350 Mission Street Draft EIR

8/8/2019 350 Mission Street Draft EIR

1/158

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR

350 Mission Street Office Project

PLANNING DEPARTMENTCASE NO. 2006.1524E

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2010062013

Environmental Review Ofcer | 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 | San Francisco, CA 94103

Written comments should be sent to:

Drat EIR Publication Date: SEPTEMBER 15, 2010

Drat EIR Public Hearing Date: OCTOBER 21, 2010

Drat EIR Public Comment Period: SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 - NOVEMBER 1, 2010


2/158

www.sfplanning.org

DATE: September15,2010

TO: DistributionListforthe350MissionStreetOfficeProjectEIR

FROM: BillWycko,EnvironmentalReviewOfficer

SUBJECT: RequestfortheFinalEnvironmentalImpactReportforthe350MissionStreet

OfficeProject(CaseNo.2006.1524E)

ThisistheDraftoftheEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)forthe350MissionStreetOfficeProject.A

publichearingwillbeheldontheadequacyandaccuracyofthisdocument.Afterthepublichearing,

ourofficewillprepareandpublishadocumententitledCommentsandResponses,whichwill

containasummaryofallrelevantcommentsonthisDraftEIRandourresponsestothosecomments,

alongwithcopiesofthelettersreceivedandatranscriptofthepublichearing.TheCommentsand

ResponsesdocumentmayalsospecifychangestothisDraftEIR.Publicagenciesandmembersofthe

publicwhotestifyatthehearingontheDraftEIRwillautomaticallyreceiveacopyoftheComments

andResponsesdocument,alongwithnoticeofthedatereservedforcertification;othersmayreceive

suchcopiesandnoticeonrequestorbyvisitingouroffice.ThisDraftEIR,togetherwiththe

CommentsandResponsesdocument,willbeconsideredbythePlanningCommissioninan

advertisedpublicmeeting,andthencertifiedasaFinalEIRifdeemedadequate.

Aftercertification,wewillmodifytheDraftEIRasspecifiedbytheCommentsandResponses

documentandprintbothdocumentsinasinglepublicationcalledtheFinalEnvironmentalImpact

Report.TheFinalEIRwilladdnonewinformationtothecombinationofthetwodocumentsexcept

toreproducethecertificationresolution.Itwillsimplyprovidetheinformationinoneratherthantwo

documents.Therefore,ifyoureceiveacopyoftheCommentsandResponsesdocumentinadditionto

thiscopyoftheDraftEIR,youwilltechnicallyhaveacopyoftheFinalEIR.

WeareawarethatmanypeoplewhoreceivetheDraftEIRandCommentsandResponsesdocument

havenointerestinreceivingvirtuallythesameinformationaftertheEIRhasbeencertified.Toavoid

expendingmoneyandpaperneedlessly,wewouldliketosendcopiesoftheFinalEIR,inAdobe

Acrobatformatonacompactdisk(CD),toprivateindividualsonlyiftheyrequestthem.Therefore,if

youwouldlikeacopyoftheFinalEIR,pleasefilloutandmailthepostcardprovidedinsidetheback

covertotheMajorEnvironmentalAnalysisdivisionofthePlanningDepartmentwithintwoweeks

aftercertificationoftheEIR.AnyprivatepartynotrequestingaFinalEIRbythattimewillnotbe

mailedacopy.

Thankyouforyourinterestinthisproject.


3/158

350 MISSION STREET OFFICE PROJECT

Draft Environmental Impact ReportPlanning Department Case No. 2006.1524EState Clearinghouse No. 2010062013

Draft EIR Publication Date: September 15, 2010Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: October 21, 2010

Draft EIR Public Comment Period: September 15, 2010 through November 1, 2010

This report is printed on recycled paper.

207037


4/158

Case No. 2006.1524E ii 350 Mission Street207037

TABLE OF CONTENTS

350 Mission Street ProjectDraft Environmental Impact Report

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v

SUMMARY S-1

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5A. Site Location and Project Characteristics 5B. Project Setting 17C. Project Sponsors Objectives 20D. Intended Uses of the EIR 20

III. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS 23

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 37A. Land Use 37B. Transportation 39C. Air Quality 62D. Greenhouse Gases 88

E. Wind 104F. Shadow 113G. Initial Study Issues 123

V. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONSA. Growth Inducement 127B. Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided 128

If the Proposed Project is ImplementedC. Areas of Known Controversy and Issues to be Resolved 129

VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 130A. No Project 130B. Code-Complying Bulk Alternative 131C. No-Parking Alternative 134D. Environmentally Superior Alternative 136

VII. APPENDICESA. Notice of Preparation and Initial StudyB. Air QualityC. Wind Analysis Technical Memorandum

VIII. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS


5/158

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Case No. 2006.1524E iii 350 Mission Street207037

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Project Location 72. Ground Floor Plan 83. Mezzanine (Second Floor) Plan 9

3. Typical Upper Level Plan 105. Mission Street (South) Elevation 146. Fremont Street (West) Elevation 157 Building Bulk and Setback Exceptions 168 Project Area Transit Network 419. Wind Test Point Locations 10610. March 21 Shadow Patterns 11611. June 21 Shadow Patterns 11712. September 21 Shadow Patterns 11813. December 21 Shadow Patterns 11914. East Side POPOS 12015. West Side POPOS 12016. Gap Between 50 Beale and Millennium 120

17. Code-Complying Bulk Alternative 132

LIST OF TABLES

S-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed S-4350 Mission Street Project

1. Project Characteristics and Planning Code Compliance 122. Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) and Average Stopped Delay 47

in Seconds per Vehicle3. Summary of San Francisco Air Quality Monitoring Data (20052009) 634. State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards 715. Project Construction Exhaust Emissions Estimates 796. Estimated Daily Regional Emissions (2013) 84

7. GHG Reduction Measures in ARB Scoping Plan 928. Total CO2-Equivalent Emissions (Metric Tons/Year) 1009. City GHG Regulations Applicable to the Proposed Project 10110. Wind Test Results 108


6/158

Case No. 2006.1524E iv 350 Mission Street207037

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AB AssemblyBill

ABAG AssociationofBayAreaGovernments

ARB CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard

BAAQMD BayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict

BCDC SanFranciscoBayConservationandDevelopmentCommission

CEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct

CO CarbonMonoxide

CO2 CarbonDioxide

CO2E CarbonDioxideequivalent

dB Decibel

dBA AWeightedDecibel

DBI SanFranciscoDepartmentofBuildingInspection

DEIR DraftEnvironmentalImpactReport

DPH SanFranciscoDepartmentofPublicHealth

DPM DieselParticulateMatterEIR EnvironmentalImpactReport

EPA UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency

FAR Floorarearatio

GFA GrossFloorArea

GHG GreenhouseGas

GSF GrossSquareFeet

Ldn DayNightNoiseLevel

LEED LeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmental

LOS LevelofService(measureoftrafficorothertransportationoperations)

MMT MillionMetricTons

mph MilesperHour

MTA SanFranciscoMunicipalTransportationAuthority

MTA/SSD MunicipalTransportationAgencySustainableStreetsDivision

MTC MetropolitanTransportationCommission

NAAQS NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards

NCT NeighborhoodCommercialTransit(zoningdistrict)

NEPA NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct

NO2 NitrogenDioxide

NOx NitrogenOxides

NOP NoticeofPreparation

PM ParticulateMatter

PM2.5 ParticulateMatter2.5micronsorlessindiameter

PM10 ParticulateMatter10micronsorlessindiameter

PMP PedestrianTransportationMasterPlan

ppb PartsperBillion

ppm PartsperMillion

pphm PartsperHundredMillion

ROG ReactiveOrganicGases

SAAQS StateAmbientAirQualityStandards

SB SenateBill

SFD SanFranciscoCityDatum


7/158

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Case No. 2006.1524E v 350 Mission Street207037

SFPUC SanFranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommission

SMP StreetscapeMasterPlan

SO2 SulfurDioxide

TACs ToxicAirContaminants

TEP TransitEffectivenessProject

TDR TransferofDevelopmentRightsTJPA TransbayJointPowersAuthority

v/cratio VolumetoCapacityRatio

VOC VolatileOrganicCompounds

g/m3 MicrogramsperCubicMeter


8/158

Case No. 2006.1524E S-1 350 Mission Street207037

SUMMARY

A. Project Description

The19,000squarefootprojectsite,locatedat350MissionStreet,onthenortheastcornerofMissionand

FremontStreets,isonAssessorsBlock3710,Lot17.ThesiteiswithintheC3ODowntownOfficeUse

Districtandthe550SHeightandBulkDistrict(550footheightlimit;setbacksrequiredfortowerfloors).

Thesiteisoccupiedbyafourstory,approximately60foottall,95,000squarefootbuildingthatislargely

occupiedbyHealdCollege,withgroundfloorretailspace.Nooffstreetparkingorloadingspacesare

providedwithintheexistingbuildingonthesite.

Theproposedprojectwouldconsistofa24story,approximately375foottallofficetower(including20

foottallrooftopmechanicalarea)withofficeusesoccupyingapproximately356,000squarefeet.Thefloor

arearatiowouldbe18:1.The50foottallgroundfloor,incorporatingamezzanine,wouldprovideabout

6,600squarefeetofretailandrestaurantspace,alongwith6,960squarefeetofpubliclyaccessibleindoor

openspaceinanindoorpark,assetforthintheSanFranciscoPlanningCode(Section138)and

DowntownPlan(Table1,GuidelinesforDowntownOpenSpace).Vehicleandfreightloadingaccess

wouldbeviaadrivewayonFremontStreetonthenorthwestcornerofthesite,andwouldincludetwo

fullsizeandtwoservicevehicleloadingspaces;61parkingspacesonthreebasementlevels(including

threespacesforsharedelectricvehicleswithbatterychargingcapability);and64bicycleparkingspaces.

Rooftopmechanicalequipment,includingadieselpoweredemergencygeneratorratedat800kilowatts,

wouldbeenclosedwithina20foottallmechanicalpenthouse,includedwithinthe375footbuilding

height.

Thecombinedgroundfloorandmezzaninelevelswouldbetheprojectsprimarydistinguishingfeature

intermsofarticulationandmaterials.AtthecornerofMissionandFremontStreets,thegroundfloorand

mezzaninetogetherwouldserveasanapproximately50foottallatrium,largeportionsofwhichwould

beopentothesidewalkingoodweather.Publiclyaccessibleopenspacewouldbelocatedonboththe

groundfloorandmezzanine,andtheatriumwouldhavelargeexpansesofclearglass.Behindtheglass

columnswouldrisethefullheightoftheatrium.Aglazed,ovalshapedenclosurenearthesoutheast

corneroftheatriumwouldhouseretailspaceonthegroundfloorandadining/conferenceroomatthe

mezzaninelevel.Abovetheatrium,theprojectwouldbecladinaglasscurtainwall.

Theproposedprojectwouldbeconstructedatopamatfoundation.Excavationforthebasementand

foundationwouldextendtoapproximately50feetbelowgrade,andwouldrequireremovalof

approximately35,000cubicyardsofsoil. Theproposedprojectwouldincludeplantingofnewstreet

treesontheFremontandMissionStreetprojectfrontages,incompliancewithPlanningCodeSection143.


9/158

SUMMARY


Projectconstructionwouldtakeaboutapproximately22months,andoccupancyisanticipatedinlate

2012.Constructioncostsarecurrentlyestimatedatapproximately$85million.Theprojectarchitectis

Skidmore,Owings&MerrillLLP.

Theprojectsofficecomponent(spanningfromapproximately55to375feetinheight)wouldhaveno

setbacksfromthepropertylinealongthewest(FremontStreet)andsouth(MissionStreet)facades.The

eastfaadewouldgenerallybesetbackbetween6.5 and14feetfromtheeastpropertyline(12.5to

19feetfromthebuildingat50BealeStreet).Thenorthfaadewouldbesetbackabout6.5feetfromthe

northpropertyline(about45feetfromthebuildingat45FremontStreet).Theseinteriorsetbackswould

notcomplywiththerequirementsofPlanningCodeSection132.1(c)forseparationoftowers,andthe

proposedprojectwouldthereforerequireanexception,aspermittedunderSection309,PermitReviewin

C3Districts.TheproposedprojectwouldalsorequireanexceptiontothePlanningCodeSection270

requirementsforbuildingbulk,fortheportionofthebuildingconsideredtheuppertower(above

220feet),becausethetowerwouldexceedboththepermitteddiagonalplandimension(approximately

178feet,comparedto160feetpermitted),aswellasthepermittedaveragefloorarea(about15,000square

feet,comparedto12,000squarefeetpermitted).Accordingly,theprojectwouldrequireexceptionstothe

uppertowerbulklimits,asispermittedunderSection309.Inaddition,theproposedprojectwould

requireanexceptionfromtherequirementsforgroundlevelwinds(PlanningCodeSection148).

TheproposedprojectwouldmeetorexceedPlanningCoderequirementsforvehicleparking(nomore

than7percentofgrossfloorarea),offstreetloading,bicycleparking,onsiteopenspace,streettrees,and

wouldalsocomplywithCoderequirementsforpedestrianstreetscapeimprovements(Section138.1);

downtownparkfees(Section139);publicart(Section149);transportationmanagementand

transportationbrokerageservices(Section163);SanFranciscoResidentPlacementandTrainingProgram

(Section164);andchildcareplansandchildcarebrokerage(Section165);aswellastransitdevelopment

impactfeesunderArticle38oftheAdministrativeCode.

Implementationoftheproposedprojectwouldrequirethefollowingapprovalactions:

Planning Commission

ApprovaloftheprojectunderPlanningCodeSection309,includingexceptionswithregardtobuildingbulk(Section270,includinglessthantherequireduppertowervolumereductionunderSection270(d)(3)(B)),separationoftowers(Section132.1(c)),groundlevelwinds(Section148),andtheprohibitiononcurbcutsalongTransitPreferentialStreetswhereanalternativefrontageisavailable(Section155(r)(4)).

Variancefromthemaximumdrivewaywidth,perPlanning

Code

Section155(s)(5)(A),of27feet. AllocationofofficespaceunderPlanningCodeSection321(OfficeDevelopmentAnnualLimit).

Department of Building Inspection

Demolition,site,andbuildingpermits.

Department of Public Works

StreetSpacePermitfromtheBureauofStreetUseandMappingforuseofapublicstreetspaceduringprojectconstruction(forapedestrianwalkway)


10/158

SUMMARY


Municipal Transportation Agency

SpecialTrafficPermitfromtheMunicipalTransportationAgencySustainableStreetsDivisionforuseofapublicstreetspaceduringprojectconstruction(forapedestrianwalkway)

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

AuthoritytoConstructandPermittoOperatetheproposeddieselpoweredemergencygenerator.

B. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ThisEIRanalyzesthepotentialeffectsoftheproposed350MissionStreetproject,asdeterminedinthe

InitialStudyandNoticeofPreparationofanEnvironmentalImpactReport(NOP),issuedJune2,2010,

2010(AppendixAofthisEIR).

ThisEIRcontainsdetailedanalysesoftopicsincludinglanduse,transportation,airquality,greenhouse

gases,wind,andshadow.TableS1presentsasummaryofthesignificantadverseenvironmentaleffects

andmitigationmeasuresidentifiedintheEIR,alongwithmitigationmeasuresidentifiedtoreducethose

impactstoalessthansignificantlevel,whereapplicable.

Thereareseveralitemsrequiredbylocal,state,andfederallawthatwouldservetoavoidpotential

significantimpacts;theyaresummarizedhereforinformationalpurposes.Thesemeasuresinclude:no

useofmirroredglassonthebuildingtoreduceglare,asperCityPlanningCommissionResolution9212;

limitationofconstructionrelatednoiselevels,pursuanttotheSanFranciscoNoiseOrdinance(Article29

oftheSanFranciscoPoliceCode,1972);compliancewithSection3424oftheSanFranciscoBuildingCode,

Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint on Pre-1979 Buildings and Steel Structures; andobservanceofstateand

federalOSHAsafetyrequirementsrelatedtohandlinganddisposalofotherhazardousmaterials,suchas

asbestos.Becausecompliancewiththelawwouldobviateanypotentialimpactsrelatedtotheabove

issues,neithersignificantimpactsnormitigationmeasuresareidentifiedinconnectionwiththeseissues.

C. Significant Environmental Impacts That Cannot BeAvoided in the Project Is Implemented

TransportationCumulativeconstructionimpactscouldpotentiallyresultindisruptionstotraffic,transit,pedestrians,

and/orbicycles.Mitigationwouldrequirethattheprojectsponsorand/orconstructioncontractor

coordinatewiththeMunicipalTransportationAgency/SustainableStreetsDivision,theTransbayJoint

PowersAuthority,andconstructionmanager(s)/contractor(s)fortheTransitCenterproject,andwith

GoldenGateTransit,aswellasMuni,ACTransit,andSamTrans,asapplicable,todevelopconstruction

phasingandoperationsplansthatwouldresultintheleastamountofdisruptionthatisfeasibletotransit

operations,pedestrianandbicycleactivity,andvehiculartraffic.Nevertheless,simultaneousconstruction

oftheproposedprojectandtheTransitCentercoulddisruptGoldenGateTransitoperations,shouldboth

projectssimultaneouslyprecludeuseoftheFremontStreetcurblaneasanafternoonbusembarkation

site.AlthoughmitigationisidentifiedthatcouldrelocateGoldenGateTransitbusestoanexisting


11/158


12/158


13/158


14/158

TABLE S-1 (contd.)SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED 350 MISSION STRE

Case No. 2006.1524E S-7207037

Potential ImpactLevel of

Significance Mitigation Measures

TR-2: Traffic generated by the proposedproject, in conjunction with past,present, and reasonably foreseeable

future projects, would degrade level ofservice at certain local intersections, butproject traffic would not contributeconsiderably to degraded intersectionoperations.

Less thanSignificant

None required.

TR-3: Transit ridership generated by theproposed project would not result in asubstantial increase in transit demandthat could not be accommodated byadjacent transit capacity resultingunacceptable levels of transit service, orcause a substantial increase in delaysor operating costs.


None required.

TR-6: The proposed project would notcreate potentially hazardous conditions

for bicyclists or otherwise substantiallyinterfere with bicycle accessibility to thesite and adjoining areas.


None required.

TR-8: The proposed project would notresult in inadequate emergency access.


None required.

C. Air Quality

AQ-2: Project operation would notconflict with air quality plans, violate airquality standards, or expose sensitivereceptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations with respect to regionalpollutants, either individually orcumulatively.


None required.

AQ-3: Traffic from project operationwould not generate emissions thatwould conflict with air quality plans,violate air quality standards, or exposesensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations with respect tolocal pollutants, either individually orcumulatively.

Less thanSignificant None required.


15/158

TABLE S-1 (contd.)SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED 350 MISSION STRE

Case No. 2006.1524E S-8207037

Potential ImpactLevel of

Significance Mitigation Measures

AQ-4: Emissions from the proposedprojects emergency generator wouldnot conflict with air quality plans, violate

air quality standards, or exposesensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations with respect tolocal pollutants, either individually orcumulatively.


None required.

D. Greenhouse Gases

GG-1: Project operation would notgenerate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, that mayhave a significant impact on theenvironment.


None required.

GG-2: The proposed project would notconflict with any applicable plan, policy,or regulation of an agency adopted forthe purpose of reducing the emissionsof greenhouse gases.


None required.

E. Wind

WI-1: The proposed project would notresult in a new exceedance of the windhazard criterion, either individually orcumulatively.


None required.

F. Shadow

SH-1: The proposed project would notadversely affect the use of any park oropen space under the jurisdiction of theRecreation and Park Department, either

individually or cumulatively.


None required.

SH-2: The proposed project would notsubstantially affect the usability ofexisting publicly accessible open spaceor outdoor recreation facilities or otherpublic areas not under the jurisdiction ofthe Recreation and Park Department,either individually or cumulatively.


None required.


16/158


boardingislandinFremontStreetnearMarketStreet,thisimpactisconservativelyjudgedtobe

significantandunavoidable.

Air QualityEmissionsfromdieselequipmentemployedintheproposedprojectsconstructionwouldgeneratea

cancerriskandconcentrationsoffineparticulate(PM2.5)thatineachcasewouldexceedtheBayAreaAir

QualityManagementDistrict(BAAQMD)srecentlyadopted(June2010)thresholdsofsignificance.

(Previously,theBAAQMDdidnotrecommendquantificationofconstructionemissions.)Although

mitigation,intheformoftheuseofdieselconstructionequipmentmeetingtheCaliforniaAirResources

Board/UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyinterimTier4emissionsstandardscouldreduce

bothcancerriskandPM2.5tolevelsbelowtheBAAQMDsignificancethresholds(interimTier4standards

areupto93percentmorerestrictivethancurrentemissionsstandardsforoffroadengines),thisimpactis

conservativelyassumedtoremainsignificantandunavoidable,inlightoftheuncertaintyconcerningthe

actualdieselconstructionequipmenttobeusedandtheavailabilityofcleanerdieselconstruction

equipmentintheneartermfuture.Cumulativeconstructionimpactswouldoccurfromotherprojectsin

thevicinity,mostnotablyincludingthenewTransitTerminalacrossMissionStreetfromtheprojectsite,

aswellasseveralotherprojectsinthearea.GiventheproximityofthenewTransitCentertothe

350MissionStreetprojectsite,cumulativeconstructionemissionscouldexceedtheBAAQMDs

significancecriteriaforcumulativeimpacts(100inonemillioncancerrisknoncancerhazardindexof10,

andaPM2.5concentrationof0.8microgramspercubicmeter).Despiteemissionscontrols,itcannotbe

statedwithcertaintythatthecancerriskorPM2.5concentrationwouldbereducedtobelowthe

significancethresholds,andthecumulativeimpactisthus,conservatively,significantandunavoidable.

Noothersignificantimpactswereidentifiedthatcouldnotbemitigatedtoalessthansignificantlevel.

D. Areas of Controversy to Be Resolved

OnthebasisofpubliccommentsontheNOP,potentialareasofcontroversyandunresolvedissuesfor

thisprojectincludecumulativeconstructioneffects;cumulativeshadowandwindimpacts,including

cumulativeeffectsrelatedtoprojectshavingbeengrantedbulkexceptions;shadowandwindimpactson

theprojectsownopenspace;consistencywiththeproposedTransitCenterDistrictPlan;displacementof

HealdCollege;visualeffectsconcerningblockageofthesky;economicimpactsofhousingdemand

generatedbytheproject;constructionnoise;theadequacyofopenspace;LEEDcertificationversusCity

requirementsforenergyandwaterconservationandothergreenfeatures;seismiceffects;flooding

potentialasaresultofanticipatedsealevelrise;andeffectsrelatedtopotentialsoilandgroundwater

contamination.TheseissuesarediscussedinthisEIR.


17/158

SUMMARY


F. Alternatives

Alternative A No Project AlternativeThisalternativewouldentailnochangetothesite,whichwouldremaininitsexistingcondition.The

existingbuildingat350MissionStreetwouldcontinuetooperatefortheforeseeablefuture.

Underthisalternative,projectimpactswouldnotoccur.Thisalternativewouldalsoavoidtheproposed

projectssignificantbutmitigableeffectswithrespecttoconflictsbetweenvehiclesusingtheproject

parkinggarageandloadingdockandothervehicles,includingGoldenGateTransitbuses,andwith

pedestrians,andwouldalsoavoidtheprojectssignificantbutmitigableeffectwithrespecttooversize

trucksusingtheprojectloadingdock.Cumulativeconstructionrelatedtransportationimpactscouldbe

significant,butthisalternativewouldmakenocontributiontosuchimpacts.Therewouldbeno

significantimpactonintersectionlevelofservice(LOS):althoughfivestudyintersectionsthatcurrently

operateatLOSEorFwouldcontinuetodoso,thisalternativewouldmakenocontributiontothis

impact.Withnoconstruction,thisalternativewouldavoidtheprojectssignificant,unmitigable

constructionrelatedairqualityeffects.Withnoexcavation,thisalternativewouldavoidtheprojects

significantbutmitigableeffectonarcheologicalresources.Thisalternativewouldavoidtheprojectsless

thansignificantimpactsonshadowandwind,andwouldresultinnoemissionsofcriteriapollutants,

avoidingtheprojectslessthansignificantimpactsonairqualityandgreenhousegases.Additionally,

noneoftheotherlessthansignificantimpactsidentifiedinthisInitialStudywouldoccurunderthis

alternative.Thisalternativewouldnotresultinanynewsignificantimpactsthanthoseoftheproposed

project.

Alternative B Code-Complying Bulk AlternativeThisalternativewouldentaildevelopmentofabuildingthesameheightastheproposedprojecta

24story,375foottallbuildingcontainingthesamemixofusesastheproposedproject:officespace

abovegroundfloor/mezzaninerestaurant/retail/cafspace,andparking.However,unliketheproject,this

alternativewouldcomplywiththetowerseparationrequirementsofPlanningCodeSection132.1(c)and

withthebulkrequirementsofCodeSection270.Asaresult,thisalternativewouldhavesetbacksabove

thebuildingbase,ataheightofapproximately103feet,andintheuppertowerportionofthebuilding,

aboveaheightofapproximately220feet.Thelowertowerwouldhave15footsetbacksfromthenorth

andeastpropertylines,consistentwithSection132.1(c).TocomplywithSection270,thetopmostfour

floorswouldhaveadditionalsetbacksof15feet,alsoonthenorthandeast.Thesetbackswouldreduce

theamountofofficespaceto310,000squarefeet(292,000squarefeetofgrossfloorarea),about13percentlessthanwiththeproposedproject.Thisalternativewouldhavethesame50foottallgroundfloor

atrium,andapproximatelythesameretail,restaurantspace,andopenspaceastheproposedproject.

AlthoughcompliantwithPlanningCodebulkandsetbacklimits,thisalternativewould,liketheproject,

requireanexceptiontotheCodespedestrianwindrequirements(Section148)becausethisalternative

wouldlikewisenotreduceallexistingexceedancesofthewindspeedcriteriaforpedestrianandseating

comfort.Twobasementparkinglevelswouldbeprovided(onefewerthanwiththeproject),and

approximately45parkingspaceswouldbeincluded,16fewerthanwiththeproject.Liketheproject,this


18/158

SUMMARY


alternativewouldinclude64bicyclespaces.Thefloorarearatioofthisalternativewouldbeabout15.4:1,

comparedto18:1withtheproposedproject.

With13percentlessofficespacethantheproposedproject,AlternativeBwouldgenerateacomparable

reductioninnetnewdailyandpeakhourvehicletripsthantheproposedproject,incrementallyreducing

theprojectslessthansignificanttrafficandtransitimpacts.Thisalternative,liketheproject,wouldnot

resultinsignificantimpactsonintersectionlevelofservice,although,aswiththeproject,thelarge

volumeofcumulativeBayBridgeboundtrafficgeneratedbyotherexistingandproposeddevelopment

wouldresultindegradationofintersectionlevelsofserviceatmanyareaintersections,includingallof

thestudyintersections.Thisalternativewouldreduce,butnotavoid,theprojectssignificantimpacts

withrespecttopotentialconflictsbetweenpedestriansandGoldenGateTransitbuses,andvehiclesusing

theproposedparkinggarageandloadingdockonFremontStreet,andwithrespecttooversizetrucks

usingtheloadingdock.However,aswiththeproject,theseimpactscouldbemitigatedtoalessthan

significantlevelbyrelocatingGoldenGateTransitbusstops,postingagarage/loadingdockattendant,

installingaudiblewarningdevices,limitingloadingdockhours,andlimitingthesizeoftrucksusingthe

dock.Aswiththeproject,cumulativeconstructionperiodeffectsontransportation,notablyGoldenGate

Transitbuses,andconstructionrelatedairqualityimpactswouldbesignificantandunmitigable.

However,reducedtrafficwouldreduceemissionsandtheprojectslessthansignificantemissionsof

criteriapollutantsandgreenhousegases.Thetowerunderthisalternativewouldcastincrementallyless

shadowonsurroundingstreetsandsidewalksduetotheupperstorysetbacks;shadowimpactswouldbe

lessthansignificant,aswiththeproject.Windeffectsofthisalternativewouldbesimilartoorslightly

lesssubstantialthanthoseoftheproposedprojectbecauseoftheupperstorysetbacks,andwouldbeless

thansignificant.Landuseimpactswouldalsobethesameasthoseoftheproject,becausethesameuses

wouldbedeveloped.OtherlessthansignificantimpactsdiscussedintheInitialStudywouldbesimilar

inintensityorincrementallylesssubstantialunderthisalternativethantheywouldwiththeproject.Thisalternativewouldnotresultinanynewsignificantimpactsthatwouldnotarisewiththeproposed

project.

Alternative C No-Parking AlternativeThisalternativewouldincludethesamedevelopmentprogramastheproposedproject(24storytower

with356,000squarefeetofofficespace,6,600squarefeetofrestaurantandretailspace,and6,960square

feetofopenspace,plustwooffstreetloadingspacesandtwoservicevehiclespaces),butwouldinclude

nooffstreetparking,withtheexceptionofthethreespacesdedicatedtosharedelectricvehicles(with

batterychargingcapability).Liketheproject,thisalternativewouldinclude64bicyclespaces.Excavation

wouldberequiredforasinglebasementleveltoaccommodatebuildingmechanicalequipment,carshare

andbicycleparking,andfitnesscenter.Abovegrade,thisalternativewouldbethesameastheproposed

project,includingthesame50foottallcombinedgroundfloorandmezzaninethatwouldinclude

publiclyaccessibleopenspace,retail,caf,andrestaurantspace,andthebuildinglobby.

TheNoParkingAlternativewouldavoidtheproposedprojectssignificantbutmitigableeffectrelatedto

potentialconflictsbetweenpedestriansandGoldenGateTransitbuses,andvehiclesusingtheproposed

parkinggarage,becausethisalternativewouldhavenogarage.However,becauseoffstreetloading


19/158

SUMMARY


facilitieswouldbecomparable,thisalternativewouldresultinthesamesignificant,butmitigable,

impactsaswouldtheproposedprojectwithrespecttopotentialconflictsbetweenpedestriansand

vehiclesusingtheproposedloadingdockviatheproposeddrivewayonFremontStreet.Withthesame

officefloorareaandthesamerestaurant/retailspace,theNoParkingAlternativewouldhavesimilar

impactsrelatedtotheintensityofdevelopmentastheproposedproject.Tripgenerationwouldbethe

sameaswiththeproposedproject,becausethesecalculationsarebasedondevelopmentfloorarea,

althoughdistributionofprojecttripswouldbesomewhatdifferentthanthatoftheproject,becauseall

personsdrivingtothesitewouldhavetoparkelsewhere.Liketheproposedproject,thisalternative

wouldnotbeexpectedtoresultinsignificantimpactsonintersectionlevelofservice,assomevehicle

tripswouldbedestinedtoandfromthebuildinginanycase.Cumulativetrafficimpactswouldbe

essentiallythesameasthoseoftheprojectand,liketheproject,wouldbelessthansignificant,although,

aswiththeproject,thelargevolumeofcumulativeBayBridgeboundtrafficgeneratedbyotherexisting

andproposeddevelopmentwouldresultindegradationofintersectionlevelsofserviceatmanyarea

intersections,includingallofthestudyintersections.Aswiththeproject,cumulativeconstructionperiod

effectsontransportation,notablyGoldenGateTransitbuses,andconstructionrelatedairqualityimpactswouldbesignificantandunmitigable.However,operationalairqualityimpacts,whicharebasedontrip

generationandthesizeofthebuilding,wouldbethesameasthoseoftheproposedproject,andwouldbe

lessthansignificant,aswouldgreenhousegasimpacts.Becausethisalternativewoulddevelopthesame

abovegradebuildingastheproposedproject,shadowandwindeffects(relatedtothebuildingmassing)

wouldbethesameasthoseoftheproposedproject,andwouldbelessthansignificant.Landuseimpacts

wouldalsobethesameasthoseoftheproject,becausethesameuseswouldbedeveloped.Otherless

thansignificantimpactsdiscussedintheInitialStudywouldbethesameunderthisalternativeaswith

theproject.Thisalternativewouldnotresultinanynewsignificantimpactsbeyondthoseofthe

proposedproject.

Environmentally Superior AlternativeTheNoProjectAlternativewouldresultinnosignificantnewtrafficimpactsorimpactsrelatedtoair

quality,noise,GHGemissions,aesthetics,historicalresources,shadow,orwind.Thus,theNoProject

AlternativewouldbetheEnvironmentallySuperiorAlternative.However,theCEQAGuidelines

(Sec.15126.6(e))requiresthatiftheNoProjectAlternativeisidentifiedastheenvironmentallysuperior

alternative,asecondalternativeshallbeidentifiedasenvironmentallysuperior.TheNoParking

Alternative(AlternativeC)wouldavoidtheprojectssignificantbutmitigableeffectrelatedtopotential

conflictsbetweenpedestriansandGoldenGateTransitbuses,andvehiclesusingtheproposedparking

garage,aswellastheprojectssignificant

but

mitigable

effect

with

respect

to

oversize

trucks.

This

alternativewouldnotavoidtheprojectssignificantbutmitigableimpactrelatedtopotentialconflicts

betweenpedestriansandvehiclesusingtheproposedloadingdockviatheproposeddrivewayon

FremontStreet,althoughthisimpactwouldbemitigatedbypostingaloadingdockattendantand

limitingloadingdockhours,aswiththeproject.Thisalternativealsowouldnotavoidtheprojects

significant,unmitigablecumulativeconstructionperiodeffectsontransportation,notablyGoldenGate

Transitbuses,orsignificant,unavoidableconstructionrelatedairqualityimpacts.Onbalance,however,

AlternativeCisconsideredtheenvironmentallysuperioralternativeunderCEQA.


20/158

Case No. 2006.1524E 1 350 Mission Street207037

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Thisenvironmentalimpactreport(EIR)analyzespotentialenvironmentaleffectsassociatedwiththe

proposed350MissionStreetproject,whichinvolvesthedemolitionofanexistingfourstorycommercial

buildingatthesouthwestcornerofFremontandMissionStreetsinSanFrancisco,andconstructionofan

approximately375foottallofficebuildingcontainingapproximately356,000squarefeetofofficespace,

about6,600squarefeetofrestaurantandretailspace,andthreelevelsofbasementparking(about

61spaces).FurtherdetailsregardingtheproposedprojectcomponentsthatformthebasisfortheEIR

analysisarediscussedindepthinChapterII,ProjectDescription.

A. Environmental Review

TheSanFranciscoPlanningDepartmentisservingasLeadAgencyresponsibleforadministeringthe

environmentalreviewfortheproposedproject.TheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)

requiresthatbeforeadecisioncanbemadetoapproveaprojectthatwouldposepotentialadverse

physicaleffects,anEIRmustbepreparedthatfullydescribestheenvironmentaleffectsoftheproject.The

EIRisapublicinformationdocumentforusebygovernmentalagenciesandthepublictoidentifyand

evaluatepotentialenvironmentalimpactsofaproject,torecommendmitigationmeasurestolessenor

eliminatesignificantadverseimpacts,andtoexaminefeasiblealternativestotheproject.TheinformationcontainedintheEIRisreviewedandconsideredbytheLeadAgencypriortoadecisiontoapprove,

disapprove,ormodifytheproposedproject.CEQArequiresthattheLeadAgencyshallneitherapprove

norimplementaprojectunlesstheprojectssignificantenvironmentaleffectshavebeenreducedtoaless

thansignificantlevel,essentiallyeliminating,avoiding,orsubstantiallylesseningtheexpectedimpact,

exceptwhencertainfindingsaremade.IftheLeadAgencyapprovesaprojectthatwillresultinthe

occurrenceofsignificantadverseimpactsthatcannotbemitigatedtolessthansignificantlevels,the

agencymuststatethereasonsforitsactioninwriting,demonstratethatitsactionisbasedontheEIRor

otherinformationintherecord,andadoptaStatementofOverridingConsiderations.

TheprojectsponsorfiledanapplicationonFebruary15,2008(revisionofapriorapplicationsubmittedSeptember11,2007),fortheenvironmentalevaluationoftheproposed350MissionStreetproject.On

June2,2010,thePlanningDepartmentsentaNoticeofPreparation(NOP)togovernmentalagenciesand

organizationsandpersonsinterestedintheproject,fora30dayreviewperiodendingJuly2,2010.The

NOPandtheInitialStudyissuedwiththeNOPareincludedasAppendixAofthisEIR.TheNOP

requestedagenciesandinterestedpartiestocommentonenvironmentalissuesthatshouldbeaddressed

intheEIR.ThecommentlettersreceivedinresponsetotheInitialStudyandtheNOPareavailablefor

reviewaspartofCaseFileNo.2006.1524E.ThePlanningDepartmentalsoconductedapublicscoping


21/158

I. INTRODUCTION


meeting,onJune22,2010,toreceiveoralcommentsonthescopeoftheEIR.Commentsrequestedthatthe

EIRanalyzethefollowing:

Constructionrelatedeffects,particularlyifprojectconstructionweretooverlapwithother

constructioninthevicinity(projectschedulemust,therefore,bedescribedwithasmuchcertainty

aspossible);

Cumulativeeffectswithrespecttoshadowandwind,andoverallclimate(includingfog)inlightof

exceptionstoPlanningCodebulkrequirementsrequestedbytheproposedprojectandpreviously

grantedtootherDowntownhighriseprojects;

OthercumulativeeffectsofbulkexceptionsinlightoftheintentionsbehindtheDowntownPlans

bulkcontrols(e.g.,protectionofsunlightonDowntownsidewalks)andtheassumptionsmadein

theDowntownPlanEIR;

Shadowandwindimpactsontheprojectsownopenspace,bothonthegroundfloorandonthe

mezzanine,includingwhethertheindooropenspacewillhaveaccesstosunlight;

ConsistencywiththeproposedTransitCenterDistrictPlan;

DisplacementofHealdCollege,theexistingprimarytenantofthebuildingat350MissionStreet,

includingtheneedforHealdCollegetobetransitaccessible;

Visualeffects,includingareasofskycurrentlyvisiblethatwouldbefilledinbytheproposed

project;

Economicimpactsofhousingdemandgeneratedbyprojectemployees,includingincomelevelsof

newemployeesattheprojectandtheresultingaffordabilityofhousingdemanded;

Noiseeffectsofconstructiononnearbyresidentialunits,includingcumulativeconstructionnoise;

Adequacyofexistingandproposedopenspacetoaccommodatetheproposedproject,including

effectsofshadingofparksandopenspaceduetootherprojects;

AcomparisonoftheprojectsproposedLEEDcertificationversusCityrequirementsforenergyand

waterconservationandothergreenfeatures;

Effectsonsurroundingstreetsandsidewalksofgroundshakinginanearthquake;

Floodingpotentialasaresultofanticipatedsealevelrise;and

Effectsrelatedtopotentialsoilandgroundwatercontaminationbeneaththesite.

TheCityhasconsideredthepubliccommentsmadebythepublicinpreparingtheDraftEIRforthe

proposedproject.BecausesomeofthecommentsaddressspecificinformationprovidedintheInitial

Study,briefresponsestothosecommentsareprovidedhereininSectionIV.G,InitialStudyIssues.

B. Purpose of This EIR

ThisEIRisintendedasaninformationaldocument,thatinandofitselfdoesnotdeterminewhethera

projectwillbeapproved,butaidstheplanninganddecisionmakingprocessbydisclosingthepotential

forsignificantandadverseimpacts.InconformancewithCEQA,CaliforniaPublicResourcesCode,

Section21000et.seq.,thisEIRprovidesobjectiveinformationaddressingtheenvironmentalconsequences

oftheprojectandidentifiespossiblemeansofreducingoravoidingitspotentiallysignificantimpacts.


22/158

I. INTRODUCTION


Specifictechnicalstudiespreparedfortheenvironmentalanalysisofthe350MissionStreetproject

includeatransportationstudybyAECOM(2010);airqualityanalysesbyENVIRONInternational(2010)

andEnvironmentalScienceAssociates(2010);windanalysisbyRWDI(2010);andshadowanalysisby

CADP(2010).Additionally,theInitialStudy(AppendixA)relieduponstudiesincludingageotechnical

investigation(Treadwell&Rollo,2008);aPhaseIenvironmentalsiteassessment(LowneyAssociates,

1997)andupdatethereto(LowneyAssociates,2005);andanEnvironmentalSiteCharacterizationWork

Plan(Treadwell&Rollo,2010).Thesetechnicalstudiesaredetaileddatareportsandareavailablefor

reviewwiththeSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment,inCaseFileNo.2006.1524E.

ThestateCEQAGuidelines(CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,Division6,Chapter3,Section15000

et.seq.)helpdefinetheroleandexpectationsofthisEIRasfollows:

InformationDocument.AnEIRisaninformationaldocumentwhichwillinformpublicagency

decisionmakersandthepublicgenerallyofthesignificantenvironmentaleffect(s)ofaproject,

identifypossiblewaystominimizethesignificanteffects,anddescribereasonablealternativesto

theproject.ThepublicagencyshallconsidertheinformationintheEIRalongwithotherinformationwhichmaybepresentedtotheagency(Section15121(a)).

StandardsforAdequacyofanEIR.AnEIRshouldbepreparedwithasufficientdegreeofanalysis

toprovidedecisionmakerswithinformation,whichenablesthemtomakeadecisionwhich

intelligentlytakesaccountofenvironmentalconsequences.Anevaluationoftheenvironmental

effectsofaproposedprojectneednotbeexhaustive,butthesufficiencyofanEIRistobereviewed

inthelightofwhatisreasonablyfeasible.DisagreementamongexpertsdoesnotmakeanEIR

inadequate,buttheEIRshouldsummarizethemainpointsofdisagreementamongtheexperts.

Thecourtshavelookednotforperfectionbutforadequacy,completeness,andagoodfaitheffortat

fulldisclosure(Section15151).

TheCEQAGuidelines,Section15382,defineasignificanteffectontheenvironmentasasubstantial,or

potentiallysubstantial,adversechangeinanyofthephysicalconditionswithintheareaaffectedbythe

project.Therefore,inidentifyingthesignificantimpactsoftheproject,thisEIRconcentratesonits

substantialphysicaleffectsanduponmitigationmeasurestoavoid,reduce,orotherwisealleviatethose

effects.

C. Organization of the Draft EIR

ThisDraftEIRhasbeenorganizedasfollows:

Summary.ThischaptersummarizestheEIRbyprovidingaconciseoverviewoftheproject,

includingtheprojectdescription,theenvironmentalimpactsthatwouldresultfromtheproject,

mitigationmeasuresidentifiedtoreduceoreliminatetheseimpacts,andalternativestothe

proposedproject.

Chapter1,Introduction.Thischapter(above)andthecontentsherein,includingadiscussionof

EnvironmentalReview,asummaryofthecommentsreceivedonthescopeoftheEIR,andthe

organizationoftheEIR.


23/158

I. INTRODUCTION


Chapter2,ProjectDescription.Thischapterdiscussestheprojectobjectives,providesbackground

dataontheprojectlocation,describestheoperationalandphysicalcharacteristicsoftheMaster

Plan,andidentifiesrequiredprojectapprovals.

Chapter3,PlansandPolicies.Thischapterprovidesasummaryoftheapplicableplans,policies,

andregulationsoftheCityandCountyofSanFrancisco(City),andregional,state,andfederal

agenciesthathavepolicyandregulatorycontrolovertheprojectsiteanddiscussestheproposed

projectsconsistencywiththosepolicies.

Chapter4,EnvironmentalSettingandImpacts.Thischapterdescribestheprojectsexisting

setting,environmentalimpacts,andcumulativeimpactswithrespecttotransportation,airquality,

greenhousegasemissions,wind,andshadow.Eachenvironmentaltopicisdiscussedinaseparate

sectionwithinthischapter.(OthertopicsinthePlanningDepartmentsCEQAchecklistwere

analyzedintheInitialStudyandfoundtoresultinlessthansignificantimpacts.TheInitialStudy

isincludedinAppendixA

Chapter5,OtherCEQAConsiderations.Thischapteraddressesanygrowthinducementthat

wouldresultfromtheproposedproject,thesignificantenvironmentaleffectsthatcannotbemitigatedtoalessthansignificantlevel,significantirreversiblechangesthatwouldresultifthe

projectisimplemented,andanyareasofcontroversylefttoberesolved.

Chapter6,Alternatives.Thischapterpresentsalternativestotheproposedproject,includingthe

NoProjectAlternative,theCodeComplyingBulkAlternative,andtheNoParkingAlternative.

Appendices.

D. Public Participation

ThestateCEQAGuidelinesandChapter31oftheSanFranciscoAdministrativeCodeencouragepublic

participationintheplanningandenvironmentalreviewprocesses.TheCitywillprovideopportunities

forthepublictopresentcommentsandconcernsregardingtheCEQAandplanningprocess.These

opportunitieswilloccurduringapublicreviewandcommentperiodandapublichearingbeforethe

SanFranciscoPlanningCommission.WrittenpubliccommentsmaybesubmittedtothePlanning

Departmentduringthespecifiedpublicreviewandcommentperiod(indicatedonthecoverofthis

DEIR),andwrittenandoralcommentsmaybepresentedatpublichearingsconcerningtheproject.

_________________________


24/158


CHAPTER II

Project Description

Theprojectsponsor,GLLUSOffice,L.P.,proposestodemolishtheexistingfourstorybuildingat

350MissionStreetandconstructa24story,approximately375foottall(including20foottallmechanical

space)towercontainingapproximately356,000squarefeetofofficespace,6,600squarefeetofrestaurant

andretailspace,and6,960squarefeetofpubliclyaccessibleopenspace.Retailandrestaurantspaces

wouldincludeacoffeebar/cafandaretailstoreareaonthegroundfloorandarestaurantand

conferencespaceonthemezzanine.AdrivewayonFremontStreetwouldprovideaccesstotwoloading

andtwoserviceparkingspacesonthegroundfloorand61parkingspacesand64bikeparkingspacesinthreesubgradelevels.ThebuildingwouldbeconstructedtostandardsrequiredforaLEED(Leadership

inEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign)Goldrating.1

A. Site Location and Project Characteristics

Site LocationTheprojectsite,locatedat350MissionStreet,onthenortheastcornerofMissionandFremontStreets,is

onAssessorsBlock3710,Lot17.2 ThesiteiswithintheC3ODowntownOfficeUseDistrictandthe

550SHeightandBulkDistrict(550footheightlimit;setbacksrequiredforfloorsabovebuildingbase;

permittedfloorarearatiois9.0:1;FARofupto18.0:1ispermittedwithtransferofdevelopmentrights).

Theapproximately19,000squarefootprojectsiteisgenerallyflatwithanelevationof3feet,SFDatthe

cornerofMissionandFremontStreets.3Thesite,whichhasfrontagesonMissionandFremontStreets,is

currentlyfullyoccupiedbyafourstory,approximately60foottallbuildingprovidingabout

95,000squarefeetoffloorarea,includingthe13,000squarefootbasement.Approximately72,000square

feetofofficespace,currentlyineducationalusebyHealdCollege,and10,000squarefeetofretailspace

occupytheexistingbuilding.Nooffstreetparkingspacesorloadingspacesarecurrentlyprovided.The

1 TheLEEDBuildingRatingSystemisathirdpartycertificationprogramandbenchmarkforthedesign,

constructionandoperationofgreenbuildings.Itprovidesbuildingdesigners,ownersandoperatorswithtools

toassessaprojectsperformancewithrespecttoenvironmental responsibility.MoreinformationabouttheLEED

ratingsystemcanbeobtainedathttp://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19, accessedonApril21,

2008.2 ConsistentwithSanFranciscopractice,MarketStreetandstreetsparallelareconsideredeastweststreets.Thus,

MissionStreetrunseastwest,andFremontStreetrunsnorthsouth.3 SanFranciscoCityDatum(SFD)establishestheCityszeropointforsurveyingpurposesatapproximately

8.6feetabovethemeansealevelestablishedby1929U.S.GeologicalSurveydatum.InSanFrancisco,elevation

inthe1929USGSdatumisapproximately2.7feetlowerthanthecorrespondingelevationcurrent1988North

AmericanVerticalDatum.


25/158

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION


buildingwasbuiltin1923andisnothistoricallysignificant.Therearenineexistingstreettreesalongthe

FremontandMissionStreetfrontages.Figure1showstheprojectlocation.

Project CharacteristicsTheproposedprojectwouldconsistofa24story,approximately375foottallofficetowerwithofficeuses

occupyingapproximately356,000squarefeetonfloors5through24(thebuildingwouldhavenofloor13,

norfloors3or4).Thegroundfloorwouldhaveaheightof50feet,equalingapproximately3to4stories,

andamezzaninelevelwouldbeincorporatedwithinthisspace.Approximately6,600squarefeetofretail

andrestaurantspacewouldbedividedintofourspacesonthegroundfloorandthemezzanine.These

spaceswouldincludea1,000squarefootretailspaceonthegroundfloorfacingMissionStreet,asmall

coffeebar/cafnearthenorthwestcornerofthegroundfloorlobby,andanapproximately4,600square

footrestaurantspacewithaseparatelydemisedconference/diningroomonthemezzanine.Pedestrian

entranceswouldbelocatedontheFremontandMissionStreetfrontagesandwouldopentoa50foottall

lobby,whichwouldincludepartofthemezzaninefloorthatwouldbeopentothegroundfloor.The

lobbywouldfunction,inpart,asanenclosedpubliclyaccessibleopenspace,includinginternalaccessto

theretailspaceandawidestairwaytothemezzaninethatwoulddoubleaspublicamphitheaterstyle

seating.Theapproximately35foottallmezzaninefloorwouldbeoccupiedmostlybythe

restaurant/conferencespacebutwouldincludeabout2,200squarefeetofenclosedpublicseatingatthe

topofthestairway.Themezzaninelevelwouldcoverthenorthandeastportionofthegroundfloorand

leavethesouthwestlobbyspaceopentotheentire50foottallvolume.

Vehicleandfreightloadingaccesswouldbeviaanapproximately33footwidetwowaydrivewayon

FremontStreetonthenorthwestcorneroftheprojectsite.Thenorthernportionofthegroundfloor

wouldincludefouroffstreetfreightloadingspaces(twotruckandtwoservicevan),a30footdiameter

turntableforlargevehicleturnaround,andbuildingservicespacesincludingtrashandstoragefacilities.

Threebasementlevelswouldprovide61independentlyaccessedparkingspaces,includingthreespaces

dedicatedtosharedelectricvehicles(withbatterychargingcapability);64bicycleparkingspaces;

buildingservicesandmechanicalspace;andafitnesscenterforusebybuildingtenants,alongwitheight

showersandlockersthatcouldalsobeusedbybicyclists.Figures2and3,pp.8and9,depictthe

proposedgroundfloorandmezzanineplans,respectively.Figure4,p.10,depictsarepresentativeupper

storyfloorplan.Therooftopmechanicalspacewouldcontainelevatormachinery,buildingheatingand

coolingequipment,electricalequipment,andadieselpoweredemergencygenerator,ratedat

800kilowatts.

Thebuildingwouldcontainapproximately340,000grosssquarefeet(squarefeetofgrossfloorarea),as

measuredinaccordancewiththeSanFranciscoPlanningCode,Section102.9,consistingalmostentirelyof

officespace.TomeetthePlanningCodeopenspacerequirementofonesquarefootper50squarefeetof

grossfloorareaintheC3District,atotalof6,800squarefeetofpubliclyaccessibleopenspacewouldbe

required.Forthepurposesofthisrequirement,theenclosedlobbyandpublicseatingareaswouldbe

consideredanindoorpark.ThePlanningCode(Section138)andDowntownPlanelementofthe


26/158

18

2

14

1519

20

AB 3710

FremontSt

PineFr

ont

St

Market St

Mission St

17717

BealeSt

FirstSt

FremontSt

CaliforniaStDrumm

StD

avis

St

PineSt

BushStSutterSt

Front

St

Batte

rySt

San

som

eSt

Market St

MainSt

Mission St

Howard St

Folsom St

Transbay Terminal

SpearSt

Pacific

OceanSan

Francis

co

Ba

y

101

101

280

80

1

S a n

F r a n c i s c o

Project Site

CaseSOURCE: ESA

Project Site

0 400

Feet

7


27/158


28/158

9

DN

DN

UP

UP

DN

DNDN

RESTAURANT

SERVICE/

STORAGE

TELECOM

MEN

WOMEN

OPEN TO

BELOW

EL-3

EL-2

EL-1

EL-7

EL-6

EL-5

EL-4

ST-1

ST-2

TERRACE

KITCHEN

ST-4

401

EL-8

ST-3

SERVICE/

STORAGE

MEN

WOMEN

SERVICE/

STORAGE

MEN

WOMEN

SERVICE/

STORAGE

MEN

DINING/EXECUTIVE

CONFERENCE

ELEC

103 TYP

103

103

113TYP

MECH. GRATED

PLATFORM

ABOVE

LADDER

114

114

115

115

115

14' - 5 1/8"

ELEVATOR

LOBBY

Figure 3Mezzanine (Second Floor) Plan

SOURCE: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLPCase No. 2006.1524E: 350 Mission Street . 207037

0 40

Feet


29/158

10

UPDN

UPDN

TELECOMEXPO.

EL-3

EL-2

EL-1

EL-7

EL-6

EL-5

EL-4

ST-1

ST-2

41'-0"

51' - 5"

43' - 10"

44'-1"

44'-1"

29'-2"

13'-7"

16'-5"

21'-5"

3'-7"

39'-2"

29' - 2" 30' - 0" 30' - 0" 26' - 8"

(LEVELS 22-27: 44'-2")

(LEVELS22-27:44'-5")

(LEVELS

22-27:44'-5")

3'-0"

3'-0"

3' - 0" 3' - 0"

129'-4"

121' - 10"

SETBACK (APPROX.7FT)

MISSION STREET

PROPERTYLINE

103103

103

ELEC

FAN ROOMEXPO.

RAISED FLOOR INSTALLED BY TENANT

RAISED FLOOR

RAISED FLOORINSTALLED

RAISED FLOORINSTALLED

RAISED FLOOR

115 115

115

114

115

ELEVATORLOBBY

RAISED FLOOR INSTALLED BY TENANT

MEN

WOMEN



Figure 4Typical Upper Level Plan

SOURCE: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLPCase No. 2006.1524E: 350 Mission Street . 207037

0 40

Feet


30/158



SanFranciscoGeneralPlanconsideranenclosedindoorparktobeoneformofopenspacethatmaybe

usedforthepurposesofsatisfyingthisrequirement,assumingapplicableguidelinesaremet.4

Table1,p.12,summarizesthecharacteristicsoftheprojectandcompliancewithcertainapplicable

PlanningCoderequirementsfordowntownhighrisebuildings.

Thegroundfloorlobby,stairway,andadjacentexterioropenspace(mezzanineterrace)wouldcontribute

approximately4,755squarefeetofopenspace.Onthemezzanine,atthetopofthestairway,theproject

wouldprovideapublicseatingareaofapproximately2,205squarefeet.Thus,theprojectwouldexceed

thePlanningCodeSection102.9requirementswiththeprovisionofroughly6,960squarefeetofpublically

accessibleopenspace.

Thesecondandthirdbasementlevelswouldincludeapproximately55markedparkingspaces(capacity

forabout80vehicleswithvaletparkingoperations).Thefirstbasementlevelwouldhavethreededicated

parkingspacesforelectricvehicles(withbatterychargingcapability)andthreedisabledaccessiblespaces

(whichwouldmeettherequirementofPlanningCode

Section155(i)),foratotalof61markedspaces.The

projectwouldprovideaminimumof64stallsforbicycleparking,whichwouldexceedtherequirement

ofPlanningCodeSection155.4(d).5Theproposedfloorareadevotedtooffstreetparking(approximately

23,540squarefeet)wouldbewithinthemaximumpermittedofsevenpercentofbuildinggrossfloorarea

pursuanttoPlanningCodeSection151.1.Forpurposesofthiscalculation,parkingareaincludesspaces

andaislesandexcludesentranceandexitdrivewaysandramps.Therefore,theproposedprojectwould

complywithSection151.1.Fouroffstreetloadingspaces(twotruckandtwoservicevan),alsoaccessible

fromFremontStreet,wouldmeetthePlanningCoderequirementunderSection152.1(seeApprovals

Required,below).However,theproposedprojectwouldrequireanexception,pursuanttoPlanningCode

Section309,fromtheCodesprohibitiononcurbcutsalongTransitPreferentialStreetswherean

alternativefrontageisavailable(Section155(r)(4)),fortheproposedgarage/loadingdockcurbcuton

FremontStreet.(BothFremontandMissionStreetsareidentifiedasTransitPreferentialStreetsinthe

GeneralPlanTransportationElement.)

AccordingtoPlanningCodeSection270,whichimplementsthedirectionforbuildingmassingcontained

intheDowntownPlanelementoftheSanFranciscoGeneralPlan,buildingsover160feetinheightare

consideredtohaveabase,lowertoweranduppertower.Thebase,whichmaynotexceedaheightof1.25

timesthewidthoftheprincipaladjacentstreet,hasnoplanorarearestrictionsunderthissectionbutis

requiredtobevisuallydelineatedfromtheloweranduppertowersthroughasetback,corniceline,or

4 TheDowntownPlan(Table1,GuidelinesforDowntownOpenSpace)statesthatanIndoorParkshouldhave,

amongotherqualities,atleastonestreetfacingglasswallandbeaccessiblefromstreetlevel;containatleast

1,000sq.ft.andbeatleast20feettall;providefoodserviceandadequateseating,sunlight,andventilation;and

includedesignfeatures.5 ThedraftTransitCenterDistrictPlan(publishedNovember2009)proposestoamendSection155.4ofthe

PlanningCodetoincreasenumberofrequiredonsitesecurebicycleparkingspacesforcommercialbuildingsto

onespaceforevery6,000gsfofofficespace.Thiswouldincreasetherequirednumberofbicyclespacesforthe

projecttoapproximately55spaces.


31/158



TABLE 1PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AND PLANNING CODE COMPLIANCE

Proposed Use Description Gross Building Area (GSF) Gross Floor Area (GFA)a

Office 22 stories 356,000 sq. ft. 340,000 sq. ft.Retail / Restaurant Ground floor & Mezzanine (part) 6,600 sq. ft. 0

Parking b 61 spaces 23,540 sq. ft. 0

Bldg. services Basement & mechanical 62,820 sq. ft. 0Loading c 2 spaces + 2 van spaces 6,640 sq. ft. 0

Lobby/Interior open space Ground Floor & Mezz. (part) 9,600 sq. ft. 0

Mech. Penthouse Equipment room 4,300 sq. ft. 0

TOTAL 469,500 sq. ft. 340,000 sq. ft.

Site area 18,909 sq. ft.

Parameter Permitted Proposed

Height (feet) d 550 feet 375 feet

Height (stories) 24

+ 3 bsmt.+ 2 mech. phse.

Bulk (Sec. 270(e))

Lower Tower (103 feete

to 220 feetf

in height)Maximum horizontal dimension 160 feet 129 ft., 4 in.

Maximum diagonal dimension 190 feet 177 ft., 10 in.

Maximum average floor plate 17,000 sq. ft. 15,020 sq. ft.

Maximum floor size, any lower-tower floor 20,000 sq. ft. 15,020 sq. ft.

Upper Tower (above 220 feet in height) g

Maximum horizontal dimension 130 feet 129 ft., 4 in.

Maximum average diagonal dimension 160 feet 177 ft., 10 in.

. Maximum average floor plate 12,000 sq. ft. 15,020 sq. ft.

Maximum floor size, any upper-tower floor 17,000 sq. ft. 15,020 sq. ft.Minimum volume reduction required in upper tower(compared to straight extension of lower tower)

20 percent 0 percent

Floor Area Ratio (Secs. 124 & 128) h 18.0:1 18.0:1

Off-Street Vehicle Parking (Sec. 151.1)7 percent of gross floor

area, or 23,870 sq. ft. max.23,540 sq. ft.

Parameter Required Proposed

Open Space (Sec. 138) 6,800 sq. ft. 6,960 sq. ft.Off-Street Freight Loading (Sec. 152.1) 3 2 spaces + 2 van spaces c

Bicycle Parking (Sec. 155.4) 12 64

Separation of Towers (Sec. 132.1(c)) 21 feet i 6.5 feet j

NOTE: All figures rounded.a Gross floor area (GFA) is calculated for Planning Codecompliance purposes (per Sec. 102.9) and excludes certain portions of the building,

including accessory parking and loading space, mechanical and building storage space, ground-floor lobby space and 5,000 gross square feet of

ground-floor and mezzanine convenience retail and restaurant space, per use. Office GFA excludes aggregate of 27,500 sq. ft. of mechanical

space at all office floors.b Space for approximately 80 vehicles would be provided if valet parking were offered.c Planning CodeSection 153(a)(6) allows the substitution in C-3 Districts of two service vehicle spaces for each required off-street freight loading

space, provided that a minimum of 50 percent of the required number of spaces are provided for freight loading. Therefore, the project would meet

the Code requirement of three spaces.d Proposed height includes mechanical penthouse and screen (approximately 20 feet).e Building base height, measured according to the Planning Code, is 1.25 times the width of Mission Street (82.5 feet), or 103 feet.f Lower tower, measured according to the Planning Code, extends from top of base to approximately 220 feet.g Dimensions in excess of permitted maximums require exceptions under Planning CodeSections 309 and 272.h Basic permitted floor area ratio is 9.0:1; FAR of up to 18.0:1 is permitted with transfer of development rights, proposed as part of project.i Minimum setback required from center line of abutting street(s) and from interior property line(s) at height of 375 feet, at top of building crown.j Projects minimum setback measured at northern property line.

SOURCE: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP


32/158



othermeans.AsMissionStreetistheprincipaladjacentstreetandis82.5feetwide,thebaseheightfor

thisprojectisconsideredtobeamaximumof103feettall.Asproposed,theprojectbuildingwouldbe

generallyrectilinearinshapewithanapproximately55foottallbuildingbasephysicallydistinguished

fromtheremaining295foottallofficetower(plus20foottallmechanicalspace).

Thecombinedgroundfloorandmezzaninelevelswouldbetheprojectsprimarydistinguishingfeature

intermsofarticulationandmaterials.Inparticular,atthecornerofMissionandFremontStreets,the

groundfloorandmezzaninetogetherwouldserveasanapproximately50foottallatrium,accessiblevia

doorsonMissionandFremontStreets,andthroughafoldingglasspaneldoorsystem,alsoonboth

facadesnearthecornerofMissionandFremontStreets;largeportionsoftheatriumwouldbeopentothe

sidewalkingoodweather,asthefoldingpaneldoorswouldremainopen,providingpedestrianaccess

alongalmost75feetofsidewalkfrontage.Publiclyaccessibleopenspacewouldbelocatedonboththe

groundfloorandmezzanine,andtheatriumwouldhavelargeexpansesofclearglass.Behindtheglass,

columnswouldrisethefullheightoftheatrium.Aglazed,ovalshapedenclosurenearthesoutheast

corneroftheatriumwouldhouseretailspaceonthegroundfloorandadining/conferenceroomatthe

mezzaninelevel.

Abovetheatrium,theprojectsfaadewouldbecladinanenergyefficientglasscurtainwall.Figure5,

p.14,andFigure6,p.15,presenttheprincipalMissionandFremontStreetelevationsoftheproposed

project.

Theprojectsofficecomponent(spanningfromapproximately55to375feetinheight)wouldhaveno

setbacksfromthepropertylinealongthewest(FremontStreet)andsouth(MissionStreet)faades.The

eastfaadewouldgenerallybesetbackapproximately14feetfromtheeastpropertyline,exceptfora

40footwidemechanicalelementrunningfromlevelsthreethrough24thatwouldextendapproximately

7.5feetintothisspace,andthuswouldbesetbackonlyapproximately6.5feetfromtheeastproperty

line.Theadjacentbuildingat50BealeStreetisabout6feetfromthepropertyline,meaningthe

separationbetweenthetwobuildingswouldbeabout12.5feet.Also,thenorthfaadewouldbesetback

approximately6.5feetfromthenorthernpropertyline.PlanningCodeSection132.1(c)requiresa15foot

setbackfromthetopofthebuildingbasetoaheightof300feet,increasingto21feetatthe375foottopof

thebuildingcrown,orparapet.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotconformtotherequiredsetbackfromthe

eastandnorthpropertylinespursuanttoSection132.1(c),andanexceptionwouldberequired,asis

permittedunderPlanningCodeSection309.Thetowerwouldhaveamaximumplanlengthof

approximately130feetandamaximumdiagonaldimensionapproximately180feet.Theaveragefloor

size,asmeasuredinaccordancewiththePlanningCodeSection102.9,wouldbeabout15,000squarefeet.

ThesedimensionswouldbeconsistentwiththebulklimitsofPlanningCodeSection270forthebuilding

base(upto103feetinheight)andlowertower(103feetto220feetinheight),butwouldexceedthe

permitteddiagonaldimensionandaveragefloorareafortheuppertower(above220feetinheight).

Accordingly,theprojectwouldrequireexceptionstotheuppertowerbulklimits,asispermittedunder

Section309.Figure7,p.16,showstherequestedtowersetbackandbulkexceptions.

Theprojectincludesdemolitionofthefourstorybuildingcurrentlyoccupyingtheprojectsite.The

existingbuildingcontainsapproximately95,000squarefeetofoffice(currentlyoccupiedwitheducational


33/158

GUARDRAIL SURROUNDING CATWALK

TOP OF CROWN 375

ROOF 345

325

300

50 BEALE BUILDING

(East Facade)

125 TO MECHANICAL

EXTENSION

19 TO BUILDING WALL

GROUND FLOOR

CEILING 50

STREET 0

14

FREMONT ST

Case No. 2006.1524E: 350 Mission Street . 207037

Figure 5Mission Street (South) Elevation

SOURCE: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP


34/158

15

TOP OF

CROWN 375

ROOF 345

453

450

45 FREMONT

BUILDING

(South Facade)

478

GROUND FLOOR

CEILING 50

STREET 0MISSION ST

GARAGE AND

LOADING DOCK

Case No. 2006.1524E: 350 Mission Street . 207037

Figure 6Fremont Street (West) Elevation

SOURCE: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP


35/158

Case

Build

16

SOURCE: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP

EAST ELEVATION (ADJACENT TO 50 BEALE; NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET) MISSION STREET (SOUTH) EL


36/158



uses),retailandaccessoryuses,includingabasement.Itcontainsnoparkingfacilitiesandfullyoccupies

thelot.Thebuilding,whichwasbuiltin1923,isnotcurrentlylistedintheCaliforniaRegisterof

HistoricalResourcesnorisitidentifiedassignificantinalocalregister,suchasArticle10andArticle11

ofthePlanningCode.TenantsintheexistingbuildingincludeHealdCollege,Starbucks,NoahsBagels,

LeesDeli,HappyDonutsandPowersourceJuiceBar.Approximately150full andparttimeemployees

workattheprojectsite.6

Theproposedprojectwouldbeconstructedatopamatfoundation,andisproposedtobeconstructedasa

pouredinplace,reinforcedconcretebuilding.Excavationforthethreebasementlevelsandthe

foundationwouldextendtoapproximately50feetbelowgrade,andwouldrequireremovalof

approximately35,000cubicyardsofsoil.

TheproposedprojectwouldincludeplantingofnewstreettreesontheFremontandMissionStreet

projectfrontages,incompliancewithPlanningCodeSection143,whichrequiresplantingaminimumof

one24inchboxtreeforevery20feetofprojectfrontage.(Anyexistingstreettreesremovedfor

constructionwouldbereplacedatthesameratio.)

Projectconstructionwouldtakeaboutapproximately22months,andoccupancyisanticipatedin2013.

Constructioncostsarecurrentlyestimatedatapproximately$85million.Theprojectarchitectis

Skidmore,Owings&MerrillLLP.

B. Project Setting

TheproposedprojectiswithinSanFranciscosFinancialDistrict,whichfunctionsasthedensely

developedcenterofcommerceandemploymentforthecityaswellasfortheninecountyBayArea.The

siteiswithintheC3ODowntownOfficeDistrict,onAssessorsBlock3710,Lot17.Theprojectsiteis

withinthe550SHeightandBulkdistrict,whichhasaheightlimitof550feetandbulklimitsforthe

loweranduppertowersrequiringsetbackssothatthefloorareadecreasesasthebuildingheight

increases.TheC3OdistrictisdescribedinPlanningCodeSection210.3asconsistingprimarilyofhigh

qualityofficedevelopmentfocusingonfinance,corporateheadquarters,andserviceindustries,and

servingasanemploymentcenterfortheregion.Itpermitsofficeusesandretailsales(including

restaurant)andpersonalservicesuses.TheC3ODistrictpermitsabasefloorarearatio(FAR)of9:1.In

thisdistrict,amaximumFARof18:1ispermittedwithtransferofdevelopmentrights(TDR),andthe

project,asproposed,wouldhaveaFARof18:1.7

6 HealdCollegehasindicated,inanAbbreviatedInstitutionalMasterPlandatedJune18,2010,andonfilewith

thePlanningDepartment,thattheinstitutionismovingitsSanFranciscocampusfrom350MissionStreetto

875HowardStreet.AccordingtoHealdCollegestaff,thismovewilloccuraroundtheendof2010.7 TransferofDevelopmentRightsistheprocessthroughwhichunitsofgrossfloorareamaybetransferred,

pursuanttotheprovisionsofthisSectionandArticle11ofthePlanningCode,fromaTransferLottoincreasethe

allowablegrossfloorareaofadevelopmentonaDevelopmentLotforthepurposeofpreservationofbuildings

anddistrictsofarchitectural, historical,andaestheticimportanceinthe C3(DowntownCommercialOffice)

District(Sec.128).


37/158



Theprojectsiteisflat;elevationatthesiteisapproximately3feet,SFD.8Theprojectvicinityisalsoflat

andlevel,althoughthegroundlevelrisesinelevationsouthwardtowardsRinconHill,whichbeginsits

slopeupwardatHowardStreetandrisestoover100feetinelevationlessthanonehalfmilefromthe

projectsitetothesouth.BecausetheoriginalSanFranciscoBayshorelineoncereachedtothecornerof

FirstandMissionStreets,theprojectsiteislocatedonartificialfillusedintheearlyyearsofCitygrowth.

Accordingly,theprojectsiteiswithintheMaherarea(baywardofthehistorichightideline),anareain

whichsoilinvestigationisrequiredperArticle20oftheSanFranciscoPublicWorksCodeand

Article22AofthePublicHealthCode(seeSectionE.15,Hazards,intheInitialStudy[AppendixA]).

Developmentinthevicinityconsistsprimarilyofofficespaceabovegroundfloorretailstores.Theblock

onwhichtheprojectsiteislocatedcontainsthreehighriseofficebuildings,inadditiontothefourstory

officeandretailbuildingontheprojectsite.Therearealsoofficetowerstothewest.TheTransbayTransit

TerminalislocateddiagonallyacrosstheintersectionofFremontandMissionStreetsfromtheproject

site.Immediatelysouthofthesite,acrossMissionStreet,isthenewlyconstructedMillenniumresidential

tower.

ThenearestopenspacestotheprojectsiteincludeJustinHermanPlaza(ontheEmbarcaderotothenorth

andsouthofMarketStreets),SueBiermanParkandMaritimePlaza(extendingwestfromJustinHerman

PlazabetweenClayandWashingtonStreets),YerbaBuenaGardens(aRedevelopmentAgencyproperty

atThirdandMissionStreets),andRinconPark(aRedevelopmentAgencypropertyalongthe

Embarcadero).Therearenumerousprivatelyowned,publiclyaccessibleplazas,gardensandopenspaces

nearby,includingontheprojectblockandtheblockimmediatelytothewest.

TheprojectvicinityisthesubjectofthedraftTransitCenterDistrictPlan(TCDP),acomprehensiveplan

forthesouthernportionofSanFranciscosdowntownFinancialDistrict,encompassingapproximately

145acresroughlyboundedbyMarketStreet,theEmbarcadero,FolsomStreet,andThirdStreet.The

TCDPwouldresultinnewplanningpoliciesandcontrolsforlanduse;urbanform,includingbuilding

heightanddesign;streetnetworkmodifications/publicrealmimprovements;historicpreservation;and

districtsustainability,includingthepotentialcreationofadistrictwidecombinedheatandpower

(cogeneration)system,theenhancementofgreenbuildingstandardsinthedistrict,andreductionsin

potablewateruseandstormwaterrunoff.Itwouldallowforheightlimitincreasesinsubareascomposed

ofmultipleparcelsorblockswithinthearea.TheTCDPbuildsuponotherplansinthevicinity,described

below:

TransbayTransitCenter/RailExtensionTheTransbayTransitCenterwillreplacetheexisting

TransbayTerminalwithanewmodernmultimodalTransitCenterthatwillservemultiplelocal

andregionaltransportationsystemsunderoneroofandanchortheTransbayRedevelopmentArea.

ThenewterminalwillreplacetheexistingTransbayTerminalastheterminalforserviceprovided

bytheSanFranciscoMunicipalRailway(Muni),ACTransit,SamTrans,andGoldenGateTransit,

alongwithGreyhoundbusservice.Assumingthatadditionalfundingissecured,theTransitCenter

8 SFDSanFranciscoDatum(seefootnote3,p.5).


38/158


39/158



andisalsoconsideringhighrisedevelopmentofasecondTJPAownedparcelonHowardStreetbetween

FirstandSecondStreets.ThePlanningDepartmenteitherhasapplicationsonfile,orhashadpreliminary

discussionswithdevelopers,fortowersat50FirstStreet(twotowers,an850foot,officetowerfrontingon

FirstStreetanda550footresidentialtowerfrontingonMissionStreet,alongwithretailspaceonthe

groundfloorofeach),222SecondStreet(26story,350foottallofficebuilding),181FremontStreet(877

foot,65storyresidentialandofficetower),41TehamaStreet(400foot,39storyresidentialbuilding),the

PalaceHotelatNewMontgomeryandMarketStreets(690foot,60storyresidentialtoweratthenon

historicsouthwesterncorneroftheexistinghotel),andthesouthwestcornerofThirdandFolsomStreets

(mixeduseprojectpotentiallycontainingtwotowers,alongwithhotelandconventionspace).Withthe

exceptionofthe222SecondStreetproject,theforegoingproposalswouldrequireadoption,asis

currentlyproposedunderthedraftTransitCenterDistrictplan,ofrezoningtopermitincreasedheight

limits.Inaddition,a550foottall,residentialtowerhasbeenproposedatthenortheastcornerofThird

andMissionStreetsthatwouldalsorehabilitatethehistoricAronsonBuildingandprovideanewlocation

fortheMexicanMuseum,whiletheSanFranciscoMuseumofModernArthasannouncedplansforan

expansionstructurewhichmayincludeatoweronHowardStreet,southeastoftheexistingmuseumbuildingonThirdStreet.Beyondtheseproposedprojects,anofficebuildinghasbeenapprovedand

constructionstartedandthenhaltedat535MissionStreet,whilethereisalongapproved23storyoffice

buildingat524HowardStreet.Additionally,GoldenGateUniversityhaspubliclydiscussedfutureplans

foratoweratitsMissionStreetcampus.

C. Project Sponsors Objectives

Theobjectivesoftheprojectsponsorincludethefollowing:

ConstructaLEEDGold,ClassAofficebuildingthatexemplifiessustainabledesignprinciplesand

minimizesthebuildingsimpactontheenvironment;

Createabuildingwithunique,worldclassarchitecturethatwillcomplementbuildingsand

plannedpublicimprovementsinthearea;

Constructthemaximumamountofofficespaceallowedunderthecurrentfloorarearatiolimit,

therebypromotingtheGeneralPlangoalofconcentratinggrowthinacompactdowntowncore

thatiswellservedbytransit;

Enhancethepedestrianenvironmentwithactiveretailspacesandaninvitingpublicopenspaceat

thebuildingsgroundandmezzaninelevels;

Encouragetheuseofalternativetransportationbyincludingcarshareparking,electricvehicle

chargingstations,bicycleparkingandshowersforbikecommuters;

Provideaccessoryautomobileparkinginanamountsufficienttomeettheneedsofprospective

officetenantsandtheirvisitors;and

Provideanadequatereturnforthebuildingsinvestors.

D. Intended Uses of the EIR

ThisisaprojectspecificEIR,intendedtoprovidereviewunderCEQAfortheproposed350Mission

Streetproject,toanalyzepotentialenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedprojectandidentifymitigation


40/158



measureswherethoseimpactsaresignificant,andtoaddresscumulativeimpactstowhichtheproposed

projectcouldmakeameaningfulcontribution.NootherprojectsareintendedtoreceiveCEQAreview

throughtheuseofthisEIR.

Approvals RequiredTheproposedprojectsofficeandretailusesareprincipalpermittedusesintheC3ODistrict.At375feet

inheight(including20footmechanicalpenthouse),theproposedprojectwouldalsobeconsistentwith

thesitesheightlimitof550feet.Therefore,nospecialapprovalsarerequiredwithrespecttolanduseor

buildingheight.

TheprojectwouldrequirePlanningCommissionreviewandapprovalunderSection309,PermitReview

inC3Districts,becausetheprojectwouldexceed50,000grosssquarefeetandbecausethesponsorwould

seekexceptions,pursuanttoSection309,tothefollowingPlanningCodesections:bulkrequirements

(Section270)becausetheuppertowerportionofthebuilding(aboveaheightof220feet)wouldexceed

themaximumpermittedfloorareaanddiagonalplandimension;andtherequirementforseparationof

towers(Section132.1(c)).TheCoderequirement,basedonthebuildings375footheight,isaminimum

towersetbackofupto21feetfromthecenterlineofadjacentstreet(s)andfrominteriorpropertyline(s).

Theprojectwouldhaveasetbackofapproximately14feetfromtheeasterninteriorpropertyline

(adjacenttothebuildingat50BealeStreet),butthissetbackwouldbepenetratedbya40footwide

mechanicalelementextendingapproximately7.5feetintothisspace.Theprojectwouldhave asetbackof

approximately6.5feetfromthenortherninteriorpropertyline(adjacenttothebuildingat45Fremont

Street).Theprojectwouldcomplywiththesetbackrequirementfromabuttingstreets.10

Inaddition,theprojectsponsorwouldseekanexceptiontotheCodesgroundlevelwindcurrent

requirements(Section148)becausetheprojectwouldnotreduceallexistingexceedancesofthewindspeedcriteriaforpedestrianandseatingcomfortandwouldresultinanetincreaseofoneexceedanceof

thepedestriancomfortcriterion.Section309alsopermitstheimpositionofcertainconditionsinregardto

suchmattersasaprojectssitinganddesign;view,parking,trafficandtransiteffects;energy

consumption;pedestrianenvironment;andothermatters.Theproposedprojectwouldalsobesubjectto

reviewandapprovalpursuanttoPlanningCodeSection321(OfficeDevelopment:AnnualLimit)and

Sections146and295,concerningshadowimpacts.

Theprojectwouldhaveanapproximately33footwidedrivewayonFremontStreettoprovideaccessto

vehicleparkingandoffstreetloadingareas.UnderPlanningCodeSection155(s)(5)(A),themaximum

combinedparkingloadingdrivewaywidthis27feet.Therefore,theproposedprojectwouldrequireavariancefromthisrequirement.

TheprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywiththeJobsHousingLinkageProgram(PlanningCodeSecs.

313et.seq.),whichwouldrequirethattheprojectsponsoreitherfundtheconstructionof92affordable

10 ThesetbacksfromFremontandMissionStreets,eachofwhichis82feet,6inchesinwidth,wouldbemorethan

41feet.


41/158



housingunits11orpayaninlieufeetotheCityintheamountof$19.89pergrosssquarefootofoffice

space.

Asadowntownofficeproject,theprojectwouldalsobesubjecttocertainotherPlanningCodesections

beyondthosenotedabove:Section138.1,pedestrianstreetscapeimprovements;Section139,downtown

parkfees;Section143,streettrees;Section149,publicartrequirements;Section163,transportation

managementandtransportationbrokerageservices;Section164,SanFranciscoResidentPlacementand

TrainingProgram;Section165,childcareplansandchildcarebrokerage;aswellastransitdevelopment

impactfeesunderArticle38oftheAdministrativeCode.

Inaddition,constructionmayrequireuseofoneormoreofthecurblanesadjacenttotheprojectsitefora

pedestrianwalkway,whichwouldrequireastreetspacepermitfromtheBureauofStreetUseand

MappingoftheDepartmentofPublicWorksandaspecialtrafficpermitfromtheMunicipal

TransportationAgencySustainableStreetsDivision.

Theprojectwouldalsorequirebuildingpermits,whichwouldrequirereviewandapprovalbythe

PlanningDepartmentandDepartmentofBuildingInspection(DBI).

Approvals Summary

Planning Commission

ApprovaloftheprojectunderPlanningCodeSection309,includingexceptionswithregardtobuildingbulk(Section270,includinglessthantherequireduppertowervolumereductionunderSection270(d)(3)(B)),separationoftowers(Section132.1(c)),groundlevelwinds(Section148),andtheprohibitiononcurbcutsalongTransitPreferentialStreetswhereanalternativefrontageisavailable(Section155(r)(4)).

Variancefromthemaximumdrivewaywidth,perPlanningCode

Section155(s)(5)(A),of27feet.

AllocationofofficespaceunderPlanningCodeSection321(OfficeDevelopmentAnnualLimit).

Department of Building Inspection

Demolition,site,andbuildingpermits.

Department of Public Works

StreetSpacePermitfromtheBureauofStreetUseandMappingforuseofapublicstreetspaceduringprojectconstruction(forapedestrianwalkway)

Municipal Transportation Agency

SpecialTrafficPermitfromtheMunicipalTransportationAgencySustainableStreetsDivisionforuseofapublicstreetspaceduringprojectconstruction(forapedestrianwalkway)

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

AuthoritytoConstructandPermittoOperatetheproposeddieselpoweredemergencygenerator.

11 Basedon0.00027housingunitspergrosssquarefootofofficedevelopmentandaprojectof340,000squarefeet

ofgrossfloorareaofofficespace,perPlanningCodeSection313.5.


42/158


CHAPTER III

Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Plans

Thischapterdescribestheprojectsinconsistencies,ifany,withapplicableplansandpolicies,including

objectivesandpoliciesoftheSanFranciscoGeneralPlan.Thischapteralsodiscussestheprojects

compliancewithSanFranciscoPlanningCode,whichimplementstheGeneralPlan.Whereinconsistencies

areidentifiedthatcouldresultinphysicaleffectsontheenvironment,thereaderisdirectedtoanalysisof

thoseeffectinChapterIV,EnvironmentalSetting,Impacts,andMitigationMeasures.

San Francisco General PlanTheSanFranciscoGeneralPlancontains10elements(CommerceandIndustry,RecreationandOpen

Space,Residence,CommunityFacilities,UrbanDesign,EnvironmentalProtection,Transportation,Air

Quality,CommunitySafety,andArts)thatprovidegoals,policies,andobjectivesforthephysical

developmentoftheCity.Inaddition,theGeneralPlanincludesareaplansthatoutlinegoalsand

objectivesforspecificgeographicplanningareas,suchasthegreaterdowntown,includingtheproject

site,policiesforwhicharecontainedintheDowntownPlan,anareaplanwithintheGeneralPlan.

AconflictbetweenaproposedprojectandaGeneralPlanpolicydoesnot,initself,indicateasignificant

effectontheenvironmentwithinthecontextoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA).Any

physicalenvironmentalimpactsthatcouldresultfromsuchconflictsareanalyzedinthisEIR.Ingeneral,

potentialconflictswiththeGeneralPlanareconsideredbythedecisionsmakers(normallythePlanning

Commission)independentlyoftheenvironmentalreviewprocess.Thus,inadditiontoconsidering

inconsistenciesthataffectenvironmentalissues,thePlanningCommissionconsidersotherpotential

inconsistencieswiththeGeneralPlan,independentlyoftheenvironmentalreviewprocess,aspartofthe

decisiontoapproveordisapproveaproposedproject.Anypotentialconflictnotidentifiedinthis

environmentaldocumentwouldbeconsideredinthatcontextandwouldnotalterthephysical

environmentaleffectsoftheproposedprojectthatareanalyzedinthisEIR.

Downtown Plan

TheprojectsiteiswithintheareacoveredbytheDowntownPlan,anareaplanwithintheGeneralPlan.

CenteredonMarketStreet,thePlancoversanarearoughlyboundedbyVanNessAvenuetothewest,

theEmbarcaderototheeast,FolsomStreettothesouth,andthenorthernedgeoftheFinancialDistrictto

thenorth.ThePlancontainsobjectivesandpoliciesthataddressthefollowingissues:provisionofspace

forcommerce,housing,andopenspace;preservationofthepast;urbanform;andmovementto,from,

andwithinthedowntownarea(transportation).TheDowntownPlanwasintendedtomaintaina

compactdowntowncoreanddirectgrowthtoareaswithdevelopablespaceandeasytransitaccessibility


43/158

III. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS


sothatdowntownwouldencompassacompactmixofactivities,historicalvalues,anddistinctive

architectureandurbanformsthatengenderaspecialexcitementreflectiveofaworldcity(Downtown

Plan,Introduction[p.II.1.1ofprintedversion]).TheDowntownPlanlimitsgrowthinthetraditional

downtown,centeredintheFinancialDistrict,throughheightlimitsandFARs(floorarearatios).

OneofthefundamentalconceptsembodiedwithintheDowntownPlanistoexpandtheCitys

downtownofficecoresouthfromitstraditionallocusnorthofMarketStreet,inawaythatprotectsthe

finescaleandrichmixofusesinChinatown,JacksonSquare,KearnyStreet,UnionSquare,MidMarket,

NorthofMarketTenderloin,andthehotelentertainmentareanearMasonStreet.Thus,theDowntown

Planstates,Majorofficetowerscanbeconstructedonsitesremaininginthefinancialcorenorthand

southofMarketandinanexpandedareasouthofMarketcenteredontheTransbayBusTerminal.The

rezoningthataccompaniedadoptionoftheDowntownPlanestablishedtheCitysgreatestheightlimits

(450to550feet)inproximitytotheTransbayTerminal,includingtheprojectsite.12Theprojectsite,which

isatthesouthwestperimeterofthisareaofexpansiveheightlimits,hasapermittedheightof550feet.

ShortlyaftertheDowntownPlanwasadopted,SanFranciscovotersapprovedPropositionM,the

AccountablePlanningInitiative,that,amongotherthings,establishedalimitof950,000squarefeetof

officespacethatcanbeapprovedineachannualperiodendinginmidOctober.Ofthattotal,

75,000squarefeetisreservedforsmallerbuildingsofbetween25,000and49,999squarefeet.(Seefurther

discussionofPropositionM,includingtheeightprioritypoliciesestablishedbythemeasure,onp.35.)

TheproposedprojectwouldbeconsistentwiththeDowntownPlansstatedgoalofencouragingexpansion

ofthedowntownofficecoreinthegeneralvicinityoftheTransbayTerminalwhileavoidingundesirable

consequenceswhichcannotbemitigated(Policy1.1).Theprojectwouldbegenerallyconsistentwithother

objectivesandpoliciesoftheDowntownPlan,withthepossibleexceptionofthefollowing:

Policy1.1: Encouragedevelopmentwhichproducessubstantialnetbenefitsandminimizes

undesirableconsequences.Discouragedevelopmentwhichhassubstantialundesirable

consequenceswhichcannotbemitigated.

Policy2.1 Encourageprimedowntownofficeactivitiestogrowaslongasundesirable

consequencesofsuchgrowthcanbecontrolled.

ThepotentialundesirableconsequencesofaprojectintheDowntownPlanareathatare

discussedinthetextaccompanyingPolicy2.1(andalsoreferencedinPolicy1.1)includeimpacts

relatedtooutofscaleofficedevelopmentonneighborhoodcharacter;lossofhistoricalresources;

increasedshadingofstreetsandpubliclyaccessibleopenspace;increasedpedestrianlevelwinds;increasedtrafficandparkingdemand,pollutantemissions,andenergyuse;overburdenedpublic

transit;increasedtrafficnoise;increasedpressureonhousingsupplyresultingfromincreased

employment;andconversionofhousing,retail,andservicecommercialspacetoofficespace.

Physicaleffectsrelatedtocertainoftheseissues,includingshadow,wind,transportation,andair

12 Subsequentrezoninghasexpandedtheareaofheightlimitsof400to550feettolocationsalongthenorthsideof

Fols

Documents

350 Mission Street Draft EIR