DOCSLIB.ORG

Better Market Street Project Initial Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Better Market Street Project Initial Study Better Market Street Project Initial Study Planning Department Case No. 2014.0012E State Clearinghouse No. 2015012027 March 30, 2016 City and County of San Francisco Planning Department Written comments should be sent to Sarah B. Jones, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103 or [email protected]. This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2014.0012E – Better Market Street Project Section Page List of Figures........................................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................ iii A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 1 A.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 A.2. Project Location ................................................................................................................ 9 A.3. Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 10 A.4. Alternatives and Design Options................................................................................. 13 A.5. Project Construction and Phasing ................................................................................ 36 A.6. Project Approvals ........................................................................................................... 39 B. PROJECT SETTING ............................................................................................................................. 41 C. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS .................................................... 47 D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................................................ 50 E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................................................................... 51 E.1. Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 52 E.2. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 56 E.3. Population and Housing ............................................................................................... 62 E.4. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 65 E.5. Transportation and Circulation ................................................................................... 70 E.6. Noise ................................................................................................................................ 72 E.7. Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 74 E.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 77 E.9. Wind and Shadow ......................................................................................................... 81 E.10. Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 83 E.11. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................ 87 E.12. Public Services ................................................................................................................ 96 E.13. Biological Resources .................................................................................................... 101 E.14. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 107 E.15. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 115 E.16. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 123 Case No. 2014.0012E i Better Market Street Project E.17. Mineral and Energy Resources .................................................................................. 131 E.18. Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................ 134 E.19. Mandatory Findings of Significance.......................................................................... 135 F. MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES ........................................... 136 G. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT ............................................................................................. 138 H. DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................................... 139 I. INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS ......................................................................................................... 140 List of Figures Page Figure 1. Proposed Project Location ........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2. Proposed Project – Conceptual Illustrations .......................................................................... 15 Figure 3. Market Street Surface Transit – Alternatives 1 and 2 ............................................................ 25 Figure 4. UN Plaza Conceptual Illustration ............................................................................................ 35 Figure 5. Hallidie Plaza Conceptual Illustration .................................................................................... 37 Figure 6. Districts and Centers .................................................................................................................. 42 Figure 7. Major Traffic Routes .................................................................................................................. 44 List of Tables Page Table 1. Reasonably Foreseeable Land Use Projects in the Project Corridor Vicinity ......................... 8 Table 2. Summary of The Three Alternatives for The Proposed Project ............................................. 16 Table 3. Anticipated Permit and Approvals Necessary for Certification of the CEQA Document ........................................................................................................................ 39 Table 4. Anticipated Recommendations that May Proceed Prior to or After Certification of the CEQA Document .......................................................................... 40 Table 5. Parks and Street‐Level Plazas in Project Area ......................................................................... 84 Table 6. Police District Stations in the Vicinity of the Project Corridor .............................................. 97 Glossary Included as an attachment Case No. 2014.0012E ii Better Market Street Project Acronyms and Abbreviations 2010 Clean Air Plan Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan AB Assembly Bill AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ABAG Association for Bay Area Government ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADL aerially deposited lead ADMP Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan APE area of potential effect AQTR Air Quality Technical Report ARB California Air Resources Board ASA Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment AWSS auxiliary water supply system BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit Blue Book San Francisco’s Regulations for Working in San Francisco Streets – 8th Edition BMPs Best Management Practices BRT Bus Rapid Transit Building Code San Francisco Building Code CAC Community Advisory Committee Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CAP Climate Action Plan CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 CGS California Geological Survey CH4 methane City City and County of San Francisco CO2 carbon dioxide CO2E carbon dioxide-equivalent Cortese Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites CRHR California Register of Historic Resources DOE San Francisco Department of Environment DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report EO Executive Order FARR Final Archeological Resources Report Case No. 2014.0012E iii Better Market Street Project FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps g gravity General Plan San Francisco General Plan GHG Reduction Strategy Strategies to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHGs greenhouse gases Golden Gate Transit Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District HRE Historic Resource Evaluation LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank Market Street The 2.2 miles of Market Street between Octavia Boulevard and Steuart Street, as well as Valencia Street between Market and McCoppin streets, McAllister Street between Market Street and Charles J. Brenham Place, Charles J. Brenham Place between Market and McAllister streets, and several adjacent streets intersecting both north and south of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Improvements to Powell Street Station Are Included As Part of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's Mid-Market Plan. This H
    POWELL STREET PLANNING Improvements to Powell Street Station are included as part of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency’s Mid-Market Plan. This has been enhanced by the recommended improvements to Hallidie Plaza that were identified in the 2004 charrette funded in part by the owners of the soon-to- open (2006) Bloomingdale’s at San Francisco Center. Planning is also underway to make best use of the station space, which was studied in the 2004 Capacity Plan and found to be constricted in key areas (near the BART Police facility, in the mezzanine corridor between the fare gate areas, etc.) which may be affected when and if Muni’s Central Subway is connected to BART at this station. The Muni Central Subway project is proposed to connect to Powell station and to the new Transbay Terminal Project. The Powell station was studied in 2004 to analyze the critical areas of platform capacity, vertical circulation (stairs/escalators) capacity, and fare gate capacity. DEVELOPMENT BART is negotiating special entrance agreements with Forest City Development for a Bloomingdale’s entrance and with Millennium Partners and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency to consider what will become of the “tunnel” space between the station and and Yerba Buena Center. Owners of the Flood Building are also working with BART staff to address the possibilities of sub-street connections to the station. The Four Seasons high-rise tower, containing 150 housing units, 100 long-term hotel suites and 250 hotel rooms, is directly adjacent to the station and opened in 2002. Construction is underway at the adjacent Mexican Museum and the Jewish Museum in Yerba Buena Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Soma Plan Draft
    CHAPTER VI Alternatives CHAPTER VI Alternatives VI.A Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a), state that an environmental impact report (EIR) must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, but that would avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant adverse environmental effects of the project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project and is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives and include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines set forth the following additional criteria for selecting and evaluating alternatives: ● [T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. (Section 15126.6(b)) ● The range of potential alternatives shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. (Section 15126.6(c)) ● The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. (Section 15126.6(e)(1)) ● The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN FRANCISCO 2Nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report
    SAN FRANCISCO 2nd Quarter 2014 Office Market Report Historical Asking Rental Rates (Direct, FSG) SF MARKET OVERVIEW $60.00 $57.00 $55.00 $53.50 $52.50 $53.00 $52.00 $50.50 $52.00 Prepared by Kathryn Driver, Market Researcher $49.00 $49.00 $50.00 $50.00 $47.50 $48.50 $48.50 $47.00 $46.00 $44.50 $43.00 Approaching the second half of 2014, the job market in San Francisco is $40.00 continuing to grow. With over 465,000 city residents employed, the San $30.00 Francisco unemployment rate dropped to 4.4%, the lowest the county has witnessed since 2008 and the third-lowest in California. The two counties with $20.00 lower unemployment rates are neighboring San Mateo and Marin counties, $10.00 a mark of the success of the region. The technology sector has been and continues to be a large contributor to this success, accounting for 30% of job $0.00 growth since 2010 and accounting for over 1.5 million sf of leased office space Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 this quarter. Class A Class B Pre-leasing large blocks of space remains a prime option for large tech Historical Vacancy Rates companies looking to grow within the city. Three of the top 5 deals involved 16.0% pre-leasing, including Salesforce who took over half of the Transbay Tower 14.0% (delivering Q1 2017) with a 713,727 sf lease. Other pre-leases included two 12.0% full buildings: LinkedIn signed a deal for all 450,000 sf at 222 2nd Street as well 10.0% as Splunk, who grabbed all 182,000 sf at 270 Brannan Street.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-003880PCAMAP [Board File No
    Executive Summary Planning Code Text & Zoning Map Amendment HEARING DATE: JUNE 22, 2017 Project Name: Corona Heights Large Residence Special Use District Case Number: 2017-003880PCAMAP [Board File No. 170296] Initiated by: Supervisor Sheehy / Introduced March 21, 2017 / Reintroduced April 24, 2017 Staff Contact: Audrey Butkus, Legislative Affairs [email protected], 415-575-9129 Reviewed by: Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs [email protected], 415-558-6362 Recommendation: Recommend Approval with Modifications PLANNING CODE AMENDMENT The proposed Ordinance would amend the Planning Code & Sectional Maps SU06 & SU07 of the Zoning Map to create the Corona Heights Large Residence Special Use District (the area within a perimeter established by Market Street, Clayton Street, Ashbury Street, Clifford Terrace, Roosevelt Way, Museum Way, the eastern property line of parcel 2620/063, the eastern property line of parcel 2619/001A, and Douglass Street; and in addition parcels fronting States Street), to promote and enhance neighborhood character and affordability by requiring Conditional Use authorization for large residential developments in the district. Proposed Corona Heights SUD boundaries. The Way It Is Now: 1. There is no residential use size limit within RH-1, RH-2 or RH-3 zoning districts. 2. Projects in RH-1 zoning districts have a 25% rear yard requirement. Project in RH-2 and RH-3 zoning districts have a 45% rear yard requirement that can be decreased through rear yard averaging up to 25% or 15 feet, whichever is greater. The Way It Would Be: 1. Residential developments within the subject area that are zoned RH-1, RH-2 or RH-3 would require Conditional Use authorization if the following residential use size limits are exceeded: a.
    [Show full text]
  • 870 Market St | Union Square
    FLAGSHIP & BOUTIQUE RETAIL THE FLOOD BUILDING 870 Market St | Union Square At the heart of the city for over 100 years PROPERTY SUMMARY Union Square The Flood Building is one of San Francisco’s 26.2M best known landmarks and has been an VISITORS iconic destination for over a century. UNION SQUARE A HISTORICAL GEM Architecturally, the Flood Building hearkens back to the era of its birth. $10.2B Its turn of the century charm is especially evident in the dramatic IN SPENDING rounded rotunda that commands and dominates the corner of Powell UNION SQUARE and Market Streets. Every detail, from the tall storefronts that beckon to the baroque façade with its deep-chiseled windows, provides just enough ornamentation to enliven rather than clutter the scene. 19K IMPORTANT INTERSECTION DAILY PASSENGERS The Flood Building is situated on Powell and Market streets, next to the Demise to Suit POWELL ST CABLE CAR Powell St cable car turntable, Hallidie Plaza and the Powell St BART Station entrance where tourists, locals, theater goers, conventioneers, shoppers, cable car riders and daytime workforce all cross paths. Powell Street/BART station ridership averages over 250,000 debarkations daily and the Hallidie Plaza escalator which leads to the 10K Flood building is the primary entry and exit portal. PEDES TRIANS PER HOUR MARKET & POWELL Demise to Suit GROUND 500 SF up to 14,659 SF SECOND Up to 17,681 SF LOWER Up to 8,418 SF CO - TENANCY CO-TENANCY POWELLPOWELL ST ST POWELLPOWELLPOWELL ST ST ST ROTUNDA & MARKET ST ROTUNDAROTUNDA & & MARKET MARKET ST ST ROTUNDA & MARKET ST Education Education Education Education Crocker Galleria It’s not just a place to shop..
    [Show full text]
  • SFMTA Short Range Transit Plan (Fiscal Year 2019-Fiscal Year 2030)
    SFMTA Short Range Transit Plan (Fiscal Year 2019-Fiscal Year 2030) Anticipated approval by the SFMTA Board of Directors: December 2019 SFMTA Short Range Transit Plan (Fiscal Year 2019-Fiscal Year 2030) 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction to the SRTP ........................................................................................................................... 6 About Short Range Transit Plans .............................................................................................................. 6 About This SRTP ........................................................................................................................................ 6 2 Introduction to the SFMTA and Muni ........................................................................................................ 8 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8 History ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Governance ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Organizational Structure ......................................................................................................................... 11 Transit Services ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ronald Hamburger
    The Millennium Tower Settlement, Tilting and Upgrade University of Kansas Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB March 5, 2020 • Constructed 2005-2009 • 58 stories, 645 ft (197m) tall • Tallest & most expensive residential tower in San Francisco • Views from the Sierra to the Cascades to the Farallon Islands • Most expensive unit sold in 2013 for $13.5 million • Construction Cost - $600 Million Sales Cost - $750 Million 2 301 Mission The Site 350 Mission Transbay terminal and track tube 2012 2009 200 Beale 2017 Salesforce Tower 3 2014 History of the Problem • Ground breaking – 2005 – Settlement predicted 4”-6” • Construction completed 2009 – Settlement reached 10” – Transbay Terminal excavation starts • Last unit sold in 2013 – Settlement 13” • SGH retained in 2014 – Settlement 15” • Litigation initiated in 2016 – Settlement 17” • Adjacent construction complete 2017 – Settlement 18”, Tilt 17” to northwest 4 Some Homeowners Joe Montana Hall of Fame Quarterback Hunter Pence San Francisco Giants Superstar Steph Curry Golden State Warriors Icon 5 Some Homeowners Laurence Kornfield Retired Chief Deputy Building Inspector, City of SF Jerry Dodson Personal Injury Attorney 6 Why did this happen? San Francisco Downtown Area of “infirm” soils based on SF General Plan Subsurface profile (from Treadwell & Rollo) 8 10’ thick mat Subsurface conditions 75’ piles deep into Colma Sand 20’ (6m) – fill & rubble loose sand, brick, concrete, gravel 30’ (10m) – Young Bay Clay marine deposits – last 12,000 years 35’ (12m) – Colma Sand cemented sands with clay binder
    [Show full text]
  • The City Aroused: Sexual Politics and the Transformation of San Francisco’S Urban Landscape, 1943-1964
    Copyright by Damon John Scott 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Damon John Scott Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The City Aroused: Sexual Politics and the Transformation of San Francisco’s Urban Landscape, 1943-1964 Committee: Steven D. Hoelscher, Supervisor Paul C. Adams Lawrence M. Knopp, Jr. Elizabeth Mueller Leo E. Zonn The City Aroused: Sexual Politics and the Transformation of San Francisco’s Urban Landscape, 1943-1964 by Damon John Scott, B.A., M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Dedication For my folks Acknowledgements Before thanking the legion of mentors, colleagues, friends and family who have helped me along the way, I first want to “acknowledge” that I never really thought I would be writing these words—the last before I send them off to posterity. It’s not because I did not somewhere deep inside have the determination to finish, but because the things I want to understand are endless. How could I really gather enough bits and pieces to say something new about San Francisco? How could I interweave the well documented history of sexual politics in the city into a new historical geographic context? Would it really look any different? I am writing these words because, mercifully, this dissertation project ultimately does have an end point. That being said, I am comforted by the fact that there is still more to the story than I have been able to piece together here.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Employees Keeping Employees Safe and Well Is Critical for the Operation of Bay Area Public Transportation Providers
    Solano Transportation Authority Member Agencies: Benicia ♦ Dixon ♦ Fairfield ♦ Rio Vista ♦ Suisun City ♦ Vacaville ♦ Vallejo ♦ Solano County One Harbor Center, Ste. 130, Suisun City, CA 94585-2473 ♦ Phone (707) 424-6075 / Fax (707) 424-6074 Email: [email protected] ♦ Website: sta.ca.gov SOLANOEXPRESS INTERCITY TRANSIT CONSORTIUM 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 25, 2020 Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86203488385?pwd=RjN6Vk03d0pSYXJ2RlNjUlF0UU1CUT09 Meeting ID: 862 0348 8385 Passcode: 574201 Join by Phone Dial: 1(408) 638-0968 Webinar ID: 86203488385# MEETING AGENDA ITEM STAFF PERSON 1. CALL TO ORDER Beth Kranda, Chair 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT (1:30 –1:45 p.m.) 4. REPORTS FROM MTC, STA STAFF AND OTHER AGENCIES (1:35 – 1:40 p.m.) • Update on MTC’s Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery and Daryl Halls Partnership Board Seamless Subcommittee Task Force Vincent Ma • Update on SolanoExpress Marketing • Transit Operators – Emergency Contact List Daryl Halls/ Brandon Thomson 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendation: Approve the following consent items in one motion. (1:45 – 1:50 p.m.) A. Minutes of the Consortium Meeting of June 23, 2020 Johanna Masiclat Recommendation: Approve the Consortium Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2020. Pg. 5 CONSORTIUM MEMBERS Louren Kotow Diane Feinstein Brandon Thomson Beth Kranda Lori DaMassa Joyce Goodwin Debbie McQuilkin VACANT (Chair) (Vice Chair) Dixon Fairfield and Rio Vista Solano County Vacaville County of Solano Mobility STA Readi-Ride Suisun Transit Delta Breeze Transit City Coach Solano (FAST) (SolTrans) Ron Grassi STA Staff The complete Consortium packet is available1 on STA’s website: www.sta.ca.gov 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Class Action Settlement Agreement
    CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of March 9, 2020 (the “Execution Date”) by and among the Class Action Settling Parties as defined below. Capitalized terms used herein are defined in Section II of this Agreement or indicated in parentheses elsewhere in this Agreement. I. FACTUAL REPRESENTATIONS 1.1 On or about July 21, 2017, Maui Peaks Corporation filed the Class Action against Transbay Joint Powers Authority (“TJPA”), Mission Street Development LLC (“MSD”), and Mission Street Holding LLC (“MSH”) on behalf of themselves and other owners of residential units in the Millennium Tower alleging causes of action relating to Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning, inter alia, the movement and tilt of Millennium Tower; 1.2 On September 14, 2017 Maui Peaks Corporation and NGMII LLC filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the Class Action against MSD, MSH and TJPA; 1.3 On or about January 5, 2018, Maui Peaks Corporation and NGMII LLC filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the Class Action against MSD, MSH and TJPA; 1.4 On or about July 17, 2019, NGMII LLC and Ian Kao filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint in the Class Action alleging causes of action for failure to disclose and for deceptive business practices against MSD and MSH, and causes of action for, inter alia, express indemnity, specific performance, and declaratory relief against TJPA, and Maui Peaks Corporation asserted those same causes of action against the same defendants on its own behalf;
    [Show full text]
  • Transbay Joint Powers Authority
    NEW ISSUE – Book-Entry Only RATINGS: See “RATINGS” In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing law and assuming compliance with the tax covenants described herein, and the accuracy of certain representations and certifications made by the Authority, interest on the 2020 Tax-Exempt Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Tax-Exempt Bonds is not treated as a preference item in calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed under the Code. Interest on the Senior 2020A-T Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Bond Counsel is further of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Bonds is exempt from personal income taxes of the State of California (the “State”) under present State law. See “2020 TAX-EXEMPT BONDS TAX MATTERS” and “SENIOR 2020A-T BONDS TAX MATTERS” in this Official Statement regarding certain other tax considerations. TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY $189,480,000 $28,355,000 Senior Tax Allocation Bonds Senior Tax Allocation Bonds Series 2020A (Tax-Exempt) (Green Bonds) Series 2020A-T (Federally Taxable) (Green Bonds) $53,370,000 Subordinate Tax Allocation Bonds Series 2020B (Tax-Exempt) (Green Bonds) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: October 1, as shown on inside cover Bonds. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (the “Authority”) is issuing the above-captioned bonds (the “Senior 2020A Bonds,” the “Senior 2020A-T Bonds,” and the “Subordinate 2020B Bonds” and, collectively, the “2020 Bonds”).
    [Show full text]
  • Millennium Tower, San Francisco
    MILLENNIUM TOWER, SAN FRANCISCO Settlement, Tilting and Repair John A. Egan GE Ronald O. Hamburger, SE Senior Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Nathaniel Wagner, PE Project Engineer, Slate Geotech 16 February 2021 • Constructed 2005-2009 • 58 stories, 645 ft (197m) tall • Tallest & most expensive residential tower in San Francisco • Views from the Sierra to the Cascades to the Farallon Islands • Most expensive unit sold in 2013 for $13.5 million • Construction Cost - $600 Million Sales Cost - $750 Million 2 Some Homeowners Joe Montana Hall of Fame Quarterback Hunter Pence San Francisco Giants Superstar 3 The Site 301 Mission 2005-2009 350 Mission Transbay terminal and track tube 2012 2009-2017 200 Beale 2017-18 Salesforce Tower 4 2014-16 History of the Problem • Groundbreaking – 2005 – Settlement predicted 4”-6” • Construction completed 2009 – Settlement reached 10” – Transbay Terminal excavation starts • Last unit sold in 2013 – Settlement 13” • SGH retained in 2014 – Settlement 15” • Litigation initiated in 2016 – Settlement 17” • Adjacent construction complete 2017 – Settlement 18”, Tilt 17” to northwest 5 Why did this happen? San Francisco Downtown Area of “infirm” soils based on SF General Plan 10’ thick mat Subsurface conditions 75’ piles deep into Colma Sand 20’ (6m) – fill & rubble loose sand, brick, concrete, gravel 30’ (10m) – Young Bay Clay marine deposits – last 12,000 years 35’ (12m) – Colma Sand cemented sands with clay binder (bearing pressures up to 6 -8 ksf) 140’ (45m) – Old Bay Clay overconsolidated clays with layers
    [Show full text]