Draft environmental impact statement for extension of F-Line streetcar service to Fort Mason Center

2011·32.8 MB·English

by  Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Agency : U.S.)

Dnal Recreation Area
National Park Service
^°^"™n,ofthe,n,=r
itime National Historical Park io,
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service
GgOoVvEeRrNnMmEeNnTt.
Mason
to Fort Center
HPT
DOCU!
MAR 2 I 2011
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
Ml
I'"
D
REF
388.46
F105d

JUN 2 8 2011 iUUN 2 2011
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME
NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA
Lead Agency: National Park Service, U.S. Department ofInterior
operating Agencies: San Francisco Municipal TransportationAgency,
c t
Federal Transit Administration
he Environmental ImpactStatementfortheExtension ofF-LineStreetcarServicetoFortMason Center
1
would lengthen the historic streetcar F-line from Fisherman's Wharfto the SanFranciscoMaritime
National Historical Park and on to the Golden Gate National RecreationArea, endingattheFort
Mason ( enter. 1 he intended effect ofthis action isto provide parkvisitors andtransit-dependent
residents with high-quality rail transit that improvestransportationaccess and mobilitybetween
existing Streetcar service at Fisherman'sWharfto San Francisco Maritime NationalHistorical Park
and ort Mason Center. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) presentsand analyzesthe
1
potential consequences ofimplementingthe alternatives.
Alternative I, the No-Action Alternative,would provide no changefromthe existinghistoric streetcar
line and would not provide transit connections to the FortMason Center.
Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative,would extendthe existingF-LinefromFisherman'sWharfto
ision wouldinclude astreet-runningsegmentalongBeach
eet-runningsegmentandtheFortMasonTunnel,atunnel
1two optionsforlocations,Alternative2A: NorthLoop (Fort
5/S
(GreatMeadow). Projectelementswouldincludethe
)ximately0.85 miles, constructionof8-9 stationplatforms,
nnel, andinstallationofsignals, crossings,wires andpoles.
blic and agencyscopingprocess,theimpactanalysisfocuses
San Francisco PublicLibrary
Ltionand circulation, airquality,noiseandvibration, cultural
ual and aestheticresources,nightskyvisibilityandlight
Government Information Center alresources,publichealthandsafety, andpublicservicesand
San Francisco Public Library
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102 iervicewillacceptcomments ontheDraftEISfromthepublic
tion oftheEnvironmentalAgency'sNoticeofAvailabilityin
naychecktheparkwebsiteatwww.nps.gov/gogafordate,
BOOK
REFERENCE
>e conductedbytheNationalParkService. Forfurther
Nottobetakenfrom thelibrary tact: RickFosterat415-561-2872orGoldenGateNRA,Fort
?4I23-
223 09320 5079
1
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON
CENTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS
vii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.0 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Purpose ofProject 3
IJ Need for Project 4
1.4 Project Objectives 10
1.5 Scope ofthe Environmental Impact Statement 11
1.6 P.irk Purpose and Significance 12
1.6.1 National Park Service Mission 12
1.6.2 National Parks Sites in the ProjectStudyArea 12
1.7 Related Plansand Studies 15
1.7.1 National Park Service Studies 15
1.7.2 National Park Service Plans 15
1.7.3 Related Studies 17
1.7.4 Related Plans 17
1.8 Scopingforthe EIS 19
1.8.1 Public Involvement 19
1.8.2 Concerns and Issues 19
1.8.3 ImpactTopics SelectedforDetailedAnalysis 20
1.8.4 ImpactTopicsDismissedfromDetailedAnalysis 22
1.9 ProjectPartners 25
1.9.1 CooperatingAgencies 25
1.9.2 TechnicalAdvisoryCommittee 25
1.10 PlanningProcess 25
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 27
2.1 Introduction 27
2.1.1 Alternatives DevelopmentProcess 27
2.2 AlternativesAnalyzedinDetail 31
2.2.1 ProjectStudyAreaSegments 31
2.2.2 Alternative 1 -NoAction 3
2.2.3 Alternative2-ProposedActionAlternative (withTurnaroundOptions) 32
2.2.4 Construction 43
2.2.5 Operation 47
2.3 PreferredAlternative 49
i
TableofContents
ALTERNATIVES
2.0 (continued)
2.4 EnvironmentallyPreferredAlternative 50
2.5 AlternativesEliminatedfromFurtherStudy 51
2.5.1 ScreeningProcess 52
2.5.2 FeasibleAlternativesfromFeasibilityStudy 53
2.5.3 AlternativesSuggestedinScopingProcess 53
2.6 ComparisonofAlternatives 54
2.6.1 Alternatives ComparisonMatrix 54
2.6.2 SummaryofImpactsandPotentialMitigation 54
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.0
3.1 Introduction 65
3.2 Land Use 67
3.3 Socioeconomics 79
3.4 TransportationandCirculation 85
3.5 AirQuality 107
3.6 Noise andVibration 117
3.7 Cultural Resources 125
3.8 RecreationandVisitorUse 141
3.9 VisualandAestheticResources 149
3.10 NightSkyVisibilityandLightPollution 155
3.11 Geology, SoilsandSeismicity 157
3.12 Biological Resources 171
3.13 Public HealthandSafety 181
3.14 Public Servicesand Utilities 191
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.0
4.1 Introduction 195
4.2 Land Use 199
4.3 Socioeconomics 205
4.4 Transportationand Circulation 213
4.5 AirQuality 227
4.6 Noise andVibration 233
4.7 Cultural Resources 251
4.8 RecreationandVisitorUse 265
4.9 Visual andAesthetic Resources 271
4.10 NightSkyVisibilityandLightPollution 287
4.11 Geology,Soils and Seismicity 291
4.12 Biological Resources 299
4.13 PublicHealthandSafety 307
4.14 Public ServicesandUtilities 315
5.0 SUSTAINABLEAND LONG-TERMMANAGEMENT 319
5.1 Relationship ofShort-termUsesoftheEnvironmentandEnhancementof
Long-termProductivity 319
5.2 IrreversibleandIrretrievable Commitments ofResources 319
5.3 Adverse ImpactsThatCannotBeAvoided 319
5.4 Growth-InducingImpacts 320
•
ii
TableofContents
6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 321
6, 1 History ofPublic Involvement 321
c onsultations with OtherAgencies and Organizations 321
6 I Section 106 ol the National Historic PreservationAct (NHPA) 322
fv-l I uture Compliance Requirements 322
&5 1 ist of Preparers/ List ofPersonsand AgenciesConsulted 323
6 6 List of Recipients and Reviewers 325
\PPFNDIXES 327
\1 I oil Mason ( enter Parking ImpactNotice 329
\ Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 351
B. Transportation and Circulation 375
C. Cultural Resources 459
D. Biological Resources 489
E. AirQualitv 507
F. Noise 511
G. Impairment Determination 521
REFERENCES 527
INDEX 539
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Regional Location Map 2
1-2 Project Study Area 5
1-3 Fort Mason Center ParkingLotandAquatic Park: Detail 7
2- 1 Alternative 2 Project Components andTrack Segments 33
2-2 Alternative 2 Proposed ActionAlignment 37
2-3 Alternative 2 ProposedActionTransition SegmentArea 39
2-4 Alternative 2 Proposed Action North LoopTurnaround 41
2-5 Alternative 2 Proposed Action SouthLoopTurnaround 42
2-6 Street Cross-SectionsTypical OCS Suspension 44
V2-1 Zoningwithin the StudyArea 68
3.2-2 NortheastWaterfrontLand UseMap 71
3.2-3 San Francisco Bay Plan Shoreline BufferinTransitionSegmentArea 73
3.2-4 Port ofSan FranciscoWaterfrontLandUse PlanPlanningArea 76
3.3-1 CensusTractBoundaries 80
3.4-1 Transportationand CirculationStudyArea 86
3.4-2 TransitMap 87
3.4-3 ProjectStudyIntersection 90
3.4-4 ExistingLane Configurations 91
3.4-5 ExistingWeekdayPM Peak&MiddayWeekendPeakHourTrafficVolumes 92
3.4-6 BicycleFacilities 99
3.6-1 Noise andVibrationMonitoringLocations andValues 120
3.7-1 AreaofPotentialEffect 126
3.11-1 AreaGeology 158
3.11-2 Seismic HazardZones 159
3.11-3 Geologic Cross Section 162
iii
TableofContents
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
4.6--1 Noise ImpactCriteriaforTransitProject 235
4.9-1 VisualSimulationMarinaBoulevard (NorthLoop-CloseIn) 273
4.9-2 VisualSimulationMarinaBoulevard (NorthLoop) 274
4.9--3 VisualSimulationMarinaBoulevard (SouthLoop) 276
4.9--4 Visual SimulationFortMason (NorthLoop) 277
4.9--5 Visual SimulationLagunaandNorthPoint (SouthLoop) 278
4.9--6 Visual SimulationFortMasonPath (SouthLoop) 279
4.9--7 Visual SimulationTransitionSegment 281
4.9--8 Visual SimulationTransitionSegment 282
4.9--9 Visual SimulationIn-StreetSegment (PolkatBeach) 283
4.9-10 VisualSimulationIn-StreetSegment (BeachNearHyde) 284
LIST OF TABLES
ES-1 FortMasonCenterProjectedAttendanceforMajorEventsin2010 ES-4
ES-2 Alternative 2 ProjectSegmentDetails ES-8
ES-3 SummaryofImpacts andMitigation ES-11
1-1 FortMasonCenterProjectedAttendanceforMajorEventsin2010 8
2-1 Alternative 2 ProjectSegmentDetails 35
2-2 2030HeadwaysforProposedAction (JonesSt. toFortMason) 47
2-3 RenamingofPreliminaryAlternatives 54
2-4 Alternatives ConsideredandDismissed 55
2-5 Alternatives Comparison Summary 57
2-6 SummaryofImpacts andMitigation 59
3.3-1 Historical Population 79
3.3-2 ExistingandProjected Population 79
3.3-3 Historical HousingDistribution 81
3.3-4 ExistingandProjectedHouseholds 81
3.3-5 HistoricLaborForceandEmployment 82
3.3-6 ExistingandProjectedJobs 82
3.4-1 DefinitionsforIntersectionLevel ofService 94
3.4-2 ExistingWeekdayPMPeak-HourLevel ofService (LOS) andAverage Delay 95
3.4-3 ExistingWeekendMiddayPeak-HourLevelofService (LOS) andAverageDelay 95
3.4-4 On-StreetParkingSurvey 96
3.4-5 Off-StreetParkingSurvey 96
3.4-6 FortMason CenterParkingSurveyand Occupancy 97
3.5-1 SummaryofSanFranciscoAirQualityMonitoringData (2005-2009) 108
3.7-1 PropertiesListedintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces 135
3.8-1 DescriptionofParksandRecreationalFacilitiesinandneartheStudyArea 146
3.11-1 MajorFaults inMUNI F-LineExtensionVicinity 160
3.11-2 ModifiedMercalliIntensityScale 165
3.11-3 EstimatedSettlementinPastandFutureEarthquakeScenarios 167
3.13-1 DescriptionofRegulatoryAgencyLists 182
3.13-2 RegulatoryListedSitesAlongthe ProjectAlignment 184
3.13-3 PotentialAreasofContaminationatFortMasonatTurnaroundLocations 185
3.13-4 RegulatoryListedPropertiesnearthe ProjectAlignment 186
3.13-5 FederalLawsandRegulations Relatedto HazardousMaterialsManagement 187
4.2-1 LandUse PolicyConsistencyAnalysis 200
iv
TableofContents
AM
is Ol KS (continued)
I I I
Estimated Development Cost-Alternative 2A (North Loop) 207
I I 1
t ; 2 1 stimated Development Cost-Alternative 2B (South Loop) 211
II \istmgand Existing PlusAlternative 2 Weekday PM Peak-Hour
I 1
1 e\el oi Service (LOS) and Average Delay 220
1 I 2 I \istint; and 1'xisting Plus Alternative 2 Weekend Midday Peak-Hour
I evel ofService (LOS) Average Delay 221
4.5-1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ofCriteriaAir Pollutants 229
1 f> 1 Measured Noise Levels from Construction Equipment 234
L6-2 rroundborne Vibration Impact Criteria 237
(
t t> I TrcJuled ( omposite Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Receptors 238
! t> 1 I\isting Noise Levels at Nearby Receptorsand CorrespondingImpactCriteria 241
5 Monitored and Attenuated Streetcar Noise Levels aton CurvedTrack Sections 546
4.7-1 Summary ofCultural Impacts by ProjectSegment-Alternative 2A: North LoopOption 255
17 2 Summary ofCultural Impacts -Alternative 2B: South Loop Option 258
v
TableofContents
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
vi