Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report

Transcription

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
Date:
October 27, 2010
Case No.:
Project Title:
Address:
Zoning:
2009.0291E
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project
935 Folsom Street
Mixed Use Residential (MUR), 45-X and 85-X Height/Bulk
District
Block 3753/Lot 140
14,400 square feet
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
Greg Johnson, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
(415) 375-4190 or [email protected]
San Francisco Planning Department
Michael Jacinto
(415) 575-9033 or [email protected]
Block/Lot:
Lot Size:
Project Sponsor:
Project Contact:
Lead Agency:
Staff Contact:
Case No.:
Project Title:
Address:
Zoning:
Block/Lot:
Lot Size:
2010.0275E
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Expansion
151 Third Street, 670-676 Howard Street
151 Third Street: C-3-O (Downtown Office) Use District,
500-I Height/Bulk District
670 Howard Street: C-3-S (Downtown Support) Use District,
320-I Height/Bulk District
676 Howard Street: P (Public) Use District, 320-I Height/Bulk
District
151 Third Street: Block 3722/Lot 78
670 Howard Street: Block 3722/Lot 27
676 Howard Street: Block 3722/Lot 28
151 Third Street: 43,960 square feet
670 Howard Street: 7,260 square feet
676 Howard Street: 4,400 square feet
Hunt Street: 3,500 square feet
Total: 59,120 square feet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed projects include an up-to-approximately 235,000 square foot expansion of the
existing San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA), a private non-profit modern art
museum located at 151 Third Street (between Mission and Howard Streets), the demolition of two
structures to its south (670 Howard Street and 676 Howard Street) to accommodate the expansion,
and the relocation of San Francisco Fire Department Station No. 1 (Fire Station No. 1) from 676
Howard Street to 935 Folsom Street. The existing building at 935 Folsom Street (formerly used
for apparel manufacturing and as a commercial laundry) would be demolished and, in addition to
www.sfplanning.org
construction of a new fire station fronting Folsom Street, a residential building containing up to 13
units would be constructed on the portion of the site fronting Shipley Street.
The SFMOMA Expansion would require the following approvals:
•
Planning Code Section 309 Downtown Project Approval (Planning Commission)
•
Street Vacation of Hunt Street (Board of Supervisors)
•
Rezoning of 676 Howard Street from P (Public) to C 3-S (Board of Supervisors, with
recommendation from Planning Commission)
•
Possible amendment of Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) (Redevelopment
Agency Commission)
•
Lot Merger (Department of Public Works)
•
Demolition and Building Permits (Department of Building Inspection)
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would require the following approvals:
•
Planning Code Section 327/307 Eastern Neighborhoods Project Approval (Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator)
•
Rezoning of the fire station portion of the lot from MUR to P (Public) (Board of Supervisors
with recommendation from Planning Commission)
•
Design approval of new public building (Arts Commission)
•
Lot Subdivision (Department of Public Works)
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TOPICS
On the basis of the Initial Study prepared for the projects, topics for which there are effects that
have been determined to be potentially significant include: Aesthetics; Cultural and
Paleontological Resources; Transportation and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; Wind and Shadow; and Public Services. These topics, along with Land Use and
Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Plans, will be evaluated in an EIR prepared for the
projects. Impacts in other topical areas would be less than significant; some with the mitigation
measures identified in the Initial Study, and will not be evaluated in the EIR. These topics include:
Population and Housing; Recreation; Utilities and Service Systems; Biological Resources;
Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards/Hazardous Materials; Minerals/Energy
Resources; and Agricultural and Forestry Resources.
The EIR will also evaluate alternatives to the proposed projects, including the required No Project
Alternative and a reasonable range of additional alternatives that would reduce or eliminate
significant environmental impacts of the proposed projects.
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed projects is available on line at
httn://www.sfgov.org/nlannin/mea . In addition. the Initial Study and all documents relatinn to the
proposed projects are available for review at the San Francisco Planning Department’s Major
Environmental Analysis office, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400.
FINDING
The proposed projects may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report is required. This determination is based upon the criteria of the
State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15063 (Initial Study), 15064 (Determining the Significance of
Environmental Effects Caused by the Project), and 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance).
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to provide information about potential
significant physical environmental effects of the proposed projects, to identify possible ways to
minimize the significant effects, and to describe and analyze possible alternatives to the proposed
projects. Preparation of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or EIR does not indicate a decision by the
City to approve or to disapprove the projects. However, prior to making any such decision, the
decision makers must review and consider the information contained in the EIR.
PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS
Written comments will be accepted until the close of the business day (5:00 p.m.) on November
29, 2010 and should be sent to Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco
Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103.
If you work for an agency that is a Responsible or Trustee Agency, we need to know the views of
your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your
agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed projects. Your agency may
need to use the EIR when considering a permit or other approval for these projects. We will also
need the name of the contact person for your agency.
Z-t 2p/9
Date
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Bill Wycko,
Environmental Review Officer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................1
B. PROJECT SETTING .....................................................................................................................27
C. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS .................................................. 38
D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS........................................................................46
E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..................................................................47
F. MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES ......................................... 158
G. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................................171
H. LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED...........................................................172
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
SFMOMA EXPANSION/FIRE STATION RELOCATION AND HOUSING PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
i
FIGURES
Figure 1:
Project Site Location and Regional Vicinity ..................................................................... 3
Figure 2:
Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3:
Photographs of SFMOMA Expansion Site and Surroundings .......................................... 5
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Photographs of Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site and Surroundings..... 11
Figure 7:
Photographs of Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site and Surroundings..... 12
Figure 8:
Zoning Diagram – Maximum Zoning Envelope ............................................................. 15
Figure 9:
Proposed Ground Floor Plan ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 10:
Typical Conceptual Gallery Floor Plan ........................................................................... 17
Figure 11:
Typical Conceptual Support Level Floor Plan ................................................................ 18
Figure 12:
Transit Lines Around SFMOMA Expansion Site ........................................................... 21
Figure 13:
Transit Lines Around the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site .................. 22
Figure 14:
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Plan View and Building Section .............. 24
Figure 15:
Zoning Map ..................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 16:
Height and Bulk Districts ................................................................................................ 34
Figure 17:
Cultural Facilities Near SFMOMA ................................................................................. 35
Figure 18:
Views from Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site ....................................... 36
TABLES
Table 1:
Conceptual Project Description, Area Calculations ........................................................ 14
Table 2:
Existing and Projected Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employment at SFMOMA ........... 19
Table 3:
Construction Phasing....................................................................................................... 27
Table 4:
Planned Projects Within Vicinity of Project Sites ........................................................... 37
Table 5:
San Francisco Projections................................................................................................ 62
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
ii
GLOSSARY
ABAG
Association of Bay Area Governments
Axonometric
A drawing technique devised to represent three-dimensional objects on flat
paper. Objects are projected on the drawing surface so that they appear inclined
with three sides showing and with horizontal and vertical distances drawn to
scale, but diagonal and curved lines distorted.
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Back-of-House
Generally refers to space used for support or organizational space
Bgs
below the ground surface
BP
before the present (time)
Cal-OSHA
State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Corps
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
dBA
A-weighted decibels
DBA
Diameter of tree at breast height
DBI
San Francisco Department of Building Inspection
DDA
Development and Disposition Agreement
Differential
Compaction
A phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is made more dense by
earthquake vibrations, causing differential settlement.
Double-Bay
Two side-by-side spaces between vertical supports (such as garage doors)
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
iii
Downtown
As used in this document, the area defined by the San Francisco Downtown Area
Plan. The Plan area is irregularly shaped, but is generally bounded by
Washington Street on the northeast; The Embarcadero on the east; Folsom Street
on the south; and Market Street on the northwest.
DPH
San Francisco Department of Public Health
DPW
San Francisco Department of Public Works
East SoMa
As used in this document, the area defined by the East SoMa (South of Market)
Area Plan. The Plan area is irregularly shaped and is generally bounded by
Mission Street and Folsom Street on the north; The Embarcadero on the east;
Townsend Street, Harrison Street, and Mission Creek Channel on the south; and
Seventh Street and Fourth Street on the west.
EIR
Environmental Impact Report
ESL
Environmental Screening Levels
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
FTE
Full-Time-Equivalent Employees; refers to the number of employees working the
equivalent of 40-hour work weeks
GHG
Greenhouse Gases, the gases primarily responsible for global climate change
Lateral Spreading
The phenomenon in which surface soil is displaced along a zone that has formed
within an underlying liquefied layer.
Ldn
day-night equivalent level
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
iv
Liquefaction
The transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state during which saturated
soil temporarily loses strength resulting from the buildup of excess pore water
pressure, which may occur during earthquakes.
Lmax
maximum instantaneous noise level
NFIP
National Flood Insurance Program
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PDR
Production, Distribution and Repair; generally light, medium or heavy industrial
or manufacturing use
Porte Cochere
Covered or sheltered entryway for vehicles or pedestrians
SMP
Site Mitigation Plan
SF Datum
SF Datum (SFD) establishes the City’s zero point for surveying purposes at
approximately 8.6 feet above the zero elevation for the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929, which was based on the sea level datum in 1929. Since
1929, the mean sea level has increased by approximately 0.44 feet.
SFHA
Special Flood Hazard Area
SFUSD
San Francisco Unified School District
SFMOMA
SFPUC
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SOMA
South of Market neighborhood
UST
Underground Storage Tank
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
v
This page intentionally left blank.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
vi
INITIAL STUDY
SFMOMA EXPANSION
AND FIRE STATION RELOCATION AND HOUSING PROJECT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.
PROJECT LOCATIONS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project (projects)
would be developed on two project sites and would include: 1) an up-to-approximately 235,000
square foot expansion of the existing San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA), a private
non-profit modern art museum located at 151 Third Street (between Mission and Howard Streets); 2)
the demolition of two structures to its south (670 Howard Street and 676 Howard Street) to accommodate the expansion; and 3) the relocation of San Francisco Fire Department Station No. 1 (Fire Station
No. 1) from 676 Howard Street to 935 Folsom Street. The existing building at 935 Folsom Street
(formerly used for apparel manufacturing and as a commercial laundry) would be demolished and, in
addition to construction of a new fire station fronting Folsom Street, a residential building containing
up to 13 units would be constructed on the portion of the site fronting Shipley Street. (See Figure 1,
Project Site Location and Regional Vicinity and Figure 2, Existing Conditions).
a.
SFMOMA Expansion Site
The SFMOMA Expansion site is bordered by Third Street to the west; Minna Street to the north; the
147-151 Minna Street Parking Garage, Natoma Street and office uses to the east; and the W Hotel and
Howard Street to the south. The total footprint of the irregularly shaped expansion site (including the
original 151 Third Street footprint) is 74,355 square feet. The site is generally flat and is approximately 18 feet above San Francisco Datum (SF Datum).1 The SFMOMA Expansion site includes the
following four properties. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show photographs of the SFMOMA Expansion site and
its surroundings.
1 Elevations reference San Francisco City datum (SF Datum).
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
1
•
151 Third Street, Assessor’s Block 3722, Lot 78. This lot is currently developed with the SFMOMA
building, a five-story, 105-foot tall, 225,000 gross-square-foot art museum designed by Mario Botta
and completed in 1995. The building contains galleries, a retail area, a café, a theater, an education
center, public areas such as the lobby and event space, support spaces, art storage, a loading and
receiving areas, and basement parking. An approximately 17,250 square-foot sculpture garden and
coffee bar is located on the roof of an adjacent parking garage at 147-151 Minna Street and is
accessed from the fifth floor of the 151 Third Street building. There are two undeveloped areas at
the northeast and southeast corners of the museum: the 5,800 square-foot Minna Street surface
parking pad and the 8,500 square-foot Natoma Street surface parking pad, which are located over
the museum basement area that fills the entire rectilinear museum lot. These above-grade areas
were entitled as museum space at the time that the museum was designed and constructed, but
remain undeveloped. A vehicular and pedestrian access easement encumbers a portion of the
Natoma Street parking pad up to a minimum clear height of 14.5 feet above the parking pad grade.
•
670 Howard Street (also known as the Heald Building site and 15 Hunt Street), Block 3722 Lot
27. This irregularly-shaped 7,260 square-foot lot is currently developed with a four-story building
and basement. The building, constructed of heavy timber with a masonry façade, was built in
1906 (after the earthquake), is owned by an affiliate of SFMOMA, and is currently vacant.
•
676 Howard Street, Block 3722 Lot 28. This 4,400 square-foot lot is currently developed with
Fire Station No. 1, an active San Francisco Fire Department fire station. The two-story, 14,410
square foot double-bay facility with a basement was constructed in 1958. The City would convey
676 Howard Street to SFMOMA in exchange for a portion of the 935 Folsom Street property and
a newly constructed fire station on that site.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
2
Concord
Lafayette
24
Walnut
Creek
Kearn
680
Berkeley
Sausalito
8080
1
Danville
2n
d
S
t
M
N
on
t
G e a ry S
at
om
a
St
tg
San Leandro
s
h
Te
St
Je
St
y
Y
BA
238
92
e
si
er
Hayward
880
om
O
SC
CI
AN
FR
O ce an
280
ew
580
N
SA
P ac if ic
101
N
y St
Oakland
Ala
me
da
1
St
101
t
S u tt e r S
na
PROJECT LOCATION
in
Richmond
M
80
am
a
St
SFMOMA
Expansion Site
Union
City
San Mateo
Regional Location
ll S t
O ’F a rr e
th
or
s
aw
ne
is
St
H
M
h
St
d
S
t
ow
3r
H
d
ar
t
t
t
Eddy S
S
Yerba Buena
Gardens
S
ar
St
4t
M
t
ke
n
io
5t
Moscone
Center
h
S
t
M
in
na
St
Fo
6t
h
S
t
Te
m
ha
C
N
o
at
m
a
a
l
St
em
en
tin
a
St
St
H
Fire Station
Relocation and
Housing Site
St
ls
om
ar
ris
on
St
80
Br
H
ar
Falmouth St
rie
tS
Sh
i
e
pl
y
t
C
l
y
t
an
St
St
a
ar
St
7t
80
h
Br
an
n
an
St
S
t
FIGURE 1
SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project Initial Study
Project Site Location and
Regional Vicinity
project sites
0
300
600
feet
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
3
YERBA BUENA CENTER FOR THE ARTS
SFMOMA Expansion Site
ST. REGIS HOTEL
SFMOMA SITE: BOTTA BUILDING ALTERATIONS
& ADDITIONS
EXISTING SFMOMA BUILDING - 151 3RD STREET
EXISTING SFMOMA ROOFTOP SCULPTURE GARDEN
PFLUEGER BUILDING - PACIFIC BELL
HUNT STREET
ACADEMY OF ART
HEALD SITE:
EXISTING BUILDING - 670 HOWARD STREET
FIRE STATION #1 SITE:
EXISTING BUILDING - 676 HOWARD STREET
W HOTEL
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Site
EXISTING BUILDING
935 FOLSOM STREET
FIGURE 2
project sites
not to scale
SOURCES: TERRASERVER, 2009; SFMOMA; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
4
Existing Conditions
5
SOURCES: SFMOMA; LSA ASSOCIATES, 2010.
(676 Howard Street)
*
* Not within project site; included to illustrate context of block
(670 Howard Street)
SFMOM A Expansion and Fire Station
Photographs of SFMOM A
Expansion Site and Surroundings
FIGUR E 3
*
*
6
6. THIRD STREET FACADE OF SFMOMA
7. “W” HOTEL WALKWAY FROM HUNT STREET
FIGUR E 4
7
FIGUR E 5
This page intentionally left blank.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
8
•
Hunt Street. Hunt Street is an approximately 3,500 square-foot landlocked City-owned right-ofway that is located between 151 Third Street and 676 and 670 Howard Street. The dimensions of
Hunt Street within the site are approximately 115 feet by 30 feet. The portion of Hunt Street
extending west to Third Street was previously vacated by the City on August 6, 1979 and
conveyed to the developer of the W Hotel, such that the right-of-way does not connect to any
other public street (Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 755-79). The City would vacate the
remaining 3,500 square-foot portion of Hunt Street and convey the underlying land to SFMOMA,
also in exchange for a portion of the 935 Folsom Street property and a newly constructed fire
station on that site.
b.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located at 935 Folsom Street at the corner of
Falmouth Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets on Assessor’s Block 3753, Lot 140. The 14,400
square-foot site is a through lot with frontages on both Folsom and Shipley Streets and is currently
developed with a one-story (with mezzanine), 25-foot high, 18,208 gross-square-foot commercial
building. The building was constructed in 1923 and is currently vacant, but was previously used as a
commercial laundry facility and later as an apparel sewing factory. The site is generally flat and is
approximately 4 feet above SF Datum. Figures 6 and 7 show photographs of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site and its surroundings.
2.
PROPOSED PROJECTS
a.
SFMOMA Expansion Project
SFMOMA has expanded its collection and programming since the 151 Third Street building opened
in 1995. In response, the museum seeks additional space for galleries and public spaces, enhanced
and expanded curatorial, conservation, and library programs, and consolidation of its support
functions. Approximately 60 percent of the museum’s support functions are currently housed off-site
across Minna Street in 20,000 square feet of leased office space at 667 Mission Street (also known as
the Minna Annex) and at Fort Mason (where space is used by the museum for rental art and storage
functions). In February 2010, SFMOMA and the Doris and Donald Fisher Foundation entered into an
agreement to present the Fisher Collection, containing approximately 1,100 pieces of contemporary
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
9
art, at SFMOMA. This agreement, along with other advances in the SFMOMA collection, has
increased the demand for expansion of SFMOMA’s galleries, as well as its public and support spaces.
SFMOMA is considering a number of potential building configurations within the expansion site
footprint and current zoning provisions to meet the additional space needs of the museum. The 151
Third Street property is located within a 500-I height and bulk district, which permits a building
height of up to 500 feet with certain upper tower bulk limits, but SFMOMA is subject to a Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency limiting the
height of a structure on that property to approximately 147 feet (unless the DDA is amended). 670
Howard and 676 Howard are located in a 320-I height and bulk district, which permits a building
height of up to 320 feet with certain upper tower bulk limits. Thus, the maximum building height of
the SFMOMA Expansion would be 320 feet. Figure 8 is an axonometric diagram of the maximum
above-ground zoning envelope for the expansion, assuming a building to the full allowable building
height with no exception to the I bulk controls and no amendments to the DDA. The SFMOMA
Expansion would also extend the existing 151 Third Street basement area under Hunt Street, the
Heald Building site, and the Fire Station No. 1 site. Excavation to approximately 19 to 20 feet below
surface grade would be required for the construction of the expansion project’s mat foundation and
basement areas (basements currently exist at 670 Howard Street and 676 Howard Street, but would
require additional excavation to meet the level of the museum basement).
The total square feet of new construction that could be built within the maximum zoning envelope is
approximately 340,000 square feet. However, SFMOMA proposes approximately 235,000 square feet
of new construction (see Table 1), such that the project would occupy less than 70 percent of the
potential building envelope shown graphically in Figure 8. Thus, for purposes of the environmental
analysis, it is assumed that the SFMOMA Expansion could occupy either the full height limit
permitted at the site (320 feet) or the maximum bulk allowable within the "I" bulk district, in order to
accommodate the up-to-235,000-square-foot addition as proposed. Conceptual architectural designs
for the proposed project within the zoning envelope described above will be described and analyzed
in the EIR. The design architect for the SFMOMA Expansion project is Snøhetta of New York City
and Oslo, Norway. Please refer to Figures 9, 10, and 11 for conceptual floor plans of the SFMOMA
Expansion.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
10
11
5
th
ou
m
4
Fa
l
1
m
lso
Fo
6
7
3
SITE
St
St
pl
i
Sh
ey
SOURCES: GENSLER; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
2
St
EXISTING
FACE
EXISTING FOLSOM
FOLSOMSTREET
STREETBLOCK
FACADE
5
2
N
ra
a
Cl
St
St
h
Fi
ft
3
6
4
EXISTING FACADE
THE FIRE
STATION
RELOCATION
AND HOUSING PROJECT SITE
EXISTING
FOLSOMOF
STREET
FACADE
OF THE
SITE
FIGURE 6
Photographs of Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project Site and Surroundings
7
1
12
12
St
8
10
14
SOURCES: GENSLER; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
13
SITE
EXISTING
FACE
EXISTING SHIPLEY
SHIPLEYSTREET
STREETBLOCK
FACADE
9
m
lso
Fo
m
l
Fa
St
9
N
th
ou
12
11
i
Sh
ey
pl
10
t
aS
ar
Cl
St
13
SIDE FACADE OF THE SITE FROM FALMOUTH STREET
FIGURE 7
Photographs of Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project Site and Surroundings
14
11
8
Uses. The SFMOMA Expansion would create up to approximately 235,000 square feet of new
space. Table 1 provides a summary of the uses associated with the proposed SFMOMA Expansion
and the approximate square footage of these uses.
This SFMOMA Expansion would increase SFMOMA’s gallery space by up to 133,500 square feet
(comprising 13,500 square feet of renovated space in the existing museum, 60,000 square feet of
space in the SFMOMA addition, and 60,000 square feet of space in new development along Howard
Street; see Table 1), including galleries to house the Fisher Collection, and would allow the museum
to consolidate its back-of-house functions that are currently housed partly in the museum and partly at
a nearby off-site location at 673 Mission Street. Access to the sculpture garden would remain through
the museum.
Along with the expansion uses noted above, some areas of the existing SFMOMA building would
likely be reprogrammed as follows:
•
approximately 12,000 square feet of existing support space on the third and fourth floors would
be converted to gallery space;
•
approximately 30,000 square feet of existing basement support and staff garage space would be
renovated to serve as storage;
•
the existing education center adjacent to the second floor galleries may be re-located to the main
level, off the atrium; and
•
the café functions may be expanded from approximately 4,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
The remaining space within the existing building, including the retail area and galleries, would not be
altered, although some of the public areas may be reprogrammed to other public uses, such as a fullservice restaurant of approximately 5,000 square feet. The 18-space staff parking area in the basement
of 151 Third Street would be eliminated and be converted to art storage or other back-of-house
functions.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
13
Table 1: Conceptual Project Description, Area Calculations
Conceptual Project Description
Existing
SFMOMA
SFMOMA
Howard St. New
SFMOMA
Renovation
Addition
Construction
Areas Unchanged
Within Existing Footprint
Minna & Natoma Pads Heald+Fire Station #1 Site
Area (Gross S.F.)
Area (Gross S.F.)
Area (Gross S.F.)
Area (Gross S.F.)
Public Gallery Support Public Gallery Support Public Gallery Support Public Gallery Support
Sub Totals: 33,255 41,980 94,765
6,500 13,500 35,000 10,000 60,000 17,550
7,500 60,000 80,000
Total Area:
(S.F.)
170,000
55,000
87,550
147,500
Total Area By Program Type: (Gross S.F.)
Public
Gallery
Support
Note:
Existing
Gross
Area of
SFMOMA =
225,000 S.F.
57,255
175,480
227,315
Grand Total Area: (Gross S.F.)
New Construction
235,050
Existing Building
(Including Interior
Renovations)
225,000
Grand Total
(Existing Building + New
Construction)
460,050
Source: SFMOMA, 2010.
Employees and Visitors. Current and expected future employment at SFMOMA is summarized in Table 2. According to SFMOMA, the museum currently employs approximately 213 fulltime-equivalent employees (FTEs). In addition, SFMOMA uses the services of docents, volunteers,
interns, on-site consultants and contractors, and security personnel totaling the equivalent of an
additional 170 FTEs. Taking into account all types of employment, there are currently 383 FTEs
employed at SFMOMA. Upon completion of the expansion, SFMOMA anticipates an approximately
23 percent increase in FTE employees, to a total of 470 FTE employees (including 267 SFMOMA
employees and 203 FTE docents, volunteers, interns, on-site consultants and contractors, and security
personnel). Thus, with implementation of the SFMOMA Expansion, overall employment at
SFMOMA would increase by 87 FTEs.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
14
15
SOURCES: SFMOMA; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
not to scale
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 320 Feet
Zoning Diagram Maximum Zoning Envelope
FIGURE 8
16
not to scale
Proposed Ground Floor Plan
FIGURE 9
17
not to scale
Typical Conceptual Gallery Floor Plan
FIGURE 10
18
not to scale
Typical Conceptual Support Level Floor Plan
FIGURE 11
Currently the museum attracts approximately 650,000 visitors per year and the expanded gallery
spaces are likely to increase attendance. It is anticipated that after the visitorship stabilizes following
opening of the project to the public, annual visitor numbers would increase by approximately 20
percent. To assure conservative analyses, this environmental analysis (and the following Environmental Impact Report (EIR)) are based on the assumption that visitor attendance would increase by
25 percent over the year 2009 baseline conditions.
Table 2: Existing and Projected Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employment at SFMOMA
Type of Worker
Employees
Volunteers
Contractors
Security
TOTAL
Current
213
83
37
50
383
Projected
267
103
43
57
470
Number Increase
(Percent Increase)
54 (25%)
20 (24%)
6 (16%)
7 (14%)
87 (23%)
Source: Personal communication between Sanchie T. Fernandez, Director of Human Resources, SFMOMA, and Greg
Johnson, SFMOMA Expansion Project Director, July 1, 2010. This document is available for review at the
Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.
Access, Circulation and Parking. Primary pedestrian access to SFMOMA would remain on
Third Street. A second point of pedestrian access on Howard Street will be evaluated during the
design process. A portion of the expansion above the Natoma Street parking pad would be elevated
above street level to provide unimpeded vehicular access from Natoma Street beneath the structure
for the W Hotel parking attendants to move vehicles between the W Hotel porte-cochere on Howard
Street and the 147-151 Minna Street parking garage (by accessing the garage’s Natoma Street entry),
pursuant to an existing easement. The existing SFMOMA structure includes 18 subsurface staff
parking spaces accessed from Minna Street and approximately 30 bicycle parking spaces exclusively
for employees. The parking spaces would be eliminated and the space converted to art storage or
other back-of-house functions. Bicycle spaces would be provided on-site for both visitors and
employees at a location or locations to be determined (although no bicycle spaces for arts uses are
required by the San Francisco Planning Code).
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) provide transit
services in close in proximity to the SFMOMA Expansion site. Please refer to Figure 12, which
shows transit routes in the vicinity of SFMOMA (transit routes in the vicinity of the Fire Station
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
19
Relocation and Housing Project site are shown in Figure 13). BART stations in the vicinity of the
project site include the Montgomery Street Station (approximately 0.2 of a mile northeast of the site)
and the Powell Street Station (approximately 0.4 of a mile northwest of the site). Muni lines that serve
the block within which SFMOMA is located include: 8X, 10, 12, 14, 14L, 14X, 30, 45, 76, and 81X.
Other transit agencies that provide bus service along the block in which SFMOMA is located include
Golden Gate Transit (primarily providing service to Marin County and Sonoma County) and SamTrans (primarily providing service to San Mateo County). In addition, the San Francisco Transbay
Terminal, a major bus transit node for commutes across San Francisco Bay, is located approximately
0.3 of a mile east of the site. The Transbay Terminal is currently being demolished and replaced; in
the meantime, a temporary terminal has been established in the vicinity of Main Street and Folsom
Street, approximately 0.7 of a mile southeast of the project site. The Caltrain Station is located 0.7 of
a mile southeast of the site. In addition, Interstate 80 (I-80), a major east-west interstate highway, is
located approximately 0.4 of a mile to the southeast of the site. I-80 connects San Francisco, via the
Bay Bridge, to the East Bay and points beyond. Interstate 280 (I-280) and Highway 101 are major
north-south highways, located approximately 0.3 of a mile to the southeast of the site, connecting
San Francisco with the Peninsula to the south and with the North Bay to the north via the Golden
Gate Bridge.
The museum’s employee and visitor surveys indicate that most SFMOMA employees and patrons use
public transportation to travel to and from the museum. As of July 2010, SFMOMA estimates that
approximately 30 employees (or approximately 14 percent of FTE employees) drive to work; the
remainder use public transit or other forms of transport.2 As of April 2010, 26 percent of visitors
arrived to SFMOMA via car or motorcycle; the remainder used public transit or other forms of
2 Personal communication between Sanchie T. Fernandez, Director of Human Resources, SFMOMA, and Greg
Johnson, SFMOMA Expansion Project Director, July 1, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning
Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
20
t
Sutter S
Kearny
St
M
on
tg
om
St
k
ew
M
er
Geary
M
ar
t
N
8X
S
et
St
e
St
10
y
Je
i
ss
St
in
na
12
14X
N
at
om
a
St
SFMOMA
Expansion Site
14L
h
Te
14 GG
am
a
St
2n
d
St
aw
si
St
H
th
M
is
on
or
ne
76
St
i
S
d
St
d
M
a
nn
H
30
t 45
ow
ar
30
45
3r
8X
St
Y erba Buena
Gardens
GG
12
76
Moscone
Center
GG
8X
Fo
l
m
so
St
81X
8A/BX
4t
h
St
Te
m
ha
a
St
C
l
em
en
ti
na
St
H
muni metro (surface)
feet
200
400
ris
St
80
FIGURE 12
other transit systems
bart
project site
0
ar
on
muni metro (subway)
express bus line
SOURCES: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
21
Relocation and Housing Project Initial
S Study
t
n
Transit Lines
a Around
SFMOMA Expansion
Site
ry
B
t
Eddy S
M
k
ar
S
et
t
Yerba Buena
Gardens
16X
8X
27
16X
5t
h
M
is
si
on
30
45
St
4t
St
h
St
14X
14L
6t
14
h
St
GG
SM
M
in
na
H
St
ow
a
rd
St
ha
Te
GG
m
a
C
St
le
m
en
ti
na
l
Fo
Fire Station
Relocation and
Housing Site
N
a
m
to
a
St
so
m
St
GG
St
12
27
14X
H
ar
Falmouth St
rie
tS
t
S
19
p
hi
le
y
St
C
GG
la
ra
St
47 27
12
GG
8X
8A/BX
7t
h
80
St
project site
other transit systems
bart
muni metro (surface)
0
feet
200
FIGURE 13
400
muni metro (subway)
express bus line
SOURCES: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
22
Transit Lines Around the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project Site
transportation.3 For employees and visitors who drive to SFMOMA, public parking is available in
several nearby facilities, including garages at 147-151 Minna Street, directly behind the museum; the
Moscone Garage at 255 Third Street, one block to the south; and the Fifth and Mission Street garage,
approximately 0.3 of a mile to the west. Off-street parking is not included as part of the proposed
project.
b.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project
As noted above, the proposed project includes both the expansion of the SFMOMA building and the
relocation of Fire Station No. 1. The existing station at 676 Howard Street would be demolished to
allow construction of the SFMOMA Expansion project. To allow the existing fire station to be
demolished, a new fire station would be constructed at 935 Folsom Street to replace it. As the fire
station would not require the entire 14,400-square-foot property, the lot at 935 Folsom Street would
be subdivided into two parcels and would include two uses: the new fire station fronting Folsom
Street and a multi-family residential building with up to 13 units fronting Shipley Street. The
replacement fire station would be built on the northerly 9,000 square foot parcel referred to as Lot A
and the multi-family residential project would be built on Lot B, the 5,400 square foot southerly
portion of the lot, with a portion of both Lots A and B also providing at-grade parking for firefighters
(13 spaces for cars parked in tandem plus one space for disabled drivers; the personal vehicles of fire
fighters would remain parked for each firefighter’s 24-hour shift). The eight spaces of surface parking
on Lot B would be provided pursuant to a parking easement (see Figure 14, Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project Plan View and Building Section).
The new fire station would be two stories plus a mezzanine level. It would be an approximately 34foot-tall structure with a gross area of between 13,000 and 15,000 square feet and a footprint of
approximately 6,750 square feet. The fire station’s staffing level and equipment would not differ from
the current condition at Fire Station No. 1. (The existing fire station is staffed by 13 firefighters and
3 San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Visitor Survey, Morey Group, April, 2010. This document is available for
review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
23
STREET
STREET
PLAN VIEW (GROUND LEVEL)
STREET
BUILDING SECTION
45’0”
34’0”
FIGURE 14
Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project Plan View and Building Section
not to scale
24
houses three vehicles.4) The fire station would have three bay doors (as opposed to two bay doors at
the existing fire station) fronting on Folsom Street and a surface area for firefighter parking located at
the rear of the station. The staff parking area would be accessed from Falmouth Street. The new fire
station would rest on a pile-supported foundation. Excavation to a depth approximately 3 feet below
the grade at the sidewalk would be required for the pile cap and grade beam construction.
The residential building fronting Shipley Street would be a four-story, 45-foot-tall structure with a
subterranean parking garage. The garage would comprise approximately 5,550 square feet and would
be accessed from Falmouth Street. The above-grade structure would have a gross area of about
14,000 square feet, and would include up to 13 residential units. The residential units would consist of
about two studios (approximately 450 square feet in size); five one-bedroom units (approximately 700
feet in size); and six two-bedroom units (approximately 1,000 square feet in size). Approximately
1,040 square feet of open space to serve the residential uses would be provided on the site. Excavation to a depth of 10 feet below grade would be required for construction of the building’s basementlevel garage (which would contain 10 vehicle spaces with a portion of the subterranean parking area
being located beneath the 20-foot at grade parking easement provided for the fire fighters’ vehicles).
c.
Construction and Phasing
The first phase of project construction would be the demolition of the existing commercial building at
935 Folsom Street and the construction of a new fire station on the site. This would allow the fire
company currently housed in Fire Station No. 1 at 676 Howard Street to relocate, and to ensure no
interruption in fire protection services. It is anticipated that the residential building on Lot B would be
built after the construction of the fire station is completed and that Lot B would function as a staging
and parking area during construction of the new fire station. Approximately 425 cubic yards of soil
would be removed (and exported off-site) from the fire station site for grade beams and pile caps and
approximately 1,225 cubic yards of soil would be removed (and exported off-site) from the residential
site for the below-grade parking; this would constitute about 24 truck loads from the fire station site
and 68 truck loads from the residential site, assuming 18 cubic yards per truck. Approximately 5 to 25
4 Personal communication with Thomas Doudiet, Captain, San Francisco Fire Department, July 21, 2010. This
document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
25
workers would be on the site depending on the phase of construction. Construction of the new fire
station is expected to begin in late 2011 to early 2012 and take a total of about 12 months to
complete; demolition would take approximately 2 weeks followed by approximately 11½ months of
construction. If the residential building were constructed subsequent to the fire station it would take
approximately 14 to 16 months to complete.
The first steps on the SFMOMA Expansion site would be the demolition of the Heald Building (670
Howard Street) and Fire Station No. 1 (676 Howard Street). Soil would then be excavated to
approximately 19 to 20 feet below the ground surface (approximately 9 to 10 additional feet of
excavation below the existing basement levels of 670 and 676 Howard Street) throughout this area
and under Hunt Street to accommodate the basement and foundation of the SFMOMA Expansion. It
is estimated that approximately 6,225 cubic yards of soil would be removed from the site for disposal;
this would constitute about 350 truck loads, assuming 18 cubic yards per truck. The average work
force over the 2-year construction period would be 200 workers, which would fluctuate through the
duration of construction. The maximum anticipated work force would be 300 individuals on the
SFMOMA site. Construction of the SFMOMA Expansion would take about 2 years to complete;
abatement and demolition of 676 and 670 Howard Street would take up to 4 additional months before
the start of construction activities.
Table 3 summarizes the construction phasing associated with the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project, including the typical construction equipment that would be
used as part of each phase.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
26
Table 3: Construction Phasing
SFMOMA Expansion
Phase
Phase 1: Abatement and
Demolition (PreConstruction)
Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project
(Month Start/Month Finish) (Month Start/Month Finish)a Typical Equipment
0/(4)
1/1
hoe ram; claw excavator; bobcat;
dump truck*
Phase 2: Clearing/Grubbing
Phase 3: Excavation/
Offhaul/Shoring/
Underpinning
Phase 4: Foundation
1/2
2/4
1/1
2/2
4/8
2/4
Phase 5: Superstructure and
Mechanical, Electrical,
Plumbing, and Fire
Protection Systems
Phase 6: Exterior Envelope
8/14
4/8
10/20
7/11
Phase 7: Interior Finishes
Phase 8: Site Work
14/24
22/24
8/12
11/12
excavator; dump truck
excavator; backhoe; bobcat;
dump truck; driller*; chain
saw/saw*; tie back drill rig*
portable crane; pile rigg; bobcat;
excavator; saw; concrete truck;
concrete pump truck
tower crane*; portable craneg;
concrete truck; concrete pump
truck; steel fabrication devices;
main lift*
tower crane*; man lift*; portable
craneg
tower crane*; man lift*
bobcat; portable crane; backhoe
a
The phasing assumptions for construction of the Fire Station only are listed in this column. The phasing of the Housing
Project is approximately identical, although the total construction period would last approximately 14-16 months.
* = would be used in construction of the SFMOMA Expansion only.
g = would be used in construction of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project only.
Source: SFMOMA Expansion, Machine Noise Matrix, Joel Roos, September 13, 2010. This document is available for
B.
PROJECT SETTING
1.
SFMOMA Expansion Site Setting
The SFMOMA expansion site is located at 151 Third Street, in the South of Market/Yerba Buena
neighborhood, near the heart of Downtown San Francisco. The approximately 74,355 square foot
SFMOMA Expansion site is a flat site developed with the five-story 151 Third Street SFMOMA
building, which is 105 feet in height (plus a sky-lit rotunda reaching a height of 145 feet); the fourstory Heald Building (at 670 Howard Street), the two-story Fire Station No. 1 (at 676 Howard Street),
and paved areas associated with parking pads and Hunt Street (a 3,500-square-foot City-owned rightof-way). Please refer to Figures 3, 4, and 5 for photographs of the SFMOMA Expansion site and its
surroundings. 151 Third Street is within the C-3-O (Downtown Office) Use District, and the 500-I
Height/Bulk District (500-foot height limit, with limitations on maximum plan dimensions above 150
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
27
feet). 670 Howard Street is within the C-3-S (Downtown Support) Use District, and the 320-I Height/
Bulk District. 676 Howard Street is within the P (Public) Use District, and the 320-I Height/Bulk
District. (See Figure 15 and Figure 16 for a map of zoning and height/bulk regulations in and around
the SFMOMA Expansion site.)
The segment of Third Street adjacent to the SFMOMA Expansion site contains 10-foot-wide
sidewalks, and the segment of Howard Street adjacent to the site contains 12-foot-wide sidewalks.
There are no building setbacks. Minna Street, to the north of the site, is 21 feet in width and contains
7.5-foot-wide sidewalks.
The SFMOMA Expansion site and much of the surrounding land to the north, south, and west5 lie
within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area. The 87-acre Yerba Buena Center
Redevelopment Project Area generally extends from Market Street to Harrison Street and west of
Fourth Street to east of Third Street. The Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area has been
developed as a convention center, office, housing, hotel, arts, and recreation area. The Museum
acquired the 151 Third Street building site from the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to a Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) executed in 1991. The Redevelopment Plan is scheduled to
expire on January 1, 2011, after which the San Francisco Planning Department and Planning Commission will be the primary reviewing and approving agencies for development proposals within its
boundaries.
Land uses surrounding the site (which is in close proximity to San Francisco’s Downtown retail and
financial districts) include hotel, retail, office, residential, convention, parking, and public and cultural facilities that typify Downtown San Francisco and its immediate surroundings in the South of
Market neighborhood. Figure 17 illustrates the concentration of cultural facilities near the SFMOMA
Expansion site. These cultural facilities include:
•
Museum of the African Diaspora (685 Mission Street)
•
Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and Gardens (701 Mission Street)
5 By convention, Howard Street, and streets that parallel it, including Folsom Street, are considered east-west streets,
while numbered streets, such as Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc., are considered to run north-south.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
28
o
Center for the Arts Gallery
o
Center for the Arts Theater
o
Zeum: San Francisco Children’s Museum
•
Cartoon Art Museum (655 Mission Street)
•
Contemporary Jewish Museum of San Francisco (736 Mission Street)
•
Museum of Craft and Folk Art (51 Yerba Buena Lane)
•
California Historical Society (678 Mission Street)
•
Society of California Pioneers (300 Fourth Street)
Major structures near the site include: the Metreon (101 Fourth Street); Paramount Apartments (680
Mission Street); Moscone Center North and South (747 Howard Street); Moscone Center West (800
Howard Street); St. Patrick’s Church (756 Mission Street); and the Fifth and Mission Garage (833
Mission Street) and the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building (134-140 New Montgomery
Street). Parks and recreational spaces in the vicinity of the project site include Union Square (0.3 of a
mile to the northwest of the site); South Park (0.5 of a mile southeast of the site), the South of Market
Recreation Center and the Victoria Manalo Draves Park (0.7 of a mile southwest of the site), and
Howard Langton Park (0.8 of a mile southwest of the site). In addition, the Yerba Buena Gardens
open space and recreational facilities, including an esplanade, gardens, plazas, a bowling alley,
skating rink, historic carousel, and playground, are directly across Third Street from the site. In
addition, numerous privately-owned public open spaces are located east of the site. Such open space
areas located in the area bound by Market Street on the north; First Street on the east; Howard Street
on the south; and Second Street on the west include: 595 Market Street; 555/575 Market Street; 525
Market Street; 100 First Street; 25 Jessie Street; 49 Stevenson Street; 71 Stevenson Street; 55 Second
Street; Golden Gate University; 560 Mission Street; 555 Mission Street; 101 Second Street; and
Foundry Square.6
6Secrets of San Francisco: A Guide to the City’s Privately Owned Public Open Spaces, San Francisco Planning +
Urban Research Association, November 19, 2008. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case
File No. 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
29
North of the site, across Minna Street, land uses include the 42-story St. Regis Hotel and Residences,
which also houses the Museum of the African Diaspora, and four- to five-story office buildings
fronting Mission Street. East of the existing SFMOMA building, land uses include an 8-story parking
garage; the SFMOMA Sculpture Garden is on the roof of this parking structure. Land uses east of
Fire Station No. 1 and the Heald Building include 3- and 4-story office and retail uses. South of the
site land uses include the 33-story W Hotel. Across Howard Street, land uses include a 12-story office
building and a 2-story restaurant. West of the site, across Third Street, land uses include the Moscone
North convention center, topped by the Yerba Buena Gardens cultural facilities and open space. The
Yerba Buena Gardens comprise approximately two blocks of public open space, galleries, a theater,
retail and recreational facilities.
2.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site Setting
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located at 935 Folsom Street on the south side
of Folsom Street, between Fifth Street to the east and Sixth Street to the west. The project site
consists of a vacant, one-story-plus-mezzanine, 25-foot-tall, 18,208 square-foot industrial building
occupying the entire site. The building was previously used as a commercial laundry and later as an
apparel factory. The neighborhood around the project site, which is known as the East South of
Market neighborhood, contains a mixture of residential; production, distribution and repair (PDR);
hotel; bar; restaurant; retail; and surface parking uses. The neighborhood around the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project site also contains numerous live/work lofts. Please refer to Figures 6
and 7 for photographs of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site and its surroundings.
The approximately 14,400-square-foot Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site (including the
9,000-square-foot Lot A and 5,400-square foot Lot B that would result from the proposed subdivision
of the site) is located within the East SoMa Area Plan (East SoMa Plan), which is one of the plans of
the recently concluded Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans (EN) planning effort. The
East SoMa Plan rezoned the project site from a Residential/Service Mixed Use (RSD) land use
district to a Mixed Use Residential (MUR) land use district; it also changed height controls from a
split 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk district to a 45-X district on the southern portion of the project site
facing Shipley Street and an 85-X district on the northern portion of the site facing Folsom Street.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
30
(See Figure 15 and Figure 16 for a map of zoning and height/bulk districts in and around the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site.)
The site also lies within the South of Market Youth and Family Special Use District, and the South of
Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area, which the Board of Supervisors adopted
in 1990. The South of Market Youth and Family Special Use District is intended to protect and
enhance the environment for youth and families by expanding the provision of affordable housing in
certain lower-density areas in the South of Market neighborhood.7 The Redevelopment Plan uses the
Planning Department’s existing zoning and Planning Code controls. The Planning Commission and
the Planning Department are the primary reviewing and approving agencies.
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is in a mixed-use urban area containing a variety
of building types and uses. Heights vary from one to five stories (12 to 60 feet). Most buildings in the
two-block vicinity are two to four stories tall (ranging from 24 to 48 feet). Building types include
older commercial, mixed residential/commercial, live/work, and industrial structures, as well as
newer residential buildings. Nearby land uses include residential; live/work; production, distribution,
and repair (PDR), many of which are automotive supply and repair businesses; retail (including
restaurant and bar); hotel; and surface parking.
The urban development pattern in the neighborhood around the Fire Station relocation site consists of
blocks with dimensions of approximately 475 feet by 850 feet, 82-foot-wide streets, and smaller
intersecting alleys that create residential enclaves. These residential enclaves are located behind major
streets that are fronted by predominantly commercial and industrial uses.
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is bordered by Folsom Street to the north.
Across Folsom Street, to the north of the Fire Station relocation site, is a large surface parking lot
(containing approximately 400 parking spaces) that extends to Fifth Street. To the immediate west of
the large surface parking lot is a three-story structure that is occupied by a furniture and interiors
business. The site is bordered to the east by an open vehicle yard (923 Folsom Street) that is used by a
7 San Francisco Planning Code, Section 249.40A.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
31
tour bus company for bus storage and maintenance. On the northeast side of the open vehicle yard is a
four-story structure (located at 917 Folsom Street) that contains a hotel with a bar on the ground floor.
To the southeast side of the open vehicle yard is a smaller-scale two-story structure (located at 214
Shipley Street) that contains a garage on the first floor and offices on the second floor.
The site is bordered to the south by Shipley Street. The area south of Shipley Street, across from the
project site, consists primarily of residential and live/work uses, with occasional storage or PDR uses.
Shipley Street to the west of Falmouth Street comprises one- to four-story residential and live/work
structures.
The site is bordered to the west by Falmouth Street. Beyond Falmouth Street, to the west of the site, is
a two-story mixed residential/retail building containing an adult business (fronting Folsom Street) and
two-story residential building (fronting Shipley Street).
Residential uses in the general two-block area around the project site are predominantly multi-family
flats or higher density buildings, including the 50-foot-tall 249 Shipley Street lofts (14 residential
units) directly to the south of the project site at the intersection of Shipley and Falmouth Streets. In
addition, there is a two-story building immediately to the west of the site across Falmouth Street with
apartments (estimated at two units) above an adult business. At 955-65 Folsom Street is a four-story
condominium loft building (containing 15 residential units). Mid-rise lofts at 239-250 Clara Street
(containing 15 residential units) are on the next block south of the project site. On Folsom Street, one
block to the east between Third Street and Fourth Street, is the 45- to 85-foot tall Yerba Buena Lofts
(containing approximately 200 residential units) and the 65- to 85-foot tall 829 Folsom Street residential building (containing approximately 69 residential units). A large commercial parking lot (located
at 900 Folsom Street) occupies the northwest corner of the Fifth and Folsom Street intersection across
Folsom Street from the project site (a mixed-use project is currently planned for this site; see Table 4).
Nearby parks include the South of Market Recreation Center and the Victoria Manalo Draves Park
approximately 0.2 of a mile southwest of the site. The Howard Langton Park is about 0.3 of a mile to
the west on Howard Street. Yerba Buena Gardens and Moscone Center are 0.2 of a mile to the northeast on Folsom Street and extend about 0.2 of a mile north to Mission Street.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
32
A
C-3-O
C-3-R
6
M
P
P
C-3-G
T
C-3-S
5
2
37
D
AR
MUR
NCT
NCT
MUG
MUR
Fire Station
Relocation
and
NCT
Housing Site
NCT
NCT
31
37
RED
MUG
NCT
RED
P
37
T
37
P
P
54
Project Sites
USE DISTRICTS
MUG
0
feet
250
P
500
Public
RESIDENTIAL
RC-4 = Commercial
RC-4
Combined/High Density
RED
37
Residential Enclave
SLI
SLI
Residential/Service
SLI
Service/Lt. Industrial
SSO
Service/Secondary Office
C-3-R
MUO
SLI
SLI
SLI
SL
3
C-3-S
M1
Downtown - Support
Light Industrial
MUG
Mixed Use - General
Downtown - Office
MUR
Mixed Use - Residential
Downtown - Retail
MUO
Mixed Use - Office
3753
N
Block Number
B
SSO
SLI
MUO
ST
A
NN
RA
Downtown - Office
33
7
78
77
Neighborhood Commercial
Transit Cluster
SOURCES: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
37
SLI
SLI
P
NCT
COMMERCIAL
C-3-0
SLI
ST
T
SLI
N
YA SLI
R
B
SLI
RSD
SLI
SLI
76
37
C-3-0(SD) (Special Development)
MIXED-USE
3
1
76
P
60
S
SLI
P
P
SLI
SLI
SLI
MUR
SPD
SLI
ST
N
O
IS SLI P
P
SLI
2
P76
3
SLI
H
53
SLI
SLI
P
R
AR
SLI
P
MUO
SLI
M-1
MUR
MUG
MUG
3
P76
3
MUO
P M
1
MUR
RSD
SLI
NCT
RR
A
SSO
H
M-1
5
37
MUO
2
NCT
NCT
ST
O
LS
FO MUR
MUR
MUR
MUR
5
37
NCT
MUG
M
2
3
37
NCT
RED
MUG
M-1
ST
ST
NCT
RSD
TH
W
HO
MUR
MUR
NCT
ST
05
TH
06
NCT
3
3
37
C-3-S
RSD
MUR
ST
N SSO
O
MUO
IS
RC-4
C-3-S
C-3-S
MUO
MUR
MUR
C-3-S
MUO
4
70
UG
C-3-S
2
37
P
ST
4
C-3-S
RD
M
R
DT
4
3
37
03
I
C-3-R
NCT
TB
MUR
50
N
ST
O
I
SS
C-3-S
C-3-S
37
C-3-R
3
P
MUO
ST
37
C-3-S
C-3-S
TH
04
05
41
RH
P
C-3-O(SD)
3
P
3
C-3-O(SD)
C-3-S
36
35
3
72
03
TB DT
C-3-O(SD)
P
C-3-S
P
P
37
C-3-O(SD)
37
L ST
0
37
29
C-3-R
330
2
2
37
C-3-O(SD)
ST
032
C-3-O
C-3-O(SD)
SFMOMA
Expansion Site
ST
26
ND
02
Y
ER
M
POWEL
LL ST C-3-R
ST
OFARRE
T
C-3-R
8
C-3-R
E
32
0
RK
7
-G
C-3-O
O
0
0313
0314
15
2
31
37
G
NT
C-3-R
7
0
37
C-3-R
C-3-O(SD)
21
O
M
ST
GEARY
C-3-R
C-3-R
P
C-3-O
0
C-3-O
C-3-O(S
C
3 O(S
37
37
C-3-R
AVE
7
0309
0310
W
NE
3-R
G R AN T
UNIONE
SQUAR
P 0306
C-3-O
1
31
ST
PO
C-3-R
P
86
37
ST
E
M FIGURE
XO
M
15
LU
B
SFMOMA Expansion and
Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project Initial Study
Zoning Map
37
50
RD
ST
D
TH
2
73
TH
ST
45-X
Housing Site
45-X
5
37
R
85-X
3 45-X
65-X
OS
85-X
37
0
feet
65-X
54
45-X
Project Sites
OS
65-X
500
3761
6
85-X
N
NA
N
37
30-X
“Suffix Numbers” identify districts in which special
regulations apply. See Planning Code Sections 263
and following.
Block Number
SOURCES: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
34
65-X
65-X
65-X
37
ST
85-X
85-X
FIGURE 16
6
“Open Space” District
7
37
85-X
65-X
60
“Letters” refer to Bulk Limits. See Planning Code Section 270.
00 - Z - 1
85-X
ST
T 65-X
AN
Y
65-X
BR
A
BR
“Numbers” are Height Limits in feet. See Planning Code
Section 250 and following.
250
65-X
7
85-X
45-X
6
65-X
55-X
7
37
30-X
65-X
65-X
85-X
45-X
55-X
85-X
50-X
65-X
65-X
61
37
45-X
4
65-X
30-X
O
HA
85-X
65-X
ST
S
RI
85-X
85-XRelocation and
OS
65-X
85-X
85-X
85-X
40-X/85-B
N
3
85-X
3
65-X
85-X
85-X
55-X
2
76
55-X
50-X
3
45-X
Fire
Station
65-X
85-X
2
75
85-X
85-X
3
45-X
76
45-X
85-X
55-X
45-X
45-X
45-X
ST
85-X
45-X
ST
40-X/85-B SO
L
FO 85-X
05
W
HO
85-X
3
45-X
45-X
M
3
45-X
65-X
85-X
1
75
85-X
130-F
ST
AR
06
85-X
37
35
03
5
2
37
85-X
31
37
X
130-L
37
85-X
37
160-F
RR
A
H 40-X
85-X
85-X
5
ST
N 40-X
O
85-X
IS
130-G
340-I
130-F
33
5-X
ST
3
40-X/85-B
130-E
85-X
130-G
340-I
320-S
120-F 45-X
85-X
85-X
85-X
130-E
200-S
4
3
37
4
72
90-X
85-X
ND
340-I
O
I
SS
90-X
160-F
02
N
ST
I
M 160-F
160-F
04
320-I
ST
400-X
90-X
200-S
TH
37
B
85-TB
320-I
340-I
400-I
160-F
200-X05
120-X 160-S
ST
3
0
/40
/85
50
80-X
04
OS
3
72
160-S
135-X
Y
ER
M
110-X
O
ST
30
250-S
320-I
37
350-S
350-S
150-S
250-S
500-I
400-I
120-X
03
80-130-F
6
-T
36
150-S
150-S
80-X
200-S
SFMOMA
Expansion Site
2
2
37
500-I
0
37
160-S
A
M
29
350-S
400-X
ET120-X
K
R
80-130-F
500-I
200-S
450-S
500-S
150-S
150-S
150-S
120-X
S
1
300-S
80-130-F
200-400
400-S
2
37
G
NT
L
POWEL
6-130-F
120-X
12
03
LL ST
OFARRE
8
80-130-F 80-130-F
32
0
T
27
03
07
7
3
80-X
550-S
O
M
80-130-F
150-X
550-S
500-S
150-S
150-S
285-S
80-130-F
AVE
0314
03
0310
80-130-F
0313
300-S
250-S11
W
NE
0309
80-130-F
ST
GEARY
80-130-F
OS
G R AN T
80-130-F
UNIONE
SQUAR OS
0306
F
T
POST S
ST
80-130-F
T
80 130 F
02
8
37
E
ST
M
O
X
LU
B
Height and Bulk Districts
55-X
85--
St
Powell
gnin St
Cyril Ma
35
i
M
H
d
ar
ow
St
SOCIETY OF
PIONEERS
ZEUM
om
ls
o
F
St
Ln
project site
St
d
3r
a
nn
St
h
4t
h
5t
St
FIGURE 17
Cultural Facilities Near SFMOMA
on
ri s
r
a
H
MUSEUM OF
PERFORMANCE
& DESIGN
(PROPOSED)
H
St
o
on
si
is
M
YERBA BUENA
GARDENS
aw
St
St
Mason
SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
t
Grant S
B
St
500
ba
a
CENTER FOR
THE ARTS
THEATER
GALLERY
St
St
feet
250
r
Ye
MUSEUM OF
CRAFT
& FOLK ART
a
om
at
N
St
e
y
si
s
lle
A
Je
h
CARTOON
ric
ld
MUSEUM
A
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
MUSEUM
St
th
e
rn
0
n St
Stockto
t
Ellis S
t
ke
ar
M
St
n
ue
CONTEMPORARY
MUSEUM OF THE
JEWISH MUSEUM
AFRICAN DIASPORA
OF SAN FRANCISCO
(MoAD)
MEXICAN
SFMOMA
MUSEUM CENTER FOR
(PROPOSED) THE ARTS
St
ll St
Kearny
St
O’Farre
ew
N
y
er
m
o
tg
on
M
St
Geary
t
Post S
on
ns
e
ev
St
d
2n
St
Project Site
Photo 1: View looking east from the project site down Folsom Street
Project Site
Photo 2: View looking west from the project site down Folsom Street
F IG U R E 18
Views from Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project Site
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.
36
3.
Cumulative Setting
The project sites are located in areas subject to considerable redevelopment activity. Planned and
foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion site include the new residential and
office towers and the conversion of an existing office tower to residential and commercial uses.
Projects in the vicinity of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site include construction of
lower-scale mixed-use buildings and building conversions. Table 4 summarizes major planned
projects known to the Planning Department in 2010 that are within 0.125 of a mile of each of the
project sites.
Table 4: Planned Projects Within Vicinity of Project Sites
SFMOMA Expansion
Address
706 Mission Street
Project Summary
Construction of new 605-foot residential tower with 220 units and the Mexican Museum in
the lower floors.
134-140 New Montgomery Conversion of an office building to contain 118 residential units and approximately 8,700
Street
sq. ft. of ground floor commercial uses.
222 Second Street
Construction of a 33-story, 432-foot office building, including 6,300 sq. ft. of ground floor
retail space and 617,000 sq. ft. of office space.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing
900 Folsom Street/260
Demolition of a two-story building and construction of a total of 448 residential units, 9,560
Fifth Street
sq. ft. of retail space, and 323 parking spaces on two adjacent sites.
468 Clementina Street
Demolition of an existing building and construction of two four-story residential buildings,
including a 13-unit building fronting Tehama Street and a 12-unit building fronting
Clementina Street (468 Clementina).
374 Fifth Street
Conversion of 47 tourist hotel rooms to 47 single room occupancy (SRO) units.
397 Fifth Street
Demolition of two existing buildings and construction of 24 residential units, and 5,110 sq.
ft. of retail space.
345 Sixth Street
Demolition of a 2,973-sq.-ft. one-story office building and construction of a 37,200-sq.-ft.
37-unit five-story structure with residential over ground floor retail space.
Source: Development Pipeline, City and County of San Francisco, August 4, 2010. This document is available for review
at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E and 2010.0275E.
4.
APPROVALS REQUIRED
a.
SFMOMA Expansion Approvals Required
•
Planning Code Section 309 Downtown Project Approval (Planning Commission)
•
Street Vacation of Hunt Street (Board of Supervisors)
•
Rezoning of 676 Howard Street from P (Public) to C 3-S (Board of Supervisors, with
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
37
•
Possible amendment of Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) (Redevelopment
Agency Commission)
•
Lot Merger (Department of Public Works)
•
b.
•
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Approvals Required
Planning Code Section 327/307 Eastern Neighborhoods Project Approval (Planning Commission
or Zoning Administrator)
•
Rezoning of the fire station portion of the lot from MUR to P (Public) (Board of Supervisors with
•
Design approval of new public building (Arts Commission)
•
Lot Subdivision (Department of Public Works)
•
C.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS
Applicable
Not Applicable
Discuss any variances, special authorizations, or changes proposed to
the Planning Code or Zoning Map, if applicable.
Discuss any conflicts with any adopted plans and goals of the City or
Region, if applicable.
Discuss any approvals and/or permits from City departments other
than the Planning Department or the Department of Building
Inspection, or from Regional, State, or Federal Agencies.
1.
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE
The San Francisco Planning Code (Planning Code), which incorporates the City’s Zoning Maps,
implements the General Plan and governs permitted uses, densities, and configurations of buildings
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
38
within the City. Permits to construct new buildings (or to alter and demolish existing ones) may not
be issued unless: 1) the proposed project conforms to the Planning Code; 2) allowable exceptions are
granted pursuant to provisions of the Planning Code; or 3) amendments to the Planning Code are
included as part of the project.
The following section discusses the land use districts and use, bulk, and height regulations associated
with each project site. A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with all applicable provisions
of the Planning Code (including floor-area-ratio (FAR), setbacks, vehicle and bicycle parking, open
space/landscaping) will be included in the EIR. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the land use and
bulk/height districts on the project sites.
SFMOMA Expansion Site. The SFMOMA Expansion site is located within three different
primary use districts. The existing museum (151 Third Street) is located within the C-3-O (Downtown Office) Use District; the Heald Building (670 Howard Street) is located within the C-3-S
(Downtown Support) Use District; and Fire Station No. 1 (676 Howard Street) is located within the P
(Public) Use District. Half of Hunt Street (as divided by the centerline) is located within the C-3-O
District; the other half is located within the C-3-S District. The intent of these districts and the
consistency of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion with the specific land use controls associated with
each district is discussed below.
The C-3-O (Downtown Office) District is intended to protect and encourage the growth of Downtown
San Francisco as a business and employment center that is dense and located in close proximity to
transit. According to Section 210.3 of the Planning Code, in the District, “office development is supported by some related retail and service uses within the area, with inappropriate uses excluded in
order to conserve the supply of land in the core and its expansion areas for further development of
major office buildings.” Museums are principally permitted uses in the C-3-O district (Section 227
(p)).
According to Section 210.3 of the Planning Code, the C-3-S (Downtown Support) District “accommodates near the intensive downtown core areas important supporting functions such as wholesaling,
printing, building services, secondary office space and parking. It also contains unique housing
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
39
resources.” The Planning Code identifies this district as an opportunity area for “major developments
of new uses covering substantial areas.” Museums are permitted uses in the C-3-S District (Section
227 (p)).
The P (Public) District applies to land that is owned by a governmental agency and contains a public
use. According to the Section 234 of the Planning Code, the “purpose of designating such land as a P
District on the Zoning Map is to relate the Zoning Map to actual land use and to the Master Plan with
respect to such land.”
As part of the project, the Fire Station No. 1 property (676 Howard Street) would be rezoned from
Public to Downtown Support District because SFMOMA is not owned by a government agency and
thus cannot expand onto a property in a Public Use District. Therefore, after project implementation,
the SFMOMA Expansion site would comprise two use districts: Downtown Office District and
Downtown Support District, which would allow for development of new museum uses.
The site is located in two different height and bulk districts (see Figure 16). The existing museum is
located within the 500-I Height and Bulk District (establishing a 500-foot height limit, with limitations on maximum dimensions above 150 feet). The Heald Building and Fire Station No. 1 sites (at
670 and 676 Howard Street, respectively) are within the 320-I Height and Bulk District (establishing
a 320-foot height limit, with limitations on maximum dimensions above 150 feet). The SFMOMA
Expansion would be designed to meet existing height and bulk regulations.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site. The Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project site is located within the MUR (Mixed Use Residential) Use District (see Figure 15). According to Section 841 of the Planning Code, the Mixed Use Residential District is intended to serve “as a
buffer between the higher-density, predominantly commercial area of Yerba Buena Center to the east
and the lower-scale, mixed use service/industrial and housing area west of Sixth Street. The MUR
serves as a major housing opportunity area within the eastern portion of the South of Market area.
The district controls are intended to facilitate the development of high-density, mid-rise housing,
including family-sized housing and residential hotels. The district is also designed to encourage the
expansion of retail, business service and commercial and cultural arts activities. Continuous ground
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
40
floor commercial frontage with pedestrian-oriented retail activities along major thoroughfares is
encouraged. Hotels, nighttime entertainment, movie theaters, adult entertainment and heavy industrial
uses are not permitted. Office is restricted to the upper floors of multiple story buildings.”
As part of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, the approximately 9,000-square-foot
portion of the site that would contain the relocated Fire Station No. 1 (i.e., the northern two-thirds of
the site, fronting Folsom Street) would be rezoned from Mixed Use Residential to Public, to allow for
development of the fire station (which is a public building owned by a government agency). The
southern third of the site would retain MUR zoning, and the residential building proposed on the
southern approximately 5,400-square foot (60- foot by 90-foot) portion of the site would be permitted
by Section 841 of the Planning Code.
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located in two different height and bulk
districts (see Figure 16) and no height reclassification is proposed. The northern portion of the site
fronting Folsom Street is located within the 85-X Height and Bulk District (establishing an 85-foot
height limit with no bulk limits). The southern portion of the site fronting Shipley Street is within the
45-X Height and Bulk District (establishing a 45-foot height limit with no bulk limits). The proposed
fire station and residential building would be 34 feet and 45 feet in height, respectively, and thus
would meet existing height and bulk regulations.
Besides the proposed rezoning of 676 Howard Street from Public to Downtown Support District and
the proposed rezoning of the approximately 9,000-square-foot portion of the Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project site from Mixed Use Residential to Public, as discussed above, the proposed
projects would not require any variances, special authorizations, or changes to the Planning Code or
Zoning Map.
2.
PLANS AND POLICIES
a.
San Francisco General Plan
In addition to the Planning Code and zoning regulations, the project sites are subject to the
San Francisco General Plan (General Plan). The General Plan provides general policies and
objectives to guide land use decisions in the City. The compatibility of the proposed project with
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
41
General Plan policies that do not relate to physical environmental issues will be considered by
decision-makers as part of their decision whether to approve or disapprove the proposed projects.
Any potential conflicts identified as part of the process would not alter the physical environmental
effects of the proposed projects. The EIR will contain a discussion of the consistency of the projects
with applicable General Plan Elements, Objectives and Policies.
The Arts Element of the General Plan, which will be discussed in more detail in the EIR, is intended
to strengthen arts in the City and to incorporate consideration of arts and artists in the local decisionmaking process. The Arts Element also seeks to make art accessible to City residents by supporting
museums, public art, and arts-related educational programs through public policy and other means.
The Community Facilities Element of the General Plan, which will also be discussed in more detail in
the EIR, seeks to provide adequate community facilities – including police, educational, library, fire,
and utilities-related infrastructure – throughout the City. Objective 5 of the Community Facilities
Element states: “Development of a system of firehouses which will meet the operating requirements
of the Fire Department in providing fire protection services and which will be in harmony with
related public service facilities and with all other features and facilities of land development and
transportation provided for in other sections of the General Plan.”
b.
Downtown Area Plan
The SFMOMA Expansion site is located in the Downtown Area Plan. The Plan area is irregularly
shaped, but is generally bounded by Washington Street on the northeast; The Embarcadero on the
east; Folsom Street on the south; and Van Ness Avenue on the northwest. The Downtown Area Plan
was designed to promote development in Downtown that sustains the neighborhood as a commerce,
employment and visitor center while protecting the area’s existing housing stock. The Downtown
Area Plan places particular emphasis on reducing the use of private vehicles in favor of enhancing
travel by bicycle, foot, and public transit. The Plan also promotes the development of different kinds
of open space throughout Downtown, including a series of linked spaces around the high-density
Downtown core. The EIR will contain a discussion of the consistency of the SFMOMA Expansion
with policies in the Downtown Area Plan.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
42
c.
Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan
The SFMOMA Expansion site is located within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan area.
The Plan area is generally bounded by Market Street on the north; Second Street on the east; Harrison
Street on the south; and Fourth Street on the west. The Plan is intended to stimulate and attract private
investment in the area and assist in the relocation of businesses and residences that may be adversely
affected by the Plan. Other specific objectives are also outlined in the Plan, including the development of a better connection between the Union Square and Yerba Buena shopping nodes, and the
expansion of arts and cultural facilities in the area. The EIR will contain a discussion of the
consistency of the SFMOMA Expansion with the Plan.
d.
East SoMa Area Plan
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located within the East SoMa Area Plan. The
Plan area is irregularly shaped and is generally bounded by Mission Street and Folsom Street on the
north; The Embarcadero on the east; Townsend Street, Harrison Street, and Mission Creek Channel
on the south; and Seventh Street and Fourth Street on the west. The East SoMa Area Plan is one of
four neighborhood plans that were developed or updated as part of the Eastern Neighborhoods
planning process. The Eastern Neighborhoods effort was designed to guide land use change in four of
the eastern neighborhoods subject to the most land use change in a way that would foster the development of vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods while stabilizing the conversion of industrial land and
encouraging the production of affordable housing.
The East SoMa Area Plan is intended to accomplish the following goals:
•
Encourage an appropriate mix of uses.
•
Retain and promote businesses and organizations that contribute to the diversity of the neighborhood.
•
Encourage more neighborhood-serving businesses.
•
Attract jobs for local residents.
•
Encourage a mix of incomes in renter- and owner-occupied housing.
•
Increase affordable housing opportunities.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
43
•
Improve the character of streets and encourage pedestrian safety.
•
Improve community facilities and enhance open spaces.
•
Offer a variety of transportation options.
•
Provide essential community services and facilities.
The EIR will include an analysis of consistency of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project
with policies in the East SoMa Plan.
e.
Western SoMa Community Plan
Neither project site is located within the boundaries of the West SoMa Community Plan, but the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located in the vicinity of the Plan area. The Plan area is
irregularly shaped and consists of two connected areas: one generally referred to as “north of Harrison
Street,” roughly bounded by 13th Street to the east, Bryant Street to the south, Seventh Street to the
west, and Minna Street (an alleyway between Mission and Howard Streets) to the north, and the
second area, generally referred to as “south of Harrison Street,” roughly bounded by Townsend Street
to the south, Fourth Street to the east, Harrison Street to the north and Seventh Street to the west. The
West SoMa Area Plan would amend the Western SoMa Special Use District (SUD) and would
implement new planning policies and controls for land use, urban form, building height and design,
the street network, and open space. In general, the goal of the Plan is to maintain the mixed-use
character of the Plan area and preserve existing housing, while encouraging new residential and
resident-serving uses (including affordable housing) within the proposed Residential Enclave
Districts north of Harrison Street. Larger parcels south of Harrison Street would be targeted for localand region-serving commercial uses. The West SoMa Plan is currently undergoing environmental
review. The EIR will include discussion of the West SoMa Plan.
3.
PROPOSITION M, THE ACCOUNTABLE PLANNING INITIATIVE
In November 1986, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition M, the Accountable Planning
Initiative, which added Section 101.1 to the Planning Code to establish eight Priority Policies. These
policies are: 1) preservation and enhancement of neighborhood-serving retail uses; 2) protection of
neighborhood character; 3) preservation and enhancement of affordable housing; 4) discouragement
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
44
of commuter automobiles; 5) protection of industrial and service land uses from commercial office
development and enhancement of resident employment and business ownership; 6) maximization of
earthquake preparedness; 7) landmark and historic building preservation; and 8) protection of open
space. The Priority Policies, which provide general policies and objectives to guide certain land use
decisions, contain certain policies that relate to physical environmental issues. The consistency of the
proposed projects with these policies will be evaluated in the EIR.
4.
OTHER PLANS
Environmental plans and policies, like the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and the Sustainability Plan
for San Francisco, directly address physical environmental issues and/or contain standards or targets
that must be met in order to preserve or improve specific components of the City’s physical environment. The EIR will contain a discussion of project consistency with other applicable plans.
5.
ARTS COMMISSION CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW
The proposed Fire Station at the 935 Folsom Street site would be subject to the San Francisco Arts
Commission Civic Design Review process. The Civic Design Review Committee of the Arts Commission is made up of architects, designers, and an art historian who conduct a three-phase review of
new and renovated civic construction projects to ensure the design quality of City structures. Projects
include buildings, viaducts, elevated ways, gates, fences, street furniture, lamps or other structures on
land belonging to the City and County. The Committee also reviews arches, bridges, approaches and
other structures extending over or onto any street, highway, park or other public place belonging to
the City.
The Arts Commission's responsibility for the approval of the design of structures on City property is
identified in Section 5.1003 of the City’s Charter. The Charter gives power to the Commission for the
review and approval of “the design of all public structures, any private structure which extends over
or upon any public property and any yards, courts, setbacks or usable open spaces which are an
integral part of any such structures.” Pursuant to the Administrative Code, Civic Design Review shall
also include review of conceptual designs, site plans, design development and construction drawings
for any project subject to the Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review under Charter Section
5.103(1).
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
45
This Charter-mandated responsibility is assigned to the Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review
Committee, which is composed of two architects, one landscape architect and one artist/designer. The
three-phase review process ensures that each project's design is appropriate to its context in the urban
environment, and that structures of the highest design quality reflect their civic stature. To this end
the committee will evaluate the design, scale and massing of the Fire Station for accessibility, safety
and aesthetic merit. The Committee's oversight ensures that high levels of design quality are
achieved, prior to the expenditure of large amounts of time and capital in the preparation of detailed
construction documents.
D.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The proposed project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The
following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor. Those
environmental topics for which the proposed project may result in a potentially significant impact
(and which will therefore be discussed in the EIR) and/or for which mitigation would be required to
reduce a significant impact to a less-than-significant level are indicated in the list below.
Land Use
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Geology and Soils
Population and Housing
Wind and Shadow
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Cultural and Paleo.
Resources
Recreation
Hazards/Hazardous
Materials
Transportation and
Circulation
Utilities and Service
Systems
Mineral/Energy Resources
Noise
Public Services
Agricultural and Forest
Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this Initial Study, topics for which there are project-specific effects that have been
determined to be potentially significant include: Land Use (cumulative effects); Aesthetics; Cultural
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
46
and Paleontological Resources; Transportation and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; Wind and Shadow; and Public Services. These topics, along with Compatibility with
Existing Zoning and Plans, will be evaluated in an EIR prepared for the projects. Impacts in other
topical areas would be less than significant; some with the mitigation measures identified in this
Initial Study, and will not be evaluated in the EIR. These topics include: Population and Housing;
Recreation; Utilities and Service Systems; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology and
Water Quality; Hazards/ Hazardous Materials; Minerals/Energy Resources; and Agricultural and
Forestry Resources.
E.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
1.
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING—
Would the project:
a)
b)
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c)
Have a substantial impact upon the existing
character of the vicinity?
Land use impacts are considered significant if they conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Land use
impacts are also considered significant if they divide the physical arrangement of an established
community or if they have a substantial impact upon the existing character of the vicinity. As noted in
the Project Description, the SFMOMA Expansion site is located within the C-3-O, Downtown Office
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
47
Use District; the Heald Building (670 Howard Street) and Hunt Street are located within the C-3-S,
Downtown Support Use District; Fire Station No. 1 (676 Howard Street) is located within the P,
Public Use District; and the proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located
within the MUR, Mixed Use Residential District.
Impact LU-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would not physically divide an existing community. (Less Than Significant)
SFMOMA Expansion: The division of an established community would typically involve the construction of a barrier to neighborhood access (such as a new freeway segment) or the removal of a
means of access (such as a bridge or roadway). The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would involve
the expansion of an existing museum on the existing museum site and two adjacent parcels. As part of
the project, the structures at 670 and 676 Howard Street would be demolished. However, the demolition of these structures would not change access to the block surrounding the project site. As part of
the project, the short (115 linear foot) segment of Hunt Street that is located between the museum and
the 670 and 676 Howard Street buildings would be vacated and conveyed by the City to SFMOMA.
This segment of Hunt Street is “landlocked” and does not connect to any other public street because
the westerly extension of Hunt Street to Third Street was vacated by the City in the past and the land
conveyed to the developer of the W Hotel. Hunt Street is primarily used by firefighters at Fire Station
No. 1 for surface parking and is infrequently used by pedestrians or individual drivers. Therefore, the
vacation of this street would not be expected to pose access constraints in the vicinity of the project
site and vacation would not disrupt or divide the surrounding neighborhood. However, associated
pedestrian, vehicular and loading access will be evaluated in more detail in the EIR.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project: The demolition of the existing vacant building at 935
Folsom Street, the proposed subdivision of the subject property on which it is located, and the
replacement of the building with a fire station (fronting Folsom Street) and residential uses fronting
Shipley Street would not divide an established community. No roadways or access routes surrounding
the site would be changed as part of the project, and the site is not used for travel between Folsom
Street and Shipley Street. The project would be constructed entirely on a subdivided lot; all access to
the fire station and the residential structure would occur on the site. Therefore, existing access to the
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
48
site would not be obstructed or otherwise eliminated, and the proposed fire station and residential
building would not disrupt or divide the neighborhood.
Project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less Than Significant)
As part of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion, 676 Howard Street would be rezoned from P (Public)
to C-3-S (Downtown Support); the fire station portion of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project site (measuring approximately 9,000 square feet or approximately 62.5 percent of the site)
would be rezoned from MUR (Mixed Use Residential) to P. After this rezoning, the proposed
SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation Project would not substantially conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (such that an adverse physical
change would result). Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, but will be included in the
EIR for informational purposes.
Project could have substantial impacts upon the existing character of the sites’ respective
vicinities. (Potentially Significant)
SFMOMA Expansion: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would not introduce incompatible uses
into the area. The project would result in the demolition of two buildings (the vacant Heald Building
and Fire Station No. 1, which is currently occupied) and the expansion of museum uses. In addition,
the 676 Howard Street property would undergo a change in use from a fire station to part of a larger
museum. In particular, museum uses within and around the existing SFMOMA Expansion site would
intensify: up to 235,000 square feet of interior space would be added to the existing museum (an
approximate doubling of existing square footage) on a larger footprint. However, this expansion of
museum space would not be considered an adverse change to the character of the site or its vicinity.
As stated in the project setting section, the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area, which
encompasses the SFMOMA Expansion site, contains numerous museums and other cultural facilities.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
49
The project, in terms of its proposed use, would be in keeping with and would enhance and strengthen
the arts-related character of the area. The loss of property zoned Public would not result in an adverse
impact to land use character because a nearby lot at 935 Folsom Street (approximately 2,000 feet
southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site) would be rezoned to Public and because the presence of a
fire station in this portion of Downtown is not critical to the land use character of the neighborhood
(which is characterized by a wide range of land uses). Downtown San Francisco contains a wide
mixture of uses with substantial visitor-serving potential. Therefore, the project would not result in a
substantial adverse change in land use character.
Similarly, the SFMOMA Expansion would be compatible with the built environment of the surrounding block and adjacent areas. The neighborhood surrounding the existing museum currently contains
a mixture of uses and building forms, including predominantly four- to five-story buildings (approximately 46 to 65 feet) fronting Mission Street, the 42-story St. Regis Hotel and Residences and the 33story (316-foot) W Hotel on Third Street and the 26-story 134-140 New Montgomery on New
Montgomery Street. Expansion of the existing museum would introduce a taller and more massive
building than currently exists to the site, but the building form would be similar in scale to many
structures in the vicinity of the site and would not be considered an incompatible building type.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would result in demolition of the existing vacant building on the project site (formerly used
for a commercial laundry and later for apparel manufacturing) and would replace it with Fire Station
No. 1 and a residential building comprising five stories, including four above-grade levels (45 feet in
height). The portion of the site containing the relocated fire station would be rezoned to P, Public.
Therefore, the land use on the site would change. Introducing another land use – in this case a fire
station and residential building – into a mixed-use neighborhood containing a diversity of uses would
not result in a significant adverse change to the land use character of the general area (although the
loss of PDR space may be considered an adverse change to land use character, as discussed below).
The physical impacts of introducing a fire station on the site are addressed in the appropriate sections
of this Initial Study. The EIR will include a detailed evaluation of the impacts of the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project on San Francisco Fire Department emergency response services.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
50
Because the fire station would front onto Folsom Street, which contains predominantly parking and
service-oriented commercial uses (e.g., auto body shops, tire shop, gas station, and leather goods) in
the vicinity of the project site, it would not represent an incompatible land use in the context of the
built environment on the block surrounding the site and its immediate surroundings. Two and threestory residential buildings (generally ranging from 24 to 36 feet in height) line Shipley Street behind
the project parcel and the residential building on the southern portion of the Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project site would function as a transition between more active uses along Folsom
Street and the predominantly residential Shipley Street frontage. The rezoning of the northern portion
of the site (measuring approximately 9,000 square feet or approximately 62.5 percent of the site) to
Public in order to reflect the public use of the fire station would not adversely affect the character of
the area because of the mixed use nature of the neighborhood (and the need for public services in the
neighborhood). Similarly, the proposed residential structure would be consistent with the Mixed Use
Residential Use District and would be designed to meet applicable planning requirements, including
height, parking, and open space requirements. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial
adverse change in land use character in the context of the built form of the block surrounding the site
and its immediate vicinity. However, this issue will be evaluated in more detail in the EIR.
The demolition of the PDR building (formerly used for a commercial laundry and later as an apparel
sewing factory) could contribute to a City-wide loss of PDR building space. Therefore, adverse
impacts to land use character could occur, and this issue and others will be evaluated in more detail in
the EIR.
Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future project in the
vicinity of these sites could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to land use.
(Potentially Significant)
Cumulative land use impacts could result from changes in land use associated with the SFMOMA
Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, combined with potential land usechanges associated with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in surrounding areas.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
51
Development at the two sites would intensify land uses, but would result in new uses that are
consistent with surrounding uses.
The SFMOMA Expansion would result in the intensification of cultural uses on the site and would
contribute to the concentration of cultural amenities in Downtown and the South of Market
neighborhood in general. The SFMOMA Expansion would contribute to cumulative change in the
built environment through the demolition of the four-story Heald Building located at 670 Howard
Street and the two-story Fire Station No. 1 building located at 676 Howard Street, and the
development of a larger museum on the site.
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would result in the construction of a fire station
(fronting onto the commercial- and PDR-oriented Folsom Street) and a new residential building
(fronting Shipley Street, which has a more residential character), which are generally consistent with
growth anticipated to occur in the area. However, implementation of the Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project would result in the demolition of the PDR building (formerly used as an apparel
sewing factory), which could contribute to a City-wide loss of PDR building space. Therefore,
adverse cumulative land use impacts could occur, and this issue and others will be evaluated in more
detail in the EIR. This cumulative analysis will take into account the environmental analyses of other
major projects in the vicinity, including the EIRs prepared for the Transit Center District Plan and
Transit Tower, Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans, and Downtown Plan.
Based on the discussion above, the proposed project could contribute, in a considerable manner, to a
cumulative loss of PDR building space. Therefore, the EIR will include a discussion of land use and
the project’s consistency with applicable planning and zoning policies and regulations.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
52
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
2.
a)
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
AESTHETICS—Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and other features of the built or
natural environment which contribute to a scenic
public setting?
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area or which would substantially
impact other people or properties?
Due to its topography, surrounding water bodies, and system of gridded streets, San Francisco has
many scenic views. In most of the City, these views are defined by trees, structures, and other
elements of the built or natural landscape. The Urban Design Element of the General Plan places
significant emphasis on the protection of views of open space and water bodies. Scenic vistas are
most expansive from the numerous hilltops in San Francisco.
Impact AE-1a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion could adversely affect scenic vistas.
The flat topography and concentration of skyscrapers around the SFMOMA Expansion site limit
scenic views in the vicinity of the site. In general, the vicinity of the site contains limited views of the
San Francisco Bay or open space areas. Yerba Buena Island is partially visible in the distance in an
easterly direction along Howard Street; it is partially obscured by the San Francisco Transbay
Terminal ramp. Views around the SFMOMA Expansion site are generally confined to the buildings
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
53
of Downtown San Francisco and lower-rise neighborhoods to the south. SFMOMA is most visible
from Minna Street and points along Third Street, in addition to Yerba Buena Gardens (where it
functions as a noted visual feature).
None of the streets bordering the project site are considered “Street Areas Important to Urban Design
and Views” in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Third Street and Howard Street in the
vicinity of the site are identified as streets having a “Good/Excellent” and “Good” quality, respectively, of street views in the Urban Design Element (the top/middle and middle of the three rankings).
The most prominent open space within the vicinity of the site is the Yerba Buena Gardens.
However, given the proposed museum expansion’s proposed size (up to 235,000 square feet of new
interior space), height (up to 320 feet) and location, it may have the potential to alter views and vistas
in an adverse manner. The EIR will include visual simulations from a number of publicly accessible
viewpoints in order to evaluate the change on public views and vistas. Thus, the museum expansion
may have a potential adverse effect on scenic vistas and this topic will be evaluated in detail in the
EIR.
Impact AE-1b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not adversely
affect scenic vistas. (Less Than Significant)
The flat topography and preponderance of one- to five-story buildings (extending up to approximately
60 feet) in the vicinity of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing site limit scenic views in the
vicinity of the site. Refer to Figure 18 for east- and west-facing views in the vicinity of the site along
Folsom Street. In general, the vicinity of the site contains no expansive views of the San Francisco
Bay or open space areas. However, the relatively low-rise nature of the area allows for wide-open
views of the sky and the upper reaches of the City’s tall buildings and hills. In the vicinity of the
project site, views of buildings in Downtown San Francisco and Mission Bay are available to the
north, east, and south; views of the upper reaches of Potrero Hill, Bernal Heights, and Twin Peaks are
available to the south and west. Folsom Street in the vicinity of the site has limited and narrow views
of San Francisco Bay to the east and upper Market Street and Twin Peaks to the west.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
54
None of the streets bordering the project site are considered “Street Areas Important to Urban Design
and Views” in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Folsom Street is identified as a street
having an “Average” quality of street views in the Urban Design Element (the lowest of three
rankings).
The proposed project would replace the existing 25-foot-tall building on the site with two buildings:
an approximately 34-foot fire station on the north side of the site and an approximately 45-foot
residential structure on the south side of the site. Although the new structures would be visible from
public viewpoints along Folsom Street, Shipley Street, Falmouth Street, and other nearby points,
these buildings would not degrade important view corridors or block scenic vistas, because none exist
in the area. The buildings would be located entirely within the existing lot line and would not protrude into the view corridor of the public rights-of-way. Although the proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project buildings would be taller than the existing structure they would replace, no
scenic views would be blocked since limited views are only available along an east/west transect on
Folsom Street (views to the north and south are not available through the project site). The two
proposed structures would be visible from the South of Market Recreation Center, and from streets in
the vicinity of the project site, but the change in view associated with the project would not be
considered substantial or adverse because the change would not degrade a view corridor or scenic
vista.
The proposed project could also change views from private residences in the vicinity of the project
site, including residences south of the site along Shipley Street and taller residential buildings within
a two- or three-block radius of the site (i.e., several hundred feet). The changes in views from private
residences (such as 239 to 249 Shipley Street) could include a small reduction in the currently available views, which could possibly reduce views of the sky and buildings. However, existing views
from these residences are not expected to include hillside or San Francisco Bay views due to the
height and orientation of the residential structures and the narrow width of Shipley Street (approximately 35 feet). These altered views would be limited due to the relatively low scale of the proposed
buildings in the context of similarly scaled buildings in the vicinity (such as the three/four-story
buildings located at 965 Folsom Street and 250 Clara Street) and would be an unavoidable consequence of the proposed project. Changes to views would consist of a foreshortening of existing views
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
55
available from an already narrow set of streets (including Shipley Street and Falmouth Street).
Although these changes in views may be considered undesirable by some individuals, given the site’s
densely developed setting and limited extent of reduction in private views, the impact of the proposed
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project on private views would not be considered a significant
impact. Therefore, the impacts of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project on scenic vistas
will not be evaluated in the EIR.
Impact AE-2: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would not substantially adversely affect scenic resources. (Less Than Significant)
Scenic resources include trees, rock outcroppings, and other landscape features that contribute to the
scenic character of a public area. In the Urban Design Element of the General Plan, visual resources
that are given added protection – and that ostensibly are considered “scenic resources” – include
beaches and other natural areas, hillsides, and San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. No scenic
resources are located in the immediate vicinity of the project sites, and because the projects’ potential
effects to visual resources are generally limited to the site and its immediate surroundings, the
projects would not adversely affect off-site scenic resources. In both the SFMOMA Expansion and
Fire Station Relocation and Housing project sites, existing buildings or paved surfaces cover the
entire site. Therefore, there are no trees, rock outcroppings, or other natural landscape features that
would be considered scenic resources within the project sites. The buildings located at 670 and 676
Howard Street (the Heald Building and Fire Station No. 1, respectively) are considered potential
historic resources by nature of their contribution to historic districts.8, 9 The relationship of the
proposed SFMOMA Expansion building to the aesthetic character of buildings surrounding
SFMOMA on the Third and Howard Street block faces will be analyzed in the EIR.
8 Historic Resource Study, 15 Hunt Street (670 Howard Street), Page & Turnbull, July 24, 2009. This document is
available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.
9 Historic Resource Evaluation, 676 Howard Street, Page & Turnbull, May 10, 2010. This document is available for
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
56
The building located at 935 Folsom Street, which was constructed in 1923 and was previously used as
a commercial laundry and later as an apparel sewing factory, is also identified as a potential historic
resource.10 Associated cultural resources impacts will be evaluated in more detail in the EIR (refer to
Section E.4, Cultural and Paleontological Resources). However, the building does not represent a
superior or unique architectural specimen such that it would be considered a scenic resource.
Therefore, the demolition of the structure would not have a significant effect on a scenic resource,
and this issue will not be evaluated in the EIR.
Impact AE-3a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion may substantially affect the visual
character of the project site and its surroundings. (Potentially Significant)
As described in the Project Setting, the SFMOMA Expansion site is located in the Yerba Buena
Center Redevelopment Project Area, which is immediately west of the project site and contains
numerous museums, performance space, galleries and other cultural facilities. The visual quality of
the neighborhood around the site is also characterized by buildings that extend to the sidewalk and
range greatly in height, from the Heald Building (four stories) and SFMOMA building itself (five
stories) to the W Hotel (33 stories), and St. Regis Hotel and Residences (42 stories). The architecture
of the area is varied, with modern skyscrapers adjacent to lower-scale buildings (many with groundfloor retail uses and offices on upper floors) post-dating the 1906 earthquake. Third Street and
Howard Street are busy with pedestrian activity and vehicle traffic during business hours, which
contribute to the area’s aesthetic character.
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would alter the visual character of the site and its surroundings
through demolition of two small scale buildings (670 and 676 Howard Street), and construction of up
to 235,000 square feet of new interior space. The project would result in a change to the visual
character of Third Street, Howard Street, and Minna Street, and may alter views from public places,
such as from Yerba Buena Gardens. The EIR will include visual simulations and will analyze the
proposed museum expansion’s effect on the visual character of its site and surroundings.
10 935 Folsom Street Eligibility for Listing in the California Register, Page & Turnbull, November 18, 2009. This
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
57
Impact AE-3b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not
substantially affect the visual character of its site and surroundings. (Less Than Significant)
The visual quality of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing site is characterized by the pattern of
surface parking lots, and commercial and other uses along Folsom Street, and lofts and apartment
buildings in the vicinity, some of which are of recent construction. The mix of open surface parking
lots, newer residential and live/work uses, and older industrial and commercial buildings bestows the
area with a dynamic visual character – one that is frequently subject to change. Newer, modern
residential structures alongside older buildings lend visual interest to the area.
Public open spaces near the project site include the South of Market Recreation Center and Victoria
Manalo Draves Park, which are located 0.2 of a mile southwest of the project site, respectively.
Howard Langton Park is located approximately 0.3 of a mile to the west of the site along Howard
Street. Yerba Buena Gardens and the Moscone Center are located approximately 0.2 of a mile to the
northeast and east of the site, respectively. The project site is visible from the South of Market
Recreation Center, but is not visible from other parks due to intervening structures.
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located along Folsom Street, in a relatively
flat portion of the City. Views of the project site in the area are limited to locations close to the site.
The existing building is visible from points along Folsom Street, Falmouth Street, and Shipley Street,
and from Fifth Street approximately one block north of Folsom Street. The existing view of the site is
of a one-story (with mezzanine) building that was constructed in 1923 and that was formerly occupied
by a commercial laundry operation and later as an apparel sewing factory.
The visual character of the project site and its vicinity is characterized by buildings generally ranging
from one to five stories (approximately 12 to 60 feet in height), with a mixture of uses and dates of
construction. In addition, surface parking lots are located throughout the area, which represent voids
in an otherwise uniform streetscape characterized by buildings extending to the public sidewalk.
A project would have a significant effect on aesthetic character if it would significantly degrade the
visual character or quality of a project site or its surroundings. The removal of the existing vacant
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
58
building on the site would change the visual character of the area, but not in a substantial or adverse
way because the existing building is not considered a superior architectural specimen that substantially contributes to the visual quality of the site. The proposed fire station and residential building
would be of a contemporary character and scale and mass that are similar to those of other buildings
in the neighborhood. The fire station building would be approximately 34 feet in height; the residential building would be approximately 45 feet in height. The height of both buildings would be within
the pattern of extant building heights that characterize the neighborhood.
Project would not result in the creation of substantial new sources of light and glare. (Less
Than Significant)
In the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites,
existing buildings (including SFMOMA itself), streetlights, and illuminated signs all contribute to
nighttime lighting. In addition, windows contribute to glare. Many office buildings in Downtown are
illuminated at night, resulting in higher overall levels of light and glare compared to the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project site. The proposed projects would increase the height and bulk of the
SFMOMA building on the site, result in the construction of two new buildings on the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project site, and may increase existing nighttime lighting and glare levels.
However, this increase would not be considered significant. Exterior lighting, including illuminated
signage, would be designed in accordance with the Building Code. Lighting would thus be low glare
and would be directed downward to minimize light spillover in adjacent areas and in the public rightof-way. The final design of the proposed structures would also be consistent with Planning Commission Resolution 9212, which prohibits the use of mirrored or reflective glass. Therefore, buildings
constructed as part of the proposed projects would not result in light or glare such that a significant
impact would result.
The relocation of Fire Station No. 1 to 935 Folsom Street would introduce light and glare associated
with Fire Department operations (i.e., flashing lights/sirens, and illumination in the garages). According to Fire Department Assistant Deputy Chief Thomas Doudiet, “the first choice of firefighters
responding to an urgent alarm (we call this a “code 3” response) is the use of the flashing red
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
59
lights.”11 Therefore, uses in the vicinity of the relocated fire station could be exposed to flashing
lights associated with Fire Department vehicles responding to emergency calls. However, these
flashing lights would be intermittent and their effects would be of short duration in any given
location. There may also be spillover light from the fire station’s garages, but the potential for glare
would occur only when the garage doors are open. While such lights could be considered a minor
nuisance, they are a typical component of the urban visual environment and operation of this type of
public service, and would not substantially contribute in a considerable manner to light or glare.
Therefore, light and glare associated with the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project would be less than significant and will not be addressed in the EIR.
Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in their
vicinities, could have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects related to scenic views and
resources, and visual character. (Potentially Significant)
Cumulative aesthetics impacts would result from changes in the visual setting associated with the
SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, combined with aestheticsrelated effects associated with other past, present, or reasonable foreseeable projects in surrounding
areas, such as, for example, the proposed 706 Mission Street project at the northwest corner of
Mission Street and Third Street, as well as mixed-use commercial/residential buildings on the northwest corner of Folsom Street and Fifth Street. These projects, in combination with other known or
foreseeable projects, could change the visual environments of their site, and contribute to changes in
neighborhood character and viewsheds. These impacts will be evaluated in more detail in the EIR.
11 Personal communication with Thomas Doudiet, Captain, San Francisco Fire Department, August 25, 2010. This
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
60
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
3.
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
POPULATION AND HOUSING—
Would the project:
a)
Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b)
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing
units or create demand for additional housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing?
c)
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Impact PH-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would not induce substantial population growth in San Francisco, either directly or
indirectly. (Less Than Significant)
San Francisco consistently ranks as one of the most expensive housing markets in the United States.
It is a central city in an attractive region known for its agreeable climate, open space, recreational
opportunities, cultural amenities, a strong and diverse economy, and prominent educational institutions. These factors continue to support strong housing demand in the City. Providing new housing to
meet this strong demand is particularly difficult because the amount of land available for residential
development is limited, and land and development costs are high.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
61
The U.S. Census estimated the year 2000 population of San Francisco at 776,733.12 (The California
Department of Finance estimates the current population of San Francisco at 856,095.)13 As shown in
Table 5, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projected that San Francisco would have
a population of 810,000 by year 2010, with 346,680 households and 568,730 jobs, and that by 2030,
the City will have a population of 934,800, with 400,700 households and 748,100 jobs.14 Based on
these projections, ABAG expects an increase of 54,020 households and an increase of 179,370 jobs
between 2010 and 2030.
Table 5: San Francisco Projections
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Population
776,733
795,800
810,000
837,500
867,100
900,500
934,800
Households
329,700
338,920
346,680
359,170
372,750
386,800
400,700
2.30
2.29
2.28
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.28
942,500
553,090
568,730
606,540
647,190
694,830
748,100
Persons Per Households
Jobs
Source: Building Momentum, Projections and Priorities 2009, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. This
document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
In May 2008, ABAG projected the Bay Area’s need for housing based on its Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND) 2007-2014 allocation. The RHND estimated the City will need to provide
31,193 new dwelling units between 2007 and 2014, or an average of 4,456 net new dwelling units per
year.15 The 2007-2008 annual housing production in San Francisco was 6,483 units. With these units
12 Building Momentum, Projections and Priorities 2009, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. This
13 E-1: State/County Population Estimates With Annual Population Change, California Department of Finance,
May, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and
2010.0275E.
14 Ibid.
15 San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007-2014, Association of Bay Area Governments, Adopted
May 15, 2008. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and
2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
62
along with estimated units under construction, entitled or in the City’s planning pipeline, it is
anticipated that the City will meet its projected regional housing need goal.16
SFMOMA Expansion. There are no housing units within the SFMOMA Expansion site. According to
SFMOMA, the museum currently employs approximately 213 full-time-equivalent employees
(FTEs). In addition, SFMOMA uses the services of docents, volunteers, interns, on-site consultants
and contractors, and security personnel totaling the equivalent of 170 FTEs. Taking into account all
types of employment, there are currently 383 FTEs employed at SFMOMA. Upon completion of the
expansion, SFMOMA anticipates an approximately 23 percent increase in FTEs, to a total of 470 FTE
employees (including 267 SFMOMA employees and 203 docents, volunteers, interns, on-site consultants and contractors, and security personnel). Please refer to Table 2 for a summary of existing and
projected employment at SFMOMA.
Although the proposed museum expansion would not include the development of housing on its site,
it could indirectly cause an incremental increase in population within San Francisco and other Bay
Area counties through housing demand created by employment growth. Upon completion of the
SFMOMA Expansion project, SFMOMA would have approximately 470 FTEs (including all types of
employees), 87 more FTEs than currently employed by the museum. As part of the SFMOMA
Expansion project, about 100 employees would also relocate from the SFMOMA’s “annex” (support
building) at 667 Mission Street to work within the expanded museum building. Therefore, projectrelated employment growth would account for less than 0.2 percent of citywide employment growth
between 2010 and the year 2015, assuming that all employees in the project would be new to San
Francisco; in reality, some workers at the project would be likely to relocate from other jobs in San
Francisco. This potential increase in employment would be minimal in the context of the total
employment in greater San Francisco.
Based on a nexus study prepared for the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program (Planning Code Sections
313 et. seq.), the project would create demand for about 33 new dwelling units in San Francisco,
16 Draft Housing Element of the General Plan, City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, 2009. This
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
63
assuming that all SFMOMA employees would be new to San Francisco. (As noted above, some
workers would likely relocate from other jobs in San Francisco.)17 This demand for 33 dwelling units
would add to existing strong housing demand in the City – some of which could be offset by the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project’s proposed residential component, which would provide for
up to 13 dwelling units at the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site, about 2,000 feet
southwest of SFMOMA.
Housing demand in and of itself is not a physical environmental effect, but an imbalance between
local employment and housing can lead to long commutes with traffic and air quality impacts. Traffic
and air quality issues will both be analyzed in the EIR.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project. The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project
includes the construction of a new fire station at 935 Folsom Street and relocation of 13 existing fire
station employees from 676 Howard Street to 935 Folsom Street; the proposed relocation of the fire
station would not alter the current number of fire station employees. In addition, the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project includes the development of up to 13 housing units at 935 Folsom
Street, adding 13 housing units to San Francisco's housing stock. Using the average household
occupancy rate of 1.70 for Census Tract 178 (in which the subject property is located) the estimated
population of the proposed housing project would be about 22 new residents.18
In general, a project would be considered growth-inducing if its implementation would result in
substantial population increases and/or new development in other nearby areas that might occur if the
17 This method uses the estimated SFMOMA Expansion-related increase in FTE employment (87 FTEs), divided by
the percentage of San Francisco employees that live in the City (55 percent). The resulting number – 48 employees – is the
approximate number of employees generated by the project who would live in San Francisco. Dividing this number by the
average number of San Francisco workers in households where San Francisco workers reside (1.47 for Census Tract 179.01,
in which SFMOMA is located) yields an expected increased demand for 33 housing units.
18 Table QT-H3, Household Population and Household Type by Tenure. Website: factfinder.census.gov/
servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=14000US06075017800&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF2_U_QTH3&-ds_name=D&_lang=en, U.S. Census 2000, Viewed on June 22, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in
Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
64
project were not approved and implemented, particularly if the project would facilitate growth by
removing a major obstacle to development in a particular area (such as by provision of major new
public services to an area where those services are currently not available).
Neither the estimated 87 new SFMOMA FTEs nor the approximately 22 potential future residents at
the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site would generate substantial population growth.
Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing units or create
demand for additional housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. (No
Impact)
There are no existing housing units on the SFMOMA Expansion site or the Fire Station Relocation
and Housing site. Therefore, development of the proposed projects would not displace housing units
or people.
As described above, the SFMOMA Expansion could create demand for approximately 33 dwelling
units in San Francisco by 2015. These new dwelling units would account for approximately 0.1
percent of San Francisco’s RHND 2007-2014 allocation. It is anticipated that the City could
accommodate this relatively small increase in demand for new housing if the SFMOMA Expansion
were implemented.
The 13 residential units that would be constructed as part of the proposed Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project would directly add about 22 new residents to the City’s population. Project-related
population growth within San Francisco would account for 0.08 percent of the City’s projected
population growth of 27,500 between 2010 and 2015. While potentially noticeable to immediately
adjacent neighbors, this increase would not substantially increase the existing area-wide population.
Therefore, the proposed project would not induce significant City-wide population growth.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
65
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not have
significant physical environmental effects on population or housing. Population and housing issues
associated with the projects will therefore not be further evaluated in the EIR.
Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the
vicinity, would have a less-than-significant impact on population and housing. (Less Than
Significant).
The SFMOMA Expansion would result in approximately 87 additional FTEs, which could result in a
demand for approximately 33 new housing units in San Francisco. The residential component of the
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would result in 13 new residences (and 13 new
households).
However, this potential increase in population would be less than significant relative to projected
increases in population by 2030 and would not be considered a considerable contribution to
population growth. New employees generated by the two projects would not create the need for
substantial additional housing, and no residents would be displaced from the project sites. For these
reasons, the impacts of the projects on population and housing would be considered less than
significant. The projects would not make a significant contribution to potential cumulative effects
related to population, as the projects would not result in substantial housing and population
displacement, or create housing demand that would likely be unmet.
The proposed projects, together with planned and foreseeable projects within the vicinity of the
project sites (see Table 4), would add approximately 508 residential units to San Francisco (not
including long-term-stay hotel uses). These projects would incrementally add to San Francisco’s
housing supply and meet some of the existing demand for housing. Considered within the context of
regional housing needs projected by ABAG, this increase in the City’s housing stock would not be
considered significant or adverse, and could benefit housing affordability in San Francisco (by
increasing housing supply). Many of the planned residential projects will contain affordable housing
units or would be required to address affordable housing development through in lieu payments or
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
66
other means as required by the Planning Code. These projects would not have a significant impact on
cumulative population and housing growth in the project vicinity or San Francisco, and overall the
proposed projects would not considerably contribute to cumulative population and housing impacts.
There is a shortage of affordable housing in the City and this deficit is an existing condition. The
development of up to 10 market-rate residential units and 3 below-market-rate (BMR) units, as
required by the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and the SoMa Youth and Family Special
Use District, would not contribute in a considerable manner to a cumulative citywide shortfall in
affordable housing. Overall, the proposed project’s impacts related to population and housing, both
individually and cumulatively, would be less than significant.
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
4.
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES—Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5, including those resources listed in
Article 10 or Article 11 of the San Francisco
Planning Code?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
67
Impact CP-1a: The SFMOMA Expansion would result in the demolition of the existing Fire
Station No. 1 (676 Howard Street) and 670 Howard Street building, both of which may be
considered historically significant for the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, the project could
result in potentially significant impacts on historic architectural resources. (Potentially
Significant)
a.
Individually-Eligible and Contributory Resources
The building at 676 Howard Street, also known as San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) Station
No.1, is located on the north side of Howard Street, between New Montgomery Street and Third
Streets. Completed in 1958, the reinforced concrete firehouse is designed in the International Style. It
is categorized by the San Francisco Planning Department as a “Category B” building (meaning it
requires further information and consultation) for the purposes of CEQA because the building was
constructed in 1958 and is over fifty years of age but possesses no known historic ratings.
The building at 670 Howard Street, also known as 15 Hunt Street, is located on the north side of
Howard Street and is the neighbor to the east of 676 Howard Street, Station No. 1 and was constructed just after the 1906 earthquake. The structure is a three-story heavy timber-frame brick-clad
industrial building. It was identified on the Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (UMB) Survey, was
rated a “C**” on the Heritage Downtown Survey, and was designated a Category V (Unrated, or
Non-Contributory) building as part of the Downtown Plan. A survey prepared by the architectural
consulting firm Kelley & VerPlanck assigned the building a rating of, “1/3CD - Appears eligible for
the CR (California Record) as a contributor to a California Register of Historic Places-eligible district
through a survey evaluation.” The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Commission adopted the
Planning Department’s findings related to the context statement and the survey conducted by Kelley
& VerPlanck, dated September 2008. It is categorized as a “Category 1/ A” building (Known Historic
Resource) for the purposes of CEQA because the building is identified as a contributor to a district on
an adopted survey.
The existing SFMOMA building was constructed in 1995 and designed by Mario Botta. Although the
architecture of the building is distinguished, it is not considered a historic resource, based on its age.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
68
b.
Historic Districts
There are two historic districts in the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion site (although neither
district encompasses the site):
•
The New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District. This District is associated with the
reconstruction of San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood after the massive 1906 earthquake and fire. The District, which is an Article 11 District established as part of the Downtown
Area Plan, extends southward from Market Street, generally encompassing both sides of Second
and New Montgomery Street, as far south as Howard Street. The San Francisco Planning Department is proposing to expand the District as part of the Transit Center District Plan. The expanded
District would encompass areas along both sides of Mission Street between New Montgomery
Street and Third Street (except the northeast corner of Third Street and Mission Street) and would
cross Third Street to include the Aronson Building (700 Mission Street) on the northwest corner
of Third Street and Mission Street. The District would also extend westward on Natoma Street to
Hunt Street, but would not encompass the SFMOMA Expansion site.
•
The Second and Howard Streets National Register District. This District, which is generally
contained within the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District, is also associated
with reconstruction after the 1906 earthquake and fire, united by buildings designed in the Commercial Style with limited Renaissance-Baroque ornament. The District is generally bounded by
properties bordering Minna Street on the north; properties bordering Second Street and Malden
Alley on the east; Tehama Street and Howard Street on the south; and New Montgomery Street
on the west.
The EIR will evaluate indirect impacts associated with the SFMOMA Expansion on these two
historic districts (including the potentially expanded New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation
District).
Fire Station No. 1 is a contributing resource to a potential 1952 Firehouse Bond Act Thematic
Historic District. This Thematic Historic District would also comprise 14 other fire stations constructed within 4 to 5 years after passage of a bond measure in 1952, which allowed for the modernization of fire houses across San Francisco. The demolition of Fire Station No. 1 could result in a
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
69
significant adverse effect to the integrity of the potential thematic district. This potential impact, and
others concerning historic resources, will be addressed in the EIR.
The demolition of the Heald Building (670 Howard Street) could have an indirect impact on the
historic integrity of the nearby New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District, which may be
expanded as part of the creation of the Transit Center District Plan, as described above. Because the
SFMOMA Expansion project would result in demolition of two buildings identified as potential
historic resources to accommodate a site for its future expansion, the project may result in significant
adverse effect to historical resources. Therefore, these potential effects will be evaluated in the EIR.
Impact CP-1b: The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would result in the demolition
of the existing building at 935 Folsom Street, which is considered historically significant for the
purposes of CEQA. Therefore, the project would have a potentially significant impact on
historic architectural resources. (Potentially Significant)
The existing building on the Fire Station relocation site (935 Folsom Street), which was constructed
in 1923 and was previously used as a commercial laundry and later as an apparel sewing factory, is
identified as a potential historic resource.19 The Planning Department has determined that the
building may be eligible for listing in the California Register based on its association with the
redevelopment of the South of Market neighborhood following the 1906 earthquake and fire, as well
as for its representation of industrial architecture designed by a notable local architect.20 Therefore,
potential adverse effects on historical resources associated with the demolition of the existing 935
Folsom Street building will be evaluated in the EIR.
Impact CP-2: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project could result in damage to, or destruction of, as-yet unknown archaeological or human
19 935 Folsom Street Eligibility for Listing in the California Register, Page & Turnbull, November 18, 2009. This
20 Historic Resources Evaluation Response, 935 Folsom Street, San Francisco Planning Department, April 30, 2009.
This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2009.0291E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
70
remains, should such remains exist beneath the project site. (Less Than Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated)
The following discussion is based on Preliminary Archaeological Review conducted for the project
sites, and includes a summary of the geophysical setting of the sites as it relates to archaeological
resources, the history of the sites, and the potential of the sites to contain archaeological resources,
including human remains.21
Geophysical Setting. The SFMOMA Expansion site and the Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project site are located in an area that was subject to vacillating periods of stable and unstable sand
dune activity and sea level change during the Holocene Period. The Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project site is located within a former high tidal marsh (Sullivan Marsh) that gradually
expanded westward beyond Mission and Seventh Streets within the last 4,000 years. The area north of
this large wetland became a place of dense prehistoric settlement and use during a period of relative
sand dune stability, beginning 2,000 years before present (BP) and ending 1,000 years BP. Beginning
approximately around 1,000 years BP, this part of San Francisco experienced a roughly 700-year
period of intermittent sand dune activity that appears to have rendered the area currently known as
SOMA less attractive to Native Americans, based on the sparsity of indigenous occupation during this
period and the apparent abandonment of former settlements.
History of Project Sites. The dunes also served to retard the development of infrastructure and
construction of portions of SOMA during the early Gold Rush period (1848-1850). It appears that by
or during the 1860s the SFMOMA Expansion site had been graded and the Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project site had been drained and filled for structures containing housing and possibly
ground-floor commercial establishments. Both project sites currently have basements, the construction of which may have disturbed some portion of historic archaeological deposits/features that may
have been present.
21 MEA Preliminary Archaeological Review: Checklist, San Francisco Planning Department, October 7, 2010. This
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
71
During the early Gold Rush period, the SFMOMA Expansion site was situated along the western
edge of a tent and shanty encampment area known as Happy Valley. Grading and filling of this area
accelerated after 1853, following the City’s adoption of a second system of street grades. The Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site probably remained unimproved marsh land adjoining the
timber platform and piles of the Folsom Street causeway until at least the 1860s. From the late 1880s
until the end of the 19th century the SFMOMA Expansion site contained a row of three two-story
dwellings along Howard Street. In addition, a two-story building on Howard Street was used for
wood and coal sales with lodgings above. Hunt Street contained smaller, more modest two-story
dwellings. During this same period, the Fire Station Relocation and Housing project site contained
generally two-story dwellings along Folsom, Shipley, and Falmouth streets. At the corner of Shipley
and Falmouth Streets was a two-story building with a saloon at ground level. The buildings located at
929 Folsom Street were used for some type of industrial purpose related to dyeing and cleaning. Both
the SFMOMA Expansion site and the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site are located
within the area burned by the fire following the 1906 Earthquake.
Archaeological Sensitivity. There are two sedimentary layers within the SFMOMA Expansion site
that have a high potential to contain prehistoric archaeological deposits: native sand deposits and the
upper few feet of the Colma Formation. Within SOMA, late Holocene to historic period sand dunes
sometimes contain weakly developed buried soils (paleosols) that have formed a stable land surface
for use by prehistoric populations, even when the sand dune formations have occurred over older
marsh plains as with the Yerba Buena/Surprise/Moscone Shellmound, and as also is the case with the
SFMOMA Expansion site. Within the SFMOMA Expansion site, archaeologically sensitive sand
dune deposits occur at a depth of 10 feet and greater (to a depth of 27 feet below the ground surface
(bgs) in the eastern portion of the site to a depth of 28 feet to 36 feet bgs in the western portion of the
site). Archaeological geoprobing of the SFMOMA Expansion site may permit more localized
identification of buried soils or midden deposits. The second geological unit of high archaeological
sensitivity in the SFMOMA Expansion site is the upper portion of the Colma Formation, a well
developed buried soil generally dating from the Pleistocene to early or middle Holocene age, resulting
from stabilized sand dunes. Although Colma Formation deposits generally pre-date documented
prehistoric occupation of the Bay Area, in some cases the upper, more recently-formed portions of
this geological unit are contemporaneous with the presence of prehistoric populations. The only
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
72
documented archaeological site within the Colma Formation in San Francisco is the Middle Holocene
human remains discovered 75 feet bgs in the Civic Center BART Station in former marsh deposits
over dense sand deposits of the Colma Formation (CA-SFR-28), dated to nearly 6,000 years BP. The
SFMOMA Expansion site, like SFR-28, has marsh deposits overlying Colma Formation deposits.
Within the site, the strata of moderate to high archaeological sensitivity for older prehistoric deposits
is the upper 3 feet of the Colma Formation found at a depth of 28 feet to 32 feet bgs in the eastern part
of the site and at a depth of 30 feet to 36 feet bgs in the western part of the site. Excavation to
approximately 19 to 20 feet bgs would be required as part of the SFMOMA Expansion (and soil
strengthening activities could occur below that depth). Therefore, archaeologically-sensitive dune
deposits on the site may be encountered during construction of the project and associated archaeological materials may be damaged or destroyed. Historic-period archaeological deposits within deposits in
closer proximity to the surface could also be affected by project-related construction activities.
There is a moderate potential that prehistoric deposits may be present within two geological units
underlying the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site: beach sand deposits and marsh
deposits. The identification of native beach sand deposits below the historic fill beginning at a depth
of 10 feet to 20 feet bgs could be explained by the historical ecology of the site, which indicates that
within the historical period marshland in the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site fronted
on a slough that cut through the marsh until it reached the Mission Creek estuary. There is the
possibility that within such an ecologically rich locus for prehistoric populations associated with any
of the several nearby prehistoric settlements in SOMA, these sand formations may have served as a
platform for a variety of resource procurement or processing activities. Marsh deposits that occur at a
depth of 17-18 feet bgs have a low to moderate potential to contain prehistoric deposits since marsh
deposits do not provide a stable land surface. However, as was the case with CA-SFR-28, archaeological deposits can be well preserved within marsh deposits. The Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project would require excavation to a depth of 10 feet below grade (and soil strengthening
activities could occur below that depth). Therefore, marsh deposits may be encountered during
construction activities and associated archaeological materials could be damaged or destroyed.
Historic-period archaeological deposits within deposits in closer proximity to the surface could also
be affected by project-related construction activities.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
73
There are 14 documented prehistoric sites within a two-block radius of the SFMOMA Expansion site,
nearly all of which are shell middens. There are two recorded prehistoric sites within two blocks of
the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site. The State Historic Preservation Office recently
determined that seven of the prehistoric sites comprise an archaeological district. In addition, human
remains have been encountered in four of the prehistoric sites located in the vicinity of the SFMOMA
Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites. Therefore, construction activity on
the two sites could damage or destroy prehistoric human remains.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce damage to or destruction of
archaeological resources, including human remains, to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure M-CP-2 (applies to SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project): Based on a reasonable presumption that archaeological resources may be
present within the project site, the following measures shall be undertaken to avoid any potentially significant adverse effect from the proposed project on buried or submerged historical
resources. The project sponsor shall retain the services of an archaeological consultant from the
Planning Department (Department) pool of qualified archaeological consultants as provided by
the Department archaeologist. The archaeological consultant shall undertake an archaeological
testing program as specified herein. In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an
archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery program if required pursuant to this measure.
The archaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the
direction of the Environmental Review Officer (ERO). [For the SFMOMA Expansion, the
archaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this mitigation
measure, and with the requirements of the project archaeological research design and treatment
plan (Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Archaeological Research Design and
Treatment Plan for the Transit Center District Plan Area. February 2010) at the direction of the
Environmental Review Officer (ERO). In instances of inconsistency between the requirement
of the project archaeological research design and treatment plan and of this archaeological
mitigation measure, the requirements of this archaeological mitigation measure shall prevail.]
All plans and reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted first and
directly to the ERO for review and comment, and shall be considered draft reports subject to
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
74
revision until final approval by the ERO. Archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery
programs required by this measure could suspend construction of the project for up to a
maximum of 4 weeks. At the direction of the ERO, the suspension of construction can be
extended beyond 4 weeks only if such a suspension is the only feasible means to reduce to a
less-than-significant level potential effects on a significant archaeological resource as defined
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(c).
Archaeological Testing Program. The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit to the
ERO for review and approval an archaeological testing plan (ATP). The archaeological testing
program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved ATP. The ATP shall identify the
property types of the expected archaeological resource(s) that potentially could be adversely
affected by the proposed project, the testing method to be used, and the locations recommended
for testing. The purpose of the archaeological testing program will be to determine to the extent
possible the presence or absence of archaeological resources and to identify and to evaluate
whether any archaeological resource encountered on the site constitutes an historical resource
under CEQA.
At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the archaeological consultant shall
submit a written report of the findings to the ERO. If based on the archaeological testing
program the archaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological resources may be
present, the ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant shall determine if
additional measures are warranted. Additional measures that may be undertaken include
additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring, and/or an archaeological data
recovery program. If the ERO determines that a significant archaeological resource is present and
that the resource could be adversely affected by the proposed project, at the discretion of the
project sponsor either:
A.
The proposed project shall be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on the
significant archaeological resource; or
B.
A data recovery program shall be implemented, unless the ERO determines that the
archaeological resource is of greater interpretive than research significance and that
interpretive use of the resource is feasible.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
75
Archaeological Monitoring Program. If the ERO, in consultation with the archaeological
consultant, determines that an archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented, the
archaeological monitoring program shall minimally include the following provisions:
•
The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the
scope of the AMP reasonably prior to the commencement of any project-related soils
disturbing activities. The ERO, in consultation with the archaeological consultant, shall
determine what project activities shall be archaeologically monitored. In most cases, any
soils-disturbing activities, such as demolition, foundation removal, excavation, grading,
utilities installation, foundation work, driving of piles (foundation, shoring, etc.), site
remediation, etc., shall require archaeological monitoring because of the risk these
activities pose to potential archaeological resources and to their depositional context;
•
The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on the alert for
evidence of the presence of the expected resource(s), of how to identify the evidence of the
expected resource(s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of apparent discovery of
an archaeological resource;
•
The archaeological monitor(s) shall be present on the project site according to a schedule
agreed upon by the archaeological consultant and the ERO until the ERO has, in
consultation with project archaeological consultant, determined that project construction
activities could have no effects on significant archaeological deposits;
•
The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples and
artifactual/ ecofactual material as warranted for analysis;
•
If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing activities in the
vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily redirect demolition/excavation/pile driving/construction activities and
equipment until the deposit is evaluated. If in the case of pile driving activity (foundation,
shoring, etc.), the archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the pile driving activity
may affect an archaeological resource, the pile driving activity shall be terminated until an
appropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in consultation with the ERO. The
archaeological consultant shall immediately notify the ERO of the encountered
archaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort to
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
76
assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit,
and present the findings of this assessment to the ERO.
Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeological
consultant shall submit a written report of the findings of the monitoring program to the ERO.
Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The archaeological data recovery program shall be
conducted in accordance with an archaeological data recovery plan (ADRP). The archaeological
consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the ADRP prior to
preparation of a draft ADRP. The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ADRP to the
ERO. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the
significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. That is, the ADRP
will identify what scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource,
what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would
address the applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the
portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project.
Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological
resources if nondestructive methods are practical.
The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements:
•
Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and
operations.
•
Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system and
artifact analysis procedures.
•
Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-field
discard and deaccession policies.
•
Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program
during the course of the archaeological data recovery program.
•
Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource
from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities.
•
Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
77
•
Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any
recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation
facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities.
Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. The treatment of human
remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing
activity shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws. This shall include immediate
notification of the Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco and in the event of the
Coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the
California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall appoint a Most
Likely Descendant (MLD) (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). The archaeological
consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement
for the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and associated or unassociated
funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into
consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation,
and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.
Final Archaeological Resources Report. The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft
Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical
significance of any discovered archaeological resource and describes the archaeological and
historical research methods employed in the archaeological testing/monitoring/data recovery
program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource shall be
provided in a separate removable insert within the final report.
Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California
Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one (1) copy and
the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. The Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive one bound, one unbound, and
one unlocked, searchable PDF copy on CD or DVD of the FARR along with copies of any formal
site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
78
public interest in or high interpretive value of the resource, the ERO may require a different final
report content, format, and distribution than that presented above.
Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to paleontological resources. (No Impact)
There are no known paleontological resources at the project site. As described in Section E.13,
Geology and Soils, the project sites are underlain to the proposed depth of excavation primarily by
artificial fill and marine or shoreline deposits. The fill does not typically contain paleontological
resources (also known as fossils), and the underlying deposits are not of a type likely to contain rare
or important fossils. Therefore, the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project would not result in any adverse effects on paleontological resources. This topic will
not be discussed further in the EIR.
Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the
vicinity, could result in cumulatively considerable effects to cultural resources. (Potentially
Significant)
Cumulative cultural resources impacts may include adverse effects to the City’s historical physical
setting related to the loss of historically significant buildings. These cumulative effects, which would
occur in conjunction with other planned or foreseeable projects near the subject properties, could
include indirect effects to the integrity of the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District,
direct effects to the integrity of the potential San Francisco 1952 Firehouse Bond Act Thematic
Historic District, and the loss of historic structures in San Francisco more generally. The potential of
the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project to contribute to
cumulative impacts will be addressed in the EIR.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
79
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
5.
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION—
Would the project:
a)
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking
into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and mass transit?
b)
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of
service standards and travel demand measures,
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels,
obstructions to flight, or a change in location, that
results in substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses?
e)
f)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance
or safety of such facilities, or cause a substantial
increase in transit demand which cannot be
accommodated by existing or proposed transit
capacity or alternative travel modes?
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
80
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not
result in a change in air traffic patterns, and thus would not result in substantial safety risks related to
air traffic. Therefore, topic 5c is not applicable.
Impact TR-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. (Potentially Significant)
The introduction of intensified gallery/exhibit, arts, support spaces, fire protection and residential
uses, and the trips generated by those uses, would result in increased demand on the local transportation system, including increased transit demand, parking demand and traffic, which could result in
significant transportation impacts. These impacts will be examined in the EIR.
Project could conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. (Potentially Significant)
As noted under Impact TR-1, the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project could conflict with level of service standards and travel demand measures such that a
significant impact on the environment may occur. This impact will be examined in the EIR.
Project could result in substantially increased hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. (Potentially Significant)
The EIR for the proposed projects will evaluate whether the removal of the existing fire house and
construction and operation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion fronting Howard Street would
result in incompatible land uses and/or any design feature(s) that may increase the potential for
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
81
hazards. A detailed analysis will also be prepared to evaluate whether the proposed fire station at 935
Folsom Street, in conjunction with new housing to its south, would also increase roadway hazards.
Project could result in inadequate emergency access. (Potentially Significant)
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would result in the demolition of Fire Station No. 1 at 676
Howard Street to accommodate an expansion of SFMOMA on that site. As part of the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project, a new replacement fire station site would be constructed at 935
Folsom Street, about 2,000 feet to the southwest. Folsom Street is a major easterly one-way corridor
that connects the Mission District to the Embarcadero. Shipley Street, which borders the proposed fire
station site to the south, is a minor westerly one-way street; Falmouth Street, which borders the site to
the west, is a minor two-way street. The EIR will evaluate changes in emergency access associated
with the SFMOMA Expansion and the proposed new station location as it relates to its service area,
response times, as well as conflicts with existing and future traffic on Folsom Street.
Impact TR-5: The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project
could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities, or cause
a substantial increase in transit demand which cannot be accommodated by existing or
proposed transit capacity or alternative travel modes. (Potentially Significant)
The introduction of intensified gallery/exhibit, arts, support spaces, fire protection and residential
uses, and the trips generated by those uses, would result in increased demand on the local
transportation system, including increased transit and parking demand, and traffic, which could
conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities.
These impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
82
Impact TR-6: The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, in
combination in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in
the vicinity, could result in cumulative impacts to the transportation and circulation system.
Changes to the City’s transportation and circulation system that would result from the proposed
projects in conjunction with other planned and foreseeable projects in the City will be addressed in
the EIR. This analysis will take into account cumulative impacts to roadway capacity, bike,
pedestrian, and transit facilities, and other components of the City’s transportation system.
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
6.
NOISE—Would the project:
a)
Result in exposure of persons to or generation of
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b)
Result in exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c)
Result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d)
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use
plan area, or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, in an area within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the area to
excessive noise levels?
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
83
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
f)
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
For a project located in the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
g)
Be substantially affected by existing noise
levels?
The project sites are not within an airport land use plan area, nor are they in the vicinity of a private
airstrip. Therefore, topics 6e and 6f are not applicable.
Impact NO-1a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion project would not result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, would not expose persons to
noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and
would not be substantially affected by existing noise levels. (Less Than Significant)
The Environmental Protection Element of the San Francisco General Plan contains Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise.22 These guidelines, which are similar to State
guidelines promulgated by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, indicate maximum
acceptable noise levels for various newly developed land uses. Museum uses are not included as part
of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. However, the new museum uses that would be developed
as part of the SFMOMA Expansion (which include gallery and support space, among other uses)
resemble “commercial” uses, which include retail, movie theaters, and restaurant uses. For
commercial uses, the maximum satisfactory noise level without the need to incorporate noise
insulation into a project is 70 A-weighted decibels (dBA) on the day-night equivalent level (Ldn),
The guidelines state that new commercial development should be generally discouraged at noise
levels 77 dB Ldn and above (new commercial development in areas subject to noise levels between
22 San Francisco General Plan, Environmental Protection Element, Policy 11.1.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
84
67 and 80 dBA Ldn should be undertaken “only after a detailed analysis of the noise mitigation
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design”).
Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion site are typical of those in and
around Downtown San Francisco. These noise levels are influenced primarily by transportation uses,
including car, bus, truck, and emergency vehicle traffic. Third Street, which defines the western
boundary of the project site, is a major northerly one-way street with high traffic volumes. According
to the San Francisco City-wide Noise Map23 prepared by the San Francisco Department of Public
Health, noise levels along Third Street adjacent to the project site are above 70.0 dBA Ldn; noise
levels along Minna Street and Howard Street adjacent to the project site range from 65.1 to 70.0 dBA
Ldn. Because the SFMOMA Expansion site would be subject to noise levels above 70.0 dBA Ldn
along the Third Street frontage, the SFMOMA Expansion would be required to undergo a detailed
analysis of noise reduction requirements, and if necessary, such requirements would need to be
incorporated into the design of the project. Such analysis and noise insulation features would be
required in accordance with the General Plan, Noise Ordinance, and California Code of Regulations,
Title 24 (California Building Standards Code). Therefore, impacts on occupants of the SFMOMA
Expansion associated with the existing noise environment would be less than significant.
Operation of the SFMOMA Expansion could increase ambient noise levels, primarily through
increased visitation and the use of stationary equipment, such as heating and ventilation systems. The
closure of Fire Station No. 1 at 676 Howard Street would decrease noise in the vicinity associated
with fire trucks and other emergency vehicles.
Increased pedestrian activity around SFMOMA and increased vehicle trips could contribute to the
noise environment and increase ambient noise levels when the museum is open. However, this
increase would likely not be noticeable. Museum visitation is expected to increase by approximately
25 percent after implementation of the project. Staffing would also increase by approximately 87 FTE
employees. The large majority of new visitors and employees would travel to and from the museum
23 San Francisco City-wide Noise Map, San Francisco Department of Public Health, March, 2009. This document is
available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
85
via modes that do not involve a private vehicle (e.g., by public transit). In general, traffic must double
in volume to produce a noticeable increase in average noise levels. Similarly, sidewalk crowds would
need to double to generate a noticeable increase in average noise levels. Because (based on projected
increases in employment and visitation) traffic and pedestrian volumes would not double as a result of
the project, permanent ambient noise levels around the site would not perceptibly increase.
The SFMOMA Expansion would likely include new mechanical equipment, such as heating and
ventilation systems, that could produce operational noise. However, such equipment would be similar
to that currently used at SFMOMA and would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in
ambient noise levels. Operational noise is subject to Section 2909 of the Noise Ordinance, which
establishes noise limits for mechanical equipment. Under Section 2909, stationary sources are not
permitted to result in noise levels that exceed (by more than 10 dBA) the existing ambient noise level
in the public right-of-way, at a distance of 25 feet or more. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance
would thus minimize noise associated with mechanical equipment on the site and other stationary
noise sources. Therefore, operational period noise associated with the SFMOMA Expansion would
not be considered significant.
Impact NO-1b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project may result in
permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity associated with fire station
and emergency vehicle operations, could expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, and could be substantially adversely
affected by existing noise levels. (Potentially Significant).
For residential uses, the maximum satisfactory noise level without the need to incorporate noise
insulation into a project is 60 dBA Ldn. The guidelines state that new residential development should
be generally discouraged at noise levels 65 dB Ldn and above (new residential development in areas
subject to noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA Ldn should be undertaken “only after a detailed
analysis of the noise mitigation requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in
the design”).
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
86
Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project relocation site
are influenced primarily by traffic along Folsom Street, which is a major easterly one-way thoroughfare that connects the Mission District and the Embarcadero. The area has also been subject to
significant redevelopment activity in recent years, which has also contributed to the noise environment. According to the San Francisco City-wide Noise Map, noise levels along Folsom Street and
local streets in the vicinity of the site range from 65.1 to 70.0 dBA Ldn.
Noise associated with fire trucks and other emergency vehicles could adversely affect the noise
environment. In addition, new vehicle traffic associated with the Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project could increase ambient noise levels in and around the site. Operation of the proposed project
could also increase ambient noise levels, primarily through vehicle trips associated with the Fire
Station and residential uses, and the use of stationary equipment, such as heating and ventilation
systems, as well as testing of firefighting equipment and of the building’s emergency generator. In
addition, sirens associated with emergency vehicles could also increase noise levels. These issues will
be evaluated in the EIR.
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would be subject to the following four mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Eastern
Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans.24 The applicability of these mitigation measures to the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site at 935 Folsom Street will be discussed in more detail in
the EIR.
Mitigation Measure F-3: Interior Noise Levels: For new development including noise-sensitive
uses located along streets with noise levels above 60 dBA (Ldn), where such development is
not already subject to the California Noise Insulation Standards in Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations, the project sponsor shall conduct a detailed analysis of noise reduction
requirements. Such analysis shall be conducted by person(s) qualified in acoustical analysis
and/or engineering. Noise insulation features identified and recommended by the analysis shall
24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans, San Francisco
Planning Department, July 10, 2008. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos.
2009.0291E and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
87
be included in the design, as specified in the San Francisco General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise to reduce potential interior noise levels to the maximum
extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure F-4: Siting of Noise-Sensitive Uses: To reduce potential conflicts between
existing noise-generating uses and new sensitive receptors, for new development including
noise-sensitive uses, the Planning Department shall require the preparation of an analysis that
includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify potential noise-generating uses within 900 feet
of, and that have a direct line-of-sight to, the project site, and including at least one 24-hour
noise measurement (with maximum noise level readings taken at least every 15 minutes), prior
to the first project approval action. The analysis shall be prepared by persons qualified in
acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Title
24 standards, where applicable, can be met, and that there are no particular circumstances about
the proposed project site that appear to warrant heightened concern about noise levels in the
vicinity. Should such concerns be present, the Department may require the completion of a
detailed noise assessment by person(s) qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering prior
to the first project approval action, in order to demonstrate that acceptable interior noise levels
consistent with those in the Title 24 standards can be attained.
Mitigation Measure F-5: Siting of Noise-Generating Uses: To reduce potential conflicts
between existing sensitive receptors and new noise-generating uses, for new development
including commercial, industrial or other uses that would be expected to generate noise levels
in excess of ambient noise, either short-term, at nighttime, or as a 24-hour average, in the
proposed project site vicinity, the Planning Department shall require the preparation of an
analysis that includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify potential noise-sensitive uses
within 900 feet of, and that have a direct line-of-sight to, the project site, and including at least
one 24-hour noise measurement (with maximum noise level readings taken at least every 15
minutes), prior to the first project approval action. The analysis shall be prepared by persons
qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable
certainty that the proposed use would comply with the use compatibility requirements in the
General Plan and in Police Code Section 29091, would not adversely affect nearby noiseCASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
88
sensitive uses, and that there are no particular circumstances about the proposed project site that
appear to warrant heightened concern about noise levels that would be generated by the proposed use. Should such concerns be present, the Department may require the completion of a
to the first project approval action.
Mitigation Measure F-6: Open Space in Noisy Environments: To minimize effects on development in noisy areas, for new development including noise-sensitive uses, the Planning Department shall, through its building permit review process, in conjunction with noise analysis
required pursuant to Mitigation Measure F-4, require that open space required under the
Planning Code for such uses be protected, to the maximum feasible extent, from existing
ambient noise levels that could prove annoying or disruptive to users of the open space. Implementation of this measure could involve, among other things, site design that uses the building
itself to shield on-site open space from the greatest noise sources, construction of noise barriers
between noise sources and open space, and appropriate use of both common and private open
space in multi-family dwellings, and implementation would also be undertaken consistent with
other principles of urban design.
Impact NO-2a: During construction, the proposed SFMOMA Expansion would result in a
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels and vibration in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project. (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction noise is regulated by the San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 29 of the Police Code),
amended in November 2008, and project construction activities would be required to comply with the
provisions of the Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance requires that construction work be conducted in the following manner: 1) noise levels from individual pieces of construction equipment,
other than impact tools, must not exceed 80 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the source; 2) the
intake and exhaust systems of impact tools (e.g., jackhammers) must be muffled to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works or the Director of Building Inspection; and 3) if noise would exceed the
ambient noise level by 5 dBA at the property line of the project site, the construction work must not
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
89
be conducted between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless a special permit is authorized by the
Department of Public Works (DPW) or the Director of Building Inspection.
Please refer to Table 3 for a summary of the construction phasing, including the construction equipment that would be used as part of each phase. No noise-sensitive uses such as schools or hospitals
are located adjacent to the project site. However, the land uses surrounding the project site include
hotel, office, retail, residential and cultural uses that would be expected to be adversely affected by
construction noise. The noisiest phases of the approximately 2-year construction period would occur
between Phase I (Demolition) and Phase 4 (Foundation), comprising a total of approximately 8
months. Phase 5 through Phase 8 would involve relatively quieter construction activities, such as
installation of plumbing and electrical systems, and interior finishes. Maximum instantaneous noise
levels (Lmax) resulting from the noisiest construction activities proposed as part of the project (e.g.,
use of hoe rams) would range up to 84 dBA at 100 feet and would be considered significant.
Demolition and construction activities proposed as part of the SFMOMA Expansion would also
generate perceptible groundborne vibration levels when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., hoe
rams and excavators) are used. Construction activities, especially those associated with excavation,
are a known source of groundborne noise and vibration. Typical groundborne vibration levels
measured at a distance of 25 feet from heavy construction equipment in full operation range up to
approximately 94 vibration-decibels (VdB). These vibration levels would not be expected to cause
damage to buildings of normal, modern northern California construction. The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) construction vibration damage threshold for buildings considered to be
particularly fragile structures is approximately 90 VdB, while the damage threshold for structures
made of engineered concrete and masonry is 98 VdB. The structural integrity of the buildings
immediately adjacent the project site has not been ascertained. Therefore, for the purposes of this
analysis, it is assumed that buildings adjacent to the site may be fragile and could be adversely
affected by vibration caused by construction of the SFMOMA Expansion.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction-period noise and
vibration impacts associated with construction of the SFMOMA Expansion to a less-than-significant
level:
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
90
Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): The following two-part
measure shall be implemented:
•
To reduce daytime noise impacts associated with construction activities to the maximum
extent feasible, the following measures shall be implemented in addition to all measures set
forth in the Noise Ordinance:
o
At least 10 days prior to the start of construction, the project sponsor shall notify
occupants of properties within 100 feet of the project site’s lot line (comprising the
following addresses: 151 Third Street and 670 and 676 Howard Street). Notification
shall include an estimation of the duration of construction activities, including
anticipated start and completion dates and the daily construction times.
o
Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise
control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers,
ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever
feasible).
o
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project
construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid
noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the
exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used
where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be
used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
o
Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds. Insulation barriers or other
measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.
o
Ground clearing, excavation, foundation pouring, building erection and exterior
finishing activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
•
The project applicant shall prepare a vibration impact assessment to determine potential
construction-related groundborne vibration impacts for all structures located within 25 feet
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
91
of construction activities expected to generate more than 90 VdB. Measures shall be
identified and implemented that would reduce groundborne vibration impacts from extreme
noise generators by prescribing methods of construction to be utilized so as not to exceed
the FTA’s groundborne vibration damage threshold of 90 VdB at the nearest façade of all
adjacent structures. Such methods may include restrictions on the number or types of
construction equipment that may operate at a time within 25 feet of structures, restrictions
on equipment hours of operation, or requirements to use alternative construction techniques.
The vibration impact assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
Impact NO-2b: During construction, the proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project
would result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels and vibration in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (Less Than Significant With
Please refer to the discussion under Impact NO-2a regarding the requirements of the San Francisco
Noise Ordinance. Please refer to Table 3 for a summary of the construction phasing of the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project, including the construction equipment that would be used as
part of each phase. Noise-sensitive residential uses are located to the south and west of the site. The
noisiest phase of each approximately 1-year to 14-month construction period would occur during
Phase 4 (Foundation), when piles would be driven into the subsurface. Maximum instantaneous noise
levels (Lmax) resulting from the noisiest construction activities proposed as part of the project (e.g.,
use of pile drivers) would range up to 96 dBA at 100 feet and would be considered significant. In
addition, pile driving could result in typical groundborne vibration levels of 104 VdB at a distance of
25 feet from the operating equipment. The structural integrity of the buildings immediately adjacent
to the Fire Station Relocation and Housing site has not been ascertained. Therefore, for the purposes
of this analysis, it is assumed that buildings adjacent to the site may be fragile and could be adversely
affected by vibration caused by construction of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
92
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction-period noise and
vibration impacts associated with construction of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project to a
less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure M-NO-2b (applies to Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project only):
The following two-part measure shall be implemented:
•
Implement Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a.
•
The project sponsor shall require that the project contractor predrill holes (if feasible based
on soils) for piles to the maximum feasible depth to minimize noise and vibration from pile
driving. The project sponsor shall also require that the construction contractor limit pile
driving activity to result in the least disturbance to neighboring uses.
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would also be subject to the following mitigation
measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Eastern
Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans, which would further reduce construction-period noise and
vibration impacts.25
Mitigation Measure F-1: Construction Noise: For subsequent development projects within
proximity to noise-sensitive uses that would include pile-driving, individual project sponsors
shall ensure that piles be pre-drilled wherever feasible to reduce construction-related noise and
vibration. No impact pile drivers shall be used unless absolutely necessary. Contractors would
be required to use pile-driving equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling
devices. To reduce noise and vibration impacts, sonic or vibratory sheetpile drivers, rather
than impact drivers, shall be used wherever sheetpiles are needed. Individual project sponsors
shall also require that contractors schedule pile-driving activity for times of the day that would
minimize disturbance to neighbors.
2009.0291E and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
93
Impact NO-3: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, may
result in cumulatively-considerable noise impacts (Potentially Significant).
Construction activity in the vicinity of the two project sites, including demolition, excavation, and
building construction activities, would occur in conjunction with other planned and foreseeable
projects. However, such activities would be conducted in compliance with the San Francisco Noise
Ordinance, which would reduce adverse effects to noise levels. Therefore, the impacts of the
proposed projects on the cumulative construction-related noise levels would not be considered
significant.
However, the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would generate new vehicle trips and
operational noise sources. These sources could represent a significant cumulative contribution to local
noise levels, when combined with noise generated by other projects. Cumulative operational noise
impacts associated with the Fire Station Relocation could be considered significant and thus will be
evaluated in the EIR. Operational-period noise increases associated with the SFMOMA Expansion
would be limited by the nature of the museum uses and museum visitorship/employment increases,
and mode of transport, as described above. Therefore, the SFMOMA Expansion would not make a
significant cumulative contribution to ambient noise levels.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
94
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
7.
AIR QUALITY—Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
applicable air quality plan?
b)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal, state, or regional ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin encompasses San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa,
San Mateo, and Napa counties, and includes parts of Solano and Sonoma counties. Although air
quality in the air basin has generally improved over the last several decades, elevated levels of ozone,
carbon monoxide, and particulate matter have occurred. The federal Clean Air Act and California
Clean Air Act contain ambient air standards and related air quality reporting systems to be used by
regional regulatory agencies in developing air pollution control measures. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) is the primary responsible regulatory agency in the Bay Area for
planning, implementing, and enforcing the federal and State ambient air quality standards for criteria
pollutants. Criteria air pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and lead.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
95
In most of the Bay Area, transportation-related sources account for a majority of air pollutant
emissions. Therefore, a major focus of BAAQMD is reducing vehicle trips associated with new
development. Localized air quality issues include CO hotspots associated with stagnant traffic. Third
and Howard Streets (adjacent to the SFMOMA Expansion site), Folsom Street (adjacent to the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site), and Interstate 80 (three blocks south of the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project site) experience high traffic volumes that could affect local pollutant
levels.
Impact AQ-1: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the local
applicable air quality plan. (Potentially Significant)
The EIR will evaluate the proposed projects’ air quality impacts related to local air quality plans.
Relocation and Housing Project could violate an air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (Potentially Significant)
The EIR will evaluate the proposed projects’ impacts related to air quality standards and existing or
projected air quality violations.
Relocation and Housing Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal,
State, or regional ambient air quality standard. (Potentially Significant)
The EIR will evaluate the proposed projects’ air quality impacts associated with criteria pollutant
emissions and ambient air quality standards.
Relocation and Housing Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. (Potentially Significant)
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
96
The EIR will evaluate the proposed projects’ air quality impacts related to exposure of pollutant
concentrations to sensitive receptors.
Impact AQ-5: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (No
Impact)
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not
result in a perceptible increase or change in odors in or around the project sites, as the projects would
not include uses prone to generation of odors. A small restaurant may be developed as part of the
SFMOMA Expansion, but associated food service activities would not be expected to result in
objectionable odors. Observation indicates that surrounding land uses adjacent to Yerba Buena
Gardens and in East SoMa are not sources of noticeable odors, and therefore would not adversely
affect project occupants. This topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.
Relocation and Housing Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects in the vicinity, could result in cumulative air quality impacts. (Potentially
Significant)
Emissions generated by the proposed projects could result in significant cumulative air quality
impacts and will be analyzed in the EIR.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
97
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
8.
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS—
Would the project:
a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
a)
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they
capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse
does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change.
The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor.
While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are largely emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within the earth’s atmosphere. Emissions of carbon
dioxide are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing
associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. Greenhouse
gases are typically reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” (CO2E) units.26 The SFMOMA Expansion
site currently generates GHGs via heating and energy needs, and vehicle trips associated with visitors
and employees and with the existing fire station. The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site
26 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in
“carbon dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global warming”)
potential.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
98
generates relatively low volumes of GHGs (primarily associated with the decay of building materials
in the existing vacant structure).
Impact GG-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
project would result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions that could have a significant
impact on the environment. (Potentially Significant)
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would generate
construction-, operation-, and traffic-related GHG emissions; impacts related to GHGs will be
evaluated in the EIR.
Impact GG-2: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, which could conflict with
applicable plans, policies, or regulations of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing such
emissions. (Potentially Significant)
The proposed projects’ impacts related to GHGs will be evaluated in the EIR.
Impact GG-3: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects in the vicinity, could result in cumulative impacts to global climate change.
Cumulative impacts associated with emissions of GHGs will be analyzed in the EIR.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
99
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
9.
a)
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
WIND AND SHADOW—Would the project:
Alter wind in a manner that substantially affects
public areas?
b)
Create new shadow in a manner that
substantially affects outdoor recreation facilities
or other public areas?
Wind
Generally, winds in San Francisco originate on the Pacific Ocean, and blow through the City in an
easterly direction. Wind speeds are highest in the spring and summer and lowest in the fall. Wind
speed varies daily, being strongest in the afternoon and lightest in the morning.
A building’s exposure, massing, and orientation affect nearby ground-level wind accelerations.
Exposure is a measure of the degree to which a building extends above surrounding structures into the
wind stream. A building surrounded by taller structures is unlikely to cause adverse wind accelerations at the ground level, while even a small building can cause wind acceleration if it is freestanding
and exposed. Massing affects how much wind the building intercepts and whether wind accelerations
occur at ground level. In general, slab-shaped buildings (oriented perpendicular to the prevailing wind
direction) have the greatest potential for wind acceleration and buildings with an unusual shape or
setbacks have a lesser effect. Generally, the more complex the building is geometrically, the less
ground level wind acceleration that would be expected to occur. Building orientation also affects the
amount of wind a structure intercepts and the corresponding extent of wind acceleration. Buildings
with a wide axis perpendicular to prevailing winds will generally cause greater ground-level wind
acceleration.
Impact WS-1a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion could alter wind in a manner that substantially affects public areas within the vicinity of the 151 Third Street and 670-676 Howard Street
sites. (Potentially Significant)
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
100
Planning Code Section 148, Reduction of Ground-Level Wind Currents in C-3 (Downtown Commercial) Districts, establishes two comfort criteria and a hazard criterion used in analysis of wind impacts
in San Francisco. The 7-miles-per-hour (mph) and 11-mph seating and pedestrian comfort criteria are
based on pedestrian-level wind speeds that include the effects of turbulence; these are referred to as
“equivalent wind speeds,” which are speeds exceeded 10 percent of the time. The hazard criterion is
an equivalent wind speed of 26 mph for a full hour, or approximately 0.0114 percent of the time, not
to be exceeded more than once during the year.
Implementation of the SFMOMA Expansion would result in the construction of up to 235,000 square
feet of new interior building space in a building no more than 320 feet in height. Because the addition
would be substantially taller than the structures that currently exist on the site, it has the potential to
generate strong ground-level winds. These potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR, based on a
wind tunnel analysis. The EIR will evaluate whether the proposed project would result in exceedances
of the pedestrian comfort and hazard criteria such that public areas could be adversely affected.
Impact WS-1b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not alter
wind in a matter that substantially affects public areas. (Less Than Significant)
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is currently occupied by a one-story (with
mezzanine) structure that is 25 feet in height. The project would result in the demolition of the
existing building and replacement with two buildings oriented along an east/west axis (i.e., parallel to
Folsom and Shipley Streets). The fire station building that would extend along Folsom Street would
be 34 feet in height; the residential building that would extend along Shipley Street would be 45 feet
in height. The two buildings would be separated by an approximately 46-foot-wide at-grade surface
parking lot and parking easement.
Two key factors in determining a project’s effect on wind patterns are wind sheltering and building
design. Wind sheltering can be provided by structures in the vicinity of a site. The Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project site, which is generally flat, is surrounded by one- to three-story
buildings (approximately 12 feet to 36 feet in height) north across Folsom Street; two- to five-story
(approximately 24 feet to 60 feet in height) buildings to the south and west along Shipley Street; and
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
101
two- to four-story buildings (approximately 24 feet to 48 feet in height) to the west along Folsom
Street. These buildings provide some wind sheltering. The design of the proposed buildings –
including the space between the structures, the orientation of the long axes of the buildings parallel to
prevailing westerly winds, and the relatively low height of the structures – would limit wind
acceleration. In general, buildings lower than 85 feet do not result in adverse wind effects.
Based on an analysis of exposure, massing, and orientation of the proposed buildings within their
moderately-scaled local setting, the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would be unlikely to
cause substantial wind accelerations at the ground level or otherwise substantially alter the wind
environment along Folsom Street, Shipley Street, or Falmouth Street. Since the proposed buildings
would not be expected to change the wind environment or create wind hazards – either individually or
cumulatively— the impacts of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project on wind patterns
would be less than significant and will not be discussed in the EIR.
Impact WS-2: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion, in combination with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in significant cumulative wind impacts.
In combination with cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed
SFMOMA Expansion could result in significant cumulative wind impacts. These topics will be
discussed in the EIR.
Shadow
San Francisco adopted Section 295 of the Planning Code in response to Proposition K (passed by
voters in November 1984). Section 295 protects parks and recreation centers under the jurisdiction of
the Recreation and Park Department (or properties the Recreation and Park Department may acquire)
from shadow generated by buildings higher than 40 feet. The period of the day protected from
shadow extends from one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset, year round, unless the
Planning Commission, in consultation with the Recreation and Park Commission, finds the impact to
be less than significant.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
102
Impact WS-3a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion could create new shadow that could
adversely affect outdoor recreation facilities or other public areas within the project site
vicinity. (Potentially Significant)
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would exceed 40 feet in height and is therefore subject to
Proposition K because it has the potential to generate new shadow, which could cover portions of
Yerba Buena Gardens (which is not under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department), to
the east of the site. Potential shadow-related direct and cumulative impacts will be evaluated in the
EIR, based on a shadow fan analysis and computer-generated modeling.
Impact WS-3b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not create
new shadow in a manner that adversely affects outdoor recreation facilities or other public
areas. (Less Than Significant)
The 45-foot-tall residential structure constructed as part of the proposed Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project would be subject to Proposition K because it would be over 40 feet in height. The
34-foot-tall fire station would not be subject to Proposition K. The parks under the jurisdiction of the
Recreation and Park Department that are closest to the project site are the South of Market Recreation
Center and Victoria Manalo Draves Park, which are located 0.2 of a mile southwest of the project
site, respectively. Howard Langton Park is located approximately 0.3 of a mile to the west of the site
along Howard Street. Yerba Buena Gardens and the Moscone Center are located approximately 0.2 of
a mile to the northeast and east of the site, respectively. Based on a shadow fan analysis conducted by
the Planning Department, the proposed residential structure would not cast shadow on any properties
under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission and therefore would be in compliance
with Section 295 of the Planning Code.27
In the morning, shadow from the buildings on the site would extend west toward the South of Market
Recreation Center and Victoria Manalo Draves Park; in the afternoon, shadows would extend toward
the east and cover portions of Folsom Street. Morning and afternoon shadows would cover sidewalks
27 Memo Regarding Compliance with Section 295 of the San Francisco Planning Code, Ben A. Fu, August 23, 2010.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
103
on streets around the project site and residential uses to the west of the site. Based on the scale and
height of the proposed buildings, and the relatively short duration of associated off-site shadows, new
shadow would not substantially interfere with the use of public sidewalks or private residences. Likewise, these shadows would not affect parks in the area due to the relatively low height of the proposed
buildings, intervening structures, and the distance between local parks and the Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project site. This conclusion was verified by the shadow fan analysis conducted by the
Planning Department. Therefore, the proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not
create shadow in a manner that substantially affects outdoor recreational facilities or other public areas
– either individually or cumulatively – and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
Impact WS-4a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion, in combination with other past, present,
or reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in significant cumulative shadow
impacts. (Potentially Significant)
In combination with cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed SFMOMA
Expansion could result in significant cumulative shadow impacts. This topic will be discussed in the
EIR.
Impact WS-4b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, in combination
with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in
significant cumulative shadow impacts. (Less Than Significant)
As noted above, the proposed residential structure would be 45 feet and would be subject to Proposition K. However, based on a shadow fan analysis conducted by the San Francisco Planning Department, the structure would not cast shadow on any properties under the jurisdiction of the Recreation
and Park Commission and therefore would be in compliance with Section 295 of the Planning Code.
In addition, neither the proposed residential structure nor the 34-foot fire station would result in other
significant shadow impacts. Build-out of the East SoMa Plan would cast shadow on existing parks.
However, because the proposed residential structure would not cast shadow on those parks or other
public areas, the cumulative contribution of the project on neighborhood shadow levels would not be
considered significant.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
104
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
10. RECREATION—Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facilities would occur or be accelerated?
b)
Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
c)
Physically degrade existing recreational
resources?
Impact RE-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities,
but not to an extent that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be
accelerated. (Less Than Significant)
Parks and recreational spaces in the vicinity of the project sites are limited and include South Park
(0.5 of a mile southeast of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.6 of a mile northeast of the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site), the South of Market Recreation Center and the Victoria
Manalo Draves Park (0.7 of a mile southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.2 of a mile
southwest of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site) and Howard Langton Park (0.8 of a
mile southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.3 of a mile west of the Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project site). In addition, the open space and recreational facilities, including a bowling
alley, skating rink and playground, at Yerba Buena Gardens are directly across Third Street from the
SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.2 of a mile northeast of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project site. Please refer to the Setting section for a discussion of privately-owned open spaces in the
vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion site.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
105
As described in Topic 3, Population and Housing, above, upon completion of the SFMOMA
Expansion, SFMOMA anticipates an increase of up to 87 FTE employees. In addition, the proposed
13 residential units on the Fire Station relocation site would result in the addition of about 22
residents.
Although new employees and residents may utilize parks and recreational spaces in the vicinity of the
sites, use would likely be modest (based on the size of the projected population and employment
increases), and it is unlikely that substantial physical deterioration would be expected. In addition, the
proposed projects would not substantially increase demand for or use of City-wide facilities such as
Golden Gate Park or the waterfront. The increased use of local recreational facilities would be minor
compared with the current use of these facilities. The incremental residential growth that would result
from the proposed project would not require the construction of new recreational facilities or the
expansion of existing facilities.
Therefore, impacts on recreational activities and facilities would be less than significant and they will
not be discussed in the EIR.
Project would not require the construction of recreational facilities that may have a significant
effect on the environment. (Less Than Significant)
The proposed projects do not include active recreational facilities and would not require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, the projects would not result in the
construction of recreational facilities that would themselves have a physical environmental impact.
The Planning Code does not require the SFMOMA Expansion or the Fire Station to include open
space. Although the proposed residential development would not include active recreational facilities,
it would provide approximately 1,040 square feet of on-site open space for passive recreational use
for project residents. This provision of open space would meet the requirements of Article 1.2,
Section of the Planning Code, which requires 80 square feet of space per dwelling unit (if not
accessible to the public). In addition, the project site is within walking distance of several parks,
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
106
including the two-block Yerba Buena Gardens. Therefore, project residents would have convenient
access to private and public open space.
Project would not physically degrade existing recreational facilities. (Less Than Significant)
Neither the SFMOMA Expansion nor the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would result in
the physical alteration of any recreational resource within the vicinity of the project sites or in the
City as a whole. Both sites are within walking distance of the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and
Gardens, and the projects could increase use of this recreational facility. However, visitation to Yerba
Buena Center for the Arts and Gardens would not increase such that physical deterioration of the
facility would be expected to occur. An approximately 17,250 square-foot sculpture garden and
coffee bar is located on the roof of the parking garage at 147-151 Minna Street and is accessed from
the fifth floor of the existing SFMOMA. The sculpture garden would be preserved as part of the
SFMOMA Expansion and access would continue to be available from the museum. Therefore, the
projects would not physically degrade any existing recreational resources and this topic will not be
Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in their
vicinities, would not contribute to cumulative effects related to recreational resources. (Less
Than Significant)
Use of recreation facilities in the vicinity of the project sites would also likely increase with
development of the cumulative projects listed in Table 4. As discussed above, the Planning Code
would not require open space to be provided as part of the SFMOMA Expansion or the Fire Station
Relocation. Provision of 1,040 square feet of open space as part of the proposed residential structure
would fulfill Planning Code open space requirements for that use. In addition, the 900 Folsom Street
project (proposed to the northeast of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site) would
provide 5,465 square feet of publicly-accessible open space, linking Folsom Street to Clementina
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
107
Street, and would help satisfy demand for recreational facilities generated by the proposed projects.28
Therefore, the contribution of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project to cumulative recreation-related impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and
will not be discussed in the EIR.
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
11. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—
Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supply available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or require new or expanded water
supply resources or entitlements?
e)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that would serve the project
that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
28 Case No. 2007.0689EXK, Motion 18088. May 20, 2010 (approval).
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
108
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
f)
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
The project sites are within an urban area that is served by utility service systems, including water,
wastewater and stormwater collection and treatment, and solid waste collection and disposal systems.
Impact UT-1: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to wastewater
collection and treatment facilities. (Less Than Significant)
The SFPUC owns and operates three wastewater treatment facilities for the City and County of
San Francisco: the Oceanside Treatment Plant, the Southeast Treatment Plant, and the North Point
Wet Weather Facility. These facilities combined can treat up to 465 mgd of combined wastewater and
stormwater runoff.29 The project sites are served primarily by the Southeast Treatment Plant, which
treats an average dry weather flow of about 67 million gallons a day and can treat up to 250 million
gallons a day when it rains. The SFPUC oversees San Francisco’s wastewater and stormwater
collection and conveyance infrastructure. The Department of Public Works operates in conjunction
with the SFPUC, and is responsible for the system’s maintenance and repairs. San Francisco contains
almost 900 miles of sewers, 36 overflow points, 4 outfalls, and 17 pump stations, and storage tanks
along the City’s coastline.30
29 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Website: www.sfwater.org, September 26, 2007.
30 Ibid.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
109
Implementation of the proposed projects would generate approximately 32,985 gallons of wastewater
per day.31 Although the proposed projects would incrementally increase the need for wastewater
treatment in San Francisco, the SFPUC treatment plant that serves the sites would accommodate this
demand, because the wastewater generated by the proposed projects would comprise less than 0.05
percent of the dry weather treatment capacity of the Southeast Treatment Plant. Therefore, the
proposed projects would have a less-than-significant effect on the capacity of the Southeast Treatment
Plant. The design of the proposed projects would include water-conserving measures, such as lowflush toilets and urinals, as required by California State Building Code Section 402.0(c), which would
also reduce wastewater. The proposed projects would not substantially increase wastewater generation and would not have a significant impact on wastewater treatment facilities. This topic will not be
discussed further in the EIR.
The proposed projects would incrementally increase the total wastewater/stormwater volume discharged by the project sites, particularly since impervious surfaces now completely cover the project
sites. The proposed projects would not substantially increase demand for wastewater treatment. No
major new sewer facilities would be needed to serve the proposed projects. The proposed projects
would meet the wastewater pre-treatment requirements of the SFPUC, as required by the San Francisco
Industrial Waste Ordinance in order to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. The
proposed projects would have a less-than-significant impact on wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.
Impact UT-2: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects. (Less Than Significant)
31 This assumes that waste water generated is 95 percent of the water used (213 gallons of water per day per 13
residential units and 0.142 gallons of water per day per square foot of museum space). Source: Prasifka, David W., Water
Supply Planning, 1994.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
110
The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing sites are currently covered
entirely with impervious surfaces; the proposed projects would not create any additional impervious
surfaces, thus resulting in little or no adverse effect on the total storm water volume discharged
through the combined sewer system. In addition, The San Francisco Stormwater Design Guidelines,
which were adopted by SFPUC on January 12, 2010 (Ordinance No. 83-10), require project applicants proposing development or redevelopment projects disturbing more than 5,000 square feet of
ground to manage stormwater on-site. Both the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project would result in the disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet of ground surface and
would therefore be required to comply with the Stormwater Design Guidelines. The Stormwater
Design Guidelines could require landscape features and structural elements such as swales, rain
gardens, and green roofs to be incorporated as part of site design to reduce surface runoff and
improve water quality. The implementation of these guidelines could reduce storm water volumes
discharged from the project sites. Therefore, no new storm water drainage facilities would be
required to be constructed as a result of the proposed projects. This topic will not be further discussed
in the EIR.
Impact UT-3: The SFPUC has sufficient water supply and entitlements to serve the proposed
SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, and implementation of
the proposed project would not require expansion or construction of new water treatment
facilities. (Less Than Significant)
Existing uses on the SFMOMA Expansion site include the 28,000 square-foot Heald Building at 670
Howard Street and the 14,410 square-foot Fire Station No. 1 at 676 Howard Street. If the Heald
Building were occupied with office uses, it would use approximately 3,980 gallons of water per day
and generate approximately 3,780 gallons of wastewater per day.32 The Fire Station at 676 Howard
32 This assumes an annual water use of 0.142 gallons of water per day per square foot and that waste water
generated is 95 percent of the water used. Source: Prasifka, David W., Water Supply Planning, 1994.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
111
Street uses approximately 1,280 gallons per day and generates approximately 1,215 gallons of
wastewater per day.33
The San Francisco Water Department (SFWD), a division of the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC), supplies approximately 265 million gallons per day (mgd) of water to
approximately 2.4 million people in San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties.
The SFPUC distributes water via the Regional Water System (SFPUC RWS). The SFPUC obtains
approximately 85 percent of its water from the Sierra Nevada snowmelt stored in the Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir, which is located in the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park. The SFPUC obtains
the remaining 15 percent of its water from runoff in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds.34
As noted above, the majority of the SFPUC’s water supply originates in the upper Tuolumne River
watershed, high in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, remote from human development and pollution. The
California Department of Health Services has determined that this water is exempt from certain
standard filtration requirements due to its relative purity. Hetch Hetchy water is protected in pipes and
tunnels as it is conveyed to the Bay Area, requiring only primary disinfection and pH adjustment to
control for corrosion in the pipelines. Small amounts of local water may be blended with Hetch
Hetchy water. Water from the Alameda watershed is treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment
Plant in Sunol, while water from the Peninsula Watershed is treated at the Harry Tracy Water
Treatment Plant in San Bruno.
Three pipelines transport water from the Peninsula portion of the regional SFPUC facilities north to
San Francisco: Sunset Supply Pipeline, Crystal Springs Pipelines, and San Andreas Pipelines. These
pipelines distribute water to wholesale and retail customers in the Peninsula, but terminate in three
reservoirs within San Francisco: Merced Manor and Sunset reservoirs on the west side of the City,
and University Mound reservoir on the east side of the City. Water is distributed throughout the City
33 This assumes that wastewater generated is 95 percent of the water used. Source: Prasifka, David W., Water
Supply Planning, 1994.
34 2005 Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, December, 2005. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos.
2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
112
through a series of mains and laterals. The SFPUC is currently engaged in a system-wide Water
System Improvement Program (WSIP) to repair, upgrade, and retrofit existing water delivery
infrastructure, most of which was built in the early to mid 1900s. The WSIP includes 36 projects
within the City of San Francisco, but extends as far as portions of the Hetch Hetchy system in
Tuolumne County.
The additional 235,000 square feet of museum space and 13 new residential units that would be
developed as part of the proposed projects would consume an estimated 36,139 gallons of water per
day in total.35 (Water use associated with the relocation of Fire Station No. 1 would not be expected to
increase as part of the proposed projects because fire station operations would remain the same.)
Although the proposed projects would incrementally increase the demand for water in San Francisco,
the SFPUC would meet the estimated increase in demand within its anticipated water supply for
San Francisco. The designs of the proposed projects would specify water-conserving measures, such
as low-flush toilets and urinals, as required by the California State Building Code Section 402.0(c).
During project construction, the project sponsor and project building contractor must comply with
Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991 requiring the use of nonpotable water for dust control activities. Since project water demand could be accommodated by the
existing and planned system-wide water supply evaluated as part of the Water Supply Assessment
prepared for the Proposed Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Project36 and would use
best-practice water conservation devices, it would not result in a substantial increase in water use and
could be served from the existing water supply entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed
projects would result in less-than-significant project-specific water supply impacts and the EIR will
not discuss this topic further.
35 This assumes an annual water use of 213 gallons of water per day per 13 residential units and 0.142 gallons of
water per day per square foot of museum space. Source: Prasifka, David W., Water Supply Planning, 1994.
36 Final Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Project,
PBS&J and SFPUC, Adopted October 27, 2009. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case
File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
113
The project sites are currently served by the SFPUC water distribution system and the increase in
water demand from the proposed projects would be only incrementally greater than the existing
demand; no new major water infrastructure would be needed to serve the proposed projects. Therefore, the proposed projects would result in less-than-significant project-specific and cumulative water
supply impacts and the EIR will not discuss this topic further.
Impact UT-4: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
projects’ solid waste disposal needs. (Less Than Significant)
Sunset Scavenger Company and Golden Gate Disposal, subsidiaries of Recology, Inc., handle solid
waste collection services for residential and commercial garbage and recycling in San Francisco.
Non-hazardous solid waste is taken to the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility. The
Altamont Landfill handles construction, demolition and mixed municipal waste. This landfill
comprises approximately 2,170 acres (480 acres of permitted landfill area) and has a permitted
maximum daily disposal capacity of 11,150 tons per day and receives an average input of 7,505 tons
per day.37 The facility’s current permit was issued in August 2005; its next permit review date is
August 2010. The landfill is projected to have sufficient capacity to operate until at least 2031 and the
potential to operate through 2071, depending on City-wide incorporation of waste flow and waste
reduction measures.38
Impact UT-5: The construction and operation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project would follow all applicable statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. (Less Than Significant)
37 Facility/Site Summary Details; Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility, Website:
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS, California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2007. This document is available for review at
the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
38 Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan, Alameda County Waste Management Authority,
February 26, 2003. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and
2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
114
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires municipalities to adopt
an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) to establish objectives, policies, and programs
relative to waste disposal, management, source reduction, and recycling. Reports filed by the
San Francisco Department of the Environment showed the City generated 1.88 million tons of waste
material in 2002. Approximately 63 percent (1.18 million tons) was diverted through recycling,
composting, reuse and other efforts while 700,000 tons went to a landfill.39 In addition, the City had a
goal to divert most (75 percent) of its solid waste (through recycling, composting, etc.) by 2010 and
all waste by 2020.40
San Francisco Ordinance No. 27-06 requires a minimum of 65 percent of all construction and
demolition debris to be recycled and diverted from landfills. Furthermore, the projects would be
required to comply with City Ordinance No. 100-09, which requires everyone in San Francisco to
separate their refuse into recyclables, compostables and trash. Altamont Landfill is required to meet
federal, State, and local solid waste regulations.
Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would not impede the City from meeting the requirements described above, and the impact
would be less than significant. Therefore, this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Impact UT-6: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in
their vicinities, would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on utilities and service
systems. (Less Than Significant)
39 Community Indicators Report, Website: www.sfgov.org/wcm_controller/community_indicators/
physicalenvironment/index.htm, San Francisco Office of the Controller, 2010. This document is available for review at the
Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
40 Zero Waste Webpage, Website: www.sfenvironment.org/ our_programs/program_info.html?ssi=3&ti=#Reports.
San Francisco Department of the Environment, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in
Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
115
The proposed cumulative development in the vicinity of the project sites, as listed in Table 4, was
included in the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Proposed Candlestick Point-Hunters Point
Shipyard Phase II Project. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to pay the applicable
Wastewater Capacity Charge to fund the cost of expansion of the wastewater conveyance and
treatment system, if necessary. Cumulative projects would also predominately replace existing
buildings and impervious surfaces. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater would be less than
significant. This topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
Applicable
12. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the project:
a)
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of, or the need for,
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any public
services such as fire protection, police
protection, schools, parks, or other services?
Impact PS-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would increase demand for police service, but not to an extent that would result in
substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of such service. (Less Than
Significant)
The SFMOMA Expansion site currently receives police and fire protection services from the
San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). The nearest police station to both the SFMOMA
Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites is the Southern Station at 850
Bryant Street, which is located approximately 0.7 of a mile southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion
site and 0.3 of a mile south of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing project site. The proposed
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
116
projects would increase development intensity on their sites and would increase the demand for, and
use of, police services, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in these areas. This
topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
Project may increase or alter demands for fire protection services, through changes to service
areas and response times associated with the proposed relocation of Fire Station No. 1 from 676
Howard Street to 935 Folsom Street. (Potentially Significant)
Fire Station No. 1 is located at 676 Howard Street, on the SFMOMA Expansion site. Fire Station No.
8, at 36 Bluxome Street between Fourth Street and Fifth Street, is about 0.7 of a mile to the southwest
of the SFMOMA Expansion site and about 0.5 of a mile southeast of the Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project site.
The General Plan’s Community Facilities Element contains the following principles related to the
provision of fire facilities in San Francisco:
•
In general, firehouses should be distributed throughout the City so that each firehouse has a
primary service area extending within a radius of 0.5 of a mile. This spacing should vary in
relation to population densities, building intensities and types of construction, the pattern of
trafficways, and with the relative degree of fire hazard.
•
Firehouses should be located on streets close to and leading into major or secondary
thoroughfares.
•
Firehouses should be so located so that no topographic barriers require time-consuming detours
within the primary service area of each firehouse.
The EIR will include an analysis of the effects of the proposed relocation of Fire Station No. 1 on
acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives such as those listed above.
Moreover, as discussed under topic 4, Cultural Resources, the proposed demolition of Fire Station
No. 1 and construction of a replacement station could result in significant impacts to historic architectural resources. The potential of the proposed projects to result in direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts to cultural resources will also be analyzed in the EIR.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
117
Project would directly and indirectly generate school-aged students who would be
accommodated within existing school facilities. (Less Than Significant)
The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, or Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), restricts the ability of
local agencies such as the City of San Francisco to deny land use approvals on the basis that public
school facilities are inadequate. SB 50 establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees at
$2.24 per square foot of residential construction and $0.21 per square foot of commercial construction
as of 2006. These fees are intended to address local school facility needs resulting from new development. Public school districts can, however, impose higher fees provided they meet the conditions
outlined in the act.
The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) provides public primary and secondary education in the City and County of San Francisco. The Bessie Carmichael Elementary School (and
Filipino Education Center Campus) at 375 Seventh Street is approximately 0.7 of a mile southwest of
the SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.3 of a mile southwest of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project site. Middle schools in the vicinity of the project sites include: International Studies Academy
at 655 De Haro Street (approximately 1.5 miles south of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 1.3 miles
south of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site); Everett Middle School at 450 Church
Street (2.2 miles southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 1.7 miles southwest of the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site); and Francisco Middle School at 2190 Powell Street
(0.9 of a mile northwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 1.2 miles northwest of the Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project site). The closest high school to the project sites is Mission High
School at 3750 Eighteenth Street, approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site
and 1.7 miles southwest of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site.
Based on a student generation rate employed by the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)
of 0.203 students per dwelling unit and the assumptions in Section E.3, Population and Housing, the
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
118
projects would potentially generate, indirectly, up to about three K-12 students.41 Similar to other
City-wide developments, the proposed projects would be assessed $2.42 per gross square foot for the
increase in residential space, or approximately $28,943 for the additional 11,960 square feet of gross
unit area. Given that SFUSD has adequate facilities to accommodate growth, the estimated three
additional new students would not require new school facilities, and it is anticipated that all new
students could be accommodated by existing schools under the jurisdiction of the SFUSD. The
SFUSD is currently not a growth district, and facilities throughout the City and County are generally
underutilized. The SFUSD currently has more classrooms District-wide than it needs, and the surplus
is predicted to increase over the next 10 years as enrollment shrinks. The SFUSD has responded to
these trends with its decisions in January 2006 over school closures and mergers. The SFUSD is not
planning to construct new schools near the project site. The proposed project's 13 residential units
would not substantially increase demand for school facilities in San Francisco and would not result in
a significant impact. As with all new development, the project sponsor would be required to pay onetime school impact fees under Government Code Section 65995(b)(3), as stated above. Therefore, the
EIR will not discuss school-related impacts further.
Project would result in an incremental increase in the use of parks and open spaces in the
project vicinity, but the increased use would result in a less than significant impact. (Less Than
Significant)
As described in Topic 3, Population and Housing, above, upon completion of the SFMOMA Expansion,
SFMOMA anticipates an increase of up to 87 FTEs. In addition, the proposed 13 residential units on the
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site would result in the addition of about 22 residents.
Although new employees and residents may utilize parks and recreational spaces in the vicinity of the
sites, use would likely be modest (based on the size of the projected population and employment
increases), and it is unlikely that substantial physical deterioration would be expected. In addition, the
41 Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Community Plan Initial Study. Case No. 2004.0160E, Final EIR.
City/County of San Francisco, August 7, 2008. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case
File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
119
proposed projects would not substantially increase demand for or use of City-wide facilities such as
Golden Gate Park, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and Gardens, or the waterfront. The increased use
of local recreational facilities would be minor compared with the current use of these facilities. The
incremental residential growth that would result from the proposed projects would not require the
construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. See Topic 10,
Recreation and Open Space, above, for further discussion of the impacts of the proposed projects on
recreational facilities. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
Project would increase demand for government services, but not to the extent that would result
in significant physical impacts. (Less Than Significant)
The incremental daytime non-residential population growth that would result from the proposed arts,
support and residential uses that would be included as part of the proposed projects would not
necessitate the need for other new or physically altered governmental facilities. Therefore, this topic
will not be discussed in the EIR.
Project, combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity,
could result in a significant cumulative impact to public services. (Potentially Significant)
Cumulative development in the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing sites would incrementally increase demand for public services, including police, fire
protection and schools, but not beyond levels anticipated and planned for by public service providers.
In addition, as described above, the relocation of Fire Station No. 1 from 676 Howard Street to 935
Folsom Street could change Fire Department operations and response times. These changes, in
combination with service changes associated with other cumulative development projects, will be
evaluated in the EIR
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
120
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
Applicable
13. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES—
Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
121
The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites do not include
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as defined by the California Department of
Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; therefore, Topic 13b is not applicable
to the proposed projects. In addition, the project sites do not contain any wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, Topic 13c is not applicable to the proposed projects.
The project sites do not fall within any local, regional or State habitat conservation plans. Therefore,
Topic 13f is not applicable to the proposed projects.
Impact BI-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would have no impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (No Impact)
The project sites and the majority of the Downtown/Yerba Buena Gardens and East SoMa areas
around the sites are developed and covered with structures and other impermeable surfaces; therefore,
the proposed projects would not affect any rare plants or possible animal habitats, including riparian
habitat. The sites do not provide habitat for any rare or endangered plant or animal species, and the
proposed projects would not have an adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special-status species. There are two street trees on the Howard Street frontage of the SFMOMA
expansion site; there are three street trees on the Folsom Street frontage of the Fire Station expansion/
housing site. These trees do not provide habitat for protected plant and animal species (see Impact BI3, below). This topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.
Impact BI-2: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (No Impact)
Neither the SFMOMA Expansion site nor the Fire Station Relocation and Housing site are located
within established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; the sites are also not located on or
in the vicinity of wildlife nurseries. The project sites are located within the Downtown/Yerba Buena
Gardens and East SoMa areas of San Francisco, areas which are developed and generally covered
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
122
with existing structures. Therefore, the projects would not interfere with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Impact BI-3: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station
Relocation and Housing Project would not conflict with local tree protection regulations. (Less
Than Significant)
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors amended the City's Urban Forestry Ordinance, Public Works
Code, Sections 8.02-8.11, to require disclosure and protection of certain trees, including street trees,
and to require a permit from the Department of Public Works (DPW) to remove any protected trees.42
Protected trees include landmark trees, significant trees, or street trees located on private or public
property. DPW requires that adjacent street trees be protected during construction, replaced if
damaged, and that additional street trees be added as feasible along certain streets.
Under the Ordinance, a “landmark” tree has the highest level of protection. It must meet certain
criteria for age, size, shape, species, location, historical association, visual quality, or other
contribution to the City’s character. The Urban Forestry Council and the Board of Supervisors must
find the tree worthy of landmark status after public hearings. A “significant” tree is a tree: (1) located
either on DPW property or on private property within 10 feet of a public right-of-way and (2) that has
a diameter at breast height (DBH)43 greater than 12 inches, or a height greater than 20 feet, or a
canopy greater than 15 feet. A “street tree” is a tree within the public right-of-way or on DPW's
property. Removal of a landmark, significant, or street tree requires a permit from DPW. In addition,
all such trees are subject to certain maintenance and protection standards. The San Francisco Planning
Department, Department of Building Inspection (DBI), and DPW have established guidelines to
ensure that the provisions concerning protected trees are implemented. As part of these guidelines, the
Planning Department requires that a “Tree Disclosure Statement” accompany all permit applications
that could potentially affect a protected tree, whether the tree is on the project site or adjacent sites.
42 San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Ordinance No. 17-06, amending Public Works Code Sections 801 et seq.
43 “Breast height” is 4.5 feet above the ground surface surrounding the tree.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
123
There are no landmark or significant trees on either of the project sites. There are two existing street
trees within the public right-of-way of the Howard Street sidewalk and three existing street trees
within the public right-of-way of the Folsom Street sidewalk; these five trees are protected trees under
the Ordinance. The proposed projects would likely remove these trees pursuant to City and DPW
requirements and would add up to six street trees to the sidewalks adjacent to the SFMOMA
expansion site and several street trees to the sidewalks adjacent to the Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project site (in addition to replacing any trees removed during the construction period). As
discussed in “Plans and Policies,” Planning Code Section 143 requires that project sponsors of new
buildings in the C-3 and MUR land use districts plant one street tree for each 20 feet of property
frontage along each street or alley unless waived by the Zoning Administrator as infeasible. The final
number and placement requirements of additional street trees and required street tree protection
during construction would be subject to review and approval by DPW. The proposed project would
comply with the San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance and DPW requirements.
Based on the above information, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts
on biological resources, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
Impact BI-4: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project, combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity,
would make no contribution to cumulative biological impacts. (No Impact)
Based on the above, the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would not result in any significant effect with regard to biology and would not contribute in a
considerable manner to cumulative effects on biological resources. This topic will not be further
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
124
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
14. GEOLOGY AND SOILS—
Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
(Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.)
ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv)
b)
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c)
Be located on geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f)
Change substantially the topography or any
unique geologic or physical features of the site?
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
125
The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would connect
to the City’s sewer and stormwater collection and treatment system and would not use a septic waste
disposal system. Therefore, Topic 14e is not applicable to the project site.
Impact GE-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project could result in exposure of people and structures to potential substantial adverse
geology- and soils-related effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of
a known earthquake fault, expansive soils, seismic ground-shaking, liquefaction, lateral
spreading, or other ground instabilities, but the impact would be less-than-significant. (Less
Than Significant)
The project sites are located in the same seismic setting. In particular, the sites are not located within
an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and no
known or potentially active fault exists on the project sites. In a seismically active area, such as the
San Francisco Bay Area, the possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously
existed. No evidence of active faulting on the sites has been found on either of the sites and the risk of
surface faulting is low.
The San Francisco General Plan Community Safety Element contains maps that show areas of the
city subject to geologic hazards. The project site is located in an area subject to “very violent”
groundshaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity X) from earthquakes along the Peninsula segment of the
San Andreas Fault and the North and South segments of the Hayward Fault (Map 2 of the Community Safety Element).44 The sites are located approximately 7 miles east of the San Andreas Fault and
11 miles west of the northern Hayward Fault. Therefore, it is likely that the sites will experience
44 Continued research has resulted in revisions to ABAG’s earthquake hazard maps. Available on ABAG website
(viewed January 31, 2010) at: http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mapsba.html. Based on the current (2003) ABAG
mapping, the shaking hazard potential at the project site is considered to be “very violent.” The original 1995 ABAG maps,
published in On Shaky Ground and included in the General Plan Community Safety Element, identified the potential for
“extreme damage” in the project area. ABAG notes on its website, “The damage, however, will not be uniform. Some
buildings will experience substantially more damage than this overall level, and others will experience substantially less
damage.” Buildings that are expected to experience greater damage are older buildings that have not received seismic
strengthening improvements.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
126
periodic minor or major earthquakes associated with a regional fault. The 2007 Working Group on
California Earthquake Probabilities estimates that there is a 63 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 or
greater earthquake will occur in the San Francisco Bay Area within 30 years. Like the entire
San Francisco Bay Area, the project site is subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on
regional fault lines.
Groundshaking associated with an earthquake on one of the regional faults around the SFMOMA
Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing sites may result in ground failure, such as that
associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction.45 The project sites are
located within a Special Geologic Study Area, as shown in the Community Safety Element of the
San Francisco General Plan (Map 4), and are designated as potentially liquefiable on a map titled
“Zones of Liquefaction Potential, City and County of San Francisco,” published by the California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. The project sites are not located in an
area subject to landslides, tsunami, or reservoir inundation (Maps 5, 6, and 7 in the Community
Safety Element).46
SFMOMA Expansion Site. The following section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Study
prepared for the SFMOMA Expansion site.47 The area around the project site and the site itself are
generally flat. The SFMOMA basement extends to approximately 16 feet below the ground surface
(approximately 18 feet above SF Datum). The site is underlain by artificial fill, and bedrock is located
approximately 200 feet below the ground surface.
45 Liquefaction is the transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state during which saturated soil temporarily
loses strength resulting from the buildup of excess pore water pressure, which may occur during earthquakes. Lateral
spreading is a phenomenon in which surface soil is displaced along a zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied
layer. Differential compaction is a phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is made more dense by
earthquake vibrations, causing differential settlement.
46 San Francisco General Plan, Community Safety Element, City and County of San Francisco, April, 1997. This
47 Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed SFMOMA Expansion, San Francisco, CA, Treadwell and Rollo,
March 10, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
127
Based on soil borings extracted from the project site, the fill layer underlying the site is 9 to 12 feet in
thickness. The layer of fill consists of varying amounts of silt and clay, and sandy clay. The fill is
loose to medium-dense and stiff, and does not appear to have been compacted. A 12- to 24-foot thick
layer of dune sand underlies the fill. The mat foundation for the existing museum is supported by this
sand layer. The dune sand is underlain by a 4- to 8-foot thick marsh deposit consisting of clays and
silts with varying amounts of sand. An approximately 50- to 55-foot thick layer of dense to verydense sand with varying clay and silt content over clay (with layers of dense sand) is located under
the marsh deposit. Groundwater occurs approximately 10 to 30 feet below the ground surface, based
on Department of Conservation data. Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared for the
site, the potential for liquefaction on the site is low due to the density of the soil below the groundwater table. For similar reasons, lateral spreading is unlikely to occur at the site. Because the undocumented fill underlying the sites are loose to medium dense, differential compaction may occur on the
site. However, risks associated with differential compaction would be reduced with implementation
of standard building engineering and design measures.
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site. This section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Study48 and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment49 prepared for the site, in addition to other
available geologic data. The area around the project site is generally flat and slopes gently towards the
southwest. The site itself is level and is located approximately 20 feet above SF Datum. The site is
underlain by artificial fill, and bedrock is located approximately 200 feet below the ground surface.
A subsurface investigation conducted in the year 2000 at the project site that included analysis of two
soil borings and groundwater samples indicates that the project site is underlain by fill to a depth of at
least 11 feet (which probably varies between 10 to 20 feet). This fill consists of very loose to medium
dense sand, with varying amounts of gravel, clay, silt, and sandy gravel. The fill contains gravel,
48 Preliminary Geotechnical Study, 935 Folsom Street – Proposed Firehouse, San Francisco, California, Treadwell
and Rollo, January 25, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No.
2009.0291E.
49 Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 935 Folsom Street, Treadwell and Rollo, February 16, 2010.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
128
brick, wood, and concrete fragments, and was most likely deposited between 1850 and 1900, and then
as part of the rebuilding effort following the 1906 earthquake. Medium dense to dense dune sand,
along with peat, marine deposits, and older bay and alluvial deposits, underlies the fill. Investigations
in the vicinity of the site indicate the presence of stiff over-consolidated marine clay below the dune
sand. These deposits may extend to about 65 feet below the ground surface. In general, the depth of
the free groundwater table fluctuates with seasonal and annual rainfall (although is expected to occur
approximately 8 to 10 feet below the ground surface); zones of seepage may be encountered near the
ground surface following rainstorms.
Because the undocumented fill and underlying sands that are present on the site are loose to medium
dense, the potential for liquefaction to occur is high. For similar reasons, the potential for lateral
spreading to occur is also high. It is expected that the site could experience between 0.5 to 2 feet of
lateral spreading following a strong earthquake. Although these constraints would require careful
foundation design, associated risks would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of standard building engineering and design measures used in areas that are unsuitable for
foundation support.
Plan Review. The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) would require the
preparation of a final geotechnical report pursuant to the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act during
its review of the building permits for the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project. In addition, DBI could require that additional site-specific soils reports be
prepared in conjunction with permit applications, as needed. In reviewing final building plans, DBI
refers to a variety of information sources to determine existing hazards and assess requirements for
mitigation. Sources reviewed include maps of Special Geologic Study Areas and known landslide
areas in San Francisco. In addition, the building inspector’s working knowledge of areas of special
geologic concern is also used to identify hazards and associated mitigation requirements.
To ensure compliance with all Building Code provisions regarding structural safety, when DBI
reviews the final geotechnical report and building plans for a proposed project, it determines the
necessary engineering and design features for the project to reduce potential damage to structures
from groundshaking and other seismic hazards. Therefore, potential damage to structures from
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
129
geologic hazards on the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing sites would
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through DBI review of the building permit application,
and geology and soils will not be further evaluated in the EIR.
Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. (No Impact).
As shown on the official State of California Seismic Hazards Zone Map for San Francisco prepared
under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990,50 the project sites are not located within an area
subject to landslide (Map 5 of the Community Safety Element). Therefore, the proposed projects
would not result in landslide-related impacts, and this topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.
Project would not result in substantial loss of topsoil or erosion. (No Impact)
The SFMOMA Expansion site and Fire Station Relocation and Housing site are currently covered
entirely with impervious surfaces and do not contain native top soil. Although excavation would
occur as part of the projects, compliance with standard erosion-control measures would reduce the
potential for erosion to a less-than-significant level.
Project would not result in impacts to site topographical features. (No Impact)
The project sites are located on blocks that are generally flat. The project sites themselves are both
flat and contain no unique topography. The proposed projects would have no impact with respect to
topographical features, and this topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.
50 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking,
liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This Act requires the State
Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to
regulate certain development projects within these zones.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
130
Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the site
vicinity, would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils. (Less Than
Significant)
The proposed projects would result in no impact to topographical features, loss of topsoil or erosion,
or risk of injury or death involving landslides. Therefore, the projects would not have a considerable
contribution to related cumulative impacts associated with the projects listed in Table 4. In addition,
the building plans of planned and foreseeable projects would be reviewed by the Department of
Building Inspection (DBI), and potential geologic hazards would be reduced during the DBI permit
review process. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the projects related to geology, soils, and
seismicity would be less than significant, and this topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
Applicable
15. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—
Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner that would result in substantial erosion of
siltation on- or off-site?
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
131
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
d)
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
Applicable
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
authoritative flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j)
of loss, injury or death involving inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Flood risk assessment and some flood protection projects are conducted by federal agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps). The flood management agencies and cities implement the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) under the jurisdiction of FEMA and its Flood Insurance Administration. Currently, the City
does not participate in the NFIP and no flood maps are published for the City. However, FEMA is
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
132
preparing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the City and County of San Francisco for the first
time. FIRMs identify areas that are subject to inundation during a flood having a 1 percent chance of
occurring in a given year (also known as a “base flood” or “100-year flood”).
FEMA refers to the flood plain that is at risk from a flood of this magnitude as a special flood hazard
area (SFHA). Because FEMA has not previously published a FIRM for the City and County of
San Francisco, there are no identified SFHAs within San Francisco’s geographic boundaries. FEMA
has completed the initial phases of a study of the lands leading to San Francisco Bay. On September
21, 2007, FEMA issued a preliminary FIRM of San Francisco for review and comment by the City.
The City has submitted comments on the preliminary FIRM to FEMA. A final FIRM may be released
in 2010, after FEMA completes the more detailed analysis that Port and City staff requested in 2007.
Meanwhile, the City published its own interim flood plain maps in 2008.51
FEMA has tentatively identified SFHAs along the City’s shoreline in and along the San Francisco
Bay consisting of Zone A (in areas subject to inundation by tidal surge) and Zone V (areas of coastal
flooding subject to wave hazards).52 In August 2008, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed
Ordinance 188-08 to enact a floodplain management program to govern new construction and
substantial improvements in flood-prone areas of San Francisco, and to authorize the City’s
participation in NFIP.
Specifically, the proposed floodplain management ordinance includes a requirement that any new
construction or substantial improvement of structures in a designated flood zone must meet the flood
damage minimization requirements in the ordinance. The NFIP regulations allow a local jurisdiction
to issue variances to its floodplain management ordinance under certain narrow circumstances,
without jeopardizing the local jurisdiction’s eligibility in the NFIP. However, the particular projects
that are granted variances by the local jurisdiction may be deemed ineligible for federally backed
51 Interim Floodplain Maps, City and County of San Francisco, July, 2008. This document is available for review at
the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
52 Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps, FEMA, September, 2007. This document is available for review at the
Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
133
flood insurance by FEMA. The Board of Supervisors will consider the revised Floodplain Management Ordinance, which incorporates the changes requested by FEMA, sometime within 2010.
According to the preliminary maps, the project sites are not located within Zone A or Zone V and are
therefore not expected to be subject to significant flood hazards (and would not expose persons,
structures, or housing to such hazards). Thus topics 15g and 15h are not applicable.
Impact HY-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project would not violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water
quality. (Less Than Significant).
Wastewater generated on the SFMOMA Expansion site and stormwater runoff generated on the
SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites flows into the City’s
combined sewer system and into the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant, where it is treated prior
to discharge into San Francisco Bay. Treatment is undertaken consistent with the effluent discharge
standards established by the plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. In accordance with the permit, discharges of treated wastewater and stormwater into
San Francisco Bay meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy, and associated State requirements in the Water Quality and Control Plan for the
San Francisco Bay Basin and would not violate water quality standards.
The San Francisco Stormwater Design Guidelines, which were adopted by SFPUC on January 12,
2010, require project applicants proposing development or redevelopment projects disturbing more
than 5,000 square feet of ground surface to manage stormwater on-site. Based on the Stormwater
Design Guidelines, the discharge of pollutants must be reduced to the maximum extent practicable
using management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods. As
discussed under Impact UT-2, both the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project would result in the disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet of ground surface and
would therefore be required to comply with the Stormwater Design Guidelines. Therefore, the
projects would not be expected to otherwise degrade water quality.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
134
Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level. (Less Than Significant)
The project sites are completely covered with impervious surfaces. Groundwater on the SFMOMA
Expansion site occurs approximately 10 to 30 feet below the ground surface; groundwater in the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site fluctuates with seasonal conditions, but is expected to
occur at roughly the same depth as on the SFMOMA Expansion site (due to the proximity and similar
elevations of the two sites).
The projects would not result in use of groundwater, although groundwater may be encountered
during the project construction period. Any groundwater encountered during construction of the
proposed projects would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Industrial Waste Ordinance
(Ordinance Number 199-77), requiring that groundwater meet specified water quality standards
before it is discharged into the sewer system. The Bureau of Systems Planning, Environment, and
Compliance of the SFPUC must be notified of projects requiring dewatering, and may require water
analysis before discharge. If dewatering is necessary, the final soils report required for the projects
would address the potential settlement and subsidence associated with the dewatering. The report
would contain a determination as to whether or not a lateral movement and settlement survey should
be prepared to monitor any movement or settlement of surrounding buildings and adjacent streets. If a
monitoring survey is recommended, the DPW would require that a Special Inspector (as defined in
Article 3 of the Building Code) be retained by the project sponsor to perform this monitoring.
Because the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station relocation sites would remain almost totally
impervious after project implementation, the project would not affect groundwater recharge.
Project would not result in altered drainage patterns that would cause substantial erosion or
flooding. (No Impact)
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
135
No streams or creeks occur on the project sites. In addition, the project sites are covered with impervious surfaces. This coverage would not substantially change as part of the projects and drainage
patterns would remain generally the same. Therefore, the projects would not be expected to result in
substantial erosion or flooding associated with changes in drainage patterns.
Project would not contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff. (Less Than Significant)
During operation of the expanded museum, fire station, and residential structure, all wastewater and
stormwater runoff from the project sites would be treated at the Southeast Water Pollution Control
Plant. Treatment would be provided pursuant to the effluent discharge standards contained in the
City’s NPDES permit for the plant. During operation and construction, the proposed projects would
be required to comply with all local wastewater discharge and water quality requirements (including
the San Francisco Stormwater Design Guidelines, described above under Impact HY-1). The Stormwater Design Guidelines would ensure that all stormwater generated by the projects is managed onsite such that the projects would not contribute additional volumes of polluted runoff to the City’s
storm water infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed projects would not exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving inundation associated with failure of a levee or dam, or by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. (No Impact)
The project sites are not located in an area subject to landslides/mudslides, tsunami, or reservoir
inundation (Maps 5, 6, and 7 in the Community Safety Element).53 Therefore, the proposed SFMOMA
Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not be exposed to such hazards.
53 San Francisco General Plan, Community Safety Element, City and County of San Francisco, April, 2007. This
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
136
vicinity, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts to hydrology and water
quality. (Less Than Significant).
The proposed projects would not have a significant impact on water quality standards, groundwater,
drainage, or runoff, and thus would not make a significant cumulative contribution to associated areawide impacts. Impervious surface coverage on the sites would remain generally the same after project
implementation. Therefore, the projects would not contribute to potential increases in stormwater
runoff associated with area-wide redevelopment projects. These area-wide projects would generally
occur on already-developed sites and would not result in substantial changes to impervious surface
coverage or drainage patterns. The project sites are not located within a 100-year flood zone; therefore, the projects would not be expected to contribute to flood hazards. Therefore, cumulative
hydrology and water quality impacts will not be discussed further in the EIR.
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
16. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS—
Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
137
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
c)
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h)
of loss, injury or death involving fires?
The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites are not located
within an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public or private airport. Therefore, employees
at the site and visitors to the site would not be exposed to significant aircraft-related hazards, and
topics 16e and 16f are not discussed further.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
138
There are certain areas of the city that consist of fill and are covered by an ordinance called the Maher
Ordinance. These areas, which were once highly industrialized and contaminated, or consist of
imported fill consisting of soil and debris from the 1906 earthquake, often contain lead and other
pollutants. To protect public and worker health and safety due to these historic pollutants, projects
that involve disturbance of these soils of more than 50 cubic yards require investigation, site management and reporting subject to Article 22A of the San Francisco Health Code. The project sites are not
located within a Maher area.
Impact HZ-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or reasonably foreseeable accident conditions involving the release of materials into the environment. (Less Than Significant with
SFMOMA Expansion Site. This setting information and subsequent impact analysis is primarily
based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site.54 The SFMOMA
Expansion site is part of a neighborhood that was built on top of debris following the 1906 earthquake
and fire. Historic topographic maps and fire insurance (Sanborn) maps indicate that, prior to the 1906
earthquake and fire, the site was occupied by a wood and coal yard and single-family dwellings
fronting Howard Street. Most of the buildings on surrounding blocks were single-family dwellings
and duplexes, although other uses also were present. Commercial uses fronted Third Street. After the
1906 earthquake and fire, which destroyed all buildings on and around the site, the site and surroundings were developed with mixed commercial, industrial, restaurant, and lodging uses. By 1950, the
site was fully developed with a fire station at 676 Howard Street (replaced by the current Fire Station
No. 1 in 1958), the Heald Building, the Occidental Hotel (on the site of the current SFMOMA
structure) and a parking garage and auto repair shop. Major land use changes since that time include
the demolition of the parking garage and Occidental Hotel, and the development of Fire Station No. 1
(1958) and SFMOMA (1995).
54 Phase I Site Assessment, SFMOMA Expansion Project, Treadwell and Rollo, March 5, 2010. This document is
available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
139
Hazardous materials issues on the site are generally associated with historic building materials and
uses, as summarized below.
During construction of Fire Station No. 1, a 1,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST)
was installed approximately 4 feet beneath the sidewalk on Howard Street for use in fueling fire
engines. The UST was closed in place in the 1980s and soil samples were analyzed for petroleum
hydrocarbons. No detectable hydrocarbons were found and the San Francisco Department of Public
Health (DPH) issued a certificate of completion letter in 1988.
In 1992, a 300-gallon UST was discovered and removed from beneath Natoma Street near the
northwestern border of the Natoma Parking Pad, a 600-gallon UST was removed from beneath the
center of the current SFMOMA footprint, and two heating oil tanks were removed from beneath the
sidewalk of Minna Street on the northwestern side of the existing SFMOMA building. After gasoline
was detected in soil samples, approximately 1,400 cubic yards of soil were excavated and removed
from the center of the current SFMOMA footprint (near the 600-gallon UST). Additional soil was
removed around the other UST locations and oil tanks. After subsequent monitoring (including the
installation of monitoring wells in 1998) indicated reductions in petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations, DPH granted case closure in February 2002. Off-site contamination has been remediated and is
unlikely to pose a hazard to redevelopment of the project site. Existing hazardous materials concerns
on the site include residual hydrocarbon contamination associated with former USTs and potentially
contaminated fill.
The expanded museum would be expected to use small amounts of commercially-available hazardous
materials that are similar to those used in the current museum. These materials would include paints,
cleaners, toners, solvents, disinfectants, and other materials that would not be expected to pose a
significant public health or safety hazard. These materials are consumed through use or discarded
according to their labeling.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site indicates that residual
hydrocarbons may exist around the sites of removed USTs in and around Hunt Street and the Natoma
Street parking pad. In addition, fill material below Hunt Street may contain elevated levels of heavy
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
140
metals and residual petroleum hydrocarbons. Therefore, construction of the project could cause these
materials to be released into the environment or pose risks of exposure to workers. Special soil
handling and sampling may be required prior to project construction.
Implementation of the following multi-part mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a lessthan-significant level:
Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1a (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): The following actions
shall be implemented by the project sponsor:
Step 1 (Preparation of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment): The project sponsor
shall conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the project site. If residual
contamination is identified on the project site that requires preparation and implementation
of a Site Mitigation Plan, Step 2 (and subsequent steps) shall be implemented.
Step 2 (Preparation of Site Mitigation Plan): A Site Mitigation Plan shall be prepared, if
warranted based on the results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. The SMP
shall include a discussion of the level of contamination of soils and groundwater on the
project site and mitigation measures for managing contaminated soils on the site, including,
but not limited to: 1) the alternatives for managing contaminated soils on the site (e.g.,
encapsulation, partial or complete removal, treatment, recycling for reuse, or a combination
of methods); 2) the preferred alternative for managing contaminated soils on the site and a
brief justification as to why; and 3) the specific practices to be used to handle, haul, and
dispose of contaminated soils on the site. The SMP shall be submitted to the DPH for
review and approval. A copy of the SMP shall be submitted to the Planning Department to
become part of the case file.
Step 3 (Handling, Hauling, and Disposal of Contaminated Soils): The following measures
shall be implemented:
(a)
Specific work practices: If, based on the results of the soil tests conducted, DPH
determines that the soils on the project site are contaminated at or above potentially
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
141
hazardous levels, the construction contractor shall be alert for the presence of such
soils during excavation and other construction activities on the site (detected through
soil odor, color, and texture and results of onsite soil testing), and shall be prepared
to handle, profile (i.e., characterize), and dispose of such soils appropriately (i.e., as
dictated by local, State, and federal regulations) when such soils are encountered on
the site. If excavated materials contain over 1 percent friable asbestos, they shall be
treated as hazardous waste, and shall be transported and disposed of in accordance
with applicable State and federal regulations. These procedures are intended to
mitigate any potential health risks related to chrysotile asbestos, which may or may
not be located on the site.
(b)
Dust suppression: Soils exposed during excavation for site preparation and project
construction activities shall be kept moist throughout the time they are exposed, both
during and after construction work hours.
(c)
Surface water runoff control: Where soils are stockpiled, visqueen shall be used to
create an impermeable liner, both beneath and on top of the soils, with a berm to
contain any potential surface water runoff from the soil stockpiles during inclement
weather.
(d)
Soils replacement: If necessary, clean fill or other suitable material(s) shall be used to
bring portions of the project site, where contaminated soils have been excavated and
removed, up to construction grade.
(e)
Hauling and disposal: Contaminated soils shall be hauled off the project site by
waste-hauling trucks appropriately certified with the State of California and
adequately covered to prevent dispersion of the soils during transit, and shall be
disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility registered with the State
of California.
Step 4 (Preparation of Closure/Certification Report): After construction activities are
completed, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit a closure/certification report to
DPH for review and approval. The closure/certification report shall include the mitigation
measures in the SMP for handling and removing contaminated soils from the project site,
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
142
whether the construction contractor modified any of these mitigation measures, and how
and why the construction contractor modified those mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1b (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): If, based on the results
of the soil tests conducted, the DPH determines that the soils on the project site are contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially hazardous levels, any contaminated soils
designated as hazardous waste and required by DPH to be excavated shall be removed by a
qualified Removal Contractor and disposed of at a regulated Class I hazardous waste landfill in
accordance with U.S Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as stipulated in the SMP.
The Removal Contractor shall obtain, complete, and sign hazardous waste manifests to accompany the soils to the disposal site. Other excavated soils shall be disposed of in an appropriate
landfill, as governed by applicable laws and regulations, or other appropriate actions shall be
taken in coordination with the DPH. If the DPH determines that the soils on the project site are
contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially hazardous levels, a Site Health and
Safety (H&S) Plan shall be required by the California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (Cal-OSHA) prior to initiating any earthmoving activities at the site. The H&S Plan
shall identify protocols for managing soils during construction to minimize worker and public
exposure to contaminated soils. The protocols shall include at a minimum:
•
Sweeping of adjacent public streets daily (with water sweepers) if any visible soil material
is carried onto the streets.
•
Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to placement to
confirm that the soil meets appropriate standards.
•
The dust controls specified in the Construction Dust Control Ordinance (176-08).
•
Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils. The H&S Plan shall identify site
access controls to be implemented from the time of surface disruption through the
completion of earthwork construction. The protocols shall include as a minimum:
o
Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry, such as
fencing or other barrier or sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent entry and
based upon the degree of control required.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
143
o
Posting of "no trespassing" signs.
o
Provision for on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about security
measures and reporting/contingency procedures.
If groundwater contamination is identified, the Site Health and Safety Plan shall identify
protocols for managing groundwater during construction to minimize worker and public
exposure to contaminated groundwater. The protocols shall include procedures to prevent
unacceptable migration of contamination from defined plumes during dewatering.
The H&S Plan shall include a requirement that construction personnel be trained to recognize
potential hazards associated with underground features that could contain hazardous substances, previously unidentified contamination, or buried hazardous debris. Excavation
personnel shall also be required to wash hands and face before eating, smoking, and drinking.
The H&S Plan shall include procedures for implementing a contingency plan, including appropriate notification and control procedures, in the event unanticipated subsurface hazards are
discovered during construction. Control procedures shall include, but would not be limited to,
investigation and removal of underground storage tanks or other hazards.
Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1c (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): If the DPH determines
that the soils on the project site are contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially
hazardous levels, all trucks and excavation and soil handling equipment shall be decontaminated following use and prior to removal from the site. Gross contamination shall be first
removed through brushing, wiping, or dry brooming. The vehicle or equipment shall then be
washed clean (including tires). Prior to removal from the work site, all vehicles and equipment
shall be inspected to ensure that contamination has been removed.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
144
Pre-demolition hazardous materials inspections reports were prepared for the structures located at 670
Howard Street (Heald Building) and 676 Howard Street (Fire Station No. 1).55 The purpose of the
inspections was to ascertain whether the structures contain asbestos, lead, or other materials and
chemicals that could pose a potential risk to human health. The report prepared for the Heald Building
indicates that the building is not likely to contain asbestos, but has lead-containing materials (including paint, heavy timber columns, and girders). The report prepared for the Fire Station No. 1 structure
indicates that the building contains asbestos (in floor tile and mastic) and lead (mainly in the form of
loose and peeling paint). Regulations associated with the remediation of asbestos, lead, and other
hazardous building materials are summarized below.
Lead. Demolition must comply with Chapter 34, Section 3423 of the San Francisco Building Code,
Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint on Pre-1979 Buildings and Steel Structures. Where there is any
work that may disturb or remove lead paint on the exterior of any building built prior to December 31,
1978, Chapter 34 requires specific notification and work standards, and identifies prohibited work
methods and penalties. Chapter 34 applies to buildings or steel structures on which original construction was completed prior to 1979 (which are assumed to have lead-based paint on their surfaces),
where more than 10 total square feet of lead-based paint would be disturbed or removed. The ordinance contains performance standards, including establishment of containment barriers, at least as
effective at protecting human health and the environment as those in the Housing and Urban Development Guidelines (the most recent Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards)
and identifies prohibited practices that may not be used in disturbance or removal of lead-based paint.
Any person performing work subject to the ordinance shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent
migration of lead paint contaminants beyond containment barriers during the course of the work, and
any person performing regulated work shall make all reasonable efforts to remove all visible lead paint
contaminants from all regulated areas of the property prior to completion of the work.
The ordinance also includes requirements for notification, notice contents, and signs. Notification
includes notifying bidders for the work of any paint-inspection reports verifying the presence or
55 Predemolition Hazardous Materials Inspection Report, 670 Howard Street, San Francisco, VBA, Inc.,
August 13, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
145
absence of lead-based paint in the regulated area of the proposed project. Prior to commencement of
work, the responsible party must provide written notice to the Director of the DBI, of the location of
the project; the nature and approximate square footage of the painted surface being disturbed and/or
removed; anticipated job start and completion dates for the work; whether the responsible party has
reason to know or presume that lead-based paint is present; whether the building is residential or
nonresidential, owner-occupied or rental property, and approximate number of dwelling units, if any;
the dates by which the responsible party has or will fulfill any tenant or adjacent property notification
requirements; and the name, address, telephone number, and pager number of the party who will
perform the work. (Further notice requirements include: Sign When Containment is Required, Notice
by Landlord, Required Notice to Tenants, Availability of Pamphlet related to protection from lead in
the home, Notice by Contractor, Early Commencement of Work [by Owner, Requested by Tenant],
and Notice of Lead Contaminated Dust or Soil.) The ordinance contains provisions regarding inspection and sampling for compliance by the DBI, and enforcement, and describes penalties for noncompliance with the requirements of the ordinance. These regulations and procedures in the San
Francisco Building Code would ensure that potential impacts of demolition, due to lead-based paint,
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Asbestos. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991,
requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding
hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) is vested by the California legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants,
including asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement, and is required to be notified 10
days in advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work. Notification includes the names and
addresses of operations and persons responsible; description and location of the structure to be
demolished/altered including size, age and prior use, and the approximate amount of friable asbestos;
scheduled starting and completion dates of demolition or abatement; nature of planned work and
methods to be employed; procedures to be employed to meet BAAQMD requirements; and the name
and location of the waste disposal site to be used.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
146
The BAAQMD randomly inspects asbestos removal operations. In addition, BAAQMD will inspect
any removal operation for which a complaint has been received. The local office of Cal-OSHA must
be notified of pending asbestos abatement. Asbestos abatement contractors must follow State regulations contained in 8CCR1529 and 8CCR341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related work
involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing material. Asbestos removal contractors must
be certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the State of California. The owner of the
property where abatement is to occur must have a Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by
and registered with the Office of the California Department of Health Services in Sacramento. The
contractor and hauler of the material is required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which details the
hauling of the material from the site and its disposal. Pursuant to California law, the DBI would not
issue the required permit until the applicant has complied with the notice requirements described
above. These regulations and procedures, already established as a part of the permit review process,
would ensure that any potential direct and cumulative impacts of demolition due to asbestos would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Mercury and PCBs. While abatement programs similar to those described for asbestos and lead
based paint have not been adopted for PCB and mercury testing and cleanup, items containing PCBs
and mercury that are intended for disposal must be managed as hazardous waste and must be handled
in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws prior to the start of demolition.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1d would reduce direct and cumulative impacts of
potential hazardous building materials to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1d (applies to SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project): The City shall condition future development approvals to require that the
project sponsor ensures that any equipment containing PCBs or mercury, such as fluorescent
light ballasts, are removed and properly disposed of according to applicable federal, State, and
local laws prior to the start of building demolition, and that any fluorescent light tubes, which
could contain mercury, are similarly removed and properly disposed of. Any other hazardous
materials identified, either before or during work, shall be abated according to applicable
federal, State, and local laws.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
147
Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site. This setting information and subsequent impact
analysis is primarily based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project
site.56 Similar to the SFMOMA site, the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located in
a neighborhood destroyed by the 1906 earthquake and fire. Based on Sanborn maps, the site contained a single-story residence, a two-story residence, and a furniture storage and maintenance shop
between 1887 and 1899. By 1913, Arcade Stables occupied the site. The existing building on the site,
which was used as a laundry and later an apparel manufacturing facility, was constructed in 1923.
The project site is listed as a State of California registered leaking UST site, due to a 2,200-gallon
heating oil tank that was removed from beneath Shipley Street in 2001. However, case closure was
granted in 2005. In addition, a site at 923 Folsom Street (approximately 150 feet northeast of the Fire
Station Relocation and Housing Project site), which contained four USTs that were removed in 1996,
was identified as having the potential to affect the project site. Based on recent groundwater monitoring data, contamination originating from the 923 Folsom Street site is moving towards the southeast.
The DPH granted case closure to the property in November 2009. Based on the status of the site,
distance from the Fire Station relocation site, and direction of contaminant flow, contamination at the
923 Folsom Street site is not expected to adversely affect the site.
In addition, an Asbestos, Lead, and PCB Inspection Report was prepared for the site in March 2010.57
The findings of the report are summarized below:
•
A total of 33 samples of asbestos-containing materials were identified in the existing building.
Asbestos-containing materials are regulated BAAQMD, Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos
Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing.
•
The building contains numerous areas of loose and peeling paint, which is thought to contain
lead.
56 Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 935 Folsom Street, Treadwell and Rollo,
February 16, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2009.0291E.
57 Asbestos, Lead and PCB Inspection Report, 935 Folsom Street VBA, Inc., 2010. This document is available for
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
148
•
Although PCBs were not identified in skylights and windows, PCB-containing light ballasts
could occur inside light fixtures in the building.
Employees and occupants of the fire station and the residential building would be expected to use
small amounts of commercially-available hazardous materials that would include paints, cleaners,
toners, solvents, disinfectants, and other materials that would not be expected to pose a significant
public health or safety hazard. These materials are consumed through use or discarded according to
their labeling. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site identified no
on- or off-site hazards (besides building materials containing lead, asbestos, and PCBs) that could
pose a public or environmental health risk. The Phase I Environmental Assessment included the
results of vapor intrusion analysis that compared the results of two previous subsurface investigations
at the site to Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for hazardous materials. Based on this comparison, groundwater underlying the site would not result in hazards due to the intrusion of vapor into the
buildings on the site.
However, the existing building contains lead and asbestos, and may contain PCBs. Compliance with
existing regulations and procedures, already established as a part of the permit review process, would
insure that any potential direct impacts of demolition due to the presence of lead and asbestos would
be reduced to a less-than-significant level. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure M-HZ1d would reduce risks associated with PCB- and mercury-containing building materials to a less-thansignificant level. Please refer to the SFMOMA Expansion impacts discussion, above, for additional
detail.
Impact HZ-2a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would not emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 of a mile of
an existing school. (No Impact)
No schools are located within 0.25 of a mile of the SFMOMA Expansion site. Therefore, the SFMOMA
Expansion would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 of a mile of an existing school.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
149
Impact HZ-2b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 of a mile of an existing school. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Bessie Carmichael Elementary School/Filipino Education Center on 375 Seventh Street is located
within approximately 0.25 of a mile of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1d and compliance with existing regulations would ensure
that potential impacts associated with the release of lead, asbestos, and PCBs during the construction
period would be less than significant.
Project are not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment. (No Impact)
Neither the SFMOMA Expansion site nor the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5. Therefore, implementation of the proposed projects would not create a related significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less Than Significant)
As part of the SFMOMA Expansion, the short segment of Hunt Street that is located between the
museum and the Heald Building would be vacated. This segment of Hunt Street is primarily used by
firefighters at Fire Station No. 1 for parking and is infrequently used by pedestrians or individual
drivers. Hunt Street is not used as a primary emergency access route. Therefore, the vacation of the
street would not interfere with emergency evacuation. The streets surrounding the SFMOMA
Expansion site and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site would not be altered as part of
the project. Therefore, the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project
would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
150
or emergency evacuation plan. The EIR will include a detailed evaluation of the effects of the
relocation of Fire Station No. 1 on emergency response times.
Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving fires. (Less Than Significant)
The City requires that existing and new buildings meet fire safety standards through compliance with
the applicable provisions of the Building Code and Fire Code. In addition, the San Francisco Fire
Department and DBI review final building plans larger than two residential units to ensure code
compliance. The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project
would comply with all Building Code and Fire Code standards. Therefore, the proposed projects
would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exposure of persons or structures to fire
risks.
vicinity, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials. (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)
Hazards-related impacts are generally site-specific and typically do not combine with impacts from
other planned and foreseeable projects to result in significant cumulative impacts. New developments
in the vicinity of the project sites would be subject to similar regulatory requirements and mitigation
measures as the proposed project. Therefore, large, unexpected releases of hazardous materials of the
type that would contribute to significant cumulative impacts are not expected. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures M-HZ-1a, M-HZ-1b, M-HZ-1c, and M-HZ-1d, and compliance with existing
regulations pertaining to the treatment and management of hazardous materials would ensure that the
projects would not make a significant cumulative contribution to the release of hazardous materials.
Therefore, cumulative hazards impacts will not be further evaluated in the EIR.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
151
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
17. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES—
Would the project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
c)
Encourage activities which result in the use of
large amounts of fuel, water, or energy, or use
these in a wasteful manner?
Impact ME-1: The proposed SFMOMA and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would
not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally-important mineral
resource recovery sites. (No Impact)
All land in San Francisco, including the project site, is designated Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4)
by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) under the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act of 1975.58 This designation indicates that there is inadequate information available for assignment
to any other MRZ and thus the SFMOMA Expansion site and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
Project site are not designated areas if significant mineral deposits. No sites in San Francisco, including the project sites, are designated areas of significant mineral deposits. Since the project sites are
developed, future evaluation or designation of the sites would not affect or be affected by the proposed
projects. There are no operational mineral resource recovery sites in the project areas whose operations or accessibility would be affected by the construction or operation of the proposed projects. This
topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.
58 CDMG, Open File Report 96-03 and Special Report 146 Parts I and II.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
152
Impact ME-2: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not encourage activities which would result in the use of large
amounts of fuel, water, or energy, or use these in a wasteful manner. (Less Than Significant)
Development of the museum space, fire station and residential uses as part of the proposed projects
would not result in the consumption of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy. The generation of
electricity to serve the proposed projects would consume natural gas and coal fuel. All buildings
constructed as part of the proposed projects would meet or exceed current State and local standards
regarding energy consumption, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations enforced by
DBI. They would not use fuel or water in an atypical or wasteful manner.
In addition, new private-sector residential buildings, new non-residential buildings larger than 5,000
square feet, and major renovations to areas larger than 25,000 square feet in existing building (or
mechanical, electrical, or plumbing upgrades to areas larger than 25,000 square feet) are required to
conform to energy conservation standards specified by the San Francisco Building Code, including
the San Francisco Green Building Ordinance. The measures required by the San Francisco Green
Building Ordinance are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with new construction and rehabilitation activities, increase energy efficiency, and realize other environmental gains.
The SFMOMA Expansion would be subject to the San Francisco Green Building Ordinance. Moreover, the proposed residential structure would be considered a “Group R” building and would be
subject to the ordinance. In addition, under the Municipal Green Building Ordinance, all municipal
projects (new construction and major renovations over 5,000 square feet) are required to achieve
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification from the U.S. Green
Building Council or equivalent.59 Therefore, the proposed new fire station structure would require
LEED silver certification or equivalent. Compliance with the San Francisco Green Building
59 LEED is a green building certification system which provides third-party verification that a building or commu-
nity was designed and built using strategies intended to improve performance in metrics such as energy savings, water
efficiency, carbon emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources. Buildings can
qualify for four levels of certification based on the number of “points” a projects receives for incorporating green design
features: Certified = 40-49 points; Silver = 50-59 points; Gold = 60-79 points; and Platinum = 80 points and higher.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
153
Ordinance and Municipal Green Building Ordinance would reduce the use of energy by the proposed
projects.
Based on the above information, the proposed projects would not result in significant adverse impacts
on mineral or energy resources, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.
Impact ME-3: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing
vicinity, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts to energy and minerals. (Less
Than Significant)
As described above, no known minerals exist at the project sites, and therefore the proposed SFMOMA
Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not contribute to any cumulative
impacts related to mineral resources. The project-generated demand for electricity would be negligible
in the context of overall demand within San Francisco and the State, and would not in and of itself
require a major expansion of power facilities. Therefore, the energy demand associated with the project
would result in a less-than-significant physical environmental effect. The proposed projects would not
contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to energy and natural resources. Overall, the
project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to mineral and energy resources.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
154
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
Applicable
18. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES—
Would the project
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)) or timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526)?
d)
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e)
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest
use?
The project sites and cumulative projects are located within an urban area and are developed with
buildings and other impervious surfaces. The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the City and County of San Francisco, including the
project sites, as Urban and Built-Up Land, which is defined as “… land [that] is used for residential,
industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation
yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures,
and other developed purposes.”
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
155
Neither the project sites nor the sites designated for cumulative development include or are zoned for
agricultural uses, forest land, or timberland. The proposed and cumulative projects would not convert
any prime farmland, unique farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use,
and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural land use or a Williamson Act contract.
The proposed and cumulative projects would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land. The projects would redevelop urban sites and would not involve any changes to the
environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to nonforest use. Based on the above information, the proposed and cumulative projects would not result in
significant adverse impacts on agriculture and forest resources, and this topic will not be discussed in
the EIR.
Similar to the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, the
cumulative projects would be located on land classified by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Urban and Built-Up Land that does not contain
forest resources. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in adverse cumulative impacts to agriculture and forest
resources.
Topics 18a through 18e are not applicable.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
156
Less Than
Significant
Topics:
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Not
Impact
Incorporation
Impact
Impact
Applicable
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE—
Would the project:
a)
Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b)
Have impacts that would be individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects.)
c)
Have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
The EIR will evaluate potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, related to Land Use;
Aesthetics; Cultural Resources; Transportation and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; Wind and Shadow; and Public Services (including emergency response).
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
157
F.
MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES
Mitigation measures identified in the analyses in Section E are recapitulated here.
Mitigation Measure M-CP-2 (applies to SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and
Housing Project): Based on a reasonable presumption that archaeological resources may be
present within the project site, the following measures shall be undertaken to avoid any potentially significant adverse effect from the proposed project on buried or submerged historical
resources. The project sponsor shall retain the services of an archaeological consultant from the
Planning Department (Department) pool of qualified archaeological consultants as provided by
the Department archaeologist. The archaeological consultant shall undertake an archaeological
testing program as specified herein. In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an
archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery program if required pursuant to this measure.
The archaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the
direction of the Environmental Review Officer (ERO). [For the SFMOMA Expansion, the
archaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this mitigation
measure, and with the requirements of the project archaeological research design and treatment
plan (Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Archaeological Research Design and
Treatment Plan for the Transit Center District Plan Area. February 2010) at the direction of the
Environmental Review Officer (ERO). In instances of inconsistency between the requirement
of the project archaeological research design and treatment plan and of this archaeological
mitigation measure, the requirements of this archaeological mitigation measure shall prevail.]
All plans and reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted first and
directly to the ERO for review and comment, and shall be considered draft reports subject to
revision until final approval by the ERO. Archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery
programs required by this measure could suspend construction of the project for up to a
maximum of 4 weeks. At the direction of the ERO, the suspension of construction can be
extended beyond 4 weeks only if such a suspension is the only feasible means to reduce to a
less-than-significant level potential effects on a significant archaeological resource as defined
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(c).
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
158
Archaeological Testing Program. The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit to the
ERO for review and approval an archaeological testing plan (ATP). The archaeological testing
program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved ATP. The ATP shall identify the
property types of the expected archaeological resource(s) that potentially could be adversely
affected by the proposed project, the testing method to be used, and the locations recommended
for testing. The purpose of the archaeological testing program will be to determine to the extent
possible the presence or absence of archaeological resources and to identify and to evaluate
whether any archaeological resource encountered on the site constitutes an historical resource
under CEQA.
At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the archaeological consultant shall
submit a written report of the findings to the ERO. If based on the archaeological testing
program the archaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological resources may be
present, the ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant shall determine if
additional measures are warranted. Additional measures that may be undertaken include
additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring, and/or an archaeological data
recovery program. If the ERO determines that a significant archaeological resource is present and
that the resource could be adversely affected by the proposed project, at the discretion of the
project sponsor either:
A.
The proposed project shall be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on the
significant archaeological resource; or
B.
A data recovery program shall be implemented, unless the ERO determines that the
archaeological resource is of greater interpretive than research significance and that
interpretive use of the resource is feasible.
Archaeological Monitoring Program. If the ERO, in consultation with the archaeological
consultant, determines that an archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented, the
archaeological monitoring program shall minimally include the following provisions:
•
The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the
scope of the AMP reasonably prior to the commencement of any project-related soils
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
159
disturbing activities. The ERO, in consultation with the archaeological consultant, shall
determine what project activities shall be archaeologically monitored. In most cases, any
soils-disturbing activities, such as demolition, foundation removal, excavation, grading,
utilities installation, foundation work, driving of piles (foundation, shoring, etc.), site
remediation, etc., shall require archaeological monitoring because of the risk these
activities pose to potential archaeological resources and to their depositional context;
•
The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on the alert for
evidence of the presence of the expected resource(s), of how to identify the evidence of the
expected resource(s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of apparent discovery of
an archaeological resource;
•
The archaeological monitor(s) shall be present on the project site according to a schedule
agreed upon by the archaeological consultant and the ERO until the ERO has, in
consultation with project archaeological consultant, determined that project construction
activities could have no effects on significant archaeological deposits;
•
The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples and
artifactual/ecofactual material as warranted for analysis;
•
If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing activities in the
vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily redirect demolition/excavation/pile driving/construction activities and
equipment until the deposit is evaluated. If in the case of pile driving activity (foundation,
shoring, etc.), the archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the pile driving activity
may affect an archaeological resource, the pile driving activity shall be terminated until an
appropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in consultation with the ERO. The
archaeological consultant shall immediately notify the ERO of the encountered
archaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort to
assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit,
and present the findings of this assessment to the ERO.
Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeological
consultant shall submit a written report of the findings of the monitoring program to the ERO.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
160
Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The archaeological data recovery program shall be
conducted in accordance with an archaeological data recovery plan (ADRP). The archaeological
consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the ADRP prior to
preparation of a draft ADRP. The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ADRP to the
ERO. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the
significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. That is, the ADRP
will identify what scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource,
what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would
address the applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the
portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project.
Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological
resources if nondestructive methods are practical.
The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements:
•
Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and
operations.
•
Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system and
artifact analysis procedures.
•
Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-field
discard and deaccession policies.
•
Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program
during the course of the archaeological data recovery program.
•
Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource
from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities.
•
Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results.
•
Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any
recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation
facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
161
Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. The treatment of human
remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing
activity shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws. This shall include immediate
notification of the Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco and in the event of the
Coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the
California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall appoint a Most
Likely Descendant (MLD) (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). The archaeological
consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement
for the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and associated or unassociated
funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into
consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation,
and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.
Final Archaeological Resources Report. The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft
Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical
significance of any discovered archaeological resource and describes the archaeological and
historical research methods employed in the archaeological testing/monitoring/data recovery
program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource shall be
provided in a separate removable insert within the final report.
Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California
Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one (1) copy
and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. The Major
Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive one bound, one
unbound, and one unlocked, searchable PDF copy on CD or DVD of the FARR along with
copies of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical
Resources. In instances of high public interest in or high interpretive value of the resource, the
ERO may require a different final report content, format, and distribution than that presented
above.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
162
Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): The following two-part
measure shall be implemented:
•
To reduce daytime noise impacts associated with construction activities to the maximum
extent feasible, the following measures shall be implemented in addition to all measures set
forth in the Noise Ordinance:
o
At least 10 days prior to the start of construction, the project sponsor shall notify
occupants of properties within 100 feet of the project site’s lot line. Notification shall
include an estimation of the duration of construction activities, including anticipated
start and completion dates and the daily construction times.
o
Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise
control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake
silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds,
wherever feasible).
o
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project
construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid
noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the
exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used
where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be
used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
o
Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds. Insulation barriers or other
measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.
o
Ground clearing, excavation, foundation pouring, building erection and exterior
finishing activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
•
The project applicant shall prepare a vibration impact assessment to determine potential
construction-related groundborne vibration impacts for all structures located within 25 feet
of construction activities expected to generate more than 90 VdB. Measures shall be
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
163
identified and implemented that would reduce groundborne vibration impacts from extreme
noise generators by prescribing methods of construction to be utilized so as not to exceed
the FTA’s groundborne vibration damage threshold of 90 VdB at the nearest façade of all
adjacent structures. Such methods may include restrictions on the number or types of
construction equipment that may operate at a time within 25 feet of structures, restrictions
on equipment hours of operation, or requirements to use alternative construction
techniques. The vibration impact assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
Mitigation Measure M-NO-2b (applies to Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project only):
The following two-part measure shall be implemented:
•
Implement Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a.
•
The project sponsor shall require that the project contractor predrill holes (if feasible based
on soils) for piles to the maximum feasible depth to minimize noise and vibration from pile
driving. The project sponsor shall also require that the construction contractor limit pile
driving activity to result in the least disturbance to neighboring uses.
The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would be subject to the following four mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Eastern
Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans.60
Mitigation Measure F-3: Interior Noise Levels: For new development including noise-sensitive
uses located along streets with noise levels above 60 dBA (Ldn), where such development is
not already subject to the California Noise Insulation Standards in Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations, the project sponsor shall conduct a detailed analysis of noise reduction
requirements. Such analysis shall be conducted by person(s) qualified in acoustical analysis
and/or engineering. Noise insulation features identified and recommended by the analysis shall
2009.0291E and 2010.0275E.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
164
be included in the design, as specified in the San Francisco General Plan Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise to reduce potential interior noise levels to the
maximum extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure F-4: Siting of Noise-Sensitive Uses: To reduce potential conflicts between
existing noise-generating uses and new sensitive receptors, for new development including
noise-sensitive uses, the Planning Department shall require the preparation of an analysis that
includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify potential noise-generating uses within 900 feet
of, and that have a direct line-of-sight to, the project site, and including at least one 24-hour
noise measurement (with maximum noise level readings taken at least every 15 minutes), prior
to the first project approval action. The analysis shall be prepared by persons qualified in
acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Title
24 standards, where applicable, can be met, and that there are no particular circumstances about
the proposed project site that appear to warrant heightened concern about noise levels in the
vicinity. Should such concerns be present, the Department may require the completion of a
to the first project approval action, in order to demonstrate that acceptable interior noise levels
consistent with those in the Title 24 standards can be attained.
Mitigation Measure F-5: Siting of Noise-Generating Uses: To reduce potential conflicts
between existing sensitive receptors and new noise-generating uses, for new development
including commercial, industrial or other uses that would be expected to generate noise levels
in excess of ambient noise, either short-term, at nighttime, or as a 24-hour average, in the
proposed project site vicinity, the Planning Department shall require the preparation of an
analysis that includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify potential noise-sensitive uses
within 900 feet of, and that have a direct line-of-sight to, the project site, and including at least
one 24-hour noise measurement (with maximum noise level readings taken at least every 15
minutes), prior to the first project approval action. The analysis shall be prepared by persons
qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable
certainty that the proposed use would comply with the use compatibility requirements in the
General Plan and in Police Code Section 29091, would not adversely affect nearby noiseCASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
165
sensitive uses, and that there are no particular circumstances about the proposed project site that
appear to warrant heightened concern about noise levels that would be generated by the
proposed use. Should such concerns be present, the Department may require the completion of
a detailed noise assessment by person(s) qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering
prior to the first project approval action.
Mitigation Measure F-6: Open Space in Noisy Environments: To minimize effects on development in noisy areas, for new development including noise-sensitive uses, the Planning Department shall, through its building permit review process, in conjunction with noise analysis
required pursuant to Mitigation Measure F-4, require that open space required under the
Planning Code for such uses be protected, to the maximum feasible extent, from existing
ambient noise levels that could prove annoying or disruptive to users of the open space.
Implementation of this measure could involve, among other things, site design that uses the
building itself to shield on-site open space from the greatest noise sources, construction of noise
barriers between noise sources and open space, and appropriate use of both common and
private open space in multi-family dwellings, and implementation would also be undertaken
consistent with other principles of urban design.
Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1a (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): The following actions
shall be implemented by the project sponsor:
Step 1 (Preparation of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment): The project sponsor
shall conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the project site. If residual
contamination is identified on the project site that requires preparation and implementation
of a Site Mitigation Plan, Step 2 (and subsequent steps) shall be implemented.
Step 2 (Preparation of Site Mitigation Plan): A Site Mitigation Plan shall be prepared, if
warranted based on the results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. The SMP
shall include a discussion of the level of contamination of soils and groundwater on the
project site and mitigation measures for managing contaminated soils on the site, including,
but not limited to: 1) the alternatives for managing contaminated soils on the site (e.g.,
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
166
encapsulation, partial or complete removal, treatment, recycling for reuse, or a combination
of methods); 2) the preferred alternative for managing contaminated soils on the site and a
brief justification as to why; and 3) the specific practices to be used to handle, haul, and
dispose of contaminated soils on the site. The SMP shall be submitted to the DPH for
review and approval. A copy of the SMP shall be submitted to the Planning Department to
become part of the case file.
Step 3 (Handling, Hauling, and Disposal of Contaminated Soils): The following measures
shall be implemented:
(a)
Specific work practices: If, based on the results of the soil tests conducted, DPH
determines that the soils on the project site are contaminated at or above potentially
hazardous levels, the construction contractor shall be alert for the presence of such
soils during excavation and other construction activities on the site (detected through
soil odor, color, and texture and results of onsite soil testing), and shall be prepared to
handle, profile (i.e., characterize), and dispose of such soils appropriately (i.e., as
dictated by local, State, and federal regulations) when such soils are encountered on
the site. If excavated materials contain over 1 percent friable asbestos, they shall be
treated as hazardous waste, and shall be transported and disposed of in accordance
with applicable State and federal regulations. These procedures are intended to
mitigate any potential health risks related to chrysotile asbestos, which may or may
not be located on the site.
(b)
Dust suppression: Soils exposed during excavation for site preparation and project
construction activities shall be kept moist throughout the time they are exposed, both
during and after construction work hours.
(c)
Surface water runoff control: Where soils are stockpiled, visqueen shall be used to
create an impermeable liner, both beneath and on top of the soils, with a berm to
contain any potential surface water runoff from the soil stockpiles during inclement
weather.
(d)
Soils replacement: If necessary, clean fill or other suitable material(s) shall be used to
bring portions of the project site, where contaminated soils have been excavated and
removed, up to construction grade.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
167
(e)
Hauling and disposal: Contaminated soils shall be hauled off the project site by
waste-hauling trucks appropriately certified with the State of California and
adequately covered to prevent dispersion of the soils during transit, and shall be
disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility registered with the State
of California.
Step 4 (Preparation of Closure/Certification Report): After construction activities are
completed, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit a closure/certification report to
DPH for review and approval. The closure/certification report shall include the mitigation
measures in the SMP for handling and removing contaminated soils from the project site,
whether the construction contractor modified any of these mitigation measures, and how
and why the construction contractor modified those mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1b (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): If, based on the results
of the soil tests conducted, the DPH determines that the soils on the project site are contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially hazardous levels, any contaminated soils
designated as hazardous waste and required by DPH to be excavated shall be removed by a
qualified Removal Contractor and disposed of at a regulated Class I hazardous waste landfill in
accordance with U.S Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as stipulated in the SMP.
The Removal Contractor shall obtain, complete, and sign hazardous waste manifests to accompany the soils to the disposal site. Other excavated soils shall be disposed of in an appropriate
landfill, as governed by applicable laws and regulations, or other appropriate actions shall be
taken in coordination with the DPH. If the DPH determines that the soils on the project site are
contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially hazardous levels, a Site Health and
Safety (H&S) Plan shall be required by the California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (Cal-OSHA) prior to initiating any earthmoving activities at the site. The H&S Plan
shall identify protocols for managing soils during construction to minimize worker and public
exposure to contaminated soils. The protocols shall include at a minimum:
•
Sweeping of adjacent public streets daily (with water sweepers) if any visible soil material
is carried onto the streets.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
168
•
Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to placement to
confirm that the soil meets appropriate standards.
•
The dust controls specified in the Construction Dust Control Ordinance (176-08).
•
Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils. The H&S Plan shall identify site
access controls to be implemented from the time of surface disruption through the
completion of earthwork construction. The protocols shall include as a minimum:
o
Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry, such as
fencing or other barrier or sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent entry and
based upon the degree of control required.
o
Posting of “no trespassing” signs.
o
Provision for on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about security
measures and reporting/contingency procedures.
If groundwater contamination is identified, the Site Health and Safety Plan shall identify
protocols for managing groundwater during construction to minimize worker and public
exposure to contaminated groundwater. The protocols shall include procedures to prevent
unacceptable migration of contamination from defined plumes during dewatering.
The H&S Plan shall include a requirement that construction personnel be trained to recognize
potential hazards associated with underground features that could contain hazardous substances, previously unidentified contamination, or buried hazardous debris. Excavation
personnel shall also be required to wash hands and face before eating, smoking, and drinking.
The H&S Plan shall include procedures for implementing a contingency plan, including
appropriate notification and control procedures, in the event unanticipated subsurface hazards
are discovered during construction. Control procedures shall include, but would not be limited
to, investigation and removal of underground storage tanks or other hazards.
Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1c (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): If the DPH determines
that the soils on the project site are contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
169
hazardous levels, all trucks and excavation and soil handling equipment shall be
decontaminated following use and prior to removal from the site. Gross contamination shall be
first removed through brushing, wiping, or dry brooming. The vehicle or equipment shall then
be washed clean (including tires). Prior to removal from the work site, all vehicles and
equipment shall be inspected to ensure that contamination has been removed.
Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1d (applies to SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation
and Housing Project): The City shall condition future development approvals to require that the
project sponsor ensures that any equipment containing PCBs or mercury, such as fluorescent
light ballasts, are removed and properly disposed of according to applicable federal, State, and
local laws prior to the start of building demolition, and that any fluorescent light tubes, which
could contain mercury, are similarly removed and properly disposed. Any other hazardous
materials identified, either before or during work, shall be abated according to applicable
federal, State, and local laws.
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
170
G.
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study:
LII
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
LI
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
LI
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
LII
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental
documentation is required.
DATE
Bill Wycko
Environmental Review Officer
for
John Rahaim
Director of Planning
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
0
171
27. 2010
H.
LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
1.
REPORT AUTHORS
San Francisco Planning Department
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
Environmental Review Officer: Bill Wycko
Senior Environmental Reviewer: Sarah B. Jones
Environmental Coordinator: Michael Jacinto
Preservation Technical Specialist: Tim Frye
Archaeologist: Randall Dean
2.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
LSA Associates, Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94701
Principals-in-Charge: Shannon Allen and David Clore
Project Manager: Adam Weinstein
Staff: Patty Linder, Charis Cronan
3.
PROJECT SPONSOR
151 Third Street
San Francisco, CA 94103-3107
Greg Johnson, Expansion Project Director
4.
SPONSOR’S ATTORNEY
Farella Braun and Martel, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
Steven L. Vettel, Partner
5.
PROJECT MANAGER
Pacific Union Development Company
601 Van Ness, Suite 2000
Joel Roos, Partner
CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E
INITIAL STUDY
October 27, 2010
172

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Our Children, Our Families Council 5-Year Plan

Haight Ashbury - Brandon College, San Francisco

The Clash and the two Bobs

Parish Office: 408 293 3503 MASS SCHEDULE – HORARIO de

Layout 1 (Page 1) - Rescue Task Force

Tuscany is famed for its lush countryside and has long

Pantallas Acusticas Pared Verde (EN)

San Pietro Di Feletto and its surroundings

San Francisco Chronicle – May 17, 2015

The Chaparral of California In much of California, botanical activity