DOCSLIB.ORG

South Mission Historic Resources Survey Historic District Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

San Francisco Planning Department – South Mission Historic Resources Survey Historic District Description Shotwell Street Victoriana East side of Shotwell Street between 21st and 22nd Streets. Boundaries: Shotwell Street between 20th and 25th Streets, as well as portions of South Van Ness Avenue and Folsom Street Period of Significance: 1865 – 1905 Eligibility: National Register of Historic Places Thematic Summary: This north‐south linear area in the central Mission District resembles an “ideal” Victorian‐era suburban neighborhood: a corridor of mostly high‐style architecture and detached, single‐family dwellings for the 19th‐century middle classes. Located between very early streetcar lines on Howard (South Van Ness Avenue) and Folsom Streets, the area developed as one of the Mission’s early, prototypical residential neighborhoods. This historic district, comprised of 134 contributors and 182 total properties, contains significant concentrations of some of the oldest extant properties in the Mission District, as well as some of the area’s finest architectural examples. Here may be found extraordinarily well‐preserved buildings that date to the mid‐ 1860s, including largely unaltered Greek Revival and “National” style folk Shotwell Street Victoriana Historic District Page 1 of 4 San Francisco Planning Department – South Mission Historic Resources Survey Historic District Description residences, as well as extremely early Italianate style dwellings. In addition, the district includes grand townhomes, flats and residences from the early 1870s through the turn of the century. Shotwell Street, one of San Francisco’s most representative and best‐preserved 19th‐century streetscapes, serves as the north‐ south spine of the district. The district also includes remnants of the famed “mansion row” along South Van Ness Avenue, formerly prestigious Howard Street, and portions of Folsom Street. Shotwell Street near 20th Street, February 5, 1887. (San Francisco Public Library Historical Photograph Collection Photo ID AAB‐5310 and AAB‐5309). In the 1850s and early 1860s, the district area, which runs through the center of the Mission District valley, was occupied by a pair of racetracks. The northern portion contained the Union Race Course. The half‐mile racetrack was renovated in 1862 and renamed the Willows Trotting Park, but the increasing value of land in the Mission District proved more valuable than spectator ticket fees, and the final race was run on July 18, 1863. The area’s development as one of the Mission’s earliest residential suburbs followed soon thereafter, spurred on by the extension of horse‐drawn streetcar lines on Folsom and Howard Streets. To the south lay the Pioneer Race Track, owned and built in the early 1850s by pioneer settler George Treat, who was a racing aficionado, an ardent Abolitionist, and a U.S. Army veteran. During late 1861 and early 1862, the Pioneer Race Track briefly served as “Camp Alert” for Civil War volunteers. Though racing continued afterward, the increasing value of Mission District real estate pressured the Treats to sell off some of their holdings. The San Francisco Homestead Association purchased the racetrack in 1863, and twelve blocks of the tract were auctioned on February 15, 1864. As occurred to the north with the Shotwell Street Victoriana Historic District Page 2 of 4 San Francisco Planning Department – South Mission Historic Resources Survey Historic District Description former Union Race Course, the western portion of the Pioneer Race Course (the area nearest to early transit lines on Folsom and Howard Streets) was subdivided and built out as one of the Mission’s first neighborhoods. Extensions and improvements to these transit lines in the 1880s and 1890s promoted a near complete build‐out of the area. West side of Folsom Street south of 25th Street. Highlights of the historic district include the block bounded by South Van Ness Avenue and Shotwell, 20th, and 21st Streets, which is one of the best‐preserved historic blocks in the southern Mission District. The Shotwell Street segment features Greek Revival‐style and Italianate‐style residences, generously set back from the street on their lots, and dating from the mid‐to‐late 1860s. The South Van Ness Avenue (Howard Street) portion likewise includes 1860s Italianate‐ style buildings, as well as several outstanding residences including the John Coop home at 959 South Van Ness—one of San Francisco’s most dramatic Queen Anne‐style mansions. Further south along Shotwell Street between 21st and 22nd Streets are more examples of Greek Revival‐style dwellings, mirrored rows of Italianate‐style townhouses with angled bays, flat‐front Italianate‐style residences, and a very rare example of an L‐shaped one‐story Italianate‐style cottage. Another highlight of this district includes seven single‐family dwellings designed in early Italianate styles (ca. 1875) located on the west side of Folsom Street south of 25th Street. Five of the houses are flat‐front designs and two feature angled bay windows running full height to the cornice. This grouping is Shotwell Street Victoriana Historic District Page 3 of 4 San Francisco Planning Department – South Mission Historic Resources Survey Historic District Description distinguished by a shared development history, architectural cohesion and remarkable state of preservation. Several buildings appear to retain their original site walls and iron fencing, and none have garage additions to their front facades. The district area is bisected by the former right‐of‐way of the San Francisco‐San Jose (later Southern Pacific) Railroad, which was constructed in 1863‐1864, approximately the same time as residential development began in the area. The railroad, which ran through the middle of several residential blocks in the Mission, crossed Shotwell Street at a southeast‐northwest angle between 23rd & 24th streets. The railroad right‐of‐way was abandoned in the 1940s, leaving behind a historic condition, a break in the otherwise continuous residential streetscape. Shotwell Street Victoriana Historic District Page 4 of 4 S o u M t h i s V V s a a i o l n e n n N S c e 866-870 Valencia St i 873 Valencia St 272-274 Lexington St 273-275 Lexington St t a 3 877 Valencia St 276 Lexington St s 6 876 Valencia St 277 Lexington St 274 San Carlos St 8 290 San Carlos St 1 8 2374 C Mission St it 278 Lexington St 6 y 3 & 283 Lexington St s Cou 278 San Carlos St 3 3 n 4 3 t y V 3 3 5 S o f 3 2 4 5 S 3 5 a 7 2376 Mission St 3 n 4 5 3 a 3 5 F 0 5 3 8 r 7 5 a 3 0 n 4 2 4 c - 4 l 4 i 9 s 4 2 4 2 3 c 3 - o 4 e 8 P 3 7 0 5 l 0 a 6 t 3 6 2 n 0 E 3 2 5 n n 884 a8 Valencia St 2 i 3 s n 2389 Mission St 5 t t g h e 6 5 2 2386 Mission St 2 6 r 2 D 3 2 h n 0 3 6 e 0 A 0 2 c N 8 p 880 South Van Ness Ave 2 0 e a 0 C 0 r 2 i 3 g 0 t m S h t 0 i 7 t 2 2 b - e 0 o 2 t h n 2 S t r a 3 t 2 t h h 6 t 0 t 2 o a t h o S 4 5 0 h h d t 0 s 0 h 0 M 0 h t 6 t S 0 p S i s S s 2391 M ission St t S 6 i t S S o t S t o n 2 t t S 2 t u A h t h t t p r h h t e h M t 2390 Mission St a h t 0 is Pl 0 s a i n o S n S S v 3380 2 t H 0th St S t i S s S t h o t h r3 t 898 South Van Ness Ave i 3490 20th St t c5 t t R t e9 s S o6u rce S 3320 20th St s S t urvey 3 t 595 e 3594 2391-2399 Folsom St 3 3 3 6 6 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 0 5 5 5 3 2 1 5 5 3 5 5 5 8 6 7 5 0 5 7 5 5 1 4 4 4 3 5 5 1 3 - 1 5 3 4 3 9 901-907 Valencia St 5 3 1 3 3 S 2 5 5 2 2 6 2 4 2 a 2 0 5 S 2 4 2 n 2 H 2 4 0 0 9 2400 Mission St 500 Capp St 2 O 0 0 9 2 0 3 0 T 0 1 0 C 0 W 3 0 1 t 2 t E 2 0 3 t t L a 1 h t t - L 3 t t h 3 h h t 0 3401 20th St 3 t 0 3 S r 4 h 3 3 t T h h C 3 3 l 901 So h uth Van Ness Ave t 3 3 h R h 3 3 o t h 3 E 7 h 7 5 2 S 4 3 0 E 2 S S t h h 506 Capp St S s T 3 3 S 2 S 2 2 3 911-913 Vale 0 ncia St - S t 9 2 S 3 2 a 9 V 3 S S t 2 I 2 407 Mission St 2 t S t C 2 S 3 3 2 S - S t - S t T 3305-33 5 t 21 20th St 5 6 2 1 t t O 3 0 t t 7 2 3 0 p 7 R 906 South Van Ness Ave 2 6 3 2 2 t t 9 5 I 3365 20th St 5 A 3 3 t 2410 Mis sion St 2 t N T 4 2 9 2 5 t 2 A 4 3 7 E p 1 r 7 H 0 l 510 Capp St 3 h 9 i 0 7 5 I 1 g S 3 0 2 2 i e T 5 bl O 1 t 310 Lexington St 912-916 e 2 R 2 a 317 Lexington St 0 2 f 0 2 t h t o I 2 316 San Carlos St C S S 2 r 2 0 0 h 2 L t 31 D 7 San Carlos St 2406 Folsom St 2 t 0 t i 3 2 I 0 s 4 South Van h t S 6 t t S T h h i t A 0 t n h h 1 t R 0 0 920-922 Valencia St g 1 I 0 0 t S C t 0 923 h V alencia St i 2416 Mission St n T v Ness Ave S S 915 South Van Ness Ave S S t h h t 321 Lexington St 0 t t t t 24 320 San Carlos St e 10 Folsom St e t S t t t t t S 2 N 3 321 San Carlos St 604-610 Shotwell St h a 6 h h t h S 2 2411-2415 i t Folsom St 1 h on h t 2 a L l 918 South Van Ness Ave t R 326 Lexington St C S e S i 325 Lexington St 2414 Folsom St S 241g9-2429 Mission St S b i S 324 San Carlos St st S 325 San Carlos St e 2422-2426 Mission St e r 919 South Van Ness Ave t t t t 709 Treat Ave 1 t r t a 507 Capp St t 4 618 Shotwell St 2417 Folsom St y 928-932 929 Valencia St 330 Lexington St 619 Shotwell St 329 Lexington St 327-329 San L 328 San Carlos St 2420 Folsom p St S i t b Valencia St Carlos St 924 South Van Ness Ave e 925 South Van Ness Ave 717-719 Treat Ave p r 334 Lexington St 2430 Mission St t 933 Valencia St 333 Lexington St 334 San Carlos St 628 Shotwell St 625-629 Shotwell St 2421 Folsom St y 333 San Carlos St 509 Capp St 2424-2428 Folsom St 720 Treat Ave S t S 937 Valencia St 338 Lexington St 337 Lexington St 338 San Carlos St 2431 Mission St 931 South Van Ness Ave 2425 Folsom St 725 Treat Ave 337 San Carlos St t 2434-2438 Mission St 631 Shotwell St 724 Treat Ave 341-343
Recommended publications
  • H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space

    H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space

    IV. Environmental Setting and Impacts H. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Environmental Setting The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department maintains more than 200 parks, playgrounds, and open spaces throughout the City. The City’s park system also includes 15 recreation centers, nine swimming pools, five golf courses as well as tennis courts, ball diamonds, athletic fields and basketball courts. The Recreation and Park Department manages the Marina Yacht Harbor, Candlestick (Monster) Park, the San Francisco Zoo, and the Lake Merced Complex. In total, the Department currently owns and manages roughly 3,380 acres of parkland and open space. Together with other city agencies and state and federal open space properties within the city, about 6,360 acres of recreational resources (a variety of parks, walkways, landscaped areas, recreational facilities, playing fields and unmaintained open areas) serve San Francisco.172 San Franciscans also benefit from the Bay Area regional open spaces system. Regional resources include public open spaces managed by the East Bay Regional Park District in Alameda and Contra Costa counties; the National Park Service in Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties as well as state park and recreation areas throughout. In addition, thousands of acres of watershed and agricultural lands are preserved as open spaces by water and utility districts or in private ownership. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 400-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major toll bridges in the region.
  • Mission District

    Mission District

    CITY WITHIN A CITY: HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S MISSION DISTRICT November 2007 Prepared by: City and County of San Francisco Planning Department ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Mayor Gavin Newsom Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Lily Chan Robert W. Cherny, Vice President Courtney Damkroger Ina Dearman Karl Hasz M. Bridget Maley, President Alan Martinez Johanna Street Planning Department Dean Macris, Director of Planning Neil Hart, Chief of Neighborhood Planning Mark Luellen, Preservation Coordinator Matt Weintraub, Citywide Survey Project Manager (Author) Thanks also to: N. Moses Corrette, Rachel Force, and Beth Skrondal of the Historic Resources Survey Team Survey Advisory Committee Charles Edwin Chase San Francisco Architectural Heritage (former Executive Director), Historic Preservation Fund Committee Courtney Damkroger Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Neil Hart Planning Department Tim Kelley Kelley & VerPlank Historical Resources Consulting M. Bridget Maley Architectural Resources Group, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Mark Ryser San Francisco Beautiful Marie Nelson California Office of Historic Preservation Christopher VerPlank Kelley & VerPlank Historical Resources Consulting CITY WITHIN A CITY: HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S MISSION DISTRICT The activity which is the subject of this Historic Context Statement has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. Regulations of the U.S.
  • SRTP Cover V2

    SRTP Cover V2

    Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) August 20, 2013 Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Page intentionally left blank August 20, 2013 | Arup North America Ltd Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Fairfield and Suisun Transit Short Range Transit Plan FINAL REPORT August 2013 Prepared for Solano Transportation Authority One Harbor Center, Suite 130 Suisun City, CA 94585 Fairfield and Suisun Transit 2000 Cadenasso Drive Fairfield, CA CA 94533 Prepared by Arup 560 Mission Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 August 30, 2013 | Arup North America Ltd Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Page intentionally left blank August 20, 2013 | Arup North America Ltd Solano Transportation Authority Short Range Transit Plan Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) Short Range Transit Plan FY2012-13 to FY2022-23 Date Approved by Governing Board: August 20, 2013 Date Approved by STA Board: September 11, 2013 Federal transportation statutes require that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in partnership with state and local agencies, develop and periodically update a long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which implements the RTP by programming federal funds to transportation projects contained in the RTP. In order to effectively execute these planning and programming responsibilities, MTC requires that each transit operator in its region which receives federal funding through the TIP, prepare, adopt, and submit to MTC a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The Board adopted resolution follows this page.
  • Technical Memorandum Balboa Park Station Area Plan Archeological Context I Final

    Technical Memorandum Balboa Park Station Area Plan Archeological Context I Final

    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM BALBOA PARK STATION AREA PLAN ARCHEOLOGICAL CONTEXT I FINAL Date 3 November 2006 To File No 2004 1059E Balboa Park Station Area Plan From Randall Dean of resources Topic an evaluation of potential presence significance archeological within the Balboa Park Station Area Plan area OBJECTIVES for the of this memorandum is information environmental The purpose provide background evaluation of the proposed Balboa Park Station Area Plan BPSAP regarding potential effects resources resources as to legally-significant archeological C'significant archeological and To achieve this the memorandum defined by CEQA 15064 5b c1 objective the basis for a provides an historic context of the Plan Area to serve as preliminary of that be identification and significance evaluation archeological properties may present information in this is within the Plan Area The historical and archeological provided report related the Plan Area and on and based on secondary archeological literature to primary General Land Office secondary historical documentation including historic maps US plats Census US Coast Surveys Sanborn Fire Insurance maps etc US Bureau population the Western Project historical schedules city directories Municipal Reports Neighborhoods discussion of the reports etc This report provides a general program-level general types that be within the Plan Area and property types of archeological resources may present affected future under the General thus potentially by physical projects proposed regulatory identification of Plan and Planning
  • APPENDIX A. Agenda Item 7A Income-Based Transit Fare Discount Pilot

    APPENDIX A. Agenda Item 7A Income-Based Transit Fare Discount Pilot

    APPENDIX A. Agenda Item 7a Income-Based Transit Fare Discount Pilot Program Fare Equity Analysis Board of Directors Meeting Wednesday December 16, 2020 TRI DELi.4 TRANSIT Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority 801 Wilbur Avenue• Antioch, California 94509 Phone 925.754.6622 Fax 925.757.2530 Income-Based Transit Fare Discount Pilot Program Fare Equity Analysis November 2020 Page 11 Table of Contents Agency Information .......................... .. ........................................................ ....................................................................... 2 Background and Purpose ............................................ ............................................................ ........... ................................ 2 ECCTA Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Policy .. ....................... ................................. ............................... 4 Existing Conditions ....... .......... ....................................................... ............ ......................................................................... 6 1. Clipper Fare Type Available on Fixed Route Buses ............................................................................... ...... ...... 6 2. Table 1: Adult Clipper Single-R ide General Public Fi xed Route Fare Cost.. ...................................................... 6 3. Table 2: Single- Ride General Public Fare Payment Methods by Fare Type on ECCTA Fixed Route Buses ... .... 6 Proposed Change to Fare Type and Fare with Pi lot Program .................
  • Request for Proposal for Transit Operations and Maintenance Services

    Request for Proposal for Transit Operations and Maintenance Services

    REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES Solano County Transit (SolTrans) Vallejo, California SOLICITATION NO. 2020-RFP-02 PROPOSALS DUE Tuesday, January 12, 2021 ISSUED FOR SOLICITATION Friday, October 16, 2020 2020-RFP-02 2 of 282 October 16, 2020 NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS ........................................................................................ 5 A. Obtaining Documents ........................................................................................ 5 B. Validity of Proposals .......................................................................................... 5 C. Required Pre-Proposal Conference ................................................................... 5 D. Proposal Inquiries and Contacts ........................................................................ 5 E. Equal Employment Opportunity and DBE/SBE Requirements .......................... 6 SECTION 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................ 7 1.1 PROCURING AGENCY AND PROJECT MANAGER .......................................... 7 1.2 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 7 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE RFP ........................................................................... 8 1.4 SOLTRANS’ RIGHTS ......................................................................................... 8 1.5 PROPOSERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................... 9 1.6 CONSEQUENCE OF SUBMISSION
  • Balboa Park Station Area Plan Archeological Context (Final)

    Balboa Park Station Area Plan Archeological Context (Final)

    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: BALBOA PARK STATION AREA PLAN ARCHEOLOGICAL CONTEXT (FINAL) Date: 3 November 2006 To: File No. 2004.1059E. - Balboa Park Station Area Plan From: Randall Dean Topic: an evaluation of potential presence & significance of archeological resources within the Balboa Park Station Area Plan area OBJECTIVES The purpose of this memorandum is provide background information for the environmental evaluation of the proposed Balboa Park Station Area Plan (BPSAP) regarding potential effects to legally-significant archeological resources ("significant" archeological resources as defined by CEQA §15064.S(b) and (c)(l)). To achieve this objective the memorandum provides an historic context of the Plan Area to serve as the basis for a preliminary identification and significance evaluation of archeological properties that may be present within the Plan Area. The historical and archeological information provided in this report is based on secondary archeological literature related to the Plan Area and on primary and secondary historical documentation including historic maps (U.S. General Land Office plats, U.S. Coast Surveys, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps etc.) U.S. Census Bureau population schedules, city directories, Municipal Reports, the Western Neighborhoods Project historical reports, etc). This report provides a general (program-level) discussion of the general types ("property types") of archeological resources that may be present within the Plan Area and, thus, potentially affected by future physical projects under the proposed regulatory General Plan and Planning Code changes proposed in the BPSAP. Site-specific identification of potential archeological resources is attempted for the Phelan Loop Site and the Kragen Auto Parts site for which the BPSAP proposes specific physical projects.
  • Historic Context Statement for San Francisco's Mission

    Historic Context Statement for San Francisco's Mission

    CITY WITHIN A CITY: HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S MISSION DISTRICT November 2007 Prepared by: City and County of San Francisco Planning Department ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Mayor Gavin Newsom Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Lily Chan Robert W. Cherny, Vice President Courtney Damkroger Ina Dearman Karl Hasz M. Bridget Maley, President Alan Martinez Johanna Street Planning Department Dean Macris, Director of Planning Neil Hart, Chief of Neighborhood Planning Mark Luellen, Preservation Coordinator Matt Weintraub, Citywide Survey Project Manager (Author) Thanks also to: N. Moses Corrette, Rachel Force, Beth Skrondal, and Sonya Banks of the Historic Resources Survey Team Survey Advisory Committee Charles Edwin Chase San Francisco Architectural Heritage (former Executive Director), Historic Preservation Fund Committee Courtney Damkroger Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Neil Hart Planning Department Tim Kelley Kelley & VerPlank Historical Resources Consulting M. Bridget Maley Architectural Resources Group, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board Mark Ryser San Francisco Beautiful Marie Nelson California Office of Historic Preservation Christopher VerPlank Kelley & VerPlank Historical Resources Consulting CITY WITHIN A CITY: HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S MISSION DISTRICT The activity which is the subject of this Historic Context Statement has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation.
  • Landmark Designation Report Dated October 18, 2017, Identified As

    Landmark Designation Report Dated October 18, 2017, Identified As

    FILE NO. 180005 ORDINANCE NO. 38-19 1 [Planning Code - Landmark Designation - 2728 Bryant Street (aka Sunshine School)] 2 3 Ordinance amending the Planning Code to designate 2728 Bryant Street (aka Sunshine 4 School), Assessor's Parcel Block No. 4273, Lot No. 008, as a Landmark under Article 10 5 of the Planning Code; affirming the Planning Department's determination under the 6 California Environmental Quality Act; and making public necessity, convenience, and 7 welfare findings under Planning Code, Section 302, and findings of consistency with 8 the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1. 9 NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain Arial font. Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font. nolofinnc fn f"nrloc ~ro in ati-ib-ath,,.011crh itaUcw Tiutoaa 7'Tm11 Dnutoa.,,,_£-uat 10 ..................... ""' •• ~ ....... ......,....,. ..... ,.........,\.A.I'-' Ill IJ(,/ t-1\A,,,lrlt-I vw51t- l>l>l-f..ld-l. .-'j..) J...t-J/f,.l._,l) ..LYVYY J...\..V/fl-\,f,/l-jVll>f.,. Board amendment additions are in double-underlined Arial font. 11 Board amendment deletions are in strikethrough /\rial font. Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code 12 subsecti'ons or parts of tables. 13 14 Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco: 15 Section 1. Findings. 16 (a) CEQA and Land Use Findings. 17 (1) The Planning Department has determined that the proposed Planning Code 18 amendment is subject to a Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality 19 Act (California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") pursuant to Section 20 15308 of the Guidelines for implementation of the statute for actions by regulatory agencies 21 for protection of the environment (in this case, landmark designation).
  • Short-Range Transit Plan Western Contra Costa Transit Authority 2016-2026 2 Table of Contents

    Short-Range Transit Plan Western Contra Costa Transit Authority 2016-2026 2 Table of Contents

    Short-Range Transit Plan Western Contra Costa Transit Authority 2016-2026 2 Table of Contents About WCCTA 4 Finance 72 Organizational Chart 5 Current Revenues and Expenses 76 Vehicle Replacement Plan 79 Capital Improvement Plan 79 Area Demographics 12 Budget Projections 83 Jobs 12 Poverty 13 Racial Self-Identification 14 Operation Plans and Goals 84 Limited-English Speaking Populations 15 Short-Term 84 Mid-Term 87 Regional Commute Patterns 16 Long-Term 87 Financially Unrestrained Vision Demand Generators and for the Future 88 Future Development 22 Appendix A: Connection Maps 92 Service Description 30 Appendix B: Excerpt of 2014 Express Routes 37 Onboard Survey 98 Regional and Transbay 40 Local Routes 40 Fares 52 Dial-a-Ride 54 Bus Maintenance Program 56 Customer Service 58 Performance Measurement 60 Current Measures 60 Potential Measures 68 3 About WCCTA This chapter presents background information on Committee is convened when necessary to respond the history and organizational structure of Western to proposed or pending state and federal legislation Contra Costa County Transit Authority, and describes that may affect the Authority and to formulate the transit service, service area, and any planning or recommendations for the full Board’s consideration. development changes that may impact the provision The ad hoc Marketing Committee provides input on of transit both within the service area and outside the Authority’s public and media relations. of it. The information in this chapter will provide a context for identifying current and future transit needs The organizational charts for the Authority, including of service area residents, and for evaluating how administration and operations, are presented in figures well WCCTA’s services are positioned to meet those 1-1 and 1-2.
  • Appendix a Performance Review Checklist/Toolkit

    Appendix a Performance Review Checklist/Toolkit

    APPENDIX A PERFORMANCE REVIEW CHECKLIST/TOOLKIT Annual hub performance reviews/evaluations will be conducted by MTC at each of the major regional transit hubs to implement recommended hub-related improvements. In addition, there are recommended systemwide connectivity improvements – the 511 program and fare coordination - that will also be implemented. This appendix is organized into two main elements: 1. specific requirements for hub-related improvements and systemwide connectivity improvements - Appendix A1- Wayfinding Signage Checklist - Appendix A2 – Transit Information Display Case Requirements - Appendix A3 – 511/Real-time Program Requirements 2. recommended guidelines and standards that should be followed in order to implement recommended hub-related improvements - Appendix A-4 – Connectivity Guidelines - Appendix A-5 – Last Mile and Hub Amenities Checklist - Appendix A-6 – Hub Activity Survey - Appendix A-7 – Hub Schedule Adherence Survey The hub-related and the systemwide improvement recommendations included in the study and this appendix constitute the Transit Connectivity Plan that will be incorporated into MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan pursuant to Street and Highway Code Section 30914.5 (as promulgated by RM2) and Government Code Section 66516.5. RM2 stipulates that the transit operators must comply with the connectivity plan recommendations in order to receive STA funds and RM2 funds identified for designated projects/operators. This plan recommends that MTC monitor compliance at the 12 hubs with the implementation plan; the intent is to eventually ensure compliance for all 21 hubs identified as part of the regional network within the next 5 – 7 years. A - 1 APPENDIX A-1 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE The wayfinding signage checklist is intended for use in evaluating the current characteristics of a hub and defining existing problems and issues.