DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 3: Environmental Setting and Consequences CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents information on the environmental setting in the project area as well as the environmental consequences of the No-Electrification and Electrification Program Alternatives. Environmental issue categories are organized in alphabetical order, consistent with the CEQA checklist presented in Appendix A. The project study area encompasses the geographic area potentially most affected by the project. For most issues involving physical effects this is the project “footprint,” or the area that would be disturbed for or replaced by the new project facilities. This area focuses on the Caltrain corridor from the San Francisco Fourth and King Station in the City and County of San Francisco to the Gilroy Station in downtown Gilroy in Santa Clara County and also includes the various locations proposed for traction power facilities and power connections. Air quality effects may be felt over a wider area. 3.1 AESTHETICS 3.1.1 VISUAL OR AESTHETIC SETTING The visual or aesthetic environment in the Caltrain corridor is described to establish the baseline against which to compare changes resulting from construction of project facilities and the demolition or alteration of existing structures. This discussion focuses on representative locations along the railroad corridor, including existing stations (both modern and historic), tunnel portals, railroad overpasses, locations of the proposed traction power facilities and other areas where the Electrification Program would physically change above-ground features, affecting the visual appearance of the area and views enjoyed by area residents and users. For purposes of this analysis, sensitive visual receptors are defined as corridor residents and business occupants, recreational users of parks and preserved natural areas, and students of schools in the vicinity of the proposed project. Scenic views are defined as long-range views towards preserved natural areas or recognized visual and/or historic landmarks. A visual change would be considered adverse if it introduced obtrusive elements substantially out of character with existing land uses or substantially obscured a scenic view or vista available to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project features. 3.1.1.1 Visual Character of Caltrain Corridor Existing transportation facilities, including railroad tracks, ancillary structures, area freeways and roadways, are the dominant visual elements along the existing Caltrain corridor. Towards the northern end of the Caltrain route, adjacent uses are primarily industrial in character, there is little natural landscaping, and there are no views or vistas of interest. Moving southward down the Peninsula, there is a greater variety of adjacent land uses, including residential and natural landscaping; however, rail facilities continue to dominate the visual environment of the corridor. In the southernmost segment of the corridor, between San Jose and Gilroy, land uses along the corridor are primarily residential, rural and agricultural, and the railroad corridor and its facilities are less dominant. Some residential areas in the southern portion of the project area currently Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR 3-1 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES enjoy scenic views to the hills in eastern Santa Clara County. Several schools and parks abut the railroad at various locations along the project corridor. 3.1.1.2 Representative Corridor Locations Possessing Sensitive Visual Receptors or Offering Scenic Views The locations described below were selected because they are representative of the numerous Caltrain corridor locations that are proximate to sensitive visual receptors. Visual simulations of existing locations with the proposed electrification facilities of the Electrification Program Alternative in place are discussed in Section 3.1.2.2. Bayshore Station. The existing visual quality of the Bayshore Station area is primarily characterized by the railroad corridor and the industrial land uses surrounding it. The former Schlage Lock Factory (now vacant) is located on the western side of the railroad tracks across from the station platform. Residents on the hill above and northwest of the station currently have views of the railroad right-of-way. Downtown San Bruno. Businesses in Downtown San Bruno have northerly views toward the railroad corridor and San Bruno Avenue grade crossing. Visual elements in the immediate vicinity of the grade crossing include the railroad and ancillary structures, an elevated parking structure and street lighting electroliers. Distant views of the hills from downtown are currently available. San Carlos Station. The San Carlos Station has historically been visually important due to the quality of its architecture. In 1999, the existing at-grade railroad tracks were raised approximately 15 feet, resulting in the rail alignment no longer being at-grade with the station. The elevated rail alignment with its embankment, fencing, lighting, and passenger shelters, now dominates the view of the station from proximate San Carlos streets and businesses. The primary view of the station for passengers leaving the train at San Carlos is of the historic station roof. Redwood Junction. The Redwood “Wye” Junction is located north of the City of Atherton in the railroad corridor. An adjacent residential area is currently separated from the railroad right- of-way by a cyclone fence. Views of the railroad corridor are primarily from the street and sidewalk areas of the neighborhood. Existing utility wires and poles are located along the street next to the railroad. Atherton. The aesthetic setting of the railroad corridor in Atherton is characterized by the spacious homes and mature landscaping in the neighborhood that surrounds it. The historic Atherton depot reflects the high visual quality of the surrounding residential area. Existing residences abut the railroad right-of-way although backyard fences and mature vegetation currently obscure most views of the corridor. San Antonio. Residents in multi-story apartments located across the street from the San Antonio Station currently have views of the at-grade station platform. The station, as viewed from these residences, is characterized by railroad and ancillary structures, street utilities and minimal landscaping. Beyond the station platform, mature trees and landscaping are visible. 3-2 Caltrain Electrification Program EA/EIR CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND CONSEQUENCES Passengers on the San Antonio Station platform have views of the railroad corridor and roadway overcrossing at this location. South San Jose. Segments of the railroad right-of-way in southern San Jose are constructed on an elevated embankment. Existing views from residential areas in the vicinity of the corridor in these locations are dominated by the elevated railroad right-of-way. Morgan Hill. The Morgan Hill area is representative of the rural context of the southern portion of the railroad corridor. Existing residential areas currently have high quality views looking eastward across fields and the railroad right-of-way to the mountains beyond. Utility wires and poles are currently visible along the highway in the vicinity of the railroad corridor. 3.1.2 VISUAL/AESTHETIC IMPACTS Physical changes attributable to the Caltrain Electrification Program that would cause changes to views currently experienced by residents and other users of the area are described in this section. Mitigation measures to minimize visual effects are described in Section 3.1.3. 3.1.2.1 No-Electrification Alternative Under the No-Electrification Alternative, the Caltrain system would be rehabilitated and enhanced within the existing JPB or UPRR-owned right-of-way. No major adverse changes to existing visual quality are anticipated because the modifications would largely consist of low- profile trackwork, crossovers, switching equipment, and grade crossing improvements. These types of modifications would be consistent with the current aesthetic quality of the existing railroad corridor, although there would be temporary disruptions causing visual impacts during construction of these facilities. There would be no need to erect OCS poles and wires or other electrification facilities off the right-of-way, however. 3.1.2.2 Electrification Program Alternative Under the Electrification Program Alternative, physical changes would occur where electrification facilities, including the OCS poles and wires, and traction power facilities are proposed. Trees and mature vegetation would be trimmed back to enable placement, operation and maintenance of the poles and wires. These physical changes would alter views from residential or business areas in various locations along the corridor. Overhead Contact System and Traction Power Facilities. OCS poles and wires would be introduced throughout the existing rail corridor from San Francisco to Gilroy. In general, the introduction of OCS poles and wires within an existing railroad corridor would not constitute a substantial adverse visual change; these types of facilities are consistent with the existing visual quality of the active commuter and freight rail corridor. Residents or business occupants, however, may consider these visual effects adverse. The new OCS infrastructure would be more or less visible from corridor residences and businesses, depending on the visual screening between the rail corridor and adjacent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ACT BART S Ites by Region.Csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7
    Services Transit Outreach Materials Distribution Light Rail Station Maintenance and Inspection Photography—Capture Metadata and GPS Marketing Follow-Up Programs Service Locations Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/Saint Paul San Francisco/Oakland Bay Area Our Customer Service Pledge Our pledge is to organize and act with precision to provide you with excellent customer service. We will do all this with all the joy that comes with the morning sun! “I slept and dreamed that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy. “Tagore Email: [email protected] Website: URBANMARKETINGCHANNELS.COM Urban Marketing Channel’s services to businesses and organizations in Atlanta, Dallas, San Francisco, Oakland and the Twin Cities metro areas since 1981 have allowed us to develop a specialty client base providing marketing outreach with a focus on transit systems. Some examples of our services include: • Neighborhood demographic analysis • Tailored response and mailing lists • Community event monitoring • Transit site management of information display cases and kiosks • Transit center rider alerts • Community notification of construction and route changes • On-Site Surveys • Enhance photo and list data with geocoding • Photographic services Visit our website (www.urbanmarketingchannels.com) Contact us at [email protected] 612-239-5391 Bay Area Transit Sites (includes BART and AC Transit.) Prepared by Urban Marketing Channels ACT BART S ites by Region.csv TB1 TB6 TB4 TB2 TB3 TB5 TB7 UnSANtit
    [Show full text]
  • SBC Executivesummfac
    CAPITOL CORRIDOR SOUTH BAY CONNECT AUGUST 2020 Purpose Study Area and Project Elements South Bay Connect proposes to relocate the Capitol Corridor passenger rail service between the Oakland N Coliseum and Newark from the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision for a faster, more direct route. It will also create new transbay connections for passengers between the East Bay and Peninsula by connecting to bus and shuttle services at the Ardenwood Station. The project is not proposing an increase in Capitol Corridor service frequency or changes to UP’s freight service, but does not preclude service growth in the future. The relocation will facilitate the separation of passenger and freight rail, resulting in improved rail operations, efficiency, and reliability while minimizing rail congestion within the corridor. Proposed New Station and Railroad Potential Station Area Proposed Capitol Corridor (CC) Service Potential Station Considered and Eliminated Existing CC Service Existing Station CC Service to be Discontinued Station where CC Service Study Area to be Discontinued UP Improvement Area BART Station Benefits Reduce passenger rail travel time between Oakland and San Jose and throughout the larger megaregion to increase ridership on transit, ease congestion on the Bay Area’s stressed roadways, and decrease auto commutes. Diversify and enhance network integration by reducing duplicative capital investments and dif- ferentiating Capitol Corridor’s intercity rail service from commuter rail and other transit services, including BART’s extension to San Jose. Support economic vitality by permitting enhanced rail movement and the preservation of freight rail capacity in the Northern California market through the reduction of existing conflicts between freight rail operations and passenger rail service.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Fill in San Francisco: a History of Change
    SDMS DOCID# 1137835 BAY FILL IN SAN FRANCISCO: A HISTORY OF CHANGE A thesis submitted to the faculty of California State University, San Francisco in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Gerald Robert Dow Department of Geography July 1973 Permission is granted for the material in this thesis to be reproduced in part or whole for the purpose of education and/or research. It may not be edited, altered, or otherwise modified, except with the express permission of the author. - ii - - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Maps . vi INTRODUCTION . .1 CHAPTER I: JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF SAN FRANCISCO’S TIDELANDS . .4 Definition of Tidelands . .5 Evolution of Tideland Ownership . .5 Federal Land . .5 State Land . .6 City Land . .6 Sale of State Owned Tidelands . .9 Tideland Grants to Railroads . 12 Settlement of Water Lot Claims . 13 San Francisco Loses Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 14 San Francisco Regains Jurisdiction over Its Waterfront . 15 The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Port of San Francisco . 18 CHAPTER II: YERBA BUENA COVE . 22 Introduction . 22 Yerba Buena, the Beginning of San Francisco . 22 Yerba Buena Cove in 1846 . 26 San Francisco’s First Waterfront . 26 Filling of Yerba Buena Cove Begins . 29 The Board of State Harbor Commissioners and the First Seawall . 33 The New Seawall . 37 The Northward Expansion of San Francisco’s Waterfront . 40 North Beach . 41 Fisherman’s Wharf . 43 Aquatic Park . 45 - iii - Pier 45 . 47 Fort Mason . 48 South Beach . 49 The Southward Extension of the Great Seawall .
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Governance
    Caltrain Governance JPB Special Meeting #3 on Governance June 25, 2021 Welcome to Special Meeting #3 2 • Review Meeting #3 Objectives and Special Meeting Governance Process Roadmap • Staff Presentations #3 Agenda • Approach to Regional and Non-Self Directed Relationships • Active and Emerging Discussions • Strategic Issues ~ Break ~ • Discussion • Next Steps 3 Special Meeting #3 Objectives and Process Roadmap 4 JPB Governance 2021 Roadmap Goals: Goals: - Exploration and education about the JPB’s range of structural - Discussion of selected option(s) and financial and legal analysis towards developing governance paths. the 2021 governance recommendation. - Selection of governance options and key issues to focus on in Phase 2. - Adoption of governance recommendation at December 2021 JPB meeting. 2021 January February March April May June July August September October November December Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Process Ad Hoc #1 Hoc #2 Hoc #3 Hoc #4 Hoc #5 Hoc #6 Hoc #7 Hoc #8 Hoc #9 Hoc #10 Hoc #11 Board Adoption Special Special Special Special Special of 2021 Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 Meeting #5 Governance Recommendation We Are Here 5 JPB Governance 2021 Roadmap Goals: Goals: - Exploration and education about the JPB’s range of structural - Discussion of selected option(s) and financial and legal analysis towards developing governance paths. the 2021 governance recommendation. - Selection of governance options and key issues to focus on
    [Show full text]
  • San Jose to Merced Project Section State's
    SUMMER 2019 SAN JOSE TO MERCED PROJECT SECTION STATE’S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OVERVIEW High-speed rail offers an unprecedented opportunity to modernize California’s transportation system and tie together the state’s economies. The San Jose to Merced Project Section will be the crucial connection between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. This fact sheet discusses the staff recommendation for the State’s Preferred Alternative to be considered by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) Board of Directors. WHAT IS A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE? Since 2008, numerous alternatives have been considered Alternative. Authority staff is seeking feedback on this for the high-speed rail alignment traveling within and recommendation before it is presented to the Authority outside of the Bay Area. Ultimately, four alternatives Board of Directors in September 2019. are being analyzed for the Draft Environmental Impact Alternative 4 will be referred to as the staff-recommended Report/Statement (EIR/EIS). The alternative determined State’s Preferred Alternative until the Authority Board to best balance tradeoffs between environmental; of Directors concurs with the staff recommendation or community; and performance, operations, and cost factors requests that a different alternative be identified as the will be identified as the State’s Preferred Alternative. State’s Preferred Alternative. The identification of the Planning, design, and analysis of the four alternatives, State’s Preferred Alternative for the Draft EIR/EIS does collaboration with landowners and agencies, and input not express or imply approval or adoption of a preferred from the public and stakeholders has led Authority staff alternative for final design or construction.
    [Show full text]
  • San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium - Second Floor 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2011 KARYL MATSUMOTO, CHAIR JERRY DEAL, VICE CHAIR JEFF GEE CAROLE GROOM ROSE GUILBAULT SHIRLEY HARRIS ZOE KERSTEEN-TUCKER ARTHUR L. LLOYD ADRIENNE TISSIER A G E N D A MICHAEL J. SCANLON GENERAL MANAGER/CEO COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Accessibility, Senior Services, and Community Issues) San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium - Second Floor 1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011 – 2:00 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Community Relations Committee Meeting of November 9, 2011 INFORMATIONAL 3. Accessibility Update - Tina DuBost 4. Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) Update - Nancy Keegan 5. Citizens Advisory Committee Liaison Report - Peter Ratto 6. Mobility Management Report – Fixed-route Bus Service 7. Multimodal Ridership Report - October 2011 Committee Members: Rose Guilbault, Carole Groom, Shirley Harris NOTE: • This Committee meeting may be attended by Board Members who do not sit on this Committee. In the event that a quorum of the entire Board is present, this Committee shall act as a Committee of the Whole. In either case, any item acted upon by the Committee or the Committee of the Whole will require consideration and action by the full Board of Directors as a prerequisite to its legal enactment. • All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board. SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Committee Members Present: R.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Business Plan
    Caltrain Business Plan JULY 2019 LPMG 6/27/2019 What Addresses the future potential of the railroad over the next 20-30 years. It will assess the benefits, impacts, and costs of different What is service visions, building the case for investment and a plan for the Caltrain implementation. Business Plan? Why Allows the community and stakeholders to engage in developing a more certain, achievable, financially feasible future for the railroad based on local, regional, and statewide needs. 2 What Will the Business Plan Cover? Technical Tracks Service Business Case Community Interface Organization • Number of trains • Value from • Benefits and impacts to • Organizational structure • Frequency of service investments (past, surrounding communities of Caltrain including • Number of people present, and future) • Corridor management governance and delivery riding the trains • Infrastructure and strategies and approaches • Infrastructure needs operating costs consensus building • Funding mechanisms to to support different • Potential sources of • Equity considerations support future service service levels revenue 3 Where Are We in the Process? Board Adoption Stanford Partnership and Board Adoption of Board Adoption of of Scope Technical Team Contracting 2040 Service Vision Final Business Plan Initial Scoping Technical Approach Part 1: Service Vision Development Part 2: Business Implementation and Stakeholder Refinement, Partnering, Plan Completion Outreach and Contracting We Are Here 4 Flexibility and Integration 5 What Service planning work to date has been focused on the development of detailed, Understanding illustrative growth scenarios for the Caltrain corridor. The following analysis generalizes the 2040 these detailed scenarios, emphasizing opportunities for both variation and larger “Growth regional integration within the service Scenarios” as frameworks that have been developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Packet Is Available for Download at Sanfranciscobayferry.Com/Weta
    Members of the Board BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING Jody Breckenridge, Chair Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. Jeffrey DelBono San Francisco Bay Area Timothy Donovan Water Emergency Transportation Authority Anthony J. Intintoli, Jr 9 Pier, Suite 111; San Francisco The full agenda packet is available for download at sanfranciscobayferry.com/weta. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER – BOARD CHAIR 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL 3. REPORT OF BOARD CHAIR Information 4. REPORTS OF DIRECTORS Information 5. REPORTS OF STAFF Information a. Executive Director’s Report b. Monthly Review of Financial Statements c. Legislative Update 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Action a. Board Meeting Minutes - April 2, 2015 b. Authorize Filing Applications with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for FY 2015/16 Regional Measure 2 Operating Funds c. Authorize the Filing of an Application with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $12,000,000 Regional Measure 2 Capital Funds d. Approve Amendment to Agreement with GHD for Engineering and Construction Support Services for the North Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED BALLPARK FARE CHANGES Timed Item 1:00 p.m. 8. APPROVE BALLPARK FERRY SERVICE FARE CHANGES Action 9. APPROVE FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Action 10. AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE Action A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO FERRY TERMINAL EXPANSION PROJECT 11. APPROVE FY 2015-2018 TITLE VI PROGRAM Action 12. AUTHORIZE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A Action LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES NAVY FOR THE WATERSIDE PHASE OF THE NORTH BAY MAINTENANCE FACILITY Water Emergency Transportation Authority May 7, 2015 Meeting of the Board of Directors PROJECT 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Clara Valley Transportation
    SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination and Budgetary Comparison Schedule For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program [A Fund of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority] For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 Table of Contents Page(s) Independent Accountant’s Report ................................................................................................................. 1 Budgetary Comparison Schedule (On a Budgetary Basis) ........................................................................... 2 Notes to Budgetary Comparison Schedule ............................................................................................ 3 - 10 Supplementary Information – Program Summaries ............................................................................. 11 - 30 Supplementary Information – 2000 Measure A Ballot ........................................................................ 31 - 33 Independent Accountant’s Report on Compliance Examination 2000 Measure A Citizens Watchdog Committee 3331 North First Street San Jose, California 95134 We have examined the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) compliance with the requirements of the 2000 Measure A Transit Improvement Program (2000 Measure A Program), a fund of VTA, for the year ended June 30, 2019. The
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, Chapter 7
    7.0 ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION & Fig. 7 Resolution 3434 EVALUATION — STEP-BY-STEP Step One: Base Network Healdsburg Sonoma Recognizing that Resolution 3434 represents County 8 MTC’s regional rail investment over the next 25 Santa years as adopted first in the 2001 Regional Trans- Rosa Napa portation Plan and reaffirmed in the subsequent County Vacaville 9 plan update, Resolution 3434 is included as part Napa of the “base case” network. Therefore, the study Petaluma Solano effort focuses on defining options for rail improve- County ments and expansions beyond Resolution 3434. Vallejo Resolution 3434 rail projects include: Marin County 8 9 Pittsburg 1. BART/East Contra Costa Rail (eBART) San Antioch 1 Rafael Concord Richmond 2. ACE/Increased Services Walnut Berkeley Creek MTC Resolution 3434 Contra Costa 3. BART/I-580 Rail Right-of-Way Preservation County Rail Projects Oakland 4. Dumbarton Bridge Rail Service San 1 BART: East Contra Costa Extension Francisco 10 6 3 2 ACE: Increased Service 5. BART/Fremont-Warm Springs to San Jose Daly City 2 Pleasanton Livermore 3 South Extension BART: Rail Right-of-Way Preservation San Francisco Hayward Union City 4 Dumbarton Rail Alameda 6. Caltrain/Rapid Rail/Electrification & Extension San Mateo Fremont County 5 BART: Fremont/Warm Springs 4 to Downtown San Francisco/Transbay Transit to San Jose Extension 7 Redwood City 5 Center 6 & Extension to Downtown SF/ Mountain Milpitas Transbay Transit Center View Palo Alto 7. Caltrain/Express Service 7 Caltrain: Express Service Sunnyvale Santa Clara San San Santa Clara 8 Jose 8. SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) SMART (Sonoma-Marin Rail) Mateo Cupertino County 9 County 9.
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
    State of California & The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial Page 1 of 32 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Potrero Point Historic District D1. Historic Name Potrero Point/Lower Potrero D2. Common Name: Central Waterfront *D3. Detailed Description (Discuss coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of district.): The Potrero Point Historic District (also referred to as the Central Waterfront) is located in the Potrero Hill district of San Francisco on the western side of San Francisco Bay in the City of San Francisco between Mission Creek on the north and Islais Creek to the south. The approximately 500-acre area is more precisely described as a roughly rectangular district bounded by Sixteenth Street to the north, San Francisco Bay to the east, Islais Creek to the south, and U.S. Interstate 280 to the west. The area measures approximately 1.3 miles from north to south, and approximately 0.6 miles wide from east to west. (See Continuation Sheet, Pg. 2) *D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.): The Potrero Point (Central Waterfront) area is enclosed within a rectangle formed by the following streets and natural features: Beginning at the northwest corner of Pennsylvania and Sixteenth streets, the northern boundary of the area extends east along Sixteenth Street into San Francisco Bay. The boundary turns ninety degrees and heads south through the bay encompassing the entirety of Piers 70 and 80. At Islais Creek Channel, the boundary makes a ninety degree turn and heads west along the southern shore of the channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Item # Agenda ID # 16651 (Rev. 2) PROPOSED RESOLUTION Safety
    SED/RTSB/EIM/RNC/DAR/JEB/PD2 Item # Agenda ID # 16651 (Rev. 2) PROPOSED RESOLUTION PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Safety and Enforcement Division Resolution ST‐216 Rail Transit Safety Branch September 27, 2018 REDACTED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION ST‐216 GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE FINAL REPORT ON THE 2017 TRIENNIAL ON‐SITE SECURITY REVIEW OF BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISCTRICT SUMMARY This resolution approves the California Public Utilities Commission Safety and Enforcement Division final report titled, ʺ2017 Triennial On‐Site Security Review of Bay Area Rapid Transit District,ʺ dated November 12, 2017. The report compiles the results of Commission Staff review of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s security program. Only background information and review procedures are included in the redacted report; findings and recommendations are not. BACKGROUND Commission General Order No. 164‐D, ʺRules and Regulations Governing State Safety Oversight of Rail Fixed Guideway Systemsʺ requires Commission Staff (Staff) to conduct on‐site security review of the transit agencies operating rail fixed guideway systems triennially. From 1996 to 2008, the Commission’s Rail Transit Safety staff partnered with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in performing rail transit security reviews. However, in the latter half of 2008, Commission 228548656 - 1 - SED/RTSB/EIM/RNC/DAR/JEB/PD2 Resolution ST‐216 Agenda ID # 16651 September 27, 2018 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Staff took over the responsibility of security reviews from the TSA. Staff conducted an on‐site security review of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) security program in October 2017. BART provides rail transit services 365 days of the year throughout the counties of San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and Contra Costa.
    [Show full text]