PROJECT
The proje
frontages
Harrison
story reta
Tandang
The prop
commerci
feet. The p
1,020 squa
49,896 squ
The propo
parking o
The proje
side of the
would be
The propo
across the
excavation
Figure 1 o
plans and
Initi
Case No.:
Project Addr
Zoning:
Block/Lot:
Lot Size:
Plan Area:
Project Spon
Staff Contac
DESCRIPTIO
ect site is loca
along 4th Str
Street), withi
il building fo
Sora Street.
osed project
ial building w
proposed bui
are feet of ph
uare feet, with
osed project w
or loading is p
ct would slig
e parcel woul
vegetated.
osed building
e entire site,
n of approxim
on page 2 sho
d elevations.
ial Study
2017‐
ress: 345 4
Mixe
85‐X
3751/
9,200
Easte
nsor: Mich
t: Josh P
ON
ated on the n
eet, Tandang
in the South
ormerly used
would demo
with ground‐f
ilding would
otovoltaic pan
h 2,657 square
would includ
proposed.
ghtly decrease
ld contain a 7
g would be su
at a depth o
mately 1,500 c
ows the proje
y – Com
‐001690ENV
4th Street
ed Use‐Office
Height and B
/165
0 square feet
ern Neighborh
hael Stanton, S
Pollak, josh.p
northeast side
g Sora Street, a
of Market n
as a bicycle s
olish the exis
floor retail sp
also include
nels, and 825
e feet of retail
de 11 Class I b
e the existing
780 square‐foo
upported by
of approxima
cubic yards of
ect location. F
mmunity
(MUO)
Bulk District
hoods Area P
Stanton Archi
pollak@sfgov.
e of 4th Street
and Helen Ma
neighborhood
shop with an
sting building
pace and six f
a roof deck,
square feet o
l space.
bicycle spaces
impervious s
ot privately o
a structural s
tely 5 feet ov
f soil.
Figures 2 thro
Plan Ev
Plan
itecture, 415‐8
org, 415‐575‐8
t between Fol
acintosh Lane
d. The project
adjacent surf
g and constru
floors of offic
with 4,100 sq
of living roof.
s, and 5 Class
surface cover
owned public
slab spanning
ver an area o
ough 9 on pa
valuatio
865‐900
8766
lsom Harriso
e (a private d
t site current
face parking l
uct an 85‐foo
ce space, total
quare feet of u
The total offi
s II bicycle sp
rage on the si
c open space,
g piles. Excav
of 9,200 squa
ages 3 throug
n
on Streets, an
drive owned b
ly contains a
lot (accessed
ot tall, seven
ling 53,765 s
usable open s
ice space wou
paces. No off‐
ite, as the nor
a portion of w
vation would
are feet, for a
gh 10 show p
nd has
by 788
a two‐
along
‐story
square
space,
uld be
‐street
rthern
which
occur
a total
project
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1650 Mission St. Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-2479
Reception: 415.558.6378
Fax: 415.558.6409
Planning Information: 415.558.6377
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
Figure
1. Location M
Map
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
2
I.ID ml
Daty City
i~ FRANCISCO ANNINGDEP ARTMENT
San Francisco
302 fl
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
Figu
ure 2. Site Plann
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
3 "G~
l"'z
I~
zz
i~
c,g
Cl
Ill i 3: !
EX
IST
ING
2 S
TO
RY
R
ET
AI.
BU
WN
G
€!l:J
I
EX
IST
l'fG
8 S
TO
RY
RE
S[)
Etm
A1
.
I I
EX
JST
I-IG
3ST
OR
Y
RET
AI.J
CO
MM
UN
flY B
UtU
)l;G
I
b ~
~r;,,".
~-;
~!!:
'
=
Sl<
GU
STO
RY
R
ET
AI.
BU
LOIN
G
E)(
JST
ING
4ST
OR
Y
EllU
CA
TlO
NA
I. B
UI.D
fNG
EXIS
TIN
G &
STO
RY
O
FF
ICE
BIJ
LDIN
G
-B
UU
>IN
G W
ITH
PA
RK
ING
GA
RA
GE
~--
----
----
----
--~
--~"
°"==-
------
------
------
---""'
..i!!~
+--
--;
AN
!l R
ET
AL
SP
AC
E
11
~'.
(J'
r~:.,_::
.. ~:~l
~JFL
~ ~t
n:c~
"--
AD
JAC
EN
T.P
AR
KIN
G ~
LOT
OF
:10
RlZ
AI..
ST
RE
ET
N
I I
o 11
61
I 3
l 6
4
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
Figure 3. G
Ground Leveel Plan
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
4 "G~
l"'z
I~
zz
i~
c,g
Cl
Ill i 3: !
,M
=------
.:::: I
I 1M
-:.:::
: ;M
1M
,~
~
;t ~
,~
~,
I I
_J_
Ofl8
Y ___
I i.
I Ill I
•
z~
I=
Sw
ill
iliz
a:
o!
t; -"
'a II•
I r,
s,,:
.~
l7rl
2:!11
}!
!ii
Q~~
i.j2
18
x[ .
.
~
B ____ .
p :a
f q
E ,4 ·-e
-r
T/\
.NO
IIN
G 5
0R
A S
T>
lee"
T
115'
-0'
I P
11 .
'
. 1
t I '
U' \
, !
' f
E h [
II :1 1;
l i .-J=
r--
t•·-~1
I
jl
I
I !!
~
' ' I
le
CO
IJR
TYA
RO
O
F A
DJA
CE
NT
SU
11.D
ING
"' 0
a·
IE"
32
'
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
Figgure 4. Typica
al Levels 2, 4,, and 6 Plan
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
5 "G~
l"'z
I~
zz
i~
c,g
Cl
Ill i 3: !
CA
mL
EV
ER
EO
E
HT
RA
NC
E C
AN
OP
Y
AT
LE
VB
. 1
BaO
W
TA
NO
AN
G S
OR
A S
TR
EE
T
77
.1•
MIX
OF
TRA
NS
PA
AE
NT.
SE
M~
TRA
NS
PA
RE
NT.
AN
O O
PA
OU
E
PA
NE
LS
2 ~ .. lo
N
"t i
O'n
cr
O' ll
I
0'-1
0" ~
ON
TA
L
PRO
JEC
TIO
N A
T P
RO
PE
RTY
LIN
E
• 2"
P
ER
SE
C.1
30.c
.1.B
0 e·
16
" l2
"
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
FFigure 5. Typi
ical Levels 3 aand 5 Plan
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
6 "G~
l"'z
I~
zz
i~
c,g
Cl
Ill i 3: !
!'i; "' ~
~ :,: 8 'z ~ :: z ':!l "' :,:
I VE
RTI
CA
i. S
UN
lC
G)
~I
I _J
!
48
'-8
"
41H
ST
RE
ET
l!I
8 OFF
ICE
74
12
SF
IW-0
'
AC
CE
SS
IBlE
TE
RR
AC
E O
N
LE
VE
LS
2-e
. SE
E A
03
3 F
OR
D
ET
AIL
S I!)
18
'•8
' 2
7'-
2"
TAN
OA
NG
SO
RA
STR
EE
T
MIX
OF
TRA
NSP
AR
ENT
. SEM
J. T
RA
NS
PA
RE
NT
. AN
D O
PA
QU
E
PA
NE
LS .c
.
b i !Cl'
·,.~
'? ! ie i i
-~
I b b
ie .,
G
O'l~
1· ff-"
r'
., lo
N
0'·
10"
HO
I\IZ
ON
TA
l.
PR
OJE
CTI
ON
AT
PRO
PER
TY
ll'I
E
PE
R S
EC
. 13&
.c. 1
.8
"' 0
8"
lfi'
3
2•
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
Figure
e 6. Level 7 Plan
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
7 "G~
l"'z
I~
zz
i~
c,g
Cl
Ill i 3: !
w 5 ,: 8 !z j z ~
w
,:
1'-3
,112
" 8
4'-
2"
6'-
31
4
TH
S1
RE
ET
1'-3
,112
" G'-
2"
C!
AC
CE
SS
l3LE
LO
GG
IA
ON
LE
VB
. 7 O
PE
N
ON
>~
OF
P
aU
MIT
ER
I I
' I
I 0
, -,
-11
--
-.,.
F
--i
i r 2
s: ..,
II• O
FFIC
E
~ ;ffl
I ",-
;;.
2 ~
II : !:! !il
fc':JI
G
.D
• ~l
G.D
'i ·It
.J
~i 8
8'·
8"
TA
NO
AN
G S
OR
A S
lRE
ET
11
-10
-HO
RIZ
ON
TA
L
PR
OJE
CT
ION
AT
P
RO
i'ER
lY U
NE
P
ER
SE
C.1
30.c
. l.S
I I I I
"' o
s·
15•
32
· H
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
Figur
re 7. Roof Plann
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
8 "G~
l"'z
I~
zz
i~
c,g
Cl
Ill i 3: !
10
'-r
21•.
g 1
/'Z'
W-0
' 45
'-7
1fr
1
8'-
0-
8'•
4"
QT
-8"
g,.o
-
CT
HST
RE
ET
_!,_
~~T~I
A80
IIE
; 10
20>
Sf
11
I
'J ~
GZi
+H
1 '
~ tititA
TR®F
~ I 1
111
RI
H-ft
•
··-··
7
'"
~ BU
l.T-I
NSE
A
PI.A
NTE
:RS
AN
I O
N R
OO
F
w :s i ~ ~ :I z i
C
-r'P"
~~-~
~
\I
MEC
H
/ ~
' ,
' ,
..........
'
I V
~
/\
~S1
J~\
I O
fEN
TO
,
i;n ,
,
l/ .. 1
;= ~
-ffiS
V
b
~'
V
ii!:
I.Y
I=!
• [;
\
Ef:1
:1 ~
1-t
·~
lTIT
[l
f++
t+-H
~
_l: :.
! , , , , , ,
~,,I
I 11
1111
1 I I
'1::~
:J~ll..lJ
IIL
' ~
4 ·*
10
'-r
l T
OT
AL
RO
OF
AR
EA
: 85
50 S
F
7f
MA
XIM
IA1
AU
.()W
AB
l.E
CO
\IE
RE
OA
RE
A~
): 25
00 S
f PR
OPO
SEO
Co.
/ER
EO
AR
EA
: 17
l50
Sf
PER
PC
SE
C~
.b.1
. 11-
IE M
AX
. CO
VER
ED A
REA
CA
N B
E IN
CR
EASE
D T
O~
T
HR
OU
GH
TH
E U
SE
OF
UN
CO
VE
RE
D R
OO
FT
OP
ME
CH
AN
ICA
L S
CR
EE
NIN
G
BE
TT
ER
RO
OF
OR
DIN
AN
CE
RE
QU
IRE
ME
NT
S:
1-
MU
ST
BE
SO
l,iE
CO
MB
INA
TIO
N O
F P
V P
AN
EL
S O
R U
V1N
G R
OO
F
PY
PN
<E
LS
. 1
02
0•
Sf'
PR
OP
OS
ED
(11
.0+"
11,)
LM
NG
RO
OF
: 82
~ S
F P
RO
PO
SE
D (
Q.f
t) · ft M
T
OT
AL
CO
MB
INED
AR
EA
: 21
.5~
OF
RO
OF
AR
EA
(A
S R
EO
UIR
EO
BY
BE
TT
ER
R
OO
I' O
RO
lN.A
NC
E}
~-S
-
11
6'·0
"
TA
NO
AN
G S
OR
A S
TR
EE
T
g,.
o-
-
" ,,
OU
TOO
OR
OP
E'N
SP
AC
E:
VE
GE
TA
TE
D R
OO
F· 8
50+
SF
M
EC
HA
N!C
Al S
UP
PO
RT
· +IO
SF
USA
BLE
OPE
N S
PAC
E:
RO
OF
TE
RR
AC
'E •
410
0 S
F
0 _
JI'
1
6'
J2
'
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
Figure 8
. North Elevaation
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
9 "G~
l"'z
I~
zz
i~
c,g
Cl
Ill i 3: !
50 R
IZA
i. S
TRE
ET
lo S!
TAl'D
AN
G S
OR
A S
TR
EE
T
PR
OP
OS
ED
34~
FO
UR
TH
STR
EE
T O
FFIC
E B
IJU
)IN
G
_...----
ME
GR
AI.
CO
i.OR
EX
POSE
D
CO
NC
R.E
TE W
ALL
WIT
H
IRR
EG
\A.A
A H
OR
IZO
NTA
L R
DG
ES
BR
US
H H
AM
ME
RE
D
___,----
RE
CE
SS
ED
NU
MB
ER
S C
AS
T IN
C
ON
CR
ETE
WA
LL
__
_..
~---
RA
TE
D W
/,il
AT
INT
ER
IOR
LO
T
LR-IE
FOU
RTH
ST
RE
ET
I::
I 31JO
FOU
RTH
-STREET
o a·
!!!!
!!!I
16
" .1
2·
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion
Figure 9
9. East Elevattion
345 4th 2017-00169
Street 90ENV
10
;., "'
i 0
1(3311:)S H:>3~ :10 dOL OL
.i·
..__ ____ .1- .101
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Community Initial Study
PROJECT
The propo
Actions b
L
bu
O
co
Actions b
D
ex
R
H
St
of
A
A
The Large
project. T
determina
EVALUAT
This initia
the progra
(Eastern N
significan
project‐lev
which as
Neighbor
in the PE
declaratio
environm
Neighbor
CEQA Gu
Mitigation
applicable
checklist.
1 San Francis
Planning
http://ww
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
APPROVALS
osed project a
by the Plannin
arge Project A
uilding excee
Office Develo
onstructing be
by other City
Demolition an
xisting buildi
Review for com
Health)
tormwater M
f an area grea
Approval of a
Agency’s color
e Project Aut
The Approva
ation pursuan
ION OF ENVIR
al study evalu
ammatic envi
Neighborhood
nt impacts tha
vel, cumulati
a result of
hoods PEIR w
EIR. Such imp
on or enviro
mental review
hoods PEIR a
uidelines secti
n measures id
e to the propo
sco Planning Dep
g Department C
ww.sf‐planning.
ion
S
at 345 4th Stree
ng Commissi
Authorization
eding 75 feet i
opment Auth
etween 25,000
Departments
nd Building P
ng and constr
mpliance with
Management P
ater than 5,000
a proposed
r curb program
thorization ap
l Action dat
nt to Section 3
RONMENTAL
uates whethe
ironmental im
ds PEIR).1 Th
at: (1) are pecu
ve, or off‐site
substantial n
was certified,
pacts, if any,
onmental im
w shall be
and this proje
ion 15183.
dentified in t
osed project a
partment, Easter
ase No. 2004.016
org/index.aspx?p
et would requ
ion
n pursuant to
in height and
horization p
0 and 49,999 s
s
Permits (Depa
ruction of the
h Article 22A
Plan (San Fran
0 square feet
passenger lo
m)
pproval by th
e establishes
31.04(h) of the
EFFECTS
r the environ
mpact report
he initial study
uliar to the p
e effects in the
new informat
are determin
, will be eva
mpact report
required for
ect‐specific in
the PEIR are
are provided
rn Neighborhood
60E, State Cleari
page=1893, acces
uire the follow
o Planning Co
new construc
ursuant to
square feet of
artment of Bu
e proposed pr
A of the San Fr
ncisco Public
oading space
he Planning C
the start of
e San Francisc
nmental impa
for the Easter
y considers w
roject or proj
e PEIR; or (3)
tion that wa
ned to have a
aluated in a p
. If no suc
r the projec
nitial study in
discussed un
under the M
ds Rezoning and
nghouse No. 200
ssed August 17, 2
wing approva
ode Section 32
ction exceedin
Planning Co
f office space
uilding Inspec
roject;
rancisco Heal
c Utilities Com
e (San Franci
Commission
f the 30‐day
co Administra
acts of the pro
rn Neighborh
whether the p
ect site; (2) w
) are previous
as not known
a more severe
project‐specif
ch impacts
ct beyond th
n accordance w
nder each top
Mitigation Mea
d Area Plans Fina
05032048, certifie
2012.
als:
29 for the con
ng 25,000 squ
ode Section
ction) for the
lth Code (Dep
mmission), g
isco Municip
is the Appro
appeal perio
ative Code.
oposed projec
hoods Rezoni
roposed proje
were not ident
sly identified
n at the time
e adverse imp
fic, focused m
are identifie
hat provided
with CEQA s
pic area, and
asures section
al Environmenta
ed August 7, 20
345 4th 2017-00169
nstruction of a
uare feet
321 for pr
e demolition
partment of P
round distur
pal Transpor
oval Action fo
od for this C
ct are address
ing and Area
ect would res
tified as signi
d significant e
e that the Ea
pact than disc
mitigated neg
ed, no addi
d in the Ea
section 21083.
measures th
n at the end o
al Impact Report
08. Available on
Street 90ENV
11
a new
rojects
of the
Public
rbance
tation
or the
CEQA
sed in
Plans
sult in
ificant
ffects,
astern
cussed
gative
itional
astern
.3 and
hat are
of this
(PEIR),
nline at:
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Community Initial Study
The Easte
cultural re
significan
measures
those rela
transporta
cumulativ
of historic
The propo
49,896 squ
bicycle sp
initial stu
greater se
CHANGES
Since the
statutes, a
environm
areas. As
measures
significan
‐ St
in
‐ St
le
ef
‐ Sa
T
ad
th
‐ Sa
of
‐ Sa
En
20
‐ Sa
R
R
‐ U
p
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ern Neighbor
esources, sha
nt cumulative
were identifi
ated to land
ation (progra
ve transit imp
cal resources)
osed project
uare feet of o
paces, and a r
dy, the propo
everity than w
S IN THE REG
certification
and funding
ment and/or en
discussed in
have imple
nt impacts ide
tate legislatio
nfill projects in
tate legislatio
evel of service
ffective March
an Francisco
ransit Effecti
doption by va
he Transporta
an Francisco
f Entertainme
an Francisco
nhanced Ven
014 (see initia
an Francisco
Recreation and
Recreation sect
Urban Water
rocess (see in
ion
rhoods PEIR
dow, noise, a
e impacts rel
ied for the ab
use (cumula
am‐level and
pacts on seven
, and shadow
would includ
office space,
roof deck wit
osed project w
were already a
ULATORY EN
of the Easte
measures ha
nvironmental
each topic ar
emented or
ntified in the
on amending C
n transit prio
on amending
e (LOS) analy
h 2016 (see “C
Bicycle Plan
iveness Proje
arious City a
ation Sustaina
ordinance es
ent effective Ju
o ordinances
ntilation Requ
al study Air Q
Clean and
d Open Space
tion).
Management
nitial study Ut
R identified s
air quality, an
ated to land
ove impacts a
ative impacts
cumulative
n Muni lines)
w (program‐le
de constructio
2,657 square
th 4,100 squar
would not res
analyzed and
NVIRONMENT
ern Neighbor
ave been ado
l review meth
rea referenced
will implem
PEIR. These
CEQA to elim
rity areas, eff
CEQA and S
ysis of autom
CEQA Section
update adop
ect (aka “Mu
gencies in 20
ability Progra
stablishing No
une 2015 (see
establishing
uired for Urba
Quality section
Safe Parks
e Element of t
t Plan adopt
tilities and Se
significant im
nd hazardous
use, transpo
and reduced a
s on Produc
traffic impac
, cultural reso
evel impacts o
on of a new 8
feet of retail
re feet of usa
sult in new, si
disclosed in
rhoods PEIR
opted, passed
hodology for
d below, these
ment mitigatio
include:
minate conside
fective Januar
San Francisco
mobile delay w
n 21099” head
ption in June
uni Forward
14, Propositio
m (see initial
oise Regulati
e initial study
Constructio
an Infill Sensit
n).
Bond passag
the General P
tion in 2011
rvice Systems
mpacts relate
s materials. A
ortation, and
all impacts to
ction, Distribu
cts at nine in
ources (cumu
on parks).
85‐foot tall, s
l space, 11 Cl
able open spa
ignificant env
the Eastern N
in 2008, sev
d, or are und
projects in th
e policies, reg
on measures
eration of aes
ry 2014.
o Planning Co
with vehicle
ding below).
e 2009, Better
d”) adoption
on A and B p
study Transp
ions Related t
y Noise section
on Dust Con
tive Use Dev
ge in Novem
Plan adoption
and Sewer S
s section).
d to land u
Additionally, t
d cultural res
o less‐than‐sig
ution, and R
ntersections; p
ulative impact
seven‐story of
lass I bicycle
ace . As discu
vironmental e
Neighborhood
veral new po
derway that a
he Eastern Ne
gulations, sta
s or further
sthetics and p
ommission re
miles travele
r Streets Plan
in March 2
passage in No
portation sect
to Residentia
n).
ntrol, effectiv
elopments, am
mber 2012 a
n in April 201
System Impr
345 4th 2017-00169
se, transport
the PEIR iden
sources. Mitig
gnificant exce
Repair (PDR)
program‐leve
ts from demo
ffice building
e spaces, 5 Cl
ussed below i
effects, or effe
ds PEIR.
olicies, regula
affect the ph
eighborhoods
atutes, and fun
reduce less‐
parking impac
esolution repl
ed (VMT) ana
n adoption in
2014, Vision
ovember 2014
tion).
al Uses near P
ve July 2008
mended Dece
and San Fran
14 (see initial
rovement Pro
Street 90ENV
12
tation,
ntified
gation
ept for
use),
el and
olition
g with
lass II
in this
ects of
ations,
hysical
s plan
nding
‐than‐
cts for
lacing
alysis,
2010,
Zero
4, and
Places
, and
ember
ncisco
study
ogram
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING D l!PAATMa:NT
Community Initial Study
‐ A
M
Aesthetic
In accorda
Projects –
result in s
a)
b)
c)
The prop
aesthetics
are includ
Automob
In additio
develop r
transporta
developm
21099(b)(2
pursuant
measures
environm
In January
Guidelines
projects b
the future
OPR’s rec
impacts o
impacts o
and mitig
discussed
Intelligen
Instead, a
2 San Francis
4th Stree
noted), i
2017‐0013 This docum
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
Article 22A of
Materials secti
cs and Parkin
ance with CE
– aesthetics an
significant env
) The project i
) The project
) The project i
osed project
s or parking i
ded in the pro
bile Delay and
on, CEQA Se
revisions to
ation impact
ment of multi
2) states that
to Section 2
of vehicular
ment under CE
y 2016, OPR p
s on Evaluatin
be measured u
e certification
commendatio
of projects (Re
on non‐autom
gation measur
d in this chec
t Traffic Ma
a VMT analysi
sco Planning Dep
et, San Francisco
is available for re
1690ENV.
ment is available
ion
the Health C
on).
ng
EQA Section 2
nd parking sh
vironmental e
is in a transit
is on an infill
is residential,
meets each o
n determinin
oject descripti
d Vehicle Mi
ection 21099(b
the CEQA G
ts of projects
imodal trans
upon certifica
21099(b)(1), a
capacity or t
EQA.
published for
ng Transportat
using a vehic
of the revised
n to use the V
esolution 195
mobile modes
res from the E
cklist, includ
anagement, E
is is provided
partment. Eligib
o, February 28, 2
eview at the San
online at: https:/
Code amendm
21099 – Mode
hall not be co
effects, provid
priority area;
site; and
mixed‐use re
of the above
ng the signific
on.
les Traveled
b)(1) requires
Guidelines es
s that “prom
sportation ne
ation of the re
utomobile de
traffic conges
r public review
tion Impacts in
cle miles trav
d CEQA Guid
VMT metric in
579). (Note: th
of travel suc
Eastern Neigh
ding PEIR M
E‐3: Enhance
d in the Trans
ility Checklist: C
2018. This docum
n Francisco Plann
//www.opr.ca.go
ments effectiv
ernization of T
onsidered in
ded the projec
;
esidential, or
three criteria
cance of proje
s that the Sta
stablishing c
mote the red
etworks, and
evised guidel
elay, as desc
stion shall no
w and comme
n CEQA3 reco
veled (VMT) m
delines, the S
nstead of auto
he VMT metr
ch as transit,
hborhoods PE
itigation Mea
ed Funding,
sportation sec
CEQA Section 21
ment (and all o
ning Department
ov/s_sb743.php.
ve August 20
Transportatio
determining
ct meets all o
an employme
a and thus, th
ect impacts u
ate Office of
criteria for d
duction of g
a diversity
lines for dete
cribed solely
ot be conside
ent a Revised
ommending
metric. On M
San Francisco
omobile dela
ric does not a
walking, and
EIR associated
asures E‐1: T
and E‐4: In
ction.
099 – Moderniza
other documents
t, 1650 Mission S
13 (see initial
on Analysis fo
if a project h
f the followin
ent center.
his checklist
under CEQA.2
Planning an
etermining t
greenhouse g
of land use
ermining tran
by level of
red a signific
Proposal on U
that transpor
March 3, 2016,
Planning Co
ay to evaluate
apply to the
d bicycling.) T
d with autom
Traffic Signa
ntelligent Tra
ation of Transpor
s cited in this re
Street, Suite 400 a
345 4th 2017-00169
l study Haza
or Transit Ori
has the potent
ng three criter
does not con2 Project eleva
nd Research (
the significan
gas emissions
s.” CEQA Se
nsportation im
service or si
cant impact o
Updates to the C
rtation impac
, in anticipati
mmission ad
e the transpor
analysis of p
Therefore, im
mobile delay a
al Installation
affic Manage
rtation Analysis
eport, unless oth
as part of Case F
Street 90ENV
13
rdous
iented
tial to
ria:
nsider
ations
(OPR)
nce of
s, the
ection
mpacts
imilar
on the
CEQA
cts for
ion of
opted
tation
project
mpacts
re not
n, E‐2:
ement.
for 345
herwise
File No.
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Community Initial Study
Topics:
1. LANDPLAN
a) Physica
b) Conflicor reguthe progeneraprogrampurposenviron
c) Have charact
The Easte
in an unav
would no
of PDR u
zoned Ret
which did
significan
The Easte
new phys
for any ne
neighborh
The Cityw
the propo
Family SY
envisione
envisione
Because t
Neighbor
significan
land use p
4 San Franci
4th Street5 San Franci
October
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
D USE AND LNNING—Wou
ally divide an est
ct with any appliculation of an ageoject (including,
al plan, specifm, or zoning ore of avoidin
nmental effect?
a substantial imter of the vicinity
ern Neighborh
voidable sign
t remove any
uses that was
tail/Entertain
d not encou
nt impact.
ern Neighborh
sical barriers i
ew major roa
hoods or suba
wide Planning
osed project i
YD, is consis
d in the Ea
d in the Easte
the proposed
hoods Rezon
nt impacts tha
planning, and
sco Planning De
t, October 26, 201
isco Planning De
6, 2017.
ion
LAND USE uld the projec
tablished commu
able land use plaency with jurisdic, but not limitefic plan, localrdinance) adopteng or mitiga
mpact upon they?
hoods PEIR d
nificant impac
y existing PDR
identified in
nment/Visitor‐
rage PDR us
hoods PEIR d
in the Eastern
adways, such
areas.
g and Curren
s permitted i
tent with the
stern SoMa
ern Neighborh
d project is c
ning and Area
at were not id
d no mitigatio
epartment, Comm
17.
epartment, Comm
ImtP
ct:
unity?
an, policy, ction over ed to the l coastal ed for the ating an
e existing
determined th
ct on land use
R uses and wo
n the Eastern
‐Serving Com
ses and the
determined th
n Neighborho
as freeways
t Planning di
in the Mixed
e 85‐foot heig
Plan, and is
hoods Area P
consistent wi
a Plans, impl
dentified in th
on measures a
munity Plan Evalu
munity Plan Eval
Significant mpact Peculiar
o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
hat adoption
e due to the cu
ould therefor
n Neighborho
mmercial prio
rezoning of
hat implement
oods because
that would d
visions of the
Use‐Office D
ght limit, is c
s consistent w
Plan.4,5
th the develo
lementation o
he Eastern N
are necessary.
uation Eligibility D
uation Eligibility
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
of the rezonin
umulative los
re not contribu
oods PEIR. In
r to the rezon
the project
tation of the a
the rezoning
disrupt or div
e planning de
District, is per
consistent wi
with the bu
opment dens
of the propos
Neighborhood
.
Determination, Ci
Determination, C
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
ng and area p
ss of PDR. Th
ute to any im
n addition, th
ning of Easter
site did not
area plans wo
g and area pla
vide the plan
epartment hav
rmitted in the
ith the develo
lk, density,
sity establish
sed project w
ds PEIR relate
itywide Planning
Current Planning
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
plans would
he proposed p
mpact related t
he project site
rn Neighborh
contribute t
ould not creat
ans do not pr
area or indiv
ve determine
e SoMa Youth
opment dens
and land us
hed in the Ea
would not res
ed to land us
and Policy Analy
Analysis, 345 4th
Street 90ENV
14
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
result
project
to loss
e was
hoods,
to the
te any
rovide
vidual
d that
h and
sity as
ses as
astern
sult in
se and
ysis, 345
h Street,
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
2. POPUWoul
a) Induce either homes exampinfrastr
b) Displacunits onecesshousing
c) Displacnecesshousing
One of th
housing i
PEIR asse
in the Ea
without th
as allowin
basis, site
concluded
concentra
occur as a
adverse p
housing in
City’s tra
housing d
PEIR dete
significan
cumulativ
under the
The PEIR
and ident
The PEIR
impact fr
considere
would be
some relie
also noted
the rezoni
gentrifica
transition
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ULATION ANd the project
substantial popdirectly (for exa
and businesle, through exteructure)?
ce substantial nuor create demansitating the cong?
ce substantial sitating the cong elsewhere?
he objectives
n the City’s i
essed how the
astern Neighb
he rezoning, a
ng housing w
e‐specific rezo
d that adopt
ation of popul
a result of the
physical effec
n appropriate
ansit first pol
development
ermined that
nt adverse ph
ve impacts o
e rezoning an
contains deta
ifies mitigatio
R determined
rom the dire
d in the PEI
e expected un
ef to housing
d that residen
ing and area p
tion that cou
n to higher‐val
ion
ND HOUSINGt:
ulation growth inample, by proposses) or indireension of roads
umbers of existinnd for additionalstruction of rep
numbers of struction of rep
of the Easter
industrially z
e rezoning act
borhoods and
assuming a co
within indust
oning to per
tion of the r
lation in San F
e proposed re
cts, and wou
e locations ne
licies. It was
and populati
the anticipa
hysical effec
n the physic
nd area plans,
ailed analyses
on measures t
that impleme
ect displacem
R would resu
nder the No‐P
market press
ntial displacem
plans could r
uld displace s
lue housing, w
ImtoP
—
n an area, osing new ectly (for or other
g housing housing,
placement
people, placement
rn Neighborh
zoned land to
tions would a
d compared
ontinuation o
trial zones th
mit housing,
rezoning and
Francisco.” T
ezoning and
uld serve to
ext to Downto
anticipated
ion in all of th
ted increase
ts on the en
cal environm
including im
s of these sec
to address sig
entation of th
ment of exist
ult in less di
Project scenar
sure without
ment is not s
esult in indire
some residen
which could r
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
hoods area pl
o meet the cit
affect housing
these outcom
of developme
hrough condi
, and other s
d area plans
he PEIR state
adoption of
advance key
own and othe
that the rezo
he area plan n
in populatio
nvironment.
ent that wou
mpacts on lan
ondary effect
gnificant impa
he rezoning a
ting residents
isplacement a
rio because th
directly displ
olely a functi
ect, secondary
nts. The PEIR
result in gent
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
lans is to ide
tywide dema
g supply and
mes to what
ent trends and
itional use a
similar case‐b
s: “would in
es that the inc
the area plan
y City policy
er employmen
oning would
neighborhood
on and densit
However, th
uld result ind
nd use, transp
ts under each
acts where fe
and area plan
s, and that
as a result of
he addition o
lacing existin
ion of housin
y effects on n
R discloses th
trification and
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
entify approp
and for additi
d location opti
would other
d ad hoc land
authorization
by‐case appro
nduce substa
crease in popu
ns would not,
y objectives, s
nt generators
d result in an
ds. The Easte
ty would not
he PEIR ide
directly from
portation, air
h of the releva
asible.
ns would not
each of the
f unmet hous
of new housi
ng residents. H
ng supply, an
neighborhood
hat the rezon
d displacemen
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
priate location
ional housing
ions for busin
rwise be exp
d use changes
on a case‐by
oaches). The
antial growth
ulation expec
t, in itself, res
such as prov
and furtherin
n increase in
ern Neighborh
t directly res
entified signi
m growth affo
quality, and
ant resource t
have a signi
rezoning op
sing demand
ing would pr
However, the
nd that adopti
d character thr
ned districts
nt of lower‐in
Street 90ENV
15
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
ns for
g. The
nesses
pected
(such
y‐case
PEIR
h and
cted to
sult in
viding
ng the
n both
hoods
sult in
ificant
orded
noise.
topics,
ificant
ptions
d than
rovide
e PEIR
ion of
rough
could
ncome
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
household
dispropor
displacem
Pursuant
displacem
physical i
physical
environm
change, c
CEQA Gu
Neighbor
determine
on the env
The propo
space and
employee
proposed
significan
PEIR. The
growth a
quality, gr
Topics:
3. CULTPALERESO
a) Cause signific§15064Article Plannin
b) Cause significpursua
c) Directlypaleontgeolog
6 New emp
Departm
general
provide
conserva
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ds, and states
rtionally live
ment resulting
to CEQA Gu
ment are only
impacts on th
changes in
mental analysi
consideration
uidelines 1538
hoods Rezon
e that these p
vironment.
osed project w
d 2,657 squar
es and 8 reta
project on p
nt impacts on
e project’s con
re evaluated
reenhouse ga
TURAL AND EONTOLOGICOURCES—W
a substantial cance of a histori4.5, including th
10 or Article 1ng Code?
a substantial cance of an nt to §15064.5?
y or indirecttological resouic feature?
ployees were est
ment’s Transport
office use and o
an estimate for
ative estimate.
ion
s moreover th
in crowded
g from neighb
uidelines 1513
y considered
he environme
the environ
s that consid
of social or
82. While the
ning and Area
otential socio
would constru
re feet of gro
ail employees
population a
the physical
ntribution to i
in this initi
as emissions, r
CAL Would the pro
adverse changcal resource as hose resources 11 of the San
adverse changarchaeological
ly destroy arce or site o
timated based u
tation Impact An
one employee pe
employees per
hat lower‐inc
conditions a
borhood chan
31 and 15064(
under CEQA
ent. Only wh
nment, such
er such effect
economic im
e Eastern Nei
a Plans could
o‐economic ef
uct a seven‐st
ound‐level ret
s (for a total
and housing
l environmen
indirect effect
ial study und
recreation, ut
ImtoP
oject:
ge in the defined in
listed in Francisco
ge in the resource
unique or unique
upon the propos
nalysis Guideline
er 350 square fe
square foot of l
come residen
and in rental
ge.
(e), economic
A where the
here economi
as “blight”
ts. But withou
mpacts “shall
ghborhoods
d contribute to
ffects would r
tory commerc
tail space, wh
l of 189 dail
would not r
nt beyond tho
ts on the phy
der land use
tilities and ser
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
sed office and r
es for employees
eet of general re
life science and
nts of the Eas
l units, are a
and social ef
se effects wo
ic or social ef
” or “urban
ut such a con
not be consi
PEIR disclose
o gentrificatio
result in signi
cial building
hich would r
ly employees
result in new
ose identified
ysical environ
e, transportat
rvice systems
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
retail square foo
s per square foo
etail use). The tr
medical use bu
stern Neighbo
among the m
ffects such as
ould cause su
ffects have re
decay” hav
nnection to an
idered a sign
ed that adopt
on and displa
ificant advers
with 49,896 s
result in abou
s).6 These di
w or substant
d in the Easte
nment attribut
tion and circ
s, and public s
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
otage and the S
ot (one employee
ansportation im
uilding; therefore
345 4th 2017-00169
orhoods, who
most vulnerab
s gentrificatio
ubstantial ad
esulted in ad
ve courts u
n adverse ph
nificant effect
tion of the Ea
acement, it di
se physical im
square feet of
ut 181 daily
rect effects o
tially more s
rn Neighborh
table to popu
culation, nois
services.
nt to
New on
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
San Francisco Pl
e per 276 square
mpact guidelines
e, office use prov
Street 90ENV
16
o also
ble to
n and
dverse
dverse
upheld
hysical
t” per
astern
id not
mpacts
office
office
of the
severe
hoods
ulation
se, air
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
lanning
e feet of
do not
vides a
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
d) Disturbinterred
Historic A
Pursuant
or structu
are identi
Planning
through th
have sub
historical
known o
preferred
unavoidab
adopted a
The proje
constructe
found to b
Heritage A
informatio
building w
Resource
resource
measures
For these
resources
Archeolog
The Easte
significan
reduce th
Measure J
file at the
properties
document
resources
Archeolog
archeolog
The propo
8,000 squa
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
b any human rd outside of form
Architectural
to CEQA Gu
ures that are li
ified in a loca
Code. The
he changes in
stantial adve
districts wit
r potential h
alternative.
ble. This imp
as part of the
ect site conta
ed in 1925 an
be ineligible f
Addendum to
on about thi
with the Filip
Survey. Th
impact ident
would apply
reasons, the
that were no
gical Resourc
ern Neighbor
nt impacts on
hese potential
J‐1 applies to
Northwest In
s for which n
tation is incom
under CEQ
gical District,
gical consultan
osed project w
are foot area,
ion
remains, includimal cemeteries?
Resources
uidelines Sect
isted, or are e
al register of
Eastern Nei
n use districts
erse changes
thin the Plan
historical reso
The Eastern
pact was addr
Eastern Neigh
ains a two‐s
nd was previo
for national, s
the South of
is building i
pino commun
herefore, the
tified in the
y to the propo
proposed pr
t identified in
ces
rhoods PEIR
n archeologic
l impacts to a
properties fo
nformation C
o archeologic
mplete or ina
A. Mitigation
requires that
nt with exper
would involv
, resulting in
ImtoP
ing those
tions 15064.5(
eligible for lis
historical res
ghborhoods
s and height li
on the signi
Areas. The
ources in th
n Neighborh
ressed in a St
hborhoods Re
story buildin
ously evaluat
state or local l
of Market His
n association
ity was not ev
proposed p
Eastern Nei
osed project.
roject would n
n the Eastern
determined
cal resources
a less than si
or which a fin
Center and the
cal assessmen
adequate to se
n Measure J‐
t a specific ar
rtise in Califor
e excavation
about 1,500 c
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
(a)(1) and 150
sting, in the C
sources, such
PEIR determ
imits under th
ificance of b
PEIR determ
e Plan Area
hoods PEIR
tatement of O
ezoning and A
ng previously
ted in the Sou
listing. A revi
storic Context
n with the F
valuated as p
project would
ghborhoods
not result in
Neighborhoo
that implem
and identifi
ignificant lev
nal archeologi
e Planning De
nt report has b
erve as an eva
‐3, which ap
rcheological t
rnia prehistor
up to approx
cubic yards o
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
064.5(a)(2), hi
California Reg
h as Articles
mined that f
the Eastern N
oth individu
mined that ap
as could pote
found this
Overriding Co
Area Plans ap
y operated a
uth of Market
iew of the ado
t Statement d
Filipino comm
part of the pre
d not contrib
PEIR, and n
significant im
ods PEIR.
mentation of
ied three mi
el. Eastern N
ical research d
epartment. M
been prepared
aluation of p
pplies to prop
testing progra
ric and urban
ximately 5 fee
of soil remova
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
istorical resou
gister of Histo
10 and 11 of
future develo
Neighborhood
ual historical
pproximately
entially be a
impact to b
onsiderations
pproval on Ja
as a bicycle
t Historic Res
opted 2013 Sa
did not reve
munity; the
evious South
bute to the s
no historic re
mpacts on his
the Area Pla
itigation mea
Neighborhood
design and tr
Mitigation Mea
d or for which
otential effec
perties in the
am be conduc
n historical arc
et below grou
al. The projec
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New on
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
urces are buil
orical Resour
the San Fran
opment facil
ds Area Plans
resources an
32 percent o
affected unde
be significant
with finding
anuary 19, 200
shop, which
source Surve
an Francisco F
eal any addi
association o
of Market Hi
significant hi
esource mitig
storic archite
an could res
asures that w
ds PEIR Mitig
reatment plan
asure J‐2 appl
h the archeolo
ts on archeolo
e Mission Do
cted by a qua
cheology.
und surface ov
ct site is locat
Street 90ENV
17
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
ldings
ces or
ncisco
litated
could
nd on
of the
er the
t and
gs and
09.
h was
y and
ilipino
itional
of the
istoric
istoric
gation
ectural
ult in
would
gation
n is on
lies to
ogical
ogical
olores
alified
ver an
ted in
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Archeolog
PEIR, so P
the Arche
PEIR, so P
2 states th
been prep
conduct a
having ex
determina
archeolog
conducted
Mitigation
measure
review an
Eastern N
Archeolog
For these
that were
Topics:
4. TRANCIRC
a) Conflicpolicy ethe perinto accmass relevanincludinhighwapaths,
b) Conflicmanagto levemeasucounty designa
c) Result includinobstructhat res
7 San Franc
Septemb8 Ibid.
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
gical Mitigati
PEIR Mitigati
eological Mitig
PEIR Mitigati
hat any proje
pared or for w
a preliminary
xpertise in C
ation shall be
gical resourc
d a prelimin
n Measures J
(archeologica
nd its requirem
Neighborhood
gical Testing
reasons, the p
not identified
NSPORTATIOULATION—W
ct with an applicestablishing mearformance of the count all modes transit and no
nt components ong but not limitedays and freewayand mass transit
ct with an ement program,l of service stanres, or other sta
congestion mated roads or hig
in a change ng either an inctions to flight, sults in substanti
isco Planning D
ber 13, 2016.
ion
ion Zone J‐2:
ion Measure J
gation Zone J
ion Measures
ect resulting i
which the arc
y archeologica
California pr
e made if add
es to a les
nary review o
‐2, and found
al testing) wo
ments for arc
ds PEIR. PEIR
(full text prov
proposed pro
d in the Easte
ON AND Would the pr
cable plan, ordasures of effectiv
circulation systeof transportationon-motorized trof the circulationd to intersections
ys, pedestrian ant?
applicable c including but n
ndards and travendards establish
management agghways?
in air traffic ncrease in traffor a change inal safety risks?
Department, Prel
Properties w
J‐2: is applica
J‐2: Properties
J‐2 is applica
n soils distur
heological do
al sensitivity
rehistoric and
itional measu
ss‐than‐signifi
of the projec
d the Plannin
ould apply t
cheological tes
R Mitigation M
vided in the “
oject would no
ern Neighborh
ImtoP
roject:
inance or veness for em, taking n including avel and n system, s, streets, nd bicycle
congestion not limited el demand hed by the gency for
patterns, fic levels, n location,
liminary Archeo
with No Prev
able to the pro
s with No Pre
able to the pro
rbance for wh
ocument is in
study prepa
d urban hist
ures are need
icant level.
ct site in con
ng Departmen
to the propos
sting are cons
Measure J‐2 is
“Mitigation M
ot result in si
hoods PEIR.
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
ological Review:
vious Studies
oposed projec
evious Studie
oposed projec
hich no arche
ncomplete or
ared by a qua
torical archeo
ded to reduce
The Plannin
nformance w
nt’s third sta
sed project.8
sistent with M
s identified a
Measures” sect
ignificant imp
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
40 Cleveland S
of the Easte
ct. . The proje
es of the Easte
ct.7 PEIR Mit
eological asse
inadequate sh
alified archeo
ology. Based
potential effe
ng Departm
with the study
andard archeo
The prelimin
Mitigation Me
as Project Mit
tion below).
pacts on arche
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
Street/1075‐89 Fo
345 4th 2017-00169
rn Neighborh
ect site is loca
ern Neighborh
tigation Meas
essment repo
hall be requir
ological consu
d on the stu
ects of a proje
ment’s archeo
y requiremen
ological mitig
nary archeolo
easure J‐2 fro
tigation Meas
eological reso
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
olsom Street. Rev
Street 90ENV
18
hoods
ted in
hoods
sure J‐
rt has
red to
ultant
udy, a
ect on
ologist
nts of
gation
ogical
om the
sure 1:
ources
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
viewed
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
d) Substafeatureinterse
e) Result
f) Conflicprogrampedestperform
The Easte
result in s
states tha
transporta
would ne
and Area
According
loading, a
review, th
peculiar to
The Easte
in signific
which are
anticipate
than signi
level trans
As discus
delay from
delay wit
mitigation
discussed
The Easte
below eva
The proje
Therefore
Vehicle M
Many fac
transporta
9 San Franci
2017.
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
antially increase e (e.g., sharp ctions) or incomp
in inadequate em
ct with adoptems regarding prian facilities, or
mance or safety o
ern Neighborh
significant im
at in general,
ation impacts
ed to be cond
Plans.
gly, the plan
and construc
he departmen
o the project o
ern Neighborh
cant impacts
e described f
ed that the sig
ificant level. T
sit impact ana
ssed above un
m CEQA ana
th a VMT m
n measures f
d in this check
ern Neighborh
aluates the pr
ct site is not l
e, the Initial St
Miles Travele
tors affect tra
ation networ
isco Planning De
ion
hazards due to curves or d
patible uses?
mergency access
ed policies, ppublic transit, br otherwise decof such facilities?
hoods PEIR a
mpacts related
the analyses
s are specific
ducted for fut
nning depart
tion transpor
nt determined
or the project
hoods PEIR a
on transit r
further below
gnificant adve
Thus, these im
alysis
nder “SB 743”
alysis, the Pl
metric for ana
from the East
klist.
hoods PEIR d
roject’s transp
located withi
tudy Checklis
ed (VMT) An
avel behavior
k, access to
epartment, Trans
ImtoP
a design dangerous
s?
plans, or icycle, or rease the ?
anticipated th
d to pedestria
s of pedestria
to individual
ure developm
tment condu
rtation impac
d that the prop
t site.
anticipated th
ridership, an
w in the Tran
erse cumulati
mpacts were f
”, in response
lanning Com
alyzing trans
tern Neighbo
did not evalu
portation effec
in an airport l
st topic 4c is n
alysis
r. These facto
regional des
sportation Study
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
hat growth re
ans, bicyclists
an, bicycle, lo
l developmen
ment projects
ucted project
cts of the pro
posed project
at growth res
d identified
nsit sub‐sectio
ive impacts o
found to be si
e to state legi
mission adop
portation im
orhoods PEIR
uate vehicle m
cts using the V
land use plan
not applicable
ors include d
tinations, dis
y Determination,
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
esulting from
s, loading, or
oading, emer
nt projects, an
under the Ea
t‐level analys
oposed proje
t would not h
sulting from t
seven transp
on. Even wit
on transit line
ignificant and
islation that c
pted resolutio
mpacts of a p
R associated w
miles traveled
VMT metric.
n area, or in t
e.
ensity, divers
stance to hig
, Case No. 2017‐
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
the zoning c
r construction
gency access
nd that projec
astern Neighb
sis of the p
ect.9 Based on
have significan
the zoning ch
portation mit
th mitigation
s could not b
d unavoidable
called for rem
on 19579 rep
project. There
with automo
d. The VMT A
the vicinity of
sity of land u
gh‐quality tra
‐001690ENV, 345
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
changes woul
n traffic. The
s, and constru
ct‐specific ana
borhoods Rez
edestrian, bi
n this project
nt impacts th
hanges could
tigation mea
n, however, i
be reduced to
e. [Provide pr
moving autom
placing autom
efore, impact
obile delay ar
Analysis pres
f a private air
uses, design o
ansit, develop
5 4th Street, Octo
Street 90ENV
19
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
ld not
PEIR
uction
alyses
oning
icycle,
t‐level
hat are
result
sures,
it was
a less
roject‐
mobile
mobile
s and
re not
sented
rstrip.
of the
pment
ober 24,
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
scale, dem
great dist
travel, gen
density, m
Given the
Francisco
the City. T
Transport
other plan
blocks in
Shipyard.
The San F
Chained A
different l
the Califo
and count
a synthet
populatio
tour‐based
course of
trip‐based
chain of
projects b
tour VMT
For reside
developm
regional a
projected
which inc
10 To state an
with a s
restaura
us to app11 San Franc
Attachm12 Includes t
VMT pe
13 Retail travmedical
all of the
institutio
attractio
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
mographics, a
ance from oth
nerate more a
mix of land us
ese travel be
Bay Area reg
These areas o
tation analysi
nning purpos
outer neighb
.
Francisco Cou
Activity Mod
land use type
ornia Househ
ty‐to‐county w
tic populatio
on, who make
d analysis fo
a day, not ju
d analysis, wh
trips). A trip
because a tour
T to each locat
ential develo
ment, regional
average daily
to decrease in
cludes the tran
nother way: a tou
top at the retail
ant on the way ba
portion all retail‐
cisco Planning D
ment A, March 3,
the VMT generat
r capita.
vel is not explicit
appointments, v
e ʺOtherʺ purpos
onal, and educat
on, of the zone fo
ion
and transpor
her land uses
automobile tr
ses, and trave
havior factor
gion. In addit
of the City ca
is zones are u
ses. The zone
orhoods, to e
unty Transpo
del Process (S
es. Travel beh
hold Travel Su
worker flows
on, which is
e simulated tr
or office and
ust trips to an
hich counts V
p‐based appr
r is likely to c
tion would ov
opment, the e
l average dai
y retail VMT
n future 2040
nsportation a
ur‐based assessm
site. If a single t
ack home, then b
‐related VMT to
Department, Exec
2016.
ted by the house
tly captured in SF
visiting friends or
se travel generate
tional; and medic
r this type of “Ot
tation deman
s, located in a
ravel compare
l options othe
rs, San Franc
tion, some are
n be expresse
used in transp
s vary in size
even larger zo
ortation Auth
SF‐CHAMP)
havior in SF‐
urvey 2010‐2
s, and observe
a set of ind
ravel decision
residential u
nd from the p
VMT from ind
roach, as opp
consist of trip
ver‐estimate V
existing regio
ily work‐rela
per employe
cumulative c
nalysis zone i
ment of VMT at a
tour stops at two
both retail locatio
retail sites witho
cutive Summary
eholds in the dev
F‐CHAMP, rathe
r family, and all
ed by Bay Area h
cal employment;
ther” purpose tra
nd managem
areas with po
ed to develop
er than privat
cisco has a lo
eas of the City
ed geographi
portation plan
e from single
ones in histori
hority (Transp
to estimate
‐CHAMP is c
012, Census
ed vehicle cou
dividual acto
ns for a comp
uses, which e
project. For re
ividual trips
posed to a to
ps stopping in
VMT. 10,11
onal average
ted VMT per
e is 14.9.13 Av
conditions. Re
in which the p
a retail site would
o retail locations
ons would be all
out double‐count
y: Resolution Mo
velopment and a
er, there is a gene
other non‐work,
households. The
school enrollme
avel.
ment. Typically
oor access to n
pment located
te vehicles are
ower VMT r
y have lower
ically through
nning models
city blocks in
ically industr
portation Au
VMT by priv
calibrated bas
data regardin
unts and tran
ors that repr
plete day. The
examines the
etail uses, the
to and from t
our‐based ap
n multiple loc
daily VMT
r employee i
verage daily
efer to Table 1
project site is
d consider the V
s, for example, a
lotted the total to
ting.
odifying Transp
averaged across t
eric ʺOtherʺ purp
, non‐school tour
denominator of
ent, and number
y, low‐densit
non‐private v
d in urban are
e available.
ratio than the
r VMT ratios t
h transportati
s for transport
n the downto
rial areas like
thority) uses
vate automob
sed on observ
ng automobil
nsit boardings
resents the B
e Transportati
e entire chain
e Transportati
the project (as
pproach, is n
cations, and th
per capita is
is 19.1. For re
VMT for all
1: Daily Vehi
s located, 665.
VMT for all trips i
a coffee shop on
our VMT. A trip‐
ortation Impact
the household p
pose which inclu
rs. The retail effi
f employment (in
of households) r
345 4th 2017-00169
ty developme
vehicular mod
eas, where a h
e nine‐county
than other ar
ion analysis z
tation analysi
own core, mu
e the Hunters
the San Fran
biles and tax
ved behavior
le ownership
s. SF‐CHAMP
Bay Area’s a
ion Authority
n of trips ove
ion Authority
s opposed to
necessary for
he summariz
s 17.2.12 For
etail develop
three land u
cle Miles Trav
in the tour, for an
the way to work
‐based approach
Analysis, Appe
population to det
udes retail shopp
iciency metric ca
ncluding retail; cu
represents the siz
Street 90ENV
20
ent at
des of
higher
y San
reas of
zones.
is and
ultiple
Point
ncisco
xis for
r from
p rates
P uses
actual
y uses
er the
y uses
entire
retail
ing of
office
pment,
uses is
veled,
ny tour
k and a
h allows
endix F,
termine
ping,
aptures
ultural,
ze, or
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
L
Emp
(Off
Emp
(Ret
A project
VMT. Th
Guidelines
recommen
result in s
Based Scr
would be
Screening
exhibits lo
per day; a
existing m
less than
authoriza
The proje
VMT per
6.6 for off
the existin
minus 15
VMT per
additiona
Trip Gen
The prop
space, 2,6
spaces.
Localized
informatio
14 San Franci
4th Street
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
Land Use
ployment
fice)
ployment
tail)
would have
he State Offic
s on Evaluatin
nds screening
significant im
eening, Smal
e less than sig
g is used to
ow levels of V
and the Proxi
major transit s
n or equal t
tion, and are
ct site has an
employee mi
fice uses, whi
ng TAZ VMT
percent is 12
employee mi
al VMT and im
eration
osed project
657 square fee
d trip genera
on in the 2002
isco Planning De
t, San Francisco,
ion
Ta
Bay Area
Regional
Average
19.1
14.9
e a significan
ce of Plannin
ng Transportat
g criteria to i
mpacts to VMT
l Projects, and
gnificant for
determine if
VMT; Small P
imity to Trans
stop, have a f
to that requi
consistent wi
n existing TAZ
inus 15 perce
ile the future
T per retail e
2.6. The future
inus 15 percen
mpacts would
would const
et of retail sp
ation of the
2 Transportati
epartment. Eligib
February 28, 201
able 1: Daily
Existing
Bay Area
Regional
Average
minus
15%
16.2
12.6
nt effect on th
ng and Rese
tion Impacts i
identify types
T. If a project
d Proximity t
the project an
a project sit
Projects are p
sit Stations cr
floor area rati
ired or allow
ith the applic
Z VMT per em
ent is 16.2. Th
regional VM
mployee is 7
e 2040 TAZ V
nt is 12.414 Th
d be less‐than‐
truct a 7‐story
pace, 11 Class
proposed pr
ion Impacts An
bility Checklist: C
18.
Vehicle Mile
TAZ 665
8.3
7.8
he environme
arch’s (OPR)
in CEQA (“p
s, characterist
meets one of
o Transit Stat
nd a detailed
te is located
projects that w
riterion includ
io of greater t
wed by the
able Sustaina
mployee of 8
he future 2040
T per employ
7.8, while the
VMT per reta
herefore, the p
‐significant im
y commercia
s I bicycle par
roject was ca
nalysis Guideli
CEQA Section 21
es Traveled
C
Bay Area
Regional
Average
17.0
14.6
ent if it wou
) Revised Pro
roposed tran
tics, or locati
f the three scr
tions), then it
d VMT analy
within a tra
would genera
des projects t
than or equal
Planning C
able Commun
.3 for office u
0 TAZ VMT p
yee minus 15
existing regi
ail employee i
proposed proj
mpact.
al building w
rking spaces,
alculated usi
ines for Enviro
1099 – Moderniza
Cumulative 2
Bay Area
Regional
Average
minus
15%
14.5
12.4
uld cause sub
oposal on Upd
nsportation im
ions of projec
reening criter
t is presumed
ysis is not req
ansportation a
ate fewer tha
that are withi
l to 0.75, vehi
Code withou
nities Strategy
uses, while th
per employee
percent is 14
ional VMT p
is 7.8, while t
ject would no
with 49,896 sq
, and 5 Class
ing a trip‐ba
onmental Revi
ation of Transpo
345 4th 2017-00169
2040
a
TAZ 665
6.6
7.8
bstantial addi
dates to the C
mpact guideli
cts that woul
ria provided (
that VMT im
quired. Map‐B
analysis zone
an 100 vehicle
in a half mile
icle parking t
ut conditiona
y.
he existing reg
e is projected
4.5. For retail
per retail emp
the future reg
ot cause subst
quare feet of
s II bicycle pa
ased analysis
iew (SF Guide
ortation Analysis
Street 90ENV
21
itional
CEQA
ines”)
ld not
(Map‐
mpacts
Based
e that
e trips
of an
that is
al use
gional
d to be
l uses,
ployee
gional
tantial
office
arking
s and
elines)
for 345
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
developed
estimated
trips by au
proposed
vehicle tri
and 4 trip
Transit
Mitigation
Plan with
the propo
In compli
impact fee
streets. In
Planning
December
Fee, whic
proposed
Mitigation
Demand
managem
portions o
Accessibil
Enhancem
by the SF
wide revi
Examples
area as p
along 16th
Reduction
improvem
new Rout
Mitigation
Streets Pla
long‐term
2nd Street
Francisco
pedestrian
codified
15 San Franci16 Two addit
addition17 http://tsp.s
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
d by the San
d 1,557 person
uto, 252 trans
project woul
ips accountin
ps by other mo
n Measures E
h uncertain fea
osed project, a
iance with a
es for develo
n addition, S
Code, refer
r 25, 2015).16
ch is in comp
project wou
n Measures
Managemen
ment efforts ar
of Mitigation
lity, Mitigati
ment, the SFM
MTA Board o
ew, evaluatio
s of transit pri
art of Muni Fh Street to M
n Project on R
ments to vario
te 55 on 16th S
n Measure E
an. As part of
m bicycle facili
t, 5th Street, 1
Better Stree
n realm and
in Section
isco Planning De
tional files were
nal fees for larger
sfplanning.org
ion
n Francisco
n trips (inbou
sit trips, 255 w
ld generate an
ng for vehicle
odes.
E‐5 through E
asibility to ad
as they are pl
portion of M
pment in Eas
an Francisco
red to as th
The fee upda
pliance with p
ld be subject
E‐5: Enhanc
t. Both the
re part of the
n Measure E‐
on Measure
MTA is implem
of Directors i
on, and recom
iority and ped
Forward incl
Mission Bay (e
Route 9 San B
ous routes wit
treet.
‐7 also ident
f the San Fran
ity improvem
17th Street, T
ets Plan, ado
calls for stree
138.1 of the
epartment, Trans
created at the Bo
r projects: see Bo
Planning De
und and outbo
walk trips and
n estimated 1
e occupancy d
E‐11 in the Ea
ddress signific
lan‐level miti
Mitigation Me
stern Neighbo
Board of Su
he Transport
ated, expand
portions of M
to the fee. T
ed Transit F
Transportatio
e Transporta
‐6: Transit Co
E‐9: Rider
menting the
in March 2014
mmendations
destrian safet
lude the 14 M
expected cons
Bruno (initiati
th the Eastern
ifies impleme
ncisco Bicycle
ments are plan
Townsend Stre
opted in 2010
ets that work
e Planning
sportation Calcul
oard of Superviso
ard file nos. 1511
epartment.15
ound) on a w
d 70 trips by o
136 person tri
data for this C
astern Neighb
cant transit im
gations to be
easure E‐5: En
orhoods that
upervisors ap
tation Sustain
ded, and repla
Mitigation Me
The City is als
Funding and
on Sustainab
tion Sustaina
orridor Impr
Improvemen
Transit Effect
4. The TEP (n
to improve se
ty improveme
Mission Rapid
struction betw
ion in 2015).
n Neighborho
enting recom
e Plan, adopt
nned within t
eet, Illinois St
0, describes
k for all users
Code and n
lations for 345 4th
ors for TSF regar
121 and 151257.
The propose
weekday daily
other modes.
ips, consisting
Census Tract)
borhoods PE
mpacts. These
implemented
nhanced Tran
goes toward
pproved ame
nability Fee
aced the prio
easure E‐5: E
so currently
d Mitigation
bility Fee an
ability Progra
rovements, M
nts, and Miti
tiveness Proje
now called M
ervice and inc
ents within th
d Transit Pro
ween 2017 an
In addition, M
oods Plan are
mmendations
ted in 2009, a
the Eastern N
treet, and Ce
a vision for
s. The Better S
new projects
h Street, February
rding hospitals a
ed project w
y basis, consis
During the p
g of 91 perso
)., 22 transit t
IR were adop
e measures ar
d by City and
nsit Funding,
ds funding tra
endments to
(Ordinance
or Transit Im
Enhanced Tra
conducting o
Measure E‐1
nd the transp
am.17 In comp
Mitigation Me
igation Meas
ect (TEP), wh
Muni Forward
crease transp
he Eastern Ne
oject, the 22 F
nd 2020), and
Muni Forwar
a; for instanc
of the Bicycl
series of min
Neighborhood
sar Chavez B
the future o
Streets Plan r
s constructed
y 28, 2018.
and health servic
345 4th 2017-00169
would genera
sting of 981 p
p.m. peak hou
on trips by au
trips, 19 walk
pted as part o
re not applica
d County age
, the City ad
ansit and com
the San Fran
200‐154, eff
mpact Develop
ansit Funding
outreach rega
11: Transpor
portation de
pliance with
easure E‐7: T
sure E‐10: T
hich was app
d) includes sy
portation effic
eighborhoods
Fillmore Exte
d the Travel
rd includes se
e the implem
le Plan and B
nor, near‐term
ds, including
Boulevard. Th
of San Franc
requirements
d in the Ea
ces, grandfatherin
Street 90ENV
22
ate an
person
ur, the
uto (61
k trips
of the
able to
encies.
opted
mplete
ncisco
fective
pment
g. The
arding
rtation
mand
all or
Transit
Transit
roved
ystem‐
iency.
s Plan
ension
Time
ervice
mented
Better
m, and
along
he San
cisco’s
s were
astern
ng, and
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Community Initial Study
Neighbor
which add
Zero focu
engineerin
Neighbor
23rd stree
Howard S
The proje
27, 30, 45,
trips, inclu
of 22 p.m
proposed
in delays
Each of th
cumulativ
having sig
the Muni
contributi
additiona
not contr
significan
Conclusio
For the a
identified
contribute
Eastern N
Topics:
5. NOIS
a) Result noise lin the applica
b) Result excessnoise le
c) Result ambienlevels e
d) Result increasvicinity
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
hoods Plan a
dresses trans
uses on build
ng. The goal
hoods Plan a
ets, the Potre
Street Pilot Pr
ct site is loca
, 47, 8, 81X, 8A
uding 22 dur
m. peak hour
project woul
or operating
he rezoning o
ve impacts re
gnificant imp
lines. The pr
ion of 22 p.m
al transit volu
ibute conside
nt cumulative
on
above reason
d in the Easte
e considerabl
Neighborhood
E—Would th
in exposure of pevels in excess local general pla
able standards of
in exposure of psive groundborneevels?
in a substantiant noise levels inexisting without t
in a substantiase in ambient nabove levels ex
ion
area are subje
it accessibilit
ding better a
is to eliminat
area include p
ero Avenue
roject, which i
ted within a
AX, and 8BX.
ring the p.m.
transit trips
ld not result i
costs such tha
options in the
elating to inc
pacts on seven
roposed proje
m. peak hour
me generated
erably to 202
transit impac
ns, the propo
ern Neighborh
ly to cumulat
ds PEIR.
he project:
persons to or genof standards es
an or noise ordif other agencies?
persons to or gene vibration or gro
al permanent inn the project vicinthe project?
al temporary oroise levels in thisting without the
ect to varying
y, Vision Zer
and safer str
te all traffic f
pedestrian in
Streetscape P
includes pede
quarter mile
. The propose
peak hour. G
would be re
in unacceptab
at significant
e Eastern Nei
creases in tran
n lines. The p
ect would not
r transit trips
d by Eastern N
25 cumulativ
cts.
osed project
hoods PEIR r
tive transport
ImptoP
neration of stablished nance, or ?
neration of oundborne
crease in nity above
r periodic he project e project?
g requirement
ro, was adopt
reets through
fatalities by 2
ntersection tre
Project from
estrian interse
of several loc
ed project wo
Given the wid
eadily accomm
ble levels of t
adverse impa
ighborhoods
nsit ridership
project site is
t contribute c
s would not
Neighborhoo
ve transit con
would not r
related to tra
tation and cir
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
☐
ts, dependent
ted by variou
h education,
024. Vision Z
eatments alon
Division to
ection treatm
cal transit lin
ould be expect
de availability
modated by
transit service
acts in transit
PEIR identifi
p on Muni lin
not located w
considerably t
be a substan
od projects. Th
nditions and
result in sign
ansportation
rculation imp
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
☐
t on project s
us City agenc
evaluation,
Zero projects
ng Mission S
Cesar Chave
ents from 4th
nes including
ted to genera
y of nearby tr
existing capa
e or cause a s
t service could
ied significan
nes, with the
within a qua
to these cond
ntial proport
he proposed
thus would
nificant impa
and circulatio
pacts that wer
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
☐
345 4th 2017-00169
ize. Another
cies in 2014. V
enforcement
within the Ea
Street from 18
ez streets, an
h to 6th streets
Muni bus lin
ate 252 daily t
ransit, the add
acity. As such
ubstantial inc
d result.
nt and unavoi
e Preferred P
rter‐mile of a
ditions as its m
tion of the o
project would
not result in
acts that wer
on and woul
re identified
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
☒
Street 90ENV
23
effort
Vision
t, and
astern
8th to
nd the
s.
nes 12,
transit
dition
h, the
crease
idable
Project
any of
minor
overall
d also
n any
re not
ld not
in the
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
☒
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
e) For a pplan aradopteairport exposeexcess
f) For a pairstripor worklevels?
g) Be sulevels?
The Easte
Plans and
conflicts b
cultural/in
that incre
Neighbor
PEIR ide
developm
noisy land
A constru
environm
the existin
constructi
between 6
levels at n
environm
generated
pumps, an
18 Eastern N
environm
require a
except w
Bay Area
http://ww
incremen
Rezonin
Neighbo
requirem
standard
19 Mei Wu A20 Mei Wu A
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
project located wrea, or, where sd, in an area wior public use a
e people residingsive noise levels?
project located i, would the projeking in the projec?
ubstantially affe?
ern Neighbor
d Rezoning w
between nois
nstitutional/e
emental incr
hoods Area
ntified six n
ment projects.
d uses to less‐
uction noise
ment based on
ng building a
ion noise stud
60 and 65 dB
night drop do
mental noise s
d from propo
nd includes r
Neighborhoods
ments. In a deci
an agency to con
where a project o
a Air Quality Man
ww.courts.ca.go
ntal increases in
ng would be less
orhoods Mitigati
ments for adequa
ds required unde
Acoustics. 345 4th
Acoustics. 345 4th
ion
within an airportsuch a plan has thin two miles oairport, would thg or working in th?
n the vicinity of ect expose peoplct area to excess
cted by existi
hoods PEIR d
would result i
se‐sensitive u
ducational us
reases in tra
Plans and Re
noise mitigat18 These miti
‐than‐signific
study19 was
n ambient nois
and constructi
dy measured
BA during the
own to 55 dBA
study20 was
osed rooftop
ecommendati
PEIR Mitigatio
sion issued on D
nsider the effects
or its residents m
nagement District,
v/opinions/docu
n traffic‐related
s than significan
ion Measures F‐3
ate interior noise
er the California
Street‐Constructio
Street‐Environme
ImptoP
land use not been
of a public he project he area to
a private e residing sive noise
ng noise
determined t
in significant
uses in proxi
ses, and office
affic‐related
ezoning wou
tion measure
gation measu
ant levels.
prepared for
se levels mea
ing the propo
d ambient noi
e day, with se
A, with the oc
prepared for
equipment,
ions to reduc
n Measures F‐3
December 17, 20
s of existing envi
may exacerbate ex
, December 17, 2
uments/S213478.P
noise attributab
nt, and thus wou
3, F‐4, and F‐6 a
e levels of Mitig
Building Standa
on Noise Study, M
ental Noise Study,
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
that impleme
noise impac
imity to nois
e uses. The Ea
noise attribu
uld be less th
es, three of
ures would r
r the propose
asured on site
osed project t
se levels on s
everal peaks
ccasional high
r the propose
including a
e operational
3, F‐4, and F‐6
015, the Californ
ironmental cond
xisting environm
015, Case No. S2
PDF). As noted a
ble to implemen
uld not exacerba
are not applicabl
ation Measures
rds Code (Califo
MWA Project‐1708
MWA Project‐17
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
entation of th
cts during con
sy uses such
astern Neighb
utable to im
han significan
which may
educe noise
ed project tha
e, and describ
to minimize c
site and foun
going up to
h level peak s
ed project th
variable refr
l noise.
address the si
nia Supreme Cou
ditions on a prop
mental hazards (C
213478. Available
above, the Easte
ntation of the Ea
ate the existing
le. Nonetheless,
F‐3 and F‐4 are
ornia Code of Reg
86.1, January 31,
7086.2, February
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
he Eastern Ne
nstruction act
as PDR, ret
borhoods PEI
mplementation
nt. The Easter
be applicab
impacts from
at evaluated
bed procedur
construction n
nd that ambie
85 and 90 dB
similar to the
hat analyzed
rigerant flow
iting of sensitiv
urt held that CE
posed project’s fu
California Building
e at:
ern Neighborhoods
astern Neighbor
noise environm
for all noise sen
met by complia
gulations Title 24
, 2018.
6, 2018.
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
eighborhoods
tivities and d
tail, entertain
IR also determ
n of the Ea
rn Neighborh
ble to subse
m construction
the existing
es for demoli
noise impacts
ent noise leve
BA. Ambient
day time one
operational
w system and
ve land uses in
QA does not ge
uture users or re
g Industry Associ
s PEIR determin
rhoods Area Pla
ment. Therefore, E
nsitive uses, the g
ance with the aco
4).
Street 90ENV
24
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
s Area
due to
nment,
mined
astern
hoods
equent
n and
noise
ishing
s. The
els are
noise
es. An
noise
d heat
n noisy
enerally
esidents
iation v.
ned that
ans and
Eastern
general
oustical
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Community Initial Study
Construc
Eastern N
Measure
addresses
driving). T
by the geo
piles. As
Measure
during co
Center ap
would be
2 would
attenuatio
agreed to
2 (the full
Section be
In additio
subject to
Ordinance
constructi
other than
generatin
Director o
accomplis
ambient n
p.m. and
that perio
DBI is res
business h
Ordinance
approxim
Times ma
businesse
would no
would be
required t
which wo
Operation
Eastern N
that inclu
vicinity. T
office spa
and rooft
proposed
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ction Noise
Neighborhood
F‐1 address
s individual p
The proposed
otechnical rep
the construct
F‐1 would n
onstruction in
partments dir
required to r
reduce const
on measures u
implement E
l text of Projec
elow).
on, all constr
o the San Fr
e). Construct
ion work to b
n impact tool
g the noise);
of Public Wo
sh maximum
noise levels a
7:00 a.m. unl
od.
sponsible for
hours (8:00 a
e during all o
mately 15 mon
ay occur wh
s near the p
ot be conside
e temporary,
to comply wi
ould reduce co
nal Noise
Neighborhood
de uses that w
The proposed
ce and 2,657 s
op mechanic
project’s esti
ion
ds PEIR Mitig
es individua
projects that
d project wou
port. The buil
tion of the p
not be applica
n proximity to
rectly east of
reduce constru
ruction noise
under the sup
Eastern Neigh
ct Mitigation
ruction activi
ancisco Nois
tion noise is
be conducted
s, must not ex
(2) impact to
orks (PW) or
noise reducti
at the site pro
ess the Direct
r enforcing th
a.m. to 5:00 p
other hours. N
nths, occupan
hen noise cou
roject site. T
ered a signific
intermittent,
ith the Noise
onstruction n
ds PEIR Mitig
would be exp
d project wou
square feet of
al equipment
imated 91 veh
gation Measu
al projects th
include part
uld be suppor
lding would b
proposed buil
able. Howev
o noise sensit
the project s
uction noise e
e by requirin
pervision of a
hborhoods PE
Measure 2 Co
ities for the p
se Ordinance
regulated by
d in the follow
xceed 80 dBA
ools must hav
the Director
ion; and (3) if
operty line by
tor of PW aut
he Noise Ord
p.m.). The Po
Nonetheless, d
nts of the nea
uld interfere
he increase i
cant impact
and restricte
Ordinance an
noise impacts
gation Measu
pected to gene
uld result in
f retail space.
t, including a
hicle trips du
ures F‐1 and
hat include
ticularly nois
rted by a stru
be supported
lding would
er, because o
tive uses such
site across Ta
effects to less
g the sponso
a qualified ac
EIR Mitigation
onstruction N
proposed pro
e (Article 29
y the Noise
wing manner:
A at a distance
ve intake and
of the Depar
f the noise fro
y 5 dBA, the
thorizes a spe
dinance for p
olice Departm
during the con
rby propertie
with indoor
in noise in th
of the propo
ed in occurre
nd Eastern N
to a less‐than
ure F‐5 addre
erate noise lev
a new 7‐stor
Noise from t
a variable ref
uring the p.m
F‐2 relate to
pile‐driving,
sy constructio
uctural slab sp
d by drilled‐in
not require i
other heavy
h as the resid
andang Sora
than signific
or to develop
coustical cons
n Measure F‐2
Noise is provi
oject (approx
of the San
Ordinance. T
: (1) noise lev
e of 100 feet f
d exhaust mu
rtment of Bu
om the const
work must n
ecial permit f
private constr
ment is respo
nstruction pe
es could be d
r activities in
he project ar
osed project, b
ence and lev
Neighborhood
n‐significant le
esses impacts
vels in excess
ry office build
the proposed
frigerant flow
m. peak hour d
o construction
and Mitiga
on procedure
panning piles
n‐place piles,
impact pile d
equipment w
dences at the
Street, Mitig
cant. Project M
p and implem
sultant. The p
2 as Project M
ided in the M
ximately 15 m
Francisco Po
The Noise O
vels of constr
from the sour
ufflers that ar
uilding Inspec
truction work
not be condu
for conductin
ruction proje
onsible for en
eriod for the p
disturbed by c
n nearby resi
rea during pr
because the
vel, as the con
ds PEIR Mitig
evel.
s related to i
s of ambient n
ding with 49,
project could
w system and
discussed in t
345 4th 2017-00169
n noise. Mitig
ation Measur
es (including
s, as recomme
rather than d
driving, Mitig
would be req
San Lorenzo
gation Measur
Mitigation Me
ment a set of
project sponso
Mitigation Me
Mitigation Mea
months) wou
olice Code) (
Ordinance req
ruction equip
rce (the equip
e approved b
ction (DBI) to
k would excee
ucted between
ng the work d
cts during n
nforcing the
proposed proj
construction
idences and
roject constru
construction
ntractor wou
ation Measur
individual pr
noise in the p
,896 square f
d result from t
d heat pumps
the Transpor
Street 90ENV
25
gation
re F‐2
g pile‐
ended
driven
gation
quired
o Ruiz
re F‐2
easure
noise
or has
easure
asures
uld be
Noise
quires
pment,
pment
by the
o best
ed the
n 8:00
during
ormal
Noise
ject of
noise.
other
uction
noise
uld be
re F‐2,
rojects
project
feet of
traffic
s. The
rtation
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING D l!PAATMa:NT
Community Initial Study
and Circu
would no
increase in
In regards
standards
than 8 dB
sections 2
less‐than‐
mechanic
noise ordi
is not app
proposed
The propo
informatio
insulation
Green Bu
performan
wall, floo
sound tra
complianc
floor/ceili
DBI, a det
The proje
in the vici
not applic
For the ab
identified
Topics:
6. AIR Q
a) Conflicapplica
b) Violatesubstanquality
c) Result increasproject applicaquality which precurs
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ulation sectio
ot represent a
n the ambient
s to noise fro
s of noise ord
A above the
2909(b) would
‐significant. T
al equipment
inance section
plicable becau
project as a w
osed project w
onal purpose
n standards.
uilding Code
nce‐based ac
r/ceiling, and
ansmission c
ce with Title
ng, and wind
tailed acousti
ct site is not l
inity of a priv
cable.
bove reasons,
d in the Easter
QUALITY—W
ct with or obstruable air quality pla
any air qualityntially to an eviolation?
in a cumulase of any criteri
region is noable federal, stat
standard (incluexceed quantitasors)?
ion
on would not
doubling in t
t noise level i
om rooftop m
dinance sectio
ambient at an
d ensure that
The environ
t, and provide
n 2909(b). Fo
use noise fro
whole, would
would be sub
es. The Califo
The acoustic
e. Title 24 a
oustical requ
d window ass
lass ratings
24, DBI wou
dow assembli
cal analysis o
ocated within
vate airstrip.
, the propose
rn Neighborh
Would the pro
uct implementatian?
y standard or existing or proj
atively considera pollutant for won-attainment ute, or regional amding releasing e
ative thresholds
t represent a
traffic volum
n the project
mechanical equ
on 2909(b), w
ny point outsi
t noise from
nmental nois
ed recommen
r these reason
m the propo
d not be expec
bject to the fo
ornia Buildin
al requireme
allows the p
uirement for
semblies to m
to ensure th
uld review th
ies meet Title
of the exterior
n an airport la
Therefore, to
ed project wo
oods PEIR.
ImptoP
oject:
on of the
contribute ected air
rable net which the under an mbient air emissions for ozone
a doubling in
es in the area
vicinity.
uipment, such
which limits n
ide the prope
the proposed
e study for
ndations for th
ns, Eastern N
sed project’s
cted to genera
llowing inter
ng Standards
ents of Title 2
project spons
non‐residenti
meet certain s
hat adequate
he final build
e 24 acoustica
r wall and win
and use plan
opic 12e and f
ould not resul
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
n traffic volu
a and therefor
h equipment
noise from res
erty plane. Co
d project’s m
r the propos
he proposed p
Neighborhood
traffic and m
ate excessive n
rior noise stan
s Code (Title
24 are incorp
sor to choos
tial uses. Both
sound transm
interior noi
ding plans to
al requiremen
ndow assemb
area, within t
f from the CE
lt in significa
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
umes in the a
re would not
is required t
sidential prop
ompliance wi
mechanical equ
sed project
project to me
ds PEIR Mitiga
mechanical eq
noise levels.
ndards, which
e 24) establish
porated into
se between
h compliance
mission class
ise standards
ensure that
nts. If determ
blies may be r
two miles of
EQA Guidelin
ant noise imp
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
345 4th 2017-00169
area and ther
t cause a notic
to comply wit
perties to no
ith noise ordin
uipment wou
analyzed ro
eet the standa
ation Measur
quipment, an
h are describe
hes uniform
the San Fran
a prescriptiv
e methods re
or outdoor‐in
s are achieve
the building
mined necessa
required.
a public airpo
nes, Appendix
pacts that wer
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
Street 90ENV
26
refore
ceable
th the
more
nance
uld be
ooftop
rds of
res F‐5
nd the
ed for
noise
ncisco
ve or
equire
ndoor
ed. In
g wall,
ary by
ort, or
x G is
re not
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
d) Exposepollutan
e) Create substan
The Easte
constructi
diesel par
PEIR iden
significan
would be
All other
Eastern N
and PEIR
TACs.22
Construct
Eastern N
projects in
constructi
Francisco
Building a
176‐08, ef
quantity o
protect th
to avoid o
dust, prim
Ordinance
would be
areas, cov
The regul
constructi
provision
Construct
21 The Bay A
or residi
daycares
and Haz22 The Easter
discusse
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
e sensitive rent concentrations
objectionablential number of p
ern Neighbor
ion activities
rticulate matt
ntified four
nt levels and
consistent w
air quality im
Neighborhood
R Mitigation M
tion Dust Co
Neighborhood
nvolving con
ion equipmen
Board of Su
and Health C
ffective July 3
of fugitive du
he health of th
orders to stop
marily from
e, the project
required to c
vering stockpi
lations and pr
ion dust imp
ns of PEIR M
tion Air Quali
Area Air Quality
ing in: 1) residen
s, 4) hospitals, an
zards, May 2011,
rn Neighborhood
ed below, and is n
ion
eceptors to ss?
e odors affepeople?
rhoods PEIR
and impacts
ter (DPM) an
mitigation m
stated that w
with the Bay A
mpacts were fo
ds PEIR Mitig
Measures G‐
ntrol
ds PEIR Miti
nstruction acti
nt so as to min
upervisors su
Codes, general
30, 2008). The
ust generated
he general pub
p work by DB
ground‐distu
t sponsor and
control constr
iled materials
rocedures set
pacts would
Mitigation Me
ity that addre
Management Di
ntial dwellings, i
nd 5) senior care
page 12.
ds PEIR also incl
no longer applic
ImptoP
substantial
ecting a
identified po
s to sensitive
nd other toxi
measures that
with implemen
Area 2005 Oz
ound to be les
gation Measur
3 and G‐4 ad
igation Meas
ivities to incl
nimize exhau
ubsequently a
lly referred to
e intent of th
during site pr
blic and of on
BI. Project‐rel
urbing activit
d contractor
ruction dust
s, street and si
forth by the S
not be signi
easure G‐1. T
esses dust con
istrict (BAAQMD
including apartm
e facilities. BAAQ
ludes Mitigation
able.
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
otentially sig
land uses21 a
c air contami
t would redu
ntation of ide
one Strategy,
ss than signifi
re G‐1 addres
ddress propo
sure G‐1 Con
ude dust con
ust emissions
approved a s
o as the Const
e Constructio
reparation, de
n‐site workers
lated constru
ties. In comp
responsible f
on the site th
idewalk swee
San Francisco
ificant. These
Therefore, the
ntrol is no lon
D) considers sens
ments, houses, c
QMD, Recommen
Measure G‐2, w
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
gnificant air q
as a result of
inants (TACs
uce these air
entified mitig
, the applicab
icant.
sses air qualit
osed uses tha
nstruction A
ntrol measure
of particulate
series of ame
truction Dust
on Dust Cont
emolition, an
s, minimize p
uction activitie
pliance with t
for constructi
hrough a com
eping and oth
o Dust Contro
e requiremen
e portion of
nger applicabl
sitive receptors a
condominiums, 2
nded Methods f
which has been su
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
quality impa
f exposure to
s). The Easter
r quality imp
gation measu
ble air quality
ty impacts du
at would em
Air Quality re
es and to ma
es and other p
endments to
t Control Ord
trol Ordinanc
nd constructio
public nuisan
es would res
the Construc
ion activities
mbination of w
her measures.
ol Ordinance
nts supersede
PEIR Mitiga
le to the prop
as: children, adul
2) schools, colleg
for Screening and
uperseded by He
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
acts resulting
elevated lev
rn Neighborh
pacts to less‐
ures, the Area
y plan at that
uring constru
mit DPM and
equires indiv
intain and op
pollutants. Th
the San Fran
dinance (Ordi
ce is to reduc
on work in or
nce complaints
ult in constru
ction Dust Co
at the projec
watering distu
.
would ensur
e the dust co
ation Measur
posed project.
lts or seniors occ
ges, and universi
d Modeling Loca
ealth Code Articl
Street 90ENV
27
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
from
vels of
hoods
‐than‐
a Plan
t time.
uction,
other
vidual
perate
he San
ncisco
nance
ce the
der to
s, and
uction
ontrol
ct site
urbed
re that
ontrol
re G‐1
cupying
ities, 3)
al Risks
le 38, as
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Criteria A
While the
Rezoning
“Individu
would be
individua
screening
air quality
considera
meet the
pollutant
Quality G
would be
space (and
of 277,000
project w
assessmen
Health Ri
Since cert
the San Fr
for Urban
December
based on
PM2.5 con
proximity
requires
Departme
equivalen
proposed
are not su
applicatio
Construct
The proje
risk to se
require he
constructi
implemen
exhaust b
23 San Franc
page 346
2014. 24 Bay Area A
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
Air Pollutants
e Eastern Nei
and Area Pla
ual developm
e subject to a
al projects.”23
criteria24 for
y standard, co
able net increa
screening cri
emissions d
Guidelines scr
e below the sc
d below the 9
0 square feet o
ould not hav
nt is not requi
isk
tification of th
rancisco Build
n Infill Sensit
r 8, 2014)(Art
modeling of
ncentration, c
y to freeways
that the pro
ent of Public
nt to that ass
project woul
ubject to enh
on would be r
tion
ct site is locat
ensitive recep
eavy‐duty off
ion period. Th
nt the portion
by requiring
cisco Planning D
6. Available onl
Air Quality Man
ion
s
ghborhoods
ans would no
ment projects u
significance
The BAAQM
determining
ontribute to a
ase in criteria
teria do not h
during constru
reening criter
creening crite
99,000 square
of office spac
ve a significan
ired.
he PEIR, San
ding and Hea
tive Use Dev
ticle 38). The
all known air
cumulative ex
. For sensitiv
oject sponsor
c Health (DP
ociated with
ld consist of r
hanced ventil
required for th
ted within an
ptors from ai
f‐road diesel v
hus, Project M
ns of Eastern
engines wit
epartment, Easte
ine at: http://ww
nagement District
PEIR determ
ot result in sig
undertaken in
determinatio
MD’s CEQA
g whether a p
an existing or
a air pollutan
have a signifi
uction and o
ia, since the 4
eria for opera
e feet criteria
ce (and below
nt impact rel
Francisco Bo
alth Codes, ge
velopments o
Air Pollutan
r pollutant so
xcess cancer
ve use project
r submit an
PH) that ach
a Minimum
retail and offi
lation require
he proposed p
n identified A
ir pollutants
vehicles and e
Mitigation Me
n Neighborho
th higher em
ern Neighborhoo
ww.sf‐planning.o
t, CEQA Air Qua
ined that at a
gnificant regio
n the future p
on based on
Air Quality G
project’s criter
projected air
nts. Pursuant
icant impact
operation of
49,896 square
ational criteri
for retail), an
w the 277,000 s
lated to criter
oard of Super
enerally refer
or Health Cod
nt Exposure Z
ources, exceed
risk, and inc
s within the A
Enhanced V
hieves prote
m Efficiency R
ce uses, whic
ements pursu
project.
ir Pollutant E
is considered
equipment du
easure 3 (Con
oods PEIR M
missions stan
od’s Rezoning an
org/Modules/Sho
ality Guidelines,
a program‐lev
onal air quali
pursuant to t
the BAAQM
Guidelines (A
ria air polluta
quality viola
to the Air Q
related to cri
the proposed
e feet of office
ia pollutants
nd the constru
square feet cr
ria air polluta
rvisors appro
red to as the
de, Article 38
Zone as defin
d health prote
corporates h
Air Pollutant
Ventilation P
ction from P
Reporting Val
ch are not con
uant to Artic
Exposure Zon
d substantial
uring 12 mon
nstruction Air
Mitigation Me
ndards on co
nd Area Plans F
owDocument.asp
updated May 20
vel the Easte
ity impacts, th
the new zoni
MD’s quantitat
ir Quality Gu
ant emissions
ation, or resul
Quality Guide
iteria air poll
d project wo
e and 4,350 s
of 346,000 sq
uction‐related
riteria for reta
ants, and a d
oved a series
Enhanced Ve
8 (Ordinance
ned in Article
ective standa
ealth vulnera
t Exposure Zo
Proposal for
PM2.5 (fine p
lue 13 filtrat
nsidered sens
cle 38; theref
ne; therefore,
l. The propos
nths of the ant
r Quality) has
asure G‐1 re
onstruction e
Final Environmen
px?documentid=
011. See pp. 3‐2 t
345 4th 2017-00169
ern Neighborh
he PEIR state
ing and area
tive threshold
uidelines) pr
s would viola
t in a cumula
elines, project
lutants. Criter
ould meet th
quare feet of
quare feet of
d screening cr
ail) . Therefor
detailed air q
of amendme
entilation Req
e 224‐14, ame
e 38 are areas
rds for cumu
ability factor
one, the ordin
approval by
particulate m
ion. Howeve
itive receptor
fore, no Artic
the ambient h
sed project w
ticipated 15‐m
s been identif
lated to emis
equipment. P
ntal Impact Repo
=4003. Accessed
to 3‐3.
Street 90ENV
28
hoods
es that
plans
ds for
rovide
ate an
atively
ts that
ria air
he Air
retail
office
riteria
re, the
quality
ents to
quired
ended
s that,
ulative
s and
nance
y the
matter)
er, the
rs and
cle 38
health
would
month
fied to
ssions
Project
ort. See
June 4,
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Community Initial Study
Mitigation
by 89 to
constructi
Measure
Quality is
Conclusio
For the a
Eastern N
result in s
Topics:
7. GREEWoul
a) Generadirectlyimpact
b) Conflicregulatof redu
The Easte
SoMa Are
and C are
service po
25 PM emiss
engines
Emission
have a P
requirin
PM emi
compari
g/bhp‐hr
Tier 2 (0
would r
g/bhp‐hr
Tier 0 en26 CO2E, defi
Dioxide 27 Memorand
Eastern
Eastern
of reside
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
n Measure 3 C
94 percent co
ion health ris
3 Constructi
s provided in
on
above reason
Neighborhood
significant air
ENHOUSE Gd the project
ate greenhousey or indirectly, th
on the environm
ct with any apion of an agencycing the emissio
ern Neighborh
ea Plan unde
e anticipated t
opulation,27 r
sions benefits are
do not have PM
ns Factors for Non
PM emission fac
g off‐road equip
issions, as comp
ing the PM emis
r). The 63 percen
0.15 g/bhp‐hr) an
educe PM by an
r) and 94 percen
ngines (0.40 g/bh
ined as equivalen
that would have
dum from Jessica
Neighborhoods,
Neighborhoods
ents and employe
ion
Construction
ompared to u
sks would be
on Air Quali
the Mitigatio
ns, air quality
ds PEIR wou
quality impa
AS EMISSIOt:
e gas emissionat may have a s
ment?
plicable plan, py adopted for the
ons of greenhous
hoods PEIR a
r the three re
to result in GH
espectively. T
e estimated by co
M emission stand
nroad Engine Mod
ctor of 0.72 g/hp
pment to have at
pared to off‐road
sion standards f
nt reduction com
nd Tier 0 (0.40 g/
additional 85 pe
t (0.0225 g/bhp‐h
hp‐hr).
nt Carbon Dioxid
e an equal global
a Range to Envir
, April 20, 2010
PEIR and provid
ees) metric.
Air Quality w
uncontrolled
e less than si
ity. The full
on Measures S
y Mitigation
uld be applica
acts that were
ImptoP
ONS—
ns, either significant
policy, or e purpose se gases?
ssessed the G
ezoning optio
HG emission
The Eastern N
omparing off‐ro
dards, but the U
deling – Compress
p‐hr and greater
least a Tier 2 en
d equipment w
or off‐road engin
mes from compa
/bhp‐hr). In addi
ercent. Therefore
hr) reduction in P
de, is a quantity
l warming poten
ronmental Plann
0. This memoran
des an analysis o
would reduce
construction
ignificant thr
text of Proje
Section below
Measure G‐1
able to the p
e not identifie
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
GHG emission
ons. The Easte
s on the orde
Neighborhoo
ad PM emission
United States Env
sion Ignition has
than 100 hp to
ngine would resu
with Tier 0 or T
nes between 25 h
ring the PM em
ition to the Tier
e, the mitigation
PM emissions, as
that describes ot
ntial.
ing staff, Greenh
ndum provides
of the emissions
e DPM exhau
n equipment.2
rough implem
ect Mitigation
w.
1 (Project M
proposed proj
d in the PEIR
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
ns that could
ern Neighbor
er of 4.2, 4.3 an
ods PEIR con
n standards for T
vironmental Prot
estimated Tier 0
have a PM emis
ult in between a
Tier 1 engines. T
hp and 50 hp for
mission standards
2 requirement, A
measure would
s compared to eq
ther greenhouse
house Gas Analy
an overview of
using a service
st from const25 Therefore,
mentation of
n Measure 3
Mitigation Me
ject and the
R.
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
result from re
rhoods Rezon
nd 4.5 metric
ncluded that t
Tier 2 with Tier 1
tection Agency’s
0 engines betwee
ssion factor of 0
25 percent and
The 25 percent
r Tier 2 (0.45 g/b
s for off‐road en
ARB Level 3 VD
result in betwee
quipment with T
gases in terms o
yses for Commun
f the GHG analy
population (equ
345 4th 2017-00169
truction equip
impacts relat
Project Mitig
3 Constructio
asure 3) from
project woul
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
ezoning of th
ning Options
tons of CO2E
the resulting
1 and 0. Tier 0 o
s Exhaust and Cr
en 50 hp and 10
0.40 g/hp‐hr. The
63 percent reduc
reduction come
bhp‐hr) and Tier
ngines above 175
DECSs are requir
en an 89 percent
Tier 1 (0.60 g/bhp
of the amount of C
nity Plan Exempt
ysis conducted
uivalent of total n
Street 90ENV
29
pment
ted to
gation
on Air
m the
ld not
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
e East
A, B,
E26 per
GHG
off‐road
rankcase
0 hp to
erefore,
ction in
es from
r 1 (0.60
5 hp for
red and
(0.0675
p‐hr) or
Carbon
tions in
for the
number
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
emissions
significan
The BAA
consistent
determina
are consis
than signi
assessmen
reduction
actions ha
exceeding
Order S‐3
San Franc
establishe
San Fran
significan
reduction
The prop
commerci
space. Th
result of i
energy us
result in t
The propo
the GHG
28 San Franc
http://sfm29 ICF Intern30 Bay Area
climate/a31 Office of
March 332 California
06/bill/a33 Executive
1990 lev34 Executive
as follow
1990 lev
85 millio35 Office of t
March 3
2030. 36 San Franci
GHG em
emission
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
s from the thr
nt. No mitigati
QMD has pr
t with CEQA
ation of signif
stent with an
ificant. San Fr
nt of policie
n strategy in
ave resulted
g the year 20
3‐0531, and As
cisco’s GHG
ed under Exe
cisco’s GHG
nt effect on t
n plans and re
posed project
ial building w
herefore, the
increased veh
se, water use,
emporary inc
osed project w
reduction st
cisco Planning D
mea.sfplanning.o
national, Technica
a Air Quality M
air‐quality‐plans/c
the Governor, E
, 2016.
a Legislative In
sm/ab_0001‐0050
Order S‐3‐05, A
els by year 2020.
Order S‐3‐05 set
ws: by 2010, redu
vels (approximate
on MTCO2E).
the Governor, Ex
3, 2016. Executive
isco’s GHG redu
missions for year
ns by 40 percent
ion
ree options an
ion measures
repared guide
A Guideline
ficant impacts
adopted GHG
rancisco’s Str
s, programs,
compliance
in a 23.3 per
020 reduction
ssembly Bill 3
reduction go
cutive Order
G Reduction
the environm
gulations.
would incre
with 49,896 sq
proposed pro
hicle trips (mo
wastewater t
creases in GH
would be sub
trategy. As d
epartment, Strat
org/GHG_Reduc
al Review of the 20
Management Dis
urrent‐plans, acce
Executive Order S
nformation, Asse
0/ab_32_bill_200
ssembly Bill 32,
.
ts forth a series o
uce GHG emissi
ely 427 million M
xecutive Order B‐3
e Order B‐30‐15
uction goals are c
r 1990; (ii) by 20
below 1990 level
nalyzed in th
s were identifi
elines and m
es Sections 1
s from a prop
G reduction s
rategies to Add
, and ordina
with the BA
rcent reductio
n goals outlin
32 (also know
als are consis
s S‐3‐0534 and
Strategy wou
ment and wo
ease the inte
quare feet of
oject would c
obile sources
treatment, and
HG emissions.
bject to regula
discussed bel
tegies to Address G
ction_Strategy.pd
012 Community‐w
strict, Clean Air
essed March 3, 20
S‐3‐05, June 1, 2
embly Bill 32, S
60927_chaptered
and the Bay Are
of target dates by
ions to 2000 leve
MTCO2E); and by
30‐15, April 29, 2
sets a state GHG
codified in Sectio
17, reduce GHG
ls; and by 2050, r
he Eastern Ne
ied in the PEI
methodologies
15064.4 and
posed project’
strategy to co
dress Greenhou
ances that co
AAQMD and
on in GHG em
ned in the BA
wn as the Glob
stent with, or
d B‐30‐15.35,36
uld not resu
ould not con
ensity of use
office space
contribute to
) and comme
d solid waste
ations adopte
low, complian
Greenhouse Gas E
df, accessed Marc
wide Inventory for
Plan, Septembe
016.
005. Available a
September 27, 2
d.pdf, accessed M
ea 2010 Clean Air
y which statewid
els (approximate
y 2050 reduce em
015. Available at
G emissions redu
on 902 of the Env
G emissions by 25
reduce GHG emi
eighborhoods
IR.
s for analyzin
15183.5 whi
’s GHG emiss
onclude that t
use Gas Emissi
ollectively re
d CEQA guid
missions in 2
AAQMD’s 20
bal Warming
r more aggre
Therefore, p
ult in GHG
nflict with st
e of the site
and 2,657 sq
o annual long
ercial operatio
e disposal. Co
ed to reduce G
nce with the
Emissions in San
ch 3, 2016.
the City and Coun
er 2010. Availab
at https://www.g
2006. Available
March 3, 2016.
r Plan set a targe
de emissions of G
ely 457 million M
missions to 80 pe
t https://www.go
uction goal of 40
vironment Code a
5 percent below
issions by 80 per
s Area Plans w
ng GHGs. Th
ich address
sions and allo
the project’s G
ions28 present
epresent San
delines. Thes
2012 compare
010 Clean Air
g Solutions A
essive than, th
projects that a
emissions th
tate, regional
by construct
quare feet of g
g‐term increa
ons that resul
onstruction ac
GHG emissio
e applicable r
Francisco, Novem
nty of San Francis
ble at http://www
gov.ca.gov/news
at http://www
et of reducing G
GHGs need to be
MTCO2E); by 202
ercent below 1990
ov.ca.gov/news.p
0 percent below
and include: (i) b
w 1990 levels; (iii)
rcent below 1990
345 4th 2017-00169
would be less
hese guideline
the analysis
ow for project
GHG impact i
ts a comprehe
Francisco’s
se GHG redu
ed to 1990 lev
r Plan,30 Exec
Act).32,33 In add
he long‐term
are consistent
hat would ha
l, and local
ting a seven
ground‐level
ases in GHGs
lt in an incre
ctivities would
ons as identif
regulations w
mber 2010. Avail
sco, January 21, 2
w.baaqmd.gov/pla
.php?id=1861, ac
w.leginfo.ca.gov/p
HG emissions to
progressively re
20, reduce emiss
0 levels (approxi
php?id=18938, ac
1990 levels by th
by 2008, determi
) by 2025, reduc
levels.
Street 90ENV
30
s than
es are
s and
ts that
is less
ensive
GHG
uction
vels,29
cutive
dition,
goals
t with
ave a
GHG
‐story
retail
s as a
ase in
d also
fied in
would
lable at
2015.
ans‐and‐
ccessed
pub/05‐
o below
educed,
sions to
imately
ccessed
he year
ne City
ce GHG
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Community Initial Study
reduce th
and use o
Complian
transporta
Program,
emissions
use of alte
The propo
Green Bu
ordinance
thereby re
be requir
project’s e
The prop
Recycling
Green Bu
reducing
conservin
Complian
sequestrat
Fireplace
requiring
project wa
Therefore
reduction
developm
beyond th
significan
measures
37 Complian
required38 Embodied
building39 While not
effect of
anticipat40 San Franci
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
e project’s GH
f refrigerants
nce with th
ation manag
and bicycle
s. These regu
ernative trans
osed project w
uilding Cod
es, and Energ
educing the p
ed to meet t
energy‐related
osed project’
g and Compo
ilding Code r
GHGs emitt
ng their embod
nce with the
tion. Other re
Ordinance w
low‐emitting
as determined
e, the propose
n plans and
ment evaluate
hose disclose
nt GHG emiss
are necessary
ce with water co
d for the project.
d energy is the to
g site.
t a GHG, VOCs
f future global w
ted local effects o
isco Planning De
ion
HG emissions
.
he City’s C
gement prog
parking requ
lations reduc
sportation mo
would be req
e, Stormwat
gy Conservat
proposed proj
the renewabl
d GHG emiss
s waste‐relat
osting Ordina
requirements
ted by landf
died energy38
e City’s Stre
egulations, in
would reduc
g finishes wou
d to be consis
ed project’s G
regulations.
ed in the PEI
ed in the PEI
sions that wer
y.
onservation meas
otal energy requir
are precursor po
warming that wo
of global warmin
epartment, Green
s related to tr
ommuter Be
grams, Trans
uirements wo
ce GHG emis
odes with zero
quired to com
ter Managem
tion Ordinan
ject’s energy‐r
e energy crit
sions.
ed emissions
ance, Constru
s. These regul
fill operation8 and reducin
eet Tree Pla
ncluding thos
ce emissions
uld reduce vo
stent with San
GHG emission
Furthermor
IR and would
IR. For the ab
re not identifi
sures reduce the
red for the extrac
ollutants that for
ould result in ad
ng.
nhouse Gas Analys
ransportation
enefits Prog
sportation S
uld reduce th
ssions from s
o or lower GH
mply with the
ment Ordina
ce, which wo
related GHG
teria of the G
s would be re
uction and D
lations reduc
ns. These reg
g the energy
anting requir
se limiting re
of GHGs an
olatile organi
n Francisco’s G
ns would not
re, the prop
d not result i
bove reasons
ied in the Eas
energy (and GH
ction, processing
rm ground level
ded health effec
sis: Compliance Ch
n, energy use,
gram, Emerg
Sustainability
he proposed
single‐occupa
HG emissions
energy effici
ance, Water
ould promot
emissions.37 A
Green Buildin
educed throu
Demolition De
ce the amoun
gulations also
required to p
rements wou
efrigerant em
nd black car
ic compound
GHG reducti
conflict with
posed project
in impacts as
s, the propos
stern Neighbo
HG emissions) req
g, manufacture a
ozone. Increase
cts locally. Redu
hecklist for345 4th
waste dispos
gency Ride
y Fee, Jobs‐
project’s tran
ancy vehicles
s on a per cap
ency requirem
Conservatio
te energy and
Additionally,
ng Code, fur
ugh complian
ebris Recover
nt of materials
o promote re
produce new m
uld serve to
missions and t
rbon, respect
ds (VOCs).39 T
on strategy.40
h state, region
t is within
ssociated wit
sed project w
orhoods PEIR
quired to convey
and delivery of b
ed ground level
cing VOC emiss
Street, Septembe
345 4th 2017-00169
sal, wood bur
Home Pro
Housing Lin
nsportation‐re
by promotin
pita basis.
ments of the
on and Irrig
d water effic
, the project w
rther reducin
nce with the
ry Ordinance
s sent to a lan
euse of mate
materials.
o increase c
the Wood Bu
tively. Regula
Thus, the prop0
nal, and local
the scope o
th GHG emis
would not res
R and no mitig
y, pump and trea
uilding material
ozone is an anti
sions would redu
er 21, 2017.
Street 90ENV
31
rning,
gram,
nkage
elated
ng the
City’s
gation
iency,
would
ng the
City’s
e, and
ndfill,
erials,
arbon
urning
ations
posed
GHG
of the
ssions
sult in
gation
at water
ls to the
cipated
uce the
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
8. WINDproje
a) Alter wpublic a
b) Create substanor othe
Wind
Based on
prepared
was to pr
which pr
assessmen
northwest
wind inte
wide face
The wind
mile‐per‐h
Section 14
mile‐per‐h
including
winds wo
described
soleil (sol
wind asse
Thus, the
identified
Shadow
Planning
additiona
Commissi
that shad
Eastern N
taller buil
to Section
Parks De
41 Donald Ba
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
D AND SHADct:
wind in a mannerareas?
new shadowntially affects ou
er public areas?
the height an
by a qualified
rovide a qua
ovides a scre
nt found that
t direction it w
rcepted by th
s oriented int
assessment f
hour wind ha
48, and that t
hour wind ha
g winds at bui
ould be limite
d above, In ad
ar protection
essment foun
e proposed p
d in the Easter
Code Section
al shadows on
ion between
dow would n
Neighborhood
ldings withou
n 295 of the Pl
partment or
allanti, Wind Eva
ion
DOW—Would
r that substantial
w in a mannutdoor recreation
nd location of
d wind consu
alitative evalu
eening‐level
t as the prop
would not be
he structure an
to the prevaili
found that the
azard criterion
the proposed
azard criterio
ilding entranc
ed due to sh
ddition, the m
) from floors
nd that the p
project would
rn Neighborh
n 295 general
n open space t
one hour afte
ot result in a
ds Rezoning
ut triggering S
lanning Code
privately ow
aluation of the Pro
SigPec
o
d the
lly affects
ner that n facilities
f the proposed
ultant for the
uation of the
estimation o
osed building
e across preva
nd directed d
ing wind dire
e existing win
n for a single
building wo
on at all pede
ces and publi
heltering by e
massing of the
2 to 6, that w
proposed pro
d not result
oods PEIR.
lly prohibits
that is under
er sunrise and
a significant
and Area Pla
Section 295 of
e (i.e., under j
wned). The E
posed 345 4th Stre
gnificant Impact culiar to Project or Project Site
☐
☒
d 85‐foot‐tall
proposed pro
potential wi
f the potenti
g would hav
ailing winds.
down to the st
ections.
nd conditions
full hour, as
ould not caus
estrian areas
ic sidewalks.
existing build
building has
would limit w
oject would n
in significan
new structur
the jurisdicti
d one hour b
adverse effec
ans, sites surr
f the Planning
urisdiction of
Eastern Neigh
eet Project, San Fr
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
building, a p
oject.41 The ob
ind impacts
ial wind imp
ve its long ax
This would t
treet level. Th
s on the adjace
outlined in th
se winds that
on and arou
Overall, the
dings and the
s design featu
wind accelerat
not cause new
nt impacts r
res above 40
ion of the San
before sunset,
ct on the use
rounding par
g Code becau
f department
hborhoods P
rancisco, Novemb
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformation
☐
☐
pedestrian win
bjective of the
of the propo
pacts of the
xis aligned alo
tend to minim
he building w
ent streets do
he San Franci
would reach
nd the propo
projectʹs expo
e orientation
ures, includin
tion. For the
w hazardous
elated to wi
feet in heigh
n Francisco Re
at any time
e of the open
rks could be
use certain pa
ts other than t
EIR could no
ber 30, 2017
345 4th 2017-00169
t to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
nd assessmen
e wind assess
osed develop
project. The
ong a southe
mize the amou
would not hav
o not exceed th
isco Planning
h or exceed th
osed develop
osure to prev
of the buildi
ng the vertical
above reason
s wind condi
ind that wer
ht that would
ecreation and
of the year, u
n space. Unde
redeveloped
arks are not su
the Recreatio
ot conclude
Street 90ENV
32
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
nt was
sment
pment,
wind
east to
unt of
ve any
he 26‐
Code
he 26‐
pment,
vailing
ing as
l brise
ns, the
itions.
re not
d cast
d Park
unless
er the
d with
ubject
on and
if the
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
rezoning
feasibility
determine
unavoidab
The prop
prepared
cast new
would no
However,
publically
Skating a
Gardens o
to unders
analysis w
The shad
Children’
the shado
shadow a
Commun
report fou
time. The
approxim
0.027 perc
new shad
square fee
along the
shadow o
substantia
Any new
would rep
the Easter
Recreation
the Alice
significan
PEIR.
42 San Franci43 CADP, 34544 Alice Stree
the Offic
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
and commu
y of complete
ed at that t
ble. No mitig
posed project
a preliminary
shadow on n
ot cast shadow
, the prelimin
y accessible o
and Bowling
on Lapu Lapu
stand shadow
was prepared
ow analysis
s Creativity M
ow cast by th
analysis quan
ity Gardens44
und that und
proposed pro
mately 40.11 p
cent as a perc
dow by area th
et, lasting for
northern por
on the garden
ally affect the
net project s
present a cum
rn Neighborh
n and Park C
e Street Com
nt impacts tha
isco Planning De
5 Fourth Street Sh
et Community G
ce of Community
ion
unity plans w
mitigation fo
ime. Therefo
gation measur
t would cons
y shadow fan
nearby parks
w on any prop
nary shadow
pen space ad
Center locate
u Street. Both
w effects of th
to evaluate sh
found that n
Museum and
he intervenin
ntified net ne4, which is no
er existing co
oject would r
percent of the
centage of the
hat would oc
4 minutes an
rtion and alo
ns that would
ir use and enj
shadow on p
mulatively con
hoods PEIR. H
Commission w
mmunity Gard
at were not pr
epartment, Prelim
hadow Analysis, N
Gardens are unde
y Investment and
would result
or potential n
ore, the PEIR
res were ident
struct an 85‐
n analysis to d
s. 42 The preli
perties under
fan showed t
djacent to the
ed in Yerba B
of these prop
he proposed
hadow effect
no net new sh
the Yerba Bu
ng 6 story off
ew shadow a
ot under the ju
onditions, the
result in an in
time. Thus,
e theoretical a
ccur, which w
nd 48 seconds
ng the southe
d result from t
joyment.
parks under t
nsiderable co
However, as
would be sha
dens would
reviously iden
minary Shadow Fa
November 29, 201
er the jurisdiction
d Infrastructure (
t in less‐than
new shadow i
R determine
tified in the P
‐foot‐tall buil
determine wh
minary shad
r the jurisdicti
the proposed
Children’s C
Buena Garde
perties are not
project on p
s on these tw
hadow woul
uena Ice Skat
fice building
ssociated wit
urisdiction of
e gardens are
ncrease in shad
the overall in
annual availab
would be Dece
s. This additio
ern edge of th
the proposed
the jurisdictio
ontribution to
described ab
aded by the p
be very mi
ntified or mor
n: 345 4th Street, M
17
n of the San Fran
(OCII).
n‐significant
impacts of un
ed shadow i
PEIR.
lding; therefo
hether the proj
dow fan indic
tion of the Re
d project has t
Creativity Mu
ens, as well a
t covered by
public spaces
wo properties.4
d be cast by
ting and Bow
immediately
th the propo
f the Recreati
e shaded app
ding such tha
ncrease in sh
ble sunlight.
ember 20th at
onal shadow
the communit
d project wou
on of the Rec
o the cumulat
bove, no park
proposed pro
inor, project
re severe imp
May 2, 2017
ncisco Redevelop
shadow imp
nknown prop
impacts to b
ore, the Plan
oject would ha
cated that the
creation and
the potential
useum and th
as the Alice S
Section 295, b
. Therefore, a43
y the propose
wling Center (
y north of th
osed project o
ion and Park
roximately 40
at the gardens
hading would
Figure 12 sho
3:55 pm and
would be cas
ty gardens, th
uld be negligib
creation and
tive shadow i
ks under the
oject. As the s
shadow wo
pacts than tho
pment Agency, w
345 4th 2017-00169
pacts becaus
posals could n
be significant
nning Depar
ave the poten
e proposed p
Park Commi
to cast shado
he Yerba Buen
Street Comm
but were eval
a detailed sh
ed building o
(Figure 11), d
he project site
on the Alice
Commission
0.08 percent o
s would be sh
d be approxim
ows the large
would be 1,6
st in a narrow
hus this addi
ble and woul
Park Comm
impact analyz
jurisdiction o
shadow impa
ould not resu
ose analyzed
which was succee
Street 90ENV
33
se the
not be
t and
tment
ntial to
project
ission.
ow on
na Ice
munity
luated
hadow
on the
due to
e. The
Street
n. The
of the
haded
mately
est net
666.64
w strip
itional
ld not
mission
zed in
of the
acts to
ult in
in the
eded by
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
Fig
Figure
ion
gure 11. Net N
e 12. Time of M
New Shadow
Maximum Im
w on Alice Stre
mpact on Alice
eet Communi
e Street Comm
ity Gardens
munity Garde
345 4th 2017-00169
ens
Street 90ENV
34
345 Fourth Street • Alice Street Community Gardens • December 20th 3:55 pm
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ALICE STREET COMMUNITY GARDENS
• •
- ~·~ ......... ~,. .... ..._, ....., __ ....,_..s..w,_
Community Initial Study
The propo
times with
expected
occupants
shading o
impact un
For the ab
were not i
Topics:
9. RECR
a) Increasregionathat sfacilities
b) Includeconstrufacilitieeffect o
c) Physicaresourc
The East
Rezoning
recreation
adverse e
identified
Support f
implemen
park and
As part of
Neighbor
voters of
providing
the renov
improvem
Water Co
fees and t
to that d
Facilities.
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
osed project w
hin the projec
in urban area
s of nearby p
of private pro
nder CEQA.
bove reasons,
identified in t
REATION—W
se the use of eal parks or other ubstantial physis would occur or
e recreational fuction or exps that might ha
on the environme
ally degrade ces?
ern Neighbo
and Area P
nal resources
effect on the
d in the Easter
for Upgrades
nt funding m
recreation fac
f the Eastern
hoods that go
San Francis
g the Recreatio
vation and rep
ments and ex
ove Park, and
the 2012 San
escribed in P
ion
would also sh
ct vicinity. Sh
as and would
roperty may
operties as a
the proposed
the Eastern N
Would the pro
existing neighborrecreational faci
ical deteriorationbe accelerated?
facilities or reqpansion of reave an adverseent?
existing re
orhoods PEIR
Plans would
or require th
e environmen
rn Neighborh
to Existing R
mechanisms fo
cilities to ensu
Neighborhoo
oes towards f
sco passed th
on and Parks
pair of parks,
xpansion to G
d Pier 70 Park
Francisco Cle
PEIR Improv
hade portions
hadows upon
d be consider
regard the in
result of the
d project wou
Neighborhood
ImptoP
oject:
rhood and lities such n of the
quire the creational
e physical
creational
R concluded
d not result
e construction
nt. No mitig
hoods PEIR. H
Recreation Fa
or an ongoin
ure the safety
ods adoption,
funding recre
he 2012 San
s Department
, recreation, a
Garfield Squa
ks Shoreline w
ean and Safe
vement Meas
s of nearby st
streets and si
red a less‐tha
ncrease in sha
proposed pr
uld not result
ds PEIR.
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
d that implem
in substantia
n or expansio
gation measu
However, the
acilities. This
g program to
y of users.
the City ado
eation and op
Francisco C
an additiona
and open spa
are, South Pa
within the Ea
Neighborhoo
sure H‐1: Sup
treets and sid
idewalks wou
an‐significant
adow as und
roject would
in significant
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
mentation o
al or acceler
on of recreati
res related t
PEIR identifi
improvemen
o repair, upg
pted impact f
pen space. Sin
Clean and Sa
al $195 million
ace assets. Th
ark, Potrero
astern Neighb
od Parks Bon
pport for Up
dewalks and p
uld not exceed
t effect under
desirable, the
not be consid
t impacts rela
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
f the Easter
rated deterio
ional facilities
to recreation
ied Improvem
nt measure ca
grade and ad
fees for devel
nce certificatio
afe Neighbor
n to continue
his funding is
Hill Recreati
borhoods Plan
d are funding
pgrades to E
345 4th 2017-00169
private prope
d levels comm
r CEQA. Alth
limited incre
dered a signi
ated to shadow
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
rn Neighborh
oration of ex
s that may ha
al resources
ment Measure
alls for the C
dequately ma
lopment in Ea
on of the PEIR
rhood Parks
capital projec
s being utilize
ion Center, W
n area. The im
g measures si
Existing Recre
Street 90ENV
35
erty at
monly
hough
ase in
ificant
w that
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
hoods
xisting
ave an
were
e H‐1:
City to
intain
astern
R, the
Bond cts for
ed for
Warm
mpact
imilar
eation
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
An updat
2014. The
and polic
amended
locations
Improvem
17th and F
the Better
Network
people to
Six routes
Mission t
conceptua
Mission C
Furtherm
common)
owned, p
project is
increased
As the pro
density e
additiona
Topics:
10. UTILISYST
a) Exceedthe apBoard?
b) Requirewater expansof whiceffects?
c) Requirestorm wexistingcause s
d) Have sthe prresourcsupply
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
te of the Recr
amended RO
cies about ac
ROSE ident
where new
ment Measure
Folsom, are b
r Streets Plan
in open spac
parks, open
s identified w
to Peaks (Rou
ally designed
Creek to McLa
ore, the Plann
for each ne
publicly acces
required to c
residential p
oposed projec
stablished un
al impacts on r
ITIES AND STEMS—Woul
d wastewater trplicable Region
?
e or result in or wastewater
sion of existing fch could cause ?
e or result in water drainage g facilities, the cosignificant enviro
sufficient water sroject from exces, or require resources or ent
ion
reation and O
OSE provides
ccessing, acqu
ifies areas w
open spaces
e H‐2: Suppor
oth set to ope
n (refer to “T
ce and recrea
spaces, and th
within the Gre
ute 6); Noe V
d; Tenderloin
aren (Route 2
ning Code re
ew residentia
ssible open sp
comply woul
opulation to t
ct would not
nder the Eas
recreation bey
ERVICE d the projec
reatment requireal Water Qualit
the constructionr treatment facfacilities, the cosignificant envir
the constructionfacilities or exp
onstruction of whonmental effects?
supply availablexisting entitlemenew or expand
titlements?
Open Space El
s a 20‐year vi
uiring, fundi
within the Eas
and open sp
rt for New Op
en in 2017. In
Transportatio
ation. Green
he waterfron
een Connectio
Valley to Cen
to Potrero (R
0); and Shore
quires a spec
al unit. Some
paces. The Pl
ld help offset
the project ar
degrade recr
stern Neighbo
yond those an
ImptoP
t:
ements of ty Control
n of new cilities or nstruction ronmental
n of new pansion of hich could ?
e to serve ents and ded water
lement (ROSE
ision for open
ing, and man
stern Neighb
pace connect
pen Space. Tw
n addition, th
on” section fo
Connections
t, while enha
ons Network
ntral Waterfro
Route 18); Dow
eline (Route 24
cified amount
e developmen
lanning Code
t some of the
rea.
reational facil
orhoods Rezo
nalyzed in the
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
☐
E) of the Gen
n spaces in th
naging open
borhoods Plan
tions should
wo of these op
he amended R
or description
s are special
ancing the eco
cross the Eas
ont (Route 8)
wntown to M
4).
t of new usab
nts are also
e open space
e additional o
lities and is co
oning and A
e Eastern Nei
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
☐
neral Plan wa
he City. It inc
spaces in S
n area for ac
be built, con
pen spaces, D
ROSE identifi
n) and the G
streets and p
ology of the s
stern Neighbo
), a portion o
Mission Bay (R
ble open space
required to
e requirement
open space n
onsistent with
Area Plans, th
ighborhoods
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
☐
345 4th 2017-00169
as adopted in
cludes inform
San Francisco
cquisition an
nsistent with
Daggett Park a
ies the role of
Green Conne
paths that co
street environ
orhoods Plan
of which has
Route 19); Fo
e (either priv
provide priv
ts, with whic
needs generat
h the develop
here would b
PEIR.
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
☒
Street 90ENV
36
April
mation
o. The
nd the
PEIR
and at
f both
ctions
onnect
nment.
n area:
s been
olsom,
vate or
vately
ch the
ted by
pment
be no
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
☒
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
e) Result treatmethat it projectprovide
f) Be sercapacitwaste d
g) Complyand reg
The Easte
result in a
waste coll
Since cert
Urban Wa
projection
demand m
includes a
mandatin
quantifica
UWMP p
droughts.
response t
In additio
which is
infrastruc
improvem
Southeast
Mission a
As the p
Neighbor
systems b
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
in a determinaent provider that
has inadequat’s projected de
er’s existing com
rved by a landfilty to accommodisposal needs?
y with federal, gulations related
ern Neighbor
a significant
lection and di
tification of th
ater Managem
ns to the yea
management
a discussion o
ng a statewid
ation of the S
projects suffic
Plans are in
to severe drou
on, the SFPU
a 20‐year,
cture to ensu
ments that wi
t Treatment P
nd Valencia G
roposed proj
hoods Rezon
beyond those
ion
ation by the wt would serve the capacity to smand in additiomitments?
l with sufficient odate the proje
state, and locato solid waste?
rhoods PEIR
impact to the
isposal. No m
he PEIR, the S
ment Plan (U
ar 2035, comp
measures to
of the conserv
de 20% redu
SFPUCʹs wat
cient water
place to instit
ughts.
UC is in the
multi‐billion
ure a reliab
ill serve dev
Plant, the Ce
Green Gatewa
ject is consis
ning and Area
analyzed in th
ImptoP
wastewater he project serve the on to the
permitted ect’s solid
al statutes
determined
e provision o
mitigation mea
San Francisco
UWMP) in Jun
pares availab
o reduce long
vation require
uction in pe
er use reduc
supply in no
tute varying d
process of im
n dollar city
ble and seism
elopment in
ntral Bayside
ay.
stent with th
a Plans, there
he Eastern Ne
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
that the ant
of water, was
asures were id
o Public Utili
ne 2011. The
ble water sup
g‐term water
ement set for
er capita wat
ction targets a
ormal years
degrees of wa
mplementing
ywide upgra
mically safe
the Eastern
e System, and
he developm
e would be no
eighborhoods
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
ticipated incr
stewater colle
dentified in th
ities Commiss
UWMP upd
pplies to mee
demand. Ad
rth in Senate B
ter use by
and plan for
and a supp
ater conserva
the Sewer S
ade to the C
system. Th
Neighborhoo
d green infra
ment density
o additional i
s PEIR.
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
rease in popu
ection and tre
he PEIR.
sion (SFPUC)
date includes
et demand an
dditionally, th
Bill 7 passed
2020. The U
r meeting the
ply shortfall
ation and ratio
System Impro
City’s sewer
he program
ods Plan are
astructure pr
established u
impacts on u
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
ulation woul
eatment, and
) adopted the
city‐wide de
nd presents
he UWMP u
in November
UWMP includ
ese objectives
during prolo
oning as need
ovement Pro
r and storm
includes pla
a including a
ojects, such a
under the Ea
utilities and se
Street 90ENV
37
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
ld not
d solid
e 2010
mand
water
update
r 2009
des a
s. The
onged
ded in
gram,
mwater
anned
at the
as the
astern
ervice
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
11. PUBLproje
a) Result associanew orthe conenvironacceptaother serviceprotect
The Easte
result in
physically
mitigation
As the p
Neighbor
severe im
analyzed
Topics:
12. BIOLthe p
a) Have aor throidentifiestatus sor reguFish aService
b) Have ahabitat identifieregulatFish aService
c) Have aprotectthe Clemarsh,removameans
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
LIC SERVICEct:
in substantial aated with the pror physically alterenstruction of whicnmental impactsable service raperformance ob
es such as ion, schools, par
ern Neighbor
a substantial
y altered pub
n measures w
roposed proj
hoods Rezon
pacts on the p
in the Eastern
OGICAL RESroject:
a substantial advugh habitat moded as a candidaspecies in local o
ulations, or by theand Game or e?
a substantial adveor other sens
ed in local or ions or by the
and Game or e?
a substantial aded wetlands as
ean Water Act (in vernal pool, co
al, filling, hydrolo?
ion
ES—Would th
adverse physicaovision of, or theed governmentach could cause ss, in order to tios, response bjectives for anfire protection
rks, or other serv
rhoods PEIR
l adverse phy
blic services,
were identified
ject is consis
ning and Are
physical envi
n Neighborho
SOURCES—
verse effect, eithdifications, on anate, sensitive, oor regional planse California DepaU.S. Fish and
erse effect on ansitive natural cregional plans,California DepaU.S. Fish and
dverse effect ondefined by Secti
ncluding, but not oastal, etc.) throuogical interruption
ImptoP
he
al impacts need for, l facilities, significant
maintain times, or ny public n, police vices?
determined
ysical impact
including fir
d in the PEIR.
stent with th
ea Plans, the
ronment asso
oods PEIR.
ImptoP
Would
er directly ny species or special-s, policies, artment of d Wildlife
ny riparian community policies,
artment of d Wildlife
federally ion 404 of limited to, ugh direct n, or other
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
that the ant
ts associated
re protection,
.
he developm
project wou
ociated with t
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
ticipated incr
with the pro
, police prote
ment density
uld not result
the provision
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
rease in popu
ovision of or
ection, and p
established u
t in new or s
of public serv
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
ulation woul
r need for ne
public school
under the Ea
substantially
vices beyond
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
Street 90ENV
38
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
ld not
ew or
ls. No
astern
more
those
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
d) Interfernative speciesmigratonative w
e) Conflicprotectpreserv
f) ConflicConserConserregiona
As discus
urban env
animal sp
could be
envisione
movemen
implemen
mitigation
The proje
therefore,
implemen
identified
Topics:
13. GEOLproje
a) Exposesubstanloss, in
i) RdeEaStotfaG
ii) St
iii) Seliq
iv) La
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
re substantially wresident or m
s or with estabory wildlife corridwildlife nursery s
ct with any locaing biological revation policy or o
ct with the provisirvation Plan, rvation Plan, oal, or state habita
ssed in the Ea
vironment th
pecies. There
affected by
d under the
nt of any res
ntation of the
n measures w
ect site is loc
does not su
ntation of the
d in the Easter
LOGY AND Sct:
e people or ntial adverse eff
njury, or death inv
upture of a knoelineated on the arthquake Fault tate Geologist fother substantial ult? (Refer to eology Special P
trong seismic gro
eismic-related gquefaction?
andslides?
ion
with the movememigratory fish oblished native redors, or impede tsites?
al policies or oesources, such ordinance?
ons of an adopteNatural C
or other approvat conservation p
stern Neighb
hat does not
are no ripar
the develop
Eastern Nei
ident or mig
Area Plan w
were identified
cated within
upport habit
proposed pro
rn Neighborh
SOILS—Wou
structures to fects, including tvolving:
own earthquake most recent AlquZoning Map issuor the area or
evidence of Division of M
Publication 42.)
ound shaking?
ground failure,
ImptoP
ent of any or wildlife esident or the use of
rdinances as a tree
ed Habitat ommunity
ved local, plan?
borhoods PEIR
provide nati
rian corridors
pment anticip
ighborhoods
gratory wildli
would not resu
d.
East SoMa P
tat for any c
oject would n
oods PEIR.
SImp
toP
ld the
potential the risk of
fault, as uist-Priolo ued by the based on a known ines and
including
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
R, the Eastern
ve natural h
s, estuaries, m
pated under
Area Plan w
ife species. F
ult in signific
Plan area of t
candidate, sen
not result in si
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
n Neighborho
habitat for an
marshes, or w
the Area Pl
would not su
For these rea
cant impacts
the Eastern N
nsitive or sp
ignificant imp
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
oods Plan are
ny rare or en
wetlands in t
lan. In addit
ubstantially
sons, the PE
on biological
Neighborhoo
pecial status
pacts to biolo
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformation
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SignImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
a is in a deve
dangered pla
the Plan Area
tion, develop
interfere wit
IR concluded
l resources, an
ods Area Plan
species. As
ogical resource
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
☒
Street 90ENV
39
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
eloped
ant or
a that
pment
th the
d that
nd no
n and
such,
es not
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
☒
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
b) Result topsoil?
c) Be locunstabresult oor ofsubside
d) Be locTable 1creatin
e) Have sthe usedisposafor the
f) Changeunique
The Easte
the popul
liquefactio
comparab
Complian
would no
seismicall
Plan wou
identified
A geotech
results of
loose to m
approxim
depths of
sandy silt
consisting
the alluvi
existing
investigat
concluded
very dens
The projec
constructi
building
through t
45 Rollo and
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
in substantial s?
cated on geolole, or that woulof the project, anff-site landslidence, liquefaction
cated on expan18-1-B of the g substantial risk
soils incapable e of septic tanks al systems wheredisposal of wast
e substantially geologic or phys
ern Neighborh
lation that w
on, and land
ble older dev
nce with appl
ot eliminate
ly active char
uld not result
d in the Easter
hnical investi
the field inve
medium den
mately 7 to 8.5
15 to 16 feet
t and clay and
g of medium
ial deposits a
site grade.
tions at dept
d that the pro
se alluvial dep
ct is required
ion in the Cit
permit for th
the building
Ridley, Inc. Geo
ion
soil erosion or th
ogic unit or sod become unstand potentially resde, lateral sn, or collapse?
nsive soil, as dUniform Buildin
ks to life or prope
of adequately sor alternative w
e sewers are nottewater?
the topographysical features of
hoods PEIR c
ould be subje
dslides. The
velopment du
licable codes
earthquake
racteristics of
in significan
rn Neighborh
igation that i
estigation ind
se sand with
foot thick lay
is a Marsh d
d medium den
dense to very
are underlain
Groundwate
ths ranging
oposed struct
posits underly
to conform t
ty. DBI will re
he project. In
permit appli
technical Investi
SImp
toP
he loss of
il that is able as a sult in on- spreading,
defined in ng Code, erty?
supporting astewater t available
y or any the site?
concluded th
ect to an eart
PEIR also n
ue to improv
and recomm
risks, but w
f the Bay Are
nt impacts wi
oods PEIR.
ncluded thre
dicate that the
h varying am
yer of clean, m
eposit layer a
nse clayey san
y dense claye
by Francisca
er was enco
from approx
ture should b
ying the Mars
o the San Fra
eview the pro
n addition, D
ication proce
igation, 345 4th St
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
hat implement
thquake, incl
noted that n
vements in bu
mendations ma
would reduce
ea. Thus, the
ith regard to
ee borings wa
e site is blank
mounts of bri
medium dens
approximately
nd. The Mars
y sand and s
an Complex B
ountered dur
ximately 14
be supported
sh deposits, a
ncisco Buildin
oject‐specific
DBI may req
ess, as needed
treet, San Francis
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
ntation of the
luding seismi
new develop
uilding code
ade in projec
e them to a
PEIR conclud
geology, and
as prepared f
keted by abou
ick and rubb
se sand (Dune
y 3 to 8 feet t
sh deposits ar
and. Borings
Bedrock at de
ring the inv
to 20 feet. T
by a pile fou
and presents d
ng Code, whi
geotechnical
quire addition
d. The DBI r
sco, California, A
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformation
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Plan would
ically induced
pment is gen
s and constr
ct‐specific geo
an acceptable
ded that imp
d no mitigati
for the propo
ut 6 to 8 feet o
ble. The fill i
e sand). Und
thick consistin
re underlain b
at nearby pr
epths exceedi
vestigation a
The geotechn
undation plac
detailed desig
ich ensures th
report durin
nal site spec
requirement
April 13, 2017.
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
indirectly inc
d ground‐sha
nerally safer
ruction techni
otechnical ana
e level, give
plementation
ion measures
osed project.4
of fill, consist
s underlain b
erlying the sa
ng of medium
by alluvial dep
ojects indicat
ing 100 feet b
and other n
nical investig
ced in the den
gn criteria.
he safety of al
ng its review
cific soils rep
for a geotech
Street 90ENV
40
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
crease
aking,
than
iques.
alyses
n the
of the
s were
45 The
ing of
by an
and at
m stiff
posits
te that
below
nearby
gation
nse to
ll new
of the
port(s)
hnical
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
report and
Code wou
or other g
In light of
geologic h
geology a
measures
Topics:
14. HYDRQUAL
a) Violatedischar
b) Substainterfersuch thvolumetable lexistingwould uses fo
c) Substaof thealteratimanneor siltat
d) Substathe sitethe couincreasmannesite?
e) Create exceedstormwsubstan
f) Otherw
g) Place area aBoundaauthori
h) Place structuflows?
i) Exposeof losincludinlevee o
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
d review of t
uld ensure th
geological haz
f the above, t
hazards. The
and soils tha
are necessary
ROLOGY ANLITY—Would
any water quarge requirements
antially deplete re substantially what there would e or a lowering evel (e.g., the g nearby wells wnot support exis
or which permits
antially alter the site or areaon of the courser that would restion on- or off-sit
ntially alter the ee or area, includinurse of a streamse the rate or amr that would res
or contribute rd the capacity water drainage ntial additional so
wise substantially
housing within as mapped on ary or Flood Insutative flood haza
within a 100-yres that would
e people or strucs, injury or dng flooding as aor dam?
ion
the building p
hat the propos
zards.
the proposed
erefore, the p
at were not
y.
D WATER d the project
ality standards s?
groundwater suwith groundwaterbe a net deficit of the local groproduction rate
would drop to a leting land uses ohave been grant
existing drainag, including thro
e of a stream or sult in substantiae?
existing drainage ng through the alm or river, or sumount of surface rsult in flooding o
runoff water whiof existing or
systems or ources of pollute
y degrade water q
a 100-year flooa federal Flood
urance Rate Maard delineation m
year flood hazimpede or redi
ctures to a signideath involving a result of the fa
permit applic
sed project w
project woul
proposed pro
identified in
ImptoP
:
or waste
upplies or r recharge in aquifer
oundwater e of pre-evel which or planned ted)?
ge pattern ough the river, in a al erosion
pattern of teration of bstantially runoff in a on- or off-
ich would r planned
provide ed runoff?
quality?
od hazard d Hazard p or other
map?
zard area rect flood
ficant risk flooding,
ailure of a
cation pursua
would have no
ld not result
oject would n
n the Eastern
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
ant to DBI’s i
o significant i
in a significa
not result in
n Neighborho
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
implementati
impacts relate
ant effect rela
significant i
oods PEIR, a
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
345 4th 2017-00169
ion of the Bui
ed to soils, se
ated to seismi
impacts relat
and no mitig
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
Street 90ENV
41
ilding
eismic
ic and
ted to
gation
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
j) Exposeof lossseiche,
The Easte
result in a
the potent
The existi
proposed
northern
portion of
runoff.
Therefore
water qua
Topics:
15. HAZAMATE
a) Create environor disp
b) Create environupset releaseenviron
c) Emit haor acutwaste propos
d) Be locahazardGovernresult, public o
e) For a pplan oadoptepublic safety the pro
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
e people or strucs, injury or death, tsunami, or mud
ern Neighbor
a significant i
tial for combi
ing building a
project wou
side of the p
f which wou
e, the propose
ality that were
ARDS AND HERIALS—Wo
a significant hanment through thosal of hazardou
a significant hanment through and accident
e of hazardounment?
azardous emissitely hazardous within one-quarted school?
ated on a site whous materials si
nment Code Sewould it create aor the environme
project located wor, where suchd, within two muse airport, wouhazard for peop
oject area?
ion
ctures to a signih involving inundflow?
rhoods PEIR
impact on hyd
ined sewer ou
and adjacent
uld slightly d
parcel would
ld be vegetat
ed project w
e not identifie
HAZARDOUSould the proje
azard to the pubhe routine transus materials?
azard to the pubreasonably fo
conditions invous materials
ions or handle hmaterials, substter mile of an e
hich is included oites compiled puction 65962.5 aa significant hazent?
within an airport a plan has
iles of a public uld the project rple residing or w
ImptoP
ficant risk dation by
determined
drology and
utflows. No m
parking lot c
decrease the e
contain an 1
ted. As a resu
ould not resu
ed in the East
ImptoP
S ect:
blic or the port, use,
blic or the reseeable
olving the into the
hazardous tances, or existing or
on a list of ursuant to and, as a ard to the
land use not been airport or
result in a working in
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
that the ant
water quality
mitigation mea
currently cov
existing impe
1,010 square‐
ult, the propo
ult in any sig
tern Neighbor
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
ticipated incr
y, including th
asures were i
ver the parcel
ervious surfa
‐foot privatel
osed project w
gnificant imp
rhoods PEIR.
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
rease in popu
he combined
identified in t
l with imperv
ce coverage
ly owned pu
would not in
pacts related
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
ulation woul
sewer system
the PEIR.
vious surfaces
on the site, a
ublic open sp
ncrease storm
to hydrology
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
Street 90ENV
42
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
ld not
m and
s. The
as the
ace, a
mwater
y and
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
☒
☒
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
f) For a airstriphazardproject
g) Impair with anemerge
h) Exposeof loss,
The Easte
options w
there is a
the projec
with the
However,
and inves
protect w
Hazardou
The Easte
demolitio
materials
accident
addressed
ballasts th
vapors, an
building o
these ma
identified
mercury
Measure
would re
demolitio
text of Mi
Soil and G
Since cert
expanded
materials,
sites with
over‐arch
handling,
encounter
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
project within , would the pr for people resarea?
implementation n adopted emeency evacuation
e people or struc, injury, or death
ern Neighborh
would encoura
high potentia
ct area becaus
use of haza
, the PEIR fou
stigation and
orkers and th
us Building M
ern Neighbor
on or renovati
commonly u
or during de
d in the PEIR
hat contain P
nd lead‐based
occupants if
aterials would
d a significant
and determin
L‐1 from the
educe effects
on of an existi
itigation Meas
Groundwater
tification of th
d to include p
, primarily in
h historic bay
ing goal of th
treatment,
red in the bui
ion
the vicinity of roject result in siding or workin
of or physicallyrgency responseplan?
ctures to a signiinvolving fires?
hoods PEIR n
age construct
al to encounte
se of the prese
ardous mater
und that exist
cleanup of s
he community
Materials
rhoods PEIR
ion of existin
used in older
emolition or
R include asbe
PCBs or di (2
d paints. Asb
they are in a
d also requi
t impact assoc
ned that tha
e Eastern Nei
to a less‐th
ing building,
sure 4 in the M
r Contaminat
he PEIR, Artic
properties th
ndustrial zoni
y fill, and site
he Maher Ord
disposal an
ilding constru
ImptoP
a private a safety
ng in the
y interfere e plan or
ficant risk
noted that im
tion of new d
er hazardous
ence of 1906 e
rials, and kn
ting regulatio
soil and grou
y from exposu
determined
ng structures
r buildings co
renovation
estos, electric
ethylhexyl) p
bestos and lea
a deteriorated
re special d
ciated with h
at Mitigation
ghborhoods
han‐significan
Mitigation M
Mitigation Me
tion
cle 22A of the
hroughout the
ing districts,
es in close pr
dinance is to p
nd when ne
uction proces
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
mplementation
development w
materials du
earthquake fil
nown or susp
ons for facility
undwater wo
ure to hazard
that future d
containing ha
ould present
of an existin
cal equipment
phthalate (DE
ad based pain
d condition. If
isposal proce
hazardous bui
Measure 4:
PEIR), as ou
nt level. Bec
Measure 4 wo
easures Sectio
e Health Cod
e City where
sites with ind
roximity to fr
protect public
cessary, rem
s. Projects tha
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
n of any of th
within the pr
uring construc
ll, previous a
pected hazar
y closure, Und
ould ensure i
ous materials
development
azardous bui
a public hea
ng building.
t such as tran
EHP), fluores
nt may also p
f removed du
edures. The
ilding materia
Hazardous
tlined below
cause the pr
ould apply to
on below.
de, also know
e there is pot
dustrial uses
reeways or un
c health and
mediation of
at disturb 50
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
the proposed
roject area. Th
ction activitie
and current la
rdous materi
der Storage T
implementati
s during cons
in the Plan
ilding materia
alth risk if di
Hazardous b
nsformers an
scent lights co
present a hea
uring demoli
Eastern Nei
als including
Building Ma
under “Miti
oposed deve
o the propose
wn as the Mah
tential to enc
or undergrou
nderground
safety by req
contaminate
cubic yards o
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
project’s rez
he PEIR found
es in many pa
and uses assoc
als cleanup
Tank (UST) clo
on of measu
struction.
Area may in
als. Some bui
sturbed durin
building mat
nd fluorescent
ontaining me
alth risk to ex
ition of a bui
ighborhoods
g PCBs, DEHP
aterials (Mitig
igation Measu
elopment inc
ed project. Se
her Ordinance
counter haza
und storage t
storage tanks
quiring appro
ed soils tha
or more of so
Street 90ENV
43
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
oning
d that
arts of
ciated
cases.
osure,
res to
nvolve
ilding
ng an
terials
t light
ercury
xisting
lding,
PEIR
P, and
gation
ures,”
cludes
ee full
e, was
rdous
tanks,
s. The
priate
at are
il that
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
are locate
area are su
The propo
5 feet ove
Therefore
which is a
requires t
Environm
A Phase I
the projec
Applicatio
The Phase
1890s to 1
property w
constructe
parts and
any recog
recognize
namely th
and fire w
Also, base
present. T
such anal
project sp
or federal
prior to th
The prop
accordanc
significan
PEIR.
Topics:
16. MINERESO
a) Result mineraregion
46 Partner E
Francisc
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ed on sites wi
ubject to this
osed project i
er an area of 8
e, the project
administered
the project s
mental Site As
I ESA determ
ct. In compl
on to DPH an
e I ESA noted
1905, containe
was burned d
ed in 1925, a
supplies, spo
gnized enviro
ed environme
hat the parcel
was used and
ed on the age
Therefore, the
lysis reveals t
ponsor is requ
l agency(ies),
he issuance of
osed project
ce with Articl
nt impacts rela
ERAL AND ENOURCES—W
in the loss ofl resource that and the resident
Engineering and
co, California, 941
ion
ith potentially
ordinance.
is within the A
8,000 square
is subject to A
d and oversee
sponsor to re
sessment (ES
ines the pote
iance with t
nd a Phase I E
d that the par
ed a saloon, w
down during
and has been
ortswear, soft
onmental con
ental conditi
is located in
d where curre
e of the existi
e project spon
the presence
uired to subm
, and to reme
f any building
would be re
le 22A of the
ated to hazar
NERGY Would the pro
f availability of would be of val
ts of the state?
Science, Inc., Ph
107, November 9
y hazardous
Article 22 (Ma
feet, for a tot
Article 22A o
en by the Dep
etain the serv
A) that meets
ntial for site c
the Maher O
ESA46 has bee
rcel was deve
wash laundry
the 1906 San
occupied by
tware and the
nditions, cont
ons. The ass
an area wher
ent and form
ing building t
nsor may be
of hazardou
mit a site miti
ediate any si
g permit.
quired to rem
Health Code
dous materia
ImptoP
oject:
a known lue to the
hase I Environm
9, 2016.
soil or groun
aher) area an
tal excavation
of the Health
partment of P
vices of a qu
s the requirem
contaminatio
Ordinance, th
en prepared t
eloped with t
y and other s
n Francisco ea
y distribution
e current bicy
trolled recogn
sessment, ho
re potentially
mer undergrou
there is a pot
required to
us substances
gation plan (
ite contamina
mediate poten
. Therefore, th
als that were n
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
mental Site Asse
ndwater withi
nd would exca
n of approxim
Code, also k
Public Health
ualified prof
ments of Heal
on and level o
he project spo
to assess the p
the Swiss Hot
small commer
arthquake and
n and sales c
ycle sales stor
nized environ
owever, foun
y contaminate
und storage t
tential that as
conduct soil
in excess of
(SMP) to the D
ation in accor
ntial soil con
the proposed
not identified
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
essment Report,
in Eastern Ne
avate to a dep
mately 1,500 c
known as the
h (DPH). The
fessional to p
lth Code Secti
of exposure ri
onsor has su
potential for s
tel in the 188
rcial business
d fire. The cu
ompanies, in
re. The Phase
nmental cond
nd an enviro
ed fill from th
tanks are kno
sbestos‐contai
sampling an
state or fede
DPH or other
rdance with
ntamination d
project woul
d in the Easte
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
Retail Building
345 4th 2017-00169
eighborhoods
pth of approx
cubic yards o
Maher Ordin
Maher Ordi
prepare a Ph
ion 22.A.6.
isk associated
ubmitted a M
site contamin
80s, and durin
ses and shops
rrent buildin
ncluding plum
I ESA did no
ditions, or hi
onmental con
he 1906 earthq
own to be pr
ining materia
nd analysis. W
eral standard
r appropriate
an approved
described abo
ld not result i
ern Neighborh
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
343‐345 4th Stre
Street 90ENV
44
s Plan
ximate
of soil.
nance,
nance
hase I
d with
Maher
nation.
ng the
s. The
g was
mbing
ot find
istoric
ncern,
quake
resent.
als are
Where
ds, the
e state
d SMP
ove in
in any
hoods
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
eet, San
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
b) Result importadelineaor othe
c) Encourlarge athese in
The Easte
new resid
large amo
the City a
would m
including
any natur
extraction
Area Plan
measures
As the p
Neighbor
resources
Topics:
17. AGRIRESO
a) ConverFarmlathe maMappinCalifornuse?
b) Conflicor a Wi
c) ConflicrezoninResourtimberlCode S
d) Result forest l
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
in the loss ofant mineral rated on a local ger land use plan?
rage activities wamounts of fuel, n a wasteful man
ern Neighborh
dential units a
ounts of fuel,
and region. Th
eet, or excee
g Title 24 of th
ral resources
n programs. T
n would not
were identifi
roposed proj
hoods Rezon
beyond those
ICULTURE AOURCES:—W
rt Prime Farmlaand of Statewide aps prepared png and Monitonia Resources A
ct with existing zilliamson Act con
ct with existingng of, forest lanrces Code and (as define
Section 4526)?
in the loss of foand to non-fores
ion
f availability of resource recovgeneral plan, spe
which result in thwater, or energ
nner?
hoods PEIR d
and commerc
water, or ene
he energy de
d, current st
he California C
s routinely ex
Therefore, the
result in a
ied in the PEI
ject is consis
ning and Area
e analyzed in
AND FORESTWould the pro
nd, Unique FarImportance, as ursuant to the oring Program
Agency, to non-a
oning for agriculntract?
zoning for, ond (as defined Section 12220
ed by Public R
rest land or convst use?
ImptoP
a locally very site ecific plan
he use of gy, or use
determined th
cial buildings
ergy in a was
mand for ind
ate and local
Code of Regu
xtracted and
e Eastern Nei
significant im
IR.
stent with th
a Plans, there
n the Eastern N
ImptoP
T oject:
mland, or shown on Farmland
of the gricultural
ltural use,
or cause in Public
0(g)) or Resources
version of
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
hat the Area P
s. Developme
steful manner
dividual build
l codes and
ulations enfor
the rezonin
ighborhoods
mpact on min
he developm
e would be no
Neighborhoo
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
☐
☐
☐
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
Plan would fa
ent of these u
r or in the co
dings would b
standards co
rced by DBI. T
ng does not r
PEIR conclud
neral and en
ment density
o additional i
ds PEIR.
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
☐
☐
☐
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
acilitate the co
uses would n
ntext of ener
be typical for
oncerning ene
The Plan Are
result in any
ded that imp
nergy resourc
established u
impacts on m
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
☐
☐
☐
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
onstruction of
not result in u
gy use throug
r such project
ergy consum
ea does not in
y natural res
plementation
ces. No mitig
under the Ea
mineral and e
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
☒
☒
☒
Street 90ENV
45
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
f both
use of
ghout
ts and
ption,
nclude
source
of the
gation
astern
nergy
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
☒
☒
☒
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Topics:
e) Involveenvironnature,non-aguse?
The Easte
therefore
mitigation
effects on
As the p
Neighbor
resources
MITIGATIO
Project M
Environm
archeolog
undertake
submerge
consultan
by the Pla
to obtain
The arche
addition,
program i
accordanc
reports pr
review an
ERO. Ar
constructi
suspensio
feasible m
resource a
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
e other channment which, d could result in cricultural use or
ern Neighbor
the rezonin
n measures w
forest resour
roposed proj
hoods Rezon
beyond those
ON MEASURE
Mitigation M
mental Impac
gical resource
en to avoid a
ed historical
nt from the rot
anning Depar
the names an
eological con
the consultan
if required pu
ce with this m
repared by th
nd comment,
rcheological m
ion of the pr
on of constru
means to redu
as defined in
ion
nges in the due to their loconversion of Far forest land to n
rhoods PEIR
g and comm
were identifie
rces.
ject is consis
ning and Area
e analyzed in
ES
Measure 1 —
t Report (PEI
es may be p
any potential
resources.
tational Depa
rtment archae
nd contact in
sultant shall
nt shall be av
ursuant to thi
measure at the
he consultant
and shall be
monitoring an
roject for up
ction can be
uce to a less
CEQA Guide
ImptoP
existing cation or
armland to non-forest
determined
munity plans
d in the PEIR
stent with th
a Plans, there
n the Eastern N
— Archeolog
IR) Mitigatio
present with
ly significant
The project
artment Quali
eologist. The
nformation fo
undertake an
vailable to co
is measure. T
e direction of
as specified h
considered d
nd/or data rec
p to a maxim
extended be
than signific
elines Sect. 15
Significant pact Peculiar o Project or Project Site
☐
that no agr
s would hav
R. The Easter
he developm
would be no
Neighborhoo
gical Testing
on Measure J‐
hin the proje
t adverse effe
sponsor shal
ified Archaeo
project spons
r the next thr
n archeologic
nduct an arch
The archeolog
the Environm
herein shall b
raft reports s
covery progra
mum of four
eyond four w
cant level pot
064.5 (a) and
Significant Impact not
Identified in PEIR
☐
ricultural reso
ve no effect
rn Neighborh
ment density
additional im
ds PEIR.
g (Eastern N
‐2). Based on
ect site, the
ect from the
ll retain the
ological Consu
sor shall conta
ree archeolog
cal testing pr
cheological m
gical consulta
mental Review
be submitted f
subject to revi
ams required
weeks. At
weeks only if
tential effects
(c).
R
SignificanImpact due
Substantial NInformatio
☐
ources exist
on agricultu
hoods PEIR d
established u
mpacts on agr
Neighborhoo
n a reasonable
following m
proposed pr
services of
ultants List (Q
act the Depar
gical consulta
rogram as sp
monitoring and
ant’s work sha
w Officer (ER
first and dire
ision until fin
by this meas
the direction
such a susp
s on a signifi
345 4th 2017-00169
nt to
New n
No SigniImpactPrevio
Identified
☒
in the Area
ural resources
did not analyz
under the Ea
riculture and
ods Program
e presumption
measures sha
roject on buri
an archaeolo
QACL) maint
rtment archeo
ants on the Q
pecified herei
d/or data rec
all be conduc
RO). All plan
ctly to the ER
nal approval b
sure could sus
n of the ERO
pension is the
icant archeolo
Street 90ENV
46
ificant t not
ously in PEIR
☒
Plan;
s. No
ze the
astern
forest
mmatic
n that
all be
ied or
ogical
tained
ologist
QACL.
n. In
covery
cted in
ns and
RO for
by the
spend
O, the
e only
ogical
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Consultati
descendan
appropria
of the des
the site an
site, of re
archeolog
representa
Archeologi
and appro
in accord
archeolog
method to
program w
to identify
historical
At the co
written re
consultan
archeolog
may be
archeolog
prior app
significant
proposed
A)
B)
Archeologi
that an ar
shall mini
47 By the
feature48 An “ap
Ameri
of San
of the O
other d
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
ion with Desc
nt Native Am
ate representa
scendant grou
nd to offer re
ecovered data
gical site. A
ative of the d
ical Testing Pro
oval an arche
dance with th
gical resource(
o be used, an
will be to dete
y and to eva
resource unde
ompletion of
eport of the fin
nt finds that si
gical consultan
undertaken
gical data rec
proval of the
t archeologic
project, at the
The propo
archeologi
A data re
archeologi
use of the r
ical Monitoring
rcheological m
imally includ
e term “arche
e, burial, or ev
ppropriate rep
cans, any ind
Francisco ma
Overseas Chi
descendant gr
ion
cendant Comm
mericans, the O
ative48 of the d
up shall be g
ecommendati
a from the si
A copy of the
escendant gro
ogram. The arc
eological testin
he approved
(s) that poten
nd the location
ermine to the
aluate whethe
er CEQA.
the archeolo
ndings to the
ignificant arch
nt shall deter
include add
overy progra
ERO or the
al resource i
e discretion of
osed project sh
cal resource; o
ecovery prog
cal resource i
resource is fea
g Program. If
monitoring p
e the followin
eological site
vidence of bu
presentative”
dividual listed
aintained by
inese, the Chi
roups should
munities: On
Overseas Chi
descendant gr
given the opp
ions to the ER
ite, and, if ap
e Final Arch
oup.
cheological co
ng plan (ATP
d ATP. The A
ntially could b
ns recommen
e extent possib
er any archeo
ogical testing
e ERO. If base
heological res
mine if addit
ditional arche
am. No arche
e Planning D
is present an
f the project sp
hall be re‐des
or
gram shall b
s of greater in
asible.
f the ERO in c
program shall
ng provisions
e” is intended
urial.
of the descen
d in the curren
the California
inese Historic
be determine
n discovery
nese, or other
roup and the
portunity to m
RO regarding
pplicable, any
haeological R
onsultant sha
P). The arche
ATP shall id
be adversely
nded for testin
ble the presen
ological resou
g program, th
ed on the arch
sources may b
tional measur
eological test
eological data
Department a
d that the re
ponsor either:
signed so as t
be implemen
nterpretive th
consultation w
l be impleme
s:
d here to mi
ndant group i
nt Native Am
a Native Ame
cal Society of
ed in consulta
of an arche
r potentially i
ERO shall be
monitor arche
g appropriate
y interpretati
Resources Rep
all prepare an
eological testi
dentify the p
affected by th
ng. The purp
nce or absence
urce encount
he archeolog
heological tes
be present, th
res are warran
ting, archeol
a recovery sh
archeologist.
esource could
:
to avoid any a
nted, unless
han research s
with the arche
ented the arch
inimally inclu
is here define
merican Conta
erican Herita
America. A
ation with the
eological site4
interested de
e contacted.
eological field
e archeologica
ive treatment
port shall be
nd submit to t
ing program s
property type
he proposed
pose of the ar
e of archeolog
tered on the
gical consulta
sting program
he ERO in con
nted. Additio
logical moni
hall be under
If the ERO
d be adverse
adverse effec
the ERO de
ignificance an
eological con
heological mo
ude any arch
d to mean, in
act List for th
age Commissi
An appropriat
e Department
345 4th 2017-00169
47 associated
scendant gro
The represen
d investigatio
al treatment
t of the assoc
e provided t
the ERO for re
shall be cond
es of the exp
project, the t
rcheological t
gical resource
site constitut
ant shall sub
m the archeolo
nsultation wi
onal measure
toring, and/o
rtaken withou
determines t
ely affected b
t on the signi
etermines tha
nd that interp
nsultant determ
onitoring pro
heological de
n the case of N
he City and Co
ion and in the
te representat
t archeologist
Street 90ENV
47
with
up an
ntative
ons of
of the
ciated
to the
eview
ducted
pected
esting
esting
es and
tes an
bmit a
ogical
th the
es that
or an
ut the
that a
by the
ificant
at the
pretive
mines
ogram
eposit,
Native
ounty
e case
tive of
t.
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
Whether
submit a w
Archeologi
with an ar
shall meet
consultan
recovery
contain. T
expected
classes wo
the portio
Destructiv
nondestru
The scope
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
The archeo
of the AM
The ERO
activities s
such as de
work, driv
archeologi
resources a
The archeo
of the pres
resource(s
archeologi
The arche
agreed up
with proje
have no ef
The arche
artifactual/
If an intac
of the dep
redirect de
deposit is
shoring, et
foundation
foundation
been made
notify the
make a rea
archeologi
or not signif
written repor
ical Data Recov
rcheological d
t and consult
t shall submi
program wil
That is, the A
resource, wh
ould address
ons of the h
ve data recov
uctive method
e of the ADRP
ion
ological consu
MP reasonably
in consultati
shall be arche
molition, fou
ving of pile
ical monitorin
and to their d
ological consu
sence of the e
), and of th
ical resource;
ological mon
on by the arc
ect archeologi
ffects on signi
eological mon
/ecofactual m
t archeologic
posit shall ce
emolition/exc
evaluated. If
tc.), the arche
n activities
n activities sh
e in consulta
ERO of the e
asonable effo
ical deposit, a
ficant archeol
t of the findin
very Program.
data recovery
on the scope
it a draft AD
ll preserve th
ADRP will ide
hat data class
the applicab
historical pro
very method
ds are practica
P shall includ
ultant, projec
y prior to any
ion with the
eologically m
undation remo
es (foundatio
ng because of
depositional c
ultant shall ad
expected reso
he appropriat
nitor(s) shall
cheological co
ical consultan
ificant archeo
nitor shall r
material as war
al deposit is
ase. The arc
cavation/pile
f in the case o
eological mo
may affect
hall be termin
ation with the
encountered a
rt to assess th
and present th
logical resour
ngs of the mo
The archeolo
plan (ADRP)
e of the ADRP
DRP to the E
he significant
entify what sc
ses the resou
le research qu
operty that c
ds shall not b
al.
e the followin
ct sponsor, an
y project‐rela
archeologica
monitored. In
oval, excavati
on, shoring,
f the risk thes
ontext;
dvise all proje
ource(s), of h
te protocol i
be present o
onsultant and
nt, determine
logical depos
ecord and b
rranted for an
encountered,
cheological m
driving/cons
of pile drivin
nitor has cau
an archeolog
nated until an
e ERO. The
archeological
he identity, in
he findings of
rces are enco
nitoring prog
ogical data rec
). The archeo
P prior to prep
RO. The AD
t information
cientific/histor
urce is expect
uestions. Da
could be ad
be applied to
ng elements:
nd ERO shall
ated soils dis
al consultant
n most cases,
ion, grading,
etc.), site re
se activities p
ect contractor
how to identif
in the event
on the projec
d the ERO un
ed that proje
sits;
be authorized
nalysis;
, all soils‐dist
monitor shall
struction activ
ng or deep fou
use to believe
gical resourc
n appropriate
archeologica
deposit. The
ntegrity, and
f this assessm
ountered, the
gram to the ER
covery progra
ological consu
paration of a
DRP shall id
n the archeol
rical research
ted to posses
ata recovery, i
dversely affec
o portions of
meet and co
sturbing activ
t shall determ
any soils‐ di
utilities insta
emediation, e
pose to poten
rs to be on the
fy the eviden
of apparent
ct site accord
ntil the ERO h
ect constructio
d to collect
turbing activi
be empower
vities and eq
undation acti
e that the pil
ce, the pile
e evaluation o
al consultant
e archeologic
significance o
ment to the ER
e archeologica
RO.
am shall be co
ultant, project
draft ADRP.
dentify how t
logical resou
h questions ar
ss, and how
in general, sh
cted by the
f the archeolo
345 4th 2017-00169
onsult on the
vities commen
mine what p
sturbing activ
allation, found
etc., shall re
ntial archaeolo
e alert for evi
nce of the exp
t discovery
ding to a sch
has, in consul
on activities
soil samples
ities in the vi
red to tempo
quipment unt
ivities (found
le driving or
driving or
of the resourc
shall immed
cal consultant
of the encoun
RO.
al consultant
onducted in a
t sponsor, and
The archeol
the proposed
rce is expect
re applicable
the expected
hould be limi
proposed pr
ogical resour
Street 90ENV
48
scope
ncing.
project
vities,
dation
equire
ogical
dence
pected
of an
hedule
tation
could
s and
icinity
orarily
til the
dation,
deep
deep
ce has
diately
t shall
ntered
t shall
accord
d ERO
ogical
d data
ted to
to the
d data
ted to
roject.
rces if
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING D l!PAATMa:NT
Community Initial Study
Human R
associated
with appl
County of
American
shall appo
immediate
ERO, and
develop a
with appr
the appro
human re
this mitig
The arche
or unasso
specified i
the archeo
including
the proper
Final Arch
Resources
archeolog
archeolog
any arche
Once app
Site Surve
copy of th
Departme
FARR alo
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
Field Meth
operations
Cataloguing
analysis pr
Discard an
and deacce
Interpretive
the course
Security M
from vand
Final Repor
Curation.
recovered
facilities, a
emains, Assoc
d or unassocia
licable State a
f San Francisc
n remains, noti
oint a Most L
ely notified u
MLD shall ha
an agreement
ropriate dignit
priate excava
mains and as
ation measur
ological consu
ciated burial o
in the treatme
ological consu
the reinternm
rty in a locatio
heological Reso
s Report (FA
gical resource
gical testing/m
eological resou
roved by the
ey Northwest
he transmittal
ent shall recei
ong with copie
ion
hods and Proc
s.
g and Laborat
rocedures.
d Deaccession
ession policie
e Program. C
of the archeo
Measures. Rec
dalism, looting
rt. Descriptio
Description
data having
and a summar
ciated or Unas
ated funerary
and Federal L
co and in the e
ification of th
Likely Descen
upon discove
ave up to but
for the treatm
ty (CEQA Gu
tion, removal
sociated or un
e compels the
ultant shall re
objects until c
ent agreemen
ultant and the
ment of the hu
on not subject
ources Report.
ARR) to the
and describe
monitoring/da
urce shall be p
ERO, copies
t Information
l of the FARR
ive one bound
es of any form
cedures. Desc
tory Analysis.
Policy. Desc
es.
onsideration
ological data r
commended
g, and non‐in
on of proposed
of the proc
g potential
ry of the acce
ssociated Fune
y objects disc
Laws, includin
event of the C
he California S
ndant (MLD)
ery of human
not beyond s
ment of human
uidelines. Sec.
l, recordation,
nassociated fu
e project spon
etain possessio
completion of
nt if such as a
e ERO. If no
uman remains
t to further su
The archeolo
ERO that e
es the archeo
ata recovery p
provided in a
of the FARR
Center (NWI
R to the NWI
d, one unbou
mal site recor
criptions of
Description
cription of an
of an on‐site
recovery prog
security mea
ntentionally da
d report form
cedures and
research valu
ssion policies
erary Objects.
overed durin
ng immediate
oroner’s deter
State Native A
) (Pub. Res. C
n remains. Th
ix days after t
n remains and
15064.5(d)). T
, analysis, cur
unerary object
nsor and the E
on of any Nat
f any scientific
agreement has
o agreement is
s and associat
ubsurface distu
ogical consult
evaluates the
ological and h
program(s) un
a separate rem
shall be distr
IC) shall rece
IC. The Envir
und and one u
rdation forms
proposed fie
of selected c
nd rationale f
e/off‐site publ
gram.
asures to pro
amaging activ
mat and distrib
recommenda
lue, identifica
s of the curati
The treatm
ng any soils d
e notification
rmination tha
American Heri
Code Sec. 50
he archeologi
the discovery
d associated o
The agreemen
ration, possess
ts. Nothing in
ERO to accep
tive American
c analyses of t
s been made
s reached Sta
ted burial obje
urbance (Pub.
tant shall sub
e historical s
historical rese
ndertaken. In
movable inser
ributed as fol
eive one (1) co
ronmental Pla
unlocked, sea
s (CA DPR 52
eld strategies
cataloguing s
for field and
lic interpretiv
otect the arch
vities.
bution of resu
ations for the
ation of app
ion facilities.
ment of huma
disturbing act
of the Coron
at the human
itage Commis
097.98). The
ical consultan
to make all re
or unassociate
nt should take
sion, and fina
n existing Sta
pt recommend
n human rema
the human re
or, otherwise
ate regulations
ects with app
. Res. Code Se
bmit a Draft F
significance o
earch method
nformation th
rt within the f
llows: Califor
opy and the E
anning divisi
archable PDF
23 series) and
345 4th 2017-00169
s, procedures
system and ar
post‐field di
ve program d
heological res
ults.
e curation o
propriate cur
an remains a
tivity shall co
ner of the Cit
remains are N
ssion (NAHC
ERO shall al
nt, project spo
easonable effo
ed funerary o
e into conside
al disposition
ate regulations
dations of an
ains and asso
emains or obje
e, as determin
s shall be foll
propriate dign
ec. 5097.98).
Final Archeolo
of any disco
ds employed i
hat may put a
final report.
nia Archaeolo
ERO shall rec
on of the Plan
copy on CD
d/or documen
Street 90ENV
49
s, and
rtifact
iscard
during
source
of any
ration
and of
omply
ty and
Native
C) who
lso be
onsor,
orts to
objects
ration
of the
s or in
MLD.
ciated
ects as
ned by
lowed
nity on
ogical
overed
in the
at risk
ogical
eive a
nning
of the
ntation
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING D l!PAATMa:NT
Community Initial Study
for nomin
instances
different f
Project M
Environm
of site‐sp
Prior to c
Building
attenuatio
C
O
N
E
si
Im
m
P
sh
N
G
T
Additiona
measures
Th
p
to
in
T
re
w
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
nation to the N
of high publi
final report co
Mitigation M
mental Impac
ecific noise a
commencing
Inspection t
on measures s
Construction a
Occasionally it
No constructio
quipment, too
ilencers, shrou
mpact tools
manufacturers
avement brea
hrouds recom
No helicopters
Given that the
o Piles s
o Pile dr
o Sonic
(instea
o Pile d
disturb
betwee
emporary po
ally, the aco
:
he existing bu
rogressing ou
o act as a soun
nto manageab
o This is
buildin
act as a
rucks should
eview it and
would be betw
ion
National Reg
ic interest in
ontent, forma
Measure 2
ct Report (PEI
attenuation m
construction,
to ensure th
shall include a
activities shou
t may be exten
on activity sh
ols and truck
uds, etc).
and equipme
s that provide
akers and jac
mmended by t
s are expected
construction
hould be pre‐
riving equipm
or vibratory
ad of impact d
riving activit
bance to neig
en 10 AM and
wer poles sha
oustic consul
uilding shoul
utward to the
nd barrier for
ble strips and
s the phase w
ng. Following
a sound barri
be routed di
provide com
ween 5 and 20
gister of Histo
or the high in
at, and distrib
— Construc
IR) Mitigatio
measures und
, a plan for s
hat maximum
as many of th
uld be limite
nded until 8 P
hall take place
ks shall utilize
ent shall hav
e the maximum
khammers sh
their manufac
d to be used fo
will involve
‐drilled wher
ment must hav
sheetpile dr
drivers).
ty should be
ghbors. The a
d 3 PM.
all be used in
ltant recomm
ld be taken d
e perimeter co
r the majority
the pulled do
where the conc
g the above re
ier for the ma
irectly to high
mments. It is
with a maxim
oric Places/Ca
nterpretive va
ution than th
ction Noise
on Measure F
der the super
such measure
m feasible n
he following c
d to between
PM.
e on Saturday
e the best avai
ve intake an
m attenuation
hall be equipp
cturers that pr
or constructio
drilled in pla
rever feasible.
ve state‐of‐the
rivers should
e scheduled f
acoustic consu
stead of gene
mends the f
down starting
oncrete walls
y of the work.
own inside th
crete industri
ecommendati
ajority of the w
hway 80. Onc
our understa
mum of 30 tri
alifornia Regi
alue of the re
hat presented
(Eastern N
F‐2). The proj
rvision of a q
es shall be su
noise attenua
control strateg
n 7 AM and 5
ys, Sundays or
ilable noise co
nd exhaust m
n.
ped with aco
rovide the ma
on purposes.
ace piles (not d
.
e‐art noise sh
d be used w
for times of
ultant recomm
erators where
following pr
g from the ins
s. This will al
The perimete
he structure.
ial saw will b
ion will ensur
work involvin
ce a truck rou
anding that th
ips during the
ster of Histor
esource, the E
above.
Neighborhoo
ject sponsor s
qualified aco
ubmitted to t
ation will be
gies as feasibl
5 PM Monda
r Federal holi
ontrol techniq
mufflers reco
oustically atte
aximum atten
driven) and m
hielding and m
wherever shee
the day that
mends condu
feasible.
roject‐specific
side middle o
llow the exist
er walls shou
e used to cut
re that the exi
ng the concret
ute is determi
he average tr
e peak constru
345 4th 2017-00169
rical Resource
ERO may req
ds Program
shall develop
oustical consu
the Departme
e achieved.
le:
ay through F
idays.
ques (e.g. mu
ommended b
enuating shiel
nuation.
mat foundatio
muffling devi
etpiles are ne
t would min
ucting this ac
noise mitig
of the buildin
ting building
uld then be sa
t down the ex
isting buildin
te industrial s
ned, MWA sh
ruck trips pe
uction period
Street 90ENV
50
es. In
uire a
mmatic
p a set
ultant.
ent of
These
riday.
ufflers,
by the
lds or
on:
ices.
eeded
nimize
ctivity
gation
ng and
walls
aw‐cut
xisting
ng will
saw.
hould
er day
d.
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING D l!PAATMa:NT
Community Initial Study
A
si
A
pu
m
u
U
is
p
A
th
or
M
ga
P
an
By follow
significan
Project M
Environm
sponsor’s
A. E
1.
2.
3.
4.
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
All trucks (req
ite and mainta
All stationary
ump, etc.) sh
maximize the
sed.
Utilize noise co
s erected to r
ossible the lin
An 8 ft tall sou
he nearest res
r should be co
Materials meet
auge steel she
ost signs on‐s
nd who to no
wing all of t
ntly reduced.
Mitigation M
mental Impac
Contractor sh
ngine Requirem
. All off‐roa
the entire
U.S. Envir
Tier 2 offr
Diesel Em
Final offro
. Where acc
prohibited
. Diesel eng
than two m
regulation
operating
and Chine
the two mi
. The Cont
maintenan
operators
specificatio
ion
quired for off‐
ain at least a 5
equipment t
hould be plac
distance tow
ontrol blanke
educe noise
ne of sight bet
und barrier sh
sidential recep
onstructed w
ting this requ
eet, masonry,
site pertaining
otify in the eve
the above m
Measure 3 —
ct Report (PE
hall comply w
ments.
ad equipment
duration of
ronmental Pr
road emission
issions Contr
oad emission s
cess to alterna
d.
gines, whethe
minutes, at a
ns regarding id
conditions). T
ese, in designa
inute idling li
ractor shall
nce and tunin
properly m
ons.
haul, placem
50 ft distance
that generate
ced as close
wards the near
ets (with at lea
emission from
tween any no
hould be cons
ptors. All barr
with any solid
uirement inclu
or CMU bloc
g to permitted
ent of a probl
measures, noi
Construction
EIR) Mitigat
with the follow
t greater than
construction
rotection Age
n standards, a
rol Strategy. E
standards aut
ative sources
er for off‐road
any location,
dling for off‐r
The Contracto
ated queuing
imit.
instruct con
ng of constru
maintain and
ent of concret
from the pro
constant noi
as possible t
rest neighbor
ast STC 25) o
m the site. Th
oisy equipmen
structed along
riers should e
material with
ude ½‐inch th
cks. All air ga
d constructio
lem, with tele
ise levels at
n Air Quali
tion Measure
wing:
n 25 hp and o
activities sha
ency (USEPA
and have bee
Equipment w
tomatically m
of power ar
d or on‐road
except as pro
road and on‐
or shall post l
g areas and at
nstruction w
uction equip
d tune equip
te, etc) shall b
oject perimete
ise levels (co
to the center
rs. Any muffl
on the new bu
The noise blan
nt and any ne
g the property
either be soun
h a density no
hick wood, ½
aps on the bar
on days and h
ephone numb
t the nearest
ty (Eastern N
e G‐1). The
operating for
all have engi
A) or Californ
en retrofitted
with engines m
meet this requ
re available, p
equipment, s
ovided in exc
‐road equipm
legible and v
t the construc
workers and
pment, and r
pment in ac
be staged at th
er whenever p
ompressors, g
of the proje
ling device a
uilding structu
nkets should
eighboring bu
y line to atten
nd blankets w
o less than 2 l
½‐inch outdoo
rrier should b
hours and com
bers listed.
t residential
Neighborhoo
project spon
r more than 2
ines that mee
nia Air Resou
d with an AR
meeting Tier
irement.
portable diese
shall not be le
ceptions to th
ment (e.g., traf
visible signs in
ction site to re
equipment
require that s
ccordance w
345 4th 2017-00169
he center of th
possible.
generator, con
ect site in ord
available shou
ure as the bui
block as mu
uilding.
nuate noise to
with at least S
lb. per square
or plywood a
be properly se
mplaint proce
receivers w
ods Program
nsor or the p
20 total hours
et or exceed
urces Board (
RB Level 3 Ve
4 Interim or
el engines sh
eft idling for
he applicable
ffic conditions
n English, Spa
emind operat
operators on
such workers
with manufac
Street 90ENV
51
he job
ncrete
der to
uld be
ilding
uch as
oward
TC 25
e foot.
and 16
ealed.
edures
will be
mmatic
project
s over
either
(ARB)
erified
Tier 4
hall be
more
e state
s, safe
anish,
tors of
n the
s and
cturer
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING D l!PAATMa:NT
Community Initial Study
B. W
1.
2.
C. C
C
re
re
1.
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
Waivers.
. The Planni
alternative
power is li
must subm
requireme
. The ERO m
off‐road eq
would no
installation
operator; o
retrofitted
use the nex
Table—Of
Complian
Alternativ
1
2
3
How to use
cannot be
Alternative
equipment
Compliance
supply off‐
Contractor m
** Alternati
Construction E
Contractor sha
eview and ap
equirements o
. The Plan s
each piece
include, b
identificati
engine ser
the descrip
ARB verifi
ion
ing Departme
e source of p
imited or infe
mit document
nts of Subsec
may waive th
quipment wi
ot produce
n of the equ
or, there is a
with an ARB
xt cleanest pie
ff‐Road Equi
ce
ve
Eng
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 2
e the table: If the
met, then the
1. If the ERO de
meeting Compl
e Alternative 2.
‐road equipmen
must meet Comp
ive fuels are not a
Emissions Min
all submit a
pproval. The P
of Section A.
shall include
of off‐road e
but is not l
ion number,
ial number, a
ption may in
ication numb
ent’s Environ
power requir
easible at the
tation that the
tion (A)(1).
he equipment
th an ARB L
desired emis
ipment woul
a compelling
B Level 3 VD
ece of equipm
ipment Comp
gine Emission
Standard
e ERO determin
project sponsor
etermines that th
iance Alternativ
If the ERO det
nt meeting Co
pliance Alternati
a VDECS.
nimization Pl
Construction
Plan shall stat
estimates of t
equipment req
imited to: e
engine mod
and expected
nclude: techn
ber level, and
nmental Revie
rement of Su
project site. I
e equipment
requirements
evel 3 VDEC
ssions reduc
ld create a s
emergency n
DECS. If the E
ment available
pliance Step‐D
n Emissio
ARB Le
ARB Le
Alterna
nes that the equi
would need t
he Contractor can
ve 1, then the Co
termines that th
ompliance Alter
ve 3.
lan. Before s
n Emissions
te, in reasona
the construct
quired for eve
equipment ty
del year, eng
fuel usage an
ology type, s
installation d
ew Officer or
ubsection (A)
If the ERO gr
used for ons
s of Subsectio
CS is technica
ction due to
safety hazard
need to use o
ERO grants th
e, according t
Down Sched
ons Control
evel 2 VDECS
evel 1 VDECS
ative Fuel*
ipment requirem
to meet Compli
nnot supply off‐
ontractor must
he Contractor ca
rnative 2, then
starting on‐si
Minimizatio
able detail, ho
tion timeline
ery construct
ype, equipm
gine certificat
nd hours of o
serial numbe
date and hou
designee (ER
)(2) if an alte
rants the waiv
site power gen
on (A)(1) if: a
ally not feasib
o expected
d or impaired
off‐road equi
he waiver, th
to the Table b
dule
S
S
ments
iance
‐road
meet
annot
n the
ite construct
on Plan (Plan
ow the Contra
by phase, wi
tion phase. Th
ment manufac
tion (Tier rat
operation. For
er, make, mod
ur meter read
345 4th 2017-00169
RO) may waiv
ernative sour
ver, the Contr
neration mee
particular pi
ble; the equip
operating m
d visibility fo
ipment that i
he Contractor
elow:
tion activities
n) to the ER
actor will me
ith a descripti
he description
cturer, equip
ting), horsep
r VDECS inst
del, manufac
ding on instal
Street 90ENV
52
ve the
rce of
ractor
ets the
iece of
pment
modes;
or the
is not
must
s, the
RO for
eet the
ion of
n may
pment
power,
talled,
cturer,
llation
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING-.-T
Community Initial Study
2.
3.
D. M
th
p
fi
of
Project M
Environm
sponsor’s
di(2‐ethyl
of accord
fluorescen
disposed
according
y Plan Evaluatiy Checklist
date. For o
type of alte
. The projec
incorporat
that the Co
. The Contra
hours. Th
summarizi
the project
Plan. The C
of the cons
Monitoring. Af
he ERO docum
rior to receiv
nal report su
f each constru
Mitigation Me
mental Impac
Contractor s
lhexyl) phtha
ing to applic
nt light tube
of. Any othe
g to applicable
ion
off‐road equi
ernative fuel b
ct sponsor sh
ted into the c
ontractor agre
actor shall m
he Contractor
ing the Plan.
t at any time
Contractor sh
struction site
fter start of Co
menting com
ving a final ce
ummarizing c
uction phase,
easure 4 — H
ct Report (PE
shall ensure
late (DEPH),
cable federal,
fixtures, whic
er hazardous
e federal, stat
ipment using
being used.
hall ensure t
ontract specif
ees to comply
ake the Plan
r shall post
The sign shal
during worki
hall post at le
facing a publ
onstruction A
mpliance with
ertificate of o
onstruction a
and the speci
azardous Bui
EIR) Mitigat
that any equ
such as fluor
state, and lo
ch could con
s materials id
te, and local la
g alternative
that all appli
fications. The
y fully with th
available to t
at the con
ll also state th
ing hours and
ast one copy
lic right‐of‐wa
Activities, the
the Plan. Aft
ccupancy, the
activities, incl
ific informati
ilding Materi
tion Measure
uipment conta
rescent light b
ocal laws pri
tain mercury
dentified, eith
aws.
fuels, the de
icable require
e Plan shall in
he Plan.
the public for
nstruction sit
hat the public
d shall explai
of the sign in
ay.
Contractor sh
ter completio
e project spo
luding the sta
on required i
rials (Eastern
e L‐1). The
aining polych
ballasts, are r
ior to the sta
y, are similarl
her before or
escription sha
ements of th
nclude a cert
r review on‐si
te a legible
c may ask to i
in how to req
n a visible loc
hall submit q
on of construc
onsor shall su
art and end d
in the Plan.
Neighborho
project spon
hlorinated bi
removed and
art of renovat
ly removed in
r during wor
345 4th 2017-00169
all also specif
he Plan have
tification state
ite during wo
and visible
nspect the Pl
quest to inspe
cation on each
quarterly repo
ction activitie
ubmit to the E
dates and dur
ods Program
sor or the p
phenyls (PCB
properly disp
tion, and tha
ntact and pro
rk, shall be a
Street 90ENV
53
fy the
been
ement
orking
e sign
an for
ect the
h side
orts to
es and
ERO a
ration
mmatic
project
Bs) or
posed
at any
operly
abated
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING D l!PAATMa:NT