Skip to main content

Full text of "Amendments to the general plan adopted between .."

See other formats


5/S 




San Francisco Public Library 



GOVERNMENT IWfORMATIOHCEWIER 
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 



AU9 1 9 MB 



3 1223 06155 3997 



SAN FRANCISCO 




GENERAL PLAN 



AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN 

ADOPTED BETWEEN 
SEPTEMBER 1988 AND DECEMBER 1996 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JUL 0 7,997 



S15.00 PER COPY 



( 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2014 



https://archive.org/details/amendmentstogen1988sanf_0 




PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

City and County of San Francisco 1660 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 

. ccQC^na PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION CURRENT PLANNING/ZONING LONG RANGE PLANNING 
(41b) bb»-bi/» FAX: 558-6409 FAX: 55&-6426 FAX: 558-6409 FAX: 558-6426 



NOTICE 

GENERAL PLAN OF THE 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

The General Plan was last printed in September 1 988 in a consistent letter-size format. Unless othenwise 
noted with *, the Elements and Area Plans listed below are those printed in 1988. A separate publication 
titled "Amendments to the General Plan Adopted between September 1 988 and December 1 996" contains 
the text of those amendments for which the respective element or area plan was not reprinted. 

The following Elements, Program Documents and Area Plans constitute the current General Plan as of 
January 1, 1997: 

Residence Element* 

Part 1 : Data and Needs Analysis 
Part 2: Objectives and Policies 
Part 3: Implementation Programs 

Residence Element Update: Subsidized Housing Preservation Analysis and Programs 
Commerce and Industry Element 
Recreation and Open Space Element 

Programs for Implementing the Recreation and Open Space Element 
Transportation Element* 

Implementation Program for the Transportation Element 
Urban Design Element 
Environmental Protection Element 
Community Facilities Element 
Community Safety Element 
Arts Element* 
Downtown Plan 
Chinatown Plan 
Rincon Hill Plan 
Civic Center Plan 
Van Ness Avenue Plan 
Western Shoreline Plan 
Northeastern Waterfront Plan 
Central Waterfront Plan* 

Part 1 and Part 2 (Mission Bay) 
South Bayshore Plan* 
South of Market Plan* 
Land Use Index 

Copies of the General Plan Volume on sale at the Department do not contain the program documents for 
the Residence, Transportation and Open Space Elements. They have to be purchased separately. 

Please note that the General Plan is periodically updated and new or revised elements and area plans are 
adopted by the Planning Commission. As and when they are adopted, they become part of the General 
Plan. Until the Department is able to print the adopted version, the document is available as the published 
proposal for adoption with an addendum indicating any changes made by the Planning Commission in 
adopting the element or area plan. 



G:\WP51\ISHMP\COMPLMP.DOC 



FOREWORD 



This publication contains all amendments to the General Plan adopted between September 
1988 and December 31 , 1996. The amendments are presented as adopted, with the Planning 
Commission Resolution and Exhibits showing the actual text and/or map amendments. 

This compilation of amendments is a set of copies of all amendments in chronological order 
and an index cross-referencing the amendments by General Plan Element or Area Plan. This 
document is available for purchase for $ 1 5. Also available free of charge are the amendments 
from September 1995 to December 31 ,1996 to complement the previously purchased 
"Amendments to the Master Plan adopted between September 1 988 and September 1 995." 

The General Plan was last published in September 1988 in a consistent letter-size format. That 
publication included all amendments adopted prior to September 1988. Subsequent major 
amendments, new Elements or Area Plans, including the Residence Element, Transportation 
Element, Arts Element, Mission Bay Plan, Central Waterfront Plan, Van Ness Plan, South 
Bayshore Plan and South of Market Plan, were printed separately after 1988. Program 
documents are generally not sold with General Plan elements or area plans and should be 
requested separately. All these documents are available for purchase at the Planning 
Department. Future amendments to the General Plan will be periodically published. Due to 
budget constraints, the Planning Department is presently not able to reprint the entire General 
Plan in a form incorporating all text and map amendments. 

If you have any questions regarding General Plan Amendments please call Inge Norton of the 
Planning Department at 558-6279. 



g:\wp51\ishmp\foreword.doc 



( 



(, 



o 
u 

CO 

u 

U O 
O H 

5 o 

< 



s 

a 
Co 



c S 



•S 

a 

J3 



s; 
o 



s: 
a; 



5 



5^ S 



I 



?5 «3 



5 



I- 

Co 

t 



I 

5U 



2 
s: 



a 
c 

<3 



a 



^ -2 



00 

•S 
3 

■s 



"a 



I 

a 



Si 

•2. si- 
s' ^ 
5 



I.. 

I 

O EX 



e 
S 

S 

s 



Cm 
O 



u 

Q 



u 
B 

a> 
u 
w 

Q 

C 

es 

00 
00 

o\ 
u 

s 

4* — 

"S c 



U 

B 

3 

z 

u 

u 
B 

3 

z 



o 

c 

o 



^ 3 

C "I 

cj O 

e 

-o as 

S ^ 

S 13 

< Q 



v 

S 

3 

z 

© SB 

< .2 

o 5 

a> o 



s 



V 

S 

a> u 
O o g 

M < 



u 

c 



(50 

a, 
o 

< 



On 



On 

I 

I 



C3 C 
p— 1 DO 

u c 



1^ 

C3 M 



> 
o 

o 

00 

s 



feO 

c 
s 
E 

c 

C3 



PQ 

c 
o 



13 



C/3 



03 X 

C <U S 
.2 6>0 "o 

•52 .S — 

^ ^ Oh 
3 « 



-a 
c 

C3 



ftO 

c 



Oh C 



O 

- s ° 

<^ i> bO 
5 S .S 

_ o -o 

O 



o 



00 

o 
o 



o 
o 



050 



Q/ o 



^ Oh 
-a 

c 



o 

OS ^ 

I .£ > 

cn ID -^3 

^ c o 

■ e« O 



C 

(U 

s 

•f !: 

•O Oh 

^' § 

><-H W 

O i> 

in ^ 

vO ^ 

00 "O 

O R3 

o ^ 

T-H <U 

N 

^ =^ 

O 0) 

On C 

On (U 



60 
_C 
'c« 

S 

o 
K 
-o 

(U 
N 



!/3 

3 

i) 

Oh 

c 

s 

w 

u 
o 
c 
u 

IH 



^ Q ON 



' Oh 

On cS 



60 

On 'j- 
^ Oh 

^< 1 
I 1^ 

- S X> 
i O^ § 

_ r4 ^ 
■5 s= 

§ < 

4> ON 

D 

Vi 



00 



Oh > 



00 
On 

ON 

(N 

ON 

T 
o 

I 



bO 
c 

c 

u 



< 

c 

«3 



Ri 
CQ 

c 

o 



o 

0) 

H-> 

13 

CO • - 

s 

c 
£ 

feO 

Oh 

o 

< 



NO 



o. ' 



-1 D 



c 



c 
Q 



T3 
C 

KS ON 

do ^ 

H-; Oh 

^ s" 

• C ^ 

on '5 

5 S 

£ O 
£ 

u 



^ -S 13 -S .2 



> - 



3 
•T3 



X5'^ 
O T3 

CI 

o 

£ 
£ 

3 U 



O 

NO 
00 

o 



T3 
C 
I— I 

Lh 

•o 
c 



c 



<u 



bH 

i 



£ 

o _ 
U C/3 



Oh 
3 



O 

On 
On 



c 

o 



<L> 
C 
0) 

o 



2i ^ «s en 



^-3 

■ Oh 



Oh 



Oh Oh 



o 

X) 

op „ 

"S £ 

Z o 

C3 o 

"1^ z 
4^ 2 

■S? C 
O 

Oh Oh 



S S S S S 



z 
o 

I— ( 

H 

u 

Q 
O 



NO 

o 

NO 



ON 



00 



o 
o 

W 



00 
06 

ON 

[ 

On 
<N 
I 

NO 



2 w 



z 

Z uj 

< J 

y >H 
^ z 



s 

o 

£ 
e 

Cm 

o 

Vi 
V 

Q 



.A 

s 

Q 

ns 
S 

03 



u 

s 



00 U 



OS 

.o 
S 

a 
e 



JD 

E 
s 

Z 

e 

© 



= 1 

< Q 




E 

3 

z 

o 

■c c 
^ .2 

o 5 

V o 
■*i 



cn 

<N 
00 

«n 
O 



oo 

On 



On 



« 
"« 

lU 

S 

O o g 

S" E « 

® R a* 

< M < 



Q 
< 

o 

I— ( 

H 



u 
< 

Oh 

U W 
O 



s 

u 



Q 

z 
< 

Z < 



C/3 



o 
o 



T3 

(U 
3 

c 
o 

o 



c 

c 

o 



s 

S 

e 

B 
< 



^1 

Z 

^ -2 

t/3 -S 



S 



^1 

V O 
s V 

S IS 



J 



on c 
c •> 

o i 

C >> 

£ = 
.2 J2 



0) 

> 

CO 

c 

u 
a, 

O 

o 



H 

C 



o 



■o 



C 

s 

u ^ 
^ 2 

« E 

< O 

o 



o 
vd 

On 



> 
c 
o 
o 

o 

'5 
cr 

< 

o 
ca 
a. 
00 

c 

u 

o 



x: 



c 
E 

C 

E 
c 



en 



Q, o a, 
o .S> - 



< £ 



i s 



Cu 



VO ^ 
(S oo 



T3 

<U 

O 

O 
CL, 



00 



^ 2 >n 

^ a 

0\ 00 ^ 

T 2 .£ 

ON Oh ^ 

« c 

■ 00 eS 



C 

o 

"cd 

0) 
X 



T3 

■4— » 

73 



c 

s 

c 

1) 

E 
« 

60 
_C 

o 
■o 

< 



60 



c 

ed 



c 

o 



o 

13 

^ . - 

c ^ 

E - 

C 

E 

cd 

60 



E 

c ^ 

.2 S 

c « 

?3 S 



c 

cd 



^ I 
'> 

2 Si 

- 2 -S 



60 

c 

'•B 
c 

E 

cd 

c 

cd 



cd 

pa 

c 
_o 

o 

u 
"S 



•D Cd 
C . 60 do 

"5 CU C ^ 



73 
< 



i2 ^ ^! S 



a; S 

oo c 



Co d- 



oo _ 
00 o 



c 

cd 



c 

cd v£) 

S «5 



OS 

o" 

OS 
ON 



c 

2 

Hi 



*i c -a. c ON 



o 

cn 



cd 



rv- ^ 

2 OS 



00 <u 

t^'^ o 
-5 ^ Cii 
di u 

Cd on 2 



E 
o 
U 



T3 



fS CO 

cx a, 

cd cd 



^ ^ I 



T3 
C 

60 <U 



Q. -is 
o 

< ^ 

- -£2 

' i 

OS <5 
O <^ 

CO .O 

ON O 

ON 



cd 



a. 

OS 00 CL, 

c<^ «n NO .i, «u 

NW ^r- * 

cii CI, I ?^■ 

cd cd f3 



o • 

E ^ 
c . 

E .£ 

j£ 

60 fea 
< W) 

S 'a, 
«n cd 
O o 

00 cd 

- J 
O 

O u 

(SJ k- 

. *-< 
00 

OS ^ 
o 

ON C 

ON C3 

'T S 

ON Cd 



00 



u 

o 
cd 
a, 

00 

c 

D 

"O Cd 
^ 

«n c*^ 
^ ^ 

60 CU 



o 



Cd .C 



60 

c 

is 

'3 

m 

■?i O 



c 

cd 

ts 

CL, ,0 

E 

2 13 
E -o 



60 ^ 

X m 

.o 



S> 3 3 

Sd o o 

t« c c 
60 60 



iy2 

Q 

B 

cd 
X 

in 

Oh Q. CI4 
^ ^ ^ 



00 
D 

Q 

c 

Cd 
X 



■ S S S S 



cd 



3 

O 

"2 

cd 

N 

cd 
X 



60 
C 



c 

0) 

E 

T3 
C 

£ 

cd 
60 

o 

T3 
< 



o\ 



On 



60 
S 

o 



o 
a. 



X 
60 
3 
O 



ON 

CA 

> 

o 

x" 
O 

60 
C 

. ^ <^ 

'-' .£ 

^ c 
1—1 _o 

- o 

C t« 
O 0) 



cd 



^ -"3 
O 

1 

N 

Cd 
X 



OS £ 

- U 1) 

ON (U 

ON e 60 

l-H kn ^ 

I <u .£ 

60 T3 

^ cd c 

00 i 2 



a 

-o vq 



.a 

£ 
s 

Z 

a. £ 
o 

•o e 
< .2 

V o 



m 
00 

NO 

OS 
ri 

ON 



NO 

OS 



ON 
I 

VO 

■ 

00 



CS 

c o 
oi -2 OS 

cd 
> 



o 

<s 
o 



ID 

CO 

o 

z 

c 

o 



ON 

o 

OS 



en 

ON 



Hi a\ 



OS 



1 C 5 

^ O ON 

CN U — 

I ! 

w-> On 



cd 

CL 

00 00 

C ON 

cd ^ 
k« I 
H cn 

NO 



60 
k. 

<D 
C 

m 



e 

« 

S 

O 



© s c> 
H < 




z 
o 

t— I 

< 

o b 

Oh Z 

00 PQ 

5 ^ 

< w 
OS J 




E 
•o 
s 

a; 

s 



Is. 



en 
u 

s 

Q 
c 

K 
00 
00 



u 

Qi 

B 
s 

Z 

u 



.A 



E 

S| 

ii 

^ o 



= 1 

0) o 

e ^ 

s ^ 

E IS 



C 

■-3 
c 

s 

c 



c 

o 



13 



c 

es 



c cu 
E c 



O 



m 
o 

oo 
o' 
o 



on 

."2 
"o 

C/3 
"O 

c 

"o 

O 



o 



o S 

5^ ^ 

• Cu Oh 

CO ca 



x: 
o 

3 
CU 



o 

E 

3 

z 

© ^ 

^ .2 

o 5 

V o 



e 

O o g 
M ^ 



OS 
ON 

OS 

2^ 

OS -is 



OS D ^ 

"z: SO 
— :S CN 
~ m 

^ [L, , 
C*^ >^ O' 

m C so 

Ov «S On 
T ^ V 
^ J £2 



"rt 'o 



X 

O 

s 

CU 



(N -2 
Pi "o 

OS y 



00 

en ui 
c 

vo U 
o 

i:: ^ •- 



00 



cn 

r — ... >■ 

(l> u 

oo' i-s !-5 

CS 'o 'o 
ca 

tu tu 
15 

« -2 .2 

i-i 3 



"5 

0) .s 

























OS 




oo' 




00 




o 




en 








C< 








OS 


OS 


OS 






1 

cs 


I 

o 




1 


1 





H 

l-H 

z 

o 
u 



00 



H 
Z 



H 

z 

w 

J 
u 

H 

w 
o < 

U 00 



I— ( 

z 

D 



H 
Z 

u 

u 
w 

00 

H 
Pi 
< 



s 

B 
•a 

G 

V 

B 

< 



?1 a 



u 

u 

a 



£ 

u 
Q 

"O 
G 

ts 

00 
00 
OS 

u 

V 

.£ 

E 



B 

3 

z 

V 
CQ 



3 

z 

a § 
c ® 

« i- 

^ o 

V S 

.2 

ii 

u O 
E V 

B ^ 
< O 



V 

B 

3 

z 

V 

o 

-o c 
^ .2 

® ^ 

V o 
Q 0^ 



— o 

2 i 

c« z 

O Hi 

-J 5 

60 O 

c 



X) 

c 
£ 

3 



E 

c 
•5 

C 

«5 



c 

3 

O _ 

X) «8 

bO C 

C 5 



a, 
o 

T3 

< 

00 
00 

ON 
SO 



c 

u 

E 



o 

CO 

c 

C3 



c 

<u 

E 

E ^. 

00 

c 



c 

o 
c 

o 
Q 



o 
|o 

o 
a. 

bO 
o 

Q, 

O 
u 
c 



^ o 



c 



60 
C 

Cli S 

«s *- 



T3 



ON 
00 



o 
Q 

E 

o 

o 

5 

c 



in 

<ri 
oo 



00 



o\ 

CM 



.2 



o 

-o « 

< -a 

ON "O 

^ c 

_o 
Oi ^ 

•n 

o< ?P 

^ § 
E 

■ < 



C 00 

o "n 

•s <^ 
S 

t: ON 

2 - 

O- On 

e O 

2 «T) 

H 

NO 



o 
c 

_ o 

CO .. 
■n 

a. 

r<i o - 
- Z 

IZ! C 

.sa « ^ 
'B o 

Oh -O C 

^ o ta 
c • C 
ca "o c« 

o 0) 

^ c 



5t 
m 
a> 

3 

60 

c 



V3 



'3 

O 

-o 
c 

1 

■ c 
CO 



o 

<L> Z 

E c 



^ CO 



CM 

> 



c 

E 

> 
o 

E 

l-H 

c 
•c 

c« , 
O 

TD I 

U ' 

cu 



o 



^ ON O 

60 T 



o 



^ - 



O I 

£ Q 
1.£t^ 

< S 



ci C 

u > 

> s 
Z 
IP c 

^ ■£ 

Cu 



u c 
c -c 

^ 00 
I 

^ cu 

O C 

Q ^ 

is 2 
c 

o 



C 

•c 
cu 



CLi no 



■pu .t; 

60 <u 

•S £ 



cu (U 



P DO 
CU C 

60 =5 
c c 

TD E 
03 « 



V3 

o 
cu 
o 

w 

c 

D . • 
C NO 

§ 60 

pu '£ 

60 60 

E E 
^ "5 

C3 « 



i 

<u 
W 

c 

o 

t; 
o 
cu 

c 











■4-t 




o 








T3 








"53 
















c 








E 




-o 




c 








£ 


cj 


CIS 


l—i 


60 






CU 


|do 






t) 


< 


_> 




o 










1— < 

NO 


o 

ha 




(U 


ON 


TD 




C 


ON 


3 


o 
r~ 




m 










"o 




cu 


in 


60 


On 


On 


C 






1 

NO 
1 


en 


r- 


E 


■ 


< 



in 
o 

NO 
00 

on' 
CS 
ON 

o 

t> 

00 
On 



On 



S 

(3 

i 

a 

a 
o 

■■s 
t; 

o 
cu 

c 



t3 



C 

E 

C 

<U 

E 

ca 

60 
C 



C4 



5 ^- 

5 w ^ 

- & cu 

• (U o 

On ,c Q 

ON O ^ 

O o 

- I £ 
C< I « 

- ,P 



o 
_> 

O 
If 

(U 

-a 
c 

3 

in 

c 

o 



S 
o 

C 

60 



X 



m 
c 

cd 
CU 

CS 

£ 



in 
c 



t3 

•a 



60 

c 



cu « 



m 



60 



SI 1 

■ -o < 



_> 

_ o 

00 60 
60 .£ 
C T3 
S C 

13 E 
-a a 



13 

XI 

in 
cu 

CIS 



NO 

<N 

(U 
_> 

o 

<u 

O 

S-i 

c 

3 

"60 



CO 

CU 



3 

£ 

E 
o 
U 

CU 



60 . 



60 
C en 

E ^ 13 

cd cu TD 



ON 

ci 
oo 

oo' 

m 
o 



in 

oo 
On 



00 



C6 
V 

C 

o" S 



Si 

o 



z 
< 

Oh 

z 

o 
z 

o 

Q 



z 
< 

cu 
Z 

o 
u 



z 
< 

cu 
J 

Z 
O 

u 
c< 



e 
£ 
e 
S 

Cm 

o 

G 

E « 

c 

00 
00 



U 



£ z 

^ o 



-5 

c ^ 
< Q 



(5C 

c 

60 B 

c 

i'i 

< ^. 
. . ci, 

c <^ 

3 C 



O 

X 
o 

T3 

1) 



«3 



u 
> 

o 

DO 

c 

O 

■o 

< 



0) 

ha 

1/5 
C 

s 

■o 
c 

u 

c 



c 

0) 

Q 

c 

o 

"3 



X) 



00 



T3 
C 

<S3 



oC O 

00 ^ 
OS O 



c 

o 

3 
O 





em 


















00 




ci 


a 










cs" 




d, 


•a 
c 


do 




« 


< 








pti V 




m 


U 


olici 


6.30 


Obi 




On 


under 


and 








m 






>^ 


> 




o 







O C I— I • - 



c 

i ^ 



5 ov 
O -7 
60 m 



T3 r~ 
n ■ 



'3 
O 



(50 

c 
c 
£ 

SB 



C 

0 



w 

c 

« 
O 

c 

u 



13 



c 

4) 



E E2 

60 

. 

Q. Oh 

o - 
-O 0\ 
< <U 

If 

"^^ 3 



Ov 

OS 



O 
T 

0 0) 

■ Q 



c 

Id 

t: 
o 
a. 

cc 
C 



c 

o 



■o 



c 

(U 

E 
•o 

c 

<u 

E 

a 

60 

c 

a< 
o 
•0 
< 



m 

as 
00 

00 
00 



o' 



00 



o OS 
!5 



> 
§ ° 



Oh 

c 

a) 
o. 

O 

C 

«3 



O. 

d" 

> 
o 

o 

k> 

<u 

T3 

c 

3 

C 

60 



C Oh 



> 



00 

a ^ Oh 



o 
. « 

O, • ' 

> I— I 



s 
o 
u 
c 

c2 

o 

c 

o 



o 

o 

-o 
c 

3 

T3 
K! 
O 



_> 

o 

0) 

O 

T3 



o 
X) 

O 

Ui 

O 



cs o 



rr c o ""^ •-- 



o 
en 



•2 H 

« m 

0 c 

<u <« 

0\ vi 
o o 
~6 "o 

CU Oh 

60 60 

c c 

'•5 ^ 
c c 

E E 



Q 
s 

X 



o 



(U 

o 

X) 

E 
W 

>% 
o 



> 

%. O 

— T3 
« § 

X .5 

C 



X 

60 



Oh Oh 

cs c 

> E 
• - T3 

o c 

x" E 
o ^ 
<- SP 

0) c 

C Oh 

3 O 
c ^ 

2 S 
H 00 

^ § 

% OS 
CM ON 

- m 



60 

g Oh 



•n 



cu • - 
« Q 



3 



Oh m 

o 



,1> 



Si .2 .Sli .2i .2 .ii ftJ 
— 

Oh 

60 ON 



O 
Oh 

60 
C 

c 
E 

03 



O 
Oh 

60 
C 

'•5 

c 

u 

E 

c3 



O 

Oh 

60 
S 

c 
E 



O 
60 

c 
c 
E 



O Oh 

Cu 60 

60 .E 

C T3 

•S C 

"S E 

73 «S 



E 



3 

o 

00 .£ 



m Oh 

^ IS 
4) 

X (u 

O ;5> 

U ^ l-H 

"Ok--: 

C 4> Oh 

3 "O . 
C « 

- S < 

cj ^ .E 

^ -5 

•B 2. <a 

o PQ .E 

" S 5 

= C X 

„ I — o 

en Tj- .2 u-i 

O. Oh 

CO C« 



cn 

vb" Qh 

^ o 

k- 

X> 3 



O 

ca 

Oh 

CO 

c 

<u 

Oh 
O 

-o 
c 



:= < 

60 60 



cn j= E "O 

-H o — 



"O 

<u 

O 

Oh 

O 



X O- ^ 

■!i O C 



H.Si !a O. 

Cu Oh S 



u 

C 
3 

VI 

•T3 

O 

O 
X 

Uh 

O 
X 

X ^ 

Z ^ 

II 

:h -a 
oi — 



"o 'o 
Oh Cu 



s 

z 

•a e 
< .2 

O ^ 

V o 
Q 



Os 



00 

00 



o 

cn 



00 
00 
On 

I 

I 

m 



■sD 
IT) 
00 

oC 
00 

CN 
O 



00 
On 



00 
I 



■sO 



r- 

On 
On 



e 

V Lh 

'I 



< 



z 
< 

cu 
a 

H 

z 
w 
u 

u 
> 

I— I 

u 



D 

z 
> 

00 
w 
Z 

z 
< 
> 



z 
< 

Oh 

z S 



00 



z 

oi 

UQ 
H 
00 
< 

H 

oi 

O 
Z 



z 
< 

Cu 
H 
Z 

o 



/ 



s 

S 
■o 
s 

a; 



Si 



(Ti 
b. 

a 

B 

9i 
U 
9i 

Q 

-o 
s 

cs 

B 
s 

Z 

s 

o 



Q 
E 

3 

z 



£ 
a 

e 

V 



o 

s 

o 



=1 

cs *^ 

£ Is 
< Q 



X) 



c 

_o 

'*-* 
CO 

t! 
o 

ex .. 

c ^ 

« -S 

pi: ^ 

a ^ 
2 « 
o 

•a c, 

■a 
CO c 



O 
c 

CO 

00 
CO 



00 
CO 



o 



oo 

cs .Z, 



a 
o 

c 

'c/3 ■4-» 

.£ o 

M *-• 

> 3 

— (U 
CO J3 

S£ 

bt) ^ 
bO c 
C O 



CO 



i2 
c 

<u 

s 

c 

£ cs 

CO O 

•s s 

O CO - 
•O ^ oo 

< g « 

*5 W 

^ •£ z 

o 5 



00 
CO 



.O !-! 



r? o 



CO 



o 
c 

3 



CO CO 

K 

1—5 I— H 

(U (U > 
> > "ZS 
•J w o 

o o <u 
u <u 

•^•^ 
o o 



> 



cs 



•— I =3 ,^ y 

O 



o 



a. 



CO o 

^ O 



^ 1 
-I § 

d B 

CO 

c 



O 



T3 



CO 



a r ^ 



>^ >. 
o o o 



ryj •- O -JS -JS ;S 

<^ — ' O O O 

CU Oh Oh 

OO bo bo 

.£ .S .S 

"O "O 

c c c 

u u <u 

S S S 

03 C3 



I 

■ -o 



a3 J:i 



0) 

> 

o 
u 

o 

D 
"O 

c 
s 

VO 
CS 

>v 
"o 

Oh 

(50 

c 



T3 
CO 

a 

CO 

X) 

s 

W 
cs 
_> 
o 

o 

(50 

c 

'"3 
c 

<u 

B 

CO 



59 := 



1—3 cL 



cs 

> 



CO 
OJ 

op 
'53 



CO Pi 



o o 

Oh Oh 

00 bO 

c c 



71 Oh 

^ c 

tt^ Jo 
cs Cu 
r-« 

Oh 2 

bO bO 

c c 



o 



■2" 

Oh 
C 

e 
J 

(U 

a: 

'-^ 3 
— » 

o 

3 



CO 

vd 

OS 



CO On 



H- ( X> 
O 3 
5 ^ 

O o r- 
2 

OX) « ^ 

.S 2 S 

2 ^ c 

3 S 5 

CQ U 



c 



CO 



O On 00 
Oh OS 



O 

_ n- 

PU CO C 

^ 2 

>^ H 

.2 .a VO 

"o "o o. 

Oh Oh i2 



C 

o 
o 

u o 

i s 

11 

o 

-o Is 
< .2 

11 

C 



0\ 
Ov 



OS ;^ two 60 
^H ^ — — 



bO . 
C OS 



0) O O 0) u 



^ ^ OS O- 
ODD- <U 
■O t3 ■ C/2 



73 "O C 

E £ 

CO CO "O 



2 ^ 0\ 

I— ; I 

'-! D.' 

o, ^ a, 

- o 

o — 

^ 0) 

<0 > (D 

> > 

o <U <J 

^ O 



c 



X) 

O 
c 

3 



^ OS 
00 (N 

5^ >. >~. 
OOP 

"o o o 

Oh Oh Oh 

(50 bO 00 

c c c 



CO TD "O T3 

op o t) D 

2 £ S S 

Oh CO CO CO 



£ 
s 

z 

-< .2 

o s 

a o 
ts 



CO 

oi 

OS 



ON 



V 

B 

-o ^ I 

< a < 



U 
H 

< 

H 
O 



Z 
< 



T3 
tU 
3 
C 

G 
O 
o 



bo 
CO 

a. 

1/5 

3 

> 



s 

E 
rs 
e 

s 



CO e« 
QO U 
00 \> 
9y u 
1-1 V 

ti e 

c s 
c Z 

** - 

£-.2 

9i ^ 

^ o 
X c 

£ o 

=1 

e ^ 

B ^ 
< Q 



s 

3 

z 

V 

o ^ 

"o e 
< .2 

® £ 

V o 

c« 

CO V 



CQ 
V 

e 

< w < 



Ui )— t 

o . 
s: a- 

■S o 

o -5 
?^ 

i2 ^ 
2i 3 

C 

o 

'> '3 

o 

00 CLi 
.£ 

■t-> C/3 

o --^ 

< § 
C 



OS 

i-H . D 

« >» c 

S £ 

9. O 
a> u -w 

Q - 
c 

« .52 



O 

in c/5 

OQ 

^ c 
o -a 

E 

E 
o 
U 



c 
•a 

0) 
N 



c 

o 



o 
x: 

03 



2 
O 

' . - <— 

S ^ 

^ CD 

< 



E :S 



00 _ 

U 

<u « -o 
o E o 

Oh 



= 1 

at 



Z 

D 
"3 



O 



00 



3 

O 



a\ 

m X 

in <u 

ON *- 

6 .S 

(N 22 
> 

' <u 

■ 0< 



1^ 



00 o 



c 

o 



3 

o 

CO 

E 

a 



c 



O 

x: 
05 



o 

O to c« 

s .sa 

< ^ 

o o 
c/o c 

«5 >^ *; 
D c« C 

:s « ^ 

o :S = 
8 c^ 



bO 

c 

■> 
o 

E 

u . ^ 
^ OS 

>><^ 



60 >— I 



3 

X5 
<L) 
w 
60 
C 

'> 

o 

C OS 

s <^ 
f S 

60 ^ 

C — ' 



03 



a; 



o 

O ^ 

^ CO 

c "-S 

CS X! 



00 



4j a, 2 
73 cc c 

.S E .£P 

(U (U S 

x: 13 

60 60 

.S .E ^ 
'35 .E 



> . 

l-i u. 



> 2 



2i S 



c« 
C 

0) 

Q 

c "5 c 
o « o 

•S [L, -Z! 

2^ ;= 3 

<U 3 O 
O^H Oh 

b< 

^ iP 

Cm ;m (4-1 

4) 0) 1) • •• 
-O "O 
C C C 

(u a> u 1"^ 

60 60 60 • 

S .E .E 

c« 'c« *C« 

> > > « 



3 

O 

cn 

E -1 

60 . 

.E ^ 

^ ^ ^ 



m 5 
o.s 

ac ^ 

.5 « 

c« 

1) (U 

3 ^ 

3 

n lu 
c h 

60 00 

c H 

•e § 

60 .2 

•J ^ 

•O C 

C 60 
1) 

e ^ 

c m 



2S| 

3 -M CLi 

CQ .£ c 

«+- o P 

o Cu § 

3 <U C 

m I ^ 

I- 3 

£ a: ;d 



.t; c« i« 

3 > 

3 • J 

o ai 3 

E, C/3 <U 

60^ X 

"H w 

Q £ 8 

c 2 

KJ c 'o 

XI o c 

= .2 tt- 

~ 60 ?3 



E .2? 

0 S dJ 
x: -n « 

bO 3 >- 

c o di 

1 ^ 

p tio :2 

CQ Ui CQ 



cn 
en 

oo 
en 



00 
OS 



X 

u 

Q 

Z 
I— I 

w 

c/3 

D 

Q 
Z 
< 



03 
< 
H 

a. 

s - 

< o 

f i 



c 



File No. 88.374EMZ 
Deletions and Mo'Hifi cations to 
the Civic Center Area Plan and 
the Downtown Area Plan 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 11769 



WHEREAS, The Charter requires that the City Planning Commission 
(hereinafter "Commission") adopt and maintain, including necessary changes 
therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may over time become 
obsolete; and 

WHEREAS, The Civic Center Area Plan was adopted on July 25, 1974, when the 
Commission approved Resolution Number 7216, and on November 29, 1984, the 
Commission approved Resolution Number 10163 adopting the Downtown Area Plan; 
and 

WHEREAS, Acting on various concerns to protect and enhance the housing 
resources in the area, and conserve and upgrade the existing low and moderate 
income housing stock, and after a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission 
adopted interim zoning controls on September 1, 1988, in Resolution No. 11448, 
for seven parcels in the block bounded by Golden Gate Avenue, Hyde, Larkin, 
and McAllister Streets, Lots 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Assessor's Block 
347, by adding to the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) zoning 
classification an Interim RC-4 (Residential -Comnercial Combined, High Density) 
District, extending the North of Market Residential Special Use District 
boundaries to include these properties, and a Height and Bulk District 
classification of 80-X and 80-T; and 

WHEREAS, The interim controls were subsequently approved by the Board of 
Supervisors and by the Mayor and are in effect until, on or about, February 28, 
1990; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission has initiated consideration of adopting the 
interim controls for the subject property as permanent controls; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission, in Resolution No. 11448, stated that the adoption 
of the interim controls was a holding action to allow the consideration of the 
appropriateness of both the zoning and the policies that are contained in the 
current Master Plan, dealing with the retention of housing and the 
preservation of neighborhoods; and 

WHEREAS, The Civic Center Area Plan does not include housing as a land 

use; and 

WHEREAS, On August 18, 1989, the Department published a document 
identified as Proposal for Citizen Review : Consideration of Amendments to the 
Civic Center Area Plan and the Downtown Area Plan of the San Francisco Master 
Plan; an3 ~~ 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 88.374EMZ Deletions 

and Modifications to the 
Civic Center Area Plan and 
the Downtown Area Plan 
Resolution No. 11769 
Page Two 



WHEREAS, On August 18, 1989, notice of the proposed amendments was 
published in a newspaper of general circulation; and 

WHEREAS, On September 14, 1989, the Commission held a duly noticed public 
hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting to discuss the proposed amendments 
and voted its intent to approve the proposed amendments, and the matter was 
continued to September 21 and 28, and October 12, 1989 for consideration of 
the language of the final resolution; and 

WHEREAS, The Department of City Planning has reviewed the proposed 
amendments pursuant to Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code and 
the California Enviromental Quality Act and has concluded, in a memorandum 
dated September 12, 1989, that the map changes in the Downtown Plan would 
require no additional environmental review because they could not result in a 
substantial change in the environmental effects which were analyzed under Case 
File No. 88.374E in a Negative Declaration adopted September 1, 1988; and 

WHEREAS, It was further determined, that the amendment of the Civic Center 
Area Plan by adding objectives and policies to protect and enhance housing was 
a procedural change, in that the amendment is consistent with the existing 
Priority Policies of the Planning Code and has no effect on the physical 
environment as documented in a Certificate of Exemption from Environmental 
Review dated September 14, 1989; and 

WHEREAS, Concurrently with the proposed Master Plan amendments, the 
Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider permanent 
reclassification of the Lots 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Assessor's Block 
347; and 

WHEREAS, The proposal is to amend the Civic Center Area Plan by adding a 
housing category with corresponding objective and policies and to amend the 
Downtown Area Plan by deleting Assessor's Block 347, consistent with the 
attachment labeled Exhibit A; and 

WHEREAS, Both the Downtown C-3 Districts (Section 212(e)) and the North of 
Market Residential Special Use District (Section 249.5(c)) require conditional 
use authorization for demolition of residential buildings; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Master Plan amendments are consistent with existing 
provisions of the Master Plan including the following: 



Residence Element 

Objective 1, Policy 1 

Encourage Development of Housing on Surplus, Underused and Vacant 
Public Lands. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 88.374EMZ Deletions 
and Modifications to the 
Civic Center Area Plan and 
the Downtown Area Plan 
Resolution No. 11769 
Page Three 



Objective 3 

To retain the existing supply of housing 
Policy 1 

Discourage the demolition of existing housing 
Policy 3 

Preserve the existing stock of residential hotels 
Objective 5, Policy 8 

Ensure that Office Developments and Higher Educational Institutions 
Assist in Meeting the Housing Demand They Generate. 

Objective 6, Policy 3 

Minimize Disruption Caused by Expansion of Institutions into 
Residential Areas. 

Downtown Area Plan 
Space for Housing 

Objective 1 

Expand the supply of Housing in and adjacent to Downtown 



Objective 2 

Protect residential uses in and adjacent to Downtown from 
encroachment by comuercfal uses; and 

Space for Commerce 



Objective 2, Policy 2 



Guide location of office development to maintain a compact downtown 
core and minimize displacement of other uses; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 88.374EMZ Deletions 
and Modifications to the 
Civic Center Area Plan and 
the Downtown Area Plan 
Resolution No. 11769 
Page Four 



WHEREAS, The proposed Master Plan amendments are on balance consistent 
with the Eight Priority Policies of the Planning Code based on the following 
findings: 

1. The proposed Master Plan amendments will not cause the loss of 
neighborhood-serving retail uses in that coimiercial uses will 
still be permitted. 

2. The proposed Master Plan amendments are intended to protect and 
enhance housing resources in the area near the employment centers 
of Downtown and the Civic Center, conserve and upgrade low and 
moderate income housing, preserve the existing scale of 
development, encourage new infill housing at compatible 
densities, and limit development of comnercial uses which could 
adversely impact the residential uses of the area. The Master 
Plan amendments would, therefore, conserve and protect the 
existing housing and neighborhood character and preserve the 
cultural and economic diversity of the neighborhood. 

3. For the reasons set forth in 2 above, the Master Plan amendments 
will promote the City's efforts to preserve and enhance the 
supply of affordable housing, 

4. The proposed Master Plan amendments would limit commuter traffic 
by encouraging residences near the downtown employment core. 
This arrangement would help reduce demand on cross-city and 
regional transportation systems by locating residences in close 
proximity to work places in an area that is well -served by 
transit, which would reduce the need for the use of private 
vehicles. Because of the proximity of the Civic Center to major 
employment centers and shopping, and its excellent public transit 
service, it is unlikely that future residents would generate 
substantial increases in traffic or transit demand. 

5. There are no industrial and service sector businesses currently 
located in the subject area. The proposed Master Plan amendments 
will not effect this policy. 

6. Any new development would meet current Building Code standards 
designed to provide a reasonable degree of safety in the event of 
an earthquake. Existing City efforts designed to reduce seismic 
risks include esiergency response planning. The City is in the 
process of preparing a seismic retrofit ordinance to address 
unreinforced masonry buildings. 

7. The proposed Master Plan amendment, by itself, would not 
adversely effect landmarks and historic buildings located in the 
Civic Center area. 

8. New development under the proposed Master Plan amendments would 
be similar in size, height, density, and use to existing 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 88.374EMZ Deletions 
and Modifications to the 
Civic Center Area Plan and 
the Downtown Area Plan 
Resolution No. 11769 
Page Five 



buildings in the area. The proposed Master Plan amendment, by itself, would 
not adversely affect parks and open space, or their access to sunlight and 
vista: and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission deems these changes appropriate and 
desires to adopt the text and map changes as amendments to the respective 
Elements of the Master Plan: 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby 
adopt as amendments to the Master Plan for the City and County of San 
Francisco the amendments contained in the document titled Amendments to the 
Civic Center Area Plan and the Downtown Area Plan of the Mas^ Plan and dated 
September 21 , 1989, and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the amendments, and shall certify a 
copy thereof to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the 
Charter. 



That based upon the Record, the submissions by the Applicant, the staff of the 
Department and other interested parties, the oral testimony presented to this 
Commission at the public hearings, and all other written materials submitted 
by all parties, the Conmission hereby Approves Master Plan Amendments Case 
No. 88.374EMZ subject to the following conditions attached hereto as EXHIBIT A 
which is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City 
Planning Commission on October 12, 1989. 



DECISION 



Lori Yamauchi 
Secretary 



AYES: 



Conmis si oners Bierman, Boldridge, Engmann, Hu, and Morales 



NOES: 



Commissioner Karasick 



ABSENT: 



None 



ADOPTED 



October 12, 1989 



GMS:mj:331 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 88.374EMZ Deletions 

and Modifications to the 
Civic Center Area Plan and 
the Downtown Area Plan 
Resolution No. 11769 



EXHIBIT A 
AMENDMENTS TO THE CIVIC CENTER 
AREA PLAN AND THE DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN 



RE: 88.374EMZ: 

Amendments to the Civic Center Area Plan and the Downtown Area Plan 
of the San Francisco Master Plan to protect and enhance the housing 
resources in the Civic Center Area. 

The proposal is to amend the Civic Center Area Plan and the Downtown Area Plan. 

A. The proposal is to amend the Civic Center Area Plan by: 

(1) Amending the Summary of Objectives and Polices (Page II.4.iii) 
by adding: 

OBJECTIVE 4 

PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE HOUSING RESOURCES IN THE CIVIC CENTER 
AREA. 

POLICY 1 

Conserve and upgrade existing low and moderate income housing 
POLICY 2 

Encourage new Infill housing at a compatible density. 

(2) Amending the Introduction by adding a fifth category to the 
introduction (Page II. 4. 2). 

5. Housing 

The Housing category encompasses the existing low and 
moderate income housing stock and new infill housing. 

(3) Amending the text by adding a fourth objective (Page II.4.5). 
OBJECTIVE 4 

PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE HOUSING RESOURCES IN THE CIVIC CENTER 
AREA. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 88.374EMZ Deletions 
and Modifications to the 
Civic Center Area Plan and 
the Downtown Area Plan 
Resolution No. 11769 
Exhibit A 
Page Two 



To preserve the scale and character of outlying neighborhoods 
and promote the vitality of the Civic Center Area, new housing 
should be located in the Civic Center Area in underused 
commercial areas. At the same time, the existing housing supply 
in the Civic Center Area should be protected from demolition or 
conversion to nonresidential uses. 

POLICY 1 

Conserve and upgrade existing low and moderate income housing 
stock. 

Conservation and protection of the existing supply of housing in 
the Civic Center Area will promote the City's efforts to 
preserve and enhance the supply of affordable housing. 

Many parts of San Francisco were developed before zoning 
regulations separated various types of land uses. As a result, 
many housing units were built in areas also containing 
non-residential uses. Most of these housing units are sound or 
rehabilitable and are relatively inexpensive. They represent a 
significant, irreplaceable portion of the City's housing 
supply. 

Demolition of residential units should be subject to conditional 
use review. The City Planning Commission should require 
evidence that the public benefits of the alternative use are 
more desirable than retaining the housing. 

POLICY 2 

Encourage new infill housing at a compatible density. 

Expanding the supply of housing in the Civic Center Area will 
complement and enhance the existing housing in the area by 
providing a broader residential presence. 

Increasing the supply of housing in the Civic Center Area will 
allow more residents to benefit from the Civic Center Area's 
convenient accessibility to major culture, employment, and 
shopping centers. 

B. The Downtown Area Plan is proposed to be amended by deleting lots 
within the RC-4 (ResidentiaT-Conmercial Combined, High Density) District and 
North of Market Residential Special Use District in Assessor's Block 347, part 
of the block bounded by Golden Gate Avenue, Hyde, Larkin and McAllister 
Streets from Maps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. 



GMS:mj:331 



( 



File Ho. 89.571MR 

Haterfront Transportation Projects 



SAN FRANCISCO 
aTY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 11882 



WHEREAS, The Master Plan for the City and County of San Francisco, as 
adopted by the City Planning Commission, Is Intended to be a comprehensive, 
long-term, general plan for the Improvemient and future development of the 
city; and 

WHEREAS, The Recreation and Open Space, Transportation, Urban Design, 
Downtown Plan, and Northeastern Waterfront Plan Elements of the Master Plan 
outline land use and transportation design guidelines and Improvements for the 
city's waterfront; and 

WHEREAS, In November, 1985 The Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 
965-85 adopting as Board Policy the 1-280 Transfer Concept Program; a program 
for the development and Implementation of a series of waterfront 
transportation projects Including the Muni Metro Extension, the removal of 
portions of the elevated Embarcadero Freeway, the removal and reconstruction 
of the terminus of the 1-280 Freeway, Improvements on King and Berry Streets, 
and the E-Llne and F-Llne historic streetcar connections; and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors In adopting the 1-280 Transfer Concept 
Program also adopted a set of Environmental Findings; and 

WHEREAS, The following subsequent actions have amended the city's Initial 
1-280 Transfer Concept Program: 

(a) the citizens of San Francisco voted In June 1986 to leave The 
Embarcadero Freeway Intact; 

(b> the Draft Mission Bay Plan currently under consideration by the 
Planning Commission calls for a major boulevard on King Street 
with Muni Metro running In the median rather than a one-way 
couplet on King and Berry Streets; and 

(c) historic streetcar service plans for the waterfront have been 
amended to Include only the F-Llne operations from the end of 
i Market Street, to the south end of Justin Herman Plaza via 
Steuart Street, and north on The Embarcadero to Fisherman's 
Wharf; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission certified the "1-280 Transfer 
Concept Program EIR" In 1985; and 

WHEREAS, "The Embarcadero Urban Design Study" completed In 1988 
established an urban design concept for the Embarcadero Corridor that 
Incorporates The Eabarcadero Roadway Project, the Muni Metro Extension, the 
F-Llne, and the I-2B0 ramps reconstruction project; and 

WHEREAS, The urban design concept has evolved over a period of two years 
with Input from the public and the affected city agencies and was Initially 
based on the guidelines and policies of the Northeastern Waterfront Plan; and 



WHEREAS, Certain portions of the new Waterfront Transportation Projects 
package conflict with existing Master Plan policies and amendments to the City 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 89.571MR 

Waterfront Transportation Projects 

Resolution No. 

Page Two 



and County of San Francisco Master Plan are deemed appropriate to acknowledge 
support for the revised plans; and 

WHEREAS. Planning Code §101.1 requires a finding of consistency with the 
eight Priority Policies of the Master Plan, now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby 
adopt the amendments to the Master Plan of the City and County of San 
Francisco -as outlined in "Attachment A - Proposed Waterfront Transportation 
Projects, Master Plan Amendments"; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission finds the 

Waterfront Transportation Projects consistent with the Master Plan policies as 
amended; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission finds the 

Waterfront Transportation Projects consistent with the Master Plan Priority 
Policies; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission adopts the 

Environmental Findings for the 1-280 Transfer Concept Program as adopted by 
the Board of Supervisors and modified, as noted in "Attachment B," to reflect 
changes incorporated into the program since 1985; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the amendments, and shall certify a 
copy thereof to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the 
charter. 

I hereby; certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City 
Planning Commission on March 1, 1990. 



Sharon Rogers 
Acting Secretary 



Ayes: 



Commissioners Bierman, Boldrldge, Engmann, 
Karasick, Hu, Morales and Sewell 



Noes: 



None 



Absent 



None 



Adopted: March 1, 1990 



ATTACHMEKT A 



PROPOSED MATERFROfTT TRANSPORTAHOH PROJECTS 
MASTER PLAN AHENDMENTS 



TRANSPORTATION 



Transit Preferential Streets Plan 
Page 1.4.14; Hap 2 

King Street Is currently designated as a "Transit Preferential Street" from 
The Embarcadero west to the SP Depot, presently located at Fourth and Townsend 
Streets. It Is recommended that the designation be extended to Sixth and King 
to reflect service extension plans. See attached map. 



Rapid Transit Plan 
Page 1.4.17; Hap 3 

Beach Street In Fisherman's Hharf Is currently designated as a "Major 
Crosstown Bus Route." It Is recommended that Beach be designated as a 
"Surface Streetcar Line" to reflect proposed alignment of the F-Llne. 

King Street Is currently designated as a "Surface Streetcar Line" from The 
Embarcadero west to the SP Depot, presently located at Fourth and Townsend 
Streets. It Is recommended that the designation be extended to Sixth and King 
to reflect service extension plans. 

See attached map for recommended changes. 



Signed Bikeways Plan 
Page 1.4.28; Hap 5 

Beach Street In Fisherman's Hharf is currently designated as a "Class III" 
(Route Signs Only) bikeway. It Is recommended that this designation be 
shifted to North Point Street to provide a safe connection from The 
Embarcadero Roadway Into Fisherman's Hharf. 

The Embarcadero Roadway Is currently designated as a "Class I" (Off Road, 
Separate Pat^i) bikeway. It is recommended that this designation be changed to 
a "Class III" bikeway to reflect the current design concept for The 
Embarcadero Roadway. 

See attached map for recommended changes. 



NORTHEASTERN HATERFRONT PLAN 



Recreation and Open Space 

Page II. 7. 11; Objective 7, Policy 9 

Develop a continuous bicycle path along the Northeastern HaterfrontT-sepapated I 
aRd-ppete€ted-^yQm-veh4-€u4^ay-tya^^4€-whej=e-B9Ss4-b4eT-afld that 1 s 1 1 nked w1 th I 
the cUy-wlde bicycle route system. 



Transportation Haterfront Projects 
Master Plan Amendments 
Page 2 



Transportation 

Page II. 7. 13; Objective 9. Policy 3 

Minimize the Impact of regional transportation movement along the Northeastern 
Waterfront by encouraging transit use through the addition and Improvement of 
service and through the use, wherever possible, of exclusive rights-of-way and 
other types of transit preferential treatment. — Ppeh4-b4-*-i:aBip+ng-te-aRd-f)=©Bi I 
4he-i-280-ffeewdy-w4th4-B-*he-afed-ea5t-©f-Th4-Fd-S*»:eetT-e>(€ep*-tha4-a-*i=aBs4-t I 
eB-tv-<=affiB-4e-Se€eBd-S^t=ee^-she»^d-be-Byevj-ded Remove the 1-280 freeway I 
structure east of Sixth Street and prohibit new ramos east of Fifth Street. I 

Page II. 7. 13; Objective 9. Policy 5 

Improve transit service to, and along, the Northeastern Haterfront. Establish 
a-translt 4-4-Be-rall service in an exclusive rlqht-of-wav along The Embarcadero I 
be*weeB-the-S©«*h-©f-Mdfket-afed-aBd-*he-F4-sheFiBdB-s-Whdff-aFea-wb+€h-w©H^-d I 
p<:+ffidi=44-y-ffldke-Hse-©f-e^4-5*4-Bg-faUMed-*»:d€k«T-1-fl€*«d4-Bg-tb©se-©B-Tbe I 
6mbaf€ddep©T-aBd-wh4-€h that would connect to numerous other transit llnesj and I 
to a-Bayk4-Bq-fesefve4-y-at-^he-se»4hefB-eB d Intercept parking facilities. I 



Urban Design 

Page II. 7. 15 - Objective 10; Policy 11 

Maintain and enhance existing grade level view corridors to the Bay 
pdFt4-€H4-di=4-y from Kearpy. Broadway . Howard. afld-Folso m. Bryant. Brannan. and 
Beale Streets and to the bulkhead buildings or significant architectural 
features from Bav. Front. Green. Vallelo. Market. Mission. Harrison. Steuart 

and Townsend Streets. aRd-€ Create new view corridors at Pacific and Hewapd 

Greenwich Streets. 



Ferry Building Area 

Page II. 7. 28 - Objective 25; Ferry Building. Policy 4 

Create a plaza for passive recreation uses In front of the Ferry Building 
between Pier 1 and the Agriculture Building by the removal of parking and the 
reduction in width to two northbound lanes of The Embarcadero roadway. Design 
the plaza to create a visual setting for the Ferry Building and a symbolic 
terminus to Market Street. On an Interim basis, until the Ferry Building Is 
redeveloped and additional accessory parking provided, widen the sidewalk In 
front of the Ferry BuHdlng as Dart of a waterfront promenade, develop a 
smaller plaza directly In front of the building, and permit a single row of 
parking on either side of the Ferry Building. Use special paving materials 
for the promenade, the smaller plaza, and the parking row and access lanes so 
these elements are visually integrated. . . . 



Embarcadero Corridor 

Page II. 7. 38 - Objective 27; Eiibarcadero Roadway. Policy 2 

Improve The Embarcadero Roadway as follows: 

(a) Provide two lanes each for southbound and northbound traffic with right 
and left turn channelization at selected Intersections; 

(b) Include an exclusive right-of-way for transit aBd-ffe4-ght-Fd4-4-«efv+€e I 
within the-f©adwav-€yess-se€%j-©B public rlqht-of-wav : I 

(c) Provide a promenade for pedestrlansT and joggers afid-b4-€y€W5*«-along the I 
water side of the roadway and a bikewav for cyclists on the roadway : I 

(d) Provide signalized pedestrian crossings, Integrated with transit stops 
along The Embarcadero at Pa€4fU^ Bav. Sansome. Filbert. Green. Broadway. I 



Transportation Waterfront Projects 
Master Plan Amendments 
Page 3 



Washington. Market, M+ss+eRT Folsom, BpyantT and Brannan Streets and on King I 

Boulevard at ^ewRseBdr Second, and Fourth Streets. Establish traffic signals I 
and speed limits which give priority to pedestrian movement across The 
Embarcadero roadway; 

(e) Light the roadway with the-same-ornamental fixtures similar to those I 
presently found along The Embarcadero. Lighting levels should be sufficient 

for public safety while avoiding unnecessary glare. Plant «-geReFd4^4-y I 

€eRt4-R«GHS-»:ew-ef-l-aFge-street trees with an irrigation system along the I 

right-of-way, trans Itway and promenade In a wav that protects the urban. I 

maritime character of the waterfront and preserves the views of the bav . I 

Page II. 7.40 - Objective 27; Freight Rail Line, Policy 1 

Ne):4M-ef-Hewafd-S4FeetT-')-e€ate-^he-Be4-^^4Re-4R-the-EmbaFeade4:e-t4:aR54'%-ned4aR I 

aRd-sha)=:e-4fa€k^-w4-4h-the-gHibapeadefe-tPaRs4-4-4-4fleT Maintain Bel til ne track I 

north to Piers 30 and 32 If necessa ry for maritime activities. The Beltllne I 

track should share right-of-wav with the roadway travel lanes on King I 

Boulevard and The Embarcadero. I 

Page II. 7. 40 - Objective 27; Freight Rail Line. Policy 2 

Ff:em-Hewdfd-S4fee^T-f=e4^e€ate-4he-Be4'U4-Re-Ra4^Fead-4e-S%euaft-S4f:ee^-^e-feduee I 
4-t*-4-fflpa€*-en-the-wa*e»:ff©Rt-afld-€feate-watef-»:e*a*ed-a€t4-v4-t+e5T I 

Page II. 7. 40 - Objective 27; Freight Rail Line, Policy 3 

Be4weefl-HdfF4-50fl-54i=eet-aRd-P+€i:-38T-keep-the-Be4-4URe-+R-4-t5-pFe5eRt-4-©€at+eR I 

a4^eR§-4he-4-R4an€l-s4-de-ef-4he-EmbaF€adefe-<:eadway-r I 

I 

Page II. 7. 40 - Objective 27; Freight Rail Line. Policy 4 

5©H*h-ef-P4-e»:-38-€©fl44-H«e-*he-Be+t4-4-He-en-+*5-ewR-*isa€k-b«t-f«R-+*-4-R-a-€eR*e<: I 

med4dn-a-i©fl9-K4-Hg-S*fee4x I 

Page II. 7. 40 - Objective 27; Freight Rail Line. Policy SZ I 

Ma4-R4a4-R- Accommodate spur tracks to Piers 2€t-28t-30t and 32 from 4-©€at4-©R5-©n I 
4he-4-R-^aBd-s4de-©^-the-y©adwav the relocated Beltllne If necessary to serve I 
mar 1 1 1 me use. —SepaFate-the-i^eddwdy-f Fsm-the-p+eies-seuth-ef-the-Bay-Bi^+dge I 
w4*h-d-w+de-4f«€k-de€e55-aFeaT — PF©v4-de-Pd4"l-54©i=dge-and-add4-t4-©Ra4^-*f:«€k I 
pafk4ng-fef-maf4-44me-p4'eF«-©R-B^e€k«-37?4-aRd-d7?2T I 

Page II. 7. 40 - Objective 27; Transit, Policy I 

BwUd-a- Provide rail transit «y«*em-t©-©peFd*e-©R-*he-M€d+aR-d«d+-tfd€k I 

4yaR&4-4wav-44he-iiabay€adep©-"i--44-fle^ service In an exclusive transltwav from I 

Fort Mason to the Southern Pacific Depot. An extension of Market Street I 

surface rail, the F-Llne should operate north of Market Street: t The vehicle! I 
should be historic In character in order to provide a special waterfront 

transit Identity. Make-*he-sy5teB)-€©mpat4-b4-e-w4-th-BeW+He-fi:e+ght-©pefd*4-©R5 I 

dRd-€©fflpa*+bie-w4-*h-*he-HHR4-Me*f©-4-4-ght-fa+4-veh-l-€4-e5-pf©p©5ed-*©-«5e-*he I 

bfeak-eo4-fpeBi-subwav-seyv4-6e-at-S%e«ay4-S4yeet-r South of Market Street the I 

transit service should be a surface extension of the Muni Metro .— Pfev^de-duaj- I 

ti=a€ks-t©-be-shafed-by-the-t+ght-Fa4-4-aHd-*he-€aF«-betweeR-H©wa<:d-St*:ee*-aRd I 

4he-Se»4heffl-Pa€^f4-€-PeBQtT Allow for continuous rail transit service along I 

the length of the waterfront In the future. I 

Page II. 7. 42 - Objective 27; Transit, Policy 2 

Provide a storage facility for g-fc4fle rail vehicles adjacent to «Rdey-the-stub i 
efld-©f-%he-Interstate-280 fi=eeway near K4-Rq-aRd-Peuy4h- Si xteenth and Owens I 
Streets . T-*fl-a-5Ba^-l-p©t4-©R-©f-the-df:ea-pf ©p©5ed-a5-aR-+R*eF€ept-pai=k4-flg-4-©t-r 1 

I 



Transportation Waterfront Projects 
Master Plan Amendments 
Page 4 



Page II. 7. 42 - Objective 27; Transit, Policy 3 

Provide transit stops at Pa€4-^4-€T Bav. Sansome. Filbert. Green. Broadway. 
Mashlnqton. Market. M+ss+eRT-Folsom, BfyantT-Brannan, TewnsendT-Second and 
Fourth Streets. 

RLK:430 
2/21/90 



The San Francisco Master Plan 




TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL STREETS PLAN 



Transit preferential street! (TPS) are based on criteria of transit service 
density, as measured in transit vehicle and/or passengers per hour and/or a 
traifflc interference conflict area. All surface rail (iterations (calde car. 
metro and streetcars) are designated as TPS by fact of the different operat- 
ing characteristics of rail vehicles, hi addition, short segments of a few 
blocks are designated TPS to connect segments for system continuity. 

The transit vehicle density is based on all regularly scheduled public 
transit operation over the street segment, including Muni, Golden Gate, 
and Samtrans buses. As transit service levels change, additional street 
segments may be classified as transit preferential streets. 



Map 2 



* Regional Transit Terminal 
O Transit Center 

Transit Preferential Street 



1.5.14 



Transportation Element 



PROPOSED CHANGE 
February 1990 



PROPOSED CHANGE 
February 1990 




RAPID TRANSIT PLAN 



Map 3 



Rapid Transit Line 
— — Surface Streetcar Line 
O Transit Center 

9 Combined Bart & Muni Subway Station 
Major Crosstown Bus Route 



D 



The final system form (subway, surface, or combination) 
should be' determined after a thorough stu4y considering 
economic, social and environmental impacts on the neie^ 
bortioods and requirements of transit to mario caaaty and 
the third street corridor. All rapid transit line addi- 
tions will be the subject of extensive tedmical studies 
and public hearings, and are contingent on the availabi- 
lity of resources. The long range transit and circulation 
requirements of the city indicate a need for further in- 
vestment in transit to upgrade the quality, efficiency ^ 
and equity of service to all neigbboriioods. £ 



1.5.17 



The San Francisco Master Plan 



PROPOSED CHANGE 




SIGNED BIKEWAYS PLAN Map 5 

— — - Class I . Off-Road. Separate Path 

Class n , Striped Lanes and Signs 

Class in. Route Signs OnJ^ 
® American Youth Hostel, BIdg 240, Fort Mason 



1.5.28 



c 



i 



File 90.087EM 
RESIDENCE ELEMENT 
RESOLUTION OF 
ADOPTION 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO.. 12020 

■ \. 

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12000, a Resolution of Intent to Adopt the 
Residence Element was unanimously approved by the City Planning Commission at 
its regular meeting on August 16, 1990; and 

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12000 contained findings related to environmental 
review, citizen participation, the California Department of Housing and 
Community Development review process and the Residence Element's consistency 
with other elements of the Master Plan and with Section 101.1 of the City 

Planning Code; and 

WHEREAS, the The Residence Element - Proposal for Adoption - Revised 
Incorporates amendments proposed on August 16, 1990, by the staff and the 
Planning Commission, based on the public review process, and further 
amendments responding to the Housing and Community Development Department 
review dated August 27, 1990; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Francisco City Planning Commission 
adopts and Incorporates those findings related to citizen participation, the 
California Housing and Community Development review process and the Residence 
Element's consistency with Section 101.1 of the City Planning Code, Including 
the environmental findings contained In Resolution No. 12000 as "Exhibit C": 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the San Francisco City Planning Commission 
hereby adopts the document, entitled "Residence", subtitled "Proposal for 
Adoption" dated July, 1990 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) as amended by the 
Memorandum of August 9, 1990 (attached hereto as Exhibit B) and by the 
Planning Commission August 15, 1990 (attached hereto as Exhibit C) and by the 
Memorandum of September 6, 1990 which contains responses to the review by the 
Department of Housing and Community Development (attached hereto as Exhibit D) 
in relation to the environmental findings (attached hereto as Exhibit E) . 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department transmit a summary of Board of 
Supervisors actions required to Implement the Residence Element to the Board 
of Supervisors for Its review and Information. 



File 90.087 EM 
RESIDENCE ELEMENT 
RESOLUTION OF 
ADOPTION 
No. 12020 
Page 2 



I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was ADOPTED by the City 
Planning Commission at its regular meeting September 13, 1990. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: Commissioners Bierman, Hu, Morales, Karasick 
NOES: None 

ABSENT: Commissioners Boldridge, Engmann, Sewell 



RESI:62 



Exhibit A 
Title Page Only 



RESIDENCE 




RESIDENCE 



ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 



AN ELEMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF 
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



i 



i 



i 



i 



File No. 86.505M 
September 27, 1990 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 12040 

WHEREAS, Mission Bay is generally bounded by Third Street. Berry Street, 
Fourth Street, the China Basin Channel, China Basin Street, Mariposa Street, Pennsylvania 
Street, Seventh Street, and Townsend Street; Assessor's Blocks 3795-3798, 3804-3806, 
3809, 3810, 3813, 3819, 3822, 3832, 3835, 3837-3841, 3849-3853, 3880, 3892, 3942, 
and 3944; Lot 2 in Block 3940; portion of Block 3941 westerly of China Basin Street; Lot 
6 in Block 3943; Lot 1 in Block 3948; and portion of Block 9900 along China Basin Street; 
and 

WHEREAS, Mission Bay is an underutilized and relatively undeveloped industrial 
area, formerly railroad yards, with about 100 primarily industrial uses within its 
approximately 313 acres; and 

WHEREAS, The Department of City Planning (hereinafter "Department") has been 
undertaking a planning and environmental review process for Mission Bay since 1985, 
during which time the Department has studied the planning and environmental implications 
of a Mission Bay plan and development agreement, and amendments to the Master Plan, 
Central Waterfront Plan, City Planning Code and Zoning Map with respect to Mission Bay, 
and between 1985 and 1989 released for public review a Background and Preliminary 
Findings Repon (November 1985) , Objectives and Policies - Proposal for Citizen Review 
(December 1985), Choices for Mission Bay - Planning Considerations (June 1986), 
Objectives and Policies - Revised Draft (September 1986), 21 Special Studies (September 
1986), the Mission Bay Plan - Proposal for Citizen Review (January 1987), a Draft 
Environmental Impact Repon (EIR) (August 12, 1988), a Supplemental EIR (March 17, 
1989) and a variety of other documents, and conducted numerous public forums, 
workshops and small group meetings, and provided for appropriate public hearings before 
the City Planning Commission; and 

WHEREAS, Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation (Catellus Development 
Corporation's former business name until June 1,1990) submitted its application for 
Environmental Review on September 22, 1986, under case file no. 86.505E; and 

WHEREAS, The City amended the San Francisco Administrative Code by adding 
Chapter 56 thereto on August 1, 1988, to permit execution of development agreements 
between the City and developers for large multi-phase and mixed use development projects 
such as the Mission Bay project; and 

WHEREAS, Catellus Development Corporation, ("Catellus") the applicant and 
developer, filed its Development Agreement Application for the Mission Bay project (case 
file no. 86.505) with the Department on May 1, 1989, pursuant to state law and Chapter 56 
of the San Francisco Administrative Code; and 

WHEREAS, On January 31, 1990, the Department released for public review 
proposed plans and programs, including the Mission Bay Plan - P^posal for Adoption 
Chapters 1, 2 and 3 as a proposed addition to the Master Plan and the Central Waterfront 
Plan, a Summary - Mission Bay Proposal, and a Fiscal and Financial Evaluation of the 
Mission Bay Project; and 

WHEREAS, On March 23, 1990, the Department released for public review 
proposed plans and programs, including the Housing Proposal for Mission Bay, the 
Affirmative Action and Economic Development Plan for the Mission Bay Project, Mission 
Bay Child Care Facilities Plan, Mission Bay Cultural Center, Synopsis of Hazardous 
Materials Investigation and Remediation Program, Energy Plan for Mission Bay, 
Recommended Water Conservation Measures to the Extent Feasible, Mission Bay 
Emergency Response Plan and Mission Bay Business Relocation Assistance Plan; and 

WHEREAS, On June 1, 1990, the Department released for public review 
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Volume Four, Draft Summary of Comments and 
Responses, which provides a summary of written and oral comments received during the 
public comment period (Draft EIR - August 12 to November 21, 1988; Supplemental EIR - 
March 17 to May 5, 1989) and public hearings (Draft EIR - September 22, October 6, 
October 27 and November 10, 1988; Supplemental EIR - April 20, 1989), and responses 
to those comments; and 



Mission Bay Master Plan 
File No. 86.505M 
September 27, 1990 
Page Two 



WHEREAS, On June 29, 1990, the Department released for public review the 
Mission Bay Plan Chapter 4 - Implementation, with implementation measures, and 
proposed amendments to the Central Waterfront Plan, a pan of the Master Plan, and the 
Residence, Commerce and Industry, Transportation, and Urban Design Elements of the 
Master Plan, to reflect provisions of the Mission Bay Plan; and 

WHEREAS, On June 29, 1990, the Department released for public review City 
Planning Code amendments to add an Article 9, and amendments to the Zoning Map (Use 
Districts and Height & Bulk Districts), to provide appropriate zoning within the Mission 
Bay area for the Mission Bay Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The Department on August 6, August 16, August 20, August 21, and 
August 23, 1990 subsequently proposed further amendments to the Master Plan (including 
the Recreation and Open Space, and the Community Facilities Elements), City Planning 
Code (including Sections 102, 201 and 202) and Zoning Map; and 

WHEREAS, The City and Catellus negotiated the terms of a proposed development 
agreement, and on June 29, 1990, the City released for public review a proposed 
Development Agreement By and Between the City and County of San Irancisco and 
Catellus Development Corporation Relative to the Development of Property in the Mission 
Bay Planning Area, with Exhibits; and 

WHEREAS, The Mission Bay Plan has evolved over time, beginning with an early 
proposal by the Southern Pacific Company, a Catellus predecessor, in 1981 which 
included about ten million square feet of commercial space up to 25 stories in height, two 
hotels totaling 2,100 rooms, up to 9,0(X) housing units at 160 units per acre, and ten acres 
of open space in Mission Bay, which proposal was revised in 1983 to provide for 22 
million square feet of commercial and industrial space up to 42 stories in height, a 500- 
room hotel, 7,000 housing units at 140 units per acre, and 40 acres of open space; and 

WHEREAS, In 1987, the Department's Mission Bay Plan - Proposal for Citizen 
Review included about seven million square feet of commercial and industrial space up to 
eight stories in height, a 500-room hotel, 7,700 housing units (2,300 affordable, averaging 
$125,000), and 70 acres of open space; and 

WHEREAS, In January 1990, the Mission Bay development proposal included 
8,(X)0 housing units (3,000 affordable, averaging $98,(XX)), 4.8 million square feet of 
office, 900,000 square feet of commercial/light industrial, 735,000 square feet of retail, a 
500-room, 400,0()0 square foot hotel, fire and police stations, recreation and cultural 
centers, a school site, a Public Utilities Commission MUNI Metro storage, maintenance 
and administrative facility, a public facilities site, and about 69 acres of publicly-accessible 
open space and parks; and 

WHEREAS, In August 1990, the development proposal was modified to provide 
for, among other things, up to 8,270 housing units (3,000 affordable, averaging about 
$80,000) on-site, and for a contribution by Catellus to the acquisition and/or rehabilitation 
of an additional 250 very low income affordable housing units off-site, and up to 750,000 
square feet of retail; and 

WHEREAS, The amendments to the Master Plan would add the Mission Bay Plan, 
a Specific Plan within the meaning of Government Code §65450 et seq. for the Project 
area, including (a) objectives, policies and associated text, (b) a description of the program, 
character, and specific land uses including design guidelines, (c) implementation measures, 
and (d) transportation management, energy conservation, water conservation, business 
relocation and emergency response plans; and 

WHEREAS, The amendments to the Master Plan would amend the Central 
Waterfront Plan by (a) incorporating the Mission Bay Plan and its area into the Central 
Waterfront Plan by replacing the China Basin area, with the Mission Bay Plan and 
incorporating into the Central Waterfront Plan the two blocks between Third and Fourth 
Streets at King Street, (b) modifying the Central Basin area to exclude those portions 
within the Mission Bay area and amend maritime policies related to maritime activities, and 
deleting a policy concerning massing of development heights into a hill-like shape, (c) 



Mission Bay Master Plan 
File No. 86.505M 
September 27, 1990 
Page Three 



modifying the land use, industry, maritime, commerce, residence, transportation, 
recreation and open space, and urban design policies to apply to the Showplace Square, 
Nonh Potrero, Central Basin, Islais Creek and Lower Potrero areas, and (d) incorporating 
new information that has become available in the decade since the original adoption of the 
Central Waterfront Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The amendments to the Master Plan would also amend (a) maps in the 
Master Plan Elements to reflect the new land use policies embodied in the Mission Bay Plan 
and incorporate aspects of the Mission Bay Plan, as appropriate, in the Residence, 
Commerce and Industry, Transportation, Urban Design, Recreation and Open Space, and 
Community Facilities Elements, and (b) policies in the Commerce and Industry Element 
concerning displacement of industrial firms; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission (the "Commission") held workshops 
and duly noticed public hearings on March 29, April 12, May 3, May 24, June 4, June 18, 
June 28, July 5, July 16, July 19, July 26, July 30, August 2, August 6, August 9, August 
13, August 16, August 20, August 21, and August 23, 1990, totaling over 70 hours during 
this period, to consider these matters; and 

WHEREAS, The Mission Bay project would provide important City- wide public 
benefits (many of a scope which exceeds Uiose required by existing ordinances and 
regulations) including but not limited to a major waterfront park system, an affordable 
housing plan, an affirmative action and economic development plan, a cultural center and 
other community facilities, child care fees and facilities, a school site and fees, and a 
comprehensive hazardous materials investigation and remediation plan; and 

WHEREAS, The Director of Planning (the "Director") on August 13, 16, 20, 21, 
and 23, 1990, recommended modifications to the proposed Development Agreement and 
Mission Bay Plan, and related amendments to the Master Plan, City Planning C!ode and 
Zoning Map; and 

WHEREAS, A Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared by the 
Department, consisting of the Draft Environmental Impact Rejwrt, the Supplement to the 
Draft EIR, comments received during the review periods, any additional information that 
became available, and the Draft Summary of Comments and Responses, as required by 
law; and 

WHEREAS, The Mission Bay Environmental Impact Report files and other 
Mission Bay related Department files have been made available for review by the 
Commission and the public, and these files are part of the record before the Commission; 
and 

WHEREAS, On August 23, 1990, the City Planning Commission reviewed and 
considered the Final Environmental Impact Report, and by Motion No. 12006, found that 
the contents of said repon and the procedures through which the Final Environmental 
Impact Report was prepared, publicized and reviewed complied with the provisions of the 
California Environmental (Quality Aa (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and Chapter 31 of the 
San Francisco Administrative Code; and 

WHEREAS, On August 23, 1990, by Motion No. 12006, the Commission found 
that the Final Environmental Impact Report was adequate, accurate and objective, and that 
the Summary of Comments and Responses and its subsequent memoranda contained no 
significant revisions to the Draft and Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports, and 
certified the completion of the Final Environmental Impact Report in compliance with 
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 

WHEREAS, On August 23, 1990, by Motion No. 12006, the Commission adopted 
findings of significant environmental impacts associated with Variant 12 of Alternative A 
(which most closely resembles the Mission Bay Project as defined in Attachment A hereto 
(the "Project"), now proposed for adoption), which could not be mitigated to a level of 
insignificance, which findings are modified as provided in Article V of the Mission Bay 
Findings, dated September 7, 1990, as amended on September 13 and 20,1990, attached 
hereto as Attachment A, and incorporated herein by reference; and 



Mission Bay Master Plan 
File No. 86.505M 
September 27, 1990 
Page Four 



WHEREAS, On August 23, 1990, the Commission closed the public hearing, and 
in response to the extensive public testimony received at the Commission workshops and 
public hearings, and to address concerns identified by the Commission, the Commission 
adopted Resolution No. 12008 directing the Department to modify the proposed Mission 
Bay Plan and related amendments to the Central Waterfront Plan and Elements of the 
Master Plan ("Master Plan Amendments"), the proposed Development Agreement, and the 
City Planning Code and Zoning Map amendments (together with the Master Plan 
Amendments and the Mission Bay Plan hereinafter referred to as the "Mission Bay 
Documents"), in consultation with the City Attorney's Office, and to prepare other 
documents, as appropriate, to incorporate amendments in 47 specific areas as identified in 
that resolution and, where appropriate, to incorporate other amendments considered 
desirable to clarify language or provide for conformity between documents, and to prepare 
materials for the Commission's consideration on September 13, 1990; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission in its Resolution No. 12008 on August 23, 1990 
stated that if appropriate modifications were incorporated into the Mission Bay Documents 
to the Commission's satisfaction, so that the Project, as so modified, would provide 
imponant public benefits to the City, then the Commission intended to approve the Mission 
Bay Plan, the Master Plan Amendments, and to approve and recommend approval of the 
proposed Development Agreement and City Planning Code and Zoning Map amendments 
to the Board of Supervisors; and 

WHEREAS, Appropriate modifications were made to the Mission Bay Documents, 
and, upon determining that the proposed Master Plan Amendments did not require further 
revisions, the revised Mission Bay Plan and other revised Mission Bay Documents were 
made available on September 7, 1990 and on September 13, 1990, to the public and to the 
Commission for the (Commission's review, consideration and action; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission on September 13, 1990 considered these and funher 
modifications, heard public testimony, and continued these matters to September 20, 1990; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed modifications were funher revised by the Department, 
and such further modifications were presented to the Commission and made available to the 
public on September 20, 1990, for the Commission's review, consideration and action; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission on September 20, 1990 considered all modifications 
presented to the Commission, heard public testimony, directed the preparation of further 
modifications, and continued these matters to September 27, 1990 at 1 1 :00 am.; and 

WHEREAS, The Department prepared proposed modifications to the Master Plan 
as published on September 7, 1990 and presented the Mission Bay Master Plan to the 
public and the Commission on September 27, 1990; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission hereby finds that the modifications to the Mission 
Bay Plan and other Mission Bay Documents responded to the Commission's directive and 
reflected its intent in adopting Resolution No. 12008 and are necessary, desirable, and 
appropriate; and 

WHEREAS, Based on the Commission's review of the Mission Bay Final 
Environmental Impact Report (the "reiR") and the Memoranda to the Commission from 
the Environmental Review Officer (dated August 2, 6, 20, and 23, 1990) and the 
memoranda to the Mission Bay EIR file (dated September 6 and 13, 1990), the 
Commission hereby finds that: (1) modifications incorporated into the Project will not 
require important revisions to the FEIR, and do not involve new significant environmental 
impacts, (2) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under 
which the Project is undertaken which would require important revisions to the FEIR due 
to involvement of new significant environmental impacts, and (3) no new information of 
substantial importance to the Project has become available which would indicate the need 
for subsequent analysis of the environmental impacts, alternatives or mitigation measures; 
and 

WHEREAS, The Depanment has prepared proposed Mission Bay Findings, as 
required by CEQA, regarding the alternatives and variants, mitigation measures and 
significant environmental impacts analyzed in the FEIR, overriding considerations for 
approving the Project, and a proposed mitigation monitoring program, which material was 



Mission Bay Master Plan 
FUe No. 86.505M 
September 27, 1990 
Page Five 

made available on September 7, 1990, to the public and to the Commission for the 
Commission's review, consideration and action; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Mission Bay Findings were amended by the 
Department, and such amendments were presented to the Commission and made available 
to the public on September 13 and 20, 1990, for the Commission's review, consideration 
and action; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission has reviewed and considered the Mission Bay 
Findings, and based on the Mission Bay Findings the Commission will amend the 
proposed Development Agreement to incorporate the mitigation measures as Special 
Conditions, to be set forth in Exhibit A-5 of the Development Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission hereby finds that all significant environmental 
effects associated with the Project, as described in the Mission Bay Findings and the FEIR, 
have been fully and adequately analyzed in the material before the Commission, and no 
additional information is required to make an informed decision regarding the 
environmental impacts of the Project and the appropriate mitigation measures; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments to the 
Master Plan Amendments and finds that the Mission Bay Plan is consistent with the Master 
Plan Amendments, as amended herein, and finds that the Master Plan, as so amended, is 
internally consistent; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Mission Bay Plan and the Master Plan Amendments 
are, on balance, consistent with the Eight Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 
101.1, based upon the Mission Bay Project's: 

(1) providing substantial new neighborhood-serving retail uses, thereby enhancing 
opportunities for resident employment in and ownership of such businesses; 

(2) protecting existing housing and neighborhood character by providing new 
housing and job opportunities in an underutilized area, and reducing development pressures 
on existing neighborhoods; 

(3) increasing the City's supply of affordable housing by providing opportunities 
for 3,000 units of affordable housing on-site, and funding acquisition and/or rehabilitation 
of another 250 very low income housing units off-site; 

(4) providing transportation and public transit improvements, and mandatory 
transportation management programs so that existing transportation is not overburdened; 

(5) providing for new light industrial and service uses, thereby providing future 
opportunities for resident employment and ownership in the light industrial and service 
sectors; 

(6) providing for the construction of buildings which meet modem earthquake 
standards so as to achieve the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury and 
loss of life in an earthquake; 

(7) providing for the possible retention of the fire station and Third and Fourth 
Street bridges, and having no negative effect on any landmark or historic building; and 

(8) providing new publicly-accessible parks and open spaces, including improved 
public access to the waterfront, without affecting any existing parks or open spaces; and 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Qty Planning Commission hereby 
adopts, as required by CEQA, the Mission Bay Findings dated September 7 as amended 
September 13 and September 20, 1990 attached hereto as Attachment A, and incorporated 
by this reference, with respect to actions taken herein; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission, having 
received public testimony during the course of its workshops and public hearings, and 
having reviewed the recommendations and the revised Mission Bay Documents prepared 
by the Director of Planning and released on September 7, 1990, and further revised and 
released on September 13 and September 20, 1990 hereby ADOPTS the Mission Bay Plan 
dated September 20, 1990 (as published on January 31, 1990 (Chapters 1, 2 and 3) and on 
June 29, 1990 (Chapter 4) and as revised and republished on September 7, 19990, as 
amened per the Mission Bay Master Plan Amendment Errata list dated September 27, 1990 
in the form hereby approved by the Commission) as part of the Master Plan (Exhibit 1); 



Mission Bay Master Plan 
FUe No. 86.505M 
September 27, 1990 
Page Six 



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission hereby ADOPTS 
amendments to the Central Waterfront Plan in the form published on September 7, 1990, to 
provide for consistency within the Master Plan (Exhibit 2); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission hereby ADOPTS 
amendments to the Commerce and Industry, Transportation, Urban Design, Recreation and 
Open Space, and Community Facilities Elements of the Master Plan in the form published 
on September 7, 1990 to provide for consistency within the Master Plan (Exhibit 3); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission hereby directs the 
Director of Planning to prepare appropriate modifications to the Land Use Index of the 
Master Plan to refer to Mission Bay materials therein as appropriate; 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on September 27, 1990. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: 



BIERMAN, ENGMANN, HU, MORALES, NOTHENBERG 



NOES: 



NONE 



ABSTAINED: 



NONE 



ABSENT: 



BOLDRIDGE, SEWELL 



Sepiember27, 1990 

Mission Bay 
Master Plan Amendment Errata 



NoTe: These emu modify the September 7, 1990 Mission Bay Plan and Masttr Plan 
documents, and axe black-lined to show modifications. 



1. M]>y?on Bay Plan Chapter 3 

p. S-S4: Item S, add ai end "(at least 75% of the total open space shall be open to the 
public during daylight hours)" - per Condition tt23 

7. ^T^^^:on Bay Plan Chapter i 

p. 9: Rrst buDeted item should read "provided on- or off»s^te " and add at end ", with 
this rado subject to the specific terms and conditions of the Development 
Agreement (Exhibit A- 1, Section 2)." - clarification 

At second bulleted item, add ai beginning, "Affordable housing on- and off-site 
must represent 37,5% of the total housing.", and at end "ffxhibit A-1, Section 
9Ca))" • clarification 

For the previously distributed Insert #2. add at end "(Exhibit A-1. Sectioo 

9(a))" - clarification 

p. 15: At end of last paragraph before bridges, add "An increase in parking and 

turnaround areas uill be considered part of Mission Bay Green." - clarification 
of condition Mil 

p. 25: Add at bonom of page "4. The Gty will aDow expansion of existing non- 
conforming uses within Mission Bay until the Project Sponsor proceeds with 
development, in accordance with provisions of the City Planning Code, 
Article 9." 

3. RfcidcricePlpmentofMattgrPltn 

No addioonal amendments are necessary, as amendments reflecting the Mission Bay Plan, 
specifically the Generalized Residential Lai«i Use Plan Map and the Residential Density 
Plan Maps, were adopted by the Commission when it adopted the Residence Element on 
Scprcmber 13, 1990. - clarification 



I 

I 



Exhibit 2 



CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN 



INTRODUCTION 



SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION 

The geographic area covered in the Plan is comprised of a number of subareas shown on Map 
1 . The Plan begins with introductory material covering the purpose of the Plan, relation to the 
Master Plan and Background. The Plan is then divided into two parts. Part I contains general 
objectives and policies for the Showplace Square, Central Basin, North Potrero, Islais Creek and 
Lower Potrero subareas followed by specific objectives and policies for each subarea. Part 2 
contains objectives and policies for the Mission Bay subarea. This part is separately published 
as the Mission Bay Plan. It has been organized to qualify as a Specific Plan pursuant to state law 
and is the' subject of a development agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and 
Catellus Development Corporation. 



Purpose 



The purpose of this Area Plan is to guide the future development of the Central Waterfront in 
a manner serving the varying needs and interests of San Francisco. The Plan establishes goals, 
objectives and policies providing direction for private and public investment in the area. It calls 
for development that will meet the City's pressing economic and employment needs without 
sacrificing environmental quality. The Plan is part of the San Francisco Master Plan and will 
set the official planning policies for the area. 



Relation to the Master Plan 

The updating and revision of the City's Master Plan as mandated by State law and the City 
Charter has resulted in the adoption of numerous plan elements. One of them, the Commerce 
and Industry Element, sets forth the planning principles to be applied in shaping the economic 
future of the City. 

A critical issue addressed in the Commerce and Industry Element concerns the changing structure 
of the San Francisco economy. The once strong industrial component has declined and given 
way to the rapidly expanding office and commercial sectors. This structural shift in the local 
economy is mirrored in the changing composition of the labor force employed in the City. 



1 



Problems arising from this changing economic function of the City are becoming increasingly 
apparent. There is the danger stemming from overreliance on a limited number of economic 
sectors to provide jobs, especially during recessionary periods. The ability and speed with which 
resident workers can adjust to the job requirements of white collar employment remains 
uncertain. The daily influx of several hundred thousand commuters has adverse effects on air 
quality, traffic congestions, parking and the demand for scarce public services. The character 
of San Francisco neighborhoods is also being altered. White collar professionals seeking living 
quarters have pushed up the price of housing and their spending patterns have led to changes in 
the type of goods and services offered on neighborhood commercial streets. 

The above factors were considered in arriving at the objectives in the Commerce and Industry 
element strongly favoring the diversification of San Francisco's economic base. The 
implementation program for the element calls for the preparation of industrial district 
improvement plans as one means of realizing these objectives. The Central Waterfront Area Plan 
represents one step toward ftilfiUing this task. 

The Central Waterfront Area Plan emphasizes maritime and economic development policies, as 
well as housing policies, while at the same time establishing policies regarding transportation, 
recreation, commerce and urban design. The formulation of these policies is based on the 
existing policies established in the various elements of the Master Plan. 



BACKGROUND 
Description 

The Central Waterfront covers the eastern shoreline of San Francisco between China Basin and 
Islais Creek and adjacent inland areas. The land area totals 900 acres or 1 .4 square miles. 

Industrial uses dominate the Central Waterfront; however, much of the industrial activity takes 
the form of low intensity distribution ftmctions such as wholesaling and storage. Until recently, 
railyards consumed approximately one-third of the land. Trucking and warehousing facilities are 
present on the rail property as part of the railroad's intermodal operations. Manufacturing 
activity is limited and generally declining, though several manufacturers remain healthy. Some 
industrial buildings have been salvaged through commercial reuse. A major design center has 
emerged in the northwest section of the area, having been developed through the conversion of 
brick warehouses to showrooms for interior design products. 

The Port of San Francisco has jurisdiction over much of the shoreline of the Central Waterfront 
area. Current maritime activities within this area include: Pier 48 - Forrest Terminals Paper 
dock; Pier 50 - break bulk general cargo dock; Pier 54 - Continental Maritime welding/ship 
repair facility; Pier 70 (Alvord Grant) - auto terminal and fuel dock; Pier 80 - San Francisco 
Container Terminal North; and Pier 84 - general cargo dock. In association with these maritime 



operations, two major railroad holding yards existed - Santa Fe Railroad and Southern Pacific 
Railroad's Mission Bay Yard. These railroads served the Port and other industries based in San 
Francisco. 

Also located along the shoreline within Port jurisdiction is the former Bethlehem Steel Shipyard. 
This yard consists of a number of dry docks for repairs of merchant vessels, as well as "ship 
ways" for the construction of barges. 

The Central Waterfront area contains uses other than those involving industrial and port-related 
maritime activities such as boat clubs and small boat repair yards. A small residential 
neighborhood of several hundred inhabitants and supporting commercial uses is situated east of 
Potrero Hill and a houseboat community is berthed in China Basin Channel. Other commercial 
uses in the area cater to the needs of workers and businesses. Recreational opportunities are 
provided at Warm Water Cove and Agua Vista Park on the shoreline where public access points 
to the Bay have been established. A MUNI bus maintenance yard is also located in the area. 

Access to the Central Waterfront is afforded through the close proximity of the freeway network 
and through local transit service and a commuter railroad. Although it appears that access to the 
Central Waterfront might be adequate, bus and rail service are infrequent. The lack of parking 
for trucks and automobiles and the poor condition of public streets also act as hindrances to the 
area's accessibility. 

History 

The Central Waterfront area exists today as a man-made landscape. Its natural appearance prior 
to the incorporation of the City and County of San Francisco has undergone a complete 
transformation. The creeks, marshes, waters and hills that dominated the area in 1850 have 
vanished in favor of flat lands and Bay fill. This transformation occurred early in the City's 
history and was accompanied by the development of industrial, maritime and residential uses. 

The section of the Central Waterfront north of 16th Street, now used for industrial and railroad 
activities, covers the former site of Mission Bay and Mission Creek. The waters of Mission Bay 
included approximately 260 acres, and though shallow, were navigable by draft vessels. Mission 
Creek was the main drainage for the eastern slopes of Twin Peaks and adjacent areas and was 
lined with salt marshes where Bay tides intruded. The marshes surrounding Mission Bay and 
Mission Creek occupied an additional 330 acres and extended inland westward of Potrero Hill 
to what is now Twentieth and Harrison Streets. 

Filling of the marshes commenced in the 1850's and was undertaken by individual lot owners and 
as part of the construction of toll roads that bridged Mission Bay. Southern Pacific railroad 
acquired the bulk of the Mission Bay property in 1868 and 1869 from the State of California and 
private land owners. The railroad gradually filled Mission Bay during the later 19th and the early 
20th centuries. 



The filling of Mission Bay was aided by the action of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad 
in the China Basin area. As part of a lease condition from the State of California, the railroad 
in 1901 and 1902 reclaimed the tidelands and developed tracks and warehouse facilities. Only 
China Basin Channel was spared reclamation and remains today as a waterway. 

Land use in the area was dominated by railroad activities, though other uses existed outside the 
railyards. To the west, where reclamation occurred earliest, brick warehouses were constructed 
as the area assumed an industrial character. On the waterfront, several finger piers were in active 
maritime use. One of these. Pier 50, is now the site of Mission Rock Terminal. With a capacity 
to berth six ships simultaneously, it was the largest pier on San Francisco Bay when completed 
in 1950. 

The section of the Central Waterfront south of Central Basin to just north of Army Street was 
once a peninsula known as Potrero Point. The slopes of the peninsula extending from Potrero 
Hill rose to an altitude of 100 feet or more above the Bay. The area has been flattened and filled 
over the years to such an extent that no vestige of its former shape remains. 

The deep water adjacent to Potrero Point created an excellent opportunity site for development. 
The earliest activities to locate there were shipbuilding, ship repair and gunpowder storage. The 
Tubbs Cordage Company was established in 1856 on a leveled site now occupied by Muni's 
Woods Yard. Included in the project was a 1500 foot rope walk which extended into the Bay and 
probably served a secondary purpose as a loading wharf. William Alvord received a grant of 
submerged property which he filled in order to construct the Pacific Rolling Mills in 1867. Pier 
70 is now on this site. As fill increased, other industries located in the Potrero Point area. The 
San Francisco Gas Light Company commenced operations in 1872 and parts of it exist today in 
the present plant owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Other factories set up in this 
area included the California Poppy Soap Company, the Sea Island Sugar House, and the 
California Sugar Refinery. 

The major leveling of hills on Potrero Point occurred in conjunction with the construction of the 
Union Iron Works in the 1880's. Though originally known for machinery production, the Union 
Iron Works was also active in the shipbuilding field. Its purchase in 1905 by Bethlehem Steel 
led to an expansion of its shipbuilding efforts. Ship production peaked during the two world 
wars and was augmented with repair and maintenance work during other times. 

The decision by Western Pacific railroad to fill its property south of the Gas Works finalized the 
elimination of Potrero Point as a peninsula. The Potrero Point shoreline was thus united with 
that of Islais Creek Basin. 

The urban transportation system of the 19th century would not allow the separation of residential 
from industrial land uses to the degree that prevails today. Workers required housing in close 
proximity to their places of employment. Homes, hotels and boarding houses were constructed 
in the Central Waterfront area as residences for workers. Irish Hill was once a prominent 
working class neighborhood in the area until it was demolished to accommodate Bethlehem 



4 



shipyard expansion during World War n. With few exceptions, most residences were demolished 
over the decades. The remaining ones can be found in a neighborhood adjacent to Twenty- 
second Street along Tennessee Street near Eighteenth Street. 

The section of the Central Waterfront from Twenty-fifth Street south to Islais Creek Channel 
developed most recently. Islais Creek originally drained the area stretching from Twin Peaks and 
Glen Park to Alemany Gap before flowing into San Francisco Bay. It still flows into San 
Francisco Bay, although its course today runs through a concrete aqueduct beneath Interstate 
280. 

Islais Creek and the marshes surrounding were viewed as a barrier to the southern development 
of San Francisco. Organized efforts for reclamation were unsuccessful until 1925, when the 
passage of State legislation enabled the creation of the Islais Creek Reclamation District. 
The District was successful in filling the marshes and tidelands, dredging Islais Creek, and 
including a turning basin at its western end to allow room for ship maneuvering. 

Industrial development was generally delayed until after World War H. During the war the area 
was the site of temporary housing. Etemolition occurred after the war and much of the area was 
subsequently developed as a industrial park with single story concrete buildings. South of Army 
Street, food and oil processing plants were developed. 

The most recent filling of Islais Creek occurred during the construction of Pier 80, formerly the 
Army Street ship Terminal. Financed by a bond issue approved by California voters in 1958, 
the terminal went into operation in 1967. 

Land modification and Bay fill, both to accommodate the needs of economic activities, epitomize 
the historical development of the Central Waterfront. The recent history has taken a different 
turn. The establishment of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, empowered to 
control activities on the Bay shoreline, has led to severe limitations on Bay filling. Changes in 
the locational economics of industry have resulted in firm closures and relocations. The area 
today is suffering from economic deterioration with employment and production drastically 
reduced from former levels. 



Conditions and Trends 

Key indicators of the general conditions in the Central Waterfront all declined during the last 
several decades. The data on trends in population, land use and employment documents the 
magnitude of the decline. Projections for these indicators show a further decline, although the 
bright spots now appearing in the economy suggest a more favorable future is attainable for the 
area. 



5 



The residential population of the Central Waterfront, which totaled 531 in 1970, increased 
slightly to 614 in 1980. The area is benefitting from private rehabilitation and the condition of 
the existing 280 housing units is improving. 

The entire Central Waterfront area encompasses 903 acres. Of this total, Mission Bay covers 315 
acres. The 130 acres in Showplace Square is used primarily for apparel and interior design 
wholesale, storage and showroom facilities. Data collected from a 1987 land use inventory 
indicates 482 acres in the Lower Potrero and waterfront areas of which 302 acres remain 
industrial, 18 acres are vacant, 58 acres in railroad easements under freeways and the remaining 
108 acres are in a mix of uses. 

With the proximity of the Central Waterfront to downtown, the general trend toward 
intensification of land use has begun. Much of the new construction has continued in the form 
of low intensity uses such as trucking depots and warehouses. The development of showrooms 
for interior design products in formerly vacant warehouses in the Showplace Square area 
represents a healthy economic trend. This is being augmented by the establishment of 
commercial service uses to support the showroom activities. 

From 1965 to 1970, when citywide employment increased by 12 percent, employment in the 
Central Waterfront dropped by 22 percent from 16,304 to 12,557 jobs. Major declines were 
registered in manufacturing and wholesale trade with transportation showing a smaller decline. 
Minor employment gains occurred in construction and commercial activities. The area has 
suffered additional employment losses since 1970 with the closing and relocating of firms in the 
metals products and ship repair industries. 1980 census data shows 11,004 persons employed 
in the Central Waterfront area. Of these, a significant portion (3,512) were employed in 
manufacturing jobs. This overall decline in jobs continued through 1985. Currentiy about 600 
people are employed on the piers in this area. One facility accounts for about 70% of this total. 

Two exceptions to the decline in manufacturing employment are the apparel industry and the 
wholesale interior design industry. Numerous firms in each field have recentiy located in the 
area. Increases in construction employment are due to the area's use for the storage of 
construction supplies. Though new trucking, warehousing and wholesale trade facilities have 
been constructed, potential net employment gains have been offset by closures and relocations 
of older firms and other losses of employment due to technological change and declining citywide 
demand. 

Maritime trade through the Port of San Francisco has increased slowly since the mid- 1 960' s, in 
part due to overall increases in Pacific Rim trade. However, the Central Waterfront has felt the 
effects of the decline in San Francisco's share of regional Port activity. While most piers do 
support some maritime activity, it is at a level below their cargo-handling capacities. 



6 



The decrease in the Port's share of general cargo trade can be attributed to technological changes 
within the maritime industry. Containerization has created the demand for the construction of 
new facilities at ports throughout the world. Whereas the Port of San Francisco did not convert 
to containerization until fairly recently, the Port of Oakland, with federal assistance, developed 
one of the world's largest container ports and subsequently, drew shipping lines from San 
Francisco. 

Modem port facilities require substantial back-up land for equipment operation, storage, and 
intermodal cargo transfers. The bulk cargo and related maritime activities north of Sixteenth 
Street are served by limited back-up land. Investment in new capital facilities by the Port of San 
Francisco has occurred in the area south of China Basin where adequate back-up land is available. 
This southerly shift in the Port's maritime operations is reflected in the cargo tonnage statistics: 
In 1969, the Port's cargo tonnage was equally distributed between the piers north and south of 
China Basin; by 1987, over 80% of the cargo was handled in the southern portion. 

Present and future trends point to the strong potential for revitalizing San Francisco's maritime 
economy. Cargo projections for the upcoming decades show increasing maritime traffic for Bay 
ports. Congestion at other West Coast ports combined with the availability of facilities in San 
Francisco' should give the Port an opportunity to attract an increase in shipping activity. The 
expansion of trade with the Pacific Rim countries should also have a long-term positive impact 
on the Port of San Francisco. 

Favorable economic trends are beginning to appear in the Central Waterfront. The previously 
identified healthy components of the local economy, apparel manufacturing and interior design 
activities, are now undergoing expansion and future growth is anticipated. The prospect of the 
8,000 new housing units and over six million square feet for employment in Mission Bay signal 
the healthy redevelopment of that portion nearest downtown. Changing conditions in the overall 
San Francisco economy could also bode well for the Central Waterfront. The boom in downtown 
highrise construction is causing some displacement of professional firms which are relocating in 
the South of Market area and are forcing upward pressure on rents. The displaced firms are 
often able to outbid existing industrial and downtown support activities for space. Many South 
of Market firms are seeking suitable sites for operation elsewhere within San Francisco. The 
Central Waterfront is one of the few areas in the City that can accommodate industrial uses. 
This trend, combined with an expected increase in transportation costs from the suburbs could 
make the Central Waterfront a desirable location for certain industries. The growing desire for 
shorter commutes will also encourage the development of more housing near central workplaces. 

Although statistical projections show a continuation of the declines in historic area land uses, 
the local economy is expected to grow as the mixed use Mission Bay development is implemented 
and as the specialized apparel and interior design industries continue to thrive. Maritime trade 
could increase, but only if the Port of San Francisco is aggressive in developing and marketing 
modem cargo-handling facilities. The Central Waterfront's general attractiveness could also be 
boosted by the competition for a limited supply of industrial land in San Francisco. 



7 



OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES - PART I 



SHOWPLACE SQUARE, CENTRAL BASIN, NORTH POTRERO, ISLAIS CREEK AND 
LOWER POTRERO SUBAREAS 



OVERALL GOAL 

The overall goal of the Plan for these subareas is to create a physical and economic environment 
conducive to the retention and expansion of San Francisco's industrial and maritime activities. 
This goal is set forth in order to reverse the pattern of economic decline in the area and to 
establish a land base for the industrial and maritime components of the San Francisco economy. 
The following objectives and policies are designed to: 

1. Increase employment opportunities for San Francisco's unemployed and 
underemployed residents; 

2. Enhance the working environment to stimulate business growth; and 

3. Improve the area's appearance and attractiveness. 
LAND USE 

OBJECTIVE 1 

STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND LAND USES ESSENTL\L TO REALIZING THE 
ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE SUBAREAS. 



POLICY 1 

Encourage the intensification and expansion of industrial and maritime uses. 
POLICY 2 

Preserve and protect the subareas as a land base for San Francisco industry. Prevent the 
conversion of land needed for industrial or maritime activity to non-industrial use. 

POLICY 3 

Promote new development which has minimal adverse environmental consequences. Assure that 
the adverse environmental impacts of new development are fully mitigated. 



8 



OBJECTIVE 2 

MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP ADDITIONAL USES ON LAND DETERMINED TO BE 
SURPLUS TO INDUSTRIAL AND MARITIME NEEDS. 

POLICY 1 

Preserve existing residential uses and develop limited new housing. 
POLICY 2 

Retain existing commercial uses and expand as needed to serve increases in the working and 
residential populations. 

POLICY 3 

Improve, expand and develop recreational areas at established public access points along the 
waterfront enabling public use and enjoyment of the shoreline. 

INDUSTRY 

OBJECTIVE 3 

RETAIN, EXPAND AND PROTECT INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY. 
POLICY 1 

Promote industrial expansion through maximizing and intensifying the use of existing facilities 
and properties, rehabilitating older industrial structures and developing vacant land with industrial 
uses. 

POLICY 2 

Encourage the consolidation of rail operations and unnecessary tracks and facilities to increase 
land available for industry. Maintain and, as needed, upgrade rail service to San Francisco. 

POLICY 3 

Develop and promote training programs to target local residents for employment opportunities 
resulting from new economic development. 



POLICY 4 



Establish and promote financing programs to provide funds for local business development. 
POLICY 5 

Support the expansion of small businesses and firms in newly emerging industries. 
POLICY 6 

Encourage the growth of firms which strengthen or complement the maritime operation of the 
Port, either by directly engaging in maritime activities or by providing ancillary services which 
serve or support maritime activities. 

POLICY 7 

Remove antiquated and overly restrictive provisions fi'om City codes that impose undue burdens 
on industry and restrict expansion efforts, but maintain requirements designed to protect and 
enhance environmental quality. 

POLICY 8 

Avoid encroachment of incompatible land uses on viable maritime-oriented and other industrial 
activity by appropriately zoning and mapping industrial districts. Resolve potential land use 
conflicts in a manner that recognizes the importance of industrial activity to the well-being of San 
Francisco. 

POLICY 9 

Deliver key public services, including police, fire, sanitation and transportation at levels 
necessary to support and encourage industrial activity. 

POLICY 10 

Assist firms displaced from other parts of San Francisco, especially those displaced by downtown 
office expansion, in locating in the subareas. 

POLICY 11 

Attract new industries that create employment opportunities for City residents, add tax revenues 
in excess of public service costs and strengthen and diversity San Francisco's economic base. 



10 



MARITIME 

OBJECTIVE 4 

RETAIN AND EXPAND MARITIME USES ALONG THE CENTRAL WATERFRONT 
SHORELINE. 

POLICY 1 

Retain, improve and expand all existing maritime general cargo facilities along tiie Central 
Waterfront (Piers 48, 50, 70 and 80). 

POLICY 2 

Retain all existing ship repair operations along the Central Waterfiront (Pier 54 and the former 
Betiilehem Yard.) 

POLICY 3 

Encourage the expansion and modernization of maritime cargo handling facilities and the 
development of container facilities along the waterfront south of Mariposa Street. 

POLICY 4 

Reserve land adjacent to the waterfront as required for maritime support use. 

COMMERCE 

OBJECTIVE 5 

PROVIDE A QUANTITY AND MIX OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES NECESSARY TO 
SERVE THE LOCAL NEEDS OF THE SUBAREAS. 

POLICY 1 

Promote the retention and improvement of existing commercial activities that support local 
residential, industrial, maritime and recreational uses. 



11 



POLICY 2 

Support the expansion of commercial uses if needed to serve demand generated by new 
development. 

POLICY 3 

Prevent new office development, except that which serves a principal industrial or maritime 
use. 

POLICY 4 

Encourage water-oriented commercial recreation activities at public access points along the 
shoreline. 

RESIDENCE 

OBJECTIVE 6 

RETAIN AND IMPROVE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES AND DEVELOP A LIMITED 
QUANTITY OF NEW HOUSING. 

POLICY 1 

Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. 
POLICY 2 

Encourage additional housing within established residential areas. 
POLICY 3 

Require new residential developments to include an adequate supply of low and moderate income 
units and provide a mix of unit types to accommodate a variety of household sizes. 

POLICY 4 

Provide rent supplements and assist in local home ownership to avoid displacement of existing 
residents. 



12 



TRANSPORTATION 



OBJECTIVE? 

IMPROVE THE TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY OF THE SUBAREAS. 
POLICY 1 

Improve citywide and regional transit access to the subareas. 
POLICY 2 

Provide adequate rail and truck access to all maritime piers. 
POLICY 3 

Establish an official truck route system along the designated major and secondary thoroughfares 
to facilitate truck movements within and to port facilities and other area businesses and to 
minimize the adverse impacts of truck movement on adjacent residential, commercial and 
recreational land uses. 

POLICY 4 

Extend a Light-Rail Vehicle line through the area along the Third Street corridor connecting to 
the Southern Pacific Depot and the proposed Embarcadero rail line. 

POLICY 5 

Improve transportation access on Third Street by implementing design changes in traffic lanes, 
turning bays and signal timing. 

POLICY 6 

Improve regional highway access by completing the proposed State Route 230 (Hunter's Point 
Parkway) and the proposed on-ramp to Interstate 280 immediately south of Islais Creek Channel. 



13 



OBJECTIVE 8 



IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS WITfflN THE SUBAREAS. 



POLICY 1 

Improve internal vehicular circulation through the construction, repair and maintenance of public 
streets, and the provision of appropriate signing and lighting. 

POLICY 2 

Maintain and construct sidewalks on streets with pedestrian traffic. 
POLICY 3 

Encourage the use of public transit, carpooling/van-pooling, and jitney service to minimize the 
consumption of scarce industrial land for commuter parking lots. Where demand for parking can 
be clearly established, give preference to parking structures as opposed to open lot parking. 

POLICY 4 

Provide short-term parking to support wholesale, design and related activities. Develop parking 
treatments for on-street spaces to assure short-term turnover of vehicles. 

POLICY 5 

Require off-street parking facilities for freight loading and service vehicles in all major new 
developments and incorporate these in older buildings where feasible. Provide short-term loading 
spaces on the street for routine deliveries and essential services, with strict enforcement of time 
limits. 

POLICY 6 

Encourage new developments to provide pedestrian amenities and transit access improvements 
such as pedestrian resting areas, bus stop shelters and transit information displays. 



14 



RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE 



OBJECTIVE 9 

PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ALONG THE 
SHORELINE. 



POLICY 1 

Maintain and improve the quality of existing shoreline recreational areas at Agua Vista Park and 
Warm Water Cove. 

POLICY 2 

Expand existing recreational areas and establish a new one at Islais Creek Channel, so long as 
its compatible with present or planned maritime activity. 

POLICY 3 

Provide public overlooks, viewing areas and open spaces with convenient pedestrian access in 
areas of maritime activity. 

URBAN DESIGN 



OBJECTIVE 10 

ACHIEVE AN AESTHETIC URBAN FORM CONSISTENT WITH THE ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBAREAS. 



POLICY 1 

Reinforce the visual contrast between the waterfront and hills by limiting the height of structures 
near the shoreline. Relate the height and bulk of new structures away from the shoreline to the 
character of the topography and existing development. 



15 



POLICY 2 

Protect and create views of the downtown skyline and the Bay. Design and locate new 
development to minimize obstruction of existing views. 

POLICY 3 

Encourage the rehabilitation of architecturally or historically significant buildings with reuse 
potential. 

POLICY 4 

Encourage the inclusion of recreational facilities, outdoor leisure areas, and public open spaces 
in new private developments. 

SUBAREAS 

SHOWPLACE SQUARE SUBAREA 
OBJECTIVE 11 

DEVELOP A MAJOR DESIGN CENTER IN THE SHOWPLACE SQUARE SUBAREA. 
POLICY 1 

Encourage the expansion of the subarea's predominant use for the exhibit, marketing and 
wholesale trade of interior design products. 

POLICY 2 

Encourage the development of a community design center for neighborhood use. 
POLICY 3 

Encourage the development of ancillary commercial activities to serve the subarea's businesses, 
workers and visitors. 



16 



POLICY 4 



Encourage the evening use of buildings and facilities for business, entertainment, public assembly 
and ceremony. 

POLICY 5 

Assist in relocating within San Francisco any industrial uses displaced by the expansion of design- 
related activities. 



OBJECTIVE 12 

DEVELOP TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN 
CIRCULATION AND FACILITATE TRAVEL AND GOODS MOVEMENT TO AND 
WITHIN THE SHOWPLACE SQUARE SUBAREA. 



POLICY 1 

Redesign the roadway and sidewalk at the intersection of Eighth, Townsend, Division and Kansas 
Streets to created a major pedestrian link to the adjacent activity centers and to provide for safe 
traffic flow. Include attractive landscaping, quality sidewalks and street furniture to improve the 
pedestrian environment. 

POLICY 2 

Determine the present and future use status of all spur tracks and effectuate the removal of the 
abandoned, unused or unnecessary trackage. For those spur tracks scheduled for retention, 
strictly enforce the street maintenance responsibilities of the users. 

POLICY 3 

Construct and maintain sidewalks throughout the Showplace Square Subarea and provide street 
beautification improvements for pedestrian enjoyment. 

POLICY 4 

Develop parking control measures establishing areas for short and long term automobile parking 
and truck loading. Use appropriate on-street parking controls, such as signing and metering, to 
indicate areas for short term automobile parking and truck loading. 



17 



POLICY 5 

Construct a multi-story parking facility as needed to serve increased demand for parking 
generated by new development. Encourage the conversion of surface parking lots to more 
intensive use. 

OBJECTIVE 13 

PRESERVE AND EXPAND THE fflSTORIC INDUSTRIAL CHARACTER OF THE 
SHOWPLACE SQUARE SUBAREA. 

POLICY 1 

Encourage the retention and promote the reuse of buildings with brick and timber construction. 
POLICY 2 

Encourage the design of new construction to be consistent with the existing architectural character 
of the subarea. 

POLICY 3 

Screen unsightly open yard and other unattractive uses from public view with aesthetic facade or 
landscaping. 

NORTH POTRERO SUBAREA 

OBJECTIVE 14 

IMPROVE AND STRENGTHEN THE INDUSTRIAL CHARACTER OF THE NORTH 
POTRERO SUBAREA. 

POLICY 1 

Promote the rehabilitation of industrial buildings and encourage more intensive use of existing 
facilities. 



18 



POLICY 2 

Market vacant land and buildings for light industrial uses. 
CENTRAL BASIN SUBAREA 
OBJECTIVE 15 

EXPAND MARITIME ACTIVITY IN THE CENTRAL BASIN SUBAREA. 
POLICY 1 

Continue and expand the use of Piers 48 and 50 for general cargo. Maintain a six acre area 
inland and adjacent to the piers to provide a cargo backland support area to support maritime uses 
of these piers. 

POLICY 2 

Encourage the retention and promote the expansion of ship maintenance and repair activities at 
the Bethlehem site which support and strengthen San Francisco's maritime industry. 

OBJECTIVE 16 

RETAIN AND EXPAND INDUSTRIAL USES 
POLICY 1 

Encourage more intensive use of existing industrial land and facilities in locations or for durations 
which will not foreclose or inhibit development of future container facilities. 

POLICY 2 

Assure that any power plant expansion on the Pacific Gas and Electric Company site will provide 
additional employment and will not adversely affect the environment. 



19 



OBJECTIVE 17 



IMPROVE AND EXPAND WATERFRONT RECREATION. 



POLICY 1 

Maintain and improve existing recreational improvements at Warm Water Cove and expand to 
adjacent waterfront properties. Develop a waterfront picnic area and fishing pier at Twenty- 
Fourth Street. Provide public access along the north side of the Cove and construct a fishing 
quay at the Bay. Shield the recreation area frx)m surrounding industrial uses by providing 
attractive landscaping. (See also Recreation and Open Space Element, 1.3.38) 

POLICY 2 

Improve and expand the existing Agua Vista Park by developing a public beach and waterfront 
park and a small boat marina, so long as compatible with existing and planned maritime and 
private ship repair activities. (See also Recreation and Open Space Element 1.3.38). 

POLICY 3 

Continue the use of the existing public boat ramp south of Pier 50. If future port development 
necessitates, replace it with an equivalent elsewhere on the eastern shoreline. 

OBJECTIVE 18 

RELATE THE SCALE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT TO SAN FRANCISCO'S DISTINCTIVE 
HILL FORM, TO THE ADJACENT WATERFRONT AND TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. 



POLICY 1 

Minimize blockage of private and public views and maintain, to the extent feasible, sightlines 
from Potrero Hill and Mission Bay to the waterfront and downtown. 



20 



ISLAIS CREEK SUBAREA 



OBJECTIVE 19 

EXPAND MARITIME ACTIVITY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES. 
POLICY 1 

Continue to modernize Pier 80 as a container terminal facility. Expand the North container 
terminal by acquiring the Western Pacific Railroad yard and associated parcels for maritime 
development. 

POLICY 2 

Continue the maritime use of Pier 84 and adjacent land. 
OBJECTIVE 20 

DEVELOP WATERFRONT RECREATIONAL USES ON ISLAIS CREEK CHANNEL. 
POLICY 1 

Develop the Islais Creek Turning Basin for recreational use and a small craft marina, if and when 
it is no longer needed for Port maritime activity. 

OBJECTIVE 21 

RETAIN AND EXPAND INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE ISLAIS CREEK SUBAREA. 
POLICY 1 

Encourage industrial uses in the area west of Pier 80 south to Islais Creek Channel. 



21 



LOWER POTRERO SUBAREA 
OBJECTIVE 22 

RETAIN AND EXPAND INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE LOWER POTRERO SUBAREA. 
POLICY 1 

Encourage the intensification and expansion of manufacturing and wholesale trade activities. 
POLICY 2 

Develop the vacant and surrounding land bounded by Interstate 280, Mariposa, Twenty-Second 
and Third Streets with a mini-industrial park providing closure, privacy, security, open space and 
a buffer from neighboring residentijd areas through the innovative design of buildings, 
landscaping, sidewalks, parking and screening. 

OBJECTIVE 23 

PRESERVE AND IMPROVE THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. 
POLICY 1 

Protect existing housing from the adverse effects of adjacent industrial activity. Promote 
screening, soundproofing and landscaping of industrial uses to minimize their impact on 
residential areas. 

POLICY 2 

Promote the retention and conservation of the existing housing stock. Support efforts to 
rehabilitate substandard units at affordable costs to increase the supply of decent housing. 

POLICY 3 

Encourage the development of new housing on vacant sites in the residential district adjacent to 
Twenty-Second Street from Third to Minnesota Streets. 



22 



POLICY 4 

Improve existing commercial uses on Third Street and Twenty-Second Street and expand as 
needed to serve the local population. 

POLICY 5 

Improve the I.M. Scott School yard for playground use and rehabilitate the school building for 
community use. 

OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES - PART 2: SEE MISSION BAY PLAN 



23 



Central Waterfront Area Plan 




II.8.13 



Exhibit 3 



COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 
ELEMENT 



Revised Text for Commerce and Industry 
Element of Master Plan 
(Page 1.2.13) 



POLICY 3 

Av o id CarefuUv consider public actions that displace existinf viable industrial Anns. 

In some instances, public activities such as redevelopment efforts or public facility 
expansion or improvement can result in a physical displacement of a business. All too often 
when this occurs relocation is to a site outside the city. The City should recognize that many 
firms remain in the city primarily because of inertia, fixed investments in plant and equipment 
or excessive moving costs. These factors are overcome when public displacement occurs since 
moving costs and fair market value for land and facilities are paid by the City. Care should be 
taken to avoid unwarranted displacement. In determining the cost and benefits of the action 
causing displacement, the loss of taxes and jobs if the firm relocates outside the City should be 
looked at as costs. 

POLICY 4 

\MieD displacement does occur, attempt to relocate desired Arms within the city. 

When dislocation h unavoidable the benefits of public actions justify dislocation , the City 
should seek to assist. the displaced firm in obtaining a suitable alternative site in the city. This 
is particularly true if the situation is one in which the employment and tax revenues to the City 
outweigh costs to the City; it may well be appropriate to use public funds and redevelopment 
power to create a relocation site within the city for displaced firms. 

POLICY 5 

Avoid Centre] encroachment of incompatible land uses on viable industrial activity. 

There are a small number of locations in the city which are a mixture of residential, 
commercial and industrial uses which were developed prior to modem zoning controls with 
separate uses. The South of Market area is a prime example. Such areas are resources of needed 
low cost housing and should be preserved and improved where feasible. Care should be taken, 
however, to permit residential expansion in a way that will not cause eventual large scale 
displacement of existing viable businesses whenever feasible. 



Commerce and Industry Element 



See 

NORTHEASTERN 
WATERFRONT PLAN 

See 

CHINATOWN AREA PLAN 
See 

DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL 
LAND USE PLAN IN 
THE DOWNTOWN PLAN 

See 

RINCONHILL 
PLAN 

See YBC 

REDEVELOPMENT 
PLAN 




See 

CENTRAL 
WATERFRONT 
PLAN 



GENERALIZED COMMERCIAL 
AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE PLAN 



Map 1 



MAJOR SHOPPING 



LIGHT INDUSTRY 



BUSINESS AND SERVICES 



::::::: GENERAL INDUSTRY 



Note: 

For Neighborhood Commercial Areas, see the Generalized Neighborhood Commercial 
Land Use and Density Plan. 



1.2.5 



The San Francisco Master Plan 



See VAN NESS AVENUE PLAN 







' See 

CHINATOWN AREA PLAN 
-See 

DOWNTOWN PLAN 
■ See 

RINCONHILL 
PLAN 

-See YBC PLAN 






iooi; I I 



GENERALIZED COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DENSITY PLAN 
(Excludes Neighborhood Commercial Areas) 



Map 2 



DENSITY IN COMMERCIAL AREAS 
(including residential uses) 

4.8-S.O : I FAR 



3.S-4.7 : 1 FAR 



DENSITY IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS 
(including residential uses) 

5.0 : 1 FAR 



DENSITY IN RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL 
AREAS (excluding residential areas) 



4.8 : 1 FAR 
.3.6 : 1 FAR 
3.5-4.7 : 1 FAR 



Note: 

In Commercial and Industrial districts, both FAR and dwelling unit density controls 
apply. In Mixed Residential- Commerical districts, FAR limits apply to nonresidential 
uses and dwelling unit limits apply to residential uses. See Map 3 in the Residence 
Element for dwelling unit densities. An additional 2S% FAR may be added on comer lots 
in non C-3 districts. Public use areas are excluded. 



1.2.6 



Commerce and Industry Element 



FISHERMAN'S WHARF 



SOUTH OF 
MARKET 




-CENTRAL 



1 WATERFRONT 



MKEfKS UNDER STUDY 



0 3000 l-T 

Map 3 



Note: 

This map is for informational purposes and 
is not an ofHcial part of the Master Plan. 



1.2.7 



RESIDENTIAL SERVICE AREAS OF NEIGHBORHOOD 
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND USES 



Neighborhood Commercial District 
(Service Radius: 1/2 Mile) 



Commercial Service Areas 



Residential Areas Outside Service Boundaries 




GENERALIZED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL P'''':^... 

LAND USE AND DENSITY PLAN Commercial Intensity Map 5 

(Stories) 

bliiM Neighborhood Cluster 1 

HH Small Scale Neighborhood District l~2 

H Moderate Scale Neighborhood District 1-4 

Neighborhood Shoppmg Center 1- 4 

Individual Neighborhood District 1-4 



1.2.33 



COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT 



Community Facilities Element 




r-i_— LJ-\^ 

0 3U00FT 

WASTE WATER AND SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PLAN Map 5 



■■■■■■■ Bayside Core System 
......... Westside Core System* 

• • • • • Remaining Bayside System 

Crosstown Transport* 

•Long Range Funding Projections For Beyond 1985 
Sources: 

San Francisco Clean Water Program. February 1982 

San Francisco County Solid Waste Management. July 1983 

The Community Facilities Plant. 





Richmond and Lake Merced Transports 


Pump Station 


•> 


Outfall 




Water Pollution Control Plant 


• 


Solid Waste Facility 


▲ 


Retention Basin 



1.7.23 



The San Francisco Master Plan 




PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES PLAN 



J 



3000 FT 



c Childi*en's Center 

s Special Schools 

E Elementary Schools 



M Middle Schools 
H High Schools 
CC City College 



Map 6 



Note: 

Boundary lines are cencus tracts 



1.7.20 



RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 



Z Q 




CITYWIDE RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PLAN 



EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Retain Outdoor Open Space, Acquire For or Convert To 

^ Preserve Natural Qualities, and HHI PubUc Open Space 

Where Appropriate Convert To 

Public Recreational Use Provide New Open Space In 

^ The General Vicinity 



Proposed Shoreline Thrall 



China Basin 
Channel Paries 



sials CroAk 
Channel 



Map 8 

EASTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



[ORELINE ZONE 



+ + + 
+ + + 
+ + + 



All New Development Subject 
To Shoreline Guidelines 



PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 



Maintain and Improve The Quality Of 
Existing Shoreline Open Space & 
Recreation 




Mission Bay 

Green 

Public Boat 
Launch Ramp 



.^-^ Central Basin 
+ + + + + (Agua Vista Park) 

+ + + 
I+ + 
1+ + 
\\+ + 
■^+ + 
1 + + + 
-,+ + + 
. + + + - 

" "^J" .Warm Water Cove 

■ + + + 
. + + + + 

■ + + + + +'+ + 
.+• + + + + + + 

;+1;l; + + + + + -\-K±.-tPropo8ed Coastal Trail 
*' - + + + + + +>^V^'^ (not final alignment) 

'+ + + •1.,+ + 

• Pier 98 



+ + 

^^jijMuHndla Basin 



+ . 

+*•+++++ -^^/^ t i ^ ■ 

+ + f + + 

Hunters Point + ^ 

Naval r+>^ + + 
Shipyard + + 

+ + +^^^+^ 
+ + + + 

+ + -N- + -'"n 
+ ■ ■ + + +X 

+ + Candlestick Po>nt 
+ + State Recreation 
Area 



PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 




Provide New Open Space Along 
The Shoreline 



• • • • Proposed Shoreline IVail 



Port Jurisdicton 



I 



TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 



The San Francisco Master Plan 




TRANSIT PREFERENTIAL STREETS PLAN Map 2 



Regional Transit Terminal 
(Alternative Terminal Locations) 
Transit Center 
• Transit Preferential Street 



Transit preferential streets (TPS) are based on criteria of transit service 
density, as measured in transit vehicle and/or passengers per hour and/or a 
traffic interference conflict area. All surface rail operations (cable car, 
metro and streetcars) are designated as TPS by fact of the different operat- 
ing characteristics of rail vehicles. In addition, short segments of a few 
blocks are designated TPS to cmnect segments for system continuity. 

The transit vehicle densi^ is based on all regiilarly scheduled public 
transit operation over the street segment, including Muni. Golden Gate, 
and Sam trans buses. As transit service levels change, additional street 
segments may be classified as transit preferential streets. 



1.5.14 



Transportation Element 




Rapid Transit Line 

Surface Streetcar Line 

O Transit Center 
# (Altemative Center Locations) 
^ Combined Bart & Muni Subway Station 
Major Crosstown Bus Route 



The final system form (subway, surface, or combination) 
should be' determined after a thorou^ study considering 
economic, social and environmental impacts on the nei^- 
borhoods and requirements of transit to marin county and 
the third street corridpr. All rapid transit line addi- 
tions will be the subject of extensive technical studies 
and public hearings, and are contingent on the availabi- 
lity of resources. The Icmg range transit and circulation 
requirements of the city indicate a need for further in- 
vestment in transit to upgrade the quality, efficiency 
and equity of service to all neighborhoods. 



1.5.17 



The San Francisco Master Plan 



PROPOSED CHANGE 




SIGNED BIKEWAYS PLAN mIeip 5 

— — — Class I , Off-Road, Separate Path 

Class II , Striped Lanes and Signs 

--— Class in. Route Signs Only 

(J) American Youth Hostel, Bldg 240, Fort Mason 



1.5.28 



Transportation Element 




PREFERRED COMMUTE BIKE ROUTE^ 



This map was compiled in cooperation with the San Francisco 
Bicycle Coalition, tJie Department of Public Works, and the 
California Department of Transportation, District 4. 

The routes, for tlie most p<irt, are unsigned and not 
reconmiended for novice cyclists. 



Map 6 



1.5.29 



URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT 



Urban Design Element 




1.5.13 



The San Francisco Master Plan 




WHERE STREETS ARE MOST IMPORTANT AS SOURCES 
OF LIGHT, AIR AND OPEN SPACE Map 3 



I 

1.5.18 



URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS 



0-40 ft 
41-88 ft 
89-160 ft 
161-240 ft 
241-400 ft 



LOWER END OF RANGE 

MIDDLE OR LOWER END OF RANGE 




OPEN SPACE 

Any Development Subject To Review 

MAXIMUM HEIGHT 

Elevation Of Freeway 

POINT TOWERS IN VICINITY 

1. See Chinatown Area Plan 

2. See Downtown Plan 

3. See Rincon Hill Plan 



Map 4 



1.5.34 



Urban Design Element 




URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BULK OF BUILDINGS 



y/////M 



I 1 



Guidelines Apply 
Above Height Of 



40 ft 
80 ft 
40 ft^ 
40 ft 
60 ft 



Guidelines For 
Maximum Plan 
Dimension 



150 ft 

Bulk Regulated By Height Controls 

OPEN SPACE: Any Development Subject To Review 

1. See Chinatown Area Plan 

2. See Downtown Plan 

3. See Rincon Hill Plan 



110 ft / 125 ft 

110 ft I 125 ft 

\ 

110 ft Guideline For ) 
Maximum Diagonals 
250 ft Plan Dimension 1300 ft 

250 ft I 300 ft 

250 ft \ 300 ft 



Map 5 



Also Applies To Point Towers Where Designated In 
Urban Design Guidelines For Height Of BuUdings. 

1.5.35 



{ 



Mission Bay Plan, 
Development Agreement 
and Zoning; File Nos. 
86.505M & 86.05ZT; 
February 14, 1991 

SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13017 



WHEREAS, Mission Bay Is generally bounded by Third Street, Berry 
Street, Fourth Street, the China Basin Channel, China Basin Street, Mariposa 
Street, Pennsylvania Street, Seventh Street, and Townsend Street; Assessor's 
Blocks 3795-3798, 3804-3806, 3809, 3810, 3813, 3819, 3822, 3832. 3835, 
3837-3841. 3849-3853. 3880. 3892, 3942 and 3944; Lot 2 In Block 3940 portion 
of Block 3841 westerly of China Basin Street; Lot 6 In Block 3943; Lot 1 In 
Block 3948; and portion of Block 9900 along China Basin Street; and 

WHEREAS, on September 27, 1990, the City Planning Commission 
("Commission") adopted Resolution Nos. 12040 and 12041, among other 
Resolutions, in connection with its approval of the Mission Bay Documents, 
Including a Development Agreement, City Planning Code and Zoning Map 
Amendments. Master Plan Amendments and the Mission Bay Plan, and took other 
related actions Including adoption of certain findings all as more 
particularly described in said Resolution Nos. 12040 and 12041; and 

WHEREAS, thereafter the appropriate Mission Bay Documents were 
presented to Board of Supervisors ("Board") and referred to the Board's Select 
Committee on Mission Bay ("Select Committee") with the recommendations of this 
Commission, which Select Conmlttee conducted numerous workshops and hearings 
thereon and adopted various amendments to the Development Agreement and City 
Planning Code Amendments which, along with certain other resolutions, findings 
and related actions, were thereupon passed for second reading by the Board on 
January 7, 1991 ; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain letter from the Clerk of the Board 
dated January 23. 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. the 
Board of Supervisors has requested, on or before Februrary 15, 1991, any 
Commission comments concerning the Mission Bay legislation which the Board 
passed for second reading on said January 7. 1991 and. in particular, the 
Board has invltfid the Commission's comments with respect to the four Issues 
described by the Clerk of the Board in said letter of January 23, 1991; and 

WHEREAS, this Commission has responded to that request and held 
public workshops on January 28, 1991 and February 4, 1991 and conducted a duly 
noticed public hearing on Februrary 14, 1991 in connection therewith; and 

WHEREAS, the Director of the Department of City Planning on February 
4, 1991 ("Director") recommended modifications to the proposed Development 
Agreement and Mission Bay Plan responding to the request of the Board of 
Supervisors; and 

WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") has been 
prepared by the Department of City Planning ("Department") consisting of the 
draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"), the supplement of the DEIR. 
comments received during the review periods and any additional information 
that became available, and the Draft Summary of Comments and Responses as 
required by law; and 

WHEREAS, the Mission Bay Environmental Impact Report files and other 
Mission Bay related Department files have been made available for review by 
the Commission and the public, and these files are part of the record before 
the Commission; and 

WHEREAS, on August 23, 1990. the Commission reviewed and considered 
the FEIR and, by Motion No. 12006, found that the contents of said report and 
the procedures through which the FEIR was prepared, publicized and reviewed 
complied with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act 
("CEQA"), the CEQA Guidelines and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code; and 



Mission Bay Plan, 
Development Agreement 
and Zoning; File Nos. 
86.505M & 86.05ZT; 
February 14, 1991 
Page Two 



WHEREAS, by said Motion No. 12006, the Commission also found that the 
FEIR was adequate, accurate and objective, and that the Summary of Comments 
and Responses and Its subsequent memoranda contain no significant revisions to 
the draft and supplemental Environmental Impact Reports, and certified the 
completion of the FEIR as in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 

HHEREAS, in approving Master Plan amendments. Planning Code and 
Zoning Map Amendments and the Development Agreement the Commission adopted 
findings of significant environmental impacts and a statement of overriding 
benefits associated with the Project as required by CEQA, as set forth In 
Attachment A to Resolution No. 12040 and Incorporated by reference Into 
Resolution No. 12041 (all as more particularly set forth In said Resolution); 
and 

WHEREAS, on February 4, 1991 the Commission adopted a motion of 
intention to approve the recommendations of the Director and directed the 
Department to prepare final language for the Conmission's consideration at a 
duly noticed public hearing on February 14, 1991; and 

WHEREAS, the recommendations of the Director regarding modifications 
to the Mission Bay Documents including the Mission Bay Plan were made 
available on February 8 (proposed Master Plan amendments) and 11 (proposed 
Development Agreement amendments), 1991 to the public and to the Commission 
for the Conmission's review, consideration and action; and 

WHEREAS, on February 14, 1991. the Commission considered those 
recommendations, as amended, and heard public testimony; and 

WHEREAS, the Commission hereby finds that said modifications to the 
Mission Bay Plan and Mission Bay Documents are necessary, desirable and 
appropriate; and 

WHEREAS, based upon the Commission's review of the FEIR and the 
memoranda to the Commission referred to in Resolution No. 12040 and 
incorporated by reference in Resolution No. 12040 and the Memoranda to the 
Mission Bay EIR file dated February 12 1991. the Commission hereby finds 
-that: iU •modifications incorporated into t^ Project, -as aodlflfid by this 
Resolution, will not require Important revisions to the fEIR. and do not 
involve new significant environmental Impacts, (2) no substantial changes have 
occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is 
undertaken which would require Important revisions to the FEIR due to 
Involvement of new significant Impacts, and (3) no new Information of 
substantial importance to the Project has become available which would 
Indicate the need for subsequent analysis of the environmental Impacts, 
alternatives or mitigation measures; and 

WHEREAS, the Department has prepared proposed modifications to the 
Mission Bay Findings (as same are defined and attached to Resolution No. 
12040), which proposed modifications were made available to the public and the 
Commission for the Commission's review, consideration and action; and 

WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed and considered the Mission Bay 
Findings and the proposed modifications thereto recommended by the Department 
and attached hereto as Exhibit B; and 

WHEREAS, the Commission hereby finds that all significant 
environmental effects associated with the Project (as modified hereby and as 
described in the Mission Bay Findings as amended and modified by Exhibit B 
hereto) and the FEIR, have been fully and adequately analyzed and the material 
before the Commission and no additional information is required to make an 
informed decision regarding the environmental Impacts of the Project and the 
appropriate mitigation measures; and 

WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Mission Bay Documents, as 
passed by the Board for second reading on January 7, 1991, and the proposed 
amendments to the Mission Bay Plan and Development Agreement, as contained in 
Exhibits C and D hereto, and finds that 



Mission Bay Plan, 
Development Agreement 
and Zoning; File Nos. 
86.505M & 86.05ZT; 
February 14, 1991 
Page Three 



the Mission Bay Plan and Development Agreement as so amended are consistent 
with the Master Plan, the Central Waterfront Plan, and the Master Plan 
Elements and finds further that the Master Plan Is Internally consistent; and 

HHEREAS, the proposed Mission Bay Plan amendments and the proposed 
Development Agreement amendments attached hereto as Exhibits C and D are, on 
balance, consistent with the Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 
101.1 for the same reasons set forth in Resolution Nos. 12040 and 12041, 
except that the proposed amendments to the Development Agreement and Mission 
Bay Plan Increase the City's supply of affordable housing by up to an 
additional 250 on-site units over that described In said resolution and link 
the development of commercial space to a certain extent to the satisfaction of 
the City Share Housing Finance Requirements, establish specific conditions on 
the development of later commercial space by requiring the provision of the 
additional 250 units, identify funding mechanisms for the City's Affordable 
Housing under the Development Agreement, and provide for the maintenance of 
the existing City affordable housing programs outside of the Project Area, all 
of which Improve the public benefits to the City arising from the Mission Bay 
Project; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission hereby 
adopts, as required by CEQA, the Mission Bay findings described In Resolution 
No. 12040 as amended by Exhibit B hereto all of which Is incorporated herein 
by this reference, with respect to the actions taken herein; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission having 
received public testimony during the course of Its workshops and public 
hearing and having reviewed the recommendations and the revised Mission Bay 
Documents prepared by the Director, the Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mission 
Bay Plan Amendments attached hereto as Exhibit C; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission hereby 
approves the proposed amendments to the Development Agreement attached hereto 
as Exhibit D and recommends the adoption thereof to the Board along with such 
conforming amendments as may be necessary elsewhere in the Development 
Agreement; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby reaffirms and 
readopts Resolution Nos. 12040 and 12041 except as modified hereby; and 

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was ADOPTED by the 
City Planning Commission on Februrary 14, 1991. 

LINDA AVERY 



Commission Secretary 
AYES: BIERMAN, ENGMANN, HU, MORALES, SEWELL, BOLDRIDGE, NOTHENBERG 
NOS : None 
ABSTAIN: None 
ABSENT: None 



LAC/83 



( 



( 



EXHIBIT C 



February 14, 1991 



Mission Bay Plan 
Proposed Amendments 

Double brackets indicate [[deletions]]; underscores indicate additions 

CHAPTERS 

2nd para, line 4 



P. 3-1, col. 1 

P. 3-1, col. 2 

P. 3-2, col. 2 
P. 3-2, col. 2 

P. 3-2, col. 1 



7th para, line 3 



Housing line 

Both Affordable 
housing lines 

footnotes 



P. 3-2, col. 1 



Following p. 3-10, bottom of page 
Fig. 8 



P. 3-11, col. 1 1st para, line 3 



Following p. 3-12, bottom of page 
Fig. 9 



P. 3-14, col. 1 



following first 
para. 



Should read "it will add [[about 8270]] about 8500 
new housing units" 

Should read "South of the Channel [[up to 7370]] 
about 7.600 units" 

Should read "[[8,270]] 8.500 units*" 

Add double asterisks "**" after units 

Change [[100]] live/work to 150 live/work units 

Insert new footoote " ** The City and Catellus 
between them will provide an additional 
a pproximately 250 affordable housing units 
associated with residential and non-residential sites " 



lines 24, 25, 38 Change "**" to "***" 



Add " Non-residential sites south of the Channel may 
include residential uses which are not reflected in 
Maximum Roor Area Ratios " 

Should read "by the development of [[8,270]] about " 
8.500 new housing units" 

Add " An additional 250 affordable units may be 
added by the City and Catellus on residential and 
non-residential sites south of the Channel, subject to 
the Design Guidelines " 

Sentence should read "A total of another [[100]] 175 
affordable units may be added in any block or 
blocks designated "A", and a total of another 70 
market-rate unit s and 125 affordable units may be 
added in any other block or blocks 



1 



p. 3-15, col. 1 following 4th 

para. 



P. 3-15, col. 2 6th para, line 1 



P. 3-15, col. 2 



6th para, lines 7 
and 8 



P. 3-20, col. 2. Affordable units 

line 



Add new paragraph " Housing will also be included 
within various residential and non-residential sites 
south of the Channel. Additional units (up to 250) 
can be accommodated in association with other uses 
on these sites ." 

Should read "[[Of the 8,270 new units, 3,000 are to 
be affordable]] Of the about 8.500 new units. 
a pproximately 3.250 are to be affordable " 

Should read "The affordable housing sites for the 
2,300 units are shown below. An additional 
approximately 250 affordable units will be provided 
by the City and Catellus on residential and non- 
residential sites south of the Channel. Included in 
the [[8,270]] 8.500 units are up to [[100]] 1^0 live- 
work units to be located in [[50,000]] about 75.000 
square feet along the Third Street corridor." 

Should read [[910]] 900 square feet 



Following p. 3-21, bottom of page 
Fig. 10 



P. 3-73, col. 1 4th para, line 4 



P. 3-91, col. 1 1st para, line 2 



P. 3-91, col. 1 3rd para, line 4 



Add note " A variety of apartment types mav be 
included within non-residential sites south of the 
Channel " 

insert new sentence " Artist liveAvork imits may be 
in addition to this floor area ." 

Should read "Upper floor housing is [[not 
contemplated but is]] permitted. 

Add " Ground level housing is permitted on the 
Illinois Street frontag e." 



CHAPTER 4 
P. 9 



first para, under 
Housing, middle 
of 2nd sentence 



Should read "commence the first 
increment of housing (estimated to be 
approximately 500 units) within [[five]] 
two years" 



2 



File No. 88.113 ECMRS 
Amendment of the 
Recreation and Open 
Space Element of 
the Master Plan 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMt^lSSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13038 



WHEREAS, The City Charter' requires that the City Planning Commission (Hereinafter 
"Commission") adopt and maintain, including necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan identifies 
certain undeveloped properties as appropriate for acquisition as public open space, as illustrated 
on Map 4 'Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan"; and 

WHEREAS, Policy 7 under 'Citywide Recreation and Open Space System' states that 
priority should be given to acquire sites that are threatened by development. This policy further 
states that if the owner of a privately owned site proposed for acquisition wishes to develop the 
site it should be determined whether the Recreation and Park Commission is prepared to proceed 
with acquisition ....and if not, processing of the development proposal should proceed; and 

WHEREAS, The Residence Element of the Master Plan advances the expansion of 
housing opportunities and the development of new housing to meet the broad demand for new 
homes in San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, That certain vacant property consisting of three separate parcels comprised 
of Assessor's Block 5407-Lot2, the unimproved 100 Block Diana Street Right of Way, and Block 
5408-Lot 1 6 are identified as "Proposed Public Open Space" on Map 4 of the Recreation Element 
of the Master Plan, that property t>eing used for many years as a truck farm; and 

WHEREAS, In 1987 through 1990 the Citizens Committee for Open Space Acquisition 
and Development considered the priority standing for acquisition of this property for open space 
and found, in consultation with neighborhood groups, that acquisition of this land at this time was 
of low priority relative to other citywide needs; and 

WHEREAS, The owners of Lot 2, Assessor's Block 5407 desire to build 18 new homes, 
3 of which will be made available to families earning less than 120 percent of median income. 
These three homes will also provide entrepreneurial and business ownership opportunities in that 
these homes will also have facilities for licensed day care services for up to twelve people; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, That the City Planning Commission, in balancing the 
goal of maintaining open space resources and expanding housing opportunities, concludes and 



determines that the benefits derived from new housing in this area outweigh the partial loss of 
open space opportunities; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That the City Planning Commission hereby 

amends the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan by modifying 'Map 4' titled 
'Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" by removing the designation of 'Acquire For Or 
Convert To Public Open Space' for that certain property identified as Assessor's Block 5407, Lot 
2, and that directly adjacent portion of the Diana Street right of way, approximately 60 feet in 
width, running northerly between Williams and Thornton; 

AND BE IT FUR THER RESOL VED, That the remaining portion of the Diana Street 

right of way approximately 40 feet in width, and that certain property identified as Assessor's 
Block 5408, Lot 16 retain their designation of "Acquire For Or Convert to Public Open Space.' 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission at its regular meeting of March 14, 1991. 



Commission Secretary 
Linda Avery 

AYES: Commissioner Bierman, Boldridge, Engman, Hu, Morales, Karasick 

NOES: None 
ABSENT: Sewell 
ADOPTED: March 14,1991 



90.087EM 

Incluslonary Guidelines 



SAN FRANCISCO 
Cin PLANNING COtWISSION 
MOTION 13052 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to State Law, the Residence Element of the Master Plan 
of the City and County of San Francisco Is required to address the housing 
needs of all income groups in the City. Pursuant to these requirements, the 
Association of Bay Area Governments has estimated the need for units 
affordable to very low, low and moderate Income households to be 24, 16 and 20 
percent of total new construction; and 

WHEREAS, These needs estimates have been adopted by the City Planning 
Commission as a target for housing to be provided 1n San Francisco; 

WHEREAS, In a comparison of the ABAC estimated housing need for 1980 to 
1989 with the actual production of housing In San Francisco, as shown in the 
table below, the construction of market rate units was more than double the 
projected need, while the construction of very low to moderate Income housing 
units in San Francisco fell to below half the projected need. 



ESTIMATED HOUSING NEED COMPARED TO ACTUAL PRODUCTION 
1980 to 1989 



ABAC Need Units Percent of 

Income Level Estimate Constructed ABAC Needs 

Very Low to Moderate fO,Og7 4 . 3 6 0 4 37. 

Market Rate 4.746 10.332 217% 

TOTAL 14,833 14,224 997. 



Source: San Francisco Residence Element, Appendix B-2 
WHEREAS, Over the next five years, annual production of very low and 
moderifte income units must increase by approximately 300 percent to meet the 
housing need estimated by ABAC and incorporated Into the Master Plan; as 
indicated in the fotlowing table. 

PROJECTED HOUSING NEED 
1990 to 1995 



Income le vel No. Units Percent of Need 

Very Low to Moderate 13,480 60% 
Market Rate 8.987 40% 

TOTAL 22,467 100% 



Source: ABAC Projections '90 : 

San Francisco Residence Element, Page 127. 



1 



Inclusionary Guidelines 
No. 13052 
Page 2 

WHEREAS, The gap between what can be afforded by lower Income households 
and market rate housing prices has continued to widen since 1980 as housing 
prices increased more than twice as much as low and moderate household 
incomes. The high cost of housing is pricing more and more San Francisco 
households out of San Francisco's housing market or forcing households to pay 
a much higher share of their Income on housing; and 

WHEREAS, According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), half of San Francisco's households are classified as 
lower-income with annual earnings of $30,000 or less. The most recent 1980 
U.S. Census data showed that almost 70 percent of households earning 80 
percent or less of the median Income have problems of excessive housing costs 
in relation to their Incomes; and 

WHEREAS, Less than 10 percent of City households can afford to purchase a 
median priced house in 1990. The average sales price of a home Is three to 
four times higher than what a low Income household can afford; and 

WHEREAS, 66 percent of San Francisco households are renters and it is 
estimated that only 24 percent of those households can afford a market priced 
one bedroom apartment; and 

WHEREAS, There is an imbalance between jobs and housing in San Francisco 
and the lack of below market rate housing exacerbates hardships to many 
employees who must commute considerable distances, adding to personal stress, 
air pollution and traffic congestion; and 

WHEREAS, The public purpose of the City and County of San Francisco and 
the State of California as reflected in the Residence Element of the Master 
Plan, is to make available an adequate supply of affordable housing for 
persons employed in San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, Federal and state housing subsidies are not sufficient by 
themselves to satisfy the housing needs of very low, low and moderate Income 
households; the housing shortage for persons of limited income, many of whom 
are or will be employed locally In the service and retail sectors, poses a 
serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the City; and such 
emergency should be met by local steps to correct this shortage; and 

WHEREAS, Market rate housing Is not affordable to very low, low, and 
moderate income households. The amount of market priced housing production 
has substantially exceeded the production of affordable housing; and 

WHEREAS, In recent years San Francisco has received an unprecedented 

number of market rate housing applications. The adoption of an inclusionary 

affordable housing policy can result In the production of a greater number of 

affordable housing units, and thereby assist in alleviating the affordable 
housing shortage; and 

WHEREAS, Market rate housing creates a demand for affordable housing. 
Residents of mari«,et rate housing require neighborhood serving businesses, such 
as dry cleaners, shoe repair shops, grocery stores, bookstores, bakeries, 
pharmacies, eating and drinking establishments, and other service-related 
businesses. Swne of these businesses employ family members. Often employees 
of such businesses are unible to afford the rental or purchase price of the 
market rate developments, and must therefore seek housing further away from 
the job place. Including areas outside San Francisco. Commuting employees 
unable to afford San Francisco housing, contribute to the traffic congestion 
and parking shortages on City streets, burden the regional transit and freeway 
systems, and adversely Impact air quality; and 

WHEREAS, San Francisco is a highly urbanized and developed city with 
limited land resources, covering an area of 30,500 acres. Fifty percent'Of 
the land area is devoted to residential use. The remainder of the City's 
scarce land "resources are set asid? for parks, public facilities, commercial, 
retail and industrial uses in order to maintain San Francisco's economic 
vitality and high quality living environment. During the 1980's market rate 
housing utilized an additional 160 acres causing scarce land resources to 
become even more expensive. Less than Zt of the City's land area remains as 
housing opportunity development sites; and 

2 



Inclusionary Guidelines 
No. 13052 
Page 3 

HHEREAS, New market rate development can increase the rents and property 
values in a surrounding neighborhood. Low cost rental units become vacant' and 
are rented at higher market rates. The value of owner occupied units 
Increases and the units are sold at a higher price. While the upgrading of 
city neighborhoods Is a valid and desirable objective, It has to be balanced 
with negative impacts on the ability of lower-Income households to secure 
affordable housing, through appropriate mitigations. A certain amount of 
affordable housing In relation to the use of residential land will help 
provide needed affordable housing development; and 

WHEREAS, On November 11, 1986 the voters of the City and County of San 
Francisco adopted Proposition M which provided for adoption as a priority 
policy in the Master Plan and In Section 101 of the Planning Code, the policy 
that the City's supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced. 
Proposition M further provides that prior to taking any action requires a 
finding of consistency with the Master Plan the City shall find that the 
proposed project Is consistent with the priority policies, and whereas, 
conditional use and planned unit development approvals require findings that 
the project will not adversely affect the Master Plan and preserves and 
enhances affordable housing; and 

WHEREAS, On September 13, 1990 the City Planning Commission adopted a new 
Residence Element as part of the City's Master Plan. Objective 7, Policy 1 of 
the Residence Element provides as follows: 

"Include affordable units in larger housing projects." 

"Inclusion of affordable bousing should be required as a condition of 
appvova? of housing projects containing 10 or more units which seek 
Planning Commission approval as conditional uses or planned unit 
developments. As a general guideline, a minimum of 10% of the units 
should be affordable." 

"As an alternative to providing affordable units on the site, the units 
could be provided, at the City's discretion, in another project In the 
same general area or an in-lleu cash contribution could be made to the 
City's affordable housing fund. The In-lleu contribution should be based 
on the amount of subsidy determined by the Mayor's Office of Housing to be 
required to produce a unit meeting the affordabi 1 Ity standards." 

WHEREAS, Guidelines are needed to assist project applicants In 
interpreting and applying the Residence Element policy. 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby 
adopt the Guidelines for the Application of San Francisco's Inclusionary 
Affordable Housing Policy attached hereto as EXHIBIT A. 



I hereby certify/ t^at the foregoing resolution w*s ADOPTED by the City 
Planning Commission at Us regular meeting April A, 1991. 



Lindi Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: Commissioners Bierman, Boldrldge, Hu, Morales, Karasick, Sewell 
NOES: None 

ABSENT: Commissioner Engmann 



3 



Exhibit A 
Title Page Only 



□ R E S I D E N C ED 




□ R E S I D E N C £□ 

Guidelines for the 
Application of San Francisco*s 
Inclusionary Affordable 
Housing Policy 



cm* AND COIWY OF SAN FRANQSCO 
DEPARTMENT OF CIT^' PLANNING 



File No. 91.101M 

Amendment to Recreation & Open Space 
Element of Master Plan to add new 
policy on protection and acquisition of 
natural areas, and related amendments. 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITT PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13149 



WHEREAS, on May'lO, 1990, at a joint hearing of the Recreation and Park 
Commission and the City Planning Commission, the General Manager of the 
Recreation and Park Department recommended acquisition of a number of "natural 
area" sites, listed under a new "Natural Areas Banking" category of the San 
Francisco Park and Open Space (Proposition E) Fund; and 

WHEREAS, acquisition of public open space Is in conformity with the Intent 
of the Master Plan, but some of the specific sites proposed for acquisition 
were not Identified In Map 4, the Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan of 
the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan : and 

WHEREAS, The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan does not 
have policy language specifically calling for public acquisition of "natural 
areas" as public open space; and 

WHEREAS, A number of undeveloped natural area sites remain throughout the 
City which could be preserved In a natural condition and protected from 
development through public acquisition; and 

WHEREAS, At the May 17, 1990 joint hearing of the Recreation and Park 
Commission and the City Planning Commission, the Planning Commission President 
directed Planning Department staff to draft an amendment to the Recreation and 
Open Space Element of the Master Plan, adding a new policy calling for the 
City to protect and acquire natural area sites as public open space, and 
identifying criteria to use to Identify appropriate natural area sites for 
public acquisition; and 

WHEREAS, Staff has drafted amendments which would add a new Citywide 
Policy #13 calling for the City to: "Preserve and protect significant natural 
resource areas," and amend text of Citywide Policy No. 2, and No. 7, 
referencing the new policy, attached hereto as Attachment A; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission held public hearings on the proposed 
amendments on May 2, 1991, and May 9, 1991, and took public testimony; and 

WHEREAS, Planning Department staff held several additional meetings of 
Interested parties to receive additional public Input and revise the proposed 
amendments; and 

WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter 
on July 25, 1991 to further consider the proposed amendments; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 91.101M 

Amendment to Recreation & Open Space 
Element of Master Plan to add new 
policy on protection and acquisition of 
natural areas, and related amendments. 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has read and reviewed the 
environmental analysis of the proposed amendments, which finds the proposed 
amendments would not represent any substantial changes In the environmental 
Impacts discussed in Negative Declaration No.85.368EM, and hereto Included as 
Attachment B; 

THEREFORE BE IT. RESOLVED. That the City Planning Commission does hereby 
adopt amendments to the Recreation and Open Space of the Master Plan , attached 
hereto as Attachment A. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED By the City 
Planning Commission on August 15, 1991 



Martha Kessler 
Acting Secretary 



AYES; 



Commissioners Blerman, Boldrodge, Engmann, Hu, Morales, 
tCarasIck, Sewell 



NOES: 



None 



ADOPTED: 



August 15, 1991 



SS/482 



Moopiea 
CPC 8/15/91 

ATTACHMENT A 



NOTE: Text is shown as adopted by the City Planning Commission on August J5, 199 J by CPC 
Resolution No. 13149. Policy 13 is proposed to be added. 

Policy 13 

Preserve and protect significant natural resource areas. 

A number of publicly and privately owned open spaces exist throughout the Citv 
which have not been developed, are relatively undisturbed and remain in a 
nearly natural state. Some areas, although partially modified, provide 
habitat or natural features that make them unique and valuable. 

Natural resource areas include forested areas, woodlands, grassy open fields 
and hilltops, chaparral, coastal scrub, mud flats, beaches and sand dunes, as 
well as wetlands, fresh water lakes and streams. They also include natural 
resource areas and naturalistic areas within existing developed Citv parks. 

The following criteria should be used to determine what constitutes a 
significant natural resource area worthy of protection: 

- The site is undeveloped and relatively undisturbed, and is a remnant 
of the original natural landscape and either supports a significant 
and diverse or unusual indigenous plant or wildlife habitat or 

contains rare geological formations or riparian zones. 

2 



Adopted 
CPC 8/15/91 

■ 

• The site contains rare, threat ened, or endangered species, as 
Identified bv the U.S. F1sh and Wildlife Service or California • 
Department of Fish and Game, or contains habitat that has recently 
supported and Is llkelv aoaln to support rare, threatened, or 
endangered species. 

• The site Is adiacent to another protected natural resource area and.' 
If protected from development, the two areas together would support a 
larger or more diverse natural habitat. 

To protect from development those natural areas which are In private 
ownership, public acquisition would be desirable. However, all parts of all 
areas meeting these criteria mav not be equal Iv worthy of protection. Nor, 
given limits to funding sources. Is It llkelv that there will be the means to 
acquire all of them. Furthermore, there mav be other uses of the site that 
mav take precedence. 

Therefore, whether or not a specific natural resource area, or a portion 
thereof, should be acquired will depend on: 

The availability of funds. 

2^ The relative Importance of the site as a natural area. 

3^ A determination at the time acquisition Is proposed regarding whether 
or not, pursuant to other policies of the Master Plan, there Is a 
higher priority use, to which the site should be devoted. For 



f 



CPC 8/15/91 

example, a site proposed and needed In Its entirety for permanently 
affordable housing, as defined by the Residence Element, should not 
be acquired for open space. 

If deyelopment Is proposed for a natural resource area which Is not to be 
publicly acquired, the Citv Planning Commission may require anv development 
that is approved, to preserve the most important portions of the area, if It 
is feasible and consistent with the Planning Code to do so. 

Natural Resource Area Management Plan 

Once protected from development bv public ownership, the natural resources of 
the site should be protected and enhanced through restrictions on use and 
approDriate management practices. Native plant habitats should be preserved 
and efforts undertaken to remove exotic plant species from these areas. 
Natural area management plans should be developed for publicly owned land 
throughout the Citv which would identify potentially significant natural 
areas, inventory them, and identify the presence of natural resources. The 
plan should establish a consistent set of management policies and practices to 
protect and enhance the resources. It should also identify policies governing 
access and appropriate recreational use and enjoyment of protected natural 
areas to ensure that the natural resource values are not diminished or 
impacted by public use. The plans should include those portions of public 
lands, such as parts of Golden Gate Park, which have been made to look 
naturalistic and which support a diverse plant or wildlife community. 

3 



Citywide Policy 7 



CPC 8/15/91 



Acquire additional open space for public use. 

San Francisco already has an extensive system of public open space owned by 
the Recreation and Park Department, other City agencies, and the State and 
Federal Government. Nevertheless, additional public open space is needed in 
certain areas and should be acquired and/or developed for public use and 
enjoyment. 

Various parts of this Plan describes open spaces that would be desirable to 
acquire. ((These areas are shown on Map 4.)) Map 4 in the Citvwide section 
identifies some of these areas. Policy 13 in the Citvwide section also 
identifies the criteria to be used in determining which natural areas to 
acquire. The Shoreline section of this Plan identifies areas along the 
shoreline, particularly on the eastern waterfront, which should be made into 
usable public open space. The Neighborhood section of the Plan discusses some 
specific sites and some general areas where additional public open space is 
needed but where specific sites have not been identified. Similarly the 
Downtown section of the Plan ((discusses)) describes areas where additional 
open space is needed. 

Note: See Recreation and Open Space Element, p. 1. 3. 17. 



4 



Adopted 
CPC 8/15/91 

Note: Text proposed to be deleted from Citywide Policy 2 is shown below. Much of it is 

incorporated into the text of the policy proposed to be added, covering protection and 
acquisition of natural areas. 

Citywide Policy 2 

Preserve existing public open space. 

((Natural Areas 

Several open spaces within the City contain areas that are relatively 
undisturbed and remain in a nearly natural state. They include natural areas 
within Golden Gate Park, forested areas, grassy open fields and hilltops, and 
mud flats, beaches and sand dunes, as well as fresh water lakes. These areas 
support the more common indigenous flora and fauna and may provide habitat for 
rare or endangered species. These natural areas should be identified and 
protected from change that would alter the habitat, or promote growth of 
non-native species. Native plant habitats should be preserved and efforts 
undertaken to remove exotic plant species from these areas.)) 

Note: See Recreation and Open Space Element, p J. 3.1 3, and 1.3.14. 

SS/504 
p. 1-6 



5 



{ 



File No. 90.088ME 
Amending the 
Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan, an Area Plan of 
the Master Plan 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13159 



WHEREAS, The Charter requires that the City Planning Commission 
(hereinafter "Commission") adopt and maintain, Including necessary changes 
therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted the Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan on January 19, 1977 by Resolution No. 7643 as part of the Master Plan of 
the City and County of San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan on the following dates: January 31 , 1980 by Resolution No. 8481 ; May «• 
29, 19B0 by Resolution No. 8596; December 4, 1980 by Resolution No. 8781; 
May 13. 1982 by Resolution No. 9387; July 14, 1983 by Resolution No. 9755; 
November 10, 1983 by Resolution No. 9862; and 

WHEREAS, The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency has proposed an amendment 
to the Official Redevelopment Plan for the Rincon Point - South Beach 
Redevelopment Project Area which would. In summary: 

1. Permit residential uses on two (2) parcels within the South Beach 
sub-area: Parcel I-l (Oriental Warehouse and Palmlsano parcels, 
located on First and Brannan Streets, AB 3766) and Parcel D, located 
on the northwest corner of Bryant and Beale Streets (AB 3766); 

2. Permit office uses on Parcel C-1 , located on the northwest corner of 
Folsom and Steuart Streets (AB 3741) within the Rincon Point sub-area; 

3. Increase the height limit on Parcels I-l and 1-3 from 105 to 160 feet; 

4. Increase the residential density on Parcel F-1 (northeast corner of 
Bryant and First Streets) from 110 to 130 dwelling units per acre; 

5. Allow accessory parking and housing as permitted uses for the 
Oriental Warehouse (AB 3789); 

6. Require the Redevelopment Agency to Impose fees, conditions and 
exactions to commercial office developers within the Rincon Point 
sub-area; 

7. Include the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Participation Policy; 

8. Permit alternative land uses to be combined on the same parcel; and 

9. Allow the Redevelopment Agency, on a short term basis, to lease any 
of Its property for uses which are not In conformance with the 
adopted Redevelopment Plan, which amendment Is described more fully 
in the "Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rincon 
Point - South Beach Redevelopment Project Area; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION , File No. 90.088M 

Amending the 
Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan, an Area Plan of 
the Master Plan 
Page Two 



WHEREAS, The Northeastern Waterfront Plan would require amendment to 
accommodate the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Rincon Point - 
South Beach Redevelopment Project Area, which Is Included herein In Attachment 
A, entitled "Proposed Amendments to the Northeastern Waterfront Plan, an Area 
Plan of the Master Plan of the City and County of San Francisco," dated 
October 15, 1991, and which would: 

1. Amend Map 5 "North China Basin Area Land Use Plan," pg. II. 7. 33, to 
permit residential uses on two parcels within the South Beach sub 
area: Parcel I-l (Oriental Warehouse and Palmlsano parcels, located 
on First and Brannan Streets, AB 3766) and Parcel D, located on the 
northwest corner of Bryant and Beale Streets (AB 3766); 

2. Amend Map 4, "Ferry Building Area Land Use Plan," pg. 11.7.24, and 
under "Block 3741 Policy 1" text on pg. II. 7. 32 to permit up to 
460,000 gross square feet of office uses on Parcel C-1 , located on 
the northwest corner of Folsom and Steuart Streets (AB 3741) within 
the Rincon Point sub-area; 

3. Amend Map 3, "Proposed Height and Bulk Districts," pg. II. 7. 17 to 
increase the height limit on Parcels I-l and 1-3 from 105 to 160 
feet; 

4. Amend Map 5, "North China Basin Area Land Use Plan," pg. II. 7. 33 and 
text under Historic Preservation Policy 2 text on pg. II. 7. 37 to 
allow accessory parking and housing as permitted uses for the 
Oriental Warehouse parcel (AB 3789); 

6. Amending text under "Walkways and Open Space Policy 2 on pg. II. 7. 37 
describing a "major" plaza next to the Oriental Warehouse parcel 
(AB 3789); and 

WHEREAS, It would be desirable to adopt the proposed amendment to the 
Northeast Waterfront Plan Included herein In Attachment A, entitled "Proposed 
Amendments to the Northeastern Waterfront Plan, an Area Plan of the Master 
Plan of the City and County of San Francisco," dated October 15, 1991; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed amendment has been evaluated and was determined by 
the Department to fall within the range of Impacts evaluated in the 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (90.088E), which document has been 
reviewed, considered and certified by the Commission on August 15, 1991, and 
thus warrant no further environmental review; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Master Plan amendment Is on balance consistent with 
the Eight Priority Policies of the Planning Code based on the following 

findings : 

1. The proposed Master Plan amendment would have no adverse effect on 
neighborhood serving retail uses or opportunities for employment In 
or ownership of such businesses. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 90.088M 

Amending the 
Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan, an Area Plan of 
the Master Plan 
Page Three 



2. The proposed Master Plan amendment would have no adverse effect on 
the City's housing stock or on neighborhood character, and Is 
Intended to protect and enhance housing resources in the area, which 
is near the employment center of Downtown. It will permit 
construction of low and moderate Income housing, and encourage 
development of new housing. The Master Plan amendment would, 
therefore, conserve and protect the existing housing and neighborhood 
character. 

3. The proposed Master Plan amendment would have no adverse effect on 
the City's supply of affordable housing. For the reasons set forth 
In 2 above, the Master Plan amendment will promote the City's efforts 
to preserve and enhance the supply of affordable housing. 

4. The proposed Master Plan amendment would not result In commuter 
traffic Impeding Muni transit service or overburdening the streets or 
neighborhood parking. The proposed Master Plan amendment will limit 
commuter traffic by encouraging construction of residences near the 
downtown employment core, and Is an area that will be well served by 
transit once the proposed MUNI E line Is constructed, as planned. 

5. The proposed Master Plan amendment would not adversely affect the 
Industrial or service sectors or future opportunities for resident 
employment or ownershl^Q In these sectors. 

6. The proposed Master Plan amendment would not adversely affect 
achieving the greatest possible preparedness against Injury and loss 
of life In an earthquake. Any new development would meet current 
Building Code standards designed to provide a reasonable degree of 
safety In the event of an earthquake. 

7. The proposed Master Plan amendment could have an adverse effect on 
the Oriental Warehouse, a building designated as a Landmark under 
Article 10 of the Planning Code, depending on which of the permitted 
uses under the Plan are placed in the building and the manner which 
the rehabilitation and adaption of the structure are carried out. 

8. The proposed Master Plan amendment would have no adverse effect on 
parks and open space or their access to sunlight; and 

WHEREAS, In certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 
the Commission found that the Redevelopment Plan and the Design for 
Development, as amended, would have unavoidable significant effects on the 
environment by supporting and encouraging development of office space In the 
Downtown & Vicinity which would contribute to cumulative transportation 
Impacts and to cumulative air quality Impacts resulting from traffic growth, 
by failing to require complete rehabilitation and restoration of the Oriental 
Warehouse ( a long-term Impact resulting from the proposed new uses of that 
building), and by possibly exposing construction workers and occupants of 
nearby buildings to hazardous materials If hazardous waste clean up activities 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 90.088M 

Amending the 
Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan, an Area Plan of 
the Master Plan 
Page Four 



overlooked any Important waste material; and found that mitigation measures 
described In the Final Supplemental EIR and Included in the project would 
partially reduce these significant effects but would not eliminate them; and 

WHEREAS, An alternative also included In the proposed amendments to the 
Redevelopment Plan and the Northeastern Waterfront Plan would provide for 
live/work units In the Oriental Warehouse and a parking structure on Site 1-3 
and Is described In the FSEIR as Alternative E, and the Commission finds that 
It would have essentially the same significant Impacts as those found for the 
amended Redevelopment Plan and Design for Development described In the main 
project analysis In the FSEIR; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission, after carefully balancing the competing public 
and private Interests, hereby finds that adoption of the Amendment of the 
Northeast Waterfront Plan, an Element of the Master Plan of the City and 
"-County of San Francisco, promotes the health, safety and welfare of the City;*' 

now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the City Planning Commission does hereby 
adopt as amendments to the Master Plan for the City and County of San 
Frandscc the amendments contained in the document Included herein In 
Attachment A, entitled "Proposed Amendments to the Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan, an Area Plan of the Master Plan of the City and County of San Francisco, 
and dated October 15, 1991;" and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That In adopting said amendment the Commission 
makes the following findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 
15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines: 

1. Transportation mitigation measures described In the Final 
Supplemental EIR as those that could be Implemented by other public 
agencies— coordination by PG&E with other utility companies requiring 
underground access during construction and adding a southbound right 
turn lane on the Embarcadero t Brannan— are Infeasible because they 
are under the Jurisdiction of other decision-makers and could not be 
acted on by the Commission. 

2. Transportation mitigation measures described In the Final SEIR 
related to cumulative Impacts have, in part been carried out, such as 
requiring transportation brokers for downtown office buildings, 
expanding peripheral parking near the retail areas of downtown, and 
encouraging housing production adjacent to employment centers in 
areas like Rincon Hill and Van Ness Avenue. Others are Infeasible 
for reasons set forth in the actions adopting the Downtown Plan, the 
South of Market Plan and the Mission Bay Plan. Many of these latter 
measures would require approval by decision makers outside of the 
City, and most are system-wide measures such as major BART expansions 
that would require funding from and/or approval by MTC. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 90.088H 

Amending the 
Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan, an Area Plan of 
the Master Plan 
Page Five 



3. The transportation mitigation measures described in the Final SEIR as 
"Under Consideration" on pages 156-159 have been determined to be 
Included as part of the Agency's plans to implement the Redevelopment 
Plan as amended, except the measure requiring that all traffic access 
to Site I be from First Street (now Delancy Street). 

4. The measure requiring that all driveway access to Site I be from 
First Street is rejected as infeasible because a committment to this 
measure is premature in that structural information on the Oriental 
Warehouse is needed to determine whether use of all of the existing 
entrances on First Street can be maintained in such a way as to 
accomodate all of the vehicles for the entire parcel, and traffic 
circulation needs to be studied in detail to determine whether access 
through the Oriental Warehouse to all of the parking areas planned 
for the parcel could be accomodated. 

5. Complete restoration of the Oriental Warehouse is infeasible because 
costs of reconstructing this privately owned building would be so 
expensive as to make the project uneconomical. Due to the poor 
structural condition of the building's foundation, the entire 
underpinning of the structure must be rebuilt and the existing 
unreinforced masonry walls tied into the new foundation and interior 
wall system. In so doing it becomes necessary to make certain 
interior and exterior modifications to allow the Warehouse to be 
adaptively reused. 

6. Alternative A — No New Development — would amend the Master Plan to 
prohibit any new development beyond that existing and already 
approved in the Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Plan area. 
This alternative is infeasible because it would leave much land 
vacant and/or under used in the Redevelopment Area, it would reduce 
the amount of new housing that could be produced in the City, it 
would not produce opportunities to reuse the Oriental Warehouse and 
restore a portion of that building, and would reduce any economic 
benefit to the City that would otherwise accrue from new development 
likely under the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Master Plan 
provisions. 

7. Alternative B— No Change in the 1980 Redevelopment Plan— would not 
make the use changes proposed, but would permit continued development 
under the present Plan. This alternative is infeasible because it 
would not provide as much housing as the proposed project, would not 
permit an economically feasible use of the Oriental Warehouse and the 
rest of Site I, and would provide for about 800 fewer job 
opportunities than the proposed project. 

8. Alternative C~Change in Designation of Sites C-1 and D Only— would 
permit housing on site D and office uses instead of a hotel use on 
site C-1 but would not change use designations on sites I or N. This 
alternative is infeasible because it would reduce the amount of 
housing possible in the Redevelopment Area by nearly 300 units and 
because it would not permit an economically feasible use of the 
Oriental Warehouse site; 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 90.088M 

Amending the 
Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan, an Area Plan of 
the Master Plan 
Page Six 



9. Alternative D— Reduced Retail/Increased Parking At Sites I-l and 
1-3— would provide 12,500 sq. ft. of retail and parking for about 500 
cars in the Oriental Warehouse with no additional parking on Site 1-3 
while all other uses would remain as described in the proposed 
project, this alternative is infeaslble because it would not restore 
any portion of the interior of the Oriental Warehouse, while the 
proposed project would restore one bay of this landmark structure. 

10. Alternative E— Alternate Residential /Parking Use at Sites I-l and 
1-3— would provide for about 40 live/work units and accompanying 
parking in the Oriental Warehouse on Site I-l and would include the 
rest of the proposed housing and parking originally described for the 
project In new buildings on Site 1-3, with no new retail uses on this 
site, for a reduction of 29,000 sq. ft. of retail in the 
Redevelopment Area. This alternative is not rejected but is also 
permitted by the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendment and by the 
amendments to the Northeast Waterfront Plan; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission finds that amending the 
Northeastern Waterfront Plan would have benefits that override any significant 
environmental Impacts in that the Northeastern Waterfront Plan would permit 
adoption of amendments to the Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Plan that 
would provide for increased housing opportunities and would provide for 
feasible reuse of the Oriental Warehouse including partial restoration of one 
interior bay of the building for retail /commercial uses and accessory parking; 
and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission, in finding that the proposed 
amendments are on balance consistent with the Eight Priority Policies of the 
Planning Code, recognizes that adoption of the proposed amendment might have 
an adverse affect on a landmark structure. However, adoption of the amendment 
will further the Master Plan policies regarding provision of new market rate 
and affordable housing with no adverse affect on transportation. Muni services 
and open space, and finds that such provisions outweigh the potential adverse 
affects, which are not certain to occur; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the President of the City Planning Commission 
and the Director of Planning shall record the Commission's action on this 
amendment, and the Secretary to the Commission is hereby directed to certify 
an attested copy thereof to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors and the 
Director of Planning is hereby directed to publish the Amendment for 
distribution to the public. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 9p.088M 

Amending tftc 
Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan, an Area Plan of 
the Master Plan 
Page Eight 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City 
Planning Commission on August 22, 1991. 



Martha Kessler 
Acting Secretary 

Ayes: Commissioners Blerman, Boldrldge, Hu, Morales, Tom 

Noes: None 

Absent: Engmann, Sewell 

Adopted: August 22, 1991 



SS/512 



Attachment 2A 



Proposed Amendments to the 

Northeastern Waterfront Plan, an Area 
Plan of the Master Plan of the City and County 
of San Francisco 

August 15. 1991 



The following pages are extracted from the Northeastern Waterfront Plan, an 
Area Plan of the Master Plan. The particular sections of the Northeastern 
Waterfront Plan to be amended Include: proposed land use In Assessor's Block 
3741, shown on Map 4, page II. 7. 24 and described on page II. 7. 32, proposed 
land use in Assessor's Block 3789 on the Oriental Warehouse site, shown In Map 
5 on page II. 7. 33, and described on page II. 7. 37, Of the text proposed to be 
amended, text proposed to be deleted Is shown within ((DOUBLE PARENTHESES)); 
text proposed to be added Is shown UNDERLINED . 



Northeastern Waterfront Plan 




C9 

a 



Was 105', changed to 160' 



(0 
I- 

o 
E 

H 

5 



Changed to 160-R 



H 

z 
o 

z 
o 

UJ 

o 

a 

o 

o. 



n.7.17 



The San Francisco Master Plan 



East Street Row 



Rincon Annex: 
offices, bousing 



^ Ferry Building: office, 
''commercial rec. 



AB3741: 
hotel complex 
Alternate Use: 
bousing, office 




Agriculture Bldg: 
office, visitcH^ center 



Commercial recreational 
historic ships 



Commercial recreation, public 
assembly, maritime, community 
facilities, interim ancillary parking. 



Office historic 
ships 



Open space till Pier 7 
is open space then office, 
community facilities 



Interim use: ancillary 
parking 

Ultimate use: office, 
community facilities, 
commercial recreation 



Open Space, Public Access. 
^ Promenade 



FERRY BUILDING AREA 
Land Use Plan 



Map 4 



Hills Brothers Coffee 



POLICY 1 

Retain Hills Brothers Coffee facility In Its current use as long as possible 
and accommodate Its needs for truck access and parking. 

Block 3741 

POLICY 1 - - 

Develop a 400 to 800 room hotel complex. 98 Folsom may be removed If 
necessary to accommodate the hotel. Retain the existing height limits. In 
the alternative, develop housing with a density range of 150 to 300 units per 
acre , or up to 460.000 iyross square feet o f office space . 

POLICY 2 

Design the hotel , housing, or office building, to maximize views and sunlight 
and minimize wind exposure. Perform wind tunnel and sun studies prior to 
final design approval: Locate taller elements as far west and north as 
possible to reduce shading on waterfront open space. Locate elevator cores 
and service areas towards the Embarcadero Freeway to the greatest extent 
feasible to screen noise and minimize Impacts on the rest of the complex and 
open spaces. If feasible, use roof surfaces for gardens, terraces, and 
balconies. Develop balconies to take advantage of views and break up the 
building's mass. Use light colors on the building exterior and encourage 
bright accents to liven surfaces. 



II. 7. 32 



Northeastern Waterfront Plan 



Intercept parking 



Oriental Warehouse: 
comnnmity facility, 
neighborhood commercial, 

offices , accessory 



i 



Japan St. Warehouse: 
office, neighborhood - 
commercial, warehousing 
Alternate Use: (house ) 

housing 



parking, housin -j 



Cape Horn Warehouse: 
warehousing, office, 
neighborhood commercial 
Alternate Use: housing 



Housing 



Neighborhood 

housinc 
Intercept parking 



Hathaway's Warehouse: 
warehousing 




Maritime 



I 



Small Boat Marina 



Housing with Office, 
neighborhood commercial 



Warehousing 



NORTH CHINA BASIN AREA 
Land Use Plan 



Map 5 



n.7.33 



MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT 



Residential Neighborhood 
Policy 1. • 

Develop housing \r. small clusters of 100 or 200 units. Provide a range of 
building heights ((between 4 to 9 stories)) with no morf than 40 feet in 
height along the Embarcadero and stepping up i'n height on the more inland 
portions to the maximum of ((105)) 160 feet. In bulldlnos fronting on Brannan 
Street In the 160 foot height area, create a strono base which maintains the 
street wall created bv the residential complex to the east and the warehouse 
bui 1d1 nqs to the west . Orient the mix of unit types to one and two bedrooms 
and Include some three and four bedroom units. Pursue as the income and 
tenure goals, a mix of 20 percent low, 30 percent moderate and 50 percent 
middle and upper Income, and a mix of rental, cooperative, and condominium 
unlts- 



II 7.36 



Kalkways and Open Space 
POLICr 1 

Clos€' the following streets completely: Berry between Second and the 
Embafcadero, the Embarcadero south of King, Main south of Bryant and Fremont 
south of Brannan. Close the following streets to through traffic, Improve 
them as walkways and allow oii'y limited local and service vehicle access: 
Townsend between Second and the Embarcadero, Colin P. Ke41y Or. between 
Townsend and Brannan, First between Brannan and the Embarcadero, Beale between 
Bryant and Brannan, and Second between King and Berry Streets. 



POLICr 2 

Develop a ((major)) plaza next to the Oriental Warehouse which Is centrally 
located, and connect it to smaller open spaces within the proposed 
neighborhood. Have walkways open onto small plazas to create Intimacy and 
spatial definition and orient them to be protected from winds. Enhance the 
feeling of outdoor security through use of lightning, walkways design, ingress 
and egress points anc.good surveillance by building orientation. 



II. 7. 37 



SAN FRANCISCO 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



RESOLUTION NO. 13220 



WHEREAS, On January 30, 1980 the City Planning Commission adopted a 
Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for the Rincon Point-South Beach Area, and 

WHEREAS. Th€ San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is proposing an amendment 
to the Redevelopment Plan for the area to add real property to a development 
parcel located on the northeast corner of Folsom and Stewart Streets within 
the Rincon Point subarea (Assessor's Block 3741) In order to facilitate a 
logical, more regular and complete development approach on this oddly shaped 
parcel area, and 

WHEREAS, The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Is further proposing an 
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to delete "hotel complex" and add "office" 
as a permitted use on the portion of Assessor's Block 3741 which is Included 
In the Redevelopment Plan as amended, and 

WHEREAS, The amendment of the Redevelopment Plan as proposed requires an 
amendment to the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Planning 
Commission, and 

WHEREAS, Inclusion of said real property and change 1n permitted land 
uses, as proposed, 1s In conformity with the Master Plan and Is In the 
Interest of the City and County of San Francisco, and those actions are 
covered In the Environmental Impact Report on the Rincon Point-South Beach 
Redevelopment Plan Amendments certified by the City Planning Commission on 
August 15, 1991 . 

NOW THEREFORE, Be it resolved that the Planning Commission hereby adopts 
the amendment of the boundaries of the project area and the Preliminary 
Redevelopment Plan as specifically shown In the "Proposed Amendment to the 
Preliminary Plan for the Rincon Point-South Beach Redevelopment Project Area 
dated November 6, 1991 . 

and, be It 

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission will have the 
opportunity to review the proposed Final Redevelopment Plan Amendment for the 
Rincon Point - South Beach Redevelopment Project Area and make a 
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors prior to its ultimate adoption. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City 
Planning Commission on December 12, 1991. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: 



Commissioners Blerman, Boldrldge, Hu, Karasick, Morales 



NOES: 



None 



ABSENT: 



Commissioners Engmann and Sewell 



ADOPTED 



December 12, 1991 



( 



File N0.91.641EM 
Residence -flement 
Resolution of Adoption 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13238 



WHEREAS, By Resolution No. 13200, A Resolution of Intent to Adopt an 
Amendment to the Residence Element was approved by the City Planning 
Commission at its regular meeting on November 14, 1991; and 

WHEREAS, Resolution No. 13200 contained findings related to 
environmental review, citizen participation, the California Department of 
Housing and Community Development review process, and the proposed 
amendments' consistency with other elements of the Master Plan and with 
Section 101.1 of the City Planning Code; and 

WHEREAS, The California Department of Housing and Community 
Development has reviewed the proposed amendment and, in a letter dated 
December 20, 1991, has found the amendment to be in compliance with State 
housing law, specifically Article 10.6 and Section 65583 (a)(8) and 
(c)(6) of the California Government Code which requires municipalities to 
address the need for preservation of low Income affordable housing which 
may be at risk of conversion to market rate housing within the 1990 to 
2000 time period; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed amendment, contained within the document 
entitled Residence Element Update— Subsidized Housing Preservation 
Analysis and Programs, dated January 9, 1992 incorporates text and table 
format suggestions offered by the California Department of Housing and 
Community Development pursuant to their review; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the San Francisco City Planning 
Commission adopts and Incorporates findings related to environmental 
review, citizen participation, the California Department of Housing and 
Community Development review process, and the proposed amendment's 
consistency with the Master Plan and Section 101.1 of the City Planning 
Code contained in Resolution No. 13200 and attached as Exhibit B. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That the San Francisco City Planning 
Commission hereby adopts the document entitled Residence Element 
Update— Subsidized Housing Preservation Analvsis and Programs. Januarv 9. 
1 992. attached as Exhibit A, as an amendment to the Residence Element of 
the City's Master Plan which was adopted by the City Planning Commission 
on September 13, 1990 by Resolution No. 12020. 



File N0.91.641EM 
Residence Element 
Resolution of Adoption 
Page 2 



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Department transmit a copy of the 
amendment to the San Francisco Water Department which satisfies the 
requirement of Senate Bill 1019. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the 
City Planning Commission on January 9, 1992. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: 



Commissioners Bierman, Elzey, Hu, Karasick, Morales 



NOES: 



None 



ABSENT: 



Commissioner Sewell 



ADOPTED 



January 9, 1992 



SCM:rfp:508 



Exhibit A 
Title Page Only 



FINAL 



RESIDENCE ELEMENT UPDA TE 

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PRESERVA TIONANAL YSISAND 
PROGRAMS 



Januarys, 1992 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



I 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 90.299ECKSQM 
San Francisco Executive Park 
South Bayshore Area Plan 
Resolution No. 13303 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13303 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter the City- 
Planning Commission is required to adopt and maintain, including 
necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, On October 17, 1985 by Resolution No. 10458, the 
City Planning Commission adopted amendments to the South Bayshore 
Area Plan, an Element of the Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, On October 17. 1985 by Motion No. 10457M, the City 
Planning Commission (the "Commission") found the Final Subsequent 
Environmental Impact Report, 81.197E (the "FSEIR"), for the San 
Francisco Executive Park Development Plan Amendment a mixed use 
of f ice/retail /residential development at San Francisco Executive 
Park, (the "Project") to be adequate, accurate and objective, and 
certified the completion of the FSEIR in compliance with the 
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA 
guidelines and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative 
Code ; and 

WHEREAS, On February 13, 1992, the Department issued a Note 
to File No. 90.299E stating that the modifications to the Project 
would not result in any new significant environmental effects 
beyond those analyzed in the FSEIR; and 

WHEREAS, On October 17, 1985 by Motion No. 10461, the 
Commission approved the Project and the San Francisco Executive 
Park Development Plan Amendment ("Motion 10461"); and 

WHEREAS, Certain amendments to the South Bayshore Area Plan 
of the Master Plan, including the Subarea Plan for San Francisco 
Executive Park, were adopted concurrently hy the Commission on 
October 17, 1985; and 

WHEREAS, Concurrently with this action, the Commission is 
conducting a duly noticed public hearing on a Conditional Use 
Authorization for proposed modifications to the residential 
development approved under Motion 10461 and the San Francisco 
Executive Park Development Plan Amendment; and 

WHEREAS, The Subarea Plan for San Francisco Executive Park 
contained in the South Bayshore Area Plan of the Master Plan 
needs to be amended as shown on Exhibit A hereto to allow 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 90.299ECKSQM 

San Francisco Executive Park 

South Bayshore Area Plan 

Resolution No. 13303 

Page 2 



construction of the residential portion of the Project in 
accordance with the proposed modifications thereto being 
considered concurrently with this Motion; and 

WHEREAS, Notice of intention to hold a public hearing to 
consider the amendments to the Subarea Plan for San Francisco 
Executive Park and other matters was duly published, and a duly 
noticed public hearing was held by the Commission on February 27 
and March 5, 1992; and 

WHEREAS, In reviewing this application, the Commission has 
reviewed and considered the information contained in the FSEIR 
and accompanying documents, has had available to it for its 
review and consideration studies, letters, plans and reports 
pertaining to the Project contained in the case files of the 
Department of City Planning, and has heard testimony from 
interested parties; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission deems appropriate the amendments to 
the Subarea Plan for San Francisco Executive Park to allow for 
construction of the proposed Project as modified; and 

WHEREAS, The Amendments to the South Bayshore Plan to allow 
a Revised Housing Project is hereby found to be consistent with 
the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 as follows: 

A. That existing neighborhood-serving retail uses be preserved 
and enhanced and future opportunities for resident employment 
in and ownership of such businesses enhanced; 

The Revised Housing Project site is a vacant parcel of land 
so that existing neighborhood-serving retail uses will not be 
adversely affected by the development. Rather, the 
development of approximately 565 residential units, with an 
estimated population of about 1200, child care and athletic 
facilities, and a restaurant at San Francisco Executive Park 
will enhance the existing neighboring retail opportunities in 
Little Hollywood, Visitation Valley and along Third Street 
(Bayview area) with an infusion of new family shoppers. The 
new base of shoppers may provide the economic stimulus for 
additional resident employment as well as for new services 
and shops to open. Because there is very little retail in 
the immediate area, the residents of the Revised Housing 
Project may be expected to purchase goods and services from 
the existing local retail community. 



CITY PLM^ING COMMISSION 



File No. 90.299ECKSQM 

San Francisco Executive Park 

South Bayshore Area Plan 

Resolution No. 13303 

Page 3 



B. That existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved 
and protected in order to preserve the cultural and economic 
diversity of our neighborhood; 

The Revised Housing Project site is vacant land and therefore 
the Revised Housing Project will not displace any existing 
housing. The character of the South Bayshore Area has been 
described as predominantly low rise buildings of four stories 
or less with distinctive identity to most of the facades. 
The plans for the Revised Housing Project are compatible with 
the height, facade, design, diversity and hillside 
characteristics of the area. Within the plan are proposed a 
mix of unit sizes ranging from one bedroom to four bedrooms. 
Because of the variety of units, the development will 
maintain the existing neighborhood diversity and family size. 
The neighborhood immediately adjacent to the development on 
the west is commercial office buildings and to the east a 
public sports facility (Candlestick Park) with acres of 
surface parking. The proposed development faces the bay with 
Bayview Hill to the rear. The main view of this property is 
from Highway 101 as vehicles traveling north approach the San 
Francisco City/County border with San Mateo County. 

C . That the City's supply of affordable housing be preserved and 

enhanced; 

The Revised Housing Project will not displace any existing 
affordable housing. The project will enhance the affordable 
housing in San Francisco by reserving ten percent of the 
units for households with incomes that do not exceed 120 
percent of the median income for the San Francisco Primary 
Metropolitan Statistical Area SF-PMSA. 

D. That commuter traffic not impede Muni transit service or 
overburden our streets or neighborhood parking; 

Muni currently operates one route that uses the streets of 
the Project to serve the office tenants. The plan for 
circulation throughout the Revised Housing Project was 
carefully studied and this proposed development is not 
projected to create conflicts. Because there are no adjacent 
residential streets, the development will not overburden 
existing neighborhoods with traffic or parking. The 
development will have sufficient parking capacity, at 1.8 per 
unit, of designated stalls and any overflow parking can be 
accommodated in the parking lots of the office buildings 
immediately to the west. Additionally, a private shuttle 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 90.299ECKSQM 

San Francisco Executive Park 
South Bayshore Area Plan 
Resolution No. 13303 
Page 4 



service operates as part of the Project Transportation 
Management Plan and will provide service to BART and CALTRAIN 
for the residents as well as the office tenants. 

E . That a diverse economic base be maintained by protecting our 
industrial and service sectors from displacement due to 
commercial office development, and that future opportunities 
for resident employment and ownership in these sectors be 
enhanced; 

The site is vacant and its development will not displace any 
existing industrial or service sector businesses. Th 
development proposed in this application, approximately 56b 
residential units, child care facility, athletic facility and 
restaurant, will enhance the diverse economic base, 
particularly in the smaller retail businesses in the 
neighborhood. The development will also create the 
opportunity for additional resident employment and business 
that will provide maintenance and services to the new 
residents. 

F. That the City achieve the greatest possible preparedness to 
protect against injury and loss of life in an earthquake; 

Seismic safety will be an integral component of the planning. 
The engineering of systems and buildings will comply with the 
seismic safety standards of all applicable codes. The 
geology of the area indicates the area is stable and suitable 
for buildings of the type proposed. 

G . That landmarks and historic buildings be preserved; 

There are no landmarks or historic buildings that will be 
affected by the Revised Housing Project. 

H . That our parks and open space and their access to sunlight 
and vistas be protected from development. 

The Revised Housing Project casts shadows on Bayview Park and 
Candlestick Park. The shadows are very minor and will not 
have a significant adverse impact on the use of those 
properties. The Revised Housing Project casts a minor shadow 
on the Candlestick Point Recreation Area (not a Proposition 
K park) during the late afternoon during parts of the year. 
The shadow will not have a significant adverse impact on this 
open space. The Revised Housing Project will not adversely 
affect views from any parks or open space. Additionally, 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 90.299ECKSQM 

San Francisco Executive Park 
South Bayshore Area Plan 
Resolution No. 13303 
Page 5 



views of parks and open spaces will not be impaired by the 
Revised Housing Project but, rather ^ will be enhanced by the 
public open space and landscaping of Bayview Hill which will 
be provided by the Project. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning 
Commission does hereby adopt those findings contained in Motion 
133 04 authorizing the modifications to Motion 10461 and approving 
the San Francisco Executive Park Development Plan Second 
Amendment, which actions are concurrent with the adoption of this 
resolution; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby ADOPTS 
the amendments to the Subarea Plan for San Francisco Executive 
Park contained in the South Bayshore Area Plan of the Master Plan 
as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein 
by this reference; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That any provisions of the 
existing Master Plan of the City and County of San Francisco, or 
on a map of any other Area Plan or Element, that are inconsistent 
with the said South Bayshore Area Plan of the Master Plan as so 
modified, are hereby declared to be of no further force and 
effect; and 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the President of the City 
Planning Commission and the Director of City Planning shall 
record the Commission's action on the text and map comprising the 
South Bayshore Area Plan of the Master Plan, when the said text 
and map have been modified to incorporate the changes contained 
in the aforementioned Exhibit A, and the Secretary of this 
Commission is hereby directed to certify an attested copy thereof 
to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, and the Director of 
Planning is hereby directed to publish this amendment for 
distribution to the public. 



DECISION 

That based upon the Record, the submissions by the Applicant, 
the staff of the Department and other interested parties, the 
oral testimony presented to this Commission at the public 
hearings, and all other written materials submitted by all 
parties, the Commission hereby Approves Master Plan Amendment 
Case No. 90.299ECKSQM. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 90.299ECKSQM 

San Francisco Executive Park 

South Bayshore Area Plan 

Resolution No. 13303 

Page 6 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by 
the City Planning Commission on March 5, 1992. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 

AYES: Coimnissioners Bierman, Boldridge, Hu, Karasick, Morales 
and S ewe 11 

NOES: None 

ABSENT : None 

ADOPTED: March 5. 1992 



Exhibit A 



South Baysbore Area Plan 



low-density residential areas with the new, somewhat 
higher-density housing proposed near the shoreline, on 
Hunters Point Ridge, and on the higher slopes of 
Bayview Hill becomes apparent in the Plan, as does the 
better balance, within the district, of residential and 
industrial land. 

The Plan also indicates the close bond between residen- 
tial use and the proposed system of schools, playgrounds 
and shopping centers. The intent to contain industry and 
protect residential areas by buffers of planting and park 
strips becomes evident as these parts of the Plan are 
brought together. 

Curtailment of fill and creation of parks and marinas at 
India Basin andin the Candlestick tidelands is a response 
to the expressed desire of the people of the South 
Bayshore and the surrounding communities as well as 
from more remote districts for recreation areas on the 
castem shore of the City. The relationship of the 
shoreline to new residential areas, the accessibilit>' of 
shoreline parks to high emplo>inent centers as well as to 
residents of the area and the linkage of this shorelirie park 
system to the rest of the City and the region are major 
contributions of the proposed Plan. 

It is these relationships which give the Plan meaning and 
purpose and integrity in response to the goals for devel- 
opment of the district which were established by the 
community. The Plan, being responsive as well to trends 
and issues in surrounding communities, and to City- 
wide goals and objectives, also relates the South Bay- 
sbore more closely to the rest of the City. 




SUB AREA PLAN FOR SAN FRANCISCO 
EXECUTIVE PARK 



OB JECnVE 13 

TO CREATE, AS A**GATEWAVTOTHECITY", 
A BALANCED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
WHERE OFHCE, RETAIL SPACE AND A 
HOTEL ARE INTEGRATED WITH A CENTRAL 
PLAZA, PROMENADES, AND OPEN SPACE, 
WITH A NEW RESIDENTLAL COMMUNITY 
TO THE EAST. 

The policies below shall apply to development of the 
Executive Park subarea. The Land Use Plan for the 71 
acre Executive Park subarea appears in Map 2. The Cir- 
culation Plans (Automobile Access, Automobile Egress 
and Internal Automobile Circulation) appear in Maps 37 
4,-and-5 and the Urban Form (height and bulk) Plan 
appears in Map 6. 

POLICY 1: orncES 

Develop a maximum of 1 ,700,000 square feet of office 
space. Locate all new office space, excluding office 
buildings OB-1. OB-2. OB-3, and OB-4 as shown on 
Map 2. north of Executive Park Boulevard in buildings 
which range in height from 4 stories to 15 stories, 
becoming taller the closer they are to the center. The 
massing of the structures, stepping up arxlback from the 
street incrementally, should reflect the form of the 
hillside to the north and reinforce the urban character of 
the project. Each building should extend out to the edge 
of the street incorporating an arcade which covers the 
sidewalk. 



POLICY 2: TOWN CENTER 

Develop a Town Center which is centrally located 
between existing and new development at the intersec- 
tion of the pedestrian arcade which connects all office 
buildings north of Executive Park Boulevard and the 
pedestrian promenade which links the office/retail 
buildings with the hotel and surrounding offices south of 
the boulevard. At the base of the tallest office buildings, 
develop a plaza surrounded by retail arcades as a gath- 
ering place for the Executive Park community as well as 
the surrounding communities. 



E9.7 



The San Francisco Master Plan 



POLICY 3: HOTEL 

Develop a hotel/meeting building with approximately 
350 rooms primarily to serve office uses in the area. 
Locate the hotel directly south of the pedestrian prome- 
nade to create a counterpoint on axis with Town Center. 
Provide garage space for the hotel arKl the displaced 
surface parking under the hotel. Provide access to the 
hotel off Executive Park Boulevard to the north, via a 
pedestrian promenade and a formal vehicular access of 
the intersection of Alana Way and Harney Way. 

POLICY 4: RETAIL USES 

Provide approximately 45.000 square feet of retail space 
integrated with the office uses and situated primarily 
around the Town Center. Orient retail uses to serve 
office workers and residents of the area as well as those 
of surrounding communities Provide additional retail 
space within the hotel. Allow a restaurant south of Alana 
Way. 

POLICY 5: RESIDENTUL COMML^NITY 

Develop approximately six hundred units of housing (a 

considerable number should be two bedrooms) on the 

r u • • -eidnt 
eastern poroon of the site m r»o- to-Hw-storj' structures 

over one- toiSB^evel parking podiums. C^fmrve^the 

wrsi nrrrn PS1 xhister-of 4to wsi ng- ■ttiwffld -fm -wj K>fm4>»l e 

tuiiidiuuiid IP Liea i e aga te fjor i'i tlwc e n tr a H it c inl'P 

ihe roGid efi^ al ar e a Construct the ba l an cs c4"4he housing 

Bftit6-KKth€-&a£K following the form of the hillside 

contours. Include children'splayarea(s)andif feasible. 

some convenience retail shopping. 

POLICY 6: OPEN SPACE 

Develop approximately twenr>'-six acres of the subarca 
as a hillside park and develop hillside trails as pedestrian 
links to the park from the Town Center, Ba>'\'ie\>- Hill 
Park and Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. At 
various locations and elevations construct a series of 
scenic vistas which allow people to rest, picnic, and 
enjoy the view of the bay. 

Create a variety of landscaped zones on the hillside. The 
area adjacent to the freeway should be densely planted 
with trees and shrubs. Trees should be used to screen the 
parking structure as well as provide an appropriately 
scaled backdrop to the office buildings. The northern- 



most zone adjacent to Bayview Hill Park should be 
plainted with trees and shrubs which are similar to those 
already growing within it, visually integrating both sides 
of the hill. The central portion of the hill should be 
planted with smaller shrubs and cascading plant materi- 
als which will cover the hillside with low growing 
vegetation, thereby softening the quarried texture of the 
exposed rock. 

Limit overall building coverage in the development area 
(excluding the area designated OS in Map 6) to 50% and 
in the entire site 35%. Landscape the open area not used 
for streets and parking areas with ornamental plantings 
and coordinated flowering ground covers to provide a 
continuous series of related open spaces and to create a 
unified visual environment. 

POLICY 7: TRANSPORTATION MANAGE- 
MENT PROGRAM 

Develop and implement a comprehensive transportation 
managcnient program fTMP) in cooperation with the 
City, transit operators, ridesharing agencies and other 
agencies or organizations, to reach a long-term goal that 
at least sevent> (70 ) percent of subarea employees will 
commute by transit, ridesharing. or some mode alterna- 
tive to single-occupant vehicle. 

Provide continuing on-site transportation brokerage 
serv ices over the life of the project for subarea employ- 
ees, residents and visitors, to coordinate a phased pro- 
gram of reduced trip-making by single-occupant vehicle 
foi both commute and non-commuie travel. 

POLICY 8: PARKING 

Limit the total number of commuterparking spaces to an 
amount proportionate to the long-term goal llial at least 
70 (seventy) percent of subarea employees will com- 
mute bytran sit. ridesharing, or some mode alteraaiiveto 
single-occupant vehicle. The amount of commuter 
parking to be provided at each phase of additional 
development shall be determined based on specific 
modal split goals for the cumulative number of employ- 
ees projected to be employed at the subarea by the end 
of each development phase. Modal split goals shall 
include progressive reduction at each phase of total 
employees driving in single-occupant vehicles, from the 
current ( 1 985 ) 8 1 percent to no more than 30 percent at 
office buildout. The amount of office visitor parking 
shall be detemiined at each development phase. The 



n.9.8 



South Baysbore Area Plan 



total of commute and visitor parking spaces for office 
uses shall not exceed 1 space per 500 square feet of net 
rentable floor area. 

approximately 1.8 
A11ow-4t5- parking spaces per unit for residential uses. 

Parking for retail, and restaurant patrons and visitors 
shall be provided at no more than two spaces per 1,000 
square feet of net rentable floor area, and shall be 
reviewed at each development phase, based on demon- 
strated and projected need for parking to accommodate 
trips from outside the subarea. The amount of parking 
to be provided for hotel use will be determiDed at the 
project approval phase based on projected need for such 
parking, and shall not exceed one space per guest room. 

Develop parking facilities to adequately serve the uses 
in al! commercial buildings, with preferential rideshare 
and shon-term visitor/patron parkingprovided closest to 



building entrances, design commercial parking struc- 
ture to blend visually with the hillside, and soften visual 
impact of parking facilities by landscaping terraced 
levels with trees and cascading shrubs. 

POLICY 9; TRANSIT 

Provide continuing shuttle service throughout the day 
between the subarea, downtown aixl other regional 
transportation terminals as a supplement topublic transit 
service, with sufficiently short headways to encourage 
their use and reduce depeixkncy on autos for both 
commute and non-commute transportation needs. Such 
shuttle service shall be evaluated every three years to 
determine if patronage and market are sufficient to 
suppon public transit service for both commute aiKl non- 
commute needs at the same levels of service. 



E9.9 



The San Francisco Master Plan 




n.9.10 



South Bayshore Area Plan 




n.9.11 



The San Francisco Master Plan 




n.9.12 



South Bayshore Area Plan 





ZONE 



HEIGHT 



BULK 



BULK LIMITS 



40 
100 
140 
200 
165 

80 

60 

-66-80 
40 

OS 



Syntiol 

G 
H 



Height fitxTfe 
Which Maximum 
Dimensions Apply 

80 

100 

150 



Maximum 
Building 
Length 

170 

170 

170 



Bulk Limits Not Applicable 



Maximum 
Diagonal 
Dimension 

200 
200 
200 



40 ft. height of Parking Structure is measured from street level at Executive 
ParK Blvd. North (el. 36] and is approximately 40 ft above existing grade. 

[appears to be a typographical error] 



Map 6 



n.9.14 



90.087EM 

Inclusionary Affordable 
Housing Guidelines Update 

SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13405 



WHEREAS, San Francisco's economic and social well-being and vitality depend on 
the City having a range of housing types and prices for ail its inhabitants. The Residence 
Element sets forth the objectives, policies and programs that address the City's housing 
needs; and 

WHEREAS, In recent years, construction of mari<et rate housing for single adults 
(studios) and small families (1 and 2 bedroom units) has met the demand for such units, 
while construction of lower income housing has considerably fallen short of demand. The 
response by the City's lower income households has been to overcrowd and overpay; 
both of these responses have adverse impacts for the household's health and well-being 
and the City's economic vitality; and 

WHEREAS, Federal and state housing subsidies are not sufficient by themselves 
to satisfy the housing needs of very low, low and moderate Income households; the 
housing shortage for persons of limited income poses a serious threat to the public health, 
safety and welfare of the City; and such emergency should be met by local steps to 
correct this shortage; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted, on September 13, 1990, a 
Residence Element of the Master Plan which includes a policy to require Inclusion of 
affordable housing as a condition of approval of large housing developments. This policy, 
Objective 7, Policy 1 , states: 

"Include affordable units in larger housing projects." 

"Inclusion of affordable housing should be required as a condition of approval 
of housing projects containing 10 or more units which seek Planning 
Commission approval as conditional uses or planned unit developments. As 
a general guideline, a minimum of 10% of the units should be affordable." 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 13052 on April 4, 
1991, adopted guidelines for the application of inclusionary affordable housing 
requirements which are published in a document entitled "Guidelines for the Application 
of San Francisco's Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy"; and 

WHEREAS, Objective 9, Policy 1 of the Residence Element seeks to employ 
uniform definitions of pemnanent affordability, to speed up project review and permit 
processing time; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Inclusionary Affordable 
Housing Guidelines 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, During the approximately 16 months the guidelines have been In effect, 
a number of amendments have been suggested to improve project review, mari<eting, 
monitoring and enforcement procedures, including the application of uniform definitions 
and language; and 

WHEREAS, Uniform language and procedures have been designed cooperatively 
by the Department of City Planning, the Mayor's Office of Housing, the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency, and the City Attorney's Office; and 

WHEREAS, This unifonm language and these procedures have been incorporated 
into three documents proposed by these city agencies for adoption by the City Planning 
Commission as policies and procedures for the application of its Inclusionary Affordable 
Housing Policy, the three documents attached as Exhibits A, B and C to this Resolution 
include: 

1. An update of the Guidelines for the Application of San Francisco's 
Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy , which includes 1992 Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) household affordability figures, in addition to the 
unifomi language and standard procedures; 

2. Sample Language for Affordable Housing Conditions for City Planning 
Commission Motions of Approval : and 

3. A new document entitled Affordable Housing Monitoring Procedures Manual , 
which contains the unifonm definitions and procedures referenced in the 
aforementioned two documents. 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby 
adopt the amendments to the Guidelines for the Application of San Francisco's 
Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A and which will be 
updated administratively each year with current income figures, and adopts the definition 
of terms and procedures described in the document entitled Affordable Housing Monitoring 
Procedures Manual, attached as Exhibit B, and adopts Sample Language for Affordable 
Housing Conditions for City Planning Commission Motions of Approval, attached as 
Exhibit C. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on September 10, 1992. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: 
NOES: 
ABSENT: 
ADOPTED: 



Commissioners Fung, Levine, Prowler, Smith and Unobskey 
None 

Commissioners Boldridge and Lowenberg 
September 10, 1992 



U:\SCf^WPS1\ULRES0LU.SCM 



Exhibit A 
Title Page Only 



■ SAN FRANCISCO ■ 



RESIDENCE 
ELEMENT 




An Implementation pRoqRAM of tIie 



■ MASTER PLAN ■ ReSIcIenCE EIeMENT of T^E MASTER PUn 



CuideliNEs For AppUcAiioN oF San FrancIsco's 
iNclusioNARy AffoRdAblE HousiNq Policy 



SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF OTY PLANNING 

SEpTEwbER 1992 



i 



i 



{ 



Exhibit B 
Title Page Only 



SAN FRANCISCO 



T. 




> 

iS 

m 

z 



MASTER PIAN 



RESIDENCE 
ELEMENT 

An ImpIemeivtation PnoquAM of lUt 
REsidENCE EIement of iUe Master PU 



Ciiy ANcl CouNiy of San Francisco 
AffoRdAblE HousiNq MoNiiORiNq 
ProcecIures ManuaI 



SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 

SEpTEwbER 1992 



I 



I 



I 



Exhibit C 
Title Page Only 



■ SAN FRANOSCO ■ 



RESIDENCE 
ELEMENT 




An iMplEMENTATiON pROqRAM oF T^E 



■ MASTER PLAN ■ ReSIcJenCE EIeMENT of tUe MaSTER PIaN 



SampIe LANquAqE For Cliy PlANNiNq 
CoMMissioN AFfoRdAblE HousiNq 
Requireivients 



SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF QTY PLANNING 

SEpTEwbER 1992 



f 



I 



I 



File No. 91.548M 

Amendments to the Recreation and Open 
Space Element of the Master Plan 



San Francisco 
City Planning Commission 
Resolution No. 13411 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission adopt and maintain, including necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may overtime become obsolete; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan by Resolution No. 11067 on July 9, 1987; and 

WHEREAS, The Recreation and Open Space Element contains policy language on 
recreational trails which are contained in Regional Policy #3 and Citywide Policy #8, and 
shown in Map #4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; and 

WHEREAS, in 1987, the State legislature passed SB 100, which authorized the 
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to establish policies and a route alignment for 
a continuous hiking and bicycle trail around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo 
Bays, called the Bay Trail; and 

WHEREAS, The Association of Bay Area Governments, in cooperation with local, 
regional, State and Federal agencies throughout the nine Bay Area counties, has developed a 
plan for the Bay Trail that will link recreation and open space areas throughout the Bay area 
with 400 miles of hiking and bicycling trails; and 

WHEREAS, a parallel planning effort was also established by the Bay Area Ridge Trail 
Council, a private non-profit organization, to plan for a 400+ mile recreational trail connecting 
parks and public open space along the major ridgeline circling the Bay, called the Ridge Trail; 
and 

WHEREAS, Staff of the Recreation and Park Department and the City Planning 
Department participated with the Bay Trail Council, preparing a plan for the Bay Trail, and with 
the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, preparing a plan for the Ridge Trail; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 91.548M 

Amendments to the Recreation and Open 
Space Element of the Master Plan 
Resolution No. 13411 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, The Bay Trail, Ridge Trail and Coastal Trail will enhance recreational 
opportunities for a broad range of users on recreational trails along the Bay, Ocean, and 
linking the City's ridgelines and hilltop parks; and 

WHEREAS, the Recreation and Open Space Element was adopted in 1987, and 
contains general policy text on recreational trails and maps designating a proposed a trail in 
San Francisco along the shoreline, but does not incorporate planning for the Bay and Ridge 
Trails throughout the nine county Bay Area, which have been planned since 1987; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would update the Element, amending Regional 
Policy #3, and Citywide Policy #8 revising the text and providing additional policy language on 
regional bicycle and hiking trails and adding text describing the Bay Trail, Ridge Trail, and 
Coastal Ti-ail in San Francisco, and would revise Maps #4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, deleting the 
"Proposed Shoreline Trail" and adding the Bay Trail, Ridge Trail, and Coastal Trail; and; 

WHEREAS, The proposed Coastal Trail and Bay Trail alignments, when taken together, 
generally follow the alignment of the "Proposed Shoreline Trail" which they would replace, with 
some modification; and 

WHEREAS, On balance, the proposed amendments are consistent with the eight priority 
policies of Section 101.1, as follows: 

Section 101.1 Findings 

A. That Existing Neiqhbortiood-Servinq Retail Uses be Preserved and Enhanced. 

The proposed Master Plan amendment would preserve existing neighbortiood- 
serving retail. In areas where trails travel through neighborhoods which have 
neighborhood-serving retail uses, such as portions of the Bayview, Fisherman's 
Wharf, the Haight, Westem Addition, etc., trail users may patronize existing 
neighborhood-serving retail establishments, and therefore enhance these uses. 

B. That Existing Housing and Neighborhood Character be Conserved and Protected 
in Order to Preserve the Cultural and Economic Diversitv of Our Neighbortioods. 

The proposed Master Plan amendment would have no negative effect on existing 
housing and neighborhood character. Hikers and bicyclists using the proposed 
Ridge Trail, Bay Trail, and Coastal Trail would, by their presence, help to make 
the streets over which they travel, safer for pedestrians. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION File No. 91.548M 

Amendments to the 
Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan 
Resolution No. 13411 
Page 3 



C. That the City's Supply of Affordable Housing be Preserved and Enhanced. 
The proposed amendments would have no effect on this policy. 

D. That Commuter Traffic not Impede Muni Transit Seryice or Overburden our Streets 
or Neighborhood Parking. 

The proposed amendments would have no effect on this policy. The trails would 
encourage increased hiking and bicycling, and also use of Muni Transit to hike trail 
segments. 

E. That a Diverse Economic Base be Maintained by Protecting our Industrial and 
Service Sectors from Displacement due to Commercial Office Development, and 
that Future Opportunities for Resident Employment and Ownership in these 
Sectors be Enhanced. 

The proposed amendments would have no effect on this policy. 

F. That the City Achieve the Greatest Possible Preparedness to Protect Against 
Injury and Loss of Life in an Earthguake. 

The proposed amendments would have no effect on this policy. 

G. That Landmarks and Historic Building be Preserved. 

The proposed amendments would have no effect on this policy. 

H. That Our Parks and Open Spaces and their Access to Sunlight and Vistas be 
Protected from Development. 

The proposed Master Plan amendment would incorporate pedestrian and hiking 
trails into the Master Plan. The trails would extend along San Francisco Bay, 
along the Ocean, and generally along the major Ridgeline within the City. The 
trails will act as a ribbon, joining various City neighbortioods, and providing 
panoramic views from San Francisco's hilltop pari<s, and linking pari<s and public 
open spaces along the Bay and Ocean. The trails will help to link the City's pari<s 
and public open spaces, encourage another forni of active recreation - hiking and 
bicycling - and encourage increased use and patronage of the City's parks and 
public open spaces. In these ways, the amendment will help to protect our parks 
and their access to sunlight and protect vistas from development; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 91 .548M 



Amendments to the Recreation and Open 
Space Element of the Master Plan 
Resolution No. 13411 
Page 4 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525 and 6.413, notice was duly given of a 
public hearing by the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an amendment to the 
Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, which hearing was held on October 
1, 1992; and 

WHEREAS, On October 1, 1992 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and 
considered testimony related to the proposed amendments; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission deems the proposed amendments to be appropriate and 
desires to adopt them as part of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission, before 
acting on the proposed Master Plan amendment, does hereby certify that it has reviewed, 
considered, and approved the information contained in the Certificate of Determination of 
Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review, under General Rule Exclusion (State 
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS "Proposed Amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master 
Plan", dated October 1, 1992, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution as ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on October 1, 1992 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: 



Commissioners Fung, Levine, Lowenberg, Prowler, Smith, Unobskey 



NOES: 



None 



ABSTAINED: 



None 



ABSENT: 



Commissioner Boldridge 



ADOPTED: 



October 1, 1992 



91.548M CPC Resolution 



Exhibit A 



91.548M 

Proposed Amendments to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan 
October 1, 1992 



This is a proposal to amend the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, 
revising policy text on recreational trails in Regional Policy #3, and Citywide Policy #8, and 
revising Maps 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The maps would be revised, deleting the alignment of a 
"Proposed Shoreline Trail" and designating routes consistent with the Bay Area Ridge Trail, 
and Bay Trail routes, and also designating a Coastal Trail route. Taken together, the Coastal 
Trail and Bay Trail alignments generally follow the alignment of the "Proposed Shoreline Trail" 
they would replace, with modification. 

Note: In the proposed Master Plan text below, existing policy text with no proposed changes 
is shown as regular text. Text proposed to be added is underlined . Text proposed to 
be deleted is shown with strike outo . 

Two sets of Map #4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are included. For each set of maps, the first map 
is the current adopted version, showing the trail alignment proposed to be deleted; the 
second map incorporates the trail alignment proposed to be added. 



RECTRAIL.DOC 



1 



Regional Policy 3 

Increase the accessibility of regional parks by locating new parks near population 
centers, establishing low user costs, Improving public transit service to parks and 
creating regional bike and hiking trails. 

Many state and national parks are located a considerable distance from densely populated 
urban areas. Automobile access is usually required. Most of these parks are excellent for 
vacations, but they are often impractical for weekend or day use. 

While overloading parks should be avoided, cost or inconvenience should not in itself exclude 
people from parks. Rather, user costs should be held low, accessibility improved, and new 
regional parks located close to cities. At the same time access is made easier, recreational 
activities in parks should be carefully managed to prevent overuse and environmental 
damage. 

Public Transit 

Improved public transit is key to increasing the accessibility of regional parks. Frequent and 
convenient transit service will make it easier for people who do not own cars to reach these 
areas, encourage people with cars to leave them at home when going to the parks, and 
reduce the impact of the automobile on the natural landscape. Transit can also be used to 
shift demand from crowded parks to lesser known facilities. 

Hiking and Bicycle Trails 

A regional hiking and bicycle trail svstem should be developed for the San Francisco Bav area 
to increase recreational opportunities throughout the area, and to link parks and public open 
space of local and regional importance. Hiking and bicycle trails can provide access to 
regional parks and open spaces, and link these to communities throughout the region. These 
trails can provide another alternative to the automobile for access to regional open space 
areas at minimal cost without adverse effects on the community or open space. Creation and 
maintenance of a safe and convenient trail system would also foster hiking and bicycling as 
recreational activities. Trails that tie population centers to regional parks and open space are 
particularly appropriate. 



2 



Three trails should be developed. One trail should encircle the Bay. Another trail should be 
aligned along the maior ridqelines in the Bay Area. A third trail should follow the coast line- 
Trails should be designed to appeal to a wide range of users, including children, the elderly, 
and the disabled, to the extent feasible. 

Two regional trails are currently being planned. The Association of Bay Area Governments. 
ABAG, has proposed the alignment for a 400 mile long Bay Trail, a bicycle and hiking trail that 
would travel around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The Bay Area 
Ridge Trail Council has been planning a Ridge Trail alignment that will connect parks along 
the maior ridgelines circling the Bay. The Ridge Trail is designed to accommodate hikers, 
bicyclists, and equestrians, where safe and desirable. When completed, the Ridge Trail will 
be approximately 400 miles long. A trail along the coast line should also be planned in the 
future. 

The City, should coordinate planning for the Ridge Trail and Bay Trail alignments within San 
Francisco (see Objective 2. Policy 8. and Obiective 3, Policy 3), so that they link up with the 
trails in San Mateo and Marin Counties. Creation of the two recreational trails should be given 
high priority for implementation in the years ahead. In addition, the potential for developing 
recreational trails along stream corridors, the coast line, and abandoned rail rights-of-way 
throughout the region should be investigated. The City should wori< with other local 
municipalities, public agencies and interested private organizations and individuals to develop 
a comprehensive regional trail system for the Bay area- 
B icycle Trai l s 

A regional bikoway cystom should bo dcvolopod for the San Francioco Bay area to provide for 
more recreational transportation throughout tho Bay Area and to regional open space areas. 
The bicycio can provide another alternative to the automobile for access to regional open 
space areas at minimal cost without adverse effects on the community or open space. 
Creation and maintenance of a safe and convenient bike route system would also foster 
b i cycling as a recreational activity. B ike trails that tie population centers to regional parks and 
open space are particulariy appropriate. 

Creation of a shoreline trail and route system circling the bay, and bicycle routes on the major 
ridgelines shou l d be given high priority for implementation in tho years ahead. Tho potential 
for developing exclusive recreational bicycle trails along stream comdors, the ocean, and 
abandoned rail rights of way throughout tho region should bo investigated. The City should 



3 



wor1( with other local munioipalit i os, public agcncicG and intorostod private organizationG and 
individuals to develop a comprohonGlve regional bicycle trail system for the Bay area. — 

The City's bicycle trail system, identified in the Transportation Element of the Master Plan, 
should tie in with regional bicycle trails system. Better linkage is needed between the City's 
bike routes and suggested regional bikeway trails. A safer and more convenient connection 
with the regional bike route at the Golden Gate B ridge ooncourGO could result in increased 
bike ridcrship to Marin and the North Counties. B etter linkage is also needed along the Groat 
Highway or other routes to meet the South San Francisco and Peninsula bike routes. 

Provision for Bicycles on Transit 

Better coordination with regional public transportation networks could increase potential 
bicycle usage with little public expenditure. Efforts should be made to improve recreational 
bicycle access to reoional transit routes, including fern/ systems, which directly serve regional 
pari<s and regional trails. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system already pemiits 
bicycles on the system during non commute hours. Brochures or maps that provide 
information about and directions to neartDy paries and regional open space should be available 
at appropriate BART stations and other transit terminals . Bicycle racks should be added to 
bus carriers that serve regional pari<s as a primary destination. Provision of bicycle racks on 
buses serving these routes would provide recreational bicyclists with better access to regional 
pari<s and open space. People should be able to use the regional public transportation 
network to reach a regional park or trail. Then they could hike or bicycle a portion of the park 
or trail, and should be able to return home using the regional public transportation system. 

Regional Hiking Trails 

Hiidng trails can provide pedestrian access to regional parks and open spaces, and link these 
to communities throughout the region. The East Bay Regional Park District has been creating 
and developing hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails to link some of the regional parks within 
their jurisdiction. A hiking trail system of this type should be created or extended throughout 
the region. Convenient linkages between the Bay Area regional hiking trail system and the 
San Francisco urban trail system should be created. 

National Historic Trail 

In 1775, the Spanish explorer Juan Bautista De Anza set out northward on an overiand 
expedition from Sonera, Mexico, through Arizona and California to the San Francisco Bay 



4 



Area. The National Park Service is working with other public agencies and private groups to 
establish the De Anza National Historic Trail. The City should coordinate work with these 
groups to designate a trail route within the City and County of San Francisco that follows the 
route of the De Anza Expedition as closely as possible. The City should encourage 
installation of trail markers, and provision for a route map and public information to enhance 
public use and enjoyment of the trail. 



5 



Citywide Policy 8 



Develop a oitywido urbon recreational trail system that links City parks and public open 
space, ridge lines and hilltops, the waterfront, the Bay and ocean, and neighborhoods, 
and ties into the regional recreational trails system. 

An urtan trailo A recreational trail system should be created on streets^, eftd public 
rights-of-way and park land, provide providing interesting pathways to link city parks and 
public open space with the neight)orhoods. A oomprohonGivoly plannod urban trail systom, 
oompoGcd of carefully oo l ootod routes and well designed dotails. could be a valuable 
recreation resource. The citywide system should have convenient links with the regional 
hiking trail systom. and with regional transit systems. Development of the trail system should 
i nclude the following elements: Three trails are currently envisioned. One trail would be part 
of the San Francisco Bay Trail. The second would link up with the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The 
third would be a Coastal Trail route along Ocean Beach. The trails should accommodate 
hikers and bicyclists. They should be designed to appeal to a wide range of users, including 
children, the elderly, and the disabled, to the maximum feasible extent. 

In San Francisco and other highly urbanized areas, the primary trail users would most likely 
be hikers and bicyclists. The Ridge Trail, in addition, may be planned to accommodate 
equestrians, where feasible and desirable. In some instances, pedestrians, bicyclists and 
equestrians would have separate trail routes. The trails will be part of the regional trail 
system, linking up with the trails in San Mateo and Marin Counties. 

Route Selection 

The objective in route selection should be to choose trails select interesting routes along the 
Bay. Ocean, and linking the City's priman/ ridgeline and hilltop parks, in areas that provide 
infonnation about the city's history, frame vistas of the City and Bay region, and permit the 
opportunity to view and visit interesting cultural, architectural and natural geographic features. 
In the future, a system of trails connecting the Ridge and Bay Trails should be created. It 
may also be necessan/ and desirable to make minor changes in trail alignments. The trail 
system should link city parks and public open space with interesting historic, natural, and 
man-made features that may attract and accommodate a variety of users. 

Trails should be planned and designed to avoid impacting environmentally sensitive areas 
such as wetlands, and in a manner consistent with the policies of the land management 
agency 'hrouqh which the trail traverses. 



The Bay Trail 



The Bay trail should traverse the eastern edge of the City and should be oriented along the 
Bay from San Mateo County, to the Golden Gate Bridge. The Bay Trail alignment within San 
Francisco should link he following pari<s and public open spaces, as shown on Map 4: 



Candlestick Point State 

Recreation Area 
India Basin pari< (Planned) 
Wamn Water Cove 
Islais Creek 



Agua Vista Park 

Mission Bay Wetland & Park 

(Planned) 
South Beach Marina & Park 

(Planned) 
Rincon Point Pari<(Planned) 
Justin Hernian Plaza 



Ferry Plaza 

(Ferry Service to Marin. East Bay 
Pier 7 Public Access Pier 
Pier 39 

Aguatic Park and Fort Mason 

(GGNRA) 
Marina Green 
Crissy Field (GGNRA) 

The Presidio (GGNRA) 

Fort Point National Historic Site 
(GGNRA) 



The Ridge Trail 



The Ridge Trail should contain a number of altemate route alignments within San Francisco, 
following public rights-of-way and travelling through or adjacent to public parks and open 
space along ridge lines and connecting hilltop parks. The Ridge Trail should link the following 
pari<s: 



• Fort Funston (GGNRA 

• Lake Merced 

• Pine Lake Pari</Stem Grove 

• Glen Canyon Pari< 

• John McLaren Park 

• Twin Peaks 



Buena Vista Part< 

Corona Heights Park 

The Panhandle - Golden Gate Pari< 

Alamo Souare 

Kimball Playground 

Alta Plaza Park 

The Presidio (GGNRA) 



7 



In addition to these trails, other recreational trails should be planned. In the Western part of 



the City, a Coastal Trail should be planned along Ocean Beach, to Lincoln Park and Baker 
Beach in the Presidio (GGNRA). Similarlv. a system of trails connectino the Bay Trail and the 
Ridge Trail with different neighborhoods and parkland would create a variety of trail 
experiences, and increase recreational opportunities throughout the City. 

Route Information 

A map showing the trail routes and parte system should be available for public distribution. ]n 
addition, trail mari<ers or signs should also be installed along 4he rout es to identify the trail, 
provide directional infonnation. and designate segments of the trail for hikers, bicyclists, and/or 
eouestrians. 

Landscape Treatment 

Landscape treatment of the trail system could include installation of trees and other vegetation 
as well as special paving materials and street fumiture to provide pleasant resting areas, use 
of street fumiture, signage, and other design elements should be used consistently along the 
trail to facilitate trail identification. 



RECTRAIL.DOC 



8 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



Proposed 
Coastal 
Trail 




Proposed 
Bay 
Trail 



CITYWIDE RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PLAN 



Map 4 



EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 



Retain Outdoor Open Space, 
Preserve Natural Qualities, and 
Where Appropriate Convert To 
Public Recreational Use 



PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Acquire For or Convert To 
Public Open Space 

Provide New Open Space in 
the General Vicinity 



L3.18 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CFG Res. #13411 



PROPOSED RECREATION TRAILS 
■■■■ Hiking and Bicycle 
— — - Hiking and Bicycle Alternative 
....... Hiking 

• • • • • Bicycle 

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 




CITYWIDE RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PLAN 



Map 4 



EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 



Retain Outdoor Open Space, 
Preserve Natural Qualities, and 
Where Appropriate Convert To 
Public Recreational Use 



PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 



Acquire For or Convert To 
Public Open Space 

Provide New Open Space in 
the General Vicinity 



Proposed Shoreline Trafl 

PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



I 

L3.18 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #13411 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



Lantis End 




Point 
Lobos 



Proposed 
Coastai TraU 
(not finaS aiignirssnt) 



Ocean Beach 



San Francisco 
Zoo 




Fort Funsion 



Country Club 



Map 5 

WESTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



SHORELINE ZONE 



AU New Development Subject 
To Shoreline Guidelines 



PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

B Maintain and Improve the Quality of 
Existing Shoreline Open Space and 
Recreation 

PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 



^ Provide New Open Space Along 
the Shoreline 



0 0 0 0 Proposed Shoreline Trail 

PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



'^000 



1.3.30 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #13411 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



LODOS 



p ? c p « e £< « 



Proposed 
Coastal 
Trail 



Zoo 



■ C O G H A ) >~w«.. 




'-r- Proposed 
— Ridge 
Trail 



Map 5 

WESTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



SHORELINE ZONE 



H- + -h 



All New Development Subject 
To Shoreline Guidelines 



PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Maintain and Improve the Quality of 
Existing Shoreline Open Space and 
Recreation 

PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Provide New Open Space Along 
^^vNi the Shoreline 



PROPOSED RECREATION TRAILS 

Hiking and Bicycle 
■B Hiking 
• • • Bicycle 

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



1.3.30 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #13411 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



F?op«s«c Coastal IraU 
(.not fsrsj*! au^nmsr>it 




NORTHWESTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



Map 6 



SHORELINE ZONE 



All New Development Subject 
To Shoreline Guidelines 

Maintain and Improve the Quality of 
Existing Shoreline Open Space and 
Recreation 



PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

I Provide New Open Space Along 
the Shoreline 



« , « « Proposed Shoreline Trail 

PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



1.3.32 



Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #1341 1 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



TO MARIN COUNTY 




"Proposed 
^ . — " Ridge 
Trail 



Proposed 
Coastal 
Trail 



Proposed 

Bay 

Trail 



NORTHWESTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



Map 6 



EXISTING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

I Retain Outdoor Open Space, 

Preserve Natural Qualities, and 
Where Appropriate Convert To 
Public Recreational Use 

PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Acquire For or Convert To 
Public Open Space 

Provide New Open Space in 
the General Vicinity 



PROPOSED RECREATION TRAILS 

■■■■■ Hiking and Bicycle 

— — - Hiking and Bicycle Alternative 

■■ Hiking 
•••• Bicycle 

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



1.3.32 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #1341 1 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



Fjshermari's 
Municipal Wharf Plaza 

Pier Hyde / ^.^^ 



North Point 
Park 




Pier 7 



Ferry Plaza 

Waterfront 
1 Promenade 

Rsncon Point 
Park 



South Beach Park 

And 

Small Boat Harbor 



NORTHEASTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



Map 7 



SHORELINE ZONE 



All New Development Subject 
To Shoreline Guidelines 



PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

1^ Maintain and Improve the Quality of 
Existing Shoreline Open Space and 
Recreation 



PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Provide New Open Space Along 
the Shoreline 

Provide New Open Space in 
the General Vicinity 

Port Jurisdiction 



• • • • Proposed Shoreline Trail 

PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



1.3.34 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #13411 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



Fisherman's 

Municipal Wharf Plaza 

Pier Hyde 
St. 



North Point 
Park 




I^Ferry PJaza 

Waterfront 
Promenade 

Rincon Pomt 
Park 

Proposed 
Bay 
Trail 

South Beach Park 

And ■ 
Small Boat Harbor 



NORTHEASTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



Map 7 



SHORELINE ZONE 



fT+T 



AIl New Development Subject 
To Shoreline Guidelines 



" ' Port Jurisdiction 

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Maintain and Improve the Quality of 
Existing Shoreline Open Space and 
Recreation 

PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Provide New Open Space Along 
the Shoreline 



PROPOSED RECREATION TRAILS 
■■H Hiking and Bicycle 
» " Hiking 
• • • Bicycle 

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



Provide New Open Space in 
^ the General Vicinity 



L3.34 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #13411 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



c China Basirs 
Channel Parks 



Map 8 

EASTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



SHORELINE ZONE 



fFTT 



AU New Development Subject 
To Shoreline Guidelines 



PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Maintain and Improve the Quality of 
Existing Shoreline Open Space and 
Recreation 

PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Provide New Open Space Along 
the Shoreline 

Provide New Open Space in 
the General Vicinity 

Port Jurisdiction 



•••• Proposed Shoreline Trail 

PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



Mission Say 
Green 



Pu&fic Boat 
Launch Ramp 



Central Basin 
{ Agus Vista Pari 



f'Brm Wst®r Cove 




Islals Creek 
Channel 



Proposed CcsstaS Trsll 



India Basin 



■T- -1- -r 

.i. 4- 




- - Csndlestlck Poln 




1.3.36 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #1341 1 



Recreation and Open Space Element 



Map 8 

EASTERN SHORELINE PLAN 



SHORELINE ZONE 



All New Development Subject 
To Shoreline Guidelines 



PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Maintain and Improve the Quality of 
Existing Shoreline Open Space and 
Recreation 

PROPOSED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 

Provide New Open Space Along 
the Shoreline 

® Provide New Open Space in 
the General Vicinity 

mmmam Port Jurisdiction 



PROPOSED RECREATION TRAILS 
w Hikii^ and Bicycle 

Hiking 
• • • Bicycle 

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



China Basin 
Channel Parks 



MIeclon Bay 
^ J Green 



Public Boot 
Leunch Ramp 



Centraf Basin 
( Agua Vista Park] 




proposes Coafttai Trai 
inoi final aii^nmer.t.^ 



Proposed 
Bay 
Trail 



■r-" Candlestick Point 
~ State Recreetion 
Area 



TO SAN MATEO COUNTY 



I 



L3.36 

Proposed Amendment 10/1/92 
As Amended by CPC Res. #13411 



Case No.93.159M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open 
Space Element of the Master Plan adding 
four sites to the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Maps 
4, and one site in Map 8. 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13506 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission adopt and maintain, including necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may over time become obsolete; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan by Resolution No. 11067 on July 9, 1987; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan, by Resolution No. 13149 on August 15, 1991 to add Citywide 
Policy #13, which states "Preserve and protect significant Natural Areas," and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adopting Resolution No. 13411 on October 1, 1992, to add and 
revise policies on regional recreational trails; and 

WHEREAS, The electorate of San Francisco in November 1988 revised Charter Section 
6.413 establishing the San Francisco Park and Open Space Fund to acquire and develop 
additional public open space, as well as to renovate and maintain it; and 

WHEREAS, Since 1987 many of the sites proposed to be acquired as open space in 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" and Map 8, the "Eastem Shoreline 
Plan," have been or are in the process of being acquired to serve the needs of San Francisco 
residents; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.93.159M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open 
Space Element of the Master Plan adding 
four sites to the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Puljlic Open Space" in Maps 4 
and one site in Map 8. 
Resolution 13506 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, as part of the Case No. 93.148R, the 1993-1994 San Francisco Park and 
Open Space Program, four sites are proposed for acquisition as public open space that were 
not identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element as "Proposed Public Open Space"; 
and 

WHEREAS, There is significant neighborhood support for acquisition of the sites, and 
there may be a good opportunity to acquire the sites because most of the property owners 
appear willing to sell the properties to the City for open space use; and 

WHEREAS, the sites, contained in EXHIBIT A and listed below, are proposed to be 
added to Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" to the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space": 

1. Bonview lots (Assessor's Block 5614, lots 47-50); 

2. Brewster/Franconia lot (Assessor's Block 5556, lot 56); 

3. Mullen/Peralta site (Assessor's Block 5538, lots 14, 15, 23, 28, and portions of 
undeveloped Mullen and Peralta Street rights-of-way); 

4. Evans/Hunters Point Boulevard Triangle (Assessor's Block 4646, lots 9-11); and 

WHEREAS, The Evans/Hunters Point Boulevard Triangle site, contained in EXHIBIT A, 
is in addition proposed to be added to Map 8, the "Eastern Shoreline Plan" to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or convert to Public Open Space"; and 

WHEREAS, Each of the sites proposed for acquisition is either very close to, or 
contiguous with existing parkland or public open space; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.93.159M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open 
Space Element of the Master Plan adding 
four sites to the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Maps 4 
and one site in Map 8. 
Resolution 13506 
Page 3 



WHEREAS, There is significant neighborhood support for acquisition of the sites, and 
there may be a good opportunity to acquire the sites because most of the property owners 
appear willing to sell the properties to the City for open space use; and 

WHEREAS, On balance, the proposed amendments are consistent with the eight priority 
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525 and 6.413, notice was duly given of a 
public hearing by the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an amendment to the 
Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, which hearing was held on April 1 5, 
1993; and 

WHEREAS, On April 15, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and 
considered testimony related to the proposed amendments; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission deems the proposed amendments to be appropriate and 
desires to adopt them as part of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the City Planning Commission, before 
acting on the proposed Master Plan amendment, does hereby certify that it has reviewed, 
considered, and approved the information contained in the Certificate of Determination of 
Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review, under General Rule Exclusion (State 
Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, 
adding the sites contained in Exhibit A to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire 
for or Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space 
Plan", and in addition adding the Evans/Hunters Point Boulevard Triangle site to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" in 
Map 8, the "Eastem Shoreline Plan." 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No.93.159M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open 
Space Element of the Master Plan adding 
four sites to the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Maps 4 
and one site in Map 8. 
Resolution 13506 
Page 4 



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That $40,000 in funding from The San Francisco 
Park and Open Space Program, 1993-1994," be used to fund the Department of City Planning 
to initiate an update of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan and the 
accompanying Programs Report. 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendment and shall certify a copy thereof 
to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on April 15, 1993. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: 



Commissioners Fung, Levine, Lowenberg, Prowler, Unobskey 



NOES: 



None 



ABSENT: 



Commissioners Boldridge, Smith 



ADOPTED 



April 15. 1993 



93.159M ROSE Amend CPC Resolution 
WP51\9315ROAM.DOC 



EXHIBIT A 



The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan Is proposed to be amended. 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" and Map 8, the "Eastem Shoreline 
Plan", would be amended, adding the following sites to the category "Proposed Public Open 
Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space." 



Proposed Acquisition Site Neighborhood Add Site to Map: 

1 . Bonview Lots Bernal Heights Map 4 

AB 5614, lots 47-50 



2. Brewster/Franconia (community garden) Bemal Heights Map 4 
AB 5556, lot 56 

3. Mulien/Peralta site Bemal Heights Map 4 
AB 5538, lots 14, 15, 23, 28, and 

portions of undeveloped Mullen and 
Peralta Street rights-of-way 

4. Evans/Hunters Point Blvd Triangle Bayview / Hunters Map 4, 
AB 4646, lots 9-1 1 Point Map 8 



Maps of four sites attached. 



Case No.93.159M 
G:\WP51\931 5R0AM.DOC 




Potrero - Precita Valley Afsa Map 

Proposed Amendment to Map 4, "CItywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" 



Adding: 

Proposed Pubfic Open Space 



North 



t 



Acquire For or Convert to Public Open Space 
Bonview Lots 
AB 5614. lots 47 '50 



Existing Public 
Open Space 



Potrero - Precita Valley Area Map 

Proposed Amendment to Map 4, "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" 



Adding: 

Proposed Public Open Space 



North I 




Acquire For or Convert to Public Open Space 1?^ 

A Mu lhn/Peralta 

4B 5538. lots 14,15,23,28, portion of 

Mullen and Perafta ro-w 
B Brewster/Franconia ^ 

AB 5556. lot 56 



m 



Existing Public 
Open Space 



Public R-O-W to 
be converted to 
open space 



4 



Proposed 
'X India Basin 
' Parle 




Hunters Point Area Map 

Proposed Amendment of Map 4, "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" 
and Amendment of Map 8, "Eastem Shoreline Plan" 



Adding: 

Proposed Public Open Space 



Acquire For or Convert to Public Open Space 

Evans/Hunters Point Triangle 
AB 4646 Jots 9-11 



North 

Existing Public 
Open Space 
India Basin 



Case No.94.118M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, 
Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" in 
Map 4, the Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan." 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13676 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission adopt and maintain, including necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may overtime become obsolete; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan by Resolution No. 11 067 on July 9, 1987; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan, by Resolution No. 13149 on August 15, 1991 to add Citywide 
Policy #13, which states "Preserve and protect significant Natural Areas," and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adopting Resolution No. 13411 on October 1, 1992, to add and 
revise policies on regional recreational trails; and 

WHEREAS, The electorate of San Francisco in November 1988 revised Charter Section 
6.413 establishing the San Francisco Park and Open Space Fund to acquire and develop 
additional public open space, as well as to renovate and maintain it; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.94.1 1 8M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, 
Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" in 
Map 4, the Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan." 
Resolution No. 13676 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, Since 1987 many of the sites proposed to be acquired as open space in 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" have been or are in the process of 
being acquired to serve the needs of San Francisco residents; and 

WHEREAS, as part of the Case No. 93.1 17R, the 1994-1995 San Francisco Park and 
Open Space Program, three sites are proposed for acquisition as ;Dublic open space that are 
not designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element as proposed public open space by 
either policy or map; and 

WHEREAS, the sites, contained in EXHIBIT A and listed below, are proposed to be 
added to Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" to the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space": 

(a) Brooks Park-adjacent property, acquisition through long-temn lease of Assessor's 
Block 7073, lot 50, Assessor's Block 7074, lot 49, Assessor's Block 7075, lot 56; 

(b) Brooks Park-adjacent property, Assessor's Block 7075, lots 34, 35, 36; 

(c) Lessing/Sears lot. Assessor's Block 71 60, lot 1 ; and 

WHEREAS, There is significant neighborhood support for acquisition of the sites; and 

WHEREAS, Each of the sites proposed for acquisition is contiguous with an existing 
public park; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.94.118M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, 
Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" in 
Map 4, the Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan." 
Resolution No. 13676 
Page 3 



WHEREAS, On balance, the proposed amendments are consistent with the eight priority 
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525 and 6.413, notice was d'lly given of a 
public hearing by the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an am^^ndment to the 
Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, which hearing was hi Id on April 28, 
1994; and 

WHEREAS, On April 28, 1994, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and 
considered testimony related to the proposed amendments; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission deems the proposed amendments to be appropriate and 
desires to adopt them as part of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission, before 
acting on the proposed Master Plan amendment, does hereby certify that it has reviewed, 
considered, and approved the information contained in the Certificate of Detemnination of 
Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review, under General Rule Exclusion (State 
Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, 
adding the sites contained in Exhibit A to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire 
for or Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space 
Plan", 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.94.118M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, 
Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" in 
Map 4, the Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan." 
Resolution 13676 
Page 4 



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendment and shall certify a copy thereof 
to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on April 28, 1994. 

Linda Avery 
Secretary 

AYES: Commissioners Fung, Lowenberg, Martin, Prowler, Levine 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: Commissioner Unobskey 

ADOPTED: April 28, 1994 



93.1 59M ROSE Amend CPC Resolution 
WP51\9315ROAM.DOC 



Attachment A 



Map showing location of the three sites proposed to be added to the Recreation and Open 
Space Element Map 4 in the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert 

to Public Open Space 



EXHIBIT A 



The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Ran is proposed to be amended. 
Map 4. the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan," would be amended, adding the 
following sites to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public 
Open Space." 



Proposed Acquisition Site Neighborhood Add Site 

to Map: 

1. Brooks Park - Adjacent OMI Map 4 • 
Acquisition through long-term 

lease of SFUSD property, AS 7073, 
lot 50. AB 7074, lot 49, AB 7075, 
lot 56 

[The property is 2.03 acres in size] 

2. Brooks Park - Adjacent OMI Map 4 
Acquisition of 3 lots, AB 7075, 

lots 34, 35, 36 

[The lots are each 25' X 100', 
7,500 square feet total] 

3. Lessing/Sears lot Excelcior District Map 4 
Acquisition of AB 7160, lot 1 

Maps of sites are attached. 



Case No.94.118M 
G:\WP5 1 \94 1 1 8MAM.DOC 



EXHIBIT A 




Merced Heights Area Map 

Proposed Amendment of Map 4, 'Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" 



Adding: 

Proposed Public Open Space 



North 



t 




Acquire For or Convert to Public Open Space 
- Brooks Par k Adjacent 
AB 7073 lot 50 

7074 lot 49 

7075 lot 56 
AB 8075 lots 34, 35. 36 
Privately owned lots to provide access 
to Vernon Street. 



Existing Public 
Open Space 
(Brooks Park) 



AJemany Area Map 

Proposed Amendment to Map 4, 'Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan' 
Adding: 

P^-cposed Public Open Space 




Q Acquire For or Convert to 
, Public Open Space 
Lessing - Sears Lot Assessor's 
Block 7160. lot 1 



Existing Open Space 



Case No. 95.1 20M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to and deleting one lot from the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" In Map 4, the 
"CItywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13868 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission adopt and maintain. Including necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may over time become obsolete; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan by Resolution No. 11067 on July 9, 1987; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan, by Resolution No. 13149 on August 15, 1.991 to add CItywide 
Policy #13, which states "Preserve and protect significant Natural Areas," and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adopting Resolution No. 13411 on October 1, 1992, to add and 
revise policies on regional recreational trails; and 

WHEREAS, The electorate of San Francisco in November 1988 revised Charter Section 
6.413 establishing the San Francisco Park and Open Space Fund to acquire and develop 
additional public open space, as well as to renovate and maintain it; and 



95120M.Res 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 94.1 20M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to and deleting one lot from the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 



Resolution No. 13868 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, Since 1987 many of the sites proposed to be acquired as open space in 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" have been or are in the process of 
being acquired to sen/e the needs of San Francisco residents; and 

WHEREAS, as part of the Case No. 95.1 20R, the 1995-1996 San Francisco Park and 
Open Space Program, three sites are proposed for acquisition as public open space that are 
not designated In the Recreation and Open Space Element as proposed public open space by 
either policy or map; and 

WHEREAS, one lot proposed for acquisition in the 1994-1995 San Francisco Park and 
Open Space Program has been removed from further consideration for acquisition [though 
adjacent properties are proposed for acquisition] as public open space in Case No. 95.1 20R, 
the 1995-1996 San Francisco Park and Open Space Program; and 

WHEREAS, the following sites, contained in EXHIBIT A and listed below, are proposed 
to be added to Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space": 

(a) Brooks Park-adjacent property, acquisition of Assessor's Block 7075, lots 32, 33; 

(b) Tenderloin Pre-School Park Site, northeast corner of Turk & Hyde Street, 
AB 337, lot 21; 

(c) Replacement site for Sharon Arts Center, to be located 16th and Dolores Street, 
AB 3556, lot 25; 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 94.1 20M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to and deleting one lot from the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 



Resolution No. 13868 
Page 3 



WHEREAS, the site contained in EXHIBIT A and listed below is proposed to be deleted 
from Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan," in the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space": 

(d) Brooks Park-adjacent property, Assessor's Block 7075, lot 36; and 

WHEREAS, There is significant neighborhood agreement on disposition of the sites; 

and 

WHEREAS, The sites proposed for acquisition would enlarge an existing public park, 
provide a much-needed amenity in a "High Need" area, or would replace an existing 
undersized recreation facility; and 

WHEREAS, On balance, the proposed amendments are consistent with the eight priority 
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525 and 6.413, notice was duly given of a 
public hearing by the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an amendment to the 
Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, which hearing was held on May 4, 
1995; and 

WHEREAS, On May 4, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and 
considered testimony related to the proposed amendments; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission deems the proposed amendments to be appropriate and 
desires to adopt them as part of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan; 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 95.i20M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to and deleting one lot from the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 

Resolution No. 13868 
Page 4 



NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission, before 
acting on the proposed Master Plan amendment, does hereby certify that it has reviewed, 
considered, and approved the information contained in the Certificate of Determination of 
Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review, under General Rule Exclusion (State 
Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, 
adding the following three sites (a-c) to and deleting one lot (d) from the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the "Citywide 
Recreation and Open Space Plan;" 

(a) add Brooks Park-adjacent property, acquisition of Assessor's Block 7075, lots 32, 
33; 

(b) add Tenderloin Pre-School Park Site, northeast corner of Turk & Hyde Street, 
AB 337, lot 21; 

(c) add a replacement site for Sharon Arts Center, to be located 16th and Dolores 
Street, AB 3556, lot 25; 

(d) delete Brooks Park-adjacent property. Assessor's Block 7075, lot 36; and 



95120M.Res 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 94.1 20M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding three sites 
to and deleting one lot from the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 

Resolution 13868 
Page 5 



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendment and shall certify a copy thereof 
to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on May 4, 1 995. 

Linda Avery 
Secretary 

AYES: Commissioners Boomer, Fung, Levine, Lowenberg, Prowler, Unobskey 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: Commissioner Martin 

ADOPTED: May 4, 1995 



95.120M.RES 



Exhibit A 



Map showing (a-c) the location of the three sites proposed to be added to, and (d) the location 
of one lot proposed to be deleted from the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire 
for or Convert to Public Open Space," in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space 
Plan," of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan. 

Sites Proposed to be added to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for 
or Convert to Public Open Space," in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space 
Plan." 

1 a. Brooks Park-adjacent property, acquisition of Assessor's Block 7075, lots 32, 33 

2. Tenderloin Pre-School Park Site, northeast corner of Turk & Hyde Street, AB 337, 
lot 21 

3. Replacement site for Sharon Arts Center, 1 6th and Dolores Street, AB 3556, lot 25 



Lot proposed to be deleted from the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire 
for or Convert to Public Open Space," in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan." 

1 b. Brooks Park-adjacent property, Assessor's Block 7075, lot 36 



San Francisco Planning Department 

Exhibit A Master Plan Amendment 

Sites proposed to be added to and deleted from Map 4, 
The "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" 




1 . Brooks Park Adjacent Property 3. Replacement site for Sharon Arts Center 

a. Dedesignate AB 7075, lot 36 ab 3555^ lot 25 

b. Designate AB 7075Jots 32, 33 

2. Tenderloin Pre-schoo! Pork Site 
AB 337, lot 21 



G Drive Parkadd.wor 



San Francisco Planning Department 

Proposed Acquisition Site 
Brodlcs Parle Extension 




11 



G Drive Parkadd.wor 



San Francisco Planning Department 



Brooks Park Extension 

Dedesignate AB 7075, lot 36 
Designate AB 7075, lots 32, 33 





Bro6ks| Park 
&I E^^terision 



Acquire 
AB 7075 
lots 3^33 
(34-35 prev: 
years) 



;nt ST 




Lease /Purchase 
AB 7073, ^^ot 50 
AB 7074, 1 lot 49 
A^ 7075, jZot 56 
(previous year) 



SFUSD 



Redesignate 
AB 7075 
lot 36 




G Drive Parkadd.wor 



San Francisco Planning Department 



Tenderloin Park Preschool Site 




G Drive Parkadd.wor 



San Francisco Planning Department 
I 

Replacement site for Sharon Arts Center 




G Drive Parkadd.wor 



< 



Case No. 94.611 M 
Adoption of Amendments to the 
Transportation Element and Other 
Elements and Area Plans of the 
Master Plan. 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13907 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission ( hereinafter "Commission") adopt and maintain, including necessary changes 
therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may over time become obsolete; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission adopted the Transportation Element of the Master Plan by 
Resolution No. 9434 on June 24, 1982; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission has since amended the Transportation Element of the Master 
Plan to reflect the objectives and policies of new and revised Master Plan Elements such as 
the Downtown Plan, the Waterfront Transportation Projects, and most recently, the Mission 
Bay Plan (Resolution No. 12040 on September 27, 1990); and 

WHEREAS, There have been significant changes in transportation policies and legislation on 
a local, regional, state and national level since the Transportation Element of the Master Plan 
was last amended; and 

WHEREAS, There have also been changes in the city's transportation system and facilities, 
particularly in the aftermath of the Loma Prieta earthquake, since the Transportation Element 
has last been amended; and 

WHEREAS, These changes in the technology, need, evaluation and funding of transportation 
projects must be addressed in order for the Transportation Element to continue being relevant 
and appropriate in guiding the changes and development of land use in San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, New sections have been proposed for addition to the Transportation Element 
that promote planning in a broader, more regional context, encourage cooperation between 
employers, commuters and city agencies in addressing transportation deficiencies, seek to 
optimize transportation performance through new evaluation methods that consider movement 
of people rather than vehicles and through more efficient management of transportation 
systems, and promote the balanced and viable movement of freight and goods in the urban 
environment; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 94.61 1 M 

Adoption of Amendments to the 
Transportation Element and Other 
Elements and Area Plans of the 
Master Plan. 
Resolution No. 13907 
Page 2 

WHEREAS, Fundamental components of the Transportation Element, including the "Transit 
First" Policy, the promotion of local and regional coordination in transportation planning and 
the management of congestion and parking supply have helped the City and County of San 
Francisco achieve significant transit ridership and clean air targets and are maintained and 
emphasized in the proposed Transportation Element; and 

WHEREAS, The consultation and participation of over 35 city, county, regional, state and 
federal transportation agencies, departments and commissions, other city departments, 
transportation advocacy groups, community groups and interested citizens contributed to the 
development of the draft Transportation Element For Citizens' Review published on November 
16, 1994; and 

WHEREAS, On December 8, 1994, the Commission held a public hearing on the draft 
Transportation Element For Citizens' Review and considered testimony related to the 
proposed amendments; and 

WHEREAS, The draft Transportation Element has been presented to numerous other City 
Commissions, agencies, transportation advocacy groups and community groups, including the 
Parking and Traffic Commission, the Public Transportation Commission, the San Francisco 
Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), the Bicycle Advisory Committee, the 
Traffic Safety Coalition, the Central Freeway Citizens' Task Force and the Barbary Coast 
Trails Committee between December 1994 and April 1995; and 

WHEREAS, Many comments and suggestions for additional revisions to the draft 
Transportation Element by Planning Commissioners, members of other City Commissions and 
Department staff, transportation advocates and agencies, community groups and citizens have 
been incorporated in the document between December 1994 and May 1995; and 

WHEREAS, To establish consistency with the objectives and policies of the proposed 
Transportation Element, revisions and amendments are proposed to portions of the Downtown 
Plan, Rincon Hill Plan, Northeast Waterfront Plan, Central Waterfront Plan and Van Ness 
Plan, deleting obsolete references to transportation systems that no longer exist, including the 
Embarcadero Freeway, the Beltline Freight Railroad, deleting references to the concepts of 
"intercept parking" that are replaced with policies in the proposed Transportation Element 
promoting a more regional approach to intercept parking and policies in other Area Plans and 
Elements of the Master Plan promoting other land uses in the areas previously designated as 
intercept parking, and including text that expands the proposed network of ferry transit, among 
other amendments as proposed in the May 16, 1995 document titled "Amendments to Other 
Elements and Area Plans of the Master Plan in Consistency with the Proposed Transportation 
Element;" and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 94.61 IM 

Adoption of Amendments to the 
Transportation Element and Other 
Elements and Area Plans of the 
Master Plan. 
Resolution No. 13907 
Page 3 

WHEREAS, A set of errata sheets has been prepared to correct typographical errors, 
contribution credits and to clarify specific wording without modifying the intent or substance of 
the content of the draft Transportation Element, its maps, objectives or policies and is 
proposed for incorporation into the draft Transportation Element; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed amendments to the Transportation Element, to other Elements and 
Area Plans of the Master Plan, and the Implementation Program advance and are consistent 
with the Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 101.1 in that they: 

would not adversely affect existing neighborhood-serving retail uses and future opportunities 
for resident employment in, and ownership of, such business (Priority Policy 1); 

would not adversely affect the conservation and preservation of existing housing and 
neighborhood character (Priority Policy 2); 

would not adversely affect the preservation and enhancement of the City's supply of affordable 

housing (Priority Policy 3); 

would establish objectives, policies and guidelines that facilitate Muni services and reduce the 
demand for neighborhood parking (Priority Policy 4); 

would not adversely affect the industrial or service sectors or future opportunities for resident 
employment or ownership in these sectors (Priority Policy 5); 

would, with the promotion of an emergency circulation plan, contribute to preparedness 
against injury and loss of life in an earthquake (Priority Policy 6); 

would not adversely affect the preservation of landmarks and historic buildings (Priority Policy 

and would not adversely affect protection of vistas and sunlight to parks and open space 
(Priority Policy 8); 

WHEREAS, The Office of Environmental Review of the Planning Department of the City and 
County of San Francisco has evaluated the draft Transportation Element, including the draft 
Implementation Program and the Amendments to Other Elements and Area Plans of the ■ 
Master Plan, as a project for its possible environmental effects and has determined with a 
Negative Declaration published on May 19, 1995 that the project could not have a significant 
effect on the environment; and 



WHEREAS, Two appeals of the Negative Declaration were filed on or before June 8, 1995; 
and were heard by the City Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 6, 1 995; 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 94.611 M 

Adoption of Amendments to the 

Transportation Element and Other 

Elements and Area Plans of the 

Master Plan. 

Resolution No. 13907 

Page 4 



NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Planning Commission, before acting on the 
proposed Master Plan amendment, does hereby deny the two appeals to the Negative 
Declaration and does certify that it has reviewed, considered, and approved the information 
contained in the Negative Declaration; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the 
Transportation Element of the Master Plan (Exhibit 1 ) with the intent of incorporating the 
corrections proposed in the Errata/Addenda sheets (Exhibit 2), the Amendments to Other 
Elements and Area Plans of the Master Plan (Exhibit 3) and the Implementation Program for 
the Transportation Element (Exhibit 4); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record the 
action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendments and shall certify a copy thereof to 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on July 6, 1995. 




AYES: 



Commissioners Boomer, Fung, Levine, Lowenberg, Martin, Prowler, 
Unobskey 



NOES: 



none 



ABSENT: 



none 



ADOPTED: 



July 6. 1995 



TRANSPORTATION 




TRANSPORTATION 



AN ELEMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF THE 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



Planning Department of the City and County of San Francisco 

July 1995 



( 



IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 

FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN 
OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



Planning Department of the City and County of San Francisco 

May 1995 



I 





(415) 558-6378 



PLANfNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION CURRENT PLANNING/ZONING LONG RANGE PLANNING 
FAX: 558-6409 FAX 558-M26 FAX 558-6409 FAX 558-6426 



June 28, 1995 



AMENDMENTS TO OTHER ELEMENTS AND AREA PLANS OF THE MASTER PLAN 



S trikeout indicates proposed deletion of language, and underline indicates proposed addition 
of language. Quotation marks are used to indicate the beginning and ending of an excerpt 
from an Area Plan or Element of the Master Plan proposed for Amendment. Other proposed 
amendments are called out in text without quotations. 



DOWNTOWN PLAN: Moving About Section 

Objective 17, Policy 7: 

"Continue ferries and other forms of water-based transportation as an alternative method of 
transit between San Francisco and the north ba v other communities along the Bay, and 
between points along the waterfront within San Francisco. " 

Map 6, "Transportation Plan", page II. 1.43 

This map was originally included in the Downtown Plan to supplant the Transportation 
Element's own set of maps when it came to the Downtown area, and contains some 
discrepancies with the proposed Vehicle Circulation, Transit Preferential Streets, Rail Transit 
and Downtown Short-Term Parking Belt Plans. Now that the transportation policies and maps 
for the downtown area are placed back into the Transportation Element, there is no need for 
having this map in the Downtown Plan, and it is proposed to be deleted. 

Pedestrians (Objective 22) 

There is no inconsistency between the Pedestrian section of "Moving About" and the 
Transportation Element, so there is no need to replace any policy or objective. However, the 
Downtown Pedestrian Plan is currently being revised as an amendment to the Downtown Plan 
" and even while there are differences between this Plan and the old Pedestrian section, they 
are both consistent with the Transportation Element. 

INTERCEPT PARKING is deleted from the objectives, policies and maps of the Area Plans 
below because the concept is now replaced in the proposed Transportation Element with other 
policies recognizing that once cars have crossed the bottlenecks of the bridges and jammed 
freeways leading to the city, they are contributing to the traffic and air quality problem and, 
being so close to their destinations, are unlikely to stop at an intercept parking lot and use 
transit to complete the trip. The intercept parking concept is replaced in the Transportation 
Element by the Remote Parking Plan in the Regional Plan that encourages long-distance 
drivers to take transit from outlying transit terminals, and by other policies in the Master Plan 
that favor residential, light industrial and back-office land uses to ring downtown over parking. 



in Consistency with the Proposed Transportation Element 
City and County of San Francisco 



1 



CHINATOWN 



OBJECTIVE 7 
■POLICY 4 

Increase public short-term p arking opportunities; set rates to discourage long-term parking. 

Parking is extremely difficult to find in Chinatown. Provision of a new off-street short-term 
parking facility is a high priority. However, locating such a facility without displacement of 
residents or businesses is a problem. Other parking solutions include increasing the joint use 
of existing parking, expansion of metered spaces, increased enforcement to increase the 
turnover of on-street parking, and increased parking fees and improved transit service to 
reduce demand." 



RINCON HILL PLAN 

Remove references to "intercept parking" throughout: 
Page 11.3.2: 

"Public investments in the form of adjacent residential and waterfront amenities as part of the 
South Beach-Rincon Point redevelopment project and potential oonotruction of i ntoroopt 
parking facilitioo as part of the I 2 8 0 roprogramming of highway funding will provide an added 
stimulus." 

OBJECTIVE 20 (Page 11.3.12): 

— Creation of rooroation facil i tioo on tho roofo of intoroopt parking garagoo on B oalo and 
Ma i n Strooto should thoy bo oonstruotod. 

56. Creation of a pedestrian..." 

Map 5 on Page 11.3.13: Delete shaded areas and "5" indicating intercept parking, replace "6" 
on map with "5." Delete line 5 in text beneath map: " 6. Rooroation Faoilit i os On Rooftopo Of 
Potontial I ntorcopt Parking Structuroo ", replace "6" with 5. 

OBJECTIVE 25 

■TO ENCOURAGE CREATION OF INTERCEPT AND JOINT USE OF PARKING 
STRUCTURES." 

OBJECTIVE 26 (under "Parking"): 

' Intoroopt Commuter Parking: Thoso portiono of two blooko bounded by tho Bridge on tho 
couth, and by Fremont, B oa l o, Main and H arr i oon, inc l uding a l so those portiono i noido tho 
midrise residential district would be appropriate for parking facilities for downtown oommutoro 
because of their proximity to freeways and to projected trans i t along The Embaroadoro. 

The top levels of intercept parking faoilitios that would otherwise bo exposed should bo 
covered w i th a roof to be used for recreation and open space purposes and/or should bo ' 
effectively soroenod from view from above with ouch dov i cos as boxod troos, l andscaped 
treHiseo, and docks. " 



2 



VAN NESS PLAN 
OBJECTIVE 9: 



■ POL I CY 7 

InvoDtigato foaoibil i ty of dovo l oping Gough Stroot from Bay Stroot ao a ono way ooupio with 
Franklin Stroot. 

POLICYJ78 

Require residential ..." 

(This plan is inconsistent with the Vehicle Circulation plan for Gough in the proposed 
Transportation Element that calls for maintaining its width and two-way function north of Pine.) 



NORTHEAST WATERFRONT PLAN 
OBJECTIVE 8 

' POLICY 0 Remove tho existing olovatod Embaroadoro Frocway. " 

OBJECTIVE 9 
POLICY 1 

'To the extent feasible, accommodate regional traffic movement inland from the Northeastern 
Waterfront area. Abandon the planned linking of I nterstate 2 8 0 with tho Embaroadoro 
Freeway. If a connection between I 2 8 0 and tho B ay Br i dge is mandated to accommodate the 
regiona l movement of traffic, i t shou l d be along an i n l and r i ght of way. " 

POLICY 5 

"Improve transit service to, and along, the Northeastern Waterfront. Establish a transit rail 
service in an exclusive right of way along the Embarcadero that would connect to numerous 
other transit lines , and to intercept parking fac i l i ties ." 

OBJECTIVE 10 
POLICY 13 

"Remove exposed surface parking from over wate r, from under the Embarcadero Freeway, 
and along the Embarcadero roadway to improve shoreline appearance and access to the 
Bay." 

OBJECTIVE 26 
"I ntoroopt Parking 

POLICY 1 — Deve l op intercept commute parking for 4 00 to 8 00 cars on part of Block 3 8 03 
under the stub end of Interstate 2 8 0 between Third, Berry, Fourth, and King 
Streets. " (No replacement) 



3 



NORTHEAST WATERFRONT PLAN 

continued: 

EMBARCADERO CORRIDOR 
OBJECTIVE 27 

TO IMPROVE THE EMBARCADERO CORRIDOR IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE 
MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS, AND TO ENHANCE PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND 
ALONG THE WATER . AND TO ELIM I NATE THE B LIGHT I NG I NFLUENCE OF THE 
ELEVATED FREEWAY S TRUCTURE . 

POLICIES 

Embaroadoro Frooway 

POLICY 1 

Romovo tho Embaroadoro Frooway from Intorotato 8 0 to Broadway, rotaining only tho buo 
rampo into tho Tranobay Torm i nal and tho Main Boalo off rampo. To provont tho 
Embaroadoro from bocoming a major regional traffic corridor and to froo major paroolo of land 
for moro offoctivo dovolopmont and inoroaood opon opaco, do not permit direct rampo into tho 
Embaroadoro roadway.modify i ng i tc imago ao a barr i er to tho waterfront. M i tigate its vioual 
bu l k by heavy plant i ng and mounding. Expand the vinoo which are growing on the freeway 
columns near tho Ferry Building, co that tho ctructuro io covered in groonory. Plant a denoo 
row of oycamoro and poplar treeo near the frooway to break up the maooive vioual effect. 
M i tigato no i oo i mpacts by apply i ng acouotical material to tho undoro i do of tho firot and cecond 
l ovolo and uoo double paned glaso between tho two levels in prob l em areao near the 
Agricu l tural Building, Ferry Building, and YMCA. Improve its appearance i n the most visually 
i mpaotod areas, particularly at Broadway, Market and Howard Streets. Remove parking under 
tho frooway to roduoo its physical i mpact and i mprove the pedestrian env i ronment. Program 
act i vities under tho structure on a oeaoona l basis to further modify i ts image ao a phyoical 
barrier to tho watorfront. ' 

- Froight Rail Lino 

POLICY 1 Ma i nta i n Belt l ino track north to Piers 30 and 32 if necessary for maritime 

act i vitioc. The Boltline track should share right of way with tho roadway 
travel lanes on K i ng Boulevard and Tho Embaroadoro. 

POLICY 2 Accommodate spur tracks to Piers 30 and 32 from tho relocated Bolt li ne i f 
nooossary to oon . 'O mar i time use. " 

(These were Amended by Resolution 11882 on 3/1/1990, but now they no longer apply 
because there is neither a Beltline Railway nor an Embarcadero Freeway) 



4 

I 



NORTHEAST WATERFRONT PLAN, continued: 
Still under Objective 27: 

"Transit 

POL I CY 4 Enourc oonvoniont podootrian oonncctiono botwoon tho intoroopt parking garages 
(on B locks 3767 and 3 8 03) and tho rail transit otopo. 

POLICY 45 If found to be feasible after further analysis, extend certain trolley and bus 
lines and the California Street Cable Car to the Ferry Building. Facilitate 
pedestrian movement from Justin Herman Plaza to the Ferry Building. 

POLICY 56 Prohibit heliports or STOL ports." 

Map 7: Parking Plan 
Page 11.7.41: 

Delete this Map. Parking is shown on Map 14 in proposed Transportation Element. 



CENTRAL WATERFRONT PLAN 

OBJECTIVE 7 IMPROVE THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE CENTRAL WATERFRONT. 

" POLICY 5 I mprove regional highway access by completing the proposed State Route 

230 (Hunter's Point Parkway) and tho proposed on ramp to I nterstate 2 8 0 
i mmodiatoly south of I sla i s Crook Channe l . 

POLICY §5 Provide adequate rail and truck access to all maritime piers." 

OBJECTIVE 8 IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CENTRAL 
WATERFRONT. 

" POLICY 6 

Dovolop a parking reservoir to servo downtown travelers on undorutilizod land north of China 
B asin Channel bonoath the stub end of Interstate 2 8 0. Prov i de frequent shuttle sorv i co from 
tho reservo i rs to downtown using trans i t, j i tnoys, or other means. 

POLICY 67 

Encourage new developments to provide pedestrian amenities and transit access 
improvements such as pedestrian resting areas, bus stop shelters, and transit information 
displays." 

(This deletion is consistent with the new policies on "intercept parking", with the removal of the 
1-280 structure east of 5th, and with the Mission Bay plan for development in this area.) 



5 



SOUTH OF MARKET 



OBJECTIVE 5 
■POLICY 6 

Construct in tho South of Market now long torm park i ng garages to oorvo tho downtown only 
as noedod to replace the loss of l ong term parking i n the downtown ooro. 
Emphasize short-temri parking over long-term parking in parking facilities that exist or are 
proposed for the South of Market. 

While the City maintains the policy of discouraging the addition of new long-term parking 
spaces in and around the downtown, it may b o nooossary and appropriate to replace lost 
commuter parking resources with short-term parking facilities in areas which are well served 
by transit to and from the downtown core. Again, these spaces should rop l aoo, not add to the 
long-term parking supply^ in order to prevent unacceptable congestion, and should be 
provided in garages, not lots. 

Land under the elevated freeways should be designated for parking use. In particular, whon 
noodod to roplaoo dioplacod park i ng, the city should encourage oonotruotion of a l ong torm 
park i ng aaraao short-term parking over long-term parkina under the elevated freeway in the 
area bounded by Third and Fourth Streets and Harrison and Bryant Streets." 

The respective aims of the Pedestrian Network on Map 7, p. 11.10.27 and the more elaborate 
pedestrian network in the new Transportation Element are mutually consistent: an internal, 
neighborhood-oriented pedestrian network and an overall, citywide network that connects 
neighborhoods. 



OTHER AREA PLANS AND ELEMENTS 

The area plans of Civic Center, Western Shoreline, South Bayshore, and all the broader 
Elements of the Master Plan, including Environmental Protection, Commerce and Industry, 
Residence, Open Space, were not found to contain any inconsistencies with the proposed 
Transportation Element. 



6 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 95.258M 

Amending the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
modifying the Downtown Pedestrian Network and incorporating the 
policies and objectives of the Downtown Streetscape Plan. 
Resolution No. 13909 
Page i 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13909 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission adopt and maintain, including necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted the Downtown Area Plan by Resolution No. 
10163 on November 29, 1984; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Downtown Area Plan by Resolution 
No. 11769 on October 12, 1989; and 

WHEREAS, The Planning Department has prepared objectives and policies reflecting the 
Downtown Streetscape Plan for inclusion in the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Downtown San Francisco encompasses a compact mix of activities, historical 
elements, and distinctive architecture that engenders a special excitement reflective of a world 
city; and 

WHEREAS, The compactness of the downtown core and the City's temperate climate make 
walking an ideal mode of transportation; and 

WHEREAS, Over ninety percent of the 13 million visitors to San Francisco each year walk 
through the Union Square area during their visit; and 

WHEREAS, Over a half a million people walk in downtown San Francisco every day; and 

WHEREAS, Walking is the most important travel mode in San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, The downtown pedestrian environment is increasingly hazardous, in disrepair, and 
cluttered with obstructions; and 

WHEREAS, The physical character of the City's sidewalks has a strong influence on the quality 
of San Francisco's image for residents and visitors alike; and 

WHEREAS, Master Plan policies state the following: 

a. Downtown Area Plan, Objective 22 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 95.258M 

Amending the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
modifying the Downtown Pedestrian Network and incorporating the 
policies and ot>jectives of the Downtown Streetscape Plan. 
Resolution No. 13909 
Page 2 



Improve the downtown pedestrian circulation system, especially within the core, to provide 
for efficient, comfortable, and safe movement. 

b. Downtown Area Plan, Objective 22, Policy 1 
Provide sufficient movement space. 

c. Downtown Area Plan, Objective 22, Policy 2 

Minimize obstructions to through pedestrian movement on sidewalks in the downtown 
core. 

d. Downtown Area Plan, Objective 22, Policy 3 
Ensure convenient and safe pedestrian crossings. 

e. Downtown Area Plan, Objective 22, Policy 4 

Create a pedestrian network in the downtown core that includes streets devoted to or 
primarily oriented to pedestrian use. 

f. Downtown Area Plan, Objective 22, Policy 5 
Improve the ambience of the pedestrian environment. 

g. Urban Design Element, Objective 1, Policy 5 

Emphasize the special nature of each district through distinctive landscaping and other 
features. 

h. Urban Design Element, Objective 1, Policy 6 

Make centers of activity more prominent through design of street features and by other 
means. 

i. Urban Design Element, Objective 1, Policy 7 

Recognize the natural boundaries of districts, and promote connections between districts. 

j. Urban Design Element, Objective 1, Policy 8 

Increase the visibility of major destination areas and other points for orientation. 

k. Urban Design Element, Objective 1, Policy 9 . 
Increase the clarity of routes for travelers. 

I. Transportation Element, Objective 7 

Provide safe and pleasant space for pedestrians. 

m. Transportation Element, Objective 7, Policy 1 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 95.258M 

Amending the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
modifying the Downtown Pedestrian Network and incorporating the 
policies and objectives of the Downtown Streetscape Plan. 
Resolution No. 13909 
Page 3 



Widen sidewalks where Intensive commercial, recreational, or institutional activity Is 
present and where residential densities are high. 

n. Transportation Element, Objective 7, Policy 2 

Retain streets not required for traffic for pedestrian circulation, open space use, and 
density controls. 

0. Transportation Element, Objective 7, Policy 4 

Partially or wholly close certain streets not required as traffic carriers for pedestrian use or 
open space. 

WHEREAS, To respond to these Master Plan objectives and policies and Improve the downtown 
pedestrian environment, the Planning Department has developed a Downtown Streetscape 
Plan, as one work Item under the Downtown Pedestrian Improvements Program funded by 
Transportation Sales Tax funds administered by the San Francisco County Transportation 
Authority; and 

WHEREAS, The Downtown Streetscape Plan emphasizes the Importance of the pedestrian 
environment and recognizes the impact that the character of the pedestrian environment can 
have on the City as a whole; and 

WHEREAS, The Downtown Streetscape Plan Identifies the streets In the Downtown Pedestrian 
Network; and 

WHEREAS, The Downtown Streetscape Plan Is guided by a pedestrian street typology system 
which classifies and establishes design standards for pedestrian streets; and 

WHEREAS, The Base Case Street design establishes minimum standards for all downtown 
sidewalks; and 

WHEREAS, The Second Level Street design establishes design standards for Beale, Bush, 
Fourth, Front, Geary, Kearny, New Montgomery, Post, Powell, Second, Steuart, Stockton, and 
Third Streets; and 

WHEREAS, The Special Level Street design establishes design standards for California, Grant, 
Mission, and Montgomery Streets and Maiden Lane; and 

WHEREAS, The Walkthrough Alley street design establishes minimum standards for Annie, 
Commercial, Ecker, Jessie, Leidesdorff, Minna, Natoma, Shaw, Stevenson, and Trinity Streets; 
and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 95.258M 

Amending the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
modifying the Downtown Pedestrian Network and incorporating the 
policies and objectives of the Downtown Streetscape Plan. 
Resolution No. 13909 
Page 4 



WHEREAS, The Destination Alley street design establishes minimum standards for Belden, 
Claude, Commercial, Campton, Hunt and St. George Streets; and 

WHEREAS, The Downtown Streetscape Plan outlines capital project designs for specific streets 
in the Union Square, Financial District, and South of Market areas and for downtown alleyways; 
and 

WHEREAS, The Downtown Streetscape Plan establishes standards for all streetscape elements 
including design, placement, and implementation; and 

WHEREAS, The Downtown Streetscape Plan contains policies for pedestrian safety, 
maintenance, and informational signage; and 

WHEREAS, The policies developed by the Downtown Streetscape Plan are proposed to be 
included in the Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Amendments to the Downtown Plan advance and are consistent with 
the Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 101 .1 in that it would not adversely affect 
existing neighborhood-serving retail uses and future opportunities for resident employment in, 
and ownership of, such business (Priority Policy 1); would not adversely affect the conservation 
and preservation of existing housing and neighborhood character (Priority Policy 2); would not 
adversely affect the preservation and enhancement of the City's supply of affordable housing 
(Priority Policy 3); would not adversely affect the industrial or service sectors or future 
opportunities for resident employment or ownership in these sectors (Priority Policy 5); would 
not adversely affect achieving the greatest possible preparedness against injury and loss of life 
in an earthquake (Priority Policy 6); and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Amendments to the Downtown Plan will foster pedestrian movement 
thereby reducing commuter traffic which impedes Muni transit services and reducing the 
demand for neighborhood parking (Priority Policy 4); and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Amendments to the Downtown Plan recognize existing Conservation 
Districts and historic streetscape elements, it will contribute to the preservation of landmarks and 
historic buildings (Priority Policy 7); and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Amendments to the Downtown Plan outline the components of the 
Downtown Pedestrian Network, a vital element in the Downtown Open Space System, thereby 
ensuring that our parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas are protected 
from development (Priority Policy 8); and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 95.258M 



Amending the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
modifying the Downtown Pedestrian Network and incorporating the 
policies and objectives of the Downtown Streetscape Plan. 
Resolution No. 13909 
Page 5 



WHEREAS, The proposed Amendments to the Downtown Plan are consistent with the Master 
Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525 and 6.413, notice was duly given of a public 
hearing by the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an amendment to the 
Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan, which hearing was held on July 13, 1995; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission deems the proposed amendments to be appropriate 
and desires to adopt them as part of the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission has certified that the Downtown Streetscape Plan is 
in compliance with the rules and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS an 
amendment to the Downtown Area Plan as identified in Exhibit A that incorporates and 
implements the objectives and policies of the Downtown Streetscape Plan; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Downtown Pedestrian Network map 
contained in Exhibit A supersedes Map 7, the "Proposed Pedestrian Network: Downtown 
District", the proposed Pedestrian Network Classification of Elements supersede the Pedestrian 
Network Classification of Elements in the Downtown Area Plan, and the proposed Pedestrian 
Improvement Standards and Guidelines upersede the Pedestrian Improvement Standards and 
Guidelines identified in Figure 5 of the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Fundamental Principles for the 
Downtown Pedestrian Network as identified in Exhibit A are added to the Pedestrians section of 
the Downtown Area Plan; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendment and shall certify a copy thereof to 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on July 13, 1995. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: 



Commissioners Boomer, Fung, Levine, Lowenberg, Martin, Prowler 



! 



CITY PUNNING COMMISSION Case No. 95.258M 

Amending the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
modifying the Downtown Pedestrian Network and incorporating the 
policies and objectives of the Downtown Streetscape Plan. 
Resolution No. 13909 
Page 6 



NOES: 

ABSENT: 

ADOPTED: 



none 
Unobskey 
July 13, 1995 



[DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN 

Adopted by Resolution No. 10163 on November 29, 1984. Amended by Resolution No. 11769 
on October 12, 1989.] 

Amending the Downtown Area Plan of the Master Plan to include the Downtown Pedestrian 
Network, Objectives and Policies, and Design Guidelines outlined in the Downtown Streetscape 
Plan. 

Note: Additions are underlined , deletions are in ((double parentheses)). 



Pedestrians 
OBJECTIVE 22 

IMPLEMENT A DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE PLAN TO IMPROVE THE DOWNTOWN 
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE CORE, TO PROVIDE FOR 
EFFICIENT, COMFORTABLE, AND SAFE MOVEMENT. 



POLICY 1 

Provide sufficient pedestrian movement space. 

As outlined in the Downtown Streetscape Plan, where pedestrian volumes compared to other 
transportation modes so warrant, additional pedestrian capacity should be taken from traffic or 
parking lanes. At other locations, where appropriate, arcades or building setbacks adjacent to an 
existing sidewalk should t>e developed. In areas of highest pedestrian volumes, more parallel, 
through-block pedestrianways should be provided if they can serve as convenient links among 
destinations without encouraging jaywalking. 



POLICY 2 

Through the development of streetscape standards and guidelines, minimize obstructions 
to through pedestrian movement on sidewalks in the downtown core. 

Many conveniences and amenities on downtown sidewalks would be easier to enjoy if properly 
located to avoid conflict with pedestrian movement. Criteria for location of newspaper vending 
machines, flower stands, and other facilities and amenities such as trees, should consider the need 
for adequate space for through movement. 



POLICY 3 

Ensure convenient and safe pedestrian crossings. 

As identified in the Downtown Streetscape Plan, where streets are designed for high volumes or 
relatively fast movement of vehicles, adequate provision should be made for safe and convenient 
pedestrian crossings. This is especially important where large numbers of pedestrians cross the 
street. These streets should have adequately-timed lights at intersections to allow safe crossings. 



Where large pedestrian volumes so warrant, similar provisions would be installed at midblock 
crosswalks. In locations where large numbers of vehicles and pedestrians coincide, grade 
separations might be necessary. 

Where large numbers of pedestrians cross the roadway outside the intersection or midblock 
crosswalk, the location of the crosswalk should be realigned to coincide with the desire line, or steps 
taken to prevent the pattem of jaywalking. 



POLICY 4 

Create a pedestrian network in the downtown core area that includes streets devoted to or 
primarily oriented to pedestrian use. 

Based on major pedestrian destinations and use generators, a pedestrian network should be 
developed to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Such a network should 
include closure of streets to private automobiles and/or trucks, at least during those hours when 
pedestrian volumes and demand are at critical levels. Such a network should also include plazas, 
arcades, and open spaces required in major new developments. Land uses adjacent to major links 
in the pedestrian network should be of interest and utility to pedestrians. 



POLICY 5 

Improve the ambience of the pedestrian environment. 

Attractive pavement, trees, containers with seasonal flowers, street lights, colorful banners and 
awnings should be added to the streets, as well as benches and small sitting areas where people 
can rest and watch the street life. 



POLICY 6 

Future decisions about street space, both In this plan and beyond, should give equal. If not 
greater, consideration to pedestrian needs. 

The competing transportation needs present a difficult challenge for the planning of the downtown 
street system. Pedestrians, transit, and vehicular traffic compete for a limited amount of space 
downtown. Streets like Montgomery. Bush. Stockton, and Sutter are all significant vehicular traffic 
streets that have high volumes of pedestrians too. Often improvements to help one mode detract 
from the other. Scramble crosswalks in which all traffic direct ions are stopped and "right turn on 
red" bans make intersections safer for pedestrians, but can ca use significant traffic congestion and 
transit delays. Similarly, sidewalk widenings that create more pedestrian space, can inhibit traffic 
movements such as curb tow-awav lanes. Indeed, the Downtown Streetscape Plan does suggest 
a number of improvements that would hinder vehicular movement while improving the pedestrian 
environment. There is a recognition, though, that some of the pedestrian improvements suggested 
in the Plan are dramatic solutions within the continuum of street design ideas. They are offered as 
ideal case solutions for pedestrian needs, and some may prove impossible due to vehicular traffic 
demands. Prior to implementation of any project, extensive study will fully weigh the benefit to 
pedestrians with the impacts on transit operations , traffic movement, and parking/freight loading. 



((Map 7: Proposed Pedestrian Network: Downtown District)) 
Map 7: Downtown Pedestrian Network 
((Figure 5: Pedestrian Improvement Standards and Guidelines)) 
Figure 5: Pedestrian Improvement Standards and Guidelines 



PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CLASSIFICATION OF ELEMENTS 



Certain streets, alleys, and other rights-of-way in the downtown core area exist where varying 
degrees of priority should be given to pedestrian use. They have been included in the network on 
the basis of the following considerations: high pedestrian volumes; existing small scale street 
spaces; existing pedestrian-oriented features and amenities (e.g. sitting areas, planters); and public 
acceptance as pedestrian space. 

({There are four types of pedestrian streets. Their characteristics are as follows: 



Exclusive Pedestrian Walkways 

(With/Without Cable Cars) 

• vehicles prohibited, (emergency vehicles excepted) 

• permanent change of use of pubic rights-of-way 

• paved-over roadway 

• landscape treatment 

• street furniture 

• food concessions, street vendors pennitted 
Part-Time Exclusive Pedestrian Streets 

• vehicles prohibited at certain hours to free street space for exclusive 
pedestrian use 

• adjacent land uses permitted to expand into the public rights-of-way (e.g. 
restaurants) 

• sidewalk paving and planting where appropriate 
Pedestrian/Service Streets 



• narrow rights-of-way mainly used as service access, not usually serving 
through-traffic 

• pedestrian treatment in pedestrian areas only, or in those portions of the 
vehicle right-of-way which are not needed for service 



Pedestrian-Oriented Vehicular Streets 



Vehicular streets on which design measures to improve mobility and render existing 
pedestrian space more pleasant and efficient include: 

• removal of pedestrian obstructions 

• relocation of newspaper vending boxes 

• consolidation of signs, stanchions, etc. 

• sidewalk widening/intersection bulbing 

• transportation management measures to reduce automobile traffic 

• special treatment of pedestrian crossing (e.g. brick crosswalks) 

• turning restrictions at intersections 

• relocation of transit stops 

• introduction of clear zones at street comers)) 



There are five types of pedestrian streets. Their characteristics are as follows: 



Base Case Streets: The minimum standard for all downtown sidewalks. The focus is to 

create safe and attractive pedestrian environments that reinforce 

district identity. Improvements to impro ve mobility and render 

existing pedestrian space more pleasant and efficient include: 

• removal of pedestrian obstructions 

• relocation of newspaper vending boxes 
•consolidation of signs, stanchions, etc. 
•sidewalk widening/intersection bulbing 
•transportation management measures to reduce automobile 
traffic 

•special trea tment of pedestrian crossing (e.g. brick 
Croggvyalk?) 

•turning restrictions at intersections 

•relocation of transit stops 

•introduction of clear zones at street corners 

Base Case street fumiture elements include: 
•strggt tree? 

•historic street lights 
•fixed newsracks 
•trashcans 

•standard sidewalk paving 

• informational signage 

Second Level Streets: These streets are important functional and, in some cases, symbolic 

pedestrian streets. The Second Level Streets. Beale. Bush, fourth. 
Front. Gean/. Kearnv. New Montgomerv. Post. Powell. Second. 
Steuart. Stockton, and Third are designated as significant pedestrian 
paths between important destinations. In addition to the Base Case 
street features, the generally wider sidewalks on Second Level 



streets n4'-15'^ on Second Level Streets facil itate more pedestrian 
amenities that mig ht include: 

•gtregt trggg with upiighting 
•sidewalk paving variation 
•benches 
•bicycle racks 
•sidewalk cafes 
•kiosks 

•sidewalk vendors 

Special Level Streets: These streets are focal-point, destination streets fo r the sub-districts 

thereby setting the tone and definition for the downtown pedestrian 
network. They are considered destination streets and would have 
corresponding wide sidewalks and street fumiture. Typical designs 
would include Base Case and Second Level improvements with 
additional elements such as unique paving treatments, flowerstands 
and other street fumiture. and sidewalk widenings. The five Special 
Level Streets. California. Grant. Maiden Lane. Mission, and 
Montgomery, are noteworthy for their citywide symbolic recognition, 
streetscape environment, and pedestrian function, and each merits 
a unique design treatment. As a rule, they should be centers of 
pedestrian amenities and activities with design treatments that do not 
appear elsewhere: 



•unique gtrggt?gapg 

•sidewalk toilets 
•decorative sidewalk paving 
•upper-level awnings 

•banner? 
•fi<?wer§tan(jg 



Walkthrough Alleys: An alley that provides a linkage between pedestrian destinations. 

These destinations are usually visually connected to the alley. 
Building frontages tend to have smaller, historic scale with some 
architectural detailing. There are some service facilities as well as 
pedestrian-serving retail uses. Design standards for the 
Walkthrough Alleys. Annie. Commercial. Ecker. Jessie. Leidesdorff. 
Minna. Natoma. Shaw. Stevenson, and Trinity, represent the 
minimum level of improvements for all pedestrian alleys and include: 

•removal of pedestrian obstructions 
•consolidation of signs, stanchions, etc. 

•ngwgracK re$trigti<?n$ 
•pedestrian-oriented lighting 
•traffic restrictions 

•(jgmpgter removal 

•regular steam cleaning 
•corner clear zones 



Streetscape elements w ould include: 



•network banners 

•street trees (space permitting) 
•informatio nal signage 
•decorative signs on buildings 
•selected sidewalk widening 

Destination Alleys: An alley that serves as an open space activity area generally located 

in close proximity to an area with considerable critical mass of 
pedestrian activity: most Destination Alleys are also Walkthrough 
Alleys. Building frontages tend to be small, pedestrian scale with 
unique historic and architectural detailing and significant glazing at 
street level creating a "front door" atm osphere. There are a variety 
of pedestrian-serving commercial uses, many of which are food 
seryices. The short length of the Destination Alley lends a sense of 
enclosure and distinctive "sense of place." In add ition to the base 
case elements of the Walkthrough Alleys, design elements for the 
Destination Alleys. Belden. Claude. Commercial. Campton. Hunt, and 
St. George, would include: 

•vehicle restrictions with either part-time or exclusive 
pedestrian use 

•adjacent land uses permitted to expand into the public 
rights-of-way 

•single surface decorative paving 

•distinctive entry gate 

•banners 

•outdoor cafes 

•vendors 

•trees and planters (spac e permitting) 



[ 



FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN NETWORK 

There are a number of general desig n policies that will improve pedestrian conditions throughout 
the downtown area. These policies include general principles as well as specific suggestions- 



Pedestrian Space Policies: 

•Maintain a strong presumption against reducing pedestrian space or eliminating crosswalks 
to accommodate automobile traffic at the expense of pedestrians. 

•Curb tow-awav lane approvals should consider pedestrian usage and level of service on 
fronting sidewalks. Curtj tow-away lanes can be dangerous for pedestrians and are strongly 
discouraged on any streets on which the peak hour pede strian level of service i s D or below. 

•Street furniture should be installed in the curb street furniture zone unless otherwise noted. 
The size of this zone varies as illustrated in the Sidewalk Zones diagram and is dependent 
on the width of the sidewalk. 

•Regardless of sidewalk width or streetscape elements, a minimum of six feet (6') must be left 
clear at all times for pedestrian through movement. Six feet is necessary to ensure a 
consistent clear passage and should be exceeded wherever possible. In an area with 
significant pedestrian volumes, and represents the f^lNIMUM width: for many sidewalks 
downtown, more than six feet mav be necessary. 

•Additional encroachments on a sidewalk are not per mitted if. combined wi th existing 
encroachments, the remaining sidewalk space is less than six feet (6'). 

•Regardless of sidewalk width, no sidewalk element is permitted if the placement of that 
element would cause the non-holiday peak pedestrian level of sen/ice to fall to level D. E. or 
F. 



Corner and Crosswalk Policies: 

•Ensure convenient and safe pedestrian crossings. Widen sidewalks at corners where 
possible to provide more pedestrian queuing space and shorter crosswalk distances. Widen 
the crosswalk space at intersections with Pedestrian LOS D or below. 

•Crosswalk signals should be timed to provide a walk cvcle which allow pedestrians a 
minimum of one sec ond of crossing time for even/ three a nd one-half feet (3.5') of the width 
of the street Walk signals sho uld be changed to cleariv indicate when it is safe to start 
crossing, and timed accordingly. Push buttons that slow moving pedestrians could push if 
they need additional crossing time should be Installed at dangerous or wide intersections, or 
in areas in which there is a high concentration of mobility-impaired pedestrians. 

•A ban on right turns during the red phase is strongly recommended for intersections with 
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. Pe nding study, other options might incl ude peak-hour bans or 



bans at specific locations 



•Pending study of potential traffic and transit con flicts, a ban on right turns during the red 
phase and/or Barnes Dance signal timings are recommended on Fourth and Third at Mission. 
Howard, and Folsom. at the Union Square corners, on Kearny at Sutter and Bush, and on 
Sansome at Bush. Barnes Dance crosswalk signal timing in which all four traffic directions 
are simultaneously stopped allowing all pedestrians to cross both diagonally and within the 
crosswalks should be continued on Montgomen/ Street. 

•The corner clear zone is the minimum amount of pedestrian queuing space at the comer and 
is required at every comer in the do wntown area. The clear zone extends a minimum of five 
feet (5') from the inside edge of the crosswalk and defines an area from the curb to the 
property line. Only items essential to vehicular and pedestrian safety and flow may remain 
within the clear zone. No other element may be placed within the clear zone including 
temporary elements. 

Existing elements in the clear zone including traffic control devices, fire pull boxes, fire 
hydrants, and other permanent fixtures not required in the clear zone should be removed to 
locations outside of the clear zone when repair or replacement of those items is required and 
as funds become available. Other items such as newsracks and newsstands should be 
moved immediately. 



Pedestrian Safety Policies: 

•Increase enforcement of driving and pedestrian laws, especially at dangerous intersections. 
Particular attention should be focused on red light violations and illegal turning movements. 
Traffic Control Officers or crossing guards should be provided for heavily trafficked and 
dangerous intersections: TCO's should have the authority to ticket motorists for moving 
violations. 

•Install pedestrian safety signage at dangerous intersections. Signage should be directed at 
both pedestrians and drivers and be accessible to all pedestrians. Such signage might also 
include braille signs on the crossing signal post. An example of successful safety signage 
directed towards both pedestrians and drivers was recently installed at the Fourth an d Howard 
intersection and should be considered at similar intersections. 

•Increase pedestrian awareness and education. 

•Encourage efforts to protect pedestrians from crime. Ensure an adequate distribution of 
emergency telephones and police call boxes Promote the installation of pedestrian-scale 
lighting on existing streetlights and on building s. 

•Recessed or dark and dangerous pedestrian building areas should be well lit, including 
ATM's and arcades. All permits for new or remodeled outside spaces downtown should 
require a lighting plan to promote pedestrian safety. 



•Target dangerous intersections for p edestrian safety improvements 



Fifth/Market: Safety signage for pedestrians an d vehicles. Right t^rp yielij fpr 

pedestrians signage. Increase enforcement of right turn ban. 

Fifth/Mission: Install yield (for pedestrians) sign for right-turning traffic at the 

Fifth/Mission pedestrian island. 

Fourth/Market: Widen west sidewalk on Fourth Street 

Market/Keamy/Geary: Safety signa ge for ped estrians and vehicles. 

Stockton/Sutter: Re move curbside exclusive right turn lane, extend sidewalk at corner. 

and enlarge pedestrian island. 

Kearnv/Sutter: Right turn on red ban: right turn yield to pedestrians signage. 
Union Square Corne rs: rebuild and enlarge pedestrian is lands: yield sign for right- 
turning traffic. 

Cvril Magnin/Ellis: Right turn on red ban: restricted bus movements. 

'Target dangerous streets for pedestrian safety improvements. 

Fourth (Market/Mission): Widen sidewalk. 

Third (Market/Mission): Install pedestrian safety signage. 

Montgomery (Post/S utter): Widen sidewalks. 

Mission (Fourth/Fifth): Install button-activated signal for mid-block crossing. 
Fremont (Market/Mission): Pedestrian safety signage. 



Sidewalk Obstacles: 

•Street signs on downtown sidewalks should be consolidated. Streetsigns on Golden Triangle 
streetlights are strongly discouraged and should be relocated. Double post parking signs are 
hazardous obstructions and should be replaced with signs on parking meter posts or with 
single post signs. Streetcleaning and no parking signs should be installed at 200' intervals 
or one per block: excess signs should be removed. 

•Single-head parking meters should be replaced with double-head meters. Parking meter 
alternatives should be explored including parking stations on each block that would dispense 
short-term parking validations to be placed on car dashboards thereby eliminating the need 
for individual parking meters. 

•Sidewalk elevators should only be ope n when in use. Advertising signage, whether 
temporary or permanent, attached to an open sidewalk elevator is prohibited. 

•No new sidewalk elevators, sub-sidewalk basements, or sub-sidewalk transformer vaults are 
permitted in the downtown area. 



Street Feature Policies: 

•Preserve existing historic features such as streetlights and encourage the incorporation of 
such historic elements in all public and private streetscape projects. 

•Conserve and promote in-ground street trees for all downtown sidewalks. 



•Preserve and promo te pedestrian-oriented building frontages on all downtown streets 
including all Walkthroug h and Destination Alleys. 



•Encourage the installation of building up-lighting for all architecturally significant buildings. 



Informational Signage: 

In order to improve pedestrian orientation and movement, a sig na ge system is recommended for 
the downtown area. The signage system should i ncorporate international sy mbols and languages 
and be accessible to all p edestrians. The signag e program would have six components: 

•A series of directional signs placed at intersections and transit stops will indicate the locations 
of key destinations such as museums, open spaces, and districts. The directional signs might 
be coded with graphic symbols for major destinations and indicate proximity and direction. 

•Informational and historical plaques at kev destinations would provide historical and other 
noteworthy information while also facilitating self-guided tours of significant sites in the 
downtown. 

•Directional markers placed in the sidewalk surface could be the basis for self-guided walking 
tours, as well as indicators of primary routes s uch as from the hotel district to Yerba Buena 
Center. 

•Maps, either free-standing or in the ground, placed at kev locations (especially transit stops) 
in the downtown area would help to orient visitors and highlight transit, open space, and other 
destinations. 

•Decorative brass street labels installed in the sidewalk at even/ comer downtown will clearly 
indicate street names to pedestrians. 

■Coordinated banners at alley destinations would highlight the alleys and visually connect 
them to the Downtown Pedestrian Network- 



Walking Tours: 

•In conjunction with the signage system, the deyelopment of self-guided walking tours is 
strongly encouraged. These walking tours might be oriented to historical points of interest, 
architecture, shopping, or tou rist destinations. 

Public Art: 

•Art in the public right-of-way is strongly encouraged throughout the downtown area. Art 
installations might range from sculptures, sidewalk inlays, and kiosk displays to performance 
art, dance pieces, and temoora ry installations. 



•Empty storefronts should be utilized for temporary a rt installations to enliven the streetscaoe. 



Building Setback Policies: 

•Arcades: Due to San Francisco's mild climate and wind conditions, arcades are not always 
appropriate. Their primary use downtown should be to pr ovide more sidewalk space, not as 
a protection against weather. Arcades might be appropriate on streets with pedestrian 
congestion problems such as Montgomery. Keamy. and T hird. In order to facilitate pedestrian 
movement, arcades are required for developments on any portion of Stevenson. Jessie. 
Minna. Natoma. Tehama, and Clementina east of Third Street. Existing arcades should be 
respected: arcades should preferably be the entire block in length. 

•Window Setbacks: Space to step out of the flow of pedestrian traffic to view window contents 
is encouraged downtown, especially on streets with significant pedestrian volumes. 

•Corner Setbacks: Pemiit added pedestrian space at block comers for pedestrian queuing, 
often in lieu of added sidewalk space. These setbacks are encouraged. 

•ATM Machines: Queuing for ATM machines can cause severe congestion the sidewalk- 
ATM machines should be not be located adjacent to tran sit stops unless queuin g space is 
provided outside of the public right-of-wav. Elsewhere. ATM machines should be in building 
setbacks, where possible, or on Base Case Streets without significant pedestrian volumes. 
All locations require appropriately designed and placed trash receptacles. 



Sunlight Access Policies: 

In addition to the sunlight protections for downtown sidewalks outlined in the Planning Code. Powell. 
Stockton. Grant. Kearny. Ellis (north side). O'Farrell (north sideV Geary (north sideV Post (north 
sideV Sutter (north side). Bush (north side Kearny/Montgomery). Front (Sacramento/ClavV New 
Montgomen/ (east side). Second (east sideV and Market (north side), additional sunlight access 
protection is recommended for Maiden Lane. Campton. Belden . Claude. St. George. C ommercial. 
Minna. Front (California/Sacramento). Sansome (Market/Bush). Steuart (Mission/Howard). Third, 
and Fourth. 



Vehicular Curb Cuts: 

•Parking Garage Entrances/Drivewavs: Vehicles crossing the sidewalk conflict with 
pedestrians. New driveways sho uld not be permitted on Special or Second Level streets, or 
on any Base Case street with significant pedestrian volumes. 



Typical Sidewalk Conditions: 



•Corner: The tvpical downtown corner should have five priman/ comoonents including a 



trashcan. traffic/pedest rian signal device, fire hydrant, newsracks (preferably fixedV and a 
clear zone indicator. The clear zone i ndicator is a band in the concrete scoring at the corner 
indicating the clear zone boundaries. 

•Transit Center/Bus Stop: Well-desi gned bus stops in the downtown can serve multiple 
functions providing services for transit users as well as for other pedestrians. Standard 
components should include a functional shelter with sitting space, an Information kiosk (either 
free-standing or included in the shelte r), trees (6' o.c. from the curbV and, space permitting. 
additional seating areas. If possible, bus stops should be accommodated with sidewalk 
widenings allowing the creation of open space "snippets" at bus waiting areas. Othenvise. the 
following diagrams illustrate typical stops on a standard 15' wide sidewalk downtown. 



Maintenance: 

•All streetscaoe improvement programs in the public and private sectors must include a 
capital improvement maintenance budget, and a plan for on-going upkeep. Maintenance is 
one of the most important factors in determining the quality of the downtown streetscape. 
Regular trash removal, sidewalk sweeping and steamcleaning. tree pruning, and graffiti 
removal are essential. 

•Propertv owners are responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk area fronting their 
property including, but not limited to. the condition of the sidewalk surface, pruning and 
upkeep of privately installed trees, graffiti removal, and cleanliness of street furniture. 

•Permittee must maintain in good condition, clean and free of graffiti, all privately installed 
streetscape elements as per the requirements of Section 174 of the Public Works Code. 

•Regular maintenance of public streetscape elements should be a priority for all responsible 
city agencies. Regular cleaning and graffiti removal is recommended and all elements in 
disrepair should be quickly replaced. 

•All street trees should be pnined and maintained by trained professionals. The Department 
of Public Works. Department of Street Cleaning and Urban Forestry, is only responsible for 
street trees approved for maintenance. All satreet trees should include some mechanism to 
facilitate regular irrigation. 

*A maintenance team that could perform maintenance duties throughout the course of the day 
would ensure a high quality downtown streetscape while also providing entry-level 
employment opportunities. Private funding of these teams is strongly encouraged. 

«As important, a public safety and information sen/ice would provide a greater level of comfort 
and security for visitors and residents. Simila r to programs in Philadelphia. Portland, and New 
York, public sen/ice "ambassadors" would answer questions and serve as adjuncts to regular 
police patrols in the downtown area- 



Figure 6: Proposed Downtown Pedestrian Network Improvements 



Downtown Area Plan 




0 400FT 

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK: DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 

Map 7 



Pedestrian/ Service Street 
Part Time Pedestrian Street 
Exclusive Pedestrian Walkway 
Pedestrian Oriented/ Vehicular Street 
Open Space 

(Existing. Planned, and Proposed) 
Arcade 

Provide Open Space In The General Vicinity 



IL1.47 




Special 



Level 



Base Case Street 



oeeofr Destination Alley 
Walkthrough Alley 



Map 7: PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 



PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



Downtown Are* Pltn 



POLICY 5 

Improve the ambience of the pedestrian envi- 
ronment 



Attractive pavement, trees, containers with seasonal 
flowexs, street limits, coloiful banners and awnings 
should be added to ttie streets, as weD as benches and 
small sitting areas where people can rest and watch the 
street life. 



PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CLASSIHCATION OF ELEMENTS 

Ceitain^keets, alleys, and odier rights-of-wiy in the downtown core area exitt iiiieR vaiying degrees of priority iS^md be given 
topedestna^use. Hiey have been incladed in the networic on dKbaaii of tbe following coDsiderations: faighped^nanvolames; 
existing sml^scale street spaces; existing pedestrian-oriented features and amenities (e.g. sitting areas, plovers); and public 
acceptance as p^estrian space. 

There are four type^of pedestrian streets. Their chaiacteristics are as follows: 

Exclusive Pe^|trian Walkways 

(With/Without <\ble Cars) 

vehicles prohibi^^ (emergency vehicles excepted) 
permanent change^^use of pubic rights-of-way 
paved-ovcr roadway 
landscape treatment 
street fiimiture 

food concessions, street ved^rs permitted 
Part-Time ExcIusItc Pedestrian S^|ts 

• vehicles prohibited at certain hours tokree street^^e for exclusive pedestrian use 

• adjacent land uses pennitted to expandl^o th^^blic ri^s-of-way (e.g. restaurants) 

• sidewall: paving and planting ^ere appr 

Pedestrlan/ScrHcc Streets 

• narrow rights-of-way mainly used MKrvice.acceWnot usually serving Ihrou^trafiBc 

• pedestrian treatment inpedestrian^reas only, or in tn^ portions of Ae vdiicle right-of-way wUdi are aot needed 
for service 

Pedestrian-Oriented Vd!ikala|^trccts 

Vehicular streets on which dngn measures to inqnove mobility and n^er existing pedestrian ^ce more peasant and 

efficient include: 

removal of pe^ ^ian obstroctiODS 
relocation o^ewspaper vending boxes 
consolidaUK of signs, stanchions, etc. 
sidewaJJ^Tidening^tersection bulbing 

tran^i^ation management measures to reduce automobile traffic 
spepR treatment of pedestrian crossing (e.g. brick crosswalks) 
restrictions at intersections 
location of transit stops 
'^introduction of clear zones at street comers 
tree planting 
street furniture 



n^i 




■street Trees 
■Historic Street Lights 
■Fixed Newsracks 
■Trashcans 
■Standard Sidewalk 
■Comer Clear Zone 



Typical Base Case Street Diagram 




■Street Trees w/uplighting 
■Historic Street Lights 
■Fixed Newsracks 
■Trashcans 
■Standard Sidewalk 
■Comer Clear Zone 



■Paving Variation 
■Benches 
■Bicycle Racks 
■Sidewalk Cafes 
■Kiosks 

■Sidewalk Vendors 



Typical Second Level Street Diagram 



PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CLASSIFICATION OF ELEMENTS 



PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 




Upper Level 
Awnings 

~^'''\^ Trees 

S Double 
""f bamere 

Sidewalk 
Cafes 



Historic 
Streetlights 



Street Level 
Awnings ^---,y' 



Flowerstands 




iStreet Trees w/uplighting 
iHistoric Street Lights 
I Fixed Newsracks 
iTrashcans 
■Standard Sidewalk 
iCorner Clear Zone 



■Benches 
■Bicycle Racks 
■Sidewalk Cafes 
■Kiosks 

■Sidewalk Vendors 



■Unique Streetscape 
■Sidewalk Toilets 
■Special Paving 
■Awnings 
■Banners 
■Flowerstands 



Typical Special Level Street Diagram 



Base 
Case 



The standard 3ase Case Street has a 10' sidewalk as an absolute minimum, although 12'- 
14' is preferable. The streetscape is intended to be the minimum standard for all downtown 
sidewalks as befitting the importance of these streets as part of the downtown urban 
fabric. 



Second 
Level 



The standard Second level Street desiqn conveys the importance of these streets and 
encourages both through movement and stationary activities, in addition to the 3ase 
Case features, the generally wider sidewalks (14'-15') on Second Level Streets facilitate 
more pedestrian amenities including benches on Front, historical accents on Second, and 
corner bulbing on Kearny 



Special 
Level 



The Special Streets are considered destination streets and would have corresponding 
wide sidewalks and street furniture. California, Grant, Maiden Lane, Mission, and Mont- 
gomery all have memorable, symbolic images that are important within the downtown and 
for the city as a whole. Typical designs would include 6>ase Case and Second Level improve- 
ments with additional elements such as unioiue paving treatments, flowerstands and other 
street furniture, and sidewalk widenings (to 13' to match existing sidewalk's on Grant and 
California). However^ since each street is distinctive, their designs should be distinctive 
too. Montgomery Street is a particular challenge since street furniture opportunities are 
limited due to the existing pedestrian congestion. Nonetheless, the importance of Mont- 
gomery as a pedestrian street should be recognized with some unioiue treatments such ae 
decorative paving, public art, and, eventually, sidewalk widening. 



PEDESTRIAN NETWORK CLASSIFICATION OF ELEMENTS 

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



The San Prancisco Master Plan 



PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



Figure 5 



PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 



To continue to in^rove and enhance Ae pedestrian 
environment, as well as provide nfBcieot pedestrian 
9yemenl and standing space, various standards Aoold 
bemed as guidelines in downtownplanning and develofv 
meii^^They ibould be incoiporated into the irview 
proces^^ proposed downtown developments as well as 
into planner street and sidewalk improvements. Tbese 
standards sw'c to guarantee ^ cosisideratioD of pedes- 
trian sa iety sac onvenience in decisioos affecting down- 
town developiwit. The following presents recom- 
mended standarc 



1. CLEAR ZOI 

To ease problems of crow Ac and to create more circu- 
lation and holding space for pedestrians at coiners, fire- 
pull boxes, pedestrian informn^ signage, pohce call 
boxes, mail boxes, mail storage ^Kes, newspaper vend- 
ing machines, and newspaper veno^booths, diould be 
placed outside the immediate cozne^ueas extending 
from the property lines, ("clear zones")^ shown on the 
diagram. At critical locations where stanomg in physical 
contact with others is unavoidable, queuiz^^in only be 
sustained for a short period without discoWort, and 
circulation is severely restricted, fee clear zone 9Buld 1 
extended five feet back from the property line 
crosswalks should be widened accordingly. Only 
essential to vehicular and pedestrian safety va^hi 
should remain within the clear zones. Fire^^drants^ 
street lights and other permanent fixtures Doj^qnind in 
the clear zone should be removed to locaU^s outside of 
the clear zone when repair or leplacemop^ those items 
is re quire d and as funds become availaVe. Others afaoold 
be relocated immediately. 



SIDEWALK-* 



BllLDING 



I*' 



COl 



♦BULBING" 



Where requi^ients for pedestrian reservoir ^>ace arc 
acute and ^Ke can be obtained from existing parking or 
through ^^fic lanes, coiner "bulbs'* should be created. 
Come^^bing serves to reduce pedestrian crossing 
dista^n, thus improving safety as well as providing 
td pedestrian movement and reservoir ^ace, coo- 
ently allowing for some channelization of vehicular 
iffic. Typically coiner bulbs extend down the face of a 



Mock for a minimimi of IS feet be t w e en cuib 
hoes. At bulbed comers, die dear zooe shall inct 
«oCire bulb. 

Clear zone stindanis must be iq^ld on bujj^d comen' 
in order sot to reduce si^ line visibility 

r «• 




WILDING 



POUBLBBULB 



STANDS 



Flower staj^s are recognized as a unique asset to the 
mban fBjprc of San Francisco, and as such are welcomed 
•dditig^to tisc streetscape. They add color and rich, 
detail to many comers in the CentnJ Business 
ict (CBD) and are pan of the street life of ttte city 
St helps give unban streets a pleasant luman face". 
'^Unfortunately, placement of flower vending stalls often 
constricts or intenupts pedestrian flow. To avoid this 
problem, flower stalls idiould be relocated, when pos- 
sible, to comer btilbs or to areas «iiere sidewalks have 
been widened. Where flower stands have been relocated, 
the size of the comer bulb shall be adjusted to accommo- 
date the stand. Tbese stands are the only n one s s en tial 
furniture allowed in die clear zooes and they iball be 
^ocated five feet back from die propeity lines at Ae 
eis. 

• 41 

H- 

STAND- 



8IDI 



BUILDING 




▼AMIES* 



MU^a PAmoN areas 



Where possible, tidewm^widtfas riiould be increased 
without sacrificing vehicu A^ffic movement. Particu- 
lariy where MUNI stops occulkui effort riionld be made 
to provide extra, sheltered leswoir space for MUNI 
patron queuing, distinct from non^ pedestrian flow. 
Limited bulbing riiould be used for I^^peci6c puipose. 
To foither distinguish MUNI pat^b areas from 
pedestrian flow corridors, MUNI patron ^^s should be 
uoifonnly paved with biick or other ip^tol paving 
materials such as Bomanite, interiocking cotK^e pav- 



n.1.48 



PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



Downtown Area Plan 



blocks, colored coocrete, ttunpcd c oD cret e, or gn- 
cally painted areas. Materials that aie attractive yet 
relaniely mainteaance-free are foggeited. Uoifbnn 
pavio^^d landscapiog for all MUNI itop* riioald be 
provided\D make ttopt readily identifiable by both 
MUNI patil^ and other pedeatriant. 

•usffror 



FALK 



5. PAVING MATEl 

Decorative pavement materials l^culd be provided 
where appropriate to enhance the pBjestrian enviroo- 
ment and delineate the patterns of vehi^^ traffic from 
the patterns of pedestrians at intenectioDsmowever. in 
order to efficiently Ttiaintiiin the pavemen^^ well as 
limit the cost of implementation and maintem^e, the 
number of material types to be used diould be keK. to a 
minimum. 



brtck 



mm 




Mockt 




TREES AND OTHER PLANTINGS 



Where sidewalk vaults and elevators do not^&st, trees 
should be planted in the ground, dius incrgping die ef> 
fective sidewalk width while preservingjR qualities of 
foliated urban streets. Where direct pl^Kn^ and planter 
reorganization have been impossible^^oeffectual, trees 
should be selectively eliminated f^n the street. This 
could be undertaken as a ttvapor^, "stop-gap" vohttioo 
until redevelopment or fundingwi be made available for 
removal of sidewalk vaults^ sidewalk widening to 
permit direct in-grouiKl plaJung. On sidewalks where 
trees are removed, flower» ornamental daubs in small, 
less obtrusive conxvairM might be located in building 
recesses or other loci 



a— 



ORNAMENTAL IN-GltOVND FLANTZNG 
PLOWEIUNG WHEKE SDEAIX 
flHRUM ^ULT8 OCCVR 



7. 



SPECIAL PAVING 



Ibe nae of special paving or special maildngs : 
walks identifies the crosswalk as a pedestris 
interfKe. Raised pavements at pedestrian cranogs, and 
warning texture acch as safety bon^ inKaffic lanes 
before crossings aitd bollards also cattfriKte by alerting 
both pedestriaiu and motorists to a|#caation as Ifaey 
enter these interface areas. Specialj^R^ing and/or colors 
at comer dear zones as well as rwMd textures at MUNI 
itops aiKl coiners are added unonary devices for all 
pedestrians, and textures aryof fecial importance to 
visually impaired pedestriw. Special pavement treat- 
ments dioold not beconwafety hazards to pedestrians, 
bicycUsU, or motorcyc^s when wet and slippery. 



arCCUL PAVING 
HANDK 



PPED 



CROSSWALK ^niAFnc 

^ ^■UTTONS 



.TEXTURE 




•TRAFFIC 
LANE 



SIDEWALK ELEVATORS 

sre sidewalk elevators exist there is mavoidable 
Temporary pedestrian inconvenience. Unsisanut^leas- 
: reality, but not of critical in^ortance exc^ in areas 
;re elevators are habitually left open, «^&er in use 
orl^ The drastic reduction in effective sidewalk width 
is botwi inq>ediment to pedestrian flow aixi an eyesore. 
It is hopv that increased citation of such offenders will 
remedy tnKroblem. Future development should follow 
the Master which calls for no additional sidewalk 
elevators in d^^wntown area. In sr^port of the Master 
Plan stipulation^^^ study found &at there is less inter- 
fiereiice to pedestrmi flow by carrier unloading and 
loading across the sioa^alk dian by carriers unloading 
using the sidewalk elev^rs. 




9. NEWSPAPER VENDING MKHINES 

Ihe proliferation of newspi^yer vending rriifthirKs and 
vendors has become a major in^diment to samfactoiy 
pedestrian flow on the sidewalk, standing space al%g bus 
stops and at street comers, atid access to adjacent 
crties. As a first step in reducing tfie adverse effect (ftt 
these machines have on pedestrian movement. 



IL1.49 



I _ 



Tbe San Francisco Master Plan 



PROPOSED TO BE DELETED 



pbould be removed from all dear zoom aod all MUNI 
;s. Vending machinef dudi not be p e nuine d over 
t elevators and tbey diall not block delivery of good* 
to eleVton, nor ihall they ivttrict losdingAmload^ of 
passengl^of frei^t when eoibt are marked for that 

activity, l^^dol loearinn of ngw v xwtitig maftwti»j i« 

nexttoaredcSkdutitnotmaricedforabotatop. Areas 
near comen mi^^ set aside for ttie placement of a few 
machines, but they^ould be limited in linear feet ao as 
not to present an impo^^ble banier to pedestrians. 

The City should devise a syst^utic ^jptoachtomadnne 
placement that would begin ffl^itionalize Ibt ipace 
allocated to vending machines, eboecially in critical 
pedestrian flow corridors. New Acer distributors 
should be encouraged to use multi-unit o^hines and to 
place these machines against a building iwrever pos- 
sible, especially when there are niches m ' 
facade 

CORNER' "V 
CLEAR A 
ZONE 




□□ 
□□ 



I ZONE 




ALTERNA1 



10. ALK VAULTS 

To re<h^^K e;q>ense and inconvenience of planting 
trees^Dthe ground (thus allowing planter boxen to be 
red from the path of pedestnans), storage ^ace 
uending under the sidewalk shouldnot be allowed. The 
Building Code should specify this provisioa 



11. COKSTRUCnONAlSLEWAYS 

A tiwTwtmrm width fef constTuctian bazncade n^bstnan 
saleways riioald be m a intsinnd and rafSKd during 
co DStnicti on of a building. Foradeqoate^o-waypedes- 

ODt special i^roval dsould be S^fett Tbe ^solute 
minimum width wiikh cool^^eobtainBd with special 
pcTmissioo ahoaldbe4J. 



12. trafbT^pedestrian signals, di- 
agq0ral crossing signs and fire 

•BOXES 

bt^^roerotis locations annmd the CBD, trafGc^edes- 
signals, sifiis iodicating "scramble" system pedes- 
'^trian crossings aitd fire pull-boxes are located directly on 
tbe comer, well wittnn tbe clear zones that have been 
established in this study . Nowhere are these obstrtictians 
more in evidence and more detrimental to smootfipedet- 
trian flow than on Montgomery Street As in^iediments 
^ pedestrian movement, tbey are not as easily dealt with 
lail boxes, news vending machines and otter less 
pern^ent items. Nevertiieless tfiey are annojring and 
often ofcn g e r o u s obstacles in the path of peak-hour 
crowds, al«bere possible diey ibould be removed or 
relocated. Sbns indicating "acimmble** crossings could 
be immediatelwemoonted on die pedestrian signals 
themselves and flWpull-boxes could be immediately 
eliminated entirely !^raffic and pedestrian signals as 
well as street lights s^^fUNI power poles that fell 
within clear zones dioul^^ relocated outside of Ibt 
zone as soon as it is ecooomica^easible and expedient. 



ILL50 





Base Case 


Second Level 


Special Level 


Sidewalk Paving 
Treatments 


Standard downtown paving 
pattern: Dark, grey concrete, 
silicate carbonate. 3' scoring. 


Limited decorative elements 
and score patterns are 
permitted by block face. 


Distinctive decorative 
patterns are encouraged by 
block face. 


Sidewalk 
Cafes 


Permitted on streets without 

significant pedestrian 
conqesUon. Encouraged on 
Ellis. 


Strongly encouraged, except on 
streets with significant 
pedestrian congestion. 


Strongly encouraged except 
on Montgomery. 


Sidewalk 
Displays 


Not encouraged. 


Hot permitted in congested 
areas on Kearny, Powell. 
Stockton, and Fourth. 


Encouraged except on 
Montgomery. 


Sidewalk 
Grade Changes 


Permitted to satisfy ADA 
rec^uirements. 


Permitted to satisfy ADA 
nequirements. 


Permitted to satisfy ADA 
requirements. 


Sidewalk 
Toilets 


Not permitted. 


Permitted at locations 
indicated in tine design plan. 


Encouraged except on 
Montgomery. 


Street 
Artists 


Permitted in the curb zone in 
areas without significant 
pedestrian congestion. 


Not permitted in congested 
areas on Kearny and fourth. 


Strongly encouraged except 
on Montgomery. 


Street 
Closures 


temporary , special event 
closures are permitted. 
Lunchtime closure is recom- 
mended for Sansome. 


Temporary closures are 
permitted. Lunchtime closures 
are recommended on Front and 
Destination alleys. 


Temporary, special event 
closures are encouraged. 
Lunchtime closures are 
encouraged. 


Streetliahts 


Historic streetlights are 
required. Pedestrian-scale 
lighting is strongly encouraged. 


Historic streetlights arc 
required. Building uplighting 
and infill pedestrian-scale 
lighting is encouraged. 


Historic streetlights are 
required. Building uplighting 
and infill pedestrian-scale 
lighting is encouraged. 


Trashcans 


Standard downtown design 
trashcan is required. 


Standard downtown design 
trashcan is required. 


Standard downtown design 
trashcan is required. 


Trees 

1 1 www 


In-ground trees are required. 


In-ground trees are required. 
Uplighting is strongly 
encouraged. 


\n-qround trees are required. 
Uplighting is strongly 
encouraged. 


Vendors/Street 
Artists 


Not encouraged. 


Encouraged in areas without 
pedestrian congestion. 


Strongly encouraged except 
on Montgomery. 


Widenings 


Permitted wherever the peak 
hour pedestrian LOS is C or 
below. 


Recommended on all streets. 


Recommended on all streets. 



Figure 5: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



I' 


Base Case 


Second Level 


Special Level 


ATM Machines 


In building setbacks or low ped. 
volume streets. Not permitted 
adjacent to bus stops. 


Building setbacks are required. 
Not permitted adjacent to bus 
stops. 


Building setbacks are 
required. Not permitted 
adjacent to bus stops. 


Awnings 


Permitted if attached to the 
buidling. Canopies attached to 
the sidewalk are prohibited. 


Awnings and canopies are 
permitted. Signage is not 
permitted. 


Awnings, canopies, and upper 
window awnings encouraged 
except on historic buildings 
without precendents. 


Banners 


Only short-term, event banners 
or banners attached to 
buildings. 


Encouraged on Powell, Post, in 
the YBC area, and on Alleys. 
Elsewhere, event banners or 

banners attached to buildings. 


All types are encouraged. On 
California, banners are limited 
to temporary installations or 
on buildings. 


Benches 


Not encouraged in the public 
right-of-way, but are encour- 
aged in adjacent \ocat\one. 


Strongly encouraged every- 
where. Alternative seating 
areas such as window ledges 
and steps are also encouraged. 


Strongly encouraged 
everywhere. Alternative 
seating areas are also 
encouraged. 


Bicycle Racks 


Only permitted if placement 
doee not cause the Level of 
Service to fall to P or below. 


Encouraged if placement does 
not cause the Level of Service 
to fall to D or below. 


Encouraged if placement 
does not cause the Level of 
Service to fall to D or below. 


Bollards 


Only decorative bo\larde are 
permitted. 


Only decorative bollards are 
permitted. 


Only decorative bollards are 
permitted. 


Vehicular Curb 
Cut^/Drlvewavs 

W U t w/ 1 1 V w WW CI y w 


Strongly discouraged on 
Streets with significant 
pedestrian volumes. 


Strongly discouraged 


Not permitted 


Flowerstands 


Not encouraged. 


Encouraged outside of the 
public right- of -wa-j. 


Strongly encouraged in all 
locations except Montgomery 
Street. 


Kiosks 


Not encouraged. 


Encouraged except in 
congested locations on K.eamy. 
btoc^iXon, Powell, and fourth. 


Strongly encouraged except 
on Montgomery. 


Newsracks 


Pedestal mounts are required in 

the Union Sqare area and 
strongly encouraged elsewhere. 


Pedestal mounts are required in 
the Union Square area and on 
K.eamy, and are strongly 
encouraged elsewhere. 


Pedestal mounts are 
required. 


Public Art in the 


Permitted depending on 
pedestrian congestion. 


Encouraged depending on 
pedestnan congestion. 


Strongly encouraged. On 
Montgomery, sidewalk 
placement opportunities are 
extremely limited. 


Planters 


Permitted in the curb zone in 
areas without significant 
pedestrian congestion. 


Permitted in the curb zone, 
except in congested areas on 
l\eamy, Stockton, and Powell, 
and in the building zone on Post. 


Permitted in both the building 
and curb zones except on 
Montgomery. 



Figure 5: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



1. Banners 



2. Benches 



3. Bicycle Racks 



4. Bollards 




5. Fiowerstands 



6. Kiosks 



q 




a 


□ 


n 


a 


n 


p 





7. Newsracks 




8. Planters 









3' 




1 







9. Sidewalk Paving 



13. Historic 
Streetlights 





10. Sidewalk Cafes 11. Sidewalk Displays 12. Sidewalk Toilets 




14.Trashcans 



15. Trees/Grates 



a 



16. Vendors 



Figure 5: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 



PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



Specific 

Streetscape 

Plans 



The following specific street designs are recommended in addition to the standard Base 
Case designs which represent the minimum level of improvements for all downtown streets: 



Beale: 
Bush: 

California: 

Cyril Magnin: 
Fifth: 
First- 
Fourth: 



Fremont- 
Front: 

Geary: 



Grant: 



Kearny: 



Mason: 



Second Level Street improvements. 

Second Level Street improvements; comer bulbing at Kearny; preserva- 
tion of historic teardrop lighting. 

Special Level Street improvements; sidewalk widening to 19' on all blocks; 
pedestrian signage and kiosks. 

Right turn on red ban at Eilis; restricted bus movements. 
Transit stop improvements; pedestrian safety signage. 
Transit stop improvements. 

Second Level Street improvements; sidewalk widening from Market to 
Harrison; transit stop improvements; pedestrian signage; right turn on 
red ban; pedestrian safety signage; extended pedestrian crossing times. 
Transit stop improvements; pedestrian safety signage. 
Second Level Street improvements; comer bulbs at Califomia and Sacra- 
mento; tree clusters at comers; lunchtime mall street closure. 
Second Level Street improvements; sidewalk widening at Keamy, Stock- 
ton, and across from Union Square; pedestrian signage and sidewalk di- 
rectional elements; mid-block entrance into Union Square; transit stop 
improvements; hanging planters and decorative flowers facing Union 
Square. 



Special Level Street 
improvements; comer 
bulbs at Post, Geary, 
and Sutter; distinctive 
paving and banners; 
limited traffic access; 
pedestrian signage and 
sidewalk directional el- 
ements; sidewalk pub- 
lic toilets; mid-block 
crossing at Maiden 
Lane. 

Second Level Street im- 
provements; sidewalk 
element restrictions; 
north-south comer bulbs 
("snippets") at Sutter 
and Bush; pedestrian 
signage; right turn on 
red ban; pedestrian 
safety signage. 
Tourist-oriented 
signage. 




Grant Avenue Improvements 




Kearny Street "Snippet" 



Figure 6: PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN 
NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS 



PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 




Street 

Trees J^'^^^l^l" ■ 

Transit banners- 
mprovements Hanging 
Planters 



E 





y 



Traffic Lanes 



Existing 

02: 



Sidewalk 




Mission Street Concept Diagram 

Mission: Special Level Street improvements; sidewalk widening; comer bus bulbs; 

distinctive paving; transit stop improvements; pedestrian-oriented light- 
ing; pedestrian signage. 
Montgomery: Special Level Street improvements including distinctive paving; side- 
walk element restrictions; in-ground trees; north-south comer bulbs at 
Sutter, Bush, Pine, and Califomia; pedestal-mount newsracks; 1 '-2' side- 
walk widening from Market to California; pedestrian signage; public art 
program. 

New Mont.: Second Level Street improvements; sidewalk sitting areas and tree clus- 
ters; historical/informational signage. 
O'Farrell: Bus bulbs and transit amenities; pedestrian signage and sidewalk direc- 
tional elements. 

Post: Second Level Street improvements; distinctive "Post Street Promenade" 
improvements; bus bulbs at transit stops; sidewalk widening facing Union 
Square; pedestrian signage and sidewalk directional elements; mid-block 
entrance into Union Square; hanging planters and decorative flowers fac- 
ing Union Square. 

Powell: Second Level Street improvements; sidewalk element restrictions; side- 
walk widening from Ellis to Geary; in-ground tree clusters; international 
flags/banners; pedestrian signage and sidewalk directional elements; 
pedestrian-scale lighting; cable car tumaround area improvements. 
Sansome: Lunchtime street closure between Sutter and Bush. 
Second: Second Level Street improvements; sidewalk sitting areas and tree clus- 
ters; historical/informational signage. 
Steuart: Second Level Street improvements; sidewalk widening east sidewalk 
between Mission and Howard. 
Stockton: Second Level Street improvements; sidewalk widening between Geary 
and O'Farrell; rebuild Sutter Street crossing island; pedestrian signage 
and sidewalk directional elements; pedestrian-scale lighting; designated 
street artist placements. 
Sutter: Base Case Street improvements; bus bulbs and transit improvements. 



Figure 6: PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN 
NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS 



PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



Third: Second Level Street improvements; sidewalk widening between Mission 
and Howard; public art program including banners; pedestrian informa- 
tion and safety signage; right turn on red ban; signalized mid-block cross- 
ing between Mission 
and Howard; extended 
pedestrian crossing 
time. 

Union Square: Rebuild crossing is- 
lands; add stop for pe- 
destrians signage; pe- 
destrian scramble 
crosswalk. 




Specific 

Alleyway 

Designs 



Union Square Corner Improvements 

The following specific alleyway designs are recommended in addition to the standard 
Walkthrough Alley (Base Case) designs which represent the minimum level of improve- 
ments for all pedestrian alleys: 

Belden: Destination Alley im- 
provements; single- 
surface paving; traffic 
restrictions. 
Campion: Destination Alley im- 
provements; single- 
surface paving; traffic 
restrictions. 
Claude: Destination Alley im- 
provements; single- 
surface paving; traffic 
restrictions. 
Commercial: Walkthrough Alley im- 
provements; Destina- 
tion Alley improve- 
ments between Mont- 
gomery and Sansome. 
Ecker: Walkthrough Alley im- 
provements; traffic re- 
strictions; single-sur- 
face paving. 




Improvements on Maiden Lane 




YBC Garden Walk to Market Street 



Leidesdorff: Walkthrough Alley improvements; Destination Alley improvements be- 
tween Sacramento and Clay; traffic restrictions. 
Maiden Lane: Destination Alley improvements; single-surface brick paving; informa- 
tion/historical kiosks; benches; signalized crosswalk at Grant Avenue. 
St. George: Destination Alley improvements. 
Garden Walks: Develop pedestrian-only mid-block garden walkways from Verba Buena 
Center to Market Street, in the Terminal Separator right-of-way, and along 
Minna Street.. 



Figure 6: PROPOSED DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN 
NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS 



PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 



Resolution of Adoption 
File No. 89.120EMTZ 
South Bayshore Plan 
Master Plan Amendments 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13917 



WHEREAS, The South Bayshore area, commonly known as Bayview Hunters Point, has 
historically been the location of many of the City's heaviest industries, some of its poorest 
residents, and one of the greatest concentrations of public housing; and 

WHEREAS, The Charter requires that the City Planning Commission adopt and maintain 
a Master Plan, including necessary changes therein; and 

WHEREAS, The Zoning and Master Plan policies relating to the South Bayshore area 
were last comprehensively reviewed and revised in February, 1970 with the adoption of the 
South Bayshore Area Plan by the City Planning Commission; and 

WHEREAS, On February 24, 1987, the Planning Department, the Redevelopment 
Agency, and the Mayor's Office issued a joint memorandum to the community agreeing to 
conduct a comprehensive planning program and adopt implementation actions and a 
development program for revitalization of the community; and 

WHEREAS, In November 1987, the Planning Department published the "Issues Report 
for the South Bayshore Study Area," which summarized the results of surveys, research, 
interviews and meetings, including: physical, social, and economic characteristics of the 
community, and the issues regarding Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Commerce, 
Industry, Urban Design, Recreation and Open Space, Community Facilities, and Public Health 
and Safety; and 

WHEREAS, The Department published the "South Bayshore Plan -- Proposal for Citizen 
Review" in February 1989, and the "South Bayshore Plan ~ Proposal for Adoption" in May 
1991, and conducted many public meetings and additional research on planning issues in the 
community; and 

WHEREAS, A "Preliminary Negative Declaration" was published on May 16, 1991, which 
was subsequently appealed, causing the City Planning Commission to withdraw its "Proposal 
for Adoption"; and 

WHEREAS, The Department conducted additional community discussions and research, 
re-examined the policy proposals, and published the "South Bayshore Plan - Proposal for 
Citizen Review" in January 1994; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Resolution of Adoption Page 2 

File No. 89.120EMTZ 
South Bayshore Plan 
Master Plan Amendments 

WHEREAS, The Department held numerous meetings and collected community 
comments on this and subsequent refinements to the proposed Master Plan and Planning 
Code Amendments; and 

WHEREAS, Survey results find that Third Street, from Army Street to Meade Street, 
suffers from many land use problems, including: 1) containing twice as many liquor stores as 
neighborhood commercial strips of a similar size in San Francisco, which is a major source of 
blight by attracting loitering, public drinking, vehicular double parking and other social 
problems which give a negative image to Third Street and contribute to a decline in essential 
neighborhood retail outlets, such as locksmiths, clothing stores, laundries, etc.; 2) Because of 
the lack of essential neighborhood retail services on Third Street, Bayview residents tend to . 
go outside the area to shop; 3) Third Street is a major thoroughfare and a large number of 
persons travel through on their way to and from Candlestick Park, India Basin Industrial Park, 
and Hunters Point Shipyard and the lack of convenient, attractive and safe retail services 
deters these persons from stopping in this district; and 

WHEREAS, In order to restrict liquor sales, help reduce the number of liquor stores, and 
encourage a better retail environment on this portion of Third Street, the Third Street Special 
Use District is proposed to be establixhed; and 

WHEREAS, The core of the neighborhood commercial district between McKinnon and 
Thomas Avenues is characterized by more local and pedestrian-serving uses, while the 
northern end (from Jerrold Avenue to McKinnon Avenue) and the southern end (from Thomas 
Avenue to Yosemite Avenue) are characterized by more regional and automobile-oriented 
uses, and contain larger and sometimes vacant parcels; There is an opportunity at the edges 
of the core commercial area for more residential and mixed residential/commercial 
development to provide more of a market for neighborhood commercial services and provide 
more intensity of development to attract more patrons and employ more people; and 

WHEREAS, In keeping with the character of the street, The proposed Third Street 
Special Use District and Master Plan policies encourage mixed commercial/residential 
development on Third Street and limit drive-up facilities for fast food restaurants to the ends of 
the commercial area; 

WHEREAS, Land use inventories show acute conflicts and incompatibility between 
industry, housing, and open space on the borders between residential and industrial areas , 
such as in the South Basin area of Bayview Hunters Point and along the edge of waterfront 
recreation areas such as Candlestick Point State Recreation area, and many of the existing 
uses in these industrial districts, e.g. auto wrecking yards, open air industries, solid waste 
transfer stations, do not provide a supportive environment and have adverse health, 
environmental, and visual impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods and parks, and many 
of the uses permitted in M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning districts would present conflicts with , 
nearby residential or recreational uses; and 



I 



i 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Resolution of Adoption Page 3 

File No. 89.120EMTZ 
South Bayshore Plan 
Master Plan Amendments 

WHEREAS, A more attractive supportive environment for bayshore parks and the 
surrounding residential areas can be achieved 1) through rezoning certain industrial property 
adjacent to residential, 2) through the proposed Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District 
buffering intensive industrial uses, 3) by encouraging better design, and 4) by discouraging 
truck traffic on residential and neighborhood commercial streets; and 

WHEREAS, These amendments are found to be consistent with the Priority Policies of 
the Master Plan found in Planning Code Section 101.1 as follows: 

1 ) Preserving neighborhood retail and enhancing resident employment and 
ownership activities by restricting overconcentration of liquor retail activity, promoting 
commercial and mixed-use development, and encouraging a healthier mix of 
neighborhood-serving retail uses; 

2) Conserving existing housing, neighborhood character and cultural and economic 
diversity by restricting intensive industry near housing and open space, reclassifying 
industrial property immediately adjacent to homes, and thereby making each such use 
more economically viable; and by lowering height limits to 32' in the Bayview Hill 
residential area and 40' in the Third Street commercial core area; 

3) Preserving and enhancing affordable housing by encouraging the construction 
of affordable housing and the preservation of existing affordable housing, encouraging 
housing over commercial as an alternative to liquor retail outlets on Third Street, and 
encouraging the retention and addition of affordable second units where appropriate; 

4) Enhance neighborhood traffic and parking conditions: by encouraging 
improvement of truck routes and discouraging through truck use of residential and 
neighborhood commercial areas, and by encouraging the upgrade of transit services in 
the community; 

5) Maintaining a diverse economic base by preserving the Northern Industrial and 
India Basin areas for manufacturing, while encouraging retail and other services in the 
Third Street corridor; 

6) Preparedness to protect against injury and loss of life in an earthquake is not 
affected by the proposed policies; 

7) Preserving landmarks and historic buildings by encouraging maintenance and 
full use of the Bayview Opera House as a community center, and the conservation of 
the historic character of many of the homes in the community and selected buildings on 
Third Street; 

8) Protecting and enhancing parks and open space by supporting expansion of 
the Candlestick Point State Recreation Area, the India Basin Shoreline Park, and the 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Final Resolution of Adoption Page 4 
.File No. 89.120EMTZ 
South Bayshore Plan 
Master Plan Amendments 



connection of the San Francisco Bay Trail through the Hunters Point Shipyard, and by 
protecting them from impacts of uses allowed under the industrial zoning; and 



WHEREAS, The Planning Department published a Preliminary Negative Declaration on 
the Proposed South Bayshore Area Plan and Rezoning on May 19, 1995 and adopted and 
issued the Final Negative Declaration on June 14, 1995, finding that this project could not 
have a significant effect on the environment; and 

WHEREAS, This Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Negative 
Declaration together with comments received on the Negative Declaration. 



NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission hereby 
approves the Negative Declaration issued on June 14, 1995; and 



NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission 
adopts the amendments to the South Bayshore Plan, an area plan, and to the Land Use Index 
of the Master Plan, pursuant to San Francisco Charter Section 3.525, which amends the 
Master Plan as shown attached hereto as "Exhibit C1" (as amended) and "Exhibit C2". 



I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Planning 
Commission at its regular meeting on July 20, 1995. 



AYES: Fung, Levine, Lowenberg, Prowler, Unobskey 
NOES: None 
ABSENT: Martin 
EXCUSED: Boomer 
ADOPTED: July 20, 1995 




Linda D. Avery 
Administrative Secretary 



n:\sbay\adoptmp.res 7/21 rev 




AN AREA PLAN OF THE MASTER PLAN OF THE 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Proposal for Adoption 



Planning Department of the City and County of San Francisco 

April 1995 



i 



AMENDMENTS TO OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN 
in Consistency with the Proposed South Bayshore Area Plan 

(EXHIBIT C2) 

Str i keout indicates proposed deletion of language, and underline indicates proposed addition 
of language. Quotation marks are used to indicate the beginning and ending of an excerpt 
from an Area Plan or Element of the Master Plan proposed for Amendment. Other proposed 
amendments are called out in text without quotations. 



LAND USE INDEX: 

HOUSING Section, page III. 1.2: 
South Bayshore Area Plan 

Objective 5. Policies 5.1. 5.2. and 5.3 

Objective 6. Policies 6.1, 6.2. 6.3. and 6.4 

Objoctivco 3 and 4 , Rooidonco Po l icioo and P l an Propooalo 5 8 

Executive Park 

Objective 19. Poficv 19.5 13, Policy 5 

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY Section, page III.1.5: 

South Bayshore Area Plan 

Objective 7. Policies 7.1. 7.2. and 7.3 
Objective 8. Policies 8.1 and 8.2 
Objective 0, Po l ic i es 1, 3, 4 , 8 , 0 and 10 
Objective 10, Policioo 1, 2, 3 and 4 
Objective 13, Po l icioo 1 4 



GENERALIZED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND DENSITY PLAN map, 
page III. 1.8 

Add "Small Scale Neighborhood District" designation to Innes Avenue east of Hawes 
Street 



"SOUTH BAYSHORE PLAN" map, page III.1.11: to be replaced by "SOUTH BAYSHORE 
GENERALIZED LAND USE PLAN" shown as Figure 3 of the South Bayshore Plan, page 
11.9.8 



RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE section, page III.1.14: 

South Bayshore Area Plan 

Obiective 12. Policies 12.1. 12.2. and 12.3 
Obiective 13. Policies 13.1. 13.3. and 13.4 
Objectiveo 6 and 7, Pol i cioo 1 1 4 



Executive Park 

Objective 1 9. Policy 1 9.6 
Objective 13, Policy 6 

PUBLIC FACILITIES section, page 1-11 .1.14. ^ 

South Bavshore Area Plan 

Objective 15. Policies 15.2 and 15.4 



POPULATION DENSITY AND BUILDING INTENSITY STANDARDS section, page III.1.25: 

South Bayshore Plan 

Objective 2. Policy 2.4 

Objective 7. Policies 7.1. 7.2. and 7.3 

Objective 5. Policy 5.1 

Objective 6. Policies 6.1. 6.2. and 6.3 

Objective 10. Policy 10.1 
Rooidonco Polic i oo and Plan Proposalo 3, 5, 6 and 7 
Executive Park 

Objective 19. Policies 19.1. 19.2. 19.4. and 19.5 

Objoctivo 13, Policioo 1, 3, and 4 

Objective 0, Policioo 1, 3, and 7 

Objoct i vo 10, Policioo 2, 3, and 4 



Population Density and Building Intensity Maps from Other Parts of the Master Plan 

URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS map, page III.1.29: 
Remove designation for "89-160 ft" on Third Street west of Hunters Point Hill 



URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BULK OF BUILDINGS map, page III. 1.30: 
Remove bulk regulation designation on Third Street west of Hunters Point Hill 



(Add the following map:) 

SAN FRANCISCO EXECUTIVE PARK: URBAN FORM PLAN (Figure 26 of South Bayshore 
Plan, page 11.9.73) 



n:\sbay\rnpamends.doc 



File No. 95.11 7M Hazardous Waste 
Resolution of Adoption for 
Amendments to the Environmental 
Protection Element 
Page 1 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13941 



WHEREAS, State law (California Statutes, 1986, Chapter 1504 as amended) requires that 
counties prepare Hazardous Waste Management Plans to indicate how the County will reduce 
and manage hazardous waste generated in the County to the year 2000 and to guide the 
establishment or expansion of hazardous waste facilities; and 

WHEREAS, State law provides that Counties must integrate Hazardous Waste planning with 
local land use planning activities and that the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 
must be consistent with the locality's Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer prepared in consultation with 
citizens, a County Hazardous Waste Management Plan which was endorsed by San 
Francisco's Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee in December, 1 990 and approved by the 
San Francisco Board of Supervisors in January, 1992 (Resolution 67-92); and 

WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report #87.81 3E (EIR), was prepared by the 
Planning Department for the Draft San Francisco County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 
(CHWMP); and 

WHEREAS, the San Francisco City Planning Commission certified the Final EIR on 
September 12, 1991 as accurate, adequate and objective, and in so certifying found that the 
Draft Plan would have significant environmental impacts; and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered the Final EIR and made 
findings related to its content in their resolution of January 24, 1992 approving the County 
Hazardous Waste Management Plan (Resolution No. 67-92); and 

WHEREAS, after local approval, the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan must also 
be approved by the State of California and such State approval was made in March, 1995; 
and 



File No. 95.1 17M Hazardous Waste 
Resolution of Adoption for 
Amendments to the Environmental 
Protection Element 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, the State requires that within 180 days after the County Master Plan and zoning 
ordinances be consistent with the criteria in the County Hazardous Waste Plan for siting 
facilities; and 

WHEREAS, the Master Plan does not contain policy guidance related to hazardous waste; 
and 

WHEREAS, draft amendments to the Master Plan which provide policy guidance related to 
hazardous waste summarized from the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan have 
been prepared by the Planning staff; and 

WHEREAS, the Local Assessment Committee appointed by the Planning Commission to 
advise on proposed expansion of the existing hazardous waste facility at their regular meeting 
on August 1, 1995 reviewed and endorsed the proposed amendments after inclusion of 
several modifications which have been incorporated; and 

WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission before acting on the proposed text amendments 
and Master Plan amendments related to hazardous waste does find they are in conformity or 
could be brought into conformity with the eight priority policies of Section 101.1 (b) of the City 
Planning Code, in that: 

Existing neighborhood serving retail uses and opportunities for resident employment and 
ownership are not affected because such uses are not generally located in heavy 
industrial districts where potential siting of hazardous waste facilities may occur; and 

Existing housing and neighborhood character and future opportunities for resident 
employment may be affected by potential siting of hazardous waste facilities in areas 
adjacent; such effects may be moderated by buffering, other design measures and by 
future creation of a resident employment program which could be addressed through 
conditional use authorization within heavy industrial districts; and 

Preservation and enhancement of the City's supply of affordable housing would not be 
directly affected by potential location of a hazardous waste facility in heavy industrial 
districts because few such units are located in heavy industrial districts; and 

Comnhuter traffic impeding MUNI or the overburdening of streets or neighborhood 
parking supply would not be affected by location of a hazardous waste facility in a heavy 
industrial districts if circulation patterns are properly designed as would be provided 
through a conditional use authorization process in heavy industrial districts; and 



File No. 95.117M Hazardous Waste 
Resolution of Adoption for 
Amendments to the Environmental 
Protection Element 
Page 3 



The maintenance of a diverse economic base by protection of industrial and service 
sectors from displacement due to commercial office development is not related to 
potential siting of hazardous waste facilities; however opportunities for future 
employment in the industrial and service sectors may be enhanced by future creation of 
a resident employment program related to a hazardous waste facility subject to 
conditional use authorization in heavy industrial districts; and 

Achievement of the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury and loss of 
life in an earthquake would be furthered through continuing and expanded emergency 
response planning and training related to hazardous waste facilities which may be 
encouraged through a conditional use approval process; and 

The preservation of landmarks and historic buildings is not likely to be an issue for a 
hazardous waste facility located within the heavy industrial zoning districts and 
conforming to State and Local considerations encompassed in the Master Plan and 
subject to conditional use authorization; and 

The protection of parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas may be 
enhanced by buffering and design of future hazardous waste facilities located in a heavy 
industrial district and subject to conditional use authorization. 

WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Master Plan and no other 
amendments to other elements or area plans are needed; 

WHEREAS, a memorandum dated August 7, 1995 to the EIR case file #87.81 3E was 
prepared by Planning Department staff on the subject of the proposed Master Plan 
amendments and their coverage within the EIR; and 

WHEREAS, copies of the previously certified EIR and the August 7, 1995 staff memorandum 
were received by the City Planning Commission on August 8, 1995; and 

WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has read and considered the Information in the EIR 
and staff memorandum; now therefore be it 

RESOLVED, that all potentially significant environmental effects that could result from the 
proposed Master Plan amendments have been fully and adequately analyzed in the Final EIR 
provided to the Commission, and that no additional information is required in order for this 
Commission to make an informed decision regarding the environmental impacts of the 
proposed Master Plan amendments and appropriate mitigation measures; and be it 



File No. 95.1 17M Hazardous Waste 
Resolution of Adoption for 
Amendments to the Environmental 
Protection Element 
Page 4 



FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates 
by reference the environmental findings regarding the EIR alternatives, mitigation measures 
and statement of overriding considerations, as approved by the Board of Supervisors on 
January 24, 1992, in Resolution Number 67-92, adopting the CHWMP, with the following 
reaffirmations and modifications: 

a. The six alternatives found to be infeasible are still infeasible for the reasons 
previously stated by the Board; 

b. Mitigation measures numbers 1, 8 and 16, which were previously found to be 
infeasible, are still infeasible for the reasons previously stated by the Board; 

0. Mitigation measures numbers 2, 4, 7, 12, 17, 18 and the portions of mitigation 

measure number 19 applying to San Francisco users of potential hazardous waste 
facilities, which were determined not to be necessary by virtue of already being in 
place or already required through other means, are still already required via other 
means, or otherwise not necessary, as previously stated by the Board; 

d. Mitigation measures numbers 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and the portions of mitigation 
measure number 19 applying to non-San Francisco users of potential hazardous 
waste facilities were adopted by the Board of Supervisors and included in the 
CHWMP, which is summarized and incorporated by reference into the proposed 
Master Plan amendments, and would therefore be considered and implemented as 
appropriate by the City Planning Commission in considering any future approval of 
a specific hazardous waste facility pursuant to the amended Master Plan and 
CHWMP, 

e. Mitigation measures numbers 13, 14, 15, 16a, 16b, 16c and 16d are not within the 
jurisdiction of the City Planning Commission to implement and enforce, and 
therefore are not feasible, although the objectives and policies in the proposed 
Master Plan amendments and the provisions of the CHWMP incorporated by 
reference encourage these activities; and be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby finds adoption and implementation of the 
proposed Master Plan amendments will have a significant effect on the environment in that: 

a. The Master Plan amendments encourage on-site treatment of hazardous wastes, 
which could increase short-term risks to workers and/or the public at/or near those 
sites if less skilled people are carrying out treatment. These risks would be 
mitigated by education and information programs included in the proposed Master 



File No. 95.117M Hazardous Waste 
Resolution of Adoption for 
Amendments to the Environmental 
Protection Element 
Page 5 



Plan amendments but such could not be guaranteed to eliminate all possible risks 
and may not be fully funded in all annual City budgets; 

b. The Master Plan amendments encourage establishment of transfer and storage 
facilities for generators of small quantities of hazardous waste, which would have 
the beneficial impact of discouraging disposal into the regular solid waste stream 
and sewer system but which could also increase local risks due both to transport 
of wastes by less well-trained haulers and possibility of accidental release at the 
transfer and storage facility if all appropriate mitigation measures are not carried 
out and enforced; and be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following benefits of the Master Plan amendments override, 
on balance, any remaining significant environmental impacts: 

a. The Master Plan amendments allow the City to exercise better control through its 
land use decision process regarding the siting of hazardous waste facilities by 
identifying potentially suitable areas for such facilities. 

b. The Master Plan amendments encourage reduction in the use of hazardous 
materials and in the generation of hazardous waste to protect public health and 
the environmental through a combination of technical, financial, and regulatory 
incentives. 

0. The Master Plan amendments encourage improved management of hazardous 
waste to protect public health and the environment through education and 
increased enforcement of hazardous waste laws and regulations. 

d. The Master Plan amendments encourage the City to take a proactive approach by 
providing education, technical and financial assistance to generators to assist them 
in reducing and properly managing their hazardous wastes, and be it 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the amendments to 
the Master Plan dated August 10, 1995 attached hereto as Exhibit A which amend the 
introduction to the Environmental Protection Element and add a goal, and objectives 19 
through 22 and associated policies to the Environmental Protection Element. 



I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Planning Commission at 
its regular meeting on August 17, 1995. 



Linda D. Avery 



File No. 95.1 17M Hazardous Waste 
Resolution of Adoption for 
Amendments to the Environmental 
Protection Element 
Page 6 



Administrative Secretary 



AYES: Commissioners Boomer, Fung, Levine, Lowenberg, Prowler 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: Commissioners Martin, Unobskey 

ADOPTED: August 17, 1995 



intent, res 



EXHIBIT A 



PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ELEMENT OF THE 
MASTER PLAN. New text is underlined. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Environmental Protection Element addresses the impact of urbanization including the 
use of oil and gas resources and hazardous waste on the natural environment. In highly 
urban San Francisco environmental protection is not primarily a process of shielding 
untouched areas from the initial encroachment of a man-made environment. The scales 
already are and will continue to be balanced toward the side of development. 

The challenge in San Francisco is to achieve a more sensitive balance, repairing damage 
already done, restoring some natural amenity to the city, and bringing about productive 
harmony between people and their environment. An important purpose, therefore, of an 
environmental protection element is to give natural environment amenities and values 
appropriate consideration in urban development along with economic and social 
considerations. 

One of the lessons of the increasing environmental consciousness is that "environmenf is not 
accurately compartmentalized as animals and trees versus people and cars. In an urban 
setting this is particularly true. All elements of the Master Plan deal to a certain extent with 
protecting aspects of the total urban environment. In that sense the objectives and policies 
contained in this element must be read together with other objectives and policies throughout 
the Master Plan. However, this element is mainly concerned with protecting what is not 
man-made in the environment, especially through protection of plant and animal life and 
through restoration of natural qualities of land, air and water by elimination of pollution. It also 
addresses conservation and management of energy in the residential, commercial and 
transportation sectors. Additionallv the reduction of hazardous materials use in the residential, 
commercial and oovernmental sectors is encouraged in this element. 

Deterioration of the environment as a consequence of population growth, urbanization, 
industrialization, improper disposal of hazardous materials , resource exploitation and 
technological developments has been a growing concem worid-wide. Another influence has 
been a realization of the finite nature and rising costs of energy and other natural resources. 
On a national and state level, it has given rise to policies and controls dealing with air, water 
and noise pollution and other forms of degradation of the natural environment as well as 
regulation of energy production and hazardous waste . It was logical, therefore, that in giving 
direction to local general plans the Caiifomia Legislature should have mandated preparation of 
two elements which address environmental protection issues, one for natural resource 
conservation and another for transportation noise. This Environmental Protection Element 
combines those two state-mandated elements, along with a comprehensive energy 
management plan. A hazardous waste section which responds to separate State planning 
reouirements for countv-level hazardous waste management and siting of facilities is also 
included in this element. 



The entire following section is new and is proposed to be added following 1.6.33 (Energy) of 
the Environmental Protection Element The preceding page comprised the introduction to 
Environmental Protection Element. 



HAZARDOUS WASTE 

Mandates for Hazardous Waste Planning 

The Tanner Act enacted by the State in 1986 requires California counties to prepare 
Hazardous Waste Management Plans or have the State supersede local government in terms 
of the siting authority for treatment, storage and disposal facilities. A detailed Plan, 
responding to state hazardous waste mandates was developed by the Office of San 
Francisco's Chief Administrative Officer in conjunction with a citizens advisory group. The 
detailed Plan including many management and educational programs was approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in 1992 and by the State Environmental Protection Agency in 1995. This 
section of the Environmental Protection Element condenses and summarizes the more 
detailed document with emphasis on land use issues for purposes of the Master Plan. 

In general, hazardous waste responsibilities are divided among federal, state and local levels 
of government. Local government takes the lead for land use decisions related to hazardous 
waste facilities and for emergency response programs. State government oversees "cradle to 
grave" management of hazardous waste including all transport activities. This usually involves 
manifests which are forms indicating types and amounts of hazardous waste being 
transported on State highways and where such waste is being taken. The State has 
delegated much of its enforcement and inspection function for facilities and those entities 
using hazardous materials and generating hazardous waste to the local Departments of Public 
Health. The federal government has taken the lead in regulating and in some cases funding 
the cleanup of past contamination which all levels of government now seek to prevent. 



^According to California's Health and Safety Code, treatment means any method, 
technique or process which changes or is designed to change the physical, chemical or 
biological character or composition of any hazardous waste. Storage means the holding of 
hazardous waste for a temporary period. Disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, 
dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any waste so that the waste or any constituent is or 
may be emitted into the air or discharged into or on any land or waters, including groundwater, 
or may otherwise enter the environment. 



1 



Characteristics of Hazardous Waste in San Francisco 

San Francisco County is a moderate generator of hazardous wastes in California. The 
management of hazardous wastes in San Francisco presents some unique challenges. There 
is a diversity of hazardous waste sources and types. There are a large number of businesses 
which are very small quantity generators.^ San Francisco is characterized by high-intensity 
land use, and limited land area which makes siting of a hazardous waste facility difficult. 

Waste is generated by public agencies, the private sector, and individuals in the City and 
County. The principal waste types in San Francisco are oil, paint and solvents. The 
hazardous waste management system is operated by private industry to collect, handle, 
transport, treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste generated in San Francisco County and 
extends far beyond the County's own boundaries for off-site disposal. The City and County of 
San Francisco under the Chief Administrative Officer, Solid Waste Management Program 
administers the local hazardous waste management process. Authorization of the siting of 
hazardous waste facilities is a responsibility of the Planning Department and Commission. 
This section contains guidance for such siting decisions. 

A transfer and storage facility (TSF) where San Francisco residents can drop off hazardous 
waste from their homes free of charge is run by the Sanitary Fill Company under contract with 
the City. In the future this facility may evolve to serve additional business users and to treat 
some of the wastes in order to facilitate reuse or recycling. The existing facility is at the San 
Francisco Solid Waste Transfer and Recycling Center on Tunnel Avenue on the City's 
southern border. The San Francisco Department of Public Health has a major role in 
enforcement and monitoring of that facility. 

The City's ability to use an out of county landfill site at Altamont in Alameda County for solid 
waste is dependent on the proper management of hazardous waste and avoidance of its 
presence within solid waste loads taken to the landfill site. The City's contract with Altamount 
requires it to have a program to keep hazardous waste out of the landfill. The City is 
responsible for substantial penalties if hazardous waste is found within materials brought to 
the landfill site. 

The Hazardous Materials Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors 
advises the San Francisco Health Department on numerous practices encompassed by the 
hazardous waste management plan including the storage and reuse of hazardous material 
and the implementation of many state and local regulations. 



^A very small quantity generator is a business generating less than 27 gallons of 
hazardous waste per month. 



Goal 



The major goal of hazardous waste planning is to minimize or eliminate harm to public health 
and the environment from hazardous wastes and prevent hazardous waste being disposed 
into land or water or emitted into the air. The County's detailed plan emphasized in order of 
priority: source reduction, including chemical elimination as well as substitution; recycling and 
reuse; treatment (on-site and off-site) and as a last resort, disposal (off-site). In recycling and 
reuse, the minimization of air emissions is especially important. The County Plan also 
provided the basis for siting of hazardous waste facilities still required after serious efforts to 
achieve source reduction. 



FIGURE 1. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WASTE REDUCTION 
& WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY 



USE & SOURCE REDUCTION 


most desirable option 


REDUCE OR EUMINATE THE USE 
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 


REDUCE OR EUMINATE THE 
GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES 


Materials substitution 
Product substitution 
Product reformulation 


Process or Equipment Changes 
Improved Plant Operations 
In-Process Recycling 



all methods 
may result in 
air emissions 
and/or water 

discharges 



preJerred over.. 



ON-SITE RECYCUNG 



preferred over.. 



OFF-SITE RECYCUNG 



preferred over.. 



ON-SITE TREATMENT 



preferred over... 



OFF-SITE TREATMENT 
only If all other options have 
been eliminated 



all methods 
may result In 

hazardous 
waste 

residuals 



RESIDUALS 
REPOSrrORY 



3 



I 



OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 



SOURCE REDUCTION 



OBJECTIVE 19 

PROMOTE SOURCE REDUCTION THROUGH REDUCED USE OF HAZARDOUS 
MATERIALS AND GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. 

In terms of environmental protection, the emphasis needs to shift from the disposal of 
hazardous wastes to their prevention by not using hazardous materials in the first place. In 
addition to protecting the environment, source reduction helps conserve chemical resources. 
It allows for significant financial savings due to the elimination or reduction of costs associated 
with management, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. Also eliminated 
are risks of human exposure and environmental release, and liability which are exacerbated 
by San Francisco's high population density. The need for expansion of treatment and disposal 
facilities is reduced. 

Because of the importance and value of source reduction, it is at the top of the waste 
reduction hierarchy. Barriers to source reduction include: institutional inertia, overemphasis 
on disposal and need for assistance by the public on understanding the availability of non- 
hazardous substitute products. Source reduction is also essential in strengthening the 
position of the County in negotiating potential intercounty agreements for provision of off-site 
waste management. 

Policy 19-1 

Identify reduction opportunities through waste reduction audits. 

A waste reduction audit examines existing production and hazardous materials use practices 
within a plant or business and provides a roadmap for developing a source reduction and 
waste reduction strategy. Waste reduction audits should be performed for all firms using 
hazardous materials. Specific recommendations of such audits can include: housekeeping 
changes such as waste segregation and modification of cleaning and rinsing procedures; 
modification of technical processes or equipment to produce the same product but reduce the 
waste stream; substitution of raw materials or of the manufactured products used in facility 
operations; and external reduction opportunities such as a waste exchange. Audits could be 
a service and/or requirement for users of the hazardous waste facility or for firms generating 
hazardous waste. 



4 



Policy 19 -2 

Support public education related to lowered use or substitution of hazardous chemicals 
and on the proper management of hazardous waste. 

San Francisco's residents, businesses, work force and public officials should be educated on 
source reduction including chemical elimination as well as substitution and on the safe 
handling of hazardous waste generated in their homes, workplaces, recreational facilities and 
public buildings. 

Policy 19-3 

Encourage City agencies to act as role models by establishing a Waste Minimization 
Program. 

A City government top management interdepartmental program should commit to 
implementation of waste minimization efforts. A Waste Minimization Pilot Program for City 
Departments can assist with strategies for choosing alternatives to hazardous materials, 
reducing waste quantities and recycling. This should include review of the purchase of 
hazardous products for safer substitutes. 



ADEQUATE FACILITIES 



OBJECTIVE 20 

ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES NEEDED TO RECYCLE, TREAT, STORE, 
TRANSFER AND DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. 

Recycling and reuse are the next preferred approaches over source reduction. Even after 
serious attention to source reduction, there will still be a quantity of hazardous materials 
requiring appropriate facilities for recycling, or storage and transfer out of San Francisco. 
Over time these quantities should diminish. The City will need to evaluate expansion options 
for the existing facility, whether to pursue curbside removal of used oil and whether a 
collection at a number of decentralized locations is appropriate. In considering these options, 
the potential for recycling and reuse should be strongly emphasized, after all possible efforts 
at hazardous chemical elimination or substitution have been pursued. 

Through its solid waste management contractor, the Sanitary Fill Company, the City operates 
a centralized household hazardous waste collection facility at Beatty and Tunnel Avenues. 
The existing, hazardous waste collection, storage and transfer facility is part of a much larger 
complex which includes recycling and refuse collection and transfer. The analysis of long 
term trends in source reduction, as well as the use of this hazardous waste facility and its pilot 
program for commercial very small quantity generators is crucial to the evaluation of potential 
new facilities and services. 



5 



Policy 20-1 

Ensure that siting and permitting authiorization for proposed off-site facilities or 
facilities expansion adequately protects the public health and provides for effective 
hazardous waste management and economic efficiency. 

An off-site facility involves the transfer of hazardous waste from the site where it was 
generated to another location where it may be stored, treated, transferred again. In some 
cases, disposal may be involved. After extensive review of State criteria for location of 
hazardous waste transfer, storage or treatment facilities, the County Hazardous Waste 
Management Plan directed that such facilities should only be located in San Francisco's 
Heavy Industrial (M-2) districts. However, not all parts of the heavy industrial district which 
rings major portions of the shoreline in the southeastern part of the City are equally suitable. 
Such attributes as federal ownership, potential landslide hazards, liquefaction and/or 
subsidence hazards as shown on Map -- reduce suitability for locations of a transfer, storage 
or treatment facility (TSF). Other State and local criteria and considerations are summarized 
in the tables on the following pages. 

A disposal site for waste remaining after recycling or treatment is not possible within San 
Francisco because of the State's extensive land requirements (50-300 acres plus a 2000 foot 
buffer from residences). San Francisco therefore will need to continue exporting these 
residual wastes out of the county. 

The need for the siting of any additional hazardous waste facilities should be assessed 
against the State siting criteria and local considerations as developed in the County 
Hazardous Waste Management Plan and summarized here. State law also requires the 
appointment of a local advisory committee to advise the City on terms and conditions by 
which a new facility or a proposed expansion may be acceptable to the community. 

Policy 20 - 2 

Support San Francisco's participation in regional agreements on a fair share allocation 
for future facilities. 

In November, 1990 the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution endorsing San Francisco's 
participation in a regional Hazardous Waste Management Facility Allocation Committee. This 
committee convened by the Association of Bay Area Governments is intended to refine the 
fair share concept, limiting the number, types and size of hazardous waste facilities based on 
regional needs of the nine Bay Area counties. No one county in the region would be the 
recipient of all the needed facilities. 

This concept is important because San Francisco clearly cannot manage its hazardous waste 
in isolation from other counties as it does not have areas meeting State criteria for disposal 
facilities. As of 1992, San Francisco exported all its manifested hazardous waste to 16 or 
more other counties. San Francisco is reliant on out of county disposal facilities. Only 
transfer, storage and treatment facilities can be located in San Francisco. 



6 




Legend; 

M~2 Zoned Areas 



□ 



M-2 Zoned Area - 
federal land « 

M-2 Zoned Area - South 
Beach Redevelopment * 

Areas of Potential 
Landslide Hazard 2. 



1. San Pranclsco D«parimeni of 
City Planning. 1991. 

2. San Francisco Seismic Saleiy 
Investigation Geoiogk: Evaloation 

(611^6.1974) 

* Hazaraous waste tacililies noi 
permiiied. 





□ 



Legend: 

M-2 Zoned Areas ' 



M-2 Zoned Area - 
federal land * 

M-2 Zoned Area - South 
Beach Redevelopment* 



Areas of Potential 
Ligulfaction and 
Subsidence Hazard 

Areas of Potential 
Liguifaction 

Areas of Potential 
Subsidence 



1. San Francisco Departmant of 
Ciiy Planning. i99i . 



• Hazardous waste laciiities fwt oemitted 



Enlarged 



MAP - POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITES IN RELATION TO SELECTED 
SITING CRITERIA (final graphic to be prepared combining these 2 figures from the Final EIR 
on the CHWMP). 



HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSFER AND STORAGE FACULTY (TSF) 

SITING CRITERIA' 



The TSF should be: 

• close to the waste generators (75% of waste generators who send 
waste off-site are located in the southeast area of San Francisco), 
and 

• near major transportation routes (major highways are easily 
accessed from the southeast area of the City). 



The TSF may be sited conditionally provided there is a risk assessment, 
engineered design features, and/or buffer zone: 



• in areas of potential flooding because of reservoir failure 

• in areas with unstable soils 

• in areas subject to subsidence (ground collapses) or liquefaction 
(ground changes from granular material to a fluid state) 

• in areas subject to tsunamis (tidal waves) 

• in areas with high groundwater 

• in areas with permeable strata and soils 

• in an air quality "non-attainment" area 

• near residences 

• near immobile populations (e.g., schools, hospitals) 

• in recreational areas (e.g.. Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
but only for low volume transfer and storage of wastes generated 
there), and 

• on State or Federal lands 



The TSF may not be sited: 

• on military land (e.g., Hunters Point Naval Shipyard); 

• in wetland areas (areas determined by the Army Corps of Engineers 
and the California Department of Fish and Game); and 

• in critical habitat areas; there is no precise mapping of the existence 
of sensitive species in the southeast section of San Francisco; field 
analysis may be required if and when facilities are proposed. 



^County Hazardous Waste Management Plans are required to utilize criteria listed in 
California Department of Health Services, Toxics Substances Control Division, Guidelines for 
Preparation of Hazardous Waste Management Plans . June, 1987. 



LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS 
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES 



Identification of waste reduction tecliniques which can be employed by 
users of the facility and what modification to the scope of the project 
such waste reduction efforts require. 

Landscaping around the facility to enhance esthetics and reduce noise. 

Limitation of hours of truck arrival or departure related to peak traffic 
periods. 

Designation of special transportation routes for highly hazardous 
materials or waste that are to be handled by a facility. 

Education of the users of the facility by the project sponsor on waste 
reduction, waste handling, and transportation techniques. 

Assistance by the project sponsor in establishing milk runs (to pick up 
hazardous wastes) where it is economically feasible. 



:\lhs\wp51 \hazlocal. tab 



Policy 20-3 

Preserve the existing treatment and storage facilities at the site they currently occupy, 
if feasible. 

The only remaining hazardous waste treatment facility in San Francisco at China Basin 
provides service for ship waste, oil and tank bottom wastes. The recovered oil is sent to a 
rerefiner and the treated water is transported by truck to the local waste water treatment 
facility after appropriate testing. Without this treatment facility, sizable quantities of facility of 
locally generated oil waste would have to be transported and managed outside of San 
Francisco. This facility also is an important component of San Francisco's regional fair share 
of hazardous waste facilities. 



PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 



OBJECTIVE 21 

CONTROL ILLEGAL DISPOSAL AND ELIMINATE LAND DISPOSAL OF UNTREATED 
WASTE 

Lack of awareness and lack of convenient low-cost disposal options are probably the two 
major causes of illegal disposal of hazardous waste on City streets and sidewalks, vacant lots, 
private property and into the sewer system. Hazardous waste presents environmental 
problems when disposed of in streets or sewers, or when combined with solid waste for 
disposal in municipal waste land fills. The improper disposal of hazardous waste can result in 
exposure and health risk to sewer and solid waste collection employees and the public. The 
combined effect over time of many small volumes of illegally disposed of hazardous waste can 
contaminate soil and groundwater. 

Policy 21 - 1 

Prevent illegal disposal. 

A major continuing approach to preventing illegal disposal is the Waste Acceptance Control 
Program which samples solid waste collected in San Francisco by the local garbage haulers. 
This program is directed to preventing hazardous waste from being delivered to the landfill. It 
consists of methods for identifying and removing any prohibited wastes which are delivered to 
the transfer station. When a prohibited waste is found, the Sanitary Fill facility is equipped to 
safely hold it on a temporary basis until the customer is contacted and is required to reclaim 
the waste. The most common problem materials are paint and oils. 



10 



Policy 21-2 



Strengthen enforcement efforts. 

There should be a balance of education and enforcement to ensure that the latter is used 
when, and only when, necessary. Enforcement programs need to be coordinated with the 
identification of hazardous waste management and disposal options. Generators of 
hazardous waste who fail to respond to Department of Public Health notices are referred to 
the City Attorney's Office and District Attorney's Office for legal action. Management 
information system capability is critical to cross check, anticipate and evaluate illegal disposal 
problems. 

OBJECTIVE 22 

ENSURE EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY. 

Local, state and federal laws require emergency response planning and training of hazardous 
waste materials users. Each business must develop its own emergency response plan. Within 
local government, the San Francisco Fire Department has a Hazardous Materials Emergency 
Response Team that is on call 24 hours a day. There are four fire fighters on duty at any one 
time on this ERT team. The ERT works closely with and receives technical assistance from 
the San Francisco Department of Health. It is the only such team in San Francisco. Better 
equipment and improved information on hazardous materials locations based on disclosure 
provisions of the San Francisco hazardous materials ordinance should be provided to this 
important unit. 

Policy 22-1 

Ensure proper emergency response preparation. 

Improved on-the-scene data access is needed to help emergency response teams in their 
analysis of the hazards at sites of emergencies. The latest existing hazardous materials 
inventory, as required under the storage ordinance, should be computerized and made 
available to responding emergency authorities. The Fire Department needs improved 
equipment and additional equipment to use at emergencies for evaluating the risk to fire 
fighters and the public and for stabilizing the materials involved. 

Policy 22-2 

Coordinate and strengthen interagency response efforts. 

Implementation of the emergency provisions of the local storage ordinance should be 
integrated with the requirements of state and federal laws. The Fire Department should 
continue to work in close coordination with the Department of Public Health, the City Office of 
Emergency Services and the Police Department. The Fire Department utilizes San Francisco 
Health Department industrial hygienists when the substance(s) and its properties and potential 



11 



health effects are unknown. Actual clean up of spills and similar contamination are generally 
conducted by a contractor under Health Department supervision. 

envprot.haz 



12 



Case No. 95.400M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding one site on 
the north side of Bayview Hill to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
'Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 13963 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission adopt and maintain, including necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may over time become obsolete; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan by Resolution No. 11067 on July 9, 1987; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan, by Resolution No. 13149 on August 15, 1991 to add Citywide 
Policy #13, which states "Preserve and protect significant Natural Areas," and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adopting Resolution No. 13411 on October 1, 1992, to add and 
revise policies on regional recreational trails; and 

WHEREAS, The electorate of San Francisco in November 1988 revised Charter Section 
6.413 establishing the San Francisco Park and Open Space Fund to acquire and develop 
additional public open space, as well as to renovate and maintain it; and 

WHEREAS, Since 1987 many of the sites proposed to be acquired as open space in i 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" have been or are in the process of 
being acquired to serve the needs of San Francisco residents; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 95.400M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding one site on 
the north side of Bayview Hill to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 

Resolution No. 13963 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, as part of Case No. 95.120EMR, the Commission considered a Master 
Plan Amendment for the 1994-1995 San Francisco Park and Open Space Program, to add 
four sites, including the Bayview Hill site, as "Proposed Public Open Space" that were not 
designated in the Recreation and Open Space Element as proposed public open space by 
either policy or map; and 

WHEREAS, at its hearing on May 4, 1995, the Planning Commission removed the 
Bayview Hill Site from the proposed Master Plan Amendment, deferring considering 
acquisition of the level portion of Bayview Hill site adjacent to Jamestown Avenue until it 
considered adoption of the South Bayshore Plan, but did find acquisition of the hillside portion 
of the site (Phase I and II - natural area) in conformity with the Master Plan as part of the 
1995-1996 San Francisco Park and Open Space Program and approved it for or acquisition; 
and 

WHEREAS, at its July 20, 1995 hearing on the Bayshore Plan (Case No. 89.120EMTZ), 
the Commission determined to consider acquisition of the entire Bayview Hill site including the 
level portion adjacent to Jamestown Avenue; and 

WHEREAS, the following site, contained in EXHIBIT A and listed below, is proposed to 
be added to Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space": 

a) Bayview Hill site, adjacent to Bayview Hill Park, 
AB 4991 (portions); and 



CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 95.400M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding one site on 
the north side of Bayview Hill to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 

Resolution No. 13963 
Page 3 



WHEREAS, There is support for acquisition of the site in order to protect and conserve 
remaining natural areas in the City, to improve recreation opportunities in the South Bayshore 
District and citywide; and 

WHEREAS, Acquisition of the site would enlarge an existing public park (Bayview Hill 
Park), protect a significant natural area which supports Mission blue butterifly habitat [a rare an 
Endangered species] and other native plants and animals, provide a recreational amenity in a 
"High Need" area; and 

WHEREAS, On balance, the proposed amendments are consistent with the eight priority 
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525 and 6.413, notice was duly given of a 
public hearing by the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an amendment to the 
Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, which hearing was held on 
September 28, 1995; and 

WHEREAS, On September 28, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing 
and considered testimony related to the proposed amendment; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission deems the proposed amendments to be appropriate and 
desires to adopt them as part of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan; 

and ' 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 95.400M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding one site on 
the north side of Bayview Hill to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 

Resolution No. 13963 
Page 4 



WHEREAS, the Commission, after hearing public testimony, determines that the level 
portion of the Bayview Hill site should be excluded from acquisition; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission, before 
acting on the proposed Master Plan amendment, does hereby certify that it has reviewed, 
considered, and approved the information contained in the Certificate of Determination of 
Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review, under General Rule Exclusion (State 
Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) prepared for Case No. 95.1 20E, which considered a 
proposed Master Plan amendment and acquisition of the subject property; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, 
adding the hillside portions of the following site shown in "Exhibit A" to the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the "Citywide 
Recreation and Open Space Plan:" 

a) Bayview Hill site, adjacent to Bayview Hill Park, 
AB 4991 (portions); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission removes from consideration, 
acquisition of the level portion of the site along Jamestown Avenue and a portion of the 
hillside along the toe of the hill, shown in EXHIBIT B; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendment and shall certify a copy thereof 
to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 



95400M.Res 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 95.400M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adding one site on 
the north side of Bayview Hill to the category 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or 
Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the 
Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan." 

Resolution 13963 
Page 5 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on September 28, 1995. 

Linda Avery 
Secretary 

AYES: Commissioners Boomer, Fung, Levine, Prowler, Unobskey 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: Commissioner Lowenberg, Martin 

ADOPTED: September 28, 1 995 



95400M.RES " 



Exhibit A 



Resolution 13963 



Map showing (a) the location of the site proposed to be added to, the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space," in Map 4, the "Citywide 
Recreation and Open Space Plan," of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master 
Plan. 

Site proposed to be added to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for 
or Convert to Public Open Space," in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space 
Plan." 

a) Bayview Hill site, adjacent to Bayview Hill Park, 
AB 4991 (portions). 



95400M.RES 



San Francisco Planning Department 

Proposed Acquisition, Bayview Hill Site 
AB4991, (port ion) * 




Little 

HoUywood 



Candlestick Point 



CCSF Rec. Park Department 
Parks, Open Spaces, Recreation 
Facilities 

Bayview Hill Site Phase I 
_ (Acquisition Funding previously 
approved) 



Bayviev^ Hill Site Phase II 
(Acquisition Funding previously 
approved) 



State Property ^ 
Candlestick S.R-H 



Bayview Hill Site 

.'rv'^l "^ortion of Site (Not to be acquired) 



Exhibit B 



Resolution 13963 



Map entitled "General Description of Property Not to be Acquired or Designated for Open 
Space," notated at Planning Commission Public Hearing, dated 9/29/95 

This map shows the portion of the site along Jamestown and including the toe of the slope 
proposed not to be acquired as public open space. 



95400M.RES 



Case No. 96.076M 

Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation 
and Open Space Plan," and Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" of the Recreation 
and Open Space Element of the Master Plan 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 14103 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission adopt and maintain, including necessary changes therein, a Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may over time become obsolete; and 

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan by Resolution No. 11067 on July 9, 1987; and 

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan, by Resolution No. 13149 on August 15, 1991 to add Citywide 
Policy #13, which states "Preserve and protect significant Natural Areas," and 

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission amended the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan adopting Resolution No. 13411 on October 1, 1992, to add and 
revise policies on regional recreational trails; and 

WHEREAS, The electorate of San Francisco in November 1988 revised Charter Section 
6.413 establishing the San Francisco Park and Open Space Fund to acquire and develop 
additional public open space, as well as to renovate and maintain it; and 



95076m. Res 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.076M 

Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation 
and Open Space Plan," and Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" of the Recreation 
and Open Space Element of the Master Plan 



Resolution No. 14103 
Page 2 

WHEREAS, Since 1987 many of the sites proposed to be acquired as open space in 
Map 4. the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" have been or are in the process of 
being acquired to serve the needs of San Francisco residents; and 

WHEREAS, Four natural area sites are proposed to be acquired as public open space. 
Acquisition of the sites was found to be in conformity with Policy 13 on Natural Areas in 
previous years of the Program, but the sites are not designated in the Recreation and Open 
Space Element as "Proposed Public Open Space" in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and 
Open Space Plan;" and 

WHEREAS, The four significant natural area sites, listed below and shown in EXHIBIT A 
are proposed to be added to Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan" to the 
category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space;" and 

WHEREAS, The sites meet the criteria for Significant Natural Area sites worthy of 
protection in Policy 13 in that they are undeveloped and relatively undisturbed sites which are 
remnants of the original natural landscape supporting a significant and diverse plant and 
wildlife habitat; some sites may contain rare, threatened, or endangered species, or contain 
plant species which support rare, threatened, or endangered species. One site is adjacent to 
another protected natural resource area, and the two areas together would support a larger or 
more diverse natural habitat; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Master Plan amendment and the acquisition of the four 
significant natural area sites would result in public protection and preservation of four 
significant natural areas in the City; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.076M 

Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation 
and Open Space Plan," and Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" of the Recreation 
and Open Space Element of the Master Plan 

Resolution No. 14103 
Page 3 



WHEREAS, One lot proposed for acquisition in Case No. 95.120MR, and included in 
the 1995-1996 San Francisco Park and Open Space Program and Master Plan Amendment 
as a replacement site for the Sharon Arts Center in Golden Gate Park is no longer being 
considered for acquisition, and should therefore be removed from Map 4, the "Citywide 
Recreation and Open Space Plan," designated as "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for 
or Convert to Public Open Space;" and 

WHEREAS, The site once proposed as a replacement site for the Sharon Arts Center, 
listed below and shown in EXHIBIT B, is proposed to be deleted from Map 4, the "Citywide 
Recreation and Open Space Plan," from the designation "Proposed Public Open Space, 
Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space": 

Replacement site for Sharon Arts Center 

AB 3556, lot 25; and 

WHEREAS, The Neighborhood Policy 4, states: "Acquire and develop new public open 
space in existing residential neighborhoods, giving priority to areas which are most deficient in 
open space;" and 

WHEREAS, Neighborhood Policy 4 text goes on to state: "These factors change over 

time. As this occurs, priorities should be shifted accordingly;" and 

WHEREAS, 1990 U.S. Census data indicate that socioeconomic and demographic 
conditions have changed since 1980 and the neighborhoods surrounding McLaren Park have 
many of the socioeconomic and demographic conditions used to designate "High Need Areas" 
in Map 9, the "Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space Improvement Priority Plan," 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.076M 

Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation 
and Open Space Plan," and Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" of the Recreation 
and Open Space Element of the Master Plan 



Resolution No. 14103 
Page 4 



including: a high percentage of persons with low household income; a high percentage of 
children under 5; a high percentages of children 6-13; a high percentage of senior citizens 
[age 65 and above]; a high percentage of youth 14-20 [not considered in the Element]; and 

WHEREAS, Because of the socioeconomic and demographic changes which have 
taken place since 1980, Map 9, the "Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" should be amended to designate the neighborhoods surrounding 
McLaren Park as a "High Need Area," as shown in EXHIBIT C; and 

WHEREAS, Designation of the area around McLaren Park as a "High Need Area" would 
allow for improvement in recreation programs in the area, and funding a new day camp 
program in McLaren Park, Crocker Amazon Playground or Louis Sutter Playground; and 

WHEREAS, There is significant neighborhood agreement on the proposed amendment 
of the Map 9, the "Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space Improvement Priority Plan," and 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan," and 

WHEREAS, On balance, the proposed amendments are consistent with the eight 
priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525 and 6.413, notice was duly given of a 
public hearing by the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an amendment to the 
Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, which hearing was held on April 25, 

1996; and 

WHEREAS, On April 25, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and 
considered testimony related to the proposed amendments; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 96.076M 

Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation 
and Open Space Plan," and Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" of the Recreation 
and Open Space Element of the Master Plan 

Resolution No. 14103 
Page 5 



WHEREAS, The Commission deems the proposed amendments to be appropriate and 
desires to adopt them as part of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission, before 
acting on the proposed Master Plan amendment, does hereby certify that it has reviewed, 
considered, and approved the information contained in the Certificate of Determination of 
Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review, under General Rule Exclusion (State 
Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3)); 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, 
adding the following four sites (a-d) to and deleting one site (e) from the category "Proposed 
Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the "Citywide 
Recreation and Open Space Plan," as shown in Exhibit A: 

a. Aquavista Lot, 

Assessor's Block (AB) 2798, lot 29; 

b. Fifteenth Avenue steps lots 

AB 1860A, lots 20-21; AB 1861 A, lot 2; 

c. Hawk Hill 

AB 2336, lot 27; AB 2337, lots 2-7; AB 2338, lots 4-1 a'; AB 2338A, lots 13-17; 

d. Palou-Phelps 

AB 5329, lot 1; AB 5328, lots 4-9, 17-29; AB 5336, lots 1, 47-49, 52; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 96.076M 

Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation 
and Open Space Plan," and Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" of the Recreation 
and Open Space Element of the Master Plan 

Resolution No. 14103 
Page 6 



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, 
deleting one site (e) from the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for or Convert 
to Public Open Space" in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan," as shown 
in Exhibit B: 

e. delete proposed replacement site for Sharon Arts Center 

AB 3556. lot 25; and 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, 
amending Map 9, the "Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space Improvement Priority 
Plan" to designate the neighborhoods surrounding McLaren park as a "High Need Area," as 
shown in Exhibit C; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendment and shall certify a copy thereof 
to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 96.076M 

Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation 
and Open Space Plan," and Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" of the Recreation 
and Open Space Element of the Master Plan 

Resolution No. 14103 
Page 7 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on April 25, 1996. 

Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: Commissioners Chinchilla, Hayden, Marks, Martin, Mills, Levine, Lowenberg 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: None 

ADOPTED: April 25, 1996 



96076m.RES 



Exhibit A 



Proposed Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan," 
adding the following four sites (a-d) to the category "Proposed Public Open Space, 
Acquire for or Convert to Public Open Space" 

(a) Aquavista Lot, 

Assessor's Block (AB) 2798, lot 29; 

(b) Fifteenth Avenue steps lots 

AB 1860A, lots 20-21; AB 1861 A, lot 2; 

(c) Hawk Hill 

AB 2336, lot 27; AB 2337, lots 2-7; AB 2338, lots 4-13; AB 2338A, lots 13-17; 

(d) Palou-Phelps 

AB 5329, lot 1; AB 5328, lots 4-9, 17-29; AB 5336, lots 1, 47-49, 52; and 



96075m. res 



San fTaTTdsro PtermingiDe paU iit e ri t 

f 

Aquavista Site 
AB 2798, lot 29 





Existing Park or Public Open Space 



Amend Map 4 to DE-DESIGNATE 
site as "Proposed Public Open Space, 
Acquire for or Convert to Public Open 
Space." 



San -Francisco Planning OepaftfT^ent 

Proposal to designate as "Proposed Public Open Space" 

Fifteenth Avenue Steps 
AB 1860A, lots 20-21; 
AB 1861 A, lot 2 





Existing Park or Public Open Space 



) 



Proposed Acquisition site. 
Amend Map 4 to designate site as 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire 
for or Convert to Public Open Space." 



BanTrancisco Planning Department 



Proposal to designate as "Proposed Public Open Space" 

Hawk Hill Site 
AB 2336, lot 27 

Hawk Hill Extension: AB 2337, lots 2-7, 

AB 2338, lots 4-11, 12-13, AB 2338A, lots 13-17 





Existing Park or Public Open Space 



Proposed Acquisition site, 
Amend Map 4 to designate site as 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire 
for or Convert to Public Open Space." 



San Francisco Planning Department 



Proposal to designate as "Proposed Public Open Space" 



Palou - Phelps Site 

AB 5329, lot 1; AB 5328, lots 4-9, 17-29; 
AB 5336, lots 1,47-49, 52 




Proposed Acquisition site, 
Amend Map 4 to designate site as 
"Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire 
for or Convert to Public Open Space." 



Exhibit B 



Proposed Amendment of Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan," to 
de-designate one site (e) from the category "Proposed Public Open Space, Acquire for 
or Convert to Public Open Space" 

de-designate proposed replacement site for Sharon Arts Center 

AB 3556, lot 25 



^ San Francisco Planning Department 

Proposal to De-designate as "Proposed Public Open Space" 

Sharon Arts Center Replacement 
16th and Dolores Street 
A.B. 3556, lot 25 




Existing Park or Public Open Space 



I ) 

Amend Map 4 to DE-DESIGNATE 
site as "Proposed Public Open Space, 
Acquire for or Convert to Public Open 
Space." 



Exhibit C 



Proposed Amendment of Map 9, the "Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" to designate the neighborhoods surrounding McLaren Park 
the Southeast part of the City as a "High Need Area" 



95075m. res 



Exhibit C, 



Proposed Amendment of Map 9 




3000 fT 



NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION & 

OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY PLAN 



Map 9 



C PUBLIC RECREATION & OPEN SPACE 
Make Better Use of Existing Neighborhood 
Open Space Ac Facilities 



pps! PROTECTED AREA 

Improve Street Space for Recreation 
and Landscaping where Possible 



• • • * 

• • • 4 

• • • * 



HIGH NEED AREAS 

Give Highest Priority for New Parks 
and Recreation Improvements 



Give Priority for New Parks 
and Recreation Iriiprovements 



Note: 

Becikuse of the scale of ttiit mxp 
it is not possible to show precise 
boundaries or exceptionally 
tmall open spaces. 



t ♦ 



Give Priority for Recreation 
Improvements in Existing Parks 



Note: underlined text proposed to be added 



Case No. 96.260M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan removing 949 
Vermont Street, AB 4093, lot 92, from the 
designation "Existing Public Open Space," in 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan," and from the designation "Public 
Recreation and Open Space," in Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation & Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 14146 



WHEREAS, The San Francisco Charter requires that the City Planning Commission 
adopt and maintain a Master Plan, including making necessary changes to it; and 

WHEREAS, Certain portions of the Master Plan may over time may require revisions; 

and 

WHEREAS, The Master Plan includes, among other Elements, the Recreation and Open 
Space Element; and 

WHEREAS, The property located at 949 Vermont Street was part of the Highway 101 
right-of-way that was not required for Highways construction and was deeded by Caltrans to 
the Department of Public Works of the CCSF after reconfiguration of Vermont Street; and 

WHEREAS, The property is not a park or playground used for active recreation, but as 
part of a landscaped right-of-way, was considered as part of the City's informal open space 
system, and was designated as "Public Open Space," in the Recreation and Open Space 
Element that was adopted in 1973, as subsequently amended; and 



N:\share\96260M.res 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 96.260M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan removing 949 
Vermont Street, AB 4093, lot 92, from the 
designation "Existing Public Open Space," in 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan," and from the designation "Public 
Recreation and Open Space," in Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation & Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" 

Resolution No. 14146 
Page 2 



WHEREAS, Citywide Policy 2 of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master 
Plan states: "Preserve existing public open space;" and 

WHEREAS, In this instance, there are reasons to amend the Recreation and Open 
Space Element of the Master Plan to de-designate this particular property as public open 
space; and 

WHEREAS, The particular site, although part of the City's informal open space system, 
has limited value as public open space because it: 

a. ) is a steeply sloped, irregularly shaped lot of approximately 3,000 square feet. 

The lot varies from 15-25 feet in width, and extends approximately 145 feet 
along Vermont Street; 

b. ) is not currently used for active recreation due to its steep slope and small 

size, and in the future it would not be useful as a public park or recreation 
facility; 

c. ) has very limited public access because its only access is from Vermont 

Street (a one way street) and because Highway 101 eliminates physical and 
visual access to the site from the west. Therefore the site has limited public 
value; 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.260M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan removing 949 
Vermont Street, AB 4093, lot 92, from the 
designation "Existing Public Open Space," in 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan," and from the designation "Public 
Recreation and Open Space," In Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation & Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" 



Resolution No. 14146 
Page 3 



d.) has low visual quality. The property is minimally landscaped and 
maintained; and 

WHEREAS, The surrounding residential area is adequately sen/ed with other public 
open spaces that are centrally located to the neighborhood and more valuable for their active 
and visual open space values, including 4.4 acre Jackson Playground, 9.5 acre Potrero Hill 
Recreation Center (large parks with active recreation facilities), 2.5 acre McKinley Square, just 
north on Vermont Street, as well as other landscaped open spaces associated with the 
Highway 101 right-of-way; and 

WHEREAS, The site is included in a settlement of a lawsuit against the City. The 
proposed action on this case would permit the Planning Commission to find the proposed sale 
of the property in conformity with the Master Plan and would enable the City to sell the 
property to the adjacent property owners, in settlement of the lawsuit; and 

WHEREAS, the site located at 949 Vermont Street, Block 4093, lot 92, and contained in 
EXHIBIT A, is proposed to be deleted from Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space 
Plan," with the designation "Existing Public Open Space, Retain Outdoor Open Space, 
Preserve Natural Qualities, and Where Appropriate Convert to Public Recreational Use," and 
to be deleted from Map 9, the "Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space Improvement 
Plan," from the category "Public Recreation and Open Space, Make Better Use of Existing 
Neighborhood Open Space and Facilities;" and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 96.260M 

. Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan removing 949 
Vermont Street, AB 4093, lot 92, from the 
designation "Existing Public Open Space," in 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan," and from the designation "Public 
Recreation and Open Space," in Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation & Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" 

Resolution No. 14146 
Page 4 



WHEREAS, On balance, the proposed amendment is consistent with the eight priority 
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525, notice was given of a public hearing by 
the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an amendment to the Recreation and 
Open Space Element of the Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, On June 27, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and 
considered testimony related to the proposed amendments; and 

WHEREAS, The Commission deems the proposed amendment to be appropriate and 
desires to adopt them; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission, before 
acting on the proposed Master Plan amendment, does hereby certify that it has reviewed, 
considered, and approved the information contained in the Certificate of Determination of 
Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review, under Class 12 of State EIR Guidelines; 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Master Plan, to 
delete the site at 949 Vermont Street, Assessor's Block 4093, lot 92, from the category 
"Existing Public Open Space, Retain Outdoor Open Space, Preserve Natural Qualities, and 
Where Appropriate Convert to Public Recreational Use," in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation 
and Open Space Plan," and to delete the site (a) from the category "Public Recreation and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.260M 

Amendment of the Recreation and Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan removing 949 
Vermont Street, AB 4093, lot 92, from the 
designation "Existing Public Open Space," in 
Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open 
Space Plan," and from the designation "Public 
Recreation and Open Space," in Map 9, the 
"Neighborhood Recreation & Open Space 
Improvement Priority Plan" 



Resolution 14146 
Page 5 



Open Space, Make Better Use of Existing Neighborhood Open Space and Facilities" from 
Map 9, the "Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space Improvement Plan:" 

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendment and shall certify a copy thereof 
to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 

Commission on June 27, 1996. 



Linda Avery 
Secretary 



AYES: Commissioners Baker, Chinchilla, Hayden, Lowenberg, Marks, Martin, Mills 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: None 

ADOPTED: June 27, 1996 



N:\Referral\9512.0M.Res 



Exhibit A 



Site proposed to be deleted from the category "Existing Public Open Space, Retain Outdoor 
Open Space, Preserve Natural Qualities, and Where Appropriate Convert to Public 
Recreational Use," in Map 4, the "Citywide Recreation and Open Space Plan," and to delete 
the site (a) from the category "Public Recreation and Open Space, Make Better Use of 
Existing Neighborhood Open Space and Facilities" from Map 9, the "Neighborhood Recreation 
and Open Space Improvement Plan" 

(a) 949 Vermont Street, Assessor's Block 4093, lot 92; and 



Resolution of Approval 
File No. 96.242M 
Charter Implementation 
Master Plan Amendments 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 14149 



WHEREAS, On November 7, 1995, the voters of San Francisco approved the new 
Charter which changes the name of the Master Plan to the General Plan and mandates, 
among other things, that the Board of Supervisors approve or reject amendments to the 
General Plan; and 

WHEREAS, In order to implement these provisions which will become effective on July 
1, 1996, the Introduction of the Master Plan has to be amended to reflect the new Charter 
requirements; and 

WHEREAS, The revisions to the Introduction of the Master Plan (1) add a summary of 
the intent and purpose of the Master Plan, (2) replace the 1932 Charter mandate with the 
1996 version, (3) add an overview and description of the structure of the Plan, and (4) update 
the Table of Contents; and 

WHEREAS, The revisions to the introduction of the Master Plan do not constitute a 
change in any goal, objective or policy of the elements or area plans of the Master Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed amendments are determined to be exempt from 
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Section 3.525, the Planning Commission held a duly 
noticed hearing on June 13, 1996, further meetings on June 20 and June 27, and heard public 
testimony. 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission finds from 
the facts presented that the public necessity, convenience and general welfare require the 
proposed amendments to the Introduction of the Master Plan; and 



1 



Resolution No. 14149 
File No. 96.242M 
Charter Implementation 
Master Plan Amendments 
Page 2 



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission adopts said 
amendments to the Master Plan as shown in the attached Exhibit A. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Planning 
Commission at its regular meeting on May 28, 1992. 





Linda D. Avery 
Administrative Secretary 


AYES: 


Commissioners Chinchilla, Hayden, Lowenberg, Martin and Mills 


NOES: 


None 


EXCUSED: 


Commissioner Levine 


ABSENT: 


Commissioner Marks 


ADOPTED: 


June 27, 1996 



G:\ivp5 1 \char\resolmpa. doc 



REVISIONS TO GENERAL PLAN INTRODUCTION 

(NOTE: Additions are underlined and deletions are shown with otriko through . 

INTRODUCTION 



San Francisco is a special place. Foremost is its dramatic physical beauty, created by bay 
and ocean surrounding a cluster of hills that are often illuminated by brilliant sun or shrouded 
in silvery fog. The views from these hilltops were qiyen to us inadyertently. The early settlers, 
in their scramble to forge a new life, imposed a simple grid system on the land. So instead of 
streets winding themselves around the hills we have streets that can scale the hilltops to 
reveal extraordinary vistas. These vistas give us a city that appeals from any perspective and 
sparks our imagination. 

Secondly. San Francisco is compact. Its density creates a rich variety of experiences and 
encounters on every street. The city is cosmopolitan and affable, easily traversed by foot or 
by bus, and offers an intriguing balance of urban architecture. 

Thirdly. San Francisco is the center, the soul of the region and cooperative efforts to maintain 
the area's guality of life are imperative. The City has long been a magnet for business, 
culture, retailing, tourism and education. Its rich 150 year history reflects the cultures of the 
world and gives energetic diversity to its neighborhoods. The residents strive to maintain this 
tradition, welcoming people from around the world to participate in the promise of a healthy 
city. 

There are many issues we must face as we look to the future of our economy, work force, 
housing stock, transportation systems, open spaces, and vacant lands. San Francisco is a 
dynamic entity within which there are constant pressures for change and renewal. It remains 
the finance capital for the West and is an emerging gateway to the Pacific Rim. However as 
we enter the 21st century, new technologies, medical research and design are providing 
additional economic opportunity. 

The City's General Plan serves to guide these changes to ensure that the gualities that make 
San Francisco unigue are preserved and enhanced. The General Plan is based on a creative 
consensus concerning social, economic, and environmental issues. Adopted by the Planning 
Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors, the General Plan serves as a basis 
for decisions that affect all aspects of our everyday lives from where we live and work to how 
we move about. It is both a strategic and long term document, broad in scope and specific in 
nature. It is implemented by decisions that direct the allocation of public resources and that 
shape private development. In short, the General Plan is the embodiment of the community's 
vision for the future of San Francisco. 

§ 3.52^ of the Charter of the City & County of San Francisco provides as follows: 

It shal l bo the function and duty of the city plann i ng comm i os i on to adopt and mainta i n, 

i ncluding noccciGary changes therein, a comprehensive, long term, Master P l an for tho 



1 



i mprovomcnt and future dovolopmont of the city and county to bo known ao the maotcr 
plan. The maoter plan oha l l i nclude mapo, piano, charto, oxhibito, and deecr i ptive, 
i nterpretive, and analytical matter, baoed on physical, oocia l , economic, and financia l 
data, wh i ch together present a broad and general guide and pattern conotituting the 
rccommendationo of the commisoion for the coordinated and harmonious development, 
in accordance with present and future needs, of the city and county and of any land 
outsido the boundaries thereof which in the opinion of the comm i ssion bears a relat i on 
thereto. 

State law requires that the General Plan address seven issues: land use, circulation, housing, 
conservation, open space, noise and safety. 

The Charter approved bv the voters in November 1995 requires that the Planning Commission 
recommend amendments to the General Plan to the Board of Supervisors for approval. This 
approval changes the Plan's status from an advisorv to a mandatorv document and 
underscores the importance of Referrals establishing consistency with the General Plan prior 
to actions by the Board of Supervisors on a variety of actions. 

The San Francisco General Plan is designed as a guide to the attainment of the following 
general goals: 

Protection, preservation, and enhancement of the economic, social, cultural, and 
esthetic values that establish the desirable quality and unique character of the city. 

Improvement of the city as a place for living, by aiding in making it more healthful, 
safe, pleasant, and satisfying, with housing representing good standards for all 
residents and by providing adequate open spaces and appropriate community 
facilities. 

Improvement of the city as a place for commerce and industry by making it more 
efficient, orderly, and satisfactory for the production, exchange and distribution of 
goods and services, with adequate space for each type of economic activity and 
improved facilities for the loading and movement of goods. 

Coordination of the varied pattern of land use with public and semi-public service 
facilities required for efficient functioning of the city, and for the convenience and 
well-being of its residents, workers, and visitors. 

Coordination of the varied pattern of land use with circulation routes and facilities 
required for the efficient movement of people and goods within the city, and to and 
from the city. 

Coordination of the growth and development of the city with the growth and 
development of adjoining cities and counties and of the San Francisco Bay 
Region. 

(The following section was moved from tlie end of the Introduction to there.) 



) 



2 



The Plan is intended to be an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of 
objectives and policies and its objectives, and policies are to be construed in a manner which 
achieves that intent. Sec. 101.1(b) of the Planning Code, which was added by Proposition M, 
November 4, 1986, provides as follows: 

The following Priority Policies are hereby established. They shall be included in the 
preamble to the General Plan and shall be the basis upon which inconsistencies in the 
General Plan are resolved: 

1 That existing neighborhood-serving retail uses be preserved and enhanced and 
future opportunities for resident employment in and ownership of such businesses 
enhanced; 

2. That existing housing and neighborhood character be conserved and protected in 
order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods; 

3. That the City 's supply of affordable housing be preserved and enhanced; 

4. That commuter traffic not impede Muni transit services or overburden our streets 
or neighborhood parking; 

5 That a diverse economic base be maintained by protecting our industrial and 

service sectors from displacement due to commercial office development, and that 
future opportunities for resident employment and ownership in these sectors be 
enhanced; 

6. That the City achieve the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury 
and the loss of life in an earthquake; 

7. That landmarks and historic buildings be preserved; and 

8. That our parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas be 
protected from development. 



The manner in which these general goals are to be attained is set forth through a statement of 
objectives and policies in a series of elements, each one dealing with a particular topic, which 
applies citywide. The General Plan currently contains the following elements: Residence, 
Commerce and Industry, Recreation and Open Space, Community Facilities, Transportation, 
Community Safety, Environmental Protection, af^#-Urban Design and Arts . In addition, a Land 
Use Index cross-references the policies related to land use located throughout the General 
Plan. Additional elements may be added from time to time. 

The Plan also contains the following area plans which cover their respective geographic areas 
of the city: Downtown, Civic Center, Western Shoreline, Northeastern Waterfront, Central 
Waterfront, South Bayshore, Rincon Hill, Chinatown, af^Van Ness Avenue and South of 
Market . Here the more general policies in the General Plan elements are made more precise 
as they relate to specific parts of the city. 



3 



In addition to the elements, area plans and the land use index comprising the complete 
General Plan, there are several documents which support the plan. These include background 
papers, technical reports, proposals for citizen review, environmental impact reports or 
negative declarations, program documents, and design guidelines. Program documents 
provide schedules and programs for the short range implementation of the General Plan. 



) 

4 



1 



CONTENTS 



INTRODUCTION 

I ELEMENTS 

RESIDENCE 

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE 
TRANSPORTATION 
URBAN DESIGN 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
COMMUNITY FACILITIES 
COMMUNITY SAFETY 
ARTS 

II AREA PLANS 

DOWNTOWN 

CHINATOWN 

RINCON HILL 

CIVIC CENTER 

VAN NESS AVENUE 

WESTERN SHORELINE 

NORTHEASTERN WATERFRONT 

CENTRAL WATERFRONT 

SOUTH BAYSHORE 

SOUTH OF MARKET 

III LAND USE INDEX 



In addition to the complete General Plan as listed above, program documents for the 
Residence Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and Transportation Element are 
published separately and are available at the Planning Department. 



5 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 1 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 14165 



WHEREAS, Pursuant to the San Francisco Charter requirements that the City Planning 
Commission adopt and maintain, including necessary changes therein, a General Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission adopted the Civic Center Area Plan by Resolution 
No.7216 on July 25, 1974; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission revised the Civic Center Area Plan by Resolution 
No. 11 769 on October 12, 1989; and 

WHEREAS, The Planning Department has developed an overall plan for the improvement of the 
Civic Center area; and 

WHEREAS, The existing adopted and the proposed Civic Center Plans contain objectives and 
policies which will be implemented by the Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines; and 

WHEREAS, The Fulton Street Mall will complement the existing ceremonial and public assembly 
spaces in the Civic Center, the symbolic public center of San Francisco; and 

WHEREAS, The Fulton Street Mall Guidelines are an integral component in the revitalization of 
the Civic Center area; and 

WHEREAS, The Civic Center is a designated Historic District under Article Ten of the Planning 
Code; and 

WHEREAS, The Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines propose transforming Fulton Street from a 
little used vehicular street into a public open space adjacent to the new Main Library and the 
proposed Asian Art Museum; and 

WHEREAS, The Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines outline a framework for design 
improvements; and 

WHEREAS, General Plan policies state the following: 
a. Civic Center Area Plan Objective 1 , Policy 3 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 2 



Design Civic Center buildings and open spaces to serve as public gathering places for 
ceremonial, cultural, recreational, and other community activities. 

b. Civic Center Area Plan Objective 1 , Policy 4 

Provide a sense of identity and cohesiveness through unifying street and Plaza design 
treatments. 

c. Objective 4, Policy 1 1 

Make use of street space and other unused public areas for recreation. 

d. Urban Design Element, Objective 4, Policy 1 1 

Make use of street space and other unused public areas for recreation. 

e. Transportation Element, Objective 7, Policy 2 

Retain streets not required for traffic for pedestrian circulation, open space use, and 
density controls. 

f. Transportation Element, Objective 7, Policy 4 

Partially or wholly close certain streets not required as traffic carriers for pedestrian use or 
open space. 

WHEREAS, To respond to these General Plan objectives and policies and improve the Civic 
Center area, the Planning Department has developed the Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines, 
as one work item under the Downtown Pedestrian Improvements Program funded by 
Transportation Sales Tax funds administered by the San Francisco County Transportation 
Authority; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines advance and are consistent 
with the Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 101.1 in that they would not adversely 
affect existing neighborhood-serving retail uses and future opportunities for resident employment 
In, and ownership of, such business (Priority Policy 1); would not adversely affect the 
conservation and preservation of existing housing and neighborhood character (Priority Policy 
2); would not adversely affect the preservation and enhancement of the City's supply of 
affordable housing (Priority Policy 3); would not adversely affect the industrial or service sectors 
or future opportunities for resident employment or ownership in these sectors (Priority Policy 5); 
would not adversely affect achieving the greatest possible preparedness against injury and loss 
of life in an earthquake (Priority Policy 6); and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines will foster pedestrian movement 
thereby reducing commuter traffic which impedes Muni transit services and reducing the 
demand for neighborhood parking (Priority Policy 4); and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 3 



WHEREAS, The proposed Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines recognize the Civic Center 
Historic District and will contribute to the preservation of landmarks and historic buildings 
(Priority Policy 7); and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines would not adversely affect our 
parks and open space and their access to sunlight (Priority Policy 8); and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Amendment to the Civic Center Plan are consistent with the General 
Plan; and 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Charter Sections 3.525, notice was duly given of a public hearing by 
the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of an amendment to the Civic Center Area 
Plan of the General Plan, which hearing was held on July 25, 1 996; and 

WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission deems the proposed amendment to be appropriate 
and desires to adopt it as part of the Civic Center Area Plan of the General Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed Fulton Street Mall was studied in the Environmental Impact Report 
for the New Main Library, Case No.90.808E as identified in Exhibit "A"; and 

WHEREAS, The Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines are not a development proposal, but 
rather guidelines and requirements to be applied to future applications; and 

WHEREAS, The improvements recommended in the Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines would 
have beneficial impacts; and 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 

WHEREAS, in 1992 the San Francisco Planning Department prepared an environmental impact 
report, entitled San Francisco Main Library Final Environmental Impact Report (Case No. 
90.808E) ("EIR), that analyzed the impacts of the planned Fulton Street Mall ("Project"); and 

WHEREAS, the EIR analyzed a three-part development program that included analysis of the 
Project, construction of a new Main Library on Marshall Square, and conversion of the then- 
existing Main Library for use as the new Asian Art Museum; and 

WHEREAS, the new San Francisco Main Library has been constructed on Marshall Square and 
was formally opened to the public on April 18, 1996; and 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 4 



WHEREAS, this Planning Commission action amends the Civic Center Area Plan of the General 
Plan regarding the planned Fulton Mall analyzed in the portion(s) of the EIR that address 
development of a Fulton Street Mall; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15164 ("CEQA Guidelines") 
and Section 31 .35 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, the San Francisco Planning 
Department prepared an Addendum to the EIR entitled Asian Art Museum Project EIR 
Addendum to the San Francisco Main Library FEIR, dated May 1, 1996 ("Addendum") which 
determined that no subsequent or supplemental impact report was required; and 

WHEREAS, in approving the construction of the Main Library and the conversion of the old Main 
Library to the Asian Art Museum, the decision makers made findings regarding the EIR, and for 
the Asian Museum, the EIR and the Addendum; and 

WHEREAS, the San Francisco City Planning Commission, after review, consideration and 
evaluation of public comments, certified in Commission Motion No. 13297 on February 27, 1992, 
that the EIR was adequate, accurate and objective, and had been completed in accordance with 
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), CEQA Guidelines and Chapter 31 of the City 
Administrative Code; and 

WHEREAS, in certifying the EIR, the City Planning Commission found that the three-part 
development program will have a cumulative significant effect on the environment in that It would 
contribute to traffic increases and cumulative passenger loadings on MUNI, BART, and other 
transit carriers in the Greater Downtown and vicinity, and thereby could cause violations of fine 
particulate matter (PM10) standards in San Francisco with concomitant health effects and 
reduced visibility; and 

WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, in certifying the EIR, found that the three-part 
development program will have a project-specific significant impact regarding seismicity in that 
it will increase, above existing conditions, the development program site's daytime population 
that would be subject to substantial danger and would contribute to congestion during a major 
earthquake; although the New Main Library would meet (and has subsequently been 
constructed to meet) the most current building and seismic engineering requirements of the San 
Francisco Building Code, the former Main Library building would be seismically reinforced, and 
the Fulton Street Mall would be constructed to meet or exceed current seismic standards, 
mitigation that would eliminate significant environmental impacts in San Francisco from a major 
earthquake is not available; and 

WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, in certifying the EIR, found that the Asian Art 
Museum component of the three-part development project will have project-specific significant 
impacts on architectural and historic resources in that it proposes to alter the former Main Library 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 5 



building, a designated contributory building in a National Register Historic District and National 
Historic Landmark District, and subsequently designated a contributory building in the local Civic 
Center Historic District, as defined in Article 10 of the City Planning Code; the Fulton Street Mall 
would not cause this impact; and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors reviewed and considered the EIR, and on December 14, 
1992 and on May 21, 1996 reviewed and considered the EIR and Addendum and by resolution 
concurred with the information in the EIR (in the latter case, the EIR and the Addendum) and the 
findings of significance made by the City Planning Commission; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission has reviewed and 
considered the EIR and the Addendum (Copies of which are attached) prepared pursuant to 
Section 31.35 of the San Francisco Administrative Code and Section 15164 of the CEQA 
Guidelines, and has determined that the EIR and Addendum adequately analyze the Project and 
that no supplemental or subsequent EIR is needed pursuant to San Francisco Administrative 
Code Section 31.35, Public Resources Code Section 21166, or CEQA Guidelines Sections 
15162 and 15163); and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission makes the following 
findings relating to alternatives and mitigation measures in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA 
Guidelines, and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: 

A. The following Alternatives to the Project described in the EIR, which would reduce or 
avoid the impacts of the Project and which are not included as part of the Project, are infeasible 
for the reasons set forth below. 

1 . Alternative A (No Project) is infeasible because the New Main Library has 
already been completed at Marshall Square. Under the No Project Alternative, the former Main 
Library building would not be converted to the Asian Art Museum. This alternative is also 
infeasible because San Francisco voters in November 1994 approved the issuance of $41.7 
million in general obligation bonds for upgrade of the former main library building for use as the 
Asian Art Museum. 

2. Alternative B involved alternative relocation sites for the Pioneer Monument, in 
connection with construction of the New Main Library. This alternative, which was part of the 
three-part project, was implemented during construction of the New Main Library. The 
monument was moved to Fulton Street, between the new and former library buildings. The 
Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines were developed subsequent to this relocation and 
incorporate the monument in its new location. 

3. Alternative C involved construction of a New Main Library at an alternate location. 
This alternative would not affect subsequent use(s) of the Fulton Street Mall, and is infeasible 
because the New Main Library is complete at Marshall Square. 

4. Alternative D (Expansion and Reuse of Existing Library) is infeasible because 
the New Main Library already has been constructed at its new site at Marshall Square. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 6 



5. Alternative E (Existing Library as Courts Facility) is infeasible because the San 
Francisco Courts Building is under construction at Polk and McAllister Streets, thereby obviating 
the need to relocate the Civil Division of the San Francisco Superior Court to the former Main 
Library building. This alternative is also infeasible because San Francisco voters in November 
1994 approved the issuance of $41 .7 million in general obligation bonds for upgrade of the 
former Main Library building for use as the Asian Art Museum. 

6. Alternative F would have been the New Main Library/Asian Art Museum/Fulton 
Street Mall project with the added expansion of Civic Center Garage. Bond funding for the 
garage expansion was not approved by San Francisco voters in 1 992. This alternative is 
therefore infeasible at this time. 

B. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21002, the Planning Commission 
considered the mitigation measures described in the EIR and Addendum, and finds as follows: 

1 . Mitigation Measures proposed as part of the project, identified in the EIR by topic 
under Architectural, Historical and Cultural Resources, Transportation, Air Quality, Noise 
Geology/Topography/Hydrology, Water Quality, And Hazards have been adopted, adopted as 
modified, or rejected, by the project sponsors of the New Main Library and the Asian Art 
Museum, as indicated in their respective Board of Supervisors resolutions. All Mitigation 
Measures identified in the EIR, except as follows, are within the jurisdiction of other agencies to 
approve or outside the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission with respect to this amendment 
to the General Plan, and are rejected on that basis. The following measures are applicable to 
the physical construction of the Fulton Street Mall which is not presently before the Commission 
for action. They are rejected as infeasible at this time because any decisions on them would be 
premature. 

a. The measure regarding potential discovery of artifacts could be followed by 
the project sponsor. (FEIR, pp 179-180). This measure would include retaining the sen/ices of 
an archaeologist who would consult with the President of the Landmarks Board, and the 
Environmental Review Officer regarding whether to instruct excavation and foundation crews of 
the potential for discovery; having the archeologist present at the site during excavation; 
cooperating in assisting such further investigation as may be appropriate prior to or during 
excavation even if this causes a delay; assessing the significance of a find; suspending 
construction activities for a maximum of four weeks to permit inspection, recommendation and 
retrieval if appropriate; implementing a security program; placing any artifacts assessed as 
significant in an appropriate repository; and preparing associated reports. This measure would 
be relevant should construction of the Mall require other than superficial excavation. 

b. In order to provide for pedestrian safety during the construction period for 
the New Main Library, the library's construction manager would ensure that pedestrian walkways 
were maintained at the ends of Fulton Street at Larkin and Hyde Streets during the construction 
period. Four-foot pedestrian walkways would be provided on Larkin and Grove streets where 
construction would preempt sidewalk space. Similar measures would be employed by the Asian 
Art Museum's contractor, as determined to be necessary by the Traffic Engineering Division of 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 7 



the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT), during remodeling of the existing library building 
and construction of the addition to that building. (FEIR, p.181). 

The construction manager/contractor for construction of the Fulton Street Mall could 
employ similar measures, as determined to be necessary by the Traffic Engineering Division of 
the DPT, during site clearance and construction of the mall. (FEIR, p.181). 

c. During the construction period, construction truck movement could be 
permitted only between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., [or at other times if authorized by the DPT; this 
modification was made for the Main Library and Asian Art Museum] to minimize peak-hour traffic 
(including transit) conflicts. The measure includes coordination with other City agencies to 
determine feasible traffic mitigation measures to reduce traffic congestion and pedestrian 
circulation impacts during construction of this project and any other concurrent projects and 
coordination with other concurrent construction projects project sponsors to minimize cumulative 
traffic impacts due to lane closures during construction. (FEIR, p.181). 

d. The project sponsors could require construction air quality mitigation 
including sprinkling the site using reclaimed water, maintaining and operating equipment to 
minimize exhaust emissions. (FEIR, p.183). 

e. The project sponsors could implement Geology/Topography/Hydrology 
mitigation measures including geotechnical investigation by a California-licensed geotechnical 
engineer and adherence to the recommendations of the final geotechnical report(s) regarding 
any excavation and construction for the project; dewatering, sediment traps, settlement markers, 
and settlement monitoring sun/ey. (FEIR , pp.1 84-5). 

f. The project sponsor could install noise barriers around the site to minimize 
construction noise. (FEIR, p.184). This measure was rejected by project sponsor for the New 
Main Library. 

g. The placement of paving, landscaping or structures in the sidewalk area 
(subject to City approval) could be done in such a way as to minimize interference with 
pedestrian traffic. (FEIR, p.181). This measure is modified by the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines which include these considerations and supersede the measure. 

The following Mitigation Measure is rejected for the reasons stated. 

a. The measure regarding coordination of work schedules for utilities 
trenching during construciion, is rejected because it would be required by the city Committee for 
Utility Liaison on Construction and Other Projects (CULCOP). (FEIR, p.182). 

WHEREAS, the item before the Planning Commission is the inclusion of the Fulton Street Mall 
Design Guidelines into the General Plan which entails, by itself, no physical action to build the 
Mall, and because the Mitigation Measures in the EIR have been similarly rejected for the 
reasons stated above; 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that adoption 
of the design guideline will have no specific significant impact on the environment. It should be 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 8 



noted that the site proposed for the Mall was used as a staging area for and closed during the 
approximately two-year construction period of construction of the New Main Library without 
substantial adverse traffic impact; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds, however, that 
the underlying purpose of adopting the guidelines, construction of the Mall, could have the 
following impacts, if Mitigation Measures included in the EIR are not adopted at the time of 
construction 

1 . If the Construction Air Quality Mitigation Measure summarized above were not 
implemented, construction of the Mall at such time as it might occur could have impacts related 
to construction dust and emissions from construction vehicles. These impacts would be 
temporary , confined to the construction period, and the Planning Commission finds they would 
not be significant for that reason. However, the Commission encourages the decision makers at 
that time to make the Construction Air Quality Mitigation Measure contained in the EIR, as 
summarized and referenced above, a condition of approval of construction of the Mall. 

2. If the Mitigation Measure regarding potential discovery of artifacts, summarized above, 
and described in full on EIR pp.179-180, and incorporated by reference herein, were not 
implemented at such time as the Mall may be constructed, and if construction were to include 
excavation, then the construction of the Mall could have an adverse impact on artifacts 
potentially below the surface of the site. This impact could be significant. The Commission 
urges the decision makers at such time as actual construction of the Mall is before them to make 
the full mitigation measure contained in the EIR a condition of approval of construction of the 
Mall; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that because adoption of Mitigation Measures and 
a Mitigation Monitoring Program is premature given that no actual plan for construction of the 
Mall is before the Commission, as stated above, the Planning Commission finds that future 
construction of the Mall in accord with the Guidelines before the Planning Commission would 
have a significant impact on the environment in that potential artifacts from the old City Hall or 
other periods of San Francisco history or prehistory could be damaged. If the full mitigation 
measure contained in the EIR is implemented, the construction of the Mall would not have a 
significant impact; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission finds that the 
following benefits are generated by the project: 

A. Further strengthening of the Civic Center as the symbolic and ceremonial focus of 
community government and culture; emphasis of key public buildings in this visually prominent 
setting through enhancement provided by well-planned open space; maintenance of the formal 
architectural character of Civic Center in the Larkin and Fulton facades; design of a Civic Center 
public open space to serve as a gathering place for ceremonial, cultural, recreational and other 
community activities; provision of a sense of identity and cohesiveness through unifying street 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 9 



and plaza design treatment; and maintenance of existing streets as vehicular, pedestrian or 
open space corridors; 

B. Continued development of tlie Civic Center as a cohesive area for the administrative 
functions of city, state, and federal government, and as a focal point for cultural, ceremonial, and 
community activities; design of this part of Civic Center to provide convenient access to and 
circulation within the Civic Center and support facilities and services; location of a public open 
space that attracts visitors in convenient pedestrian proximity to major public buildings, public 
transit and off-street parking facilities, all in a manner consistent with San Francisco's General 
Plan, particularly the Civic Center Area Plan, and Codes: 

C. Conversion of an underutilized right-of-way into a vibrant open space ensuring the 
vitality of the Civic Center by locating and promoting a variety of diverse daytime and nighttime 
cultural facilities and activities, consistent with the draft Civic Center Study released for public 
review by the Planning Department in October 1994; 

D. Providing the open space link that will create continuous public open spaces from 
City Hall to Market Street; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Planning Commission after balancing the 
unmitigated adverse effects of the Project on the environment and the benefits of the Project 
including amendment of the Civic Center Area Plan to incorporate the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines, concludes that the benefits of the Project override the unmitigated adverse effects of 
the Project on the environment; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS an amendment to the Civic Center Area Plan as identified in Exhibit "B" that 
incorporates the implementation of the Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission hereby 
ADOPTS the Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines as identified in Exhibit "C"; and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Fulton Street Mall Design Guidelines as 
identified in Exhibit "C" are referenced in Objective 1 , Policy 3 of the Civic Center Area Plan; 
and 

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this Resolution on the adopted amendment and shall certify a copy thereof to 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Charter. 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No. 96.303M 

Amending the Civic Center Area Plan of the Master Plan by 
Modifying Objective 1 , Policy 3 with the Fulton Street Mall Design 
Guidelines. 
Resolution No. 14165 
Page 10 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on July 25, 1996. 

Linda Avery 
Secretary 

AYES: Commissioners Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lowenberg, Marks, Martin 

NOES: none 
ABSENT: Mills 



ADOPTED: 



July 25, 1996 



Fulton Street Mall Exhibit "A" 
Master Plan Amendment 
Page 1 



Note: Additions are underlined , deletions are in strike o ut . 



OBJECTIVE 1 MAINTAIN AND REINFORCE THE CIVIC CENTER AS THE SYMBOLIC 

AND CEREMONIAL FOCUS OF COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT AND 
CULTURE. 

The symbolic importance of major public buildings has traditionally been expressed 
through their architectural treatment. This is particularly true of an area such as the Civic 
Center which brings together in one setting major functions of community life _ 
government and cultural activity. These functions should be treated together in a way 
that emphasizes their symbolic and ceremonial importance to the community. 



POLICY 1 Emphasize key public buildings, particularly City Hall, through visually 
prominent siting. 

The symbolic importance of key public buildings should continue to be emphasized by 
maintaining them in highly visible settings. New development in or adjacent to the Civic 
Center should preserve the visibility and dominance of City Hall. Street views should be 
clear of distracting features and obstructions such as overhead utility lines, overhead 
pedestrian crosswalks, or buildings over a street right-of-way. Where an existing 
obstruction exists, such as the Central Freeway, it should be removed if possible, and if 
not, its presence should be minimized by landscaping and/or by other appropriate 
screening. 

Major civic plazas and open spaces can also emphasize the symbolic significance of 
buildings. Major open spaces such as the Civic Center Plaza and Fulton Mall should be 
retained and designed to facilitate ceremonial and civic events appropriate to the Civic 
Center. 



POLICY 2 Maintain the formal architectural character of the Civic Center. 

The setting of City Hall and the buildings framing the Plaza and Fulton Street pedestrian 
mall should be protected through the sensitive massing and height of existing structures. 

The core of the Civic Center is composed of classic Greek revival structures of 
exceptional quality that set the architectural character of the area. The symmetrical 
arrangement of buildings, uniform height, and application of common building lines and 
architectural features reinforce the unity of the formal composition. Whenever possible, 
existing classic buildings should be conserved and rehabilitated rather than replaced. 
New buildings should be designed to complement the Center's existing architectural 
character. 



POLICY 3 Design Civic Center buildings and open spaces to serve as public gathering 



Fulton Street Mall Exhibit "A" 
Master Plan Amendment 
Page 2 

places for ceremonial, cultural, recreational, and other community 
activities. 

Public open areas in the Civic Center should be designed to accommodate both passive 
individual use and intense community use and intense community use for various civic 
events. 

Th e Fulton Str ee t p e d e str i an mall should b e comp le ted. To complete the primary Civic 
Center axis from Market Street to City Hall and beyond to the War Memorial Court, and 
to complement the new Main Library and the Asian Art Museum. Fulton Street between 
Hyde and Larkin Streets should be designed as a pedestrian mall as per the guidelines 
adopted by the Planning Commission. 



POLICY 4 Provide a sense of identity and cohesiveness through unifying street and 
Plaza design treatments. 

Identity of the Civic Center as the focus of government and culture in San Francisco 
should be reinforced through the use of common design elements such as sidewalk and 
street paving, lighting fixtures, landscaping, and street furniture. Related architectural 
elements such as the color and texture of materials should also be used throughout the 
area to reinforce its overall unity. Widened pedestrian lanes in front of City Hall and at 
other locations, with special design treatment related to adjacent uses, would add to the 
unity and formalism of the Center. 



POLICY 5 Maintain existing streets as vehicular, pedestrian or open space corridors. 

The development pattern in the Civic Center, based on the grid street system, has 
created a formal, spatial relationship between the various buildings in the Civic Center. 
To maintain building identity, the space occupied by the existing streets should remain 
clear of visual obstructions to provide for a sense of spaciousness and formal 
organization within the Civic Center area. 



Case No. 96.315M 

General Plan Amendments for the Mid- 
Embarcadero and Terminal Separator 
Stmcture Replacement Project 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 14194 



WHEREAS, Section 4.105 of the1996 Charter of the City and County of San Francisco 
mandates that the Planning Department shall periodically recommend to the Board of 
Supervisors for approval or rejection proposed amendments to the General Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The Embarcadero and Terminal Separator freeway segments of 1-480 were 
severely damaged by the Loma Prieta earthquake and were subsequently demolished and 
removed by the Califomia Department of Transportation; and 

WHEREAS, In January 1996, by adopting Resolution 100-96, the San Francisco Board 
of Supervisors selected one of several plans for the Mid-Embarcadero and Terminal Separator 
StructureReplacement Project as the Prefen-ed Alternative. This Alternative would replace 
the now demolished mid-section of the Embarcadero Freeway in the vicinity of the Ferry 
Building with a split surface roadway, as well as supplant the ramp structures in the Fremont, 
Main and Beale Street area; and 

WHEREAS, Certain elements of the Preferred Altemative conflict with existing General 
Plan policies; and in order to lend support and approve the Project, the Planning Commission 
would have to consider adoption of several amendments to the General Plan so that the 
Project would be consistent with the General Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission received a request from the Waterfront 
Transportation Projects Office of the City's Administrator Office to initiate General Plan 
Amendments so that the Preferred Altemative selected by the Board of Supervisors for the 



1 



Mid-Embarcadero and Terminal Separator Structure Replacement Project would conform to 
the General Plan ; and 

WHEREAS, The amendments consist of: 1) deleting text which refers to a paired 
(versus split) roadway; 2) citing the correct number of lanes of the planned Embarcadero 
roadway; 3) deleting reference to specifically named streets as locations for signalized 
pedestrian crossings, in order to provide more flexibility in locating such crossings at other 
locations as well; 4) rewording the description of the open space in front of the Ferry Building 
to reflect the proposed open space of the split roadway alternative; 5) deleting an obsolete 
Map 6, since it shows the now demolished ramps In the Fremont, Main and Beale Street area; 
and 6) adjusting the size of Rincon Point park, since the size cited does not correspond to the 
size of the proposed park (Exhibit 1); and 

WHEREAS, The Mid-Embarcadero and Terminal Separator Structure Replacement 
Project is also subject to General Plan Referral under Case No. 96.31 5R and in the findings of 
the Referral Case it is presumed that the proposed General Plan Amendments contained in 
the subject case will be adopted. 

WHEREAS, The proposed amendments are found to be consistent with the Eight 
Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 In that: 

1 . They would not adversely effect existing neighborhood-serving retail uses and future 
opportunities for resident employment in, and ownership of, such businesses; 

2. They would have no adverse effect on existing housing and neighborhood character in 
order to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods; 

3. They would have no adverse effect on the City's supply of affordable housing. 

4. They would not impede MUNI transit service or overburden streets and neighborhood 
parking, 

5. They would not adversely affect the Industrial or service sectors or future opportunities 
for resident employment or ownership in these sectors. 

6. They would not adversely affect achieving the greatest possible preparedness against 
injury and loss of life in an earthquake. 

7. . They would have no effect on landmarks or historic buildings. 

8. They would have no adverse effect on parks and open space or their access to sunlight 
and vistas, but would adjust the reference to the size of the proposed Rincon Point 
Park. 



WHEREAS, A Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alternatives to Replacement of 
the Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal Separator Structure, File No. 92.202E/94.060E, 



2 



(hereinafter "Final EIR") was certified as complete by the Planning Commission on September 
12, 1996; and 

WHEREAS, Said Final EIR described and analyzed a No Build Altemative and six Build 
Alternatives, and also discussed and analyzed the Impacts of the General Plan Amendments 
proposed in this Resolution; and 

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information 
contained in the Final EIR; 

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission on September 12, 1996 held a duly noticed 
public hearing on the proposed General Plan Amendments and considered testimony related 
to those amendments; 



NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission does hereby 
ADOPT the proposed amendments to the General Plan (EXHIBIT 1) AND RECOMMENDS 
them to the Board of Supervisors for APPROVAL In accordance with the Charter; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission finds the proposed 
amendments consistent with the eight Priority Policies; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the General Plan Amendments described in this 
Resolution would allow for the selection and approval of any of the six Build Alternatives 
described in the Final EIR; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the No Build Alternative is rejected as infeasible 
because it would result in the greatest number of future cumulative congested downtown 
traffic intersections of all the Altematives discussed in the Final EIR; it would result in a future 
freeway off ramp demand-to-capacity ratio greater than one during the moming peak hour; it 
would not improve the appearance of the project area; and it would not improve physical and 
visual access between the downtown and the waterfront; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That all of the Mitigation Measures described in the Final 
EIR, as enumerated in Attachment A, are hereby rejected by the City Planning Commission. 
With the exception of the Noise Mitigation Measures, all of the remaining Mitigation Measures 
are rejected as they are within the responsibility and Jurisdiction of other public agencies and 
not the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission recommends that all of 
those Mitigation measures be adopted by the agencies with jurisdiction to adopt them. 
Regarding the Noise Mitigation Measures, the Planning Commission rejects those measures 
for the reasons explicitly stated on pages 428A and 428B of the Final EIR, regarding the 
potential costs and benefits of said measures. Those pages of the Rnal EIR are incorporated 
herein by reference. In summary, a noise wall could provide sound protection to the Golden 
Gate Swim and Tennis Club, at cost of about $144,000 to $216,000, and would nan-ow 
sidewalks, eliminate street trees, have negative aesthetic effects, and be contrary to the 
objective of reconnecting the City to the waterfront; and 



3 



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the General Plan Amendments, by allowing for any 
of the Build Alternatives described in the Final EIR, could result in significant effects on the 
environment, as described in the Planning Commission Resolution certifying the completion of 
the Final EIR (Planning Commission Resolution No.14193, adopted on September 19, 1996); 
and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the proposed General Plan amendments, by 
allowing for the construction of the Build Alternatives described in the Final EIR would have 
the following benefits: 1) the Project would provide for a net gain of approximately one acre of 
public open space in the project area, creating a "Central Open Space" area in front of the 
Ferry Building, and facilitating the creation of Rincon Point Park, by rerouting the roadway 
inland and allowing for the creation of a park at the water's edge; 2) the Project would 
improve open space opportunities to residents, workers and tourists by widening the 
Embarcadero Pedestrian Promenade and implementing the Bay Trail; 3) the Project would 
make a number of improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists by widening the Embarcadero 
Pedestrian Promenade and including bicycle lanes in the north and southbound curb lanes; 
4) the Project would fulfill the City's urban design objectives of creating a setting that lends 
importance to the Ferry Building, a Federal and City landmark, and establishing a terminus for 
Market Street; 5) the Project would reconnect the City with the waterfront by introducing 
numerous signalized intersection and midblock crosswalks; 6) the Project would improve 
future levels of service at certain downtown intersections in terms of traffic congestion, relative 
to the No Build Alternative; and 7) the Project, depending upon the Build Alternative selected, 
could improve future freeway off ramp capacity to the downtown; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission, after balancing the 
significant adverse effects on the environment of the Project, and the benefits of the Project, 
concludes that the benefits of the Project override the significant adverse effects; 



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of the Commission shall record 
the action taken in this resolution on the adopted amendments and shall certify a copy thereof 
to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was ADOPTED by the City Planning 
Commission on September 19, 1996. 

Linda Avery 
Secretary 

AYES: Commissioners Antenore, Chinchilla, Marks, Mills 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: Commissioners Joe, Lowenberg, Martin 

ADOPTED:' September 19, 1996 

96315M.Res 



4 



Mid-Embarcadero and Terminal Separator Structure Replacement Projects 
General Plan Amendments 



EXHIBIT 1 

(Note: new text has been underlined; text to be deleted Is indicated by strike-out). 

Northeastern Waterfront Plan 

EMBARCADERO CORRIDOR 
OBJECTIVE 27 
Embarcadero Roadway 

POLICY 1 Realign the Embarcadero roadway between Broadway and Berry Street as follows: 

a) Widen the sidewalks in front of Ferry Building to create a major plaza as an 
appropriate terminus to Market Street. Wh e n th e fr ee way is removed r e route th e 
roadway inland to increase the plaza size; 

b) Reroute the roadway... 

POLICY 2 Improve the Embarcadero Roadway as follows: 

(a) Provide two to three lanes each for southbound and northbound traffic with right and 
left turn channelization at selected intersections; 

(Sections b) and c) remain unchanged). 

d) Provide signalized pedestrian crossings, integrated with transit stops along the 
Embarcadero. at Day, Gansom e , fi l b e rt, Gr ee n, Broadway, Washington, Mark e t, 
folsom, and Drannan Str e ets and on King Boulevard at S e cond and fourth Str e ets . 
Establish traffic signals and speed limits which give priority to pedestrian movement 
across the Embarcadero roadway; 

e) Light the roadway... 

N:\referral\96315m.exh 



1 



Ferry Building Area 
OBJECTIVE 25 
Ferry Building 

POLICY 4 Cr e ate a plaza for pass i ve recreat i on us e s i n front of th e T e rry Build i ng betwe e n Pier 
1 and the Agriculture Build i ng by th e r e moval of parking and th e reduct i on i n width to 
two northbound lan e s of th e Embarcad e ro roadway. Design th e a grand civic p laza to 
create a visual setting forecourt f or the Ferry Building and a symbolic terminus to 
Market Street bv removing parking in the middle of The Embarcadero roadway . This 
plaza should be designed to serve a multitude of activities, to re-establish physical and 
visual connections between the City and the waterfront, and to tie together existing and 
future open spaces along The Embarcadero. including Justin Herman Plaza. On-an 
i nterim basis, until the f e rry Building i s r e d e v e lop e d and additional acc e ssory parking 
provid e d, wid e n the sidewalk in front of th e P e rry Building as part of a wat e rfront 
promenade, d e velop a smaller plaza dir e ct l y i n front of th e bui l ding, and permit a sing le 
row of parking on e ith e r side of th e f e r r y Build i ng. Use spec i al paving mat e rials for the 
prom e nad e , th e small e r plaza, and th e parking row and acc e ss l an e s so th e s e 
ele m e nts ar e visually int e grated. If found to be feasible after further analysis, extend 
the Califomia Street cable car down f\/larket Street to the plaza and create a MUNI bus 
stop adjacent to the east-west axis of the plaza along the Embarcadero. Use street 
furniture that provides weather protection and install additional ornamental double light 
fixtures like those presently used along the Embarcadero. 

(Amended by Resolution 1 1 882 on 3/1 /1 990) 

Map 6 of the Northeastern Waterfront Plan is proposed to be deleted (See page 3 of this document). 



Recreation and Open Space Element 

OBJECTIVE 3 
POLICY 5 
Rincon Point 

Create a new four to five acr e major public park at Rincon Point at the Base of Folsom Street 
abutting the seawall and pedestrian promenade by rerouting the Embarcadero to Steuart 
Street between Howard and Harrison Streets. Orient the park to the Bay and provide large 
grassy open areas, hard surfaces, and a mixture of facilities to meet the recreation 
preferences of nearby residents and downtown office workers. 

N:\referral\9631 Sm.exh 



2 



{ 



i 



Case No. 96.41 OM 

Resolution adopting General Plan 
Amendments allowing General Advertising 
Signs on Transit Stations and Public Service 
Kiosks in the Northeastem Waterfront Plan 
and Mission Bay Plan 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PLANNING COMMISSION 
RESOLUTION NO. 14240 



WHEREAS, Section 4.105 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco 
mandates that the Planning Department shall periodically recommend to the Board of 
Supervisors for approval or rejection proposed amendments to the General Plan; and 

WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors adopted by Resolution No. 965-85 and 
consecutive resolutions the Waterfront Transportation Projects for the development and 
implementation of a series of Waterfront Transportation Improvements including, among other 
projects, the Muni Metro Extension along The Embarcadero south of the Ferry Building and 
along King Street (MMX Line) and the F-Market and Wharves Historic Street Car Line (F-Line) 
along The Embarcadero north of the Ferry Building with a turn-around loop on Beach, Jones and 
Jefferson Streets; and 

WHEREAS, The Public Transportation Commission proposes to amend its Advertising 
Transit Shelter Agreement to obtain a capital contribution, maintenance and repair at no cost to 
the City in exchange for the privilege of installing general advertising signs on transit boarding 
areas along The Embarcadero, on Jefferson and Beach Streets between the Embarcadero and 
Jones Street, on Jones Street between Jefferson and Beach Streets, and on King Street 
between The Embarcadero and Sixth Street; and 

WHEREAS, The shelters would further the City's Transit First policy and inrrplement 
another General Plan policy recommending "a convenient and efficient system as a preferable 
alternative to automobile use" in providing protection from the elements, seating, telephones, 
and an art component for those using public transit; and 

WHEREAS, A similar program has already been in operation throughout the City for 
many years allowing general advertising signs on transit shelters at a ratio of two shelters with 
commercial general advertising to one shelter without commercial general advertising; and 



Case No. 96.41 OM 

Resolution adopting General Plan 
Amendments allowing General Advertising 
Signs on Transit Stations and Public Service 
Kiosks in the Northeastern Waterfront Plan 
and Mission Bay Plan 
page 2 



WHEREAS, The Northeastern Waterfront Plan of the General Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco, adopted on 1-19-1977 by Resolution No. 7643 and amended many 
times, contains several policies which prohibit new general advertising signs and call for the 
removal of existing general advertising signs in the Northeastern Waterfront area and particularly 
in the Fisherman's Wharf area; and 

WHEREAS, The Mission Bay Plan, Part 2 of the Central Waterfront Plan of the General 
Plan of the City and County of San Francisco, adopted on 9-27-1990 by Resolution No. 12040 
and amended in 1995, contains Commerce and Industry Design Guidelines which do not allow 
billboards; and 

WHEREAS, On request of the Public Transportation Commission, the Planning 
Commission considered amendments to the Northeastern Waterfront Plan and Mission Bay Plan 
which would provide an exemption from the prohibition of general advertising signs and 
billboards and allow general advertising signs on transit stations in the Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan and Mission Bay Plan areas; and 

WHEREAS, The proposed general advertising signs on transit boarding platforms and 
transit shelters shall be designed in a manner as to minimize obstruction of public views from 
pedestrian walkways and public open space and will be limited in number and in size by 
simultaneously introduced Planning Code amendments; and 

WHEREAS, General advertising signs on public service kiosks constructed as part of the 
previously approved Public Toilet Program would also be permitted as part of the amendments 
to the Northeastern Waterfront Plan; and 

WHEREAS, A Negative Declaration under File No. 96.41 OE was issued on October 9, 
1996 finding that this project could not have a significant effect on the environment. On 
November 5, 1996, a Memorandum to the File of Case No. 96.41 OE was issued which 
concludes that amendments to the Mission Bay Plan, an increase in the number of advertising 
signs at certain stations and some minor changes in the description of the project would not 
require supplemental environmental review; and 



Case No. 96.41 OM 

Resolution adopting General Plan 
Amendments allowing General Advertising 
Signs on Transit Stations and Public Service 
Kiosks in the Northeastern Waterfront Plan 
and Mission Bay Plan 
page 3 



WHEREAS, The proposed amendments to the Northeastern Waterfront Plan and 
Mission Bay Plan are consistent with the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 in that 
they would not adversely affect: 

existing neighborhood-serving retail uses and future opportunities for resident 
employment in and ownership of such businesses; 

the conservation and preservation of the existing housing and neighborhood character; 

the preservation and enhancement of the City's supply of affordable housing; 

Muni transit service through commuter traffic or traffic on our streets or neighborhood 
parking, but enhance Muni service by providing shelters for the convenience of transit 
riders; 

the industrial and service sectors from displacement due to commercial office 
development, and future opportunities for resident employment and ownership in these 
sectors; 

the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury and loss of life in an 
earthquake; 

the preservation of landmarks and historic buildings; and, 

parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas. 

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340, the Planning Commission held a 
duly noticed hearing on November 21,1996, and heard public testimony. Now, therefore be it 

RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission finds from the facts presented that the 
public necessity, convenience and welfare require amendments to the Northeastern Waterfront 
Plan and the Mission Bay Plan of the General Plan of the City and County of San Francisco 
allowing general advertising signs on transit shelters and transit boarding platforms, and to the 
Northeastern Waterfront Plan allowing general advertising signs on public service kiosks; and be 
it further 



Case No. 96.41 OM 

Resolution adopting General Plan 
Amendments allowing General Advertising 
Signs on Transit Stations and Public Service 
Kiosks in the Northeastern Waterfront Plan 
and Mission Bay Plan 
page 4 



RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission adopts said amendments to the General 
Plan, as shown in the attached Exhibit A, and recommends them to the Board of Supervisors for 
its approval. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission 
on its regular meeting on November 21 , 1 996. 



Linda D. Avery 
Administrative Secretary 

AYES: Commissioners Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Lowenberg, Marks, and Mills 

NOES: 

ABSENT: Martin 



ADOPTED: November 21 , 1 996 



EXHIBIT A 



NORTHEASTERN WATERFRONT PLAN 
Urban Design 

Objective 10 Policy 8 (p. 11.7.14) 

Prohibit new, and remove existing, general advertising signs , except those on transit 
boarding platforms and transit shelters designed in a manner as to minimize obstruction 
of public views from pedestrian walkways and public open space, and those on public 
service kiosks constructed in coniunction with the public toilet program . Assure that 
public and private signing contributes to the aesthetic appearance of the waterfront. 

Objective 10 Policy 29 (p. 11.7.16) 

Prohibit general advertising or commercial signs in any public spaces or attached to any 
buildings , except those on transit boarding platforms and transit shelters designed in a 
manner as to minimize obstruction of public views from pedestrian walkwavs and public 
open space, and those on public service kiosks constructed in coniunction with the public 
toilet program . Allow only attractively designed identification, directional, regulatory or 
information signs and general advertising signs, as described above . Permit illuminated 
signs but prohibit flashing or animated signs. 



Objective 11 Policy 4 (p. 11.7.19) 

Encourage a use of materials and design of new and existing buildings and public 
improvements which enhance the area's historic maritime character. Require that any 
identification signs be subdued and harmonious with this character. Prohibit garish, 
flashing and general advertising signs , except general advertising signs on transit 
boarding platforms and transit shelters designed in a manner as to minimize obstruction 
of public views from pedestrian walkwavs and public open space, and those on public 
service kiosks constructed in coniunction with the public toilet program . 



MISSION BAY PLAN (Part 2 of the Central Waterfront Plan) 
Commerce and Industry Design Guidelines 2.9 (p. 3-78) 

Signs on building facades should be limited to the first two stories and should conform to 
the standards for moderate density neighborhood commercial districts. Building 
identification signage should be integrated with the design of building entrances. 

Billboards are not allowed , except general advertising signs on transit shelters or 
boarding platforms . 

G:\wp51\embresad.doc 



Fisherman's Wharf Area 



J 




( 



( 



(