Notice of Availability of and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration

Date: November 19, 2008 Case No.: 2006.1431E Project Title: 1960‐1998 Market Street Zoning: NCT‐3 (Neighborhood Commercial ‐ Transit) Use District 85‐X Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: 0872/005‐007 Staff Contact: Sarah Jones – (415) 575‐9034 [email protected]

To Whom It May Concern:

This notice is to inform you of the availability of the environmental review document concerning the proposed project as described below. The document is a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration, containing information about the possible environmental effects of the proposed project. The Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration documents the determination of the Planning Department that the proposed project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration does not indicate a decision by the City to carry out or not to carry out the proposed project.

Project Description: The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Market, Buchanan, and Duboce Streets. The site is currently occupied by: a surface parking lot with approximately 20 carshare parking spaces; a Union 76 gas station comprised of a 1,710‐square‐foot, one‐story building, three islands with gas pumps sheltered by metal canopy approximately 15 feet in height, and two 12,000‐gallon underground storage tanks (USTs); and two 12ʹx25ʹ general advertising signs. The proposed project would involve the replacement of all existing uses on the site with a nine‐story, 85‐foot‐tall mixed‐use building totaling approximately 146,800 gross square feet in area, including ground floor parking. The proposed building would include approximately 108 condominium units, 86 off‐street parking spaces located on the ground floor and in two below‐grade garage levels, and three ground‐floor commercial spaces totaling 8,150 square feet. Off‐street parking would be accessed from Buchanan Street.

If you would like a copy of the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration or have questions concerning environmental review of the proposed project, contact the Planning Department staff contact listed above.

Within 20 calendar days following publication of the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (i.e., by close of business on December 9, 2008), any person may:

1) Review the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration as an informational item and take no action. 2) Make recommendations for amending the text of the document. The text of the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration may be amended to clarify or correct statements and/or expanded to include additional relevant issues or cover issues in greater depth. One may recommend amending the text without the appeal described below. ‐OR‐ NOA of Mitigated Negative Declaration Case No. 2006.1431E November 10, 2008 1960‐1998 Market Street

3) Appeal the determination of no significant effect on the environment to the Planning Commission in a letter which specifies the grounds for such appeal, accompanied by a check for $500 payable to the San Francisco Planning Department.1 An appeal requires the Planning Commission to determine whether or not an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared based upon whether or not the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the environment. Send the appeal letter to the Planning Department, Attention: Bill Wycko, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103. The letter must be accompanied by a check in the amount of $400.00 payable to the San Francisco Planning Department, and must be received by 5:00 p.m. on December 9, 2008. The appeal letter and check may also be presented in person at the Planning Information Counter on the first floor at 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco.

In the absence of an appeal, the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be made final, subject to necessary modifications, after 30 days from the date of publication of the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration.

1 Upon review by the Planning Department, the appeal fee may be reimbursed for neighborhood organizations that have been in existence for a minimum of 24 months.

2

Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

Date: November 19, 2008 Case No.: 2006.1431E Project Title: 1960‐1998 Market Street BPA Nos.: N/A Zoning: NCT‐3 (Neighborhood Commercial ‐ Transit) Use District 85‐X Height and Bulk District Block/Lot: 0872/005‐007 Lot Size: 21,212 square feet Project Sponsor Brian Spiers (415) 559‐4923 Lead Agency: San Francisco Planning Department Staff Contact: Sarah Jones – (415) 575‐9034 [email protected]

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Market, Buchanan, and Duboce Streets. The site is currently occupied by: a surface parking lot with approximately 20 carshare parking spaces; a Union 76 gas station comprised of a 1,710‐square‐foot, one‐story steel‐frame and concrete block building, three islands with gas pumps sheltered by metal canopy approximately 15 feet in height, and two 12,000‐gallon underground storage tanks (USTs); and two 12ʹx25ʹ general advertising signs. The proposed project would involve the replacement of all existing uses on the site with a nine‐story, 85‐foot‐ tall mixed‐use building totaling approximately 146,800 gross square feet in area, including ground floor parking. The proposed building would include approximately 108 condominium units, 86 off‐street parking spaces located on the ground floor and in two below‐grade garage levels, and three ground‐floor commercial spaces totaling 8,150 square feet. Off‐street parking would be accessed from Buchanan Street.

FINDING:

This project could not have a significant effect on the environment. This finding is based upon the criteria of the Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources, Sections 15064 (Determining Significant Effect), 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), and 15070 (Decision to prepare a Negative Declaration), and the following reasons as documented in the Initial Evaluation (Initial Study) for the project, which is attached.

Mitigation measures are included in this project to avoid potentially significant effects. See pages 98‐101.

cc: Brian Spiers, Project Sponsor Supervisor Bevan Dufty, District 8 Distribution List INITIAL STUDY 2006.1431E – 1960, 1970, 1998 Market Street, Mixed-use Development

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Site Conditions

The project site is located at 1960‐1998 Market Street (Assessor’s Block 0872, Lots 005, 006, and 007) on the northeast corner of the intersection of Duboce Avenue, Buchanan Street, and Market Street (See Figure 1, Project Location on page 2). In addition to Market Street to the south and Buchanan Street to the west, the project block is bounded by Hermann Street to the north and Laguna Street to the east. Duboce Avenue also crosses Market and Buchanan Streets at this location. On the north side of Market Street, Duboce Avenue is closed to vehicular travel and is a bikeway and pedestrian path.

The approximately 21,200‐square‐foot (approximately 0.49 acre) project site is irregularly–shaped with 135 feet along Buchanan Street and 221 feet along Market Street. The project site is located in the Upper Market neighborhood in close proximity to the Western Addition, Hayes Valley and Inner Mission areas. The project site is within the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan area, and is within an NCT‐3 (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) Zoning District and an 85‐X Height and Bulk District.

The project site is currently occupied by an operating Union 76 gas station and a surface parking lot providing approximately 20 parking spaces. The parking spaces are used by three carsharing services (Flexcar, City Carshare, and Zipcar). An approximately 1,710‐square‐foot, one‐story steel‐frame and concrete block gas station building constructed in 1967 is located at the northwest corner of the site. A portion of the existing building is in use as a convenience store, but the bays previously used for auto repair are vacant. The property also contains three islands with gas pumps sheltered by metal canopy approximately 15 feet in height. Two 12,000‐gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) exist at the site to serve the gasoline station. In addition, there are two 12ʹ X 25ʹ general advertising signs along the east side of the site.

The project site is slightly sloped. The frontage along Market Street is level; overall, the site rises to the northwest at approximately a 12 percent slope. The project site is mostly paved with asphalt and concrete in places. However, along the rear property line of all three existing lots is an unpaved strip varying in width from approximately 10 feet at the east side of the project site to approximately 20 feet at the west side. The area is covered by weeds, some exposed rock, and 16 dwarf redwood trees, scientific name Sequoia sempervirens ‘adpressa.’ A retaining wall at the rear of an adjacent lot faces the project site and contains a mural entitled, “Joyous Discoveries,” painted by Keith Hollander in 2000 as part of the Paint Your Heart Out Mural Project.

Case No. 2006.1431E 1 1960 – 1998 Market Street

FIGURE 1

Project Location

Case No. 2006.1431E 2 1960-1998 Market Street

Proposed Project

The proposed project would result in the demolition of the gas station and pumps, including removal of the two USTs, elimination of the associated surface parking lot, removal of the existing landscaped area, and the removal of the general advertising signs. The proposed project would result in the new construction of a nine‐story, 85‐foot‐tall mixed‐use building totaling approximately 146,800 gross square feet including ground floor parking (See Figures 2 and 3, Site Plan and South Elevation).

The proposed building would include approximately 108 dwelling units which would be for‐sale condominiums, 73 off‐street parking spaces located in two below‐grade garage levels, 13 off‐ street parking spaces at the ground floor, and three ground‐floor commercial spaces totaling 8,150 square feet. Off‐street parking would be accessed from Buchanan Street.

The ground floor of the proposed building would contain the proposed retail/commercial uses, which potentially would include restaurant and retail uses, service/core areas1, storage, parking and access to car elevators leading to the lower parking levels (Please see Figure 4, Proposed Ground Floor Plan). Two of the ground‐floor commercial entrances to the proposed building would be located along Market Street (south side of the site). The other commercial entrance would face the corner where Market Street, Buchanan Street, and the Duboce Avenue Avenue bicycle/pedestrian connection intersect and would include an approximately 856‐ square‐foot (sq. ft.) plaza with landscaping located closest to the intersection.

Floors two through nine would contain approximately 98,250 square feet of residential use and core space. Due to the slope of the project site, residents would enter on the second floor of the proposed building through an entrance to the residential lobby located on Buchanan Street (west end of the site) (See Figure 5, Level 02 Floor Plan). The second floor would also have about 13 residential units and an approximately 4,076‐square‐foot common terrace deck at the rear of the property, which would be accessed from the hallway on this level. In addition, elevators would provide access to the residences on the floors above and the parking levels below. The residential lobby would also provide access to a stairwell leading to the upper residential floors.

Floors three through seven would each have approximately 16 residential units, the eighth floor would have approximately 15 residential units, and the ninth floor would have five residential units and provide access to an approximately 4,933‐square‐foot rooftop terrace. Of the 108 planned residential units, seven would be studios, 54 would be one‐bedroom units, four would be one‐bedroom plus den, and 43 would be two‐bedroom units (See Figure 6, Level 03 Floor Plan;

1 The service/core areas would include stairwells, elevator shafts (retail), garage exhaust shafts, and a trash chute.

Case No. 2006.1431E 3 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 2

Site Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 4 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 3

South Elevation

Case No. 2006.1431E 5 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 4

Ground Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 6 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 5

Transfer level 1.5

Case No. 2006.1431E 7 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 6

Level 02 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 8 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 7

Level 03 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 9 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 8

Level 04 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 10 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 9

Level 05 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 11 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 10

Level 06 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 12 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 11

Level 07 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 13 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 12

Level 08 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 14 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 13

Level 09 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 15 1960-1998 Market Street

Figure 7, Level 04 Floor Plan; Figure 8, Level 05 Floor Plan; Figure 9, Level 06 Floor Plan; Figure 10, Level 07 Floor Plan; Figure 11, Level 08 Floor Plan; and Figure 12, Level 09 Floor Plan).

The existing structure on Lot 004 immediately to the east of the project site is a 2,364‐square‐foot, one‐story commercial building constructed in approximately 1936. It is currently occupied by a restaurant and bar. The project sponsor has acquired the air space above Lot 004 extending from about one foot above the existing structure at the property line and upwards over the entire lot. As is shown on the project drawings, the proposed mixed‐use building on the project site would extend approximately eight feet over the adjacent property along the east side from the second floor to the top of the eighth floor for the depth of the lot (100 feet along the eastern property line). As part of the permit review process, the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) have reviewed the proposed plans for additional requirements due to this element of the new structure.2 Requirements resulting from the new building’s overhang are discussed in the appropriate sections below.

Parking

Vehicular access to the proposed building would be from Buchanan Street via a 30‐foot wide driveway at the northwest corner of the building. A ramp would lead down to the partially below‐grade (due to the slope of the project site) ground floor with parking located at the rear of the building. The proposed parking program would include approximately 86 off‐street parking spaces in total. Thirteen parking spaces would be located on the ground floor, and these would include three handicapped‐accessible spaces. In addition, there would be two car elevators providing access to approximately 73 parking spaces and 43 bicycle parking spaces in the two lower garage levels. One parking space would be used by a carsharing service as required by the Planning Code. (See Figure 14, Basement Level B1 Floor Plan and Figure 15, Basement Level B2 Floor Plan). Aside from the elevators, pedestrian access to the garage would be via two stairways, one providing egress onto Buchanan Street adjacent to the main residential lobby, and the other providing egress to Market Street at the southeast corner of the building.

Due to the slope of the project site, the ground floor, which includes the uppermost level of parking, would be above grade on the Market Street side of the building, but partially below grade at the rear of the project site where the driveway and parking spaces would be located (See Figures 16 and 17, Section 1 and Section 2). The lowest level of parking (Basement Level B2) would be approximately 42 feet below grade as measured at the northwest corner of the site and approximately 23 feet below grade as measured at the southeastern corner of the site (See Figure 16).

2 Personal communication with Brain Spiers, property owner, June 16, 2008.

Case No. 2006.1431E 16 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 14

Basement Level B1 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 17 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 15

Basement Level B2 Floor Plan

Case No. 2006.1431E 18 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 16

Section 1

Case No. 2006.1431E 19 1960-1998 Market Street

FIGURE 17

Section 2

Case No. 2006.1431E 20 1960-1998 Market Street

Project Approvals

In accordance with the Planning Code, the proposed project would require the following approvals: • Conditional Use authorization for development of a lot greater than 10,000 square feet pursuant to Planning Code Section 263.11. • Conditional Use authorization for non‐residential development greater than 6,000 square feet in an NCT district pursuant to Planning Code Section 270. • Conditional Use authorization to convert a gas station site into another use pursuant to Planning Code Section 157. • Conditional Use authorization for .75 parking spaces for each residential unit within an NCT district pursuant to Planning Code Section 152. • Approval by the Department of Public Works of a subdivision map to merge the three lots and then subdivide the lot and the air space over lot 004 into condominium units. • Approval of the demolition and construction permits to remove the gas station and construct the new building.

B. PROJECT SETTING

The project site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Market Street and Buchanan Street at Duboce Avenue, within the block bounded by Hermann Street to the north, Market Street to the south, Laguna Street to the east, and Buchanan Street to the west, in San Franciscoʹs Upper Market neighborhood (See Figure 1). Duboce Avenue also crosses Market and Buchanan Streets at this location. On the north side of Market Street, Duboce Avenue is closed to vehicular travel and is a bikeway and pedestrian path. The 21,212‐square‐foot site (Block 0872, Lots 005, 006, and 007) is currently occupied by an approximately 1,710‐square‐foot, one‐story gas station with small convenience store, three bays previously used for auto repair, and a surface parking lot utilized by three carsharing companies. The gas station office building, which was constructed ca. 1967, is located in the northwest corner of the project site. An operating gas station and auto repair business has existed onsite since approximately 1936. The property also contains three islands with gas pumps sheltered by metal canopy approximately 15 feet in height. Two 12,000‐gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) exist at the site to serve the gasoline station. Entrance driveways for the gas station are from Market and Buchanan Streets. In addition, there are two 12ʹ X 25ʹ general advertising signs along the east side of the site. The existing structures and the billboards and associated lighting would be demolished for the project.

Wall‐ and fence‐mounted signs for the approximately 20 car‐sharing spaces are located on the northern and eastern perimeters of the site. There is some existing landscaping on the site along the rear of the lots including 16 dwarf redwood trees, scientific name Sequoia sempervirens ‘adpressa,’ and three maple street trees line the Market Street frontage. A retaining wall at the rear

Case No. 2006.1431E 21 1960-1998 Market Street of Lot 012 faces the project site and contains a mural entitled, “Joyous Discoveries,” painted by Keith Hollander in 2000 as part of the Paint Your Heart Out Mural Project.

The project site is relative level along Market Street, with an upward slope from the east to northwest boundaries of the site. Elevations on the site range from approximately 125 feet above mean sea level (msl) on the northwest side of the site to approximately 100 feet msl on the southeast side.

The project area is a mixed urban area, with some streets such as Market Street and Church Street dominated by commercial, mixed‐use, office, and some institutional uses. Other surrounding streets, such as Hermann Street, Duboce Avenue, Buchanan Street, Clinton Park, Guerrero Street, Dolores Street, and Laguna Street, are mainly characterized by residential uses, including multi‐ unit apartment and condominium buildings. As stated above, immediately east of the project site (at 1942‐1950 Market Street) is a one‐story commercial building, which was constructed in 1936, and contains a restaurant and a bar. Further east at 1930 Market Street is the AIDS Health Project (AHP), affiliated with University of California San Francisco and San Francisco General Hospital located in a two‐story building in the middle of the block.3

To the rear of the project site along Buchanan and Hermann Streets are multi‐family residential structures. A three‐story‐over‐garage, wood‐frame building (34 Buchanan Street) constructed in approximately 1927 with 12 dwelling units is located immediately north of the project site. North of that building, at 40 Buchanan Street, is another three‐story‐over‐garage, wood‐frame building constructed in approximately 1927 with 12 dwelling units. At the corner of Buchanan Street and Hermann Street, 78 Buchanan Street is a six‐story‐over‐basement and garage apartment building constructed in approximately 1929 with 36 dwelling units. East of that building at 77 Hermann Street is a four‐story‐over‐garage apartment building with 34 dwelling units which was constructed in approximately 1927. Immediately adjacent to the rear of the project site behind Lot 006 is 65 Hermann Street, a four‐story building constructed in approximately 1959 with 12 condominiums. To the east of 65 Hermann Street and abutting the rear of Lot 005 of the project site is 55 Herman Street, a seven‐story apartment building constructed in approximately 1928 with 43 dwelling units.

At the far east side of the project block, fronting on Market Street and Hermann Street is a seven‐ story, mixed use building (at 1900‐1920 Market Street) with a laundromat and café/bar on the ground floor and 54 dwelling units and four guest rooms on the upper floors.

To the south of the project site across Market Street is a surface parking lot with 12 parking spaces serving the adjacent union offices for San Francisco Joint Metal Apprenticeship Union at

3AIDS Health Project. Mission, History, and Programs. Available online at http://www.ucsf‐ ahp.org/HTML2/info_mission.html [Accessed May 4, 2008].

Case No. 2006.1431E 22 1960-1998 Market Street

1939 Market Street. To the west across Buchanan Street is the Duboce Bikeway (a Class I bikeway, closed to vehicular traffic), a San Francisco Municipal Railway yard, and a recycling center. Adjacent to the recycling center is the Safeway Shopping Center at Market Street and Church Street. The Safeway grocery store is at the rear of the site, and is surrounded to the south and east by a large surface parking lot accessible from Market Street and Church Street. Several small retail stores exist along the east side of the grocery store. Buildings on the site are approximately 25 feet in height. Uphill to the rear of the grocery store and across Buchanan Street from the project site is the United States Mint. This massive art deco‐style structure sits atop an exposed rock base (Mint Hill). It is approximately 60 feet tall and surrounded by cyclone fencing.

The U. S. Mint dominates the project site’s vicinity with its size and hilltop location. At night the Mint site is illuminated on all sides for security reasons. Although not tall, the Safeway site is large and has activity twenty‐four hours a day. A large neon sign also contributes to its prominence in the project site vicinity. Due to the topography of the project site block and surrounding environment, the project site offers views of Twin Peaks and Corona Heights to the west looking up Market Street.

The project vicinity is well‐served by transit. The F‐line streetcar stops directly in front of the project site. Church Street Muni Metro underground station is located one block away, providing access to four lines. In addition, above ground street cars J‐Church and N‐Judah have stops within one block of the project site. Other Muni bus service is available on Haight Street, two blocks north of the project site. The project site is also in close proximity to the Octavia Boulevard terminus of U.S. 101.

C. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS

Applicable Not Applicable Discuss any variances, special authorizations, or changes proposed to the Planning Code or Zoning Map, if applicable. Discuss any conflicts with any adopted plans and goals of the City or Region, if applicable. Discuss any approvals and/or permits from City departments other than the Planning Department or the Department of Building Inspection, or from Regional, State, or Federal Agencies.

Planning Code and Zoning

The San Francisco Planning Code, which incorporates by reference the Cityʹs Zoning Maps, governs permitted uses, densities, and the configuration of buildings within San Francisco. Permits to construct new buildings (or to alter or demolish existing ones) may not be issued

Case No. 2006.1431E 23 1960-1998 Market Street unless either the proposed project conforms to the Code, or an exception is granted pursuant to provisions of the Code.

The project site is located within the NCT‐3, Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. NCT‐3 Districts are linear districts located along heavily trafficked thoroughfares, which also serve as major transit routes. NCT‐3 Districts encourage mixed‐use development of moderate scale concentrated near intensive transit services. These areas are characterized by mixed retail, limited office use, and housing in buildings up to 85 feet in height. The controls are generally the same as for the NC‐3 (Moderate‐scale Neighborhood Commercial) Districts except as described below.

In an NC‐3 district, in general one off‐street parking space is required for each dwelling unit, and no off‐street parking is required for nonresidential uses if the occupied floor area is less than 5,000 sq. ft. The NCT‐3 district requires no off‐street parking, and the Planning Code provides maximum limits on the amount of parking that may be provided. For residential use, off‐street parking spaces totaling up to one‐half the total number of dwelling units may be provided, or three quarters of the number of dwelling units with conditional use approval. For commercial and institutional uses, one parking space is permitted for each 1,500 feet of occupied floor area, or the quantity specified in Planning Code Table 151, whichever is less.

With regard to residential density, in an NC‐3 district, one dwelling unit is generally permitted for every 600 sq. ft. of lot area. However, in NCT‐3 districts, there is no density limit by lot area. Instead, density is restricted by the physical envelope controls of height, bulk, setbacks, open space, exposure and other applicable controls, as well as by applicable design guidelines, applicable elements and area plans of the General Plan, and design review by the Planning Department.

Both NCT‐3 and NC‐3 Districts are intended to offer a wide variety of comparison and specialty goods and services to a population greater than the immediate neighborhood. A diversified commercial environment is encouraged for these districts, and a wide variety of uses are permitted with special emphasis on neighborhood‐serving businesses. Eating and drinking, entertainment, financial service and certain auto uses generally are permitted with certain limitations at the first and second stories. Other retail businesses, personal services and offices are permitted at all stories of new buildings. Limited storage and administrative service activities are permitted with some restrictions.

Large‐scale lots and buildings along wide streets distinguish the NCT‐3 and NC‐3 districts from smaller‐scaled commercial streets, although the districts may also include small and moderately‐ scaled lots. Buildings typically range in height from two to four stories with occasional taller structures. NCT‐3 and NC‐3 building standards permit moderately large commercial uses and

Case No. 2006.1431E 24 1960-1998 Market Street buildings. Although permitted on the first and second levels, housing development in new buildings is encouraged above the second story. Additionally, along the following commercial streets, residential use at the ground floor requires conditional use authorization: Hayes Street within the Hayes‐Gough NCT; Octavia Boulevard, between Fell Street and Hayes Street, in the Hayes‐Gough NCT; Market Street, for the entirety of the NCT‐3 and Upper Market NCT Districts; and Church Street, for the entirety within the NCT‐3 and Upper Market NCT Districts. Existing residential units are protected by limitations on demolitions and upper‐story conversions. Rear yards are protected at residential levels.

The NCT‐3 permits retail sales and services as well as residential use with no density limit based upon lot size. However, 40 percent of dwelling units are required to be two‐bedroom units with 10 percent encouraged to be three‐bedroom units. The proposed mixed‐use project would be compatible with land uses and zoning in the community. Uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project are generally four to seven or eight‐story multi‐family apartment buildings or condominiums with moderate‐scale commercial uses and some institutional uses interspersed.

The 108 dwelling units comprising the proposed project would include 43 two‐bedroom units, which satisfies the requirement that forty percent of the units be two‐bedroom units. Under the NCT‐3 zoning, there is no density limit and 108 dwelling units would be permitted on the approximately 21,212‐square‐foot project site, provided that the building height and massing comply with the Planning Code requirements. The proposed project would be new infill housing, and would preserve the existing scale of development in the area.

The proposed project is located within an 85‐X height and bulk district, which limits buildings to a height of 85 feet. With a proposed height of 85 feet, the project would comply with the height limit. Planning Code Sections 260(b)(1)(A) and (B) permit an additional 10 to 16 feet in height for mechanical equipment and appurtenances necessary to the maintenance and operation of the building, such as stair and elevator penthouses, chimneys, and screening. The proposed project would include mechanical and stairway penthouses that comply with these provisions.

Planning Code Section 135 requires that dwelling units in NCT‐3 districts provide 80 square feet of private open space or 106 square feet of common open space per dwelling, or some combination of the two. A maximum of 11,448 square feet of open space would need to be provided. The proposed project would provide 2,912 square feet of private open space and 9,863 square feet of common open space for a total of 12,775 square feet, which would satisfy this requirement.

Each proposed new unit has at least one bedroom that would open out onto a balcony, a street, or an open area with a minimum dimension of at least 25 feet, enabled by the acquisition of air rights for the adjacent lot to the east (Lot 004). Therefore, the proposed project would satisfy the dwelling unit exposure requirements of Planning Code Section 140.

Case No. 2006.1431E 25 1960-1998 Market Street

With adoption of the amendments to the Planning Code resulting from implementation of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan, Planning Code Section 151 sets parking maximums for the NCT‐3 District at one parking space for every two dwelling units, or .75 parking spaces for each dwelling unit with conditional use authorization. The proposed project would apply for conditional use authorization for 81 parking spaces for the residential use. No parking is required for the 8,150 square feet of commercial use. The maximum number of parking spaces that would be permitted for the commercial portion of the development is one parking space for each 1,500 square feet of commercial space, or five parking spaces for the retail portion of the project. The proposed project would provide 86 parking spaces, five of which would be for the commercial space and would comply with Section 151. The Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan also requires new housing to unbundle the parking from the cost of the housing units. The proposed project would comply with this requirement.

Section 315 of the Planning Code sets forth the requirements and procedures for the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program. Under Section 315.4, these requirements would apply to projects that consist of ten or more units, including the proposed project. As described in Planning Code Section 315, the proposed project would be required to include approximately 17 below‐market‐rate units, if provided on‐site, or approximately 22 affordable units, if the units were to be provided at an off‐site location. Alternatively, the requirements of the Residential Inclusionary Housing Ordinance could be met by payment by the project sponsor of an in‐lieu fee to the Mayor’s Office of Housing as described in Planning Code Section 315.6. At this time, it is unknown which provision of Section 315 the project sponsor would follow to comply with the requirements of Section 315.

Based on the above, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning on the project site.

Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Rezoning Process The San Francisco General Plan was amended on October 24, 2007 via Ordinance 0246‐07, which adopted and incorporated the Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan into the General Plan. The EIR for the plan area was adopted via Motion M07‐75 on June 19, 2007. The General Plan has been amended and the Planning Code has been updated to reflect the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan; the rezoning was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 16, 2008 and became effective May 30, 2008.

To construct this project without the re‐zoning resulting from the adoption of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan in effect would require the following modifications for conformance with the project site’s former inclusion in the NC‐3 zoning district and an 80‐B Height and Bulk district:

Case No. 2006.1431E 26 1960-1998 Market Street

Under the previous NC‐3 zoning, retail sales and services was permitted as well as residential use at a density of one unit per 400 square feet of lot area. Therefore, the project would have been able to construct up to 53 units. The project site would have been in an 80‐B height and bulk district, which permitted construction to a height of 80 feet. As in the NCT‐3, conditional use authorization would have been be required for non‐residential development greater than 6,000 square feet and development of a lot greater than 10,000 square feet. Additionally, under the prior zoning additional parking would have been required. One parking space would have been required for each residential unit, resulting in 108 residential parking spaces. Approximately 16 parking spaces would have been required for 8,150 square feet of ground floor commercial space. However, in the event that approximately 5,530 square feet of the commercial use is a restaurant, then approximately 32 parking spaces would be required for the commercial space. Therefore the proposed project would have been required to provide up to 140 parking spaces.

In addition to requiring building and demolition permits from the Department of Building Inspection, the proposed project would require conditional use authorization for development of a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in an NCT‐3 zoning district pursuant to Planning Code section 712.11 and for the conversion of a gasoline service station to another use pursuant to Planning Code section 228.

Plans and Policies

General Plan The San Francisco General Plan provides general policies and objectives to guide land use decisions. Any conflict between the proposed project and policies that relate to physical environmental issues are discussed in Section E, Evaluation of Environmental Effects. The compatibility of the proposed project with General Plan policies that do not relate to physical environmental issues will be considered by decision‐makers as part of their decision whether to approve or disapprove the proposed project. Any potential conflicts identified as part of the process would not alter the physical environmental effects of the proposed project.

Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan As noted above, amendments to the General Plan have been adopted, finalizing objectives and policies for the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. Objectives and policies in the various elements of the General Plan are typically duplicated in area plans, and the objectives and policies in an area plan are generally more detailed and focused. The objectives and policies of the area plan will be considered by the Planning Commission when determining whether to approve or disapprove a project.

Case No. 2006.1431E 27 1960-1998 Market Street

Upper Market Community Design Plan The project site was one of the development sites included in the Upper Market Visioning Workshop Series and Design Plan project. This community planning process was initiated in 2006 and was designed to facilitate community agreement around a shared vision for the Upper Market area of San Francisco. The Upper Market corridor considered as part of this process was generally defined as Market Street between Octavia Boulevard and Castro Street. Five stakeholder interview sessions and three community workshops in 2007 informed this process. The resulting Upper Market Community Design Plan (UMCDP) was presented at the Planning Commission for endorsement in October 2008.

The proposed project is generally consistent with the UMCDP guidelines for land use, building height, massing, ground floor and upper story design, and architectural context.

Other Plans The principal regional planning agencies and their policy plans that guide planning in the nine‐ county Bay Area include (1) the Association for Bay Area Governmentsʹ A Land Use Policy Framework and Projections 2007, (2) the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districtʹs (BAAQMDʹs) Clean Air Plan (CAP) and Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, (3) the Metropolitan Transportation Commissionʹs Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) – Transportation 2030, (4) the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Boardʹs (RWQCBʹs) San Francisco Basin Plan, and (5) the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commissionʹs San Francisco Bay Plan. There would be no anticipated conflicts with regional plans.

Accountable Planning Initiative In November 1986, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition M, the Accountable Planning Initiative, which added Section 101.1 to the City Planning Code to establish eight Priority Policies. These policies, and the sections of this Environmental Evaluation addressing the environmental issues associated with the policies, are: (1) preservation and enhancement of neighborhood‐serving retail uses; (2) protection of neighborhood character (Question 1c, Land Use); (3) preservation and enhancement of affordable housing (Question 3b, Population and Housing, with regard to housing supply and displacement issues); (4) discouragement of commuter automobiles (Questions 5a, b, f, and g, Transportation and Circulation); (5) protection of industrial and service land uses from commercial office development and enhancement of resident employment and business ownership (Question 1c, Land Use); (6) maximization of earthquake preparedness (Questions 13 a‐d, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity); (7) landmark and historic building preservation (Question 4a, Cultural Resources); and (8) protection of open space (Questions 8 a and b, Wind and Shadow, and Questions 9a and c, Recreation and Public Space).

Prior to issuing a permit for any project which requires an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and prior to issuing a permit for any demolition, conversion,

Case No. 2006.1431E 28 1960-1998 Market Street or change of use, and prior to taking any action which requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan, the City is required to find that the proposed project or legislation is consistent with the Priority Policies. As noted above, the consistency of the proposed project with the environmental topics associated with the Priority Policies is discussed in the Evaluation of Environmental Effects, providing information for use in the case report for the proposed project. The case report and approval motions for the project will contain the Department’s comprehensive project analysis and findings regarding consistency of the proposed project with the Priority Policies.

D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The proposed project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor.

Land Use Air Quality Geology and Soils Aesthetics Wind and Shadow Hydrology and Water Quality Population and Housing Recreation Hazards/Hazardous Materials Cultural and Paleo. Resources Utilities and Service Systems Mineral/Energy Resources Transportation and Circulation Public Services Agricultural Resources Noise Biological Resources Mandatory Findings of Signi.

E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

1. LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING— Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Have a substantial impact upon the existing character of the vicinity?

The project site is in the Upper Market neighborhood of San Francisco, which is characterized by its mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The project site is currently occupied by a gas station and 20‐space surface parking lot. The gas station includes a small convenience store. The parking lot is being used by three car‐sharing services. The proposed project would introduce new residential and retail uses at the project site.

Case No. 2006.1431E 29 1960-1998 Market Street

The land uses surrounding the project site consist of a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The proposed project, with residential and retail uses, would be consistent with the character of the area and would not present a physical barrier to movement throughout the community. Thus, the project would not result in a significant impact by physically dividing an established community.

As discussed in this Initial Study in Section C, Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Plans, the project would be consistent with applicable policies, plans, and regulations. The proposed project would be consistent with the NCT zoning and 85‐X Height and Bulk restrictions, provided that the Project Sponsor is granted the required Conditional Use authorizations. The proposed project would also be consistent with the Upper Market New Development Design Guidelines, as described in Section C.

Character of Project Vicinity The area around the project site primarily includes residential, retail, and some institutional uses. In recent years this area has been the focus of a community planning effort, the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. The plan area is a centrally‐located, mixed‐use urban neighborhood. The prevailing pattern of land uses in the neighborhood is dense and mixed, with a focus on key streets like Market, Hayes, and Church Streets, which provide access to services and activities in close proximity to a large amount of housing and transit. The addition of residential and retail use on the project site would be consistent with the actual land uses in the project vicinity.

The most substantial structure in the project vicinity is the U.S. Mint, which sits atop Mint Hill across Buchanan Street from and one‐half block north of the project site. There are several residential and condominium buildings within the surrounding blocks, including those found along Hermann Street to the rear of the project site. The proposed project would demolish a gas station and surface parking lot, and construct a new residential and retail building, which would be in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan to provide housing in transit‐rich corridors such as Market Street. The project would be compatible with its surroundings. The proposed building would be nine stories tall, which would be taller than immediately adjacent uses. However, the building would be within height restrictions set in the Planning Code and would be similar in scale to uses within the project block, such as the residential buildings on Hermann Street, including the mixed use building at the corner of Market, Hermann and Laguna Streets. An eight‐story mixed‐use development is also proposed for 1844 Market Street one block east on Market Street from the project site. The proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact to the character of Market Street and the surrounding Upper Market neighborhood.

Case No. 2006.1431E 30 1960-1998 Market Street

Cumulative Land Use Impacts As discussed in Section C, Compatibility With Existing Zoning and Plans, the project site is within the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. In the vicinity of the project site, this plan primarily focuses on infill development that is compatible with the character of the existing uses in the area and the extensive transportation infrastructure. Projects that have been recently approved or are under review in close proximity to the project site are located at 1844 Market Street and 55 Laguna Street (the former University of Califonia Extension campus site):

• 1844 Market Street – Construction of an eight‐story building over below‐grade garage with 114 residential units, approximately 5,470 square feet of retail/commercial space, and 85 parking spaces.

• 25 Dolores Street – Demolition of a vacant automobile repair garage and construction of a four‐story, 46‐unit residential building with 29 parking spaces.

• 55 Laguna Street – Construction of a mixed‐use development with approximately 430,800 sq. ft. of residential space, up to 5,000 occupied sq. ft. of retail space, approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of community facility space, and approximately 127,360 sq. ft. of parking in seven new buildings and four underground garages. A total of up to 450 residential units would be constructed in seven new buildings and three rehabilitated buildings (Woods Hall, Woods Hall Annex, and Richardson Hall). Ground‐floor retail would be located at the corner of Laguna and Hermann Streets in the ground floor (Laguna Street) level of the renovated Richardson Hall. Community space would be located in the existing Richardson Hall auditorium and the second floor of the East Wing of Richardson Hall. The project would provide a total of approximately 352 on‐site parking spaces, of which 334 spaces would be located in four below‐grade parking garages between one to three levels deep, and approximately 18 spaces would be on‐street parallel parking spaces provided along the two new interior streets through the project site (Micah Way and Lindhardt Lane).

The above‐described projects as well as the proposed project are all located in the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. Both the project site and 1844 Market Street are in also in the Upper Market Design Plan area. The proposed project and the other proposed projects described above are consistent with the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan zoning controls. The Market Street projects are also within the allowable height limit of 85 feet while the developments at 25 Dolores Street and 55 Laguna Street would 40 feet in height. Furthermore, the proposed uses would be consistent with the existing character of development in the area, which is mixed and includes multi‐family residential as well as commercial and institutional uses. As such, the proposed project, in combination with other proposed development, would result in a less‐than‐ significant cumulative land use impact.

In conclusion, the proposed project would result in a land use change on the project site because it would replace a gasoline station with a mixed land use that would include residential as well

Case No. 2006.1431E 31 1960-1998 Market Street as ground floor commercial space. In the context of the overall development in the Upper Market area, the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant project‐specific and cumulative land use impact because it would be consistent with the existing mix of land uses in the vicinity, would not divide an established community, and would not substantially conflict with plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

2. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and other features of the built or natural environment which contribute to a scenic public setting? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area or which would substantially impact other people or properties?

Scenic Views

Public view corridors in this densely developed urban area largely follow existing streets. The project site offers views of Twin Peaks and Corona Heights looking up Market Street and to the west. In addition, the historic U.S. Mint building sits atop Mint Hill to the northwest of the project site. Due to the topography of the project site, the proposed project would not obstruct public scenic views along streets in the area. However, the project may interrupt or alter some private southerly and westward views over the existing site, particularly from the six apartment buildings north of the project site. While this change could be considered undesirable by the affected residents, and would be an issue for the Planning Commission to consider in with regard to approval or disapproval of the proposed project, it would not be considered a significant environmental impact on visual quality under CEQA in the densely built urban environment of San Francisco.

Scenic Resources

Three street trees front the project site along Market Street, which could be removed for project construction. If so, three new street trees would be planted at a 1:1 ratio. The existing street trees are not considered “significant” under Public Works Code Section 806 and would not be

Case No. 2006.1431E 32 1960-1998 Market Street considered a scenic visual resource. The removal and replacement of the street trees would require review and permits under Public Works Code Section 806.

Sixteen dwarf redwood trees are located at the back of the project site along the rear of Lot 007,. These trees were planted as landscaping and do not provide a unique scenic feature. The proposed project would remove this existing landscaping and additional landscaping would be provided in the ground floor open space at the corner. For additional discussion of the proposed tree removal, please see the discussion under Biological Resources.

A mural entitled “Joyous Discoveries,” painted by Keith Hollander in 2000 as part of the Paint Your Heart Out Mural Project, exists on the retaining wall at the rear of Lot 005. This mural is currently visible from the public right‐of‐way on Market Street and would no longer be visible with construction of the project. As described above, the prominent visual elements in the neighborhood of the project site are the U.S. Mint building, the views of Twin Peaks and Sutro Tower to the west, and the landscaped corridors of Market Street and Dolores Street. These features are examples of the types of scenic resources identified in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan as contributors to San Francisco’s unique and distinctive city pattern. The Joyous Discoveries mural is a colorful and visually interesting addition to the streetscape of the north side of Market Street on the project block, but does not rise to the level of the features cited above in terms of its contribution to the overall organization or character of the neighborhood or the city. The mural is visible only from those portions of Market Street and Duboce Avenue that are immediately adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the obstruction of the mural would not affect a scenic resource and would not be considered a substantial change to the existing visual setting, and the impact of the proposed project on visual resources would not be considered significant.

Visual Character

The architectural character of the area varies, including many older one‐ to three‐story residential structures among contemporary mixed‐use residential/commercial buildings, institutional buildings, and surface parking lots. Building heights in the vicinity range from one to eight stories.

The project design would be subject to the New Development Guidelines for the Upper Market corridor. The project would consist of a nine‐story, 85‐foot building. The massing of the project would fit the existing visual context of varied buildings and materials in the vicinity. Views of the project site, as seen from distant residences or roads, would be altered, but due to the site’s location in a heavily‐developed neighborhood, the building’s presence on the skyline would not be expected to be a significant change in the existing visual setting. There are several buildings of a similar height and mass in the vicinity, such as the apartment buildings on Hermann Street.

Case No. 2006.1431E 33 1960-1998 Market Street

Due to the topography in the area, the proposed new building would not extend above the existing buildings north of the project site fronting on Hermann Street. An additional structure would not be prominent on the skyline from public viewpoints. Though evaluations of visual quality are to some extent subjective, it is reasonable to conclude that the project would not have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on visual resources on‐site, or within the immediate visual setting.

Light and Glare

Streets in the vicinity of the project site are illuminated at night. In addition, the U.S. Mint is illuminated around its perimeter for security. Although the proposed project would increase outdoor lighting at the street perimeter of the project site, nighttime lighting for the project would remain within typical and accepted levels for an urban residential setting.

Project lighting along Market Street would be typical of lighting found within Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Lighting from the upper floor residences would be typical of lighting found in the surrounding residential areas.

The project would also employ transparent rather than reflective glass, in conformity with Planning Commission Resolution 9212. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate obtrusive light or glare substantially impacting other properties.

Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts

The project proposed at 1844 Market Street is an eight‐story building on the adjacent block east of the project site that would be similar in height and scale to the proposed project. If both projects were built, they would collectively increase the intensity of the immediate built environment by replacing less dense structures with much larger buildings. The change in aesthetic character, however, would be consistent with the urban character of the area, including the tall residential structures along Hermann Street. Together with individual development projects that could occur under the zoning now implemented following adoption of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan rezoning, which would facilitate taller buildings along Market Street through increased height limits and would provide for greater uniformity in the streetwall height along the corridor over time. Most views from streets within the project vicinity are not panoramic; rather, they are urban views down developed corridors already flanked by buildings. Thus, cumulative development would not substantially degrade views, damage scenic resources, or degrade the visual character of the area. While development accommodated by the rezoning could generate additional night lighting in the future, it would not result in obtrusive light or glare in amounts unusual for a developed urban area and would not adversely affect views or substantially affect other properties. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts on aesthetics

Case No. 2006.1431E 34 1960-1998 Market Street

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

3. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or create demand for additional housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The addition of 108 residential units would increase the population on the site by approximately 200 people, an increase of approximately 3% over the census tract population of 6,101 residents in 2000.4 While potentially noticeable to immediately adjacent neighbors, this increase would not substantially increase the existing area‐wide population. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial growth or concentration of population.

The proposed project would not displace any residents. The project site is currently in use as a gasoline station and small convenience store with approximately 1 employee. The project would not eliminate any existing housing on the site; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially reduce the housing supply.

The approximately 8,150 gsf of new retail/commercial space would result in approximately 23 employees on the site. The proposed project would remove one retail operation currently employing one person, and replace it with up to three establishments employing up to approximately 23 people.5 Therefore, no San Francisco jobs would be displaced to locations outside the City. Any housing demand generated by the increase in onsite employees would be offset by the 108 residential units included in the proposed project.

4 U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000. Based on an average household size of 1.85 in Census Tract 168 (AmericanFactfinder. Accessed June 5, 2008. Online at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&‐context=dt&‐ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&‐ mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P017&‐CONTEXT=dt&‐tree_id=4001&‐all_geo_types=N&‐ geo_id=14000US06075016800&‐search_results=01000US&‐format=&‐_lang=en

5 Based on a standard multiplier of 350 gsf per general retail employee, per San Francisco Planning Department Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Environmental Review, October, 2002.

Case No. 2006.1431E 35 1960-1998 Market Street

As stated above, the proposed project could attract an estimated 200 net new residents and approximately 22 net new employees to the site.6 While potentially noticeable to immediately adjacent neighbors, the increase in population on the site would not substantially increase the existing area‐wide population because the project area is a densely populated urban area with existing commercial, institutional, and residential uses.

San Francisco consistently ranks as one of the most expensive housing markets in the United States. San Francisco is the central city in an attractive region known for its agreeable climate, open space and recreational opportunities, cultural amenities, strong and diverse economy, and prominent educational institutions. As a regional employment center, San Francisco attracts people who want to live close to where they work. These factors continue to support strong housing demands in the City. New housing to relieve the market pressure created by the strong demand is particularly difficult to provide in San Francisco because the amount of land available for residential use is limited, and because land and development costs are high.

An estimated 329,700 households existed in San Francisco in 2000.7 By 2015, the number of San Francisco households is expected to increase by 32,200, a 10 percent increase.8 As of 2006, 356,470 housing units existed in San Francisco9; this project would provide 108 net new residential units. These units would help to relieve housing demands in San Francisco and would not aggravate the existing housing imbalance. Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulative population impact, as it would add a negligible amount of new residents and employees to the neighborhood. In view of the above, the project would not result in significant effects related to population and housing.

The projects at 1844 Market Street, 25 Dolores Street and 55 Laguna Street would introduce residents where previously there were none. The 1844 Market Street and 25 Dolores Street projects would add approximately 211 and 85 people respectively, and the 55 Laguna Street project is anticipated to add approximately 833 people.10 Including the proposed project, the population in the project vicinity would increase by approximately 1,330 people. The population increase resulting from the proposed projects would be commensurate with the 26 percent

6 Ibid.

7 U.S. Census. 2000. Updated January 12, 2007. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html

8 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., San Francisco Cumulative Growth Scenario: Final Technical Memorandum, prepared for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, March 30, 1998.

9 US Census, 2000. op sit.

10 San Francisco Planning Department. 55 Laguna Mixed Use Project DEIR. January 27, 2007. A copy of this document is available for public review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 as part of Case File No. 2004.0773E.

Case No. 2006.1431E 36 1960-1998 Market Street increase in population within the Plan area by 2025 anticipated in the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

4. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5, including those resources listed in Article 10 or Article 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Architectural Resources

The existing building on the project site is a one‐story, steel‐frame and concrete block gas station designed in the Ranch style, which was constructed between 1967 and 1974. In April 2007, the building was surveyed as part of the Market and Octavia historic resources survey. The building and associated gasoline filling islands were evaluated as not eligible for listing on either the National Register or California Register of Historic Resources.11

The project site is within one block of the Hayes Valley Residential Historic District, which is bounded by Hermann Street to the south, Fillmore Street to the west, Fulton Street to the north, and Franklin Street to the east. Additionally, the Market & Octavia Historic Survey has identified a potential historic district associated with the San Francisco State Teachers’ College Apartments Historic District (the Teachers’ College Apartment District). The district is a discontiguous historic district consisting of intact large‐scale (four or more stories) apartment buildings in the vicinity of the former San Francisco State Teacher’s College Campus at 55 Laguna Street with a period of significance from 1921 to 1935. Although the properties in the district have no formal association with the campus, they were constructed during the 1920s and 1930s at a time when the campus experienced rapid enrollment growth. The Teachers’ College Apartment District appears eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources under the criterion A – Events

11 Page & Turnbull. 2007. Market & Octavia Historic Survey. Department of Parks and Recreation Building, Structure, and Object Record for 1998 Market Street. A copy of this document is available for public review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

Case No. 2006.1431E 37 1960-1998 Market Street for being associated with the construction of large‐scale apartment buildings related to the growth of San Francisco State Teachers’ College. The project site abuts one of the contributors to this potential historic district located at 55 Hermann Street.

The proposed building would not have an adverse impact to onsite historical architectural resources as no such resources exist at this time. The proposed building would not adversely impact the historic U.S. Mint building as the new construction would be located one‐half block south and across Buchanan Street. In addition, the proposed building would be set back at the corner of Buchanan and Market Street and would not impair views of the U. S. Mint building from Market Street.

The proposed building is not within the potential historic Teachers’ College Apartment District discussed above. It would not have an adverse impact on the contributors to that district such as 78 Buchanan/77 Hermann Street, 55 Hermann Street or 1900 Market Street as it would be of similar scale and massing as those structures. In addition, due to the topography of the project block the new construction would not change the views of those three buildings when viewed from Hermann Street or the top of Buchanan Street.

Archeological Resources

A preliminary review for potential impacts to archeological resources was conducted for the proposed project.12 Since the proposed project would convert the land use on the project site from a gas station, convenience store, and surface parking lot to a mixed‐use building with residential uses over ground‐floor commercial uses and below grade parking, the underground storage tanks, which exist on site, would be removed as part of the project. Along the Market Street side of the project, excavation would be on the order of 22 feet. At the northwest side of the lot, excavation would be on the order of 42 feet. Borings taken for the March 29, 2007 Limited Environmental Site Characterization for the project conducted by Treadwell & Rollo indicate shale and serpentinite at very shallow levels (1‐2 feet below the surface).13

The proposed project has the potential to disturb soils. However, due to the shallow level of bedrock at one to two feet below grade, and the fact that shale and serpentinite should be culturally sterile, there are no expected archeological resources in the area of project impact. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect CEQA‐significant archeological resources.

12 Debra Dwyer/Randall Dean. Memorandum regarding Archeological sensitivity 1960‐1998Market Street. June 29, 2007. A copy of this document is available for public review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

13 Treadwell & Rollo. Limited Environmental Site Characterization Market and Buchanan 1998 Market Street. March 29, 2007. A copy of this document is available for public review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

Case No. 2006.1431E 38 1960-1998 Market Street

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 ‐ Accidental Discovery of Archeological Resources would further ensure that there would be no significant impacts to archeological resources.14

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources include fossil remains, fossil localities, and formations that have produced fossil material in other nearby areas. These resources are limited, nonrenewable, sensitive and scientific. An adverse effect to a unique paleontological resource (fossilized invertebrate, vertebrate, plant or micro‐fossil) is a significant adverse effect to the physical environment. The proposed project site is underlain by marine deposits, principally serpentinite, greenstone, and shale15, at depths generally of two feet below existing grade. Generally in San Francisco these types of marine sediments are associated with fossiliferous Mesozoic epoch deposits known collectively as the Franciscan complex. Soils disturbing activities resulting from the project, including removal of underground storage tanks, soil remediation, and construction of building foundations, have the potential to affect paleontological resources which may be present within underlying geological deposits.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 ‐ Accidental Discovery of Paleontological Resources would further ensure that there would be no significant impacts to potential paleontological resources on site.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

5. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION— Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways (unless it is practical to achieve the standard through increased use of alternative transportation modes)? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels, obstructions to flight, or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks?

14 Dwyer/Dean. op cit. 15 Treadwell And Rollo. Limited Environmental Site Characterization Market and Buchanan Street 1998 Market Street. 29 March 2007.

Case No. 2006.1431E 39 1960-1998 Market Street

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity that could not be accommodated by alternative solutions? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., conflict with policies promoting bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.), or cause a substantial increase in transit demand which cannot be accommodated by existing or proposed transit capacity or alternative travel modes?

The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport. It would not change air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels, obstructions to flight, or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Therefore, significance criterion 5(c) is not applicable. Emergency Access

The proposed project would not change the existing street grid. It would involve the construction of a driveway on Buchanan Street that would provide access to the garage, both entering and exiting. This access point does not pose any unique hazards or result in a difficult sight‐line. No unusual conditions such as sharp or blind curves would result from the proposed new driveway. Therefore, no significant traffic hazard with respect to emergency access would occur.

The proposed project would result in an increase in the site population. In addition to the proposed access driveway on Buchanan Street described above, the proposed project would provide one point of pedestrian access on Buchanan Street, and two to three points of access on Market Street. Therefore, with respect to significance criterion 5(e) there would be no impacts on emergency access as a result of the proposed project.

Transportation

With respect to significance criteria 5(a), 5(b), 5(f) and 5(g), a transportation impact study was prepared by an independent transportation consultant to address existing transportation conditions and potential impacts associated with the proposed development.16 The results of that study are summarized below.

16 LCW Consulting, 1960 Market Street Transportation Study, Case No. 2006.1431E, April 7, 2008. A copy of this report is available for review, by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, in Case File No. 2006.1431E. It should be noted that the project description was refined.

Case No. 2006.1431E 40 1960-1998 Market Street

Project Streets Streets adjacent to the project site include Market Street to the south and Buchanan Street to the west. The project block is bounded by Market Street to the south, Buchanan Street to the west, Hermann Street to the north, and Laguna Street to the east.

Market Street is a northeast‐southwest street than runs between Portola Drive and Steuart Street. It has two to three travel lanes in each direction and on‐street metered parking on both sides of the street. In the San Francisco General Plan17 Market Street is classified as a Major Arterial from Portola Drive to Franklin Street and a Transit Conflict Street from Franklin Street to Steuart Street. From Portola Drive to Franklin Street, Market Street is part of the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) Network. Market Street is classified as a Transit Oriented Street from Haight Street to Steuart Street, as a Transit Important Street from Castro Street to Haight Street, as part of the Citywide Pedestrian Network and a Neighborhood Pedestrian Street, and as part of Citywide Bicycle Route #50.

Buchanan Street is a north‐south street that runs discontinuously between Beach Street and Duboce Avenue. North of Hermann Street, Buchanan Street has one travel lane in each direction and on‐street parking on both sides of the street. Between Duboce Avenue and Hermann Street, Buchanan Street is one‐way northbound, with two travel lanes and on‐street parking on both sides of the street.

Other important streets in the local network are listed below: • Duboce Avenue runs east‐west between Mission Street and Buena Vista Terrace, and is closed to vehicular traffic between Market Street/Buchanan Street and Church Street. The segment that is closed to vehicular traffic contains the portal for the Muni metro light rail and the Duboce Avenue Bikeway. Between Mission Street and Market Street, Duboce Avenue has two to three westbound travel lanes, one to two eastbound travel lanes, and on‐street parking generally on both sides of the street. Between Church and Buena Vista terrace, Duboce Avenue has one to two lanes in each in each direction, and parking generally on both sides of the street. The General Plan identifies Duboce Avenue as a Transit Preferential Street (transit‐oriented) between Church and Noe Streets. Bicycle route #350 runs on Duboce Avenue between Sanchez Street and Church Street. Bicycle route #30 runs on Duboce Avenue between Church Street and Market Street. The General Plan identifies Duboce Avenue between Mission Street and Market Street as a Major Arterial in the Congestion Management Plan network, as part of the MTS network.

This report analyzed impacts resulting from a project with 113 units, 96 parking spaces, and 8,600 square feet of commercial use.

17 San Francisco Planning Department, General Plan, Transportation Element, 1995.

Case No. 2006.1431E 41 1960-1998 Market Street

• Dolores Street is a north‐south street that runs between Market Street to the north and San Jose Avenue to the south. Dolores Street has two travel lanes in each direction, separated by a wide median, and on‐street parking on both sides of the street. In the General Plan, Dolores Street is designated as Citywide Pedestrian Network Street.

• Hermann Street is a east‐west street that runs between Market Street and Steiner Street. In the vicinity of the project site, Hermann Street has one travel lane in each direction and on‐street parking on both sides of the street.

• 14th Street is an east‐west direction street that runs between Buena Vista Terrace and Harrison Street. East of Market Street and Folsom Street, 14th Street is a one‐way east‐ bound street with two travel lanes, one bicycle lane, and on‐street parking on both sides of the street. Bicycle Route #30 runs along 14th Street between Sanchez Street and Folsom Street, and Route #36 runs between Folsom Street and Harrison Street.

• Octavia Boulevard is a north‐south street that runs discontinuously between Bay Street and Market Street. Between Market Street and Fell Street, it is Octavia Boulevard, with four center lanes for regional traffic and one‐way local access lanes on each side. On‐ street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. Four travel lanes are provided for freeway and regional traffic from the U.S. 101/Central Freeway on‐and off‐ ramps at Market Street.

• Guerrero Street is an arterial that runs in a north‐south direction between Market Street and Cesar Chavez Street. South of Cesar Chavez Street, Guerrero Street merges into San Jose Avenue. Guerrero Street has two travel lanes in each direction with a center median. On‐street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. The General Plan identifies Guerrero Street as a Second Arterial in the CMP network, as part of the MTS Network. Bicycle lanes are also provided on Guerrero Street, south of Cesar Chavez Street, and on San Jose Avenue between Guerrero Street and Rousseau Street in Glen Park.

• Laguna Street is an arterial that runs in a north‐south direction discontinuously between Market Street and Beach Street. In the vicinity of the proposed project, Laguna Street has one travel lane in both directions and on‐street parking on both sides of the street.

• Church Street is a north‐south street than runs between Hermann Street and Randall Street. In the vicinity of the project site, Church Street has one to two travel lanes in each direction, and on‐street parking on both sides of the street. In the General Plan Church Street is designated as a Transit Preferential Street (transit‐oriented) and a Neighborhood Pedestrian Street (neighborhood commercial). The J‐Church line runs on Church Street between Duboce Avenue and 30th Street (with the exception of a portion running in a dedicated right of way between 18th and 22nd Streets.

Case No. 2006.1431E 42 1960-1998 Market Street

Traffic

Existing intersection operating conditions were evaluated for six study intersections for the peak hour of the weekday PM peak period (4:00 to 6:00 PM). Intersection turning movement counts were conducted at Market Street/Church Street; Market Street/Duboce Avenue/Buchanan Street; Guerrero Street/Duboce Avenue; Market Street/Guerrero Street/Laguna Street; Market Street/Octavia Boulevard; and Buchanan Street/Hermann Street on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 and Thursday, June 21, 2007. The intersection of Buchanan Street/Hermann Street is unsignalized (4‐ way STOP sign controlled) while the other five study intersections are signalized. Under existing conditions, the Market Street/Octavia Boulevard intersection operates at level of service (LOS) F while all of the other study intersections operate with acceptable conditions during the weekday PM period at LOS D or better.18

Trip generation rates for the residential and the retail/commercial uses include trips made by residents, employees and visitors. The residential rates as well as the potential restaurant and retail uses are based on weekday and daily PM peak hour trip generation rates from the San Francisco Planning Department’s 2002 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Environmental Review (SF Guidelines). During the weekday PM peak hour, approximately 169 (or 47 percent) of the person‐trips would be by auto, 123 person‐trips (or 34 percent) would be by transit, and 69 person‐trips (or 20 percent) would be by walking and other modes, such as bicycles, motorcycles, and taxis. The person‐trips by automobile would include single‐occupant vehicles and vehicles carrying more than one person. Based on the vehicle occupancy rate in the census tract, the proposed project would generate about 110 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Of these vehicle trips, about 62 would be inbound and 48 would be outbound.

The operational impact on signalized intersections is considered significant when project‐related traffic causes the intersection LOS to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or from LOS E to LOS F. The proposed project may result in significant adverse impacts at intersections that operate at LOS E or F under existing conditions, depending upon the magnitude of the project’s contribution to the worsening of the average delay per vehicle. In addition, the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact if it would cause major traffic hazards or contribute considerably to cumulative traffic increases that would cause deterioration in levels of service to unacceptable levels.

Overall, the addition of project‐generated vehicle trips to the surrounding street network would result in minor increases in the average delay per vehicle at all study intersections (see Table 1).

18 Traffic operating characteristics of intersections are described by the concept of Level of Service (LOS). LOS describes the performance of an intersection based on the average delay per vehicle. The scale ranges from LOS A (excellent conditions with short delays) to F (congested with extremely long delays). An LOS of D or better is considered acceptable in San Francisco.

Case No. 2006.1431E 43 1960-1998 Market Street

All study intersections would continue to operate at the same LOS as under existing conditions. With the exception of Market Street/Octavia Boulevard, the other five intersections would continue to operate at acceptable service levels with acceptable service levels with project‐ generated traffic. At the intersection of Market Street/Octavia Boulevard, which currently operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour, the proposed project would add a total of 36 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The project contribution to movements which operate poorly would be 14 vehicles to the westbound through movement and seven vehicles to the southbound through movement. This contribution to LOS F conditions would not be considered significant.19

Table 1 Intersection Level of Service Intersection Existing Existing plus Project 2025 Cumulative Delay1 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Market/Church/14th 51.2 D 51.9 D 74.6 E 2. Market/Duboce/Buchanan 30.6 C 32.5 C 45.9 D 3. Guerrero/Duboce 49.0 D 52.2 D > 80 F 4. Market/Guerrero/Laguna 35.3 D 35.9 D 73.3 E 5. Market/Octavia > 80 F > 80 F > 80 F 6. Buchanan/Hermann2 9.6 (nb) A 10.0 (nb) A 10.9 (nb) B Source: LCW Consulting, April 2008 Notes: 1 Delay presented in seconds per vehicle. 2 Intersection STOP‐controlled. Delay and LOS presented for worst approach. Worst approach indicated in ( ).

Traffic conditions were assessed for future (2025) conditions, which account for cumulative growth in traffic that could occur from other development in the area and throughout the City and region. To assess the effect of project‐generated vehicle trips on 2025 cumulative conditions, the contribution of the proposed project to 2025 cumulative traffic volumes was also determined. Two different percent contributions were calculated: the project‐generated traffic as a percent of total 2025 cumulative traffic volumes, and the project‐generated traffic as a percent of only the increase of traffic volumes between Existing and 2025 cumulative conditions. The percent contributions at the six study intersections are included in Table 2.20

At the study intersection of Market/Church/14th, which would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, the Proposed Project would add a total of 11 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The project contribution to movements that operate poorly (i.e., at LOS E or LOS F) would be five vehicles to the westbound through movement (0.3 percent of the westbound approach volume of

19 LCW Consulting, op. cit.

20 Ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 44 1960-1998 Market Street

1,659 vehicles). This contribution to the 2025 Cumulative conditions would not be considered significant.21

Table 2 Proposed Project’s Contribution to 2025 Cumulative Traffic Volumes Weekday PM Peak Hour Contribution to Total Contribution To 2025 Existing Net Project 2025 Cumulative Growth in Intersection Cumulative Volume Volume Volume Volumes Volume

1. Market/Church/14th 3,733 11 4,476 0.2% 1.5% 2. Market/Duboce/Buchanan 3,093 73 3,553 2.1% 15.9% 3. Guerrero/Duboce 2,756 34 3,650 0.9% 3.8% 4. Market/Guerrero/Laguna 2,824 58 3,547 1.6% 8.0% 5. Market/Octavia 5,930 36 6,879 0.5% 3.8% 6. Buchanan/Hermann 631 52 843 6.2% 24.6% Source: LCW Consulting, April 2008

At the study intersection of Guerrero/Duboce, which would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, the Proposed Project would add a total of 34 vehicles during the PM peak hour. At each of the approaches, one or more movements would operate poorly (i.e., at LOS E or LOS F). The project contribution would be six vehicles to the northbound left movement (0.6 percent of the northbound approach volume of 969 vehicles), two vehicles to the southbound left movement (0.2 percent of the southbound approach volume of 838 vehicles), six vehicles to the eastbound left movement (1.4 percent of the eastbound approach volume of 435 vehicles, and 15 vehicles to the westbound through movement (1.1 percent of the westbound approach volume of 1,408 vehicles). These contributions to the 2025 Cumulative conditions would not be considered significant.

At the study intersection of Market/Guerrero/Laguna, which would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour, the Proposed Project would add a total of eight vehicles during the PM peak hour. The project contribution to movements that operate poorly (i.e., at LOS E or LOS F) would be six vehicles to the northbound left turn movement (0.8 percent of the northbound approach volume of 795 vehicles), five vehicles to the southbound left turn movement, and seven vehicles to the southbound through movement (1.9 percent of the southbound approach volume of 633 vehicles. This contribution to the 2025 Cumulative conditions would not be considered significant.

At the study intersection of Market/Octavia, which would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, the Proposed Project would add a total of 36 vehicles during the PM peak hour. The project contribution to movements that operate poorly (i.e., at LOS E or LOS F) would be seven vehicles to the southbound through movement (0.3 percent of the southbound approach volume of 2,300 vehicles), and 14 vehicles to the westbound through movement (1.1 percent of the westbound

21 Ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 45 1960-1998 Market Street approach volume of 1,277 vehicles). This contribution to the 2025 Cumulative conditions would not be considered significant.

Under 2025 Cumulative conditions, the signalized intersections of Market/Church/14th, Guerrero/Duboce, Market/Guerrero/Laguna, and Market/Octavia would operate at LOS E or F during the weekday PM peak hour. However, as described above, based upon the proposed project’s contribution to traffic volumes at those intersections, the proposed project would not contribute to significant cumulative effects resulting from traffic. Since the proposed project would not have a significant impact on vehicular traffic, no traffic mitigation measures are required.22 Transit

The project site is well served by public transit with 12 Muni routes providing downtown, cross town, and local service in the PM peak hour. The F‐Market streetcar operates on Market Street with a stop at the transit island near the northeast corner of Market Street/Duboce Avenue/Buchanan Street for westbound travel and at the transit island near the southwest corner of Market Street/Dolores Street for eastbound travel. During the PM peak period, the F‐Market operates every seven minutes. Muni routes J‐Church streetcar and the 22‐Fillmore bus line operate on Church Street with stops at Market Street and at Duboce Avenue approximately one block from the project site. The J‐Church operates every nine minutes while the 22‐Fillmore operates every seven minutes during the PM peak hour. The 6‐Parnassus, 7‐ Haight and 71/71L Haight‐Noriega Muni bus lines operate along Haight Street two blocks north of the project site with PM peak service every 10 minutes for the 6 and 71 bus lines and every 15 minutes for the 7‐ Haight bus. The terminal for the 37‐Corbett is at the corner of 14th Street and Church Street with PM peak service every 15 minutes. Additionally, the KLM and S –Castro Shuttle street cars stop at the Church Street underground station located at Church and Market Streets one block from the project site with service frequencies of 9, 8, 9, and 12 minutes respectively during the PM peak hour. Finally, the N‐Judah street car operates above ground with a stop at Duboce Avenue and Church Street every seven minutes during the PM peak hour. Another Muni route that serves the project site is the 90‐Owl, providing a late night limited schedule and does not operate during the weekday PM peak period.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), CalTrain, AC Transit, and SamTrans are regional transit providers that serve the East Bay and South Bay. These regional transit providers can be accessed from the proposed project site via either the east‐west (JKLMNST streetcars, 6‐ Parnassus, 7‐Haight, 71 Haight‐Noriega) or the north‐south (22‐Fillmore) Muni routes. These routes include stops along Market Street where regional transit lines can be accessed to travel to the East Bay and South Bay. Travel to the North Bay is provided by Golden Gate Transit via the San Francisco Ferry Terminal or by Golden Gate Transit bus lines (the 70, 80, 10 and 93) with

22 Ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 46 1960-1998 Market Street stops in the Civic Center area, which can be accessed by the streetcar stop at Civic Center (7th Street and Market Street).

The proposed project would generate about 123 person‐trips on transit during the PM peak hour (74 inbound and 49 outbound), all of which would use Muni. The 123 additional transit trips generated by the proposed would be spread among the various Muni bus and streetcar routes serving the area.

Capacity utilization relates the number of passengers per transit vehicle to the design capacity of the vehicle. Muni’s established capacity utilization standard for peak period operations is 85%. With numerous Muni lines operating in the project vicinity, it is anticipated that most riders would choose the closest and least crowded lines depending upon their direction of travel. Overall, the addition of project‐generated riders to the various Muni routes would not likely substantially affect transit conditions. Currently, the only Muni routes in the vicinity of the project site that operate at or above capacity during the weekday PM peak hour are the N‐Judah and the L‐Taraval, which operate at 86 % and 92% capacity utilization respectively.23

Vehicle trips to and from the proposed project are not anticipated to substantially affect operations of the Muni bus lines that operate near the project site or the nearby bus stops. Since the project driveway for inbound vehicles would be located on Buchanan Street, vehicles entering the proposed project would not directly affect conditions on any transit routes. However, operations of Muni buses may be affected if the queue of vehicles waiting to access the project driveway spills back onto Market Street (i.e., a queue of greater than 100 feet). Although this could result in minor delays to bus operations, it would not substantially affect service levels. The nearest streetcar stop on westbound Market Street is located east of Duboce Avenue and Buchanan Street and the nearest bus stop on eastbound Market Street is located on the south side of Market Street southwest of the project site. The streetcar stop is an island with a traffic lane on either side. Prior to turning right off of Market Street, inbound project vehicles would be separated from the streetcar by the transit island, thereby reducing the potential for conflicts. No transit lines exist on Duboce Avenue and Buchanan Street so inbound project vehicles approaching the project driveway from Duboce Avenue would travel straight through to Buchanan Street and there would not be a transit conflict. Since Buchanan Street is one way northbound, exiting vehicles would not directly affect conditions of any transit routes.

Therefore, there would be available capacity on Muni to accommodate the riders generated by the proposed project, and localized operational impacts on transit resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. The project sponsor could implement a transit pass program as an incentive to the potential employees of the proposed retail use and new residents

23 ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 47 1960-1998 Market Street to increase the use of transit to and from the proposed project (See Improvement Measure No. 1 in Section F)

Parking

Existing parking conditions were examined within a study area bounded by Haight Street to the north, Laguna and Guerrero Streets to the east, 14th Street to the south, and Church and Webster Streets to the west. The supply and occupancy of the on‐street and off‐street parking were determined for the weekday midday (between 1:30 PM and 3:00 PM) and evening (between 6:30 PM and 8:00 PM) periods, based on field surveys conducted in July 2007. In general, on‐street parking in the vicinity of the proposed project is limited during the day to two‐hour time limits for unmetered parking spaces, and limited to 30‐minute or 1‐hour durations for metered parking spaces, which is located along Market Street, Dolores Street and 14th Street. In the vicinity of the project site on Market Street, overnight parking is not allowed as no parking is permitted between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM

A majority of streets within the parking study area are within the “S” Residential Permit Parking (RPP) area, which restricts on‐street parking Monday through Friday to a two‐hour periods between the hours of 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, except for residents with the required permit. The “S” RPP area is roughly bounded by Haight Street to the north, Valencia Street to the east, 20th/21st Streets to the south, and Buena Vista East//Douglass Street to the west. The blockfaces on Laguna, Haight, Buchanan, and Hermann Streets are not part of the “S” residential parking permit area.

There are about 700 on‐street parking spaces within the parking study area. During the midday peak parking period, on‐street parking occupancy is about 86 percent and during the weekday evening period it is about 90 percent. Most of the available parking spaces during the midday and evening period are metered parking spaces located along Market Street, Dolores Street and 14th Street.

The project site has approximately 220 feet of frontage on Market Street, and there are currently two metered parking spaces with one‐hour time limits as well as three driveways into the project site there. The Buchanan Street frontage is approximately 134 feet long. There are five residential permit parking spaces as well as a 30‐foot driveway to the project site. The project site provides approximately 20 carsharing parking spaces on‐site (three companies). While nearby commercial establishments provide private parking facilities (e.g. Safeway, Pet Food Express, Kinkos), there are no public parking facilities in the parking study area.

With the adoption and implementation of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan, Planning Code Section 151 is amended to provide parking maximums in the plan area. Therefore, up to .5

Case No. 2006.1431E 48 1960-1998 Market Street spaces are permitted for each dwelling unit. With conditional use authorization, .75 spaces would be permitted for each dwelling unit. Under the amendments to Planning Code Section 151, no parking is required for the commercial uses. However, the maximum number of parking spaces that would be permitted for the commercial uses is five. Therefore, a total of 86 parking spaces would be allowed under the Planning Code. Planning Code Section 166 requires the provision of one car share parking space. The proposed project would provide 86 parking spaces: 81 spaces for the 108 dwelling units and five spaces for the commercial use. Thus, the number of parking spaces provided for the residential use would be permitted by the Planning Code with conditional use authorization, and the number provided for the commercial use would be allowed by the Planning Code.

As part of the proposed parking supply of 86 parking spaces, the Proposed Project would be required to provide three handicapped‐accessible parking spaces. The Proposed Project would include three handicapped‐accessible parking spaces and would therefore meet the Planning Code requirement for handicapped‐accessible spaces. The handicapped parking spaces would be located on the ground floor level of the parking garage. In addition, as required by the Planning Code, the parking spaces would be unbundled from the sale or rental of the residential units. The Planning Code requires that the Proposed Project provide one car‐share parking spaces (per Section 166), and the Proposed Project would meet this requirement.

Apart from the Planning Code requirements, the Transportation Study also estimated parking demand. The parking demand analysis suggests that the proposed residential use would generate an estimated long‐term demand for 146 parking spaces. The parking demand analysis also suggests the proposed retail and restaurant use would generate an estimated demand for 51 short‐term and long‐term parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would have a parking demand for about 197 parking spaces.

The long‐term residential parking demand generally occurs during the overnight hours. The demand of 146 spaces would not be accommodated within the proposed supply of 86 spaces, which would result in a shortfall of 60 spaces. Most unmetered on street parking spaces in the study area are generally full during the evening and overnight hours, and there are no publicly‐ accessible off‐street parking facilities. Drivers could possibly be able to find metered parking along Dolores and 14th Streets where overnight parking is permitted. Overnight parking is restricted between 2:00 and 6:00 AM on Market Street in the vicinity of the project site. Due the difficulty in finding long‐term parking, residents may park outside of the study area, switch to transit, carpools, walking, or bicycling. During the weekday midday, the residential parking demand is estimated to be about 80 percent of the overnight parking demand, or about 117 spaces. In addition, the restaurant and retail uses would generate a parking demand for 51 spaces, for a total midday demand of 168 spaces. As the project would provide 86 parking spaces, the midday shortfall would be about 82 spaces. The midday long‐term (residents and

Case No. 2006.1431E 49 1960-1998 Market Street employees) shortfall could be accommodated within the unmetered spaces, and the short‐term shortfall could be accommodated along Market and Dolores Streets. The weekday midday parking occupancy in the study area would increase from 86 percent under Existing conditions, to 96 percent. As indicated above, due to the difficulty in finding parking in the study area, residents and visitors to the Proposed Project may switch to transit, carpooling, walking or bicycling, or park outside the study area.24

It is anticipated that the garage entrance would be open during the daytime hours, and gated and accessed remotely (e.g., remote control garage door opener) during the overnight hours. Given the primarily residential use of the building, minimal, if any, queuing would be expected. The parking garage would contain two car elevators for access to the below‐grade parking levels. The elevators would be located more than 100 feet from Buchanan Street, and any queuing associated with access to the below‐grade levels would be accommodated on site.25

Parking supply is not considered to be part of the permanent physical environment in San Francisco. Parking conditions are not static, as parking supply and demand varies from day to day, from day to night, from month to month, etc. Hence, the availability of parking spaces (or lack thereof) is not a permanent physical condition, but changes over time as people change their modes and patterns of travel. Therefore, parking deficits are considered to be social effects, rather than impacts on the physical environment as defined by CEQA. Under CEQA, a project’s social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the environment. Environmental documents should, however, address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered by a social impact.26 The social inconvenience of parking deficits, such as having to hunt for scarce parking spaces, is not an environmental impact, but there may be secondary physical environmental impacts, such as increased traffic congestion at intersections, air quality impacts, safety impacts, or noise impacts caused by congestion. In the experience of San Francisco transportation planners, however, the absence of a ready supply of parking spaces, combined with available alternatives to auto travel (e.g., transit service, taxis, bicycles, or travel by foot) and a relatively dense pattern of urban development, induces many drivers to seek and find alternative parking facilities, shift to other modes of travel, or change their overall travel habits. Any such resulting shifts to transit service in particular would be in keeping with the City’s “Transit First” Policy. The City’s Transit First Policy, established in the City’s Charter Section 16.102, provides that “parking policies for areas well served by public transit shall be designed to encourage travel by public transportation and alternative transportation.” The project site is conveniently located to provide alternatives to automobile use. As discussed above, the project site is within walking distance of twelve Muni routes.

24 ibid.

25 ibid. 26 CEQA Guidelines 15131(a).

Case No. 2006.1431E 50 1960-1998 Market Street

The transportation analysis accounts for potential secondary effects, such as cars queuing at the entry to the off‐street parking facility and circling for a parking space, by assuming that all drivers would attempt to find parking at or near the project site and then seek parking farther away if convenient parking is unavailable. Moreover, the secondary effects of drivers searching for parking is typically offset by a reduction in vehicle trips due to others who are aware of constrained parking conditions in a given area. The frequency and extent of parking deficit would vary, depending on the time and day. Hence, any secondary environmental impacts which may result from a shortfall in parking in the vicinity of the proposed project would be minor, and the traffic assignments used in the transportation analysis, as well as in the associated air quality, noise and pedestrian safety analyses, reasonably address potential secondary effects.

The parking shortfall associated with the proposed project would fall within the potential parking shortfall identified in the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR. This EIR identifies coordination with car share services to promote car sharing for area residents as an improvement measure to reduce the parking demand associated with implementation of the plan. As discussed in the Project Description, the project site currently contains approximately 20 car share spaces. Removal of these spaces and their associated vehicle trips from the site would not result in a significant environmental impact or contribute to any significant cumulative environmental effect identified in the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan EIR. The removal of the existing car share spaces would be an issue for the Planning Commission to address in their considerations regarding approval or disapproval of the proposed project.

Pedestrians

Sidewalks are provided along all streets in the study area. Adjacent to the project site, the sidewalk on the north side of Market Street is approximately 15 to 25 feet wide and the sidewalk along the east side of Buchanan Street is approximately 17 feet wide. At all nearby signalized intersections, crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided. However, there is no pedestrian crossing of Market Street on the west side of the intersection of Market/Buchanan/Duboce.

A qualitative evaluation of existing conditions was conducted during field visits to the project site on weekdays and weekends. Pedestrian volumes along Market Street in the vicinity of the project site were determined to be moderate at less than 300 pedestrians per hour. Pedestrian volumes along Buchanan Street are generally low. A westbound Muni streetcar stop (a platform stop between two travel lanes) is adjacent to the project site on Market Street at the approach to Buchanan Street. Overall, the sidewalks and crosswalks operated under satisfactory conditions with pedestrians moving at normal walking speeds and with freedom to bypass other pedestrians. 27

27 ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 51 1960-1998 Market Street

Pedestrian trips include walk trips to and from the project site plus walk trips to and from parked vehicles and bus stops. As a result of the proposed project, there would be approximately 192 pedestrian trips added to adjacent sidewalks during the weekday PM peak hour (about 69 walk/other trips and 123 transit trips). The adjacent sidewalks have the capacity to accommodate the project‐generated pedestrian trips. These additional pedestrian trips would not substantially affect the operation of adjacent sidewalks and nearby crosswalks. Therefore, the pedestrian conditions of the sidewalks and crosswalks in the vicinity of the proposed project would remain acceptable.28

Automobiles exiting the proposed parking garage onto Buchanan Street have the potential to conflict with pedestrians. However, given the amount of pedestrian activity on the street and the number of expected vehicle trips from the site, it is unlikely that any such conflicts have to potential to substantially affect either pedestrian or vehicle flow. Any required mirrors and ‘vehicle approaching’ indicators at the garage entrance and exit would be incorporated into the design of the proposed project.

Bicycles

In the project vicinity, there are five primary designated bike routes, Route 30 along 14th Street; Route 32 on Page Street; Route 45 on Valencia Street and Octavia Boulevard; Route 47 on Sanchez Street; and Route 50 on Market Street. Routes 30, 45 and 50 are Class II facilities (bicycle lanes). While Routes 32 and 47 are Class III facilities (signed routes). In addition, there are several connector routes in the area including a Class III facility on Route 345 along Webster Street and a Class I (bicycle path) and Class III facility on Route 350 along Duboce Avenue.

MTA has proposed a Bicycle Plan Project that is currently undergoing environmental review. The proposed Bicycle Plan includes sixty near‐term improvement projects for the bicycle route network. One proposed improvement would involve modifications to the northeast corner of Market Street and Buchannan Street, where the project site is located, that would include reduction in sidewalk width at the southwest corner of the site, redesign and removal of the gas station driveways (assuming the existing conditions on the project site, rather than implementation of the proposed project), and elimination of parking spaces adjacent to the project site on Market Street. The Bicycle Plan would also call for consideration of striping, curb cut, and median changes associated with the connection of Route 50 along Market Street to the Duboce Avenue Bikeway that runs behind the Safeway store.

Based on field observations, operating conditions on these bike routes were acceptable with only minor conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles where bike routes transition to bike

28 ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 52 1960-1998 Market Street lanes. The addition of vehicles to the surrounding streets is not expected to be substantial enough to affect bicycle travel. In addition, the additional bicycle trips generated by the proposed project would not substantially affect bicycle travel in the area.

Planning Code Section 155.5 requires that the proposed project provide 40 Class I bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project would provide 43 bicycle parking spaces located near the entry vestibule and elevators of the garage, with 35 at Basement Level B1 and the remaining eight bicycle parking spaces at Basement Level B2, thus exceeding the Planning Code requirement. The Planning Code does not require that the proposed project provide shower and locker facilities or bicycle parking for the retail use.

Loading

The proposed project would not provide any off‐street loading facilities. However, the project sponsor would request that two of the four new on‐street parking spaces created on Market Street as a result of the elimination of the curb cuts would be designated as metered commercial vehicle loading /unloading spaces. The regulations for the four new spaces would be determined by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and would require approval by the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing through SFMTA.29

With the implementation of the Bicycle Plan Project improvements, the two existing parking spaces adjacent to the project site would be removed, and an 80 to 100 linear foot “No Parking“ zone would be established. Curb space at the eastern edge of the project site would be available to provide two metered commercial vehicle loading /unloading spaces.

Under amendments resulting from the Market and Octavia Neighborhood plan, Planning Code Section 152 would not require off‐street loading spaces for the proposed mixed‐use building.

Apart from the Planning Code requirements, the loading demand for the proposed project was estimated. The proposed project would generate approximately 25 delivery/service vehicle trips per day.30 This would result in a demand of one loading space during an average hour and during the peak hour of loading activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not meet the projected loading demand. However, the project sponsor would request that two spaces resulting from the closure of the gas station and removal of curb cuts be designated as short‐term

29 ibid. 30 LCW Consulting. Op sit. Loading demand consists of the number of delivery and service vehicle‐trips generated by the proposed project plus the number of loading spaces that would be required to accommodate the demand. The number of daily delivery/service vehicle trips is estimated based on the size of each land use and a truck trip generation rate specific to each land use. The number of loading spaces necessary to accommodate this demand is based on the anticipated hours of operation, turnover of loading spaces, and an hourly distribution of trips.

Case No. 2006.1431E 53 1960-1998 Market Street metered commercial vehicle loading and unloading spaces. As stated above, this would need approval by the MTA Board at a public hearing. If approved, two on‐street spaces would be sufficient to accommodate the project loading demand. In addition, there are 12 one‐hour metered spaces on the north side of Market Street between Buchanan and Laguna Streets. Daytime field observations for the transportation study indicated that parking spaces were not fully occupied, and some spaces would generally be available to accommodate the project’s loading and unloading demand.31

As an improvement measure to reduce the potential for double‐parking of delivery vehicles on Market Street, the two new on‐street parking spaces adjacent to the project site should be designated as a short‐term metered commercial vehicle loading and unloading space. As stated above, this would need approval by the MTA Board at a public hearing. (See Improvement Measure No. 3 in Section F).

Construction

Construction of the proposed project would involve six phases: demolition; excavation; foundation and below‐grade construction; building superstructure; exterior finishing; and interior finishing. Demolition and foundation would take about six months, and construction of the garage and building would take about 20 months. Due to a small overlap during which excavation and construction would occur simultaneously, total construction time would be approximately 24 months.

Construction activities would occur Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Some construction activities may occur on Saturdays, but are not anticipated to occur on Sundays or major legal holidays. Construction staging would occur primarily within the project site and along adjacent sidewalks on Market Street and Buchanan Street. Since Buchanan Street has a grade of more than ten percent, staging and unloading of materials would most likely occur on Market Street. Use of Market Street may temporarily affect westbound traffic flow adjacent to the project site. Pedestrian protection would be provided on all adjacent sidewalks during this period.

Temporary closures of a portion of the Market Street and Buchanan Street sidewalks may be needed for construction of curb‐cuts. Pedestrians would be instructed to use the sidewalks on the opposite side of the street or to a relocated walkway in the parking lane of the street. The temporary closure of any sidewalk or parking lane would require review and approval by the Department of Public Works and the City’s Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation (ISCOTT). No regular travel lanes or Muni bus stops are anticipated to be affected. However, if it is determined that a travel lane on any transportation corridor would

31 ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 54 1960-1998 Market Street need to be closed, a similar review process would be required. In the case of Muni bus stop relocation, the relocation would be coordinated with the Muni Street Operations/Special Events office.

The proposed project would generate an average of four truck trips per day. It is anticipated that construction‐related trucks would access Market Street from Guerrero Street. Additionally, it is anticipated that trucks coming from south of the City, would use the on‐ and off‐ramps at Market Street and Octavia Boulevard, and travel on Octavia Boulevard, Haight Street, and Laguna Street to Market Street. The impact of construction truck traffic on surrounding streets would be a temporary lessening of traffic‐carrying capacities due to the slower movement and larger turning radii of trucks, which may affect traffic and transit operations during the construction period. The disturbances would be temporary in nature and duration and are not considered significant.

There would be an average of 25 construction workers at the project site each day during construction. The number of construction‐worker vehicle and transit trips would be substantially fewer than those generated by the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts on traffic or transit would be less than the impacts from the proposed project and would not substantially affect existing transportation conditions as both the local traffic and transit network generally have available capacity. The temporary parking demand generated by construction workers would be accommodated on‐site or the contractor may make arrangements to provide construction‐worker parking at a nearby location so as not to substantially affect area‐wide parking conditions. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not cause significant impacts on the transportation system.32

Conclusion Based on the above discussion and summary of the project’s Transportation Study, the proposed project would not cause significant transportation impacts.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable 6. NOISE—Would the project: a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

32 Ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 55 1960-1998 Market Street

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in an area within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? g) Be substantially affected by existing noise levels?

The project site is not located within two miles of any airport or private airstrip. Therefore, significance criteria 6(e) and 6(f) are not applicable.

The existing background noise levels in the project area are typical of noise levels in urban San Francisco. The primary source of noise in the vicinity of the project site is traffic. Throughout the project vicinity there is a mix of commercial, residential and institutional uses. Often these uses are within the same city block or located within one block of one another. Noise‐sensitive uses in the project vicinity include residential uses, community facilities, schools, and parks/playgrounds.

Residential uses are scattered throughout the project vicinity, primarily along Buchanan, Hermann, Clinton Park, Dolores, Laguna and Guerrero Streets, as well as Duboce Avenue. The closest residences to the project site are located in the multi‐unit residences along Buchanan and Hermann Streets behind the project site. Some residential use may also be above commercial uses fronting Market Street. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the clients of the AIDS Health Project located on the project block two lots away from the project site, and the San Francisco Friends School at 250 Valencia Street, approximately two blocks from the project site. The project site is located in a mixed‐use area containing a substantial number of residential, institutional and commercial uses. Construction Noise

Construction noise is regulated by the San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code). The ordinance requires that noise levels from individual pieces of construction equipment, other than impact tools, not exceed 80 dB(A) at a distance of 100 feet

Case No. 2006.1431E 56 1960-1998 Market Street from the source.33 The ordinance does not regulate interior noise levels with respect to construction noise. Impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, pile drivers, and impact wrenches) must have both intake and exhaust muffled to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Section 2908 of the ordinance prohibits construction work between 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM, if the noise would exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dB(A) at the project property line, unless the Director of Public Works authorizes a special permit. The project demolition and construction operations would comply with the Noise Ordinance requirements; construction is not expected to occur after 8:00 PM, and activities on weekends would only occur on Saturdays.

Construction and demolition activities proposed as part of the project would result in on‐site and off‐site noise increases. Construction activities would include excavation and hauling, building erection, and finishing. Demolition and grading activities would involve the use of backhoes, tractors, scrapers, graders, and trucks. On‐site and off‐site noise level increases due to construction and demolition activities would be temporary and intermittent and would occur at different times through the phases of project construction. The magnitude of the construction noise impact typically depends on the type of construction activity, the sound level generated by the various pieces of construction equipment in operation, the duration of the construction noise, the distance between the noise source and receptor, and the presence or absence of noise barriers. In general, these noise effects would be temporary and intermittent, and would be regulated through the Noise Ordinance, and therefore are considered less than significant.

Pile driving is the construction activity that generally has the most potential to result in substantial amounts of groundborne noise or vibration. The proposed building would use a mat foundation or spread footings, and bearing piles would not be used. Foundation construction would involve pre‐drilling holes for the placement of soldier piles (piles used during excavation for shoring); no pile driving would be required. Therefore, potential impacts of groundborne noise and vibration would be less than significant. Traffic Noise

Traffic makes the greatest contribution to ambient noise levels in most of San Francisco, including the area in which the project site is located. The proposed project would generate vehicle trips to the site, and could increase traffic noise levels in the project area. An approximate doubling of traffic volumes would be necessary to produce an increase in ambient noise levels that would be noticeable to most people.

33 Noise is measured in decibels (dB). The A‐weighted sound level or “noise level” is referenced in units of dB(A). It has been developed because the human ear does not respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies. A doubling of sound energy results in a 3.0 dB(A) increase in noise levels. A 5.0 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable to the human ear and the human ear perceives a 10.0 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound.

Case No. 2006.1431E 57 1960-1998 Market Street

The proposed project would add approximately 776 new vehicle trips per day (110 weekday PM peak hour trips) to adjacent streets. Based on the estimated daily traffic volumes on Market Street near the project site, the proposed project is not expected to result in a doubling of traffic on that road. The project driveway would be located at the western end of the project site near Buchanan Street, and the potential increased traffic noise would not be expected to substantially affect any sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause traffic volumes to double at any study location with proximity to sensitive noise receptors, and it would not have a noticeable effect on ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Stationary Noise

The proposed project would include mechanical equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units that could produce operational noise. The equipment would be subject to the San Francisco Noise Ordinance, Article 29, Section 2909, which limits noise from building operations. Therefore, substantial increases in the ambient noise level due to building equipment noise would not be anticipated. At the project location, operational noise would not be expected to be noticeable, given background noise levels along Market Street, which range from 70 to 80 dBA.34

Loading and unloading activities would occur during nighttime and early morning hours (deliveries between 12:00 AM and 7:00 AM). Typical noises would be associated with trucks (noise from back‐up beepers as trucks maneuver to access the loading area, from doors closing, and from engines starting up). Some nearby noise‐sensitive receptors could perceive noise from the loading and unloading activities at the new building and when vehicles exit from the parking garage. Noise from loading and unloading activities and from the intermittent sounds generated by the potential pedestrian warning device would not substantially conflict with the needs of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project and would not represent a significant impact. Interior Noise

State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single‐family dwellings that are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards and are found in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. To limit noise transmitted between adjacent dwelling units, the noise insulation standards specify the extent to which walls, doors, and floor‐ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound. To limit noise from exterior sources, the noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dBA Ldn in any habitable room and, where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn, the project sponsor must demonstrate how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard. If the interior noise level

34 San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Transportation Noise Map: Ambient SFChamp Model

Case No. 2006.1431E 58 1960-1998 Market Street depends upon windows being closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air‐conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.

The proposed project involves construction of a multi‐family residential building, and thus would be subject to Title 24. The Department of Building Inspection would review the final building plans to ensure compliance with Title 24 noise standards. Therefore, the impact of exterior noise levels on the proposed residences would be less than significant.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

7. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal, state, or regional ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

The proposed project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Since most of San Francisco’s topography is below 200 feet, marine air is able to flow easily across most of the City, making its climate cool and windy. Pollutant emissions in San Francisco are primarily from motor vehicle congestion. Localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide from vehicles, can build up in “urban canyons,” although the winds in San Francisco are generally strong enough to carry the pollutants away from the area before they can accumulate.

Winds within the project area are generally from the west‐southwest, west, and west‐northwest. Air pollution is regulated by both federal and state ambient air quality standards and limits for individual sources of air pollutants. An “ambient air quality standard” represents the level of air pollutant in the outdoor (ambient) air necessary to protect public health. As required by the federal Clean Air Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has identified criteria pollutants and established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS

Case No. 2006.1431E 59 1960-1998 Market Street or federal standards) to protect the public health and welfare. NAAQS have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter of less than 10 and 2.5 microns (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards (State standards) for most of the criteria pollutants. Roadway-Related Air Pollution

In California, significant residential development is now occurring near freeways or busy arterial roadways. While infill development can reduce regional and global air pollution burdens, trends will increase exposure to air pollutants and their associated health burden for residents living in such developments. In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued guidance on preventing roadway‐related air quality conflicts, suggesting localities avoid placing new sensitive uses within 500 ft of many freeways. This guidance is advisory, and no existing federal and state regulations protect sensitive residential land uses from air pollution “hot spots” that occur near busy roadways. Federal and state agencies control air pollutants by regulating vehicle engine emissions on a “per mile” basis, generally ignoring impacts due to localized traffic intensity.

An initial step in this approach requires assessment of average daily traffic volume within 500 feet of the project. The California Environmental Health Tracking Programʹs (CEHTP) spatial linkage web service tool was utilized to assess the number of vehicles within a 150 meter buffer of the project site. The tool indicates that the number is below the threshold of 100,000 vehicles and no further investigation would be required.35 Construction-Related Impacts

Project‐related demolition, excavation, grading and other construction activities may cause wind‐ blown dust that could contribute particulate matter into the local atmosphere for up to about 20 months. The nearest residences on Buchanan Street adjacent to the northwestern corner of the project site would, in general, be upwind of the project site. Residential‐only buildings located on Hermann Street to the north of the project site would also, in general, be upwind of the project site. Mixed‐use buildings with residences above ground‐floor commercial uses are located along Market Street east of the project site would be downwind of the project site. Nearby residences located on Duboce Avenue, Clinton Park, and Guerrero Streets to the south and southeast of the project site also would be downwind of the project site. Although there are federal standards for air pollutants and implementation of state and regional air quality control plans, air pollutants continue to have impacts on human health throughout the country. California has found that particulate matter exposure can cause health effects at lower levels than national standards. The current health burden of particulate matter demands that, where possible, public agencies take feasible available actions to reduce sources of particulate matter exposure. According to the

35 (http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp ) The results of this analysis are available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 as part of Case File No 2006.1431E.

Case No. 2006.1431E 60 1960-1998 Market Street

California Air Resources Board, reducing ambient particulate matter from 1998‐2000 levels to natural background concentrations in San Francisco would prevent over 200 premature deaths.

Dust can be an irritant causing watering eyes or irritation to the lungs, nose and throat. Demolition, excavation, grading and other construction activities can cause wind‐blown dust to add to particulate matter in the local atmosphere. Depending on exposure, adverse health effects can occur due to this particulate matter in general and also due to specific contaminants such as lead or asbestos that may be constituents of soil.

In response, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a series of amendments to the San Francisco Building and Health Codes generally referred hereto as the Construction Dust Control Ordinance (Ordinance 176‐08, effective July 30, 2008) with the intent of reducing the quantity of dust generated during site preparation, demolition and construction work in order to protect the health of the general public and of onsite workers, minimize public nuisance complaints, and to avoid orders to stop work by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI).

The Ordinance requires that all site preparation work, demolition, or other construction activities within San Francisco that have the potential to create dust or to expose or disturb more than 10 cubic yards or 500 square feet of soil comply with specified dust control measures whether or not the activity requires a permit from DBI. The Director of DBI may waive this requirement for activities on sites less than one half‐acre that are unlikely to result in any visible wind‐blown dust.

The project sponsor and the contractor responsible for construction activities at the project site shall use the following practices to control construction dust on the site or other practices that result in equivalent dust control that are acceptable to the Director. Dust suppression activities may include watering all active construction areas sufficiently to prevent dust from becoming airborne; increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water must be used if required by Article 21, Section 1100 et seq. of the San Francisco Public Works Code. If not required, reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. Contractors shall provide as much water as necessary to control dust (without creating run‐off in any area of land clearing, and/or earth movement. During excavation and dirt‐moving activities, contractors shall wet sweep or vacuum the streets, sidewalks, paths and intersections where work is in progress at the end of the workday. Inactive stockpiles (where no disturbance occurs for more than seven days) greater than 10 cubic yards or 500 square feet of excavated materials, backfill material, import material, gravel, sand, road base, and soil shall be covered with a 10 millimeter (0.01 inch) polyethylene plastic (or equivalent) tarp, braced down, or use other equivalent soil stabilization techniques.

Case No. 2006.1431E 61 1960-1998 Market Street

For projects over one half‐acre, the Ordinance requires that the project sponsor submit a Dust Control Plan for approval by the San Francisco Health Department. DBI will not issue a building permit without written notification form the Director of Public Health that the applicant has a site‐specific Dust Control Plan, unless the Director waives the requirement. Interior‐only tenant improvement projects that are over one‐half acre in size that will not produce exterior visible dust are exempt from the site‐specific Dust Control Plan requirement.

Site‐specific Dust Control Plans shall require the project sponsor to: submit of a map to the Director of Health showing all sensitive receptors within 1000 feet of the site; wet down areas of soil at least three times per day; provide an analysis of wind direction and install upwind and downwind particulate dust monitors; record particulate monitoring results; hire an independent, third‐party to conduct inspections and keep a record of those inspections; establish shut‐down conditions based on wind, soil migration, etc.; establish a hotline for surrounding community members who may be potentially affected by project‐related dust; limit the area subject to construction activities at any one time; install dust curtains and windbreaks on the property lines, as necessary; limit the amount of soil in hauling trucks to the size of the truck bed and securing with a tarpaulin; enforce a 15 mph speed limit for vehicles entering and exiting construction areas; sweep affected streets with water sweepers at the end of the day; install and utilize wheel washers to clean truck tires; terminate construction activities when winds exceed 25 miles per hour; apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas; and to sweep off adjacent streets to reduce particulate emissions. The project sponsor would be required to designate an individual to monitor compliance with dust control requirements.

These regulations and procedures set forth by the San Francisco Building Code would ensure that potential dust‐related air quality impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos Serpentinite materials in the soils on the project have the potential to contain naturally‐occurring asbestos (NOA) materials. The Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations was signed into State law on July 22, 2002, and became effective in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) on November 19, 2002. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce public exposure to NOA from construction and mining activities that emit dust which may contain NOA. The ATCM requires regulated operations engaged in road construction and maintenance activities, construction and grading operations, and quarrying and surface mining operations in areas where NOA is likely to be found, to employ the best available dust mitigation measures in order to reduce and control dust emissions.

The BAAQMD’s approach to analyzing construction impacts emphasizes implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions.

Case No. 2006.1431E 62 1960-1998 Market Street

As discussed above, the project sponsor would be required to implement the dust control measures required by ordinance. However, the presence of NOA in the soils on the site would result in a potentially significant air quality impact during construction. The project sponsor has agreed to implement Mitigation Measure 4 (identified on p. 102) which specifies the necessary steps for implementing the Soils Management Plan prepared for the site. The SMP would incorporate the BAAQMD requirements for completion of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan permit application with BAAQMD prior to any site excavation. With implementation of these measures, the construction‐related air quality impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.

For further discussion of issues and environmental impacts associated with NOA on the project site, please see Topic Number 15, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Operation-Related Impacts

The BAAQMD has established thresholds for projects requiring its review for potential air quality impacts. These thresholds are based on the minimum size of projects that the District considers capable of producing air quality problems due to vehicular emissions. The BAAQMD “generally does not recommend a detailed air quality analysis for projects generating less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day, unless warranted by the specific nature of the project or project setting.”36 The proposed project would generate approximately 776 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, an air quality analysis report was not required to evaluate potential impacts from operation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not contribute significantly to project‐specific or cumulative air quality impacts on a local or regional level and that project‐ specific impacts on global climate change would be less than significant.

Based on these results the potential level of project‐related emissions including ROGs and NOx (both precursors to ozone) would have a less‐than‐significant impact on regional air quality. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any proposed project that would individually have a less‐than‐significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a less‐than‐significant cumulative air quality impact if the population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increases due to the proposed project are accounted for in the applicable Clean Air Plan. The applicable plans for this project would be San Francisco’s General Plan and the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (2005 Ozone Strategy). The 2005 Ozone Strategy is based on population projections for San Francisco that assume a greater level of development than is currently forecast by the Planning Department. Therefore, upon implementation of the 2005 Ozone Strategy, development in San Francisco, including the proposed project, would be within the growth projections forecast by the plan. As

36 BAAQMD, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999.

Case No. 2006.1431E 63 1960-1998 Market Street such, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on cumulative air quality of the Bay Area.

Greenhouse Gases Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHG’s has been implicated as a driving force for global climate change. Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and anthropogenic activities which alter the composition of the global atmosphere.

Individual projects contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change by emitting GHGs during demolition, construction and operational phases. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. (Ozone—not directly emitted, but formed from other gases—in the troposphere, the lowest level of the earth’s atmosphere, also contributes to the retention of heat.) While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are largely emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the “reference gas” for climate change, meaning that emissions of GHGs are typically reported in “carbon dioxide‐equivalent” measures. Emissions of carbon dioxide are largely by‐products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off‐ gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs, with much greater heat‐ absorption potential than carbon dioxide, include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. There is international scientific consensus that human‐caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is uncertainty concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years.37 Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimated that in 2004 California produced 500 million gross metric tons (about 550 million U.S. tons) of carbon dioxide‐equivalent GHG emissions.38 The CEC found that transportation is the source of 38 percent of the State’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation (both in‐state and out‐of‐state) at 23 percent and industrial

37 California Air Resources Board (ARB), 2006a. Climate Change website (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/120106workshop/intropres12106.pdf) accessed December 4, 2007. 38 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in “carbon dioxide‐equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global warming”) potential.

Case No. 2006.1431E 64 1960-1998 Market Street sources at 13 percent.39 In the Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on‐ road motor vehicles, off‐highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions, accounting for just over half of the Bay Area’s 85 million tons of GHG emissions in 2002. Industrial and commercial sources were the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one‐fourth of total emissions. Domestic sources (e.g., home water heaters, furnaces, etc.) account for about 11 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions, followed by power plants at 7 percent. Oil refining currently accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total Bay Area GHG emissions.40

Statewide Actions In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S‐3‐05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) would be progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.41

In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost‐effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions).

AB 32 establishes a timetable for the CARB to adopt emission limits, rules, and regulations designed to achieve the intent of the Act. CARB staff is preparing a scoping plan to meet the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction limits outlined in AB 32. In order to meet these goals, California must reduce their greenhouse gases by 30 percent below projected 2020 business as usual emissions levels, or about 10 percent from today’s levels. In June 2008, CARB released their Draft Scoping

Plan, which estimates a reduction of 169 million metric tons of CO2‐eq (MMTCO2‐eq). Approximately one‐third of the emissions reductions strategies fall within the transportation sector and include the following: California Light‐Duty Vehicle GHG standards, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Heavy‐Duty Vehicle GHG emission reductions and energy efficiency, and medium and heavy‐duty vehicle hybridization, high speed rail, and efficiency improvements in goods movement. These measures are expected to reduce GHG emissions by 60.2 MMTCO2‐eq.

39 California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 ‐ Final Staff Report, publication # CEC‐600‐2006‐013‐SF, December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to that report. Available on the internet at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccei/emsinv/emsinv.htm. 40 BAAQMD, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Base Year 2002, November 2006. Available on the internet at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ghg_emission_inventory.pdf. 41 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, June 2008 Discussion Draft. Available on the internet at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/index.php. Accessed July 29, 2008.

Case No. 2006.1431E 65 1960-1998 Market Street

Emissions from the electricity sector are expected to reduce another 49.7 MMTCO2‐eq. Reductions from the electricity sector include building and appliance energy efficiency and conservation, increased combined heat and power, solar water heating (AB 1470), the renewable energy portfolio standard (33% renewable energy by 2020), and the existing million solar roofs program. Other reductions are expected from industrial sources, agriculture, forestry, recycling and waste, water, and emissions reductions from cap‐and‐trade programs. Local government actions and regional GHG targets are also expected to yield a reduction of 2 MMTCO2‐eq.42 Measures that could become effective during implementation pertain to construction‐related equipment and building and appliance energy efficiency. Some proposed measures will require new legislation to implement, some will require subsidies, some have already been developed, and some will require additional effort to evaluate and quantify. Additionally, some emissions reductions strategies may require their own environmental review under CEQA or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Applicable measures that are ultimately adopted will become effective during implementation of proposed project and the proposed project could be subject to these requirements, depending on the proposed project’s timeline.

Local Actions San Francisco has a history of environmental protection policies and programs aimed at improving the quality of life for San Francisco’s residents and reducing impacts on the environment. The following plans, policies and legislation demonstrate San Francisco’s continued commitment to environmental protection.

Transit First Policy. In 1973 San Francisco instituted the Transit First Policy which added Section 16.102 to the City Charter with the goal of reducing the City’s reliance on freeways and meeting transportation needs by emphasizing mass transportation. The Transit First Policy gives priority to public transit investments; adopts street capacity and parking policies to discourage increased automobile traffic; and encourages the use of transit, bicycling and walking rather than use of single‐occupant vehicles.

San Francisco Sustainability Plan. In July 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved the Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco establishing sustainable development as a fundamental goal of municipal public policy.

The Electricity Resource Plan (Revised December 2002). San Francisco adopted the Electricity Resource Plan to help address growing environmental health concerns in San Francisco’s southeast community, home of two power plants. The plan presents a framework for assuring a reliable, affordable, and renewable source of energy for the future of San Francisco.

42 Ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 66 1960-1998 Market Street

The Climate Action Plan for San Francisco. In February 2002, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Resolution (Number 158‐02) committing the City and County of San Francisco to a GHG emissions reduction goal of 20 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012. In September 2004, the San Francisco Department of the Environment and the Public Utilities Commission published the Climate Action Plan for San Francisco: Local Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.43 The Climate Action Plan provides the context of climate change in San Francisco and examines strategies to meet the 20 percent greenhouse gas reduction target. Although the Board of Supervisors has not formally committed the City to perform the actions addressed in the Plan, and many of the actions require further development and commitment of resources, the Plan serves as a blueprint for GHG emission reductions, and several actions have been implemented or are now in progress.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s Zero Emissions 2020 Plan. The SFMTA’s Zero Emissions 2020 plan focuses on the purchase of cleaner transit buses including hybrid diesel‐ electric buses. Under this plan hybrid buses will replace the oldest diesel buses, some dating back to 1988. The hybrid buses emit 95 percent less particle matter (PM, or soot) than the buses they replace, the produce 40% less oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and they reduce greenhouse gases by 30 percent.

LEED® Silver for Municipal Buildings. In 2004, the City amended Chapter 7 of the Environment code, requiring all new municipal construction and major renovation projects to achieve LEED® Silver Certification from the US Green Building Council.

Zero Waste. In 2004, the City of San Francisco committed to a goal of diverting 75 percent of its’ waste from landfills by 2010, with the ultimate goal of zero waste by 2020. San Francisco currently recovers 69 percent of discarded material.

Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance. In 2006 the City of San Francisco adopted Ordinance No. 27‐06, requiring all construction and demolition debris to be transported to a registered facility that can divert a minimum of 65% of the material from landfills. This ordinance applies to all construction, demolition and remodeling projects within the City.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance. In May 2008, the City of San Francisco adopted an ordinance amending the San Francisco Environment Code to establish City greenhouse gas emission targets and departmental action plans, to authorize the Department of the Environment to coordinate efforts to meet these targets, and to make environmental findings. The ordinance establishes the

43 San Francisco Department of the Environment and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Climate Action Plan for San Francisco, Local Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Emissions, September 2004.

Case No. 2006.1431E 67 1960-1998 Market Street following greenhouse gas emission reduction limits for San Francisco and the target dates to achieve them: • Determine 1990 City greenhouse gas emissions by 2008, the baseline level with reference to which target reductions are set; • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2017; • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2025; and • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The ordinance also specifies requirements for City departments to prepare departmental Climate Action Plans that assess, and report to the Department of the Environment, GHG emissions associated with their department’s activities and activities regulated by them, and prepare recommendations to reduce emissions. As part of this, the San Francisco Planning Department is required to: (1) update and amend the City’s applicable General Plan elements to include the emissions reduction limits set forth in this ordinance and policies to achieve those targets; (2) consider a project’s impact on the City’s GHG reduction limits specified in this ordinance as part of its review under CEQA; and (3) work with other City departments to enhance the “transit first” policy to encourage a shift to sustainable modes of transportation thereby reducing emissions and helping to achieve the targets set forth by this ordinance.

Go Solar SF. On July 1, 2008, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) launched their “GoSolarSF” program to San Francisco’s businesses and residents, offering incentives in the form of a rebate program that could pay for approximately half the cost of installation of a solar power system, and more to those qualifying as low‐income residents.

City of San Francisco’s Green Building Ordinance. On August 4, 2008, Mayor Gavin Newsom signed into law San Francisco’s Green Building Ordinance for newly constructed residential and commercial buildings and renovations to existing buildings. The ordinance specifically requires newly constructed commercial buildings over 5,000 square feet (sq. ft.), residential buildings over 75 feet in height, and renovations on buildings over 25,000 sq. ft. to be subject to an unprecedented level of LEED® and green building certifications, which makes San Francisco the city with the most stringent green building requirements in the nation. Cumulative benefits of this ordinance includes reducing CO2 emissions by 60,000 tons, saving 220,000 megawatt hours of power, saving 100 million gallons of drinking water, reducing waste and storm water by 90 million gallons of water, reducing construction and demolition waste by 700 million pounds, increasing the valuations of recycled materials by $200 million, reducing automobile trips by 540,000, and increasing green power generation by 37,000 megawatt hours.44

The Green Building Ordinance also continues San Franciscoʹs efforts to reduce the Cityʹs greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012, a goal outlined in the

44 These findings are contained within the final Green Building Ordinance, signed by Mayor Gavin Newsom on August 4, 2008.

Case No. 2006.1431E 68 1960-1998 Market Street

Cityʹs 2004 Climate Action Plan. In addition, by reducing San Franciscoʹs emissions, this ordinance also furthers the Stateʹs efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions statewide as mandated by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

The City has also passed ordinances to reduce waste from retail and commercial operations. Ordinance 295‐06, the Food Waste Reduction Ordinance, prohibits the use of polystyrene foam disposable food service ware and requires biodegradable/compostable or recyclable food service ware by restaurants, retail food vendors, City Departments and City contractors. Ordinance 81‐ 07, the Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance, requires stores located within the City and County of San Francisco to use compostable plastic, recyclable paper and/or reusable checkout bags.

The San Francisco Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection have also developed a streamlining process for Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Permits and priority permitting mechanisms for projects pursuing LEED® Gold Certification.

The City’s Planning Code reflects the latest smart growth policies and includes: electric vehicle refueling stations in city parking garages, bicycle storage facilities for commercial and office buildings, and zoning that is supportive of high density mixed‐use infill development. The City’s more recent area plans, such as Rincon Hill and the Market and Octavia Area Plan, provide transit‐oriented development policies. At the same time there is also a community‐wide focus on ensuring San Francisco’s neighborhoods as “livable” neighborhoods, including the Better Streets Plan that would improve streetscape policies throughout the City, the Transit Effectiveness Plan, that aims to improve transit service, and the Bicycle Plan, all of which promote alternative transportation options. The City also provides incentives to City employees to use alternative commute modes and the City recently introduced legislation that would require almost all employers to have comparable programs. Each of the policies and ordinances discussed above include measures that would decrease the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere and decrease San Francisco’s overall contribution to climate change.

Impacts Although neither the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) or any other agency has adopted significance criteria for evaluating a project’s contribution to climate change, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has asked the California Air Resources Board to “recommend a method for setting thresholds of significance to encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions” throughout the state because OPR has recognized that “the global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide

Case No. 2006.1431E 69 1960-1998 Market Street threshold for GHG emissions.”45 In the interim, on June 19, 2008 OPR released a Technical Advisory for addressing climate change through CEQA review. OPR’s technical advisory offers informal guidance on the steps that lead agencies should take to address climate changes in their CEQA documents, in the absence of statewide thresholds. OPR will develop, and the California Resources Agency will certify and adopt amendments to the CEQA guidelines on or before January 1, 2010, pursuant to Senate Bill 97.

The informal guidelines in OPR’s technical advisory provide the basis for determining proposed project’s contribution of greenhouse gas emissions and the project’s contribution to global climate change. In the absence of adopted statewide thresholds, OPR recommends the following approach for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions:

1) Identify and quantify the project’s greenhouse gas emissions; 2) Assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and 3) If the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/ or mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to less than significant levels.

The following analysis is based on OPR’s recommended approach for determining a project’s contribution to and impact on climate change.

Identifying and quantifying a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. OPR’s technical advisory states that “the most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide.” State law defines GHG to also include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. These latter GHG compounds are usually emitted in industrial processes, and therefore not applicable to the proposed project, however, the GHG calculation does include emissions from CO2, N2O, and CH4, as recommended by OPR. The informal guidelines also advise that lead agencies should calculate, or estimate, emissions from vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities. The calculation presented below includes construction emissions in terms of CO246, and annual CO2‐eq GHG emissions from increased vehicular traffic, energy consumption, as well as estimated GHG

45 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory‐ CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. This document is available online at the Office of Planning and Research’s website at: www.opr.gov. Accessed 07/24/2008. 46 Construction emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were calculated based on URBEMIS 2007 9.2.4 software. Attachment 2 of the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory‐ CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, (June 19, 2008) lists and describes modeling tools used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. URBEMIS is currently the only tool identified that has the capacity to calculate a project’s CO2 emissions from construction activities. It does not, however, calculate emissions from N2O or CH4, nor does any other modeling tool currently available. However emissions of these compounds would be a fraction of the total greenhouse gas emissions and therefore CO2 is used as an indicator to estimate the construction‐related emissions of the proposed project.

Case No. 2006.1431E 70 1960-1998 Market Street emissions from solid waste disposal. While San Francisco’s population and businesses are expected to increase, overall projected water demand for San Francisco in 2030 is expected to decrease from current water demand due to improvements in plumbing code requirements and additional water conservation measures implemented by the San Francisco Pubic Utilities Commission (SFPUC).47 Given the anticipated degree of water conservation, GHG emissions associated with the transport and treatment of water usage would similarly decrease through 2030, and therefore increased GHG emissions from water usage is not expected.

The proposed project would increase the activity onsite by introducing approximately 108 dwelling units, 86 parking spaces, and approximately 8,150 sq ft of ground‐floor commercial uses, potentially retail and restaurant uses. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to long‐term increases in GHGs as a result of traffic increases (mobile sources), and residential and commercial operations associated with heating, energy use and solid waste disposal (area sources). Direct project emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2‐eq) (including CO2, NOx, and CH4 emissions) include 911 tons of CO2‐eq/ year from transportation and 1,266 tons of CO2‐ eq /year from heating, for a total of 2,177 tons of CO2‐eq/ year of project‐emitted GHGs. The project would also indirectly result in GHG emissions from off‐site electricity generation at power plants (approximately 520 tons of CO2‐eq/year) and from anaerobic decomposition of solid waste disposal at landfills, mostly in the form of methane (approximately 14 tons of CO2‐eq/ year), for a GHG emissions total of approximately 2,711 tons of CO2‐eq/year.48 This represents approximately .003 percent of total Bay Area GHGs emitted in 2002.49

Assessing the significance of the impact on climate change. The projectʹs incremental increases in GHG emissions associated with construction, traffic increases and residential/commercial heating, electricity use, and solid waste disposal would contribute to regional and global increases in GHG emissions and associated climate change effects.

OPR encourages public agencies to adopt thresholds of significance, but notes that public agencies are not required to do so. Until a statewide threshold has been adopted, the Department

47 The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) City and County of San Francisco Retail Water Demands and Conservation Potential, November 2004, documents the current and projected water demand given population and housing projections from Citywide Planning. This document is available at the SFPUC’s website at: http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/13/MSC_ID/165/C_ID/2281. Accessed 07/28/2008. The analysis provides projections of future (2030) water demand given anticipated water conservation measures from plumbing code changes, measures the SFPUC currently implements, and other measures the SFPUC anticipates on implementing. Conservation measures the SFPUC currently implements results in an overall reduction of 0.64 million gallons of water per day (mgd). 48 San Francisco Planning Department. Memorandum from Jessica Range to Debra Dwyer. Greenhouse Gas Calculation Methodology for 1960 Market St. June 2, 2008. A copy of this document is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E. 49 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District reported regional Bay Area GHGs emissions in 2002 at approximately 85 million CO2‐eq tons.

Case No. 2006.1431E 71 1960-1998 Market Street analyzes a proposed project’s contribution to climate change against the following significance criteria:

1) Does the project conflict with the state goal of reducing GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), such that the project’s GHG emissions would result in a substantial contribution to global climate change. AND

2) Does the proposed project conflict with San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan such that it would impede implementation of the local greenhouse gas reduction goals established by San Francisco’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance.

The 2020 GHG emissions limit for California, as adopted by CARB in December of 2007 is approximately 427 MMTCO2‐eq. The proposed project’s annual contribution would be 0.00006% of this total 2020 emissions limit, and therefore the proposed project would not generate sufficient emissions of GHGs to contribute considerably to the cumulative effects of GHG emissions such that it would impair the stateʹs ability to implement AB32, nor would the proposed project conflict with San Francisco’s local actions to reduce GHG emissions.

OPR’s guidance states that, “Although climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment. CEQA authorizes reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation programs that have adequately analyzed and mitigated GHG emissions to a less than significant level as a means to avoid or substantially reduce the cumulative impact of a project”. And, “In determining whether a proposed project’s emissions are cumulatively considerable, the lead agency must consider the impact of the project when viewed in connection with the effects of “past, current and probable future projects.”

As discussed previously, San Francisco has been actively pursuing cleaner energy, transportation and solid waste policies. In an independent review of San Francisco’s community wide emissions it was reported that San Francisco has achieved a 5% reduction in communitywide greenhouse gas emissions below the Kyoto Protocol 1990 baseline levels. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol sets a greenhouse gas reduction target of 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. The ʺcommunity‐wide inventoryʺ includes greenhouse gas emissions generated by San Francisco by residents, businesses, and commuters, as well as municipal operations. The inventory also includes emissions from both transportation sources and from building energy sources.

Probable future greenhouse gas reductions will be realized by implementation of San Francisco’s recently approved Green Building Ordinance. Additionally, the recommendations outlined in the Draft AB 32 Scoping Plan will likely realize major reductions in vehicle emissions.

Case No. 2006.1431E 72 1960-1998 Market Street

Further, the State of California Attorney General’s office has compiled a list of greenhouse gas reduction measures that could be applied to a diverse range of projects.50 The proposed project would meet the intent of many of the greenhouse gas reduction measures identified by the Attorney General’s office: (1) As infill development, the project would be constructed in an urban area with good transit access, reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and therefore the projectʹs transportation‐related GHG emissions would tend to be less relative to the same amount of population and employment growth elsewhere in the Bay Area, where transit service is generally less available than in the central city of San Francisco;51 (2) As new construction, the proposed project would be required to meet California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, helping to reduce future energy demand as well as reduce the projectʹs contribution to cumulative regional GHG emissions; (3) the proposed project would also be required to comply with the Construction Demolition and Debris Recovery Ordinance (Ordinance No. 27‐06), requiring at least 65% of all construction and demolition material to be diverted from landfills; and (4) the proposed project would preserve existing street trees and plant additional street trees, regulating outdoor temperatures and aiding in carbon sequestration.52

Given that: (1) the proposed project would not contribute significantly to global climate change such that it would impede the State’s ability to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets under AB 32, or impede San Francisco’s ability to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Ordinance; (2) San Francisco has implemented programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions specific to new construction and renovations of residential and commercial developments; (3) San Francisco’s sustainable policies have resulted in the measured success of reduced greenhouse gas emissions levels, and (4) current and probable future state and local greenhouse gas reduction measures will continue to reduce a project’s contribution to climate change, the proposed project would not contribute significantly, either individually or cumulatively, to global climate change.

50 State of California, Department of Justice, “The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.” Updated 3/11/08. Available at: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf. Accessed 04/11/2008. 51 The California Air Pollution Control Officer’s, CEQA and Climate Change (January 2008) white paper identifies infill development as yielding a “high” emissions reduction score (between 3‐30%). This paper is available online at: http://www.capcoa.org/ceqa/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper%20‐ %20CEQA%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2008. 52 Carbon sequestration is the capture and long-term storage of carbon dioxide before it is emitted into the atmosphere.

Case No. 2006.1431E 73 1960-1998 Market Street

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

8. WIND AND SHADOW—Would the project: a) Alter wind in a manner that substantially affects public areas? b) Create new shadow in a manner that substantially affects outdoor recreation facilities or other public areas?

Wind

Ground‐level wind accelerations near buildings are controlled by exposure, massing, and orientation. Exposure is a measure of the extent that a building stands above surrounding structures and in the wind stream. Massing refers to the shape of a building, both its bulk and geometry. Massing controls how much wind is intercepted by the structure as well as whether any building‐related wind acceleration occurs above ground or at the ground level. In general, the more complex a building is geometrically, the lesser the probable wind impact at the ground level. A building’s orientation directly contributes to wind acceleration since it determines how much wind is intercepted by the structure.53 The proposed project was reviewed by Donald Ballanti, a certified consulting meteorologist, in order to understand the potential effects of the project related to wind. The results of the analysis are summarized below.54

Winds in San Francisco are generally from the west, off of the Pacific Ocean. Building heights in the project vicinity vary between three and eight stories. In addition, the United States Mint Building is located due west of the project site on a small hill. The terrain slopes sharply to the north and west of the project site. For these reasons, the project site is substantially sheltered from prevailing winds by the surrounding buildings and the topography, which increases the shelter provided by existing buildings.55

As described in the project description and accompanying drawings, the proposed project would construct an irregularly‐shaped, relatively narrow mixed‐use building covering the project site. The Buchanan Street facade would be nine stories in height and the Market Street facade would be eight stories in height. An interior terrace would provide open space for the project occupants.

53 Ballanti, Donald. June 1, 2007. Letter to Brian Spiers regarding Wind/Comfort Study for the Market & Buchanan, Project San Francisco. A copy of this letter report is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 as part of Case file 2006.1431E. 54 Ballanti. 2007. 55 Ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 74 1960-1998 Market Street

Pursuant to the wind/comfort study, the proposed project does not have potential to result in strong wind accelerations at the ground level for several reasons. The proposed project provides a very narrow profile along its long axis (southwest to northeast axis) which would act to limit the strength of any wind accelerations from those directions. In addition, the subject building would be sheltered from prevailing winds by the existing structures in the project vicinity as well as the area’s topography. The proposed building has a complex design at the corner of Market and Buchanan as illustrated in the project drawings. The complex geometry would dissipate wind accelerations generated by the building’s western façade. Finally, the interior open space would be protected from wind by the project structure itself.56

For the reasons given above and based upon consideration of the exposure, massing, and orientation of the proposed project, the proposed project was found not to have the potential to cause significant changes to the wind environment at the pedestrian level adjacent or near the project site.57 Pursuant to Planning Department Policy memorandum regarding wind analysis in the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan area, additional project‐level wind analysis is not required.58 Therefore, there would be no significant impact with respect to wind. Shadow

The proposed project would be approximately 85 feet in height. Section 295 of the Planning Code was adopted in response to Proposition K (passed in November 1984) in order to protect certain public open spaces (under Recreation and Park jurisdiction) from shadowing by new structures during the period between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset, year round. Section 295 restricts new shadow upon public spaces under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department by any structure exceeding 40 feet unless the Planning Commission finds the impact to be insignificant. To determine whether this project would conform to Section 295, a shadow fan analysis was prepared by the Planning Department.59 The analysis determined that the project would not shade any properties subject to Section 295.

Section 295 does not provide protection of sunlight for non‐Recreation and Park properties or private properties. The proposed building would cast some shade on adjacent properties and those within approximately a block and a half of the project site. However, the proposed project would not increase the total amount of shading in the neighborhood above levels that are

56 Ibid. 57 Ibid.

58 Paul Maltzer. November 7, 2008. Market & Octavia EIR Wind Impacts and Mitigation Memorandum. This document is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E. 59 San Francisco Planning Department, 1960 Market Street Shadow Analysis, Case File No. 2006.1431K, January 18, 2008. A copy of this document is available for public review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

Case No. 2006.1431E 75 1960-1998 Market Street common and generally accepted in urban areas. Therefore, shadowing from the proposed project is not considered to be a significant adverse impact on the City’s environment.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

9. RECREATION—Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? c) Physically degrade existing recreational resources?

Public park and recreation facilities near the project site include: Koshland Park (two and a half blocks north of the project site); Page‐Laguna Mini‐Park (three blocks northeast of the project site), Harvey Milk Recreation Center and Duboce Park (two and a half blocks west of the project site); Noe‐Beaver Mini Park (four and a half blocks west of the project site); Corona Heights Park, including State Street and Peixotto Playgrounds (7 blocks southwest of the project site); and Dolores Park (6 blocks south of the project site). The project site is within the service areas of Harvey Milk Recreation Center and the Hayes Valley Center Recreation Center, a Level 3 recreation facility.60 In 1998, the City and County of San Francisco initiated the Great Parks for a Great City Assessment Project to determine the condition of the park system as well as to determine future needs. In August of 2004, the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department published a Recreation Assessment Report that evaluates the recreation needs of San Francisco residents.61 Nine service area maps were developed for the Recreation Assessment Report. The service area maps were intended to help Recreation and Parks Department staff and key leadership assess where services are offered, how equitable the service delivery is across the City and how effective the service is as it applies to participating levels overlaid against the demographics of where the service is provided. A review and interpretation of the data on the service area maps indicated that Census Tract 168, in which the project site is located, has access to certain types of recreation facilities such as recreation centers, tennis courts and soccer pitches, but falls outside the general service areas for other types of recreational facilities such as pools

60 Level 3 Recreation facilities contain a variety of services including a clubhouse, field, and after‐school programs. San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, Recreation Assessment Report, August 2004. This document is available online at http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/recpark_index.asp?id=27310. Accessed June 9, 2008.

61 ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 76 1960-1998 Market Street and baseball diamonds. Based on an average household size of 1.85 persons per unit for Census Tract 168, the proposed project would add 200 people to the existing census tract population of 3,912, an increase of 6 percent.

Although the proposed project would be expected to generate additional demand for the above described recreational facilities, the proposed project’s contribution to this need would not be considered a substantial contribution to this existing demand for public recreational facilities in the area. The increase in demand would not be in excess of amounts expected and provided for in the area and the City as a whole. The proposed project is within the service areas of some existing parks and recreation facilities, and the additional use of the recreational facilities would be relatively minor compared with the existing use of the facilities. The proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational resources. The impact on recreational facilities would, therefore, be less than significant.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

10. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supply available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded water supply resources or entitlements? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The project site and vicinity are currently served by utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, and power and telecommunication service. The proposed project would increase the intensity of development

Case No. 2006.1431E 77 1960-1998 Market Street on the site and would consequently increase the demand for, and use of, these utilities and service systems on the site. The following discussion addresses potential impacts related to water and wastewater services and systems.

Wastewater

The project site is served by the Southeast Plant, which treats all east side sewage flows during dry weather. San Francisco has a combined sewer system that collects wastewater and stormwater flows in the same pipes. Therefore, during wet weather, the Southeast Plant is supplemented by the North Point Wet Weather Facility (North Point Plant) and a series of storage and transport boxes to handle the increased volume of flow. When wet‐weather flows exceed the capacity of the overall system, the excess is discharged from 29 combined sewer overflow (CSO) structures located along the waterfront that provide primary treatment before discharge. All discharges are operated in compliance with permits issued by the RWQCB, San Francisco Bay Region and with the U.S. EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. In 2005, the SFPUC launched a citywide 5‐Year Wastewater Capital Improvement Program to improve the reliability and efficiency of the combined system. The program is aimed at reducing flood risk in many neighborhoods, upgrading treatment plants, and curbing wastewater odors at the Southeast Plant. In addition, the SFPUC is developing a Sewer System Master Plan that would present a long‐term strategy for the management of the City’s wastewater and stormwater; address system deficiencies, community impacts, public interests, and future needs; and maximize system reliability and flexibility. The Master Plan, which will undergo separate CEQA review, is expected to be completed in 2008. Checklist topic 14, Hydrology and Water Quality, pp. 88‐92, addresses the potential for the increase in the volume of CSO discharges to degrade water quality, in the context of the City’s compliance with existing regulatory requirements and ongoing planning efforts. In light of the above, impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant.

Water

The SFPUC provides water (through retail and wholesale customers) to approximately 2.4 million people in San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, and Tuolumne Counties.62

Approximately 96 percent of the water provided to San Francisco is supplied by the SFPUC Regional Water System, which is made up of water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Bay Area reservoirs in the Alameda Creek and Peninsula watersheds. Groundwater and recycled water make up the remainder of the SFPUC supplies to the City.

62 Information for this discussion can be found in the SFPUC, Urban Water Management Plan, adopted December 13, 2005, p. 5

Case No. 2006.1431E 78 1960-1998 Market Street

Citywide water use in 2000 was approximately 84 million gallons per day (mgd), of which about 57 percent was for residential customers and about 34 percent for business. Most of the remaining 9 percent was considered “unaccounted for” water.63 Water demand in San Francisco is expected to decrease slightly between 2000 and 2030, in spite of a projected increase in the City’s population. Lower water use rates are expected because of an anticipated decrease in the number of people in each housing unit and the increased use of water‐efficient plumbing fixtures.

Total system‐wide demand is projected to increase to 300 mgd by 2030. The City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan projects that, during normal precipitation years, the SFPUC will have adequate supplies to meet the projected demand. During multiple dry years, however, additional water sources will be required. To address this issue, the SFPUC has embarked on a multi‐year program, called the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), to rebuild the water system. A revised WSIP was issued in January 2006 and is undergoing environmental review. The SFPUC also is developing an Integrated Water Resource Plan, a planning document detailing how long‐term water demand can be met through a mix of water supply options (such as groundwater, recycled water, conservation, and imported water).

The proposed project would result in an increase in water use at the project site. However, total water use in San Francisco is projected to decrease over time. Therefore, the project would not require a major expansion of the SFPUC’s water facilities, nor would it adversely affect the City’s water supply. In addition, the SFPUC had adopted a long‐term water management plan and is undertaking a number of efforts to meet projected system‐wide demand and ensure the reliability of the system’s water supply. For that reason, project and cumulative impacts on water supply would be less than significant.

Stormwater drainage is routed to the City’s combined stormwater and wastewater system. The impacts of the project on the combined system are addressed in the response above. See also Topic 14, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of the proposed project’s potential impact on stormwater runoff.

Solid Waste

According to the California State Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, San Francisco is required to adopt an integrated waste management plan, implement a program to reduce the amount of waste disposed, and have its waste diversion performance periodically reviewed by the Integrated Waste Management Board. Reports filed by the San Francisco Department of the Environment showed the City generated 1.88 million tons of waste material in 2002. Approximately 63 percent (1.18 million tons) was diverted through recycling, composting, reuse,

63 Unaccounted for water includes necessary, but unmetered uses such as fire fighting, main flushing, and storage facility cleaning, as well as losses due to leaking pipes.

Case No. 2006.1431E 79 1960-1998 Market Street and other efforts while 700,000 tons went into landfill. The diversion percentage increased from 52 percent reported in 2001.55

Solid waste generated in San Francisco is transported to, and disposed of at, the Altamont Landfill in Alameda County. The Altamont Landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of 6,000 tons per day and received about 1.34 million tons of waste in 2002 (the most recent year reported by the State). The total permitted capacity of the landfill is more than 124 million cubic yards; with this capacity, the landfill can operate until 2025. Although the increased residential population resulting from the project would incrementally increase total waste generation from the City, the increasing rate of diversion through recycling and other methods would result in a decreasing share of total waste that requires deposition in the landfill. Given this, and given the long‐term capacity available at the Altamont Landfill, the project would not result in this or any other landfill exceeding its permitted capacity, and the project would result in a less‐than significant impact.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Applicable 11. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other services?

The project site and vicinity are currently served by public services, including fire suppression and emergency medical services, police protection, public schools, and recreational facilities. The proposed project would increase the intensity of development on the site and would consequently increase the demand for, and use of, these services. Potential impacts to fire and police protection and the demand for schools are discussed below. Impacts on recreation are discussed in Topic 9 of this Initial Study.

The project site is located in an urban area that is currently served with public services, such as fire, police, public schools, parks, libraries and other services. While the proposed project would increase the number of residents on the project site, and thereby increase demand for and use of local public services, it would not be considered in excess of amounts expected and provided for in this area.

Police and Fire Protection

Case No. 2006.1431E 80 1960-1998 Market Street

The project site currently receives police and fire protection services from the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD). The proposed project would remove the existing gas station and parking use on the project site and add a mixed‐use building with 108 residential units (approximately 200 residents) and 8,150 square feet of ground‐ floor commercial space. The nearest police station is the Northern District Station located at 1125 Fillmore Street, about twelve blocks to the north. The nearest fire stations are Station 6, located at 135 Sanchez Street, about three blocks to the southwest, and Station 36, located at 109 Oak Street, about five blocks to the northeast. Although the proposed project could increase activity and the number of calls received from the area as well as the level of regulatory oversight required, the increase in responsibilities would not be considered substantially greater than the existing demand for police and fire protection services in the Upper Market neighborhood. Meeting this additional service demand would not require the construction of new police or fire prevention facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to police or fire protection services.

Schools

Some of the new residents of the proposed 108‐unit, mixed‐use development may be families with school‐aged children. The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) employs a student generation rate of 0.203 students per housing unit for planning purposes and the proposed 108 units would generate approximately 25 school‐age children (K‐12).64 This may be an overestimate of the proposed project population because more than one‐half of the proposed units would be studio or one‐bedroom units. Nearby public schools to the project site include John Muir Elementary School at 380 Webster Street, five blocks to the north, and Walden School for Boys (an alternative school for troubled youth) at 214 Haight Street. Sanchez Elementary, 325 Sanchez Street, about six blocks to the southwest. The nearest middle school is Everett Middle School at 450 Church Street, about 1.8 miles to the west. The high school serving the project area is Mission High School at 3750 18th Street, about six blocks to the southwest.

The SFUSD is generally not a growth district, with most facilities throughout the City generally underutilized, and the SFUSD has more classrooms district‐wide than it needs.65 Because of this, and because families can apply to any SFUSD school, it is expected that the new students

64 See discussion in the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Community Plan Initial Study (Case No. 2004.0160E, Preliminary Draft 9‐19‐05) and the Transbay Terminal/Caltrain Downtown Extension/Redevelopment Project Final EIS/EIR, March 2004; p. 4‐19; prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, City and County of San Francisco, Peninsula Corridor of Joint Powers Board, and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, in Case No.2004.048E and at www.transbayproject.org, accessed for this report on March 12, 2007. 65 San Francisco Unified School District, Facilities Master Plan, 2003.

Case No. 2006.1431E 81 1960-1998 Market Street

generated by the project could be easily accommodated by the SFUSD.66 Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase demand for school facilities and would not necessitate new or physically altered school facilities in San Francisco. Similar to other citywide development, the proposed project would be assessed a State‐mandated school impact fee for the increase in residential and retail space; under CEQA, payment of these fees is considered to mitigate potential impacts to schools. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to schools.

For the reasons discussed above, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact with respect to public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other services.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Applicable

12. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

66 Heidi Anderson, Public Relations Coordinator, San Francisco Unified School District, personal communication, June 12, 2007.

Case No. 2006.1431E 82 1960-1998 Market Street

The project site is mostly covered by impervious surfaces. Three maple trees are present along the southern project site boundary, within the Market Street right‐of‐way, and would be retained. The existing dwarf redwood trees on the project site are approximately 4‐6 feet tall, were planted for landscaping purposes and are not special status species, nor would they be expected to provide habitat for any special status species. The vicinity of the project site is completely urbanized.

Given the conditions present on the project site and in the area, the project would not substantially affect a rare or endangered plant or animal species or its habitat. For similar reasons, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities, federally protected wetlands, wildlife movement corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. There are no habitat conservation plans for the project site or area.

Federal requirements in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Section 703) protect migratory birds. State requirements under Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code protect nesting raptors and birds. The street trees adjacent to the project site would be retained and could have active bird nests. Known occurrences of nesting raptors in San Francisco are generally at or near the tops of high‐rise buildings and on the Bay Bridge. Given the dense urban character of the area and the level of traffic on the Market Street corridor, it is unlikely that these trees support nesting raptors. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. However, active nests of other birds could be present when construction occurs for the proposed project. The project sponsor would be required to survey for active nests of migratory birds and provide further protection during construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 the impact would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

The removal of “street trees” (trees within the public right‐of‐way or on land within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works) requires a permit under Article 16 of the San Francisco Public Works Code. Three street trees exist on the Market Street side of the project site. Code amendments adopted in conjunction with the Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan require one street tree to be planted for every twenty feet of site frontage. The street frontages of the building would be planted with 15‐gallon street trees spaced on 20‐foot intervals. Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impact to biological resources.

Case No. 2006.1431E 83 1960-1998 Market Street

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

13. GEOLOGY AND SOILS— Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Change substantially the topography or any unique geologic or physical features of the site?

The project site is not located in an earthquake fault zone as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, and therefore, significance criteria 13(a)(i) is not applicable to the proposed project.67 The project site is not within an area designated as a Seismic Hazards Study Zone (SHSZ) designated by the California Division of Mines and Geology as being susceptible to landslide or liquefaction hazard.

The project sponsor proposes to utilize a mat foundation bearing on the shallow bedrock. The project site is in an area that may be subject to very strong shaking, Level VIII, on the Modified

67 California. Department of Conservation. Fault‐Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. Interim Revision 2007. Available on line at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/SP42.PDF. Accessed April 30, 2008.

Case No. 2006.1431E 84 1960-1998 Market Street

Mercalli Intensity Shaking Severity Level.68 A geotechnical investigation has not yet been completed for this project although three exploratory borings for such a study were taken as part of the Limited Environmental Site Characterization Market and Buchanan Street 1998 Market Street.69 The borings indicate that the project site is underlain by sandy gravel above the bedrock of the Franciscan complex. The bedrock consists of serpentinite, greenstone, and shale. The serpentinite and shale are mostly crushed to intensely fractured, soft to moderately hard, friable to weak, with deep to moderate weathering. The greenstone encountered is mostly closely to intensely fractured, of moderate hardness, weak, with deep to moderate weathering.70

The final building plans would be reviewed by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI). In reviewing building plans, the DBI refers to a variety of information sources to determine existing hazards and assess requirements for mitigation. Sources reviewed include maps of Special Geologic Study Areas and known landslide areas in San Francisco as well as the building inspectorsʹ working knowledge of areas of special geologic concern. If the need were indicated by available information, DBI would require that site‐specific soils reports be prepared by a California‐licensed geotechnical engineer prior to construction. Therefore, potential damage to structures from geologic hazards on a project site would be avoided through the DBI requirement for a geotechnical report and review of the building permit application pursuant to DBI implementation of the Building Code, and no mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Applicable

14. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

68 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2003. Shaking Hazard Maps. Available online at http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mapsba.html. Access April 30, 2008.

69 Treadwell & Rollo. Limited Environmental Site Characterization Market and Buchanan Street 1998 Market Street. March 29, 2007. A copy of this report is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco as part of Case File No 2006.1431E.

70 ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 85 1960-1998 Market Street

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Applicable

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Water Quality

Project‐related wastewater and storm water runoff would flow into the Cityʹs combined sewer system, to be treated at the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant prior to discharge into San Francisco Bay. Treatment would be provided pursuant to the effluent discharge limitations set by the plantʹs National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In accordance with the permit, discharges to the Bay are in conformance with requirements of the Clean Water Act, Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy, and the associated state requirements in the Water Quality and Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin. During operations and construction, the proposed project would comply with all local wastewater discharge requirements, and therefore the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. Surface and Groundwater

There is little current recharge of groundwater at the project site as it is mostly covered by an impervious surface, and would remain so if the proposed project were constructed. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 14.5 feet below ground surface at Boring B‐3 for the limited environmental site characterization. No ground water was encountered in the

Case No. 2006.1431E 86 1960-1998 Market Street borings which terminated at depths of ten feet or less. For the borings drilled to more than 40 feet in depth, the groundwater level was obscured by rotary wash method. Site grading for the proposed development would result in project excavations on the order of 22 to 39 feet below ground surface. Thus, encountering groundwater during excavation may be expected and dewatering may be necessary. Purged groundwater from the dewatering system would be tested for parameters established by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) prior to dewatering to satisfy local discharge requirements or properly stored onsite for chemical analysis prior to disposal. A permit would be obtained from the SFPUC prior to any groundwater discharge. Compliance with these

Construction of the proposed project would involve demolition, excavation, soil stockpiling, grading, and construction of a new mixed‐use building. These activities could cause erosion and transportation of soil particles that, once in surface water runoff, could cause sediment and other pollutants to leave the site and ultimately affect the water quality of San Francisco Bay. However, as mentioned, storm water runoff from project construction and project operation would be required to drain to the combined sewer and storm water system and would be treated and discharged to the Bay in compliance with the City’s NPDES permit. The project would also be implemented pursuant to Building Code Chapter 33, Excavation and Grading, to ensure that no siltation of the sewer system would occur. Flood Hazard

The City of San Francisco does not currently participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and no flood maps are published for the City. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is revising Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which support the NFIP, for San Francisco Bay Area communities. As part of this effort, FEMA plans to prepare a FIRM for the City and County of San Francisco for the first time. On September 21, 2007, FEMA issued a preliminary FIRM of San Francisco. The preliminary map is for review and comment only; FEMA anticipates that the final map will be published in September 2008.71 FEMA has tentatively identified special flood hazard areas (SFHAs)72 along the City’s shoreline in and along the San Francisco Bay consisting of “A zones” (areas subject to inundation by tidal surge) and “V zones” (areas subject to the additional hazards that accompany wave action). According to the preliminary map, the 1960 to 1998 Market Street project site is not within an A zone or a V zone.73 In addition, there are no natural waterways within or near the project site that could

71 City and County of San Francisco, Office of the City Administrator, National Flood Insurance Program Flood Sheet, http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/risk_management/factsheet.pdf, accessed November 12, 2007. 72 A special flood hazard area is the flood plain that is at risk from the 100‐year flood (a flood having a one‐ percent chance of occurrence in a given year). 73 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map, City and County of San Francisco, California, Panel 120, September 21, 2007, available on the Internet at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedimages/risk_management/j120A_jpg.jpg, accessed November 12, 2007.

Case No. 2006.1431E 87 1960-1998 Market Street

cause stream‐related flooding. The project site is not located within an area that would be flooded as the result of failure of a levee or dam,74 nor is it located in an area identified for potential inundation in the event of a tsunami along the San Francisco coast, based on a 20‐foot water level rise at the Golden Gate (Map 6 of the Community Safety Element of the San Francisco General Plan). In addition, given the topography and developed nature of the area around the project site, it is unlikely that the area would be subject to mudflow. 75 Therefore, significance criteria 14(g), 14(h), 14(i), and 14(j) are not applicable to the project. Based on the information presented above, there would be no significant water quality, groundwater, flooding, or erosion impacts from the proposed project.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

15. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving fires?

74 ABAG, http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi‐bin/pickdamx.pl, accessed February 25, 2008. 75 City and County of San Francisco, City and County of San Francisco Emergency Operations Plan, January 2005.

Case No. 2006.1431E 88 1960-1998 Market Street

The project site is not within an airport land use plan area, nor is it in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, significance criteria 15(e) and 15(f) would not apply to the proposed project.

Potential issues associated with hazards on the project site result from the property’s current use as a gas station, the age of the existing onsite structure, and the presence of naturally‐occurring mineral asbestos in the soils on the site. A Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site addressing the potential for hazardous material exposure that could result from project construction.76 An ESA describes current and prior uses of the property, reviews environmental agency databases and records, reports site reconnaissance observations, and summarizes potential soil and groundwater contamination issues. This section addresses the potential hazards on the project site including asbestos and lead‐based paint in the existing building, contaminants in the soil, emergency response plans, and fire hazards, based on the information contained in the Phase I ESA.

Project Demolition

The following discussion focuses on the potential for exposure to hazardous materials during project demolition.

Lead‐Based Paint The age of the existing building, which is proposed for demolition as part of the project, indicates that it may contain lead‐based paint. Demolition must comply with Chapter 34, Section 3407 of the San Francisco Building Code, Work Practices for Lead‐Based Paint on Pre‐1979 Buildings and Steel Structures. Where there is any work that may disturb or remove lead paint on any building built on or before December 31, 1978, or any steel structures to which lead‐based paint disturbance or removal would occur, and exterior work would disturb more than 100 sf or 100 linear feet of lead‐based paint, Chapter 34 requires specific notification and work standards, and identifies prohibited work methods and penalties.

Chapter 34 contains performance standards, including establishment of containment barriers, at least as effective at protecting human health and the environment as those in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines (the most recent Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead‐Based Paint Hazards) and identifies prohibited practices that may not be used in disturbance or removal of lead‐based paint. Any person performing work subject to the ordinance shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent migration of work debris beyond containment barriers during the course of the work, and any person performing regulated work

76 Harris & Lee Environmental Sciences. All Appropriate Inquiry –Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, 1960, 1970, and 1998 Market Street, San Francisco, California, March 31, 2006. A copy of this report is available for review, by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

Case No. 2006.1431E 89 1960-1998 Market Street shall make all reasonable efforts to remove all visible lead paint contaminants from all regulated areas of the property prior to completion of the work.

The ordinance also includes notification requirements, contents of notice, and requirements for signs. Notification includes notifying bidders for the work of any paint inspection reports verifying the presence or absence of lead‐based paint in the regulated area of the proposed project. Prior to commencement of work, the responsible party must provide written notice to the Director of the Department of Building Inspection of the location of the project; the nature and approximate square footage of the painted surface being disturbed and/or removed; anticipated job start and completion dates for the work; whether the responsible party has reason to know or presume that lead‐based paint is present; whether the building is residential or nonresidential, owner‐occupied or rental property, approximate number of dwelling units, if any; the dates by which the responsible party has or will fulfill any tenant or adjacent property notification requirements; and the name, address, telephone number, and pager number of the party who will perform the work. (Further notice requirements include Sign When Containment is Required, Notice by Landlord, Required Notice to Tenants, Availability of Pamphlet related to protection from lead in the home, Notice by Contractor, Early Commencement of Work [by Owner, Requested by Tenant], and Notice of Lead‐Contaminated Dust or Soil, if applicable.) The ordinance contains provisions regarding inspection and sampling for compliance by DBI, and enforcement, and describes penalties for non‐compliance with the requirements of the ordinance.

These regulations and procedures established by the San Francisco Building Code would ensure that potential impacts associated with lead‐based paint disturbance during demolition activities would be reduced to a level of insignificance.

Underground Storage Tanks The proposed project would demolish the existing gas station on‐site including removal of the two 12,000 gallon underground storage tanks. The project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As described below in the Project Construction section, given the residual contamination associated with the site’s use as a gasoline service station, the project sponsor has proceeded with environmental site characterization and development of a soil management plan (SMP) to remediate existing soil contamination prior to construction. If the proposed excavation activities encounter groundwater, the groundwater would also be tested for contaminants. Copies of the test results will be submitted to the Department of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health, and to the Planning Department prior to the start of construction.

These steps would include implementation of a health and safety plan prepared by a qualified professional, and disposal of any contaminated soils removed from the site at an approved

Case No. 2006.1431E 90 1960-1998 Market Street facility. In addition, the project would be constructed so that all remaining site soils are entirely encapsulated beneath a concrete slab. If confirmation testing following site excavation indicates that contaminated soils remain on site, a deed restriction notifying subsequent property owners of the contamination and the necessity of maintaining the cap, would be executed prior to a certificate of occupancy. This issue is discussed in greater detail under Project Construction, below; the SMP requirements comprise Mitigation Measure 4 in Section F of this document.

Other Potentially Hazardous Building Materials In addition to lead‐based paint, hazardous polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were frequently used in fluorescent light fixtures manufactured prior to 1978. The ESA did not indicate whether fluorescent light fixtures are present in the existing building. Due to the small size of the structure, the limited potential for PCB‐containing light fixtures, and the absence of any cautionary note in the ESA, it is unlikely that the potential impact from PCBs or other hazardous building materials would significant.

Project Construction

The following discussion focuses on the potential for exposure to hazardous materials during project construction.

The ESA prepared for the project site referenced an earlier report, “Due Diligence Site Assessment Report,” prepared by SECOR International Incorporated (SII) for the project site and dated April 22, 2005.77 This report summarizes soil and groundwater sampling activities. The ESA found evidence of one historical recognized environmental condition (REC),78 and one current recognized environmental condition.

The historical REC was a leaking underground storage tank (LUST). This was reported in 1988. The site was cleaned up through soils remediation and a case closure letter was issued in 1994 by the Department of Public Health’s Local Oversight Program. (DPH).79 However, the current REC consisted of evidence of leakage and/or spillage of petroleum product on site between 1995

77 SECOR International Incorporated (SII). Due Diligence Site Assessment Report. April 22, 2005. A copy of this report is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

78 A recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum products on a property that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products into structures on site, or ground, groundwater, or surface water of a property.

79 Harris & Lee, op. cit.

Case No. 2006.1431E 91 1960-1998 Market Street and the present. Analytical laboratory results from soils and groundwater samples collected by SECOR in 2005 support this conclusion.80

Following review of the above information as well as the project description in the environmental evaluation application, DPH expressed concerns regarding elevated levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) at the site, and the lack of information regarding benzene levels in the ESA report since elevated levels of TPH‐gasoline and benzene had been reported in vapor levels taken by Pacific Environmental Group. In addition, the ESA did not report metals, asbestos, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), waste oil, and hydraulic lift oil in the soil.81

As requested, the project sponsor submitted the SECOR report to the Environmental Health‐ Hazardous Waste Unit (EHS‐HWU) at DPH, and EHS‐HWU required further characterization of the project site. Treadwell & Rollo conducted a Limited Environmental Site Characterization (Site Characterization), which included chemical testing of selected soil samples collected from within the proposed building footprint as well as evaluation of the results. The laboratory analytical results are presented in Tables 1 to 3 of the ESC .82

A summary of the conclusions from the Site Characterization report is presented here. Hazardous waste criteria in California include toxicity thresholds. Two important measures are the soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) and the total threshold limit concentration (TTLC). Excavated soil at the project site would not be considered hazardous waste based upon the presence of lead since the total lead in soil did not exceed the TTLC, and the sample tested for soluble lead by the WET did not exceed the STLC.83 Low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons contamination exist in the shallow soil/rock samples at the project site, which will likely require soil to be disposed at a Class II non‐hazardous waste facility. However, total nickel exceeded the TTLC at one location (3,300 mg/kg) and at the same location soluble nickel by WET exceeded the STLC (200 mg/L). In addition, the serpentinite rock beneath the project site contains between one and 40 percent chrysotile asbestos by weight, which exceeds the asbestos TTLC of one percent by weight. Based upon the concentrations of asbestos and soluble nickel, most of the soil to be

80 ibid.

81 Rajiv Bhatia, MD, MPH, San Francisco Department of Public Health. Letter to Debra Dwyer, Planning Department. February 20, 2007. Regarding Mixed Use Residential Building 1960, 1970 and 1998 Market Street. A copy of this letter is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

82 Treadwell & Rollo. Limited Environmental Site Characterization, Market and Buchanan Streets, San Francisco, California. March 29, 2007. A copy of this report is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

83 ibid.

Case No. 2006.1431E 92 1960-1998 Market Street excavated would be characterized as California Hazardous waste. It would require disposal at a regulated Class I hazardous waste facility.84

Naturally Occurring Asbestos Serpentinite is known to be present in the bedrock that would be excavated throughout the project site. When serpentinite is exposed, it becomes weathered. The serpentine mineral is released and becomes part of the soil. Serpentinite commonly contains naturally occurring chrysotile asbestos (NOA), a fibrous mineral that can be hazardous to human health if it becomes airborne. In the absence of proper controls, the asbestos could become airborne during excavation and the handling of excavated materials. On‐site workers and the public could be exposed to the airborne asbestos unless appropriate control measures are implemented.

The project sponsor would be required to ensure that the construction contractors would comply with the asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to prevent airborne (fugitive) dust containing asbestos from migrating beyond property boundaries during excavation and handling of excavated materials. The measures implemented would protect the workers themselves as well as the public. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, which became effective in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) on November 19, 2002.85 The ATCM protects public health and the environment by requiring the use of best available dust mitigation measures to prevent off‐site migration of asbestos‐containing dust from road construction and maintenance activities, construction and grading operations, and quarrying and surface mining operations in areas of ultramafic rock86, serpentine87, or asbestos.88 The BAAQMD implements this regulation in the Bay Area.

Subsequently, DPH required the project sponsor to have a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prepared for the proposed project.89 The SMP presents the measures recommended by Treadwell & Rollo

84 ibid.

85 California Air Resources Board, Regulatory Advisory, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, July 29, 2002.

86 Ultramafic rocks are formed in high temperature environments well below the surface of the earth.

87 Serpentine is a naturally occurring group of minerals that can be formed when ultramafic roacks are metamorphosed during uplift to the earth’s surface. Serpentinite is a rock consisting of one or more serpentine minerals, formed when ultramafic rocks metamorphose. This rock type is commonly associated with ultramafic rock along faults such as the Hayward fault. Small amounts of chrysotile asbestos, a fibrous form of serpentine minerals are common in serpentinite.

88 Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous materials found in many parts of California. 89 Treadwell & Rollo. Soil Management Plan, Market and Buchanan Streets, 1998 Market Street, San Francisco, California. May 24, 2007. A copy of this plan is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, as part of Case File No. 2006.1431E.

Case No. 2006.1431E 93 1960-1998 Market Street to mitigate risks associated with the presence of asbestos and chemicals in soil/rock at the project site to construction workers, nearby residents and/or pedestrians, and future site users. Implementation of the mitigation measures from the SMP would ensure that project impacts related to hazardous materials would be reduced to a less than significant level. These measures are described in Mitigation Measure 4.

A discussion of the Asbestos ATCM implemented by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is included in Topic 7, Air Quality. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 and compliance with the asbestos ATCM, potential impacts related to exposure to naturally occurring asbestos in soils and rock during construction would be less than significant.

Project Operation

During operation, the proposed project would involve residential and retail uses that would require relatively small quantities of hazardous materials for routine business and household purposes. The project would likely result in the use of common types of hazardous materials such as paints, cleaners, toners, solvents, and disinfectants. All of these products are labeled to inform users of risks, and to instruct them in proper disposal methods. Most of these materials are consumed or neutralized through use, resulting in little hazardous waste. Businesses are required by law to ensure employee safety by identifying hazardous materials, providing safety information, and adequately training workers in hazardous material handling. For these reasons, hazardous material use by the project would not pose a substantial public health or safety hazard.

Emergency Response Plans

The proposed infill development project would not change the existing traffic circulation network in the vicinity. Occupants of the proposed building would contribute to congestion if an emergency evacuation of the project area were required. Section 12.202(e)(1) of the San Francisco Fire Code requires that all owners of high‐rise buildings (over 75 feet) “shall establish or cause to be established procedures to be followed in case of fire or other emergencies. All such procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the chief of division.” The proposed project would conform to these standards. Therefore, project impacts related to interference with emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.

Fire Hazards

San Francisco ensures fire safety primarily through provisions of the Building Code and the Fire Code. The final building plans for any new residential project greater than two units are reviewed by the San Francisco Fire Department (as well as the Department of Building Inspection), in order to ensure conformance with these provisions. The proposed project would conform to these

Case No. 2006.1431E 94 1960-1998 Market Street standards, which (depending on building type) may also include development of an emergency procedure manual and an exit drill plan. In this way, potential fire hazards (including those associated with hillside development, hydrant water pressure, and emergency access) would be mitigated during the permit review process. The proposed project would be required to conform to those provisions, which include additional life‐safety protections for highrise buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would have no significant impacts related to fire hazards.

There is no wildfire hazard risk at this site or within the neighborhood.

Conclusion

Regulations and procedures that are already established as part of the building permit review process and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 – Management of Soil Contamination would reduce potential public health and safety hazards to a less‐than‐significant level.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

16. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy, or use these in a wasteful manner?

Mineral Resources

All land in San Francisco, including the project site, is designated Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ‐4) by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975.90 This designation indicates that there is inadequate information available for assignment to any other MRZ and thus the site is not a designated area of significant mineral deposits. Since the project site is already developed, future evaluation or designation of the site would not affect or be affected by the proposed project. There are no operational mineral resource recovery sites in the project area whose operations or accessibility would be affected by the construction or operation of the proposed project. Therefore, significance criteria 16(a) and (b) are not applicable to this project.

90 California Division of Mines and Geology. Open File Report 96‐03, 1996, and Special Report 146 Parts I and II, 1986 and 1987.

Case No. 2006.1431E 95 1960-1998 Market Street

Energy Resources

The proposed project would involve construction of a mixed‐use building with both residential and retail/commercial uses. The in crease in residential population, employees, and site visitors would result in an increase in energy use. However, the increase in site population and employment would be small in context of the overall population and employment in San Francisco. In addition, the proposed project would meet or exceed current state and local standards regarding energy consumption, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations enforced by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI). For this reason, the proposed project would not cause a wasteful use of energy, and would have a less‐than‐significant impact on energy and natural resources. No substantial environmental effects are expected from the proposed project.

As described in the environmental impact report for the Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan (M‐O Plan),91 since project‐specific development under the M‐O Plan would be required to meet current state and local codes concerning energy consumption, including Title 24 Energy Conservation Standards of the California Code of Regulations, development resulting from the M‐O Plan would adequately conserve energy. Therefore, development such as the proposed project and the nearby development proposals at 1844 Market Street and 55 Laguna Street would not result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to energy resources.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Applicable

17. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non-agricultural use?

91 San Francisco Planning Department. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. The document is available for review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650 Market Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103, as part of Case File 2003.0347E.

Case No. 2006.1431E 96 1960-1998 Market Street

The project site is located in the City of San Francisco, an urban area, and therefore not agricultural in nature. The California Department of Conservation designates no land within the City boundaries as Williamson Act properties or important farmland.92 The proposed project would not convert farmland to a non‐agricultural use, would not conflict with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts, nor cause other changes that would lead to the conversion of Farmlands of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use. Therefore, significance criteria 17(a), (b), and (c) are not applicable.

Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Not Topics: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Applicable

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE— Would the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

The potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas of cultural resources, hazardous materials, cultural resources, air quality, and biological resources would be reduced to less‐than‐ significant levels with incorporation of Mitigation Measures 1‐4 described in Section F, below. The proposed project would therefore not result in any significant environmental impacts.

The project would not result in a substantial contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, or any other topic discussed in this Initial Study.

92 San Francisco is identified as ʺUrban and Built Up Landʺ on the California Department of Conservation Bay Area Region Important Farmland2004 and Urbanization1984 ‐ 2004. This map is available for download or viewing on‐line at the Department of Conservation website (ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/urban_change/), accessed for this report April 18, 2008.

Case No. 2006.1431E 97 1960-1998 Market Street

With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 1‐4, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on human beings.

F. MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

Mitigation measures and improvement measures identified in the discussion for the applicable topic areas will be summarized here.

Mitigation Measure 1 - Accidental Discovery of Archeological Resources The following mitigation measure is required to avoid any potential adverse effect from the proposed project on accidentally discovered buried or submerged historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(c). The project sponsor shall distribute the Planning Department archeological resource “ALERT” sheet to the project prime contractor; to any project subcontractor (including demolition, excavation, grading, foundation, pile driving, etc. firms); or utilities firm involved in soils disturbing activities within the project site. Prior to any soils disturbing activities being undertaken each contractor is responsible for ensuring that the “ALERT” sheet is circulated to all field personnel including, machine operators, field crew, pile drivers, supervisory personnel, etc. The project sponsor shall provide the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) with a signed affidavit from the responsible parties (prime contractor, subcontractor(s), and utilities firm) to the ERO confirming that all field personnel have received copies of the Alert Sheet.

Should any indication of an archeological resource be encountered during any soils disturbing activity of the project, the project Head Foreman and/or project sponsor shall immediately notify the ERO and shall immediately suspend any soils disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery until the ERO has determined what additional measures should be undertaken.

If the ERO determines that an archeological resource may be present within the project site, the project sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified archeological consultant. The archeological consultant shall advise the ERO as to whether the discovery is an archeological resource, retains sufficient integrity, and is of potential scientific/historical/cultural significance. If an archeological resource is present, the archeological consultant shall identify and evaluate the archeological resource. The archeological consultant shall make a recommendation as to what action, if any, is warranted. Based on this information, the ERO may require, if warranted, specific additional measures to be implemented by the project sponsor.

Measures might include: preservation in situ of the archeological resource; an archaeological monitoring program; or an archeological testing program. If an archeological monitoring program or archeological testing program is required, it shall be consistent with the Major Environmental Analysis (MEA) division guidelines for such programs. The ERO may also

Case No. 2006.1431E 98 1960-1998 Market Street require that the project sponsor immediately implement a site security program if the archeological resource is at risk from vandalism, looting, or other damaging actions.

The project archeological consultant shall submit a Final Archeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical significance of any discovered archeological resource and describing the archeological and historical research methods employed in the archeological monitoring/data recovery program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archeological resource shall be provided in a separate removable insert within the final report.

Copies of the Draft FARR shall be sent to the ERO for review and approval. Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one (1) copy and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. The Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive three copies of the FARR along with copies of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high public interest or interpretive value, the ERO may require a different final report content, format, and distribution than that presented above.

Mitigation Measure 2 - Accidental Discovery of Paleontological Resources The encounter of any feature of apparent potential to be a paleontological resource (fossilized invertebrate, vertebrate, plant, or micro‐fossil) during soils disturbing activities associated with the project, requires the immediate cessation of any soils disturbing activity within 25 ft of the feature, notification of the ERO, and notification of a qualified paleontologist in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (SVP 1996). The paleontologist will identify and evaluate the significance of the potential resource, and document the findings in an advisory memorandum to the ERO. If it is determined that avoidance of effect to a significant paleontological resource is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan that may include curation of the paleontological resource in a permanent retrieval paleontological research collections facility such as the University of California (Berkeley) Museum of Paleontology or California Academy of Sciences. The Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive two copies of a final paleontological excavation and recovery report.

Mitigation Measure 3 – Protection of Nesting Birds During Construction The project sponsor would implement the following protective measures to ensure implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and compliance with State regulations during construction. Pre‐construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist or wildlife biologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project

Case No. 2006.1431E 99 1960-1998 Market Street implementation. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of demolition/construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (January through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, the qualified person shall inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, shall determine the extent of a construction‐free buffer zone to be established around the nest.

Mitigation Measure 4 – Management of Soil Contamination A Soil Management Plan (SMP) has been developed to address the nickel and asbestos exposures to the construction workers, nearby residents, pedestrians and future users of the site. Dust control measures are to be implemented to reduce exposure during excavation, grading, loading and transporting of excavated materials. Soil/rock excavated and removed from the site will require appropriate disposal, additional sampling may be necessary. These measures are to include: • Site fencing; • Wetting exposed soil/rock ‐ exposed soil/rock will be watered at least twice a day to prevent visible dust from migrating off‐site; • Covering exposed soil/rock. In particular, stockpiles will be covered and trucks transporting contaminated soil/rock will be covered with a tarpaulin or other cover; • Preventing distribution of dust and soil/rock off‐site by decontamination and other measures to prevent soil/rock from being tracked off the site by vehicles or carried off‐site on clothes. Measures to achieve this include: water being misted or sprayed during the loading of soil/rock onto trucks for off‐haul; wheels being cleaned prior to entering public streets, public streets will be swept daily if soil/rock is visible and excavation and loading activities will be suspended if winds exceed 20 miles per hour. • Instituting a site specific health and safety plan (HSP) developed by a certified industrial hygienist that represents the site contractors, which includes that air sampling and monitoring be conducted to evaluate the amount of airborne particles generated during excavation, grading, loading and transportation. • Contacting Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and completion of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan permit application with BAAQMD prior any excavation activities.

Case No. 2006.1431E 100 1960-1998 Market Street

In order to control potential exposure during soil/rock disturbance, the soil/rock are to be moisture conditioned using dust suppressants, covering exposed soil/rock and stockpiles with weighed down plastic sheeting or capping the site with buildings asphalt or at least two feet of clean imported fill.

Excavated soil is to be disposed off‐site after proper profiling for disposal. Excavated soil/rock material will either be loaded directly into trucks and removed from the site or stockpiled onsite. If stockpiled, the soil/rock will be placed on visqueen, bermed and tarped at all times.

Direct contact to the underlying soil/rock by future site users will be mitigated by encapsulation with the concrete foundation system and buildings. It is not anticipated that groundwater will be encountered during construction.

The Soil Management Plan recommends that if unanticipated hazardous materials are encountered, the work is to stop; the site superintendent and Treadwell & Rollo are to be notified to conduct and inspection.

If a UST is encountered, a licensed UST removal contractor is to be contacted for the proper removal and disposal of the UST. Proper permits and notifications are to be applied for prior to the UST removal from the San Francisco Fire Department, the San Francisco Department of Public Health and the Department of Public Works.

After excavation and foundation construction activities are completed, the project sponsor shall prepare and submit a closure/certification report to EHS‐HWU at DPH for review and approval. The closure/certification report shall include the mitigation measures in the SMP for handling and removing contaminated soils from the project site, whether the construction contractor modified any of these mitigation measures, and how and why the construction contractor modified those mitigation measures.

Improvement Measures

The following improvement measures would reduce certain impacts of the project that were found in this Initial Study to be less than significant. Improvement measures identified in this Initial Study may be required by decision‐makers as conditions of project approval.

Improvement Measure No. 1: Transit To reduce “pole clutter”, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency (MTA) would like the option to install eyebolts in the buildings adjacent to its electric trolley coach lines to supports its

Case No. 2006.1431E 101 1960-1998 Market Street overhead wire system. The F‐Market streetcar runs along Market Street, and Muni (MTA) may request installation of eyebolts in the proposed new building.

Improvement Measure No. 2: Parking The Proposed Project would include a carsharing parking space, and the project sponsor would “unbundle” the sale of parking spaces from the sale of residential units to provide a financial incentive for car‐free living. However, as an improvement measure to reduce the Proposed Project’s parking demand and parking shortfall and to encourage use of alternative modes, the project sponsor could provide a transportation insert for the move‐in packet that would provide information on transit service (Muni and BART lines, schedules and fares), information on where Fast Passes can be purchased, and information on the 511 Regional Rideshare Program.

Improvement Measure No. 3: Loading As an improvement measure to reduce the potential for double‐parking of delivery vehicles on Market Street, two of the three new on‐street parking spaces adjacent to the project site should be designated as short‐term commercial vehicle loading/unloading spaces. The designation of the two new spaces as commercial vehicle loading/unloading spaces would need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing through the MTA.

G. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT

A “Notification of Project Receiving Environmental Review” was sent out on April 3, 2007 to the owners and occupants of properties adjacent to the project site, owners within 300 feet of the project site, and interested parties. Comments were received concerning the issues described below. Concern was expressed that the project description was inadequate to provide comments. A number of respondents expressed concern regarding the height of the proposed building and the accompanying blockage of public and private views, including public views of the historic U.S. Mint building located across Buchanan Street from the project site. Some people expressed concern that the proposed structure would obstruct light and air, especially with respect to the residents of buildings to the rear of the project site. Concern was expressed that the proposed project would be incompatible in terms of height, scale, bulk and density with the smaller surrounding structures both in that area of Market Street as well as adjoining neighborhood. Concern was also expressed regarding potential traffic, parking, and public transit impacts from the proposed project. In addition, concern was expressed about the presence of hazardous materials, toxics, naturally occurring asbestos, as well as serpentine soils and winds in the area. Finally, concern was expressed regarding noise impacts and glare impacts in the area resulting from the proposed project. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are discussed in the appropriate sections above.

Case No. 2006.1431E 102 1960-1998 Market Street

H. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial study: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental documentation is required.

______Bill Wycko Environmental Review Officer for John Rahaim DATE______Director of Planning

Case No. 2006.1431E 103 1960-1998 Market Street

I. List of Preparers

Environmental Document Authors Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco Major Environmental Analysis 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 Environmental Review Officer: Bill Wycko Case Supervisor: Sarah Jones Environmental Coordinator: Debra Dwyer Archeology: Randall Dean Shadow: Glenn Cabreros

Environmental Document Consultants

LCW Consulting (Transportation) LCW Consulting 3990 20th Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Luba Wyznyckyj

Donald Ballanti, Ph.D. (Wind) 1424 Scott St. El Cerrito, CA 94530

Treadwell & Rollo (Environmental Site Characterization and Soil Management Plan) 555 Montgomery Street Suite 1300 San Francisco CA 94111 Peter J. Cusack Glenn M. Leong Dustyne J. Sutherland

Harris & Lee Environmental Sciences (Environmental Site Assessment) P. O. Box 8369 Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Robert Harris Property Owner

270 Valencia Street, LLC 123 Knockash Hill San Francisco, CA 94127 Brian Spiers

Case No. 2006.1431E 104 1960-1998 Market Street

Project Sponsor

David Cincotta, Esq. Two Embarcadero Center, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Project Architect

Arquitectonica 818 West Seventh Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 ______

Case No. 2006.1431E 105 1960-1998 Market Street