1500-1508; 23 CFR Part 771; Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice); and California Environmental Quality Act, PRC 21000 et seq.; and the State of California CEQA Guidelines, California Administrative Code, 15000 et seq.

by the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION and the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD, AND SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENpyJGENCY 1

For sp¥, »R. 3·z, )1/4 103 For F'r J. Scanlon Dafe 4es)(eCiti&L T. Rogers »Rwi C 311,10,.Datc Mich,0 ) Execit(ve Director Wgion IX AdministraW Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Federal Transit Administration

For City and Couitty of San Francisco. For iransbay rs Authority 't I »1 03 " / 51 0-3 Pauli ,er 1 Dlte -i '.-- ' / DatJ E tront ental Review Officer '1 S"tive Dir r an ncisco Planning Department TraniB»loialpowe . Authority Public Agency Pro' ponsor and Responsible Agency under California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. r n Frai,cisco Redevelopme,it Agency:

.,Cl "1'-105Date Planning pervisor Redevelopment Agency San Fran sco The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Ms. Joan Kugler Mr. Jerome Wiggins City and County of San Francisco US Department ofTransportation Plannitig Department Federal Transit Administration, Region IX 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 201 Mission Street, Suite 2210 San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 San Francisco. CA 94105 (415) 558-5983 (415) 744-3115

...... % ...... -- ... ---- .. - ... I ... .- ...... p...... 0...... ABSTRACT

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the City and County of San Francisco, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency propose to construct a new multi-modal Terminal on the site ofthe present Transbay Terminal, extend the Peninsula Corridor Service (Caltrain) from its current San Francisco terminus at Fourth and Townsend Streets to a new underground terminus beneath the new Terminal, and establish a Redevelopment Area Plan with related development projects, including transit-oriented development on publicly-owned land in the vicinity of the new multi-modal Terminal. The project is needed because the present Transbay Terminal, which was built in 1939, does not meet current building codes, including ADA requirements, or space utilization standards. The need to modernize the Transbay Terminal provides an opportunity to revitalize the surrounding area with a mix of land uses that includes both market-rate and affordable housing, and to extend Caltrain service from its current terminus outside the downtown area into the San Francisco employment core. Increases in Caltrain and other transit ridership, reductions in non-transit vehicle use and improvements in regional air quality, and revitalization of the Terminal area are expected to result. Impacts include the loss of the Transbay Terminal, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and loss of the terminal loop ramp, a contributing element to the historic Bay Bridge, and up to 13 other historic buildings that are contributors to downtown historic districts; residential and business displacements; localized noise and vibration effects; adverse traffic impacts at seven intersections; loss of parking, and disruption during construction. Proposed mitigation measures include historic recordation, sound walls, high-resilience rail facilities, public information and management practices during construction, temporary bus terminal and bus storage and parking replacement, and pedestrian measures. Relocation assistance will be provided in accordance with the federal and state relocation acts. ..

PREFACE

Preface

In 1997, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) was circulated for the Caltrain San Francisco Downtown Extension Project, a public hearing was held, and public comments were received. The present Final EIS/EIR describes a different -albeit somewhat similar - project to that evaluated in the 1997 document. Various changes have occurred in project development and project-related conditions since the earlier environmental document was circulated. This Preface summarizes how this document responds to these changes.

The project described and evaluated in this new document is consistent with the Transbay Terminal Study that has been undertaken by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission / Bay Area Toll Authority in concert with the State of California, the City and County of San Francisco, AC Transit and other local transit service providers and other interested parties.

The description of the project alternatives responds to current design criteria to accommodate high-speed steel-wheel-on-rail technologies currently in use in Europe and under consideration by the California High-Speed Rail Authority for implementation in California, including a station in downtown San Francisco.

Many specific subjects have been updated, not only to address changes in area conditions that have occurred since the 1997 Draft EIS/EIR was issued, but also to reflect the three components of the present project. Background information and analysis for many subjects are entirely new, including: ridership, land use, engineering, capital costs, noise and vibration effects, cultural resources, traffic, transit, parking, and the project financial plan.

Given the extent of differences between the previous project and the present project, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, the City and County of San Francisco, and the Federal Transit Administration have not responded to the public comments received on the 1997 Draft EIS/EIR. Only those comments received on the present document are addressed.

The Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) was released for public review on October 4, 2002. Notice of availability of the Draft EIS/EIR was published in the San Francisco Independent newspaper and posted at the Planning Department. Five hundred jifty newsletters were sent to the mailing list announcing the availability of the Draft EIS/EIR, and a letter was sent directly to property owners whose properties could be directly affected by the Project. Fifty 11 "X17" posters were posted throughout the Project area, including along Second Street. Notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project boundary.

Transbay Terminal / Caltrain Downtown Extension / Redevelopment Project EIS/EIR ,

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.14.3 Historic Architectural Resources: Impacts

Historic architectural resources identified within the project APE consist of individual buildings and structures, some of which are contributors to two districts that are eligible or appear to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These are the Rincon Point / South Beach Historic Warehouse-Industrial District and the Second and Howard Streets Historic District. Both NRHP districts have boundaries somewhat overlapping two local historic districts designated by the City of San Francisco, the South End Historic District, and the New Montgomery - Second Street Conservation District. Properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, either individually or as contributors to an historic district, are identified in Table 4.16-1. The NRHP and City of San Francisco historic districts are described in Sections 4.16.6.3 through 4.16.6.7.

Impacts to historical architectural resources are reported by major project component; impacts to individual properties are presented first, followed by impacts to contributing elements of the NRHP and local historic districts.

5.14.3.1 Impacts of Transbay Terminal Alternatives

' Either Transbay Terminal alternative would require demolition and removal of the existing Transbay Terminal, a property that is listed on the National Register as a contributinelleent lo the San FranciscRlgkland-Ila»Bridge. The bridge is a mulffyomponenL propertv that was isted-on-the NRHP on August 13, 2001. Both l'ransbay Terminal alternatives would also quire demo[iTion and removal of the existing Terminal Loop Ramp structures, which are also contributing elements of the Bay Bridge property. The demolition of these structures would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106 and under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The San Francisco-Oakland Bav Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project, currentlv under construction, will eliminate the East Span, one of the maior elements included in the NRHP listinsr for the entire Bridpe. After completion of both the Transbav Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/ Redevelopment Project, and the East Span Seismic Proiect (a construction project alreadv underwav), two major elements of the current bridfre - namelv the West Span bridge structures and the Yerba Buena Tunnel - would remain. It is anticipated that these remaininfr structures and buildings would continue to be eligible for the NRHP.22 This is based upon the definition of "historic district" and "historic structure" presented in National Retister Bulletin 15: How to Applv the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1990 and 2002). "A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildinps, structures, or objects united historicallv or aestheticallv bv plan or phvsical development," and 66the term 'structure' is used to distinguish from buildings those functional construction made

22 Letterfrom Meta Bunse, JRP Consulting to David Mansen, Parsons, March 12, 2004.

5-90 5.14 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES .

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

usucillv for purposes other than creatinic human shelter." Certainlv thev are important for their technolofzical and entineerinK achievements. If reevaluation of the bridge propertv indicates that it would be more appropriate for the remaininiz structures to be listed on the National Register as individual properties, it is anticinate that these remaininst structures would continue to appear to be elipiible and would merit individual listinsz. The MOA (Appendix G of this Final EIS/EIR) includes a provision (III.E) for the revaluation of the remaininfr bridlze components followinK completion of the Project.

In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5027, the Transbay Terminal and terminal loop ramp, as NRHP-eligible structures that would be transferred from state (Caltrans) ownership to another public agency (the Transbay Joint Powers Authority) may not be demolished without the prior approval of the California Legislature. The California Legislature has considered the importance of proceeding with the Transbay Transit Terminal project and has granted a specific exemption to State Law prohibiting the demolition of historic structures with the following language: "the Legislature hereby approves demolition of the Transbay Terminal building at First and Mission Streets in the City and County of San Francisco, including its associated ramps, for construction of a new terminal at the same location, designed to serve Caltrain in addition to local, regional, and intercity bus lines, and designed to accommodate high-speed passenger rail service." (AB 812, 2003)

5.14.3.2 Impacts of Caltrain Downtown Extension Alternatives

Either Caltrain Downtown Extension alternative would result in the acquisition and demolition of buildings that are individually eligible or that are contributing elements of a district that is eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The Cut-and-Cover Option for either the Second-to-Main Alternative or the Second-to- Mission Alternative would result in the demolition of 13 historic buildings, 10 of which are contributors to the Rincon Point / South Beach Historic Warehouse-Industrial District, and three of which are contributors to the Second and Howard Streets Historic District. These demolitions would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106 and under CEQA. The demolition of the three buildings in the Second and Howard Streets Historic District would also result in an adverse ejfect by isolating three other contributory buildings from the remainder of the district.

A construction easement through the corner of the parcel occupied by a fourteenth contributing property of the Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Warehouse-Industrial District would also be required. The construction easement would be necessary to construct the Caltrain subway beneath the southeast corner of the building at 166-78 Townsend Street. The building would be underpinned during construction and maintained in place. There would be no adverse effect to this building from the construction easement.

5.14 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 5-91 CliAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The Tunneling Option for either the Second-to-Main or Second-to-Mission Alternative would substantially reduce the impacts to historic resources. This Option would result in the demolition of three historic buildings that are contributing elements ofthe Second and Howard Streets Historic District but would not have an adverse effect on the buildings within the Rincon Point / South Beach Historic District. The buildings that would be demolished under the Tunneling Option are the same three contributors to the Second and Howard Streets District that would be demolished under the Cut-and-Cover Option. The demolitions would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106 and under CEQA. The demolition of these three buildings woilld also result in an adverse effect by isolating three other contributory buildings from the remainder of the district.

A construction easement through the southeast corner of the parcel occupied by the building at 166-78 Townsend Street, which is a contributing element to the Rincon Point/South Beach Historic Warehouse-Industrial District, would also be required, as for the Cut-And-Cover ()ption. There would be no adverse effect to this building from the construction easement. The building would be underpinned during construction and maintained in place.

5.14.3.3 Redevelopment Components

Neither of the redevelopment component alternatives (Full Build or Reduced Scope) would result in an adverse effect to historic properties.

5.14.3.4 Affected Properties

Brief descriptions ofthe historic properties that would be affected by the project are provided in the following paragraphs and accompanying figures. Individiially listed NRHP properties are described first, followed by the districts and their contributing elements. The effects on the NRHP and locally designated districts are then discussed. The NRHP and **w h ...1 City of San Francisco historic districts :':St:;4:144.. .f-- -... are described in detail in Sections :'':::i:':;;»: Ih'f./Hi f- < 8 4 0/ //„: 1,1.: 4.16.6.3 through 4.16.6.7. T..3* fi 24/2.1

Transbay Terminal. The 1111.»- . -·-I.. 11·i- :.I:'. -1 -'1 11 .--: I el: 11 1-:.1.- 1.1.11 . : Transbay „i,„'...... ;.1: .1 - .,-... *· ·. r Terminal at 425 Mission Street '***:811 .. *... ..:.. „. I. -.... occupies land extending from Mission U"tti; .:· . + ' r „ 21 _. Street on the north to Natoma Street on the south; the terminal building t"'Ca. JE crosses Fremont Street on the east and First Street on the west. It was designed by Timothy Pfleuger, Arthur Brown, Jr., and John J. Donovan,

5-92 5.14 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 1.l

1 1

Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan Transbay Panel Concept Design Recommendation

Based on the preliminary transit and joint development evaluation, the Transbay Panel finds that to the "Great Expectations" site configuration option has sufficient merit to study further resolve outstanding design issues.

The major purposes of the next phase of study will be to:

meet transit 1. Further evaluate and develop the Great Expectations alternative to operations, passenger circulation and construction staging criteria; 2. Develop a construction phasing plan that will examine the requirements for temporary facilities during project construction, including midday bus storage and ramp access to the temporary facilities; and 3. Develop a funding and management plan for the project.

in Attachment A. A summary workplan for the next phase o f the project is included 4

ATTACHMENT A

Transbay Terminal Improvement Plan Draft Summary Workplan for Concept Design Phase

The Concept Design phase o f the project will focus engineering, architectural and transit operations expertise on further evaluation and development o f the "Great Expectations" concept in terms of transit operations, passenger circulation and construction staging and how the project could be implemented.

The Concept Design will develop pre-schematic building designs in sufficient detail to produce a cost estimate within 20% of accuracy. Engineering analysis will include building structural, civic structural, mechanical, transportation, pedestrian, environmental and construction staging. Architectural design will include general built form, building systems, passenger environment, and joint development integration. The consultant team will prepare graphic illustrations of all key building elements including transit facilities, passenger facilities, circulation, joint development interface, and elevations.

The Concept Design will allow for more detailed operating and capital cost estimates and a financing strategy, as well as an operational and implementation strategy to assist the Panel in its terminal recommendations. This task will include developing and recommending plans for terminal operations, joint development, project phasing, interim/temporary operations, financing, and required next steps.

Based on the Concept Design analysis, it will be determined whether the "Great Expectations" alternative effectively meets the transportation, pedestrian, construction and financing facility requirements defined by the Transbay Panel and BATA. If the alternative is found lacking, the consultant team will present potential configuration modifications for Panel consideration. The "Mutual Friend" and the "Reconstruction" alternatives will remain viable options should the "Great Expectations" option not be viable as determined by the Concept Design analysis.

During the Concept Design Phase, the Transbay Panel will continue to hold public meetings on a regular basis to review and evaluate specific issues relating to transit operations, design and construction, joint development, and funding and management in preparation for the Transbay Panel's final design recommendation to BATA.

The major tasks/elements of the Concept Design phase will include:

• Design and Construction Plan - that evaluates design options that further improve the clarity and attractiveness o f the passenger experience and are appropriate to the Transbay Terminal's role in the region and as the downtown destination in a vital international city.

• Transit Operations Plan - that will evaluate in-terminal and on-street bus operations and ensure that close and convenient connections between operators are provided. -

(

• Construction Staging Plan - that examines requirements for temporary operating block of the facilities including midday bus storage and the re-building of the one-half existing eastern terminal ramp, which will be removed for the reconstruction o f the and Fremont Street off-ramp as part of Caltrans' West Approach Seismic project includes detailed engineering and cost evaluations.

• Joint Development Plan - that identifies transit-oriented joint development in support of terminal operations and analyzes and incorporates revenues generated by development on its associated City and Caltrans lands currently used by the Transbay Terminal and ramps to fund the capital and operating costs o f the new Terminal.

sources for • Funding and Management Plan -that 1) identifies potential funding terminal construction and operations, including revenues generated by development on City of San Francisco and Caltrans land currently used by the Transbay Terminal and its Powers associated ramps, 2) recommends a structure and operating procedures (e.g. Joint Agency) to oversee the final design and construction phases of the project, and 3) the evaluates potential management structures for the on-going operation o f facility. Box 5, Folder 1 Item 4

ACCNO_000318