DOCSLIB.ORG

Eureka Valley (Castro) Historic Context Statement", Adopted by the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission December 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eureka Valley (Castro) Historic Context Statement Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Faculty Publications Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation 2017 "Eureka Valley (Castro) Historic Context Statement", Adopted by the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission December 2017 Elaine B. Stiles Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Eureka Valley Historic Context Statement Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association By Elaine B. Stiles Adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission on December 20, 2017 CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Previous Surveys, Evaluations, and Designated Resources ................................................................ 4 II. Historical Development and Themes ..................................................................................... 6 Native Californian Settlement and Presence ..................................................................................... 6 Spanish and Mexican Settlement and Land Development (1776‐1848) ............................................ 7 Early American Period Land Division and Settlement (1848‐1864) ................................................. 10 Homestead Era Land Division and Settlement (1864‐1886) ............................................................ 16 Streetcar Suburb (1886‐1906) .......................................................................................................... 38 Becoming a District of the City (1906‐1941) .................................................................................... 80 Neighborhood in Transition (1941‐1974) ....................................................................................... 111 III. Property Types and Architectural Styles ............................................................................ 135 Residential Property Types ............................................................................................................. 135 Commercial Property Types ........................................................................................................... 158 Architectural Styles ......................................................................................................................... 166 IV. Evaluation Frameworks ..................................................................................................... 202 Criteria for Evaluating Historic Properties ...................................................................................... 202 Themes, Property Types, and Eligibility Requirements .................................................................. 204 V. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 241 Potential San Francisco Landmarks ................................................................................................ 241 Potential Historic Districts .............................................................................................................. 241 Survey and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 242 VI. Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 244 i DRAFT ‐ Eureka Valley Historic Context Statement May 2017 I. INTRODUCTION The place San Franciscans know as Eureka Valley has had many names since its first settlement by Europeans in the mid nineteenth century: Rancho San Miguel, Horner’s Addition, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, “the Sunny Heart of San Francisco,” and most recently, The Castro.1 Two hundred and forty years ago, the valley was a hinterland to the Mission Dolores settlement and then part of a large Mexican rancho. Over the course of less than fifty years in the late nineteenth century, Eureka Valley went from a rural fringe area of agricultural and industrial production to one of the city’s burgeoning streetcar suburbs. After surviving the 1906 earthquake and fire largely intact, the valley became a full‐fledged urban district, complete with its own local commercial district, civic and religious institutions, and city services. Widespread demographic shifts in the city and greater urban decentralization after World War II affected long‐standing change in Eureka Valley, underwriting its transition in the 1960s and 1970s into one of the country’s most well‐known predominantly gay neighborhoods. As a neighborhood, Eureka Valley boasts historic properties ranging from some of San Francisco’s earliest surviving dwellings to sites significant for their association with LGBTQ history of the last twenty‐ five years. Eureka Valley is also a neighborhood that continues to change, as evidenced by schemes of new infill residential development, new commercial development, and changing institutions and demographics. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In recognition of the wealth of historic resources in Eureka Valley, the Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association (EVNA), in partnership with San Francisco Historic Preservation Fund Committee and the San Francisco Planning Department, developed the Eureka Valley Historic Context Statement (HCS) to provide a framework for consistent, informed evaluations of historic resources in the Eureka Valley/Castro neighborhood. The context statement documents the development history of the neighborhood and calls out influential themes, geographic patterns, and time periods in the district’s history. The context statement also identifies key associated historic property types, forms, and architectural styles and their character‐defining features, and a detailed discussion of potential areas of significance, criteria considerations, and integrity thresholds. The Eureka Valley HCS study area encompasses all or a portion of twenty‐nine city blocks roughly bounded by 16th, Market, and 17th streets on the north, Sanchez and Church streets on the east, 20th and 21st streets on the south, and Douglass Street on the west. (Figure 1) The irregular bounds of the study area are based on several factors: local understanding of neighborhood boundaries, the bounds of the 1864 Eureka Homestead Association tract that was the namesake of the neighborhood, the boundaries of previously completed historic context statements in adjacent neighborhoods, and visual and topographical considerations. On the east, the study area boundaries extend to the edges of study areas for the Mission Dolores Neighborhood Survey and Market & Octavia Area Plan Historic Resource Survey (HRS). On the south, the boundaries align with the top of the ridge that separates Eureka and Noe Valleys. On the west, the study area extends to the 1 Simons, Bill, “Districts: Eureka Valley Section Is Pleasant and Friendly,” San Francisco Chronicle, July 21, 1940. 1 DRAFT ‐ Eureka Valley Historic Context Statement May 2017 Figure 1. Study Area 2 DRAFT ‐ Eureka Valley Historic Context Statement May 2017 edges of the Corbett Heights Historic Context Statement coverage area. And on the north, the study area extends to the bounds of the Market & Octavia Area Plan HRS study area and the irregular property line behind lots on the north side of 17th Street. The study period for the Eureka Valley HCS dates from just before permanent European settlement in the region to 1976. The end date of 1976 extends the study period ten years beyond the typical fifty‐year cut‐off date for historic designation consideration, currently 1966. The extension of the study period gives the context statement a ten‐year future window of potential use. METHODS The Eureka Valley HCS is the product of reconnaissance‐level field observation and documentation, archival research, previous historic preservation planning efforts, and public input. Reconnaissance‐level fieldwork and research for the HCS began in July 2015, with the fieldwork completed the same month.2 Research repositories consulted for the project include the San Francisco History Center at the San Francisco Public Library; the libraries at the University of California, Berkeley; the Online Archive of California; the San Francisco Planning Department; the David Rumsey Map Collection; and Internet Archive. Key primary research materials included Sanborn Company fire insurance maps, historical atlas and survey maps, US Census records,3 city directories, historic photographs, and the online archives of the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Call. The HCS is organized into a set of themes, arranged chronologically based on periods of development in the study area. Each theme ends with a discussion of historic property types associated with that theme. Themes that continue through multiple development periods, such as agriculture and industrial production, are treated in whole under the development period when the theme began. The study area contains a wealth of developer‐driven housing from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as well as a variety of commercial buildings from the same
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Outside Lands Outside Lands History from the Western Neighborhoods Project 2 Where in West S.F.? (Previously Issued As SF West History)
    OutsideSan Francisco HistoryLands from Western Neighborhoods Project Volume 14, No. 1 Jan–Mar 2018 100 Years of the Twin Peaks Tunnel I NS I DE 1 Inside the Outside Lands OUTSIDE LANDS History from the Western Neighborhoods Project 2 Where in West S.F.? (Previously issued as SF West History) January-March 2018: Volume 14, Number 1 3 OpenSFHistory Highlight John Martini remembers Fleishhacker Pool EDITOR: Woody LaBounty CONTRIBUTORS: Angus Macfarlane, John Martini, and Arnold Woods 6 Roosevelt History, Part One The Story of a Richmond District school Board of Directors 2018 by Angus Macfarlane Chelsea Sellin, President Jamie O’Keefe, Vice President Anisha Gupta, Secretary 10 Westward the Course of Empire Takes its David Gallagher, Treasurer Way–100 Years of the Twin Peaks Tunnel Richard Brandi, David Chang, Nicole Meldahl, Kyrie Whitsett, Arnold Woods by Arnold Woods Staff: Woody LaBounty, Dave Lucas 15 Thank You to Our Donors Advisory Board Those who supported us in 2017 Cammy Blackstone, Al Harris, Gretchen Hilyard, Brady Lea, Felicity O’Meara, Paul Rosenberg, Nate Tico, and Lorri Ungaretti 20 Historical Happenings The WNP Event Calendar Western Neighborhoods Project 4016 Geary Boulevard, Suite A 22 A Home for History San Francisco, CA 94118 New WNP digs at 1617 Balboa Street Tel: 415/661-1000 Email: [email protected] Website: www.outsidelands.org facebook.com/outsidelands twitter.com/outsidelandz instagram.com/westernneighborhoods/ Cover: Mayor Rolph driving the first streetcar out of the west portal of the Twin Peaks tunnel, February 3, 1918. (wnp15.174) © 2018 Western Neighborhoods Project. All rights reserved. Inside the Outside Lands Woody LaBounty estern Neighborhoods Project from the neighborhoods recon- (that’s us), the nonprofit with a nected, but just as many strangers mission to preserve and share became new friends in sharing their Wlocal history, now has a public space love of history and of the west side for exhibits, presentations, and com- of San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • Argonaut #2 2019 Cover.Indd 1 1/23/20 1:18 PM the Argonaut Journal of the San Francisco Historical Society Publisher and Editor-In-Chief Charles A
    1/23/20 1:18 PM Winter 2020 Winter Volume 30 No. 2 Volume JOURNAL OF THE SAN FRANCISCO HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOL. 30 NO. 2 Argonaut #2_2019_cover.indd 1 THE ARGONAUT Journal of the San Francisco Historical Society PUBLISHER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Charles A. Fracchia EDITOR Lana Costantini PHOTO AND COPY EDITOR Lorri Ungaretti GRapHIC DESIGNER Romney Lange PUBLIcatIONS COMMIttEE Hudson Bell Lee Bruno Lana Costantini Charles Fracchia John Freeman Chris O’Sullivan David Parry Ken Sproul Lorri Ungaretti BOARD OF DIREctORS John Briscoe, President Tom Owens, 1st Vice President Mike Fitzgerald, 2nd Vice President Kevin Pursglove, Secretary Jack Lapidos,Treasurer Rodger Birt Edith L. Piness, Ph.D. Mary Duffy Darlene Plumtree Nolte Noah Griffin Chris O’Sullivan Richard S. E. Johns David Parry Brent Johnson Christopher Patz Robyn Lipsky Ken Sproul Bruce M. Lubarsky Paul J. Su James Marchetti John Tregenza Talbot Moore Diana Whitehead Charles A. Fracchia, Founder & President Emeritus of SFHS EXECUTIVE DIREctOR Lana Costantini The Argonaut is published by the San Francisco Historical Society, P.O. Box 420470, San Francisco, CA 94142-0470. Changes of address should be sent to the above address. Or, for more information call us at 415.537.1105. TABLE OF CONTENTS A SECOND TUNNEL FOR THE SUNSET by Vincent Ring .....................................................................................................................................6 THE LAST BASTION OF SAN FRANCISCO’S CALIFORNIOS: The Mission Dolores Settlement, 1834–1848 by Hudson Bell .....................................................................................................................................22 A TENDERLOIN DISTRIct HISTORY The Pioneers of St. Ann’s Valley: 1847–1860 by Peter M. Field ..................................................................................................................................42 Cover photo: On October 21, 1928, the Sunset Tunnel opened for the first time.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Soma Plan Draft
    CHAPTER VI Alternatives CHAPTER VI Alternatives VI.A Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a), state that an environmental impact report (EIR) must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, but that would avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant adverse environmental effects of the project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project and is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives and include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines set forth the following additional criteria for selecting and evaluating alternatives: ● [T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. (Section 15126.6(b)) ● The range of potential alternatives shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. (Section 15126.6(c)) ● The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. (Section 15126.6(e)(1)) ● The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT MINUTES San Francisco County Transportation Authority Tuesday, November 17, 2020
    DRAFT MINUTES San Francisco County Transportation Authority Tuesday, November 17, 2020 1. Roll Call Chair Peskin called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. Present at Roll Call: Commissioners Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Preston, Peskin, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton and Yee (10) Absent at Roll Call: Commissioner Mar (entered during Item 2) (1) 2. Chair’s Report – INFORMATION Chair Peskin reported that in addition to helping elect President-elect Biden and Vice- President-elect Harris, San Francisco voters looked favorably on transportation funding measures on November 3rd. He added that locally, San Francisco approved Proposition A, the Health and Homelessness, Parks and Streets Bond. He said that this $487.5 million general obligation bond included $41.5 million to repave and reconstruct roads, rehabilitate, and make seismic improvements to street structures and plazas and to install and renovate curb ramps. He said that there are also funds for re-building parks and open spaces, including safe pedestrian access across the city. Chair Peskin reported that regionally, voters in San Francisco along with all three Caltrain district counties, including Santa Clara and San Mateo, passed Measure RR by over 2/3 approval which is the threshold for the first-ever dedicated funding source for Caltrain. He added that the one-eighth cent sales tax for Caltrain will provide a lifeline to the railroad which is struggling with severe fare revenue loss associated with low levels of ridership during the pandemic. He shared that the funds will also help off-set SFMTA’s obligations to provide operating support, benefitting Muni. He added that the funds will provide a way to build toward Caltrain’s future as an electrified service.
    [Show full text]
  • 041218 SFMTA Weekend Transit and Traffic Advisory
    Fall Fall 08 Fall 08 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 12, 2018 Contact: Paul Rose 415.601.1637, cell [email protected] **PRESS RELEASE** SFMTA Weekend Transit and Traffic Advisory For Saturday, April 14, 2018 San Francisco—The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) releases the following upcoming event-related traffic and transit impacts for this weekend, Friday, April 13 through Monday, April 16, 2018. Anyone traveling in San Francisco can check www.sfmta.com or call 311 to find out which of the 83 Muni lines will get them where they want to go. All road users are encouraged to be aware, share the roadway and to follow all rules to ensure everyone’s safety. Whether you are riding Muni, taking a taxi, walking, riding a bike or driving, please remain vigilant to keep everyone safe. If you see suspicious activity, please report it. For real-time updates, follow us on www.twitter.com/sfmta_muni or visit http://www.sfmta.com/signup to sign up for real-time text messages or email alerts. For details of Muni re-routes, visit http://www.sfmta.com/news/alerts. This website will be updated when it is closer to the event date. For additional notifications and agency updates, subscribe to our blog, Moving SF for daily or weekly updates. UPDATE: Twin Peaks Tunnel Improvements Weekend Early Closures Now until June 2018: On weekend evenings and mornings, there will be preparatory work taking place inside Twin Peaks Tunnel ahead of the summer closure. In order to allow this vital work to take place, stations will close early on Friday and Saturday nights.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-003880PCAMAP [Board File No
    Executive Summary Planning Code Text & Zoning Map Amendment HEARING DATE: JUNE 22, 2017 Project Name: Corona Heights Large Residence Special Use District Case Number: 2017-003880PCAMAP [Board File No. 170296] Initiated by: Supervisor Sheehy / Introduced March 21, 2017 / Reintroduced April 24, 2017 Staff Contact: Audrey Butkus, Legislative Affairs [email protected], 415-575-9129 Reviewed by: Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs [email protected], 415-558-6362 Recommendation: Recommend Approval with Modifications PLANNING CODE AMENDMENT The proposed Ordinance would amend the Planning Code & Sectional Maps SU06 & SU07 of the Zoning Map to create the Corona Heights Large Residence Special Use District (the area within a perimeter established by Market Street, Clayton Street, Ashbury Street, Clifford Terrace, Roosevelt Way, Museum Way, the eastern property line of parcel 2620/063, the eastern property line of parcel 2619/001A, and Douglass Street; and in addition parcels fronting States Street), to promote and enhance neighborhood character and affordability by requiring Conditional Use authorization for large residential developments in the district. Proposed Corona Heights SUD boundaries. The Way It Is Now: 1. There is no residential use size limit within RH-1, RH-2 or RH-3 zoning districts. 2. Projects in RH-1 zoning districts have a 25% rear yard requirement. Project in RH-2 and RH-3 zoning districts have a 45% rear yard requirement that can be decreased through rear yard averaging up to 25% or 15 feet, whichever is greater. The Way It Would Be: 1. Residential developments within the subject area that are zoned RH-1, RH-2 or RH-3 would require Conditional Use authorization if the following residential use size limits are exceeded: a.
    [Show full text]
  • Y\5$ in History
    THE GARGOYLES OF SAN FRANCISCO: MEDIEVALIST ARCHITECTURE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 1900-1940 A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University A5 In partial fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree Mi ST Master of Arts . Y\5$ In History by James Harvey Mitchell, Jr. San Francisco, California May, 2016 Copyright by James Harvey Mitchell, Jr. 2016 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read The Gargoyles of San Francisco: Medievalist Architecture in Northern California 1900-1940 by James Harvey Mitchell, Jr., and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History at San Francisco State University. <2 . d. rbel Rodriguez, lessor of History Philip Dreyfus Professor of History THE GARGOYLES OF SAN FRANCISCO: MEDIEVALIST ARCHITECTURE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 1900-1940 James Harvey Mitchell, Jr. San Francisco, California 2016 After the fire and earthquake of 1906, the reconstruction of San Francisco initiated a profusion of neo-Gothic churches, public buildings and residential architecture. This thesis examines the development from the novel perspective of medievalism—the study of the Middle Ages as an imaginative construct in western society after their actual demise. It offers a selection of the best known neo-Gothic artifacts in the city, describes the technological innovations which distinguish them from the medievalist architecture of the nineteenth century, and shows the motivation for their creation. The significance of the California Arts and Crafts movement is explained, and profiles are offered of the two leading medievalist architects of the period, Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflicting Definitions of Relief: Life in Refugee Camps After the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 Emily Neis Chapman University
    Voces Novae Volume 6 Article 5 2018 Conflicting Definitions of Relief: Life in Refugee Camps after the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 Emily Neis Chapman University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae Recommended Citation Neis, Emily (2018) "Conflicting Definitions of Relief: Life in Refugee Camps after the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906," Voces Novae: Vol. 6 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae/vol6/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Voces Novae by an authorized editor of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Neis: Conflicting Definitions of Relief: Life in Refugee Camps after th Conflicting Definitions of Relief Voces Novae: Chapman University Historical Review, Vol 6, No 1 (2014) HOME ABOUT USER HOME SEARCH CURRENT ARCHIVES PHI ALPHA THETA Home > Vol 6, No 1 (2014) Conflicting Definitions of Relief: Life in Refugee Camps after the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 Emily Neis On November 3, 1906, a particularly rainy Saturday, a "difference of opinion" between one refugee and San Francisco's relief administration came to a climax. Mary Kelly, a middle-aged mother from the Irish working class, had been a resident of the Jefferson Square refugee camp ever since a 7.8 magnitude earthquake and fires destroyed her city and her home in April. However, she often protested official relief methods. Because she refused to pay rent on her "earthquake cottage"--one of the many small homes constructed for refugees with the relief funds-- Lieutenant Henry T.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Employees Keeping Employees Safe and Well Is Critical for the Operation of Bay Area Public Transportation Providers
    Solano Transportation Authority Member Agencies: Benicia ♦ Dixon ♦ Fairfield ♦ Rio Vista ♦ Suisun City ♦ Vacaville ♦ Vallejo ♦ Solano County One Harbor Center, Ste. 130, Suisun City, CA 94585-2473 ♦ Phone (707) 424-6075 / Fax (707) 424-6074 Email: [email protected] ♦ Website: sta.ca.gov SOLANOEXPRESS INTERCITY TRANSIT CONSORTIUM 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86203488385?pwd=RjN6Vk03d0pSYXJ2RlNjUlF0UU1CUT09 Meeting ID: 862 0348 8385 Passcode: 574201 Join by Phone Dial: 1(408) 638-0968 Webinar ID: 86203488385# MEETING AGENDA ITEM STAFF PERSON 1. CALL TO ORDER Beth Kranda, Chair 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT (1:30 –1:45 p.m.) 4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA STAFF AND OTHER AGENCIES (1:35 – 1:40 p.m.) • Update on MTC’s Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery and Daryl Halls Partnership Board Seamless Subcommittee Task Force Vincent Ma • Update on SolanoExpress Marketing • Transit Operators – Emergency Contact List Daryl Halls/ Brandon Thomson 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation: Approve the following consent items in one motion. (1:45 – 1:50 p.m.) A. Minutes of the Consortium Meeting of June 23, 2020 Johanna Masiclat Recommendation: Approve the Consortium Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2020. Pg. 5 CONSORTIUM MEMBERS Louren Kotow Diane Feinstein Brandon Thomson Beth Kranda Lori DaMassa Joyce Goodwin Debbie McQuilkin VACANT (Chair) (Vice Chair) Dixon Fairfield and Rio Vista Solano County Vacaville County of Solano Mobility STA Readi-Ride Suisun Transit Delta Breeze Transit City Coach Solano (FAST) (SolTrans) Ron Grassi STA Staff The complete Consortium packet is available1 on STA’s website: www.sta.ca.gov 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Your Free Cheat Sheet on All Dog Friendly Things to Do in San
    A COMPLETE DOG FRIENDLY GUIDE TO SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco is one of the top dog friendly cities in USA. As a resident dog mom, you can find all my favorite dog friendly things to do, see, eat and enjoy in this one handy cheat sheet. 1. Alta Plaza Park-has off leash play area 2. Alamo Square Park-home to the famous Painted Ladies S 3. Bernal heights park-get a fantastic view from Bernal Hill K 4. Grand View Park-the 16th Avenue Mosaic steps lead this park with great views R 5. Sutro Heights Park-right next to Ocean beach (dog friendly) A 6. Mountain Lake Park-has a tranquil lake 7. John Mclaren Park P 8. Buena Vista Park 9. Lincoln Park G 10. Strawberry Hill (Golden Gate Park)-waterfall and Chinese pagoda 11.Duboce Park O 12.Dolores Park D 13.Lafayette Park 14. Precita Park S 1. Grand View Park H W T E 2. Corona Heights Park I I W 3. Tank Hill Park V S 4. Billy Goat Hill C I K 5. Mt. Davidson Park R M A 6. Bernal Heights Park A P R 7. Buena Vista Park O G 8. Kite Hill N O A D 9. Ina Coolbrith Park P S 1. Sutro open space reserve Y L L I 2. Mt. Davidson D A N 3. Glen Canyon Park R E T I 4. Presidio of San Francisco-Ecology Trail, R G Batteries to Bluffs Trail, Lovers lane F N I 5. Coastal Trail at Land's End G K O I 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Track & System Improvements
    TWIN PEAKS TUNNEL Track & System Improvements The Twin Peaks Tunnel, which runs between West Portal and Castro TIMELINE stations, will undergo a major rehabilitation and replacement of its 40+ year old infrastructure, including fixtures that are original to the tunnel, When: circa 1917. The new tracks will improve safety and reliability for Muni trains and keep the tunnel in good working condition. Summer 2018 Planned work includes replacing tracks and track infrastructure, replacing Muni Metro Changes: the drainage system, repairing tunnel walls and ceilings, completing Bus substitute for M Ocean seismic upgrades to the original east entrance of the tunnel (Eureka Valley View and L Taraval; K station), and making structural repairs and inspections. Ingleside operating modified Construction is expected to start summer 2018 during a single closure up train route to 60 days long. Transit service will be modified during construction. Bus Routes Affected: Twin Peaks Tunnel opened for service on February 3, 1918. A vital 48, 57, Nx, L OWL, 91 OWL connection between downtown San Francisco and southern and western neighborhoods, the tunnel carries over 80,000 customers daily. sfmta.com/twinpeaks Taraval Bus Ingleside • SF Zoo via Dewey/Woodside to Castro • Trains will operate between Sloat/St. Francis Station (will not stop at Church or West and Balboa Park Station and continue as Portal Stations) J Church to Embarcadero • Transfer at Sloat/St. Francis for M Ocean Ocean View Bus View or Forest Hill Shuttle buses • Balboa Park via West Portal/Vicente to • Transfer to BART for faster trips Church Station (will not stop at Forest Hill downtown or Castro Stations) To downtown Taraval & WawonaDewey & Woodside Church Castro 48 Taraval & MUNI METRO 14th Ave SF Zoo • J, N, T, and S trains running increased service.
    [Show full text]
  • Muni Metro Guide 1986
    METRO GUIDE INTRODUCTION Welcome to Muni Metro! This brochure introduces you to Muni's light rail system, and offers a full descrip­ tion of its features. Five lines operate in the Muni Metro. Cars of the J, K, L, M and N lines run in the Market Street subway downtown, and branch off to serve dif­ ferent neighborhoods of the city. Tunnel portals are located at Duboce Avenue and Church Street and at West Portal. The light rail vehi­ cles feature high/low steps at center doors. In the subway, these steps remain flush with the car floor and station platforms. For street operation, the steps lower for easy access to the pavement. SUBWAY STATIONS MEZZANINE Muni Metro has nine subway stations: Embarcadero, The mezzanine is the Montgomery, Powell, Civic Center, Van Ness, Church, level immediately below Castro, Forest Hill, and West Portal. the street, where you pay your fare and enter STATION ENTRANCES the Metro system. At Embarcadero, Mont­ Orange Muni or BART/ gomery, Powell, and Muni signposts mark Civic Center Stations, subway entrances on Muni Metro shares the the street. Near the top mezzanine with BART, of the stairs, brown the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. BART and Muni signs list the different maintain separate station agent booths and faregates. Metro lines which stop Muni booths are marked with orange and BART with below. blue. Change machines may be used by all passen­ gers. Ticket machines issue BART tickets only. Though BART and Muni share the mezzanine level, they do not share the same platforms andrai/lines. Be sure to choose the right faregates.
    [Show full text]