notice of preparation of an environmental impact...

www.sfplanning.org

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Date: October 27, 2010 Case No.: 2009.0291E Project Title: Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Address: 935 Folsom Street Zoning: Mixed Use Residential (MUR), 45-X and 85-X Height/Bulk

District Block/Lot: Block 3753/Lot 140 Lot Size: 14,400 square feet Project Sponsor: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Project Contact: Greg Johnson, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (415) 375-4190 or [email protected] Lead Agency: San Francisco Planning Department Staff Contact: Michael Jacinto (415) 575-9033 or [email protected]

Case No.: 2010.0275E Project Title: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Expansion Address: 151 Third Street, 670-676 Howard Street Zoning: 151 Third Street: C-3-O (Downtown Office) Use District, 500-I Height/Bulk District 670 Howard Street: C-3-S (Downtown Support) Use District, 320-I Height/Bulk District 676 Howard Street: P (Public) Use District, 320-I Height/Bulk

District Block/Lot: 151 Third Street: Block 3722/Lot 78 670 Howard Street: Block 3722/Lot 27 676 Howard Street: Block 3722/Lot 28 Lot Size: 151 Third Street: 43,960 square feet 670 Howard Street: 7,260 square feet 676 Howard Street: 4,400 square feet Hunt Street: 3,500 square feet

Total: 59,120 square feet

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed projects include an up-to-approximately 235,000 square foot expansion of the existing San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA), a private non-profit modern art museum located at 151 Third Street (between Mission and Howard Streets), the demolition of two structures to its south (670 Howard Street and 676 Howard Street) to accommodate the expansion, and the relocation of San Francisco Fire Department Station No. 1 (Fire Station No. 1) from 676 Howard Street to 935 Folsom Street. The existing building at 935 Folsom Street (formerly used for apparel manufacturing and as a commercial laundry) would be demolished and, in addition to

construction of a new fire station fronting Folsom Street, a residential building containing up to 13 units would be constructed on the portion of the site fronting Shipley Street.

The SFMOMA Expansion would require the following approvals:

• Planning Code Section 309 Downtown Project Approval (Planning Commission)

• Street Vacation of Hunt Street (Board of Supervisors)

• Rezoning of 676 Howard Street from P (Public) to C 3-S (Board of Supervisors, with

recommendation from Planning Commission)

• Possible amendment of Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) (Redevelopment

Agency Commission)

• Lot Merger (Department of Public Works)

• Demolition and Building Permits (Department of Building Inspection)

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would require the following approvals:

• Planning Code Section 327/307 Eastern Neighborhoods Project Approval (Planning

Commission or Zoning Administrator)

• Rezoning of the fire station portion of the lot from MUR to P (Public) (Board of Supervisors

with recommendation from Planning Commission)

• Design approval of new public building (Arts Commission)

• Lot Subdivision (Department of Public Works)


ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TOPICS

On the basis of the Initial Study prepared for the projects, topics for which there are effects that have been determined to be potentially significant include: Aesthetics; Cultural and Paleontological Resources; Transportation and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Wind and Shadow; and Public Services. These topics, along with Land Use and Compatibility with Existing Zoning and Plans, will be evaluated in an EIR prepared for the projects. Impacts in other topical areas would be less than significant; some with the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, and will not be evaluated in the EIR. These topics include: Population and Housing; Recreation; Utilities and Service Systems; Biological Resources;

Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards/Hazardous Materials; Minerals/Energy Resources; and Agricultural and Forestry Resources.

The EIR will also evaluate alternatives to the proposed projects, including the required No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of additional alternatives that would reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts of the proposed projects.

The Initial Study prepared for the proposed projects is available on line at httn://www.sfgov.org/nlannin/mea . In addition. the Initial Study and all documents relatinn to the proposed projects are available for review at the San Francisco Planning Department’s Major Environmental Analysis office, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400.

FINDING

The proposed projects may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report is required. This determination is based upon the criteria of the State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15063 (Initial Study), 15064 (Determining the Significance of Environmental Effects Caused by the Project), and 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance). The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to provide information about potential significant physical environmental effects of the proposed projects, to identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and to describe and analyze possible alternatives to the proposed projects. Preparation of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or EIR does not indicate a decision by the City to approve or to disapprove the projects. However, prior to making any such decision, the decision makers must review and consider the information contained in the EIR.

PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS

Written comments will be accepted until the close of the business day (5:00 p.m.) on November 29, 2010 and should be sent to Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103.

If you work for an agency that is a Responsible or Trustee Agency, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed projects. Your agency may need to use the EIR when considering a permit or other approval for these projects. We will also need the name of the contact person for your agency.

Z-ót 2p/9

Date

Bill Wycko, Environmental Review Officer

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT

C A S E N O S . 2 0 0 9 . 0 2 9 1 E A N D 2 0 1 0 . 0 2 7 5 E S F M O M A E X P A N S I O N / F I R E S T A T I O N R E L O C A T I O N A N D H O U S I N G P R O J E C T

I N I T I A L S T U D Y O c t o b e r 2 7 , 2 0 1 0

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................1

B. PROJECT SETTING.....................................................................................................................27

C. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS ..................................................38

D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS........................................................................46

E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ..................................................................47

F. MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES .........................................158

G. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................................171

H. LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED...........................................................172



ii

FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Site Location and Regional Vicinity ..................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Photographs of SFMOMA Expansion Site and Surroundings .......................................... 5 Figure 4: Photographs of SFMOMA Expansion Site and Surroundings .......................................... 6 Figure 5: Photographs of SFMOMA Expansion Site and Surroundings .......................................... 7 Figure 6: Photographs of Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site and Surroundings..... 11 Figure 7: Photographs of Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site and Surroundings..... 12 Figure 8: Zoning Diagram – Maximum Zoning Envelope ............................................................. 15 Figure 9: Proposed Ground Floor Plan ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 10: Typical Conceptual Gallery Floor Plan ........................................................................... 17 Figure 11: Typical Conceptual Support Level Floor Plan ................................................................ 18 Figure 12: Transit Lines Around SFMOMA Expansion Site ........................................................... 21 Figure 13: Transit Lines Around the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site .................. 22 Figure 14: Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Plan View and Building Section .............. 24 Figure 15: Zoning Map ..................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 16: Height and Bulk Districts ................................................................................................ 34 Figure 17: Cultural Facilities Near SFMOMA ................................................................................. 35 Figure 18: Views from Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site ....................................... 36

TABLES

Table 1: Conceptual Project Description, Area Calculations ........................................................ 14 Table 2: Existing and Projected Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employment at SFMOMA ........... 19 Table 3: Construction Phasing....................................................................................................... 27 Table 4: Planned Projects Within Vicinity of Project Sites ........................................................... 37 Table 5: San Francisco Projections................................................................................................ 62



iii

GLOSSARY

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments

Axonometric A drawing technique devised to represent three-dimensional objects on flat

paper. Objects are projected on the drawing surface so that they appear inclined

with three sides showing and with horizontal and vertical distances drawn to

scale, but diagonal and curved lines distorted.

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Back-of-House Generally refers to space used for support or organizational space

Bgs below the ground surface

BP before the present (time)

Cal-OSHA State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

dBA A-weighted decibels

DBA Diameter of tree at breast height

DBI San Francisco Department of Building Inspection

DDA Development and Disposition Agreement

Differential Compaction A phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is made more dense by

earthquake vibrations, causing differential settlement.

Double-Bay Two side-by-side spaces between vertical supports (such as garage doors)



iv

Downtown As used in this document, the area defined by the San Francisco Downtown Area

Plan. The Plan area is irregularly shaped, but is generally bounded by

Washington Street on the northeast; The Embarcadero on the east; Folsom Street

on the south; and Market Street on the northwest.

DPH San Francisco Department of Public Health

DPW San Francisco Department of Public Works

East SoMa As used in this document, the area defined by the East SoMa (South of Market)

Area Plan. The Plan area is irregularly shaped and is generally bounded by

Mission Street and Folsom Street on the north; The Embarcadero on the east;

Townsend Street, Harrison Street, and Mission Creek Channel on the south; and

Seventh Street and Fourth Street on the west.

EIR Environmental Impact Report

ESL Environmental Screening Levels

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FTE Full-Time-Equivalent Employees; refers to the number of employees working the

equivalent of 40-hour work weeks

GHG Greenhouse Gases, the gases primarily responsible for global climate change

Lateral Spreading The phenomenon in which surface soil is displaced along a zone that has formed

within an underlying liquefied layer.

Ldn day-night equivalent level

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design



v

Liquefaction The transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state during which saturated

soil temporarily loses strength resulting from the buildup of excess pore water

pressure, which may occur during earthquakes.

Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

PDR Production, Distribution and Repair; generally light, medium or heavy industrial

or manufacturing use

Porte Cochere Covered or sheltered entryway for vehicles or pedestrians

SMP Site Mitigation Plan

SF Datum SF Datum (SFD) establishes the City’s zero point for surveying purposes at

approximately 8.6 feet above the zero elevation for the National Geodetic

Vertical Datum of 1929, which was based on the sea level datum in 1929. Since

1929, the mean sea level has increased by approximately 0.44 feet.

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area

SFUSD San Francisco Unified School District

SFMOMA San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

SOMA South of Market neighborhood

UST Underground Storage Tank



vi

This page intentionally left blank.



1

INITIAL STUDY SFMOMA EXPANSION

AND FIRE STATION RELOCATION AND HOUSING PROJECT

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. PROJECT LOCATIONS AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project (projects)

would be developed on two project sites and would include: 1) an up-to-approximately 235,000

square foot expansion of the existing San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA), a private

non-profit modern art museum located at 151 Third Street (between Mission and Howard Streets); 2)

the demolition of two structures to its south (670 Howard Street and 676 Howard Street) to accommo-

date the expansion; and 3) the relocation of San Francisco Fire Department Station No. 1 (Fire Station

No. 1) from 676 Howard Street to 935 Folsom Street. The existing building at 935 Folsom Street

(formerly used for apparel manufacturing and as a commercial laundry) would be demolished and, in

addition to construction of a new fire station fronting Folsom Street, a residential building containing

up to 13 units would be constructed on the portion of the site fronting Shipley Street. (See Figure 1,

Project Site Location and Regional Vicinity and Figure 2, Existing Conditions).

a. SFMOMA Expansion Site

The SFMOMA Expansion site is bordered by Third Street to the west; Minna Street to the north; the

147-151 Minna Street Parking Garage, Natoma Street and office uses to the east; and the W Hotel and

Howard Street to the south. The total footprint of the irregularly shaped expansion site (including the

original 151 Third Street footprint) is 74,355 square feet. The site is generally flat and is approxi-

mately 18 feet above San Francisco Datum (SF Datum).1 The SFMOMA Expansion site includes the

following four properties. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show photographs of the SFMOMA Expansion site and

its surroundings.

1 Elevations reference San Francisco City datum (SF Datum).



2

• 151 Third Street, Assessor’s Block 3722, Lot 78. This lot is currently developed with the SFMOMA

building, a five-story, 105-foot tall, 225,000 gross-square-foot art museum designed by Mario Botta

and completed in 1995. The building contains galleries, a retail area, a café, a theater, an education

center, public areas such as the lobby and event space, support spaces, art storage, a loading and

receiving areas, and basement parking. An approximately 17,250 square-foot sculpture garden and

coffee bar is located on the roof of an adjacent parking garage at 147-151 Minna Street and is

accessed from the fifth floor of the 151 Third Street building. There are two undeveloped areas at

the northeast and southeast corners of the museum: the 5,800 square-foot Minna Street surface

parking pad and the 8,500 square-foot Natoma Street surface parking pad, which are located over

the museum basement area that fills the entire rectilinear museum lot. These above-grade areas

were entitled as museum space at the time that the museum was designed and constructed, but

remain undeveloped. A vehicular and pedestrian access easement encumbers a portion of the

Natoma Street parking pad up to a minimum clear height of 14.5 feet above the parking pad grade.

• 670 Howard Street (also known as the Heald Building site and 15 Hunt Street), Block 3722 Lot

27. This irregularly-shaped 7,260 square-foot lot is currently developed with a four-story building

and basement. The building, constructed of heavy timber with a masonry façade, was built in

1906 (after the earthquake), is owned by an affiliate of SFMOMA, and is currently vacant.

• 676 Howard Street, Block 3722 Lot 28. This 4,400 square-foot lot is currently developed with

Fire Station No. 1, an active San Francisco Fire Department fire station. The two-story, 14,410

square foot double-bay facility with a basement was constructed in 1958. The City would convey

676 Howard Street to SFMOMA in exchange for a portion of the 935 Folsom Street property and

a newly constructed fire station on that site.

Market S

tMiss

ion St

Howard S

t

Folsom S

t

Harriso

n St

Shipley St

Clara S

t

3rd St

4th St

5th St

6th St

Falmouth St

Kearny S

t

O’Farrell St

Natoma St

Natoma St2nd St

Hawthorne St

Minna St

Minna St

Bryant S

tClementin

a St

Tehama S

t

Tehama S

t

New Montgomery St

Brannan S

t

Harriet St

Sutter St

Geary St

Eddy St

Jess

ie St

7th St

80

Yerba BuenaGardens

MosconeCenter

80

project sites

Fire StationRelocation andHousing Site

SFMOMAExpansion Site

feet

6000 300

SFMOMA Expansion and Fire StationRelocation and Housing Project Initial Study

Project Site Location andRegional VicinitySOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.

FIGURE 1

3

Hayward

WalnutCreek

Lafayette

Richmond

Concord

Berkeley

Alameda

Union City

80

238

92

San Leandro

Sausalito

Oakland

Danville

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

Regional Location

24

80

580

880280

680

PROJECT LOCATION

Pacif ic O

cean

101

101

80

1

1

San MateoSan MateoSan Mateo

SFMOMA Expansion Site

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Site

EXISTING BUILDING

935 FOLSOM STREET

YERBA BUENA CENTER FOR THE ARTS

ST. REGIS HOTEL

EXISTING SFMOMA BUILDING - 151 3RD STREET

EXISTING SFMOMA ROOFTOP SCULPTURE GARDEN

PFLUEGER BUILDING - PACIFIC BELL

HUNT STREET

ACADEMY OF ART

EXISTING BUILDING - 670 HOWARD STREET

EXISTING BUILDING - 676 HOWARD STREET

W HOTEL

SFMOMA SITE: BOTTA BUILDING ALTERATIONS

& ADDITIONS

HEALD SITE:

FIRE STATION #1 SITE:

project sites

not to scale SFMOMA Expansion and Fire StationRelocation and Housing Project Initial Study

Existing ConditionsSOURCES: TERRASERVER, 2009; SFMOMA; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.

FIGURE 2

4

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Ph

oto

grap

hs

of S

FM

OM

AE

xpan

sion

Sit

e an

d S

urr

oun

din

gs

FIG

UR

E 3

SOU

RC

ES:

SFM

OM

A; L

SA A

SSO

CIA

TES,

201

0.

5

(67

6 H

ow

ard

Str

ee

t)(6

70

Ho

wa

rd S

tre

et)

* N

ot

wit

hin

pro

ject

sit

e; i

ncl

ud

ed

to

illu

stra

te c

on

text

of

blo

ck

* N

ot

wit

hin

pro

ject

sit

e; i

ncl

ud

ed

to

illu

stra

te c

on

text

of

blo

ck*

No

t w

ith

in p

roje

ct s

ite

; in

clu

de

d t

o il

lust

rate

co

nte

xt o

f b

lock

*

**

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Ph

oto

grap

hs

of S

FM

OM

AE

xpan

sion

Sit

e an

d S

urr

oun

din

gs

FIG

UR

E 4

6

SOU

RC

ES:

SFM

OM

A; L

SA A

SSO

CIA

TES,

201

0.

6.

TH

IRD

ST

RE

ET

FA

CA

DE

OF

SF

MO

MA

7.

“W”

HO

TE

L W

AL

KW

AY

FR

OM

HU

NT

ST

RE

ET

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Ph

oto

grap

hs

of S

FM

OM

AE

xpan

sion

Sit

e an

d S

urr

oun

din

gs

FIG

UR

E 5

7

SOU

RC

ES:

SFM

OM

A; L

SA A

SSO

CIA

TES,

201

0.



8

This page intentionally left blank.



9

• Hunt Street. Hunt Street is an approximately 3,500 square-foot landlocked City-owned right-of-

way that is located between 151 Third Street and 676 and 670 Howard Street. The dimensions of

Hunt Street within the site are approximately 115 feet by 30 feet. The portion of Hunt Street

extending west to Third Street was previously vacated by the City on August 6, 1979 and

conveyed to the developer of the W Hotel, such that the right-of-way does not connect to any

other public street (Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 755-79). The City would vacate the

remaining 3,500 square-foot portion of Hunt Street and convey the underlying land to SFMOMA,

also in exchange for a portion of the 935 Folsom Street property and a newly constructed fire

station on that site.

b. Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located at 935 Folsom Street at the corner of

Falmouth Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets on Assessor’s Block 3753, Lot 140. The 14,400

square-foot site is a through lot with frontages on both Folsom and Shipley Streets and is currently

developed with a one-story (with mezzanine), 25-foot high, 18,208 gross-square-foot commercial

building. The building was constructed in 1923 and is currently vacant, but was previously used as a

commercial laundry facility and later as an apparel sewing factory. The site is generally flat and is

approximately 4 feet above SF Datum. Figures 6 and 7 show photographs of the Fire Station Reloca-

tion and Housing Project site and its surroundings.

2. PROPOSED PROJECTS

a. SFMOMA Expansion Project

SFMOMA has expanded its collection and programming since the 151 Third Street building opened

in 1995. In response, the museum seeks additional space for galleries and public spaces, enhanced

and expanded curatorial, conservation, and library programs, and consolidation of its support

functions. Approximately 60 percent of the museum’s support functions are currently housed off-site

across Minna Street in 20,000 square feet of leased office space at 667 Mission Street (also known as

the Minna Annex) and at Fort Mason (where space is used by the museum for rental art and storage

functions). In February 2010, SFMOMA and the Doris and Donald Fisher Foundation entered into an

agreement to present the Fisher Collection, containing approximately 1,100 pieces of contemporary



10

art, at SFMOMA. This agreement, along with other advances in the SFMOMA collection, has

increased the demand for expansion of SFMOMA’s galleries, as well as its public and support spaces.

SFMOMA is considering a number of potential building configurations within the expansion site

footprint and current zoning provisions to meet the additional space needs of the museum. The 151

Third Street property is located within a 500-I height and bulk district, which permits a building

height of up to 500 feet with certain upper tower bulk limits, but SFMOMA is subject to a Develop-

ment and Disposition Agreement (DDA) with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency limiting the

height of a structure on that property to approximately 147 feet (unless the DDA is amended). 670

Howard and 676 Howard are located in a 320-I height and bulk district, which permits a building

height of up to 320 feet with certain upper tower bulk limits. Thus, the maximum building height of

the SFMOMA Expansion would be 320 feet. Figure 8 is an axonometric diagram of the maximum

above-ground zoning envelope for the expansion, assuming a building to the full allowable building

height with no exception to the I bulk controls and no amendments to the DDA. The SFMOMA

Expansion would also extend the existing 151 Third Street basement area under Hunt Street, the

Heald Building site, and the Fire Station No. 1 site. Excavation to approximately 19 to 20 feet below

surface grade would be required for the construction of the expansion project’s mat foundation and

basement areas (basements currently exist at 670 Howard Street and 676 Howard Street, but would

require additional excavation to meet the level of the museum basement).

The total square feet of new construction that could be built within the maximum zoning envelope is

approximately 340,000 square feet. However, SFMOMA proposes approximately 235,000 square feet

of new construction (see Table 1), such that the project would occupy less than 70 percent of the

potential building envelope shown graphically in Figure 8. Thus, for purposes of the environmental

analysis, it is assumed that the SFMOMA Expansion could occupy either the full height limit

permitted at the site (320 feet) or the maximum bulk allowable within the "I" bulk district, in order to

accommodate the up-to-235,000-square-foot addition as proposed. Conceptual architectural designs

for the proposed project within the zoning envelope described above will be described and analyzed

in the EIR. The design architect for the SFMOMA Expansion project is Snøhetta of New York City

and Oslo, Norway. Please refer to Figures 9, 10, and 11 for conceptual floor plans of the SFMOMA

Expansion.

SITE

Folsom St

Fifth St

Falmouth

St

Shipley St

Clara St

N

EXIS

TIN

G F

OLS

OM

STR

EET

FACA

DE

OF

THE

SITE

15

6

37

2

4

1

2 5

3

6

4

7

EXIS

TIN

G F

OLS

OM

STR

EET

FACA

DE

EX

IST

ING

FO

LS

OM

ST

RE

ET

BLO

CK

FA

CE

EX

IST

ING

FA

CA

DE

OF

TH

E F

IRE

STA

TIO

N R

ELO

CA

TIO

N A

ND

HO

US

ING

PR

OJE

CT

SIT

E

FIG

UR

E 6

SOU

RC

ES:

GEN

SLER

; LSA

ASS

OC

IATE

S, IN

C.,

2010

.

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Ph

oto

grap

hs

of

Fir

e St

atio

n R

elo

cati

on

and

Ho

usi

ng

Pro

ject

Sit

e an

d S

urr

ou

nd

ings

11

SITE

Folsom St

Falmouth

St

Shipley St Clara St

N

SID

E FA

CAD

E O

F TH

E SI

TE F

ROM

FA

LMO

UTH

STR

EET

8

1312

1011

14

EXIS

TIN

G S

HIP

LEY

STRE

ET F

ACA

DE

8

9

9 12

10

13

11 14

EX

IST

ING

SH

IPL

EY

ST

RE

ET

BLO

CK

FA

CE

FIG

UR

E 7

SOU

RC

ES:

GEN

SLER

; LSA

ASS

OC

IATE

S, IN

C.,

2010

.

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Ph

oto

grap

hs

of

Fir

e St

atio

n R

elo

cati

on

and

Ho

usi

ng

Pro

ject

Sit

e an

d S

urr

ou

nd

ings

12



13

Uses. The SFMOMA Expansion would create up to approximately 235,000 square feet of new

space. Table 1 provides a summary of the uses associated with the proposed SFMOMA Expansion

and the approximate square footage of these uses.

This SFMOMA Expansion would increase SFMOMA’s gallery space by up to 133,500 square feet

(comprising 13,500 square feet of renovated space in the existing museum, 60,000 square feet of

space in the SFMOMA addition, and 60,000 square feet of space in new development along Howard

Street; see Table 1), including galleries to house the Fisher Collection, and would allow the museum

to consolidate its back-of-house functions that are currently housed partly in the museum and partly at

a nearby off-site location at 673 Mission Street. Access to the sculpture garden would remain through

the museum.

Along with the expansion uses noted above, some areas of the existing SFMOMA building would

likely be reprogrammed as follows:

• approximately 12,000 square feet of existing support space on the third and fourth floors would

be converted to gallery space;

• approximately 30,000 square feet of existing basement support and staff garage space would be

renovated to serve as storage;

• the existing education center adjacent to the second floor galleries may be re-located to the main

level, off the atrium; and

• the café functions may be expanded from approximately 4,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.

The remaining space within the existing building, including the retail area and galleries, would not be

altered, although some of the public areas may be reprogrammed to other public uses, such as a full-

service restaurant of approximately 5,000 square feet. The 18-space staff parking area in the basement

of 151 Third Street would be eliminated and be converted to art storage or other back-of-house

functions.



14

Table 1: Conceptual Project Description, Area Calculations Conceptual Project Description

Existing SFMOMA

Areas Unchanged Area (Gross S.F.)

SFMOMA Renovation

Within Existing Footprint Area (Gross S.F.)

SFMOMA Addition

Minna & Natoma Pads Area (Gross S.F.)

Howard St. New Construction

Heald+Fire Station #1 SiteArea (Gross S.F.)

Public Gallery Support Public Gallery Support Public Gallery Support Public Gallery SupportSub Totals: 33,255 41,980 94,765 6,500 13,500 35,000 10,000 60,000 17,550 7,500 60,000 80,000

Total Area:

(S.F.) 170,000 55,000 87,550 147,500 Total Area By Program Type: (Gross S.F.) Public 57,255 Gallery 175,480 Support 227,315Note: Grand Total Area: (Gross S.F.)

New Construction 235,050Existing Gross Area of SFMOMA = 225,000 S.F.

Existing Building (Including Interior

Renovations) 225,000

Grand Total (Existing Building + New

Construction) 460,050

Source: SFMOMA, 2010.

Employees and Visitors. Current and expected future employment at SFMOMA is summa-

rized in Table 2. According to SFMOMA, the museum currently employs approximately 213 full-

time-equivalent employees (FTEs). In addition, SFMOMA uses the services of docents, volunteers,

interns, on-site consultants and contractors, and security personnel totaling the equivalent of an

additional 170 FTEs. Taking into account all types of employment, there are currently 383 FTEs

employed at SFMOMA. Upon completion of the expansion, SFMOMA anticipates an approximately

23 percent increase in FTE employees, to a total of 470 FTE employees (including 267 SFMOMA

employees and 203 FTE docents, volunteers, interns, on-site consultants and contractors, and security

personnel). Thus, with implementation of the SFMOMA Expansion, overall employment at

SFMOMA would increase by 87 FTEs.

MA

XIM

UM

HEI

GH

T: 3

20 F

eet

no

t to

sca

le

FIG

UR

E 8

SOU

RC

ES:

SFM

OM

A; L

SA A

SSO

CIA

TES,

INC

., 20

10.

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Zo

nin

g D

iagr

am -

Max

imu

m Z

on

ing

En

velo

pe

15

no

t to

sca

le

FIG

UR

E 9

SOU

RC

ES:

SFM

OM

A; L

SA A

SSO

CIA

TES,

INC

., 20

10.

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Pro

po

sed

Gro

un

d F

loo

r P

lan

16

no

t to

sca

le

FIG

UR

E 1

0

SOU

RC

ES:

SFM

OM

A; L

SA A

SSO

CIA

TES,

INC

., 20

10.

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Typ

ical

Co

nce

ptu

al G

alle

ry F

loo

r P

lan

17

no

t to

sca

le

FIG

UR

E 1

1

SOU

RC

ES:

SFM

OM

A; L

SA A

SSO

CIA

TES,

INC

., 20

10.

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Typ

ical

Co

nce

ptu

al S

up

po

rt L

evel

Flo

or

Pla

n

18



19

Currently the museum attracts approximately 650,000 visitors per year and the expanded gallery

spaces are likely to increase attendance. It is anticipated that after the visitorship stabilizes following

opening of the project to the public, annual visitor numbers would increase by approximately 20

percent. To assure conservative analyses, this environmental analysis (and the following Environ-

mental Impact Report (EIR)) are based on the assumption that visitor attendance would increase by

25 percent over the year 2009 baseline conditions.

Table 2: Existing and Projected Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employment at SFMOMA

Type of Worker Current Projected Number Increase (Percent Increase)

Employees 213 267 54 (25%) Volunteers 83 103 20 (24%) Contractors 37 43 6 (16%) Security 50 57 7 (14%) TOTAL 383 470 87 (23%)

Source: Personal communication between Sanchie T. Fernandez, Director of Human Resources, SFMOMA, and Greg Johnson, SFMOMA Expansion Project Director, July 1, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.

Access, Circulation and Parking. Primary pedestrian access to SFMOMA would remain on

Third Street. A second point of pedestrian access on Howard Street will be evaluated during the

design process. A portion of the expansion above the Natoma Street parking pad would be elevated

above street level to provide unimpeded vehicular access from Natoma Street beneath the structure

for the W Hotel parking attendants to move vehicles between the W Hotel porte-cochere on Howard

Street and the 147-151 Minna Street parking garage (by accessing the garage’s Natoma Street entry),

pursuant to an existing easement. The existing SFMOMA structure includes 18 subsurface staff

parking spaces accessed from Minna Street and approximately 30 bicycle parking spaces exclusively

for employees. The parking spaces would be eliminated and the space converted to art storage or

other back-of-house functions. Bicycle spaces would be provided on-site for both visitors and

employees at a location or locations to be determined (although no bicycle spaces for arts uses are

required by the San Francisco Planning Code).

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) provide transit

services in close in proximity to the SFMOMA Expansion site. Please refer to Figure 12, which

shows transit routes in the vicinity of SFMOMA (transit routes in the vicinity of the Fire Station



20

Relocation and Housing Project site are shown in Figure 13). BART stations in the vicinity of the

project site include the Montgomery Street Station (approximately 0.2 of a mile northeast of the site)

and the Powell Street Station (approximately 0.4 of a mile northwest of the site). Muni lines that serve

the block within which SFMOMA is located include: 8X, 10, 12, 14, 14L, 14X, 30, 45, 76, and 81X.

Other transit agencies that provide bus service along the block in which SFMOMA is located include

Golden Gate Transit (primarily providing service to Marin County and Sonoma County) and Sam-

Trans (primarily providing service to San Mateo County). In addition, the San Francisco Transbay

Terminal, a major bus transit node for commutes across San Francisco Bay, is located approximately

0.3 of a mile east of the site. The Transbay Terminal is currently being demolished and replaced; in

the meantime, a temporary terminal has been established in the vicinity of Main Street and Folsom

Street, approximately 0.7 of a mile southeast of the project site. The Caltrain Station is located 0.7 of

a mile southeast of the site. In addition, Interstate 80 (I-80), a major east-west interstate highway, is

located approximately 0.4 of a mile to the southeast of the site. I-80 connects San Francisco, via the

Bay Bridge, to the East Bay and points beyond. Interstate 280 (I-280) and Highway 101 are major

north-south highways, located approximately 0.3 of a mile to the southeast of the site, connecting

San Francisco with the Peninsula to the south and with the North Bay to the north via the Golden

Gate Bridge.

The museum’s employee and visitor surveys indicate that most SFMOMA employees and patrons use

public transportation to travel to and from the museum. As of July 2010, SFMOMA estimates that

approximately 30 employees (or approximately 14 percent of FTE employees) drive to work; the

remainder use public transit or other forms of transport.2 As of April 2010, 26 percent of visitors

arrived to SFMOMA via car or motorcycle; the remainder used public transit or other forms of

2 Personal communication between Sanchie T. Fernandez, Director of Human Resources, SFMOMA, and Greg

Johnson, SFMOMA Expansion Project Director, July 1, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning

Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.

Bryant S

Sutter St

Moscone

Center

erba BuenaGardens

Y

80Te

hama St

Clementina S

t

Teha

ma St

Minna St

Minna St

Mission S

t

Howard St

Folsom S

t

Harrison S

t

Jess

ie St Natoma S

tHawthorne St

3rd St

2nd St

4th St

Kearny S

t

Geary St Market St

Market St

1210

3045

8X 12GG

14

14L14X

81X8A/BX

3045

GG76

76

8X

8X

GG

Market St New Montgomery St


project site

muni metro (surface)

muni metro (subway)

express bus line

bartother transit systems

feet

4000 200SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project Initial StudyTransit Lines Around

SFMOMA Expansion Site

FIGURE 12

SOURCES: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.

21

80

Yerba BuenaGardensEddy St

Mission S

t

Howard St

Folsom S

t

Tehama S

t

Shipley St

Clara St

Clementina S

tMinna S

t

Natoma St

4th St

6th St

5th St

7th St

Harriet St

Market St

Market St

Falmouth StFalmouth St

GG

2716X

16X

14

14L

14X

SMGG

GG

27

27

12

8A/BX

8X

4530

X8

GG

14X

GG

19

12

Market St

Falmouth St

47

project site

muni metro (surface)

muni metro (subway)

express bus line

bart

other transit systems

feet

4000 200 SFMOMA Expansion and Fire StationRelocation and Housing Project Initial Study

Transit Lines Around the Fire StationRelocation and Housing Project Site

FIGURE 13

SOURCES: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 2009; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.

22




23

transportation.3 For employees and visitors who drive to SFMOMA, public parking is available in

several nearby facilities, including garages at 147-151 Minna Street, directly behind the museum; the

Moscone Garage at 255 Third Street, one block to the south; and the Fifth and Mission Street garage,

approximately 0.3 of a mile to the west. Off-street parking is not included as part of the proposed

project.

b. Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project

As noted above, the proposed project includes both the expansion of the SFMOMA building and the

relocation of Fire Station No. 1. The existing station at 676 Howard Street would be demolished to

allow construction of the SFMOMA Expansion project. To allow the existing fire station to be

demolished, a new fire station would be constructed at 935 Folsom Street to replace it. As the fire

station would not require the entire 14,400-square-foot property, the lot at 935 Folsom Street would

be subdivided into two parcels and would include two uses: the new fire station fronting Folsom

Street and a multi-family residential building with up to 13 units fronting Shipley Street. The

replacement fire station would be built on the northerly 9,000 square foot parcel referred to as Lot A

and the multi-family residential project would be built on Lot B, the 5,400 square foot southerly

portion of the lot, with a portion of both Lots A and B also providing at-grade parking for firefighters

(13 spaces for cars parked in tandem plus one space for disabled drivers; the personal vehicles of fire

fighters would remain parked for each firefighter’s 24-hour shift). The eight spaces of surface parking

on Lot B would be provided pursuant to a parking easement (see Figure 14, Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project Plan View and Building Section).

The new fire station would be two stories plus a mezzanine level. It would be an approximately 34-

foot-tall structure with a gross area of between 13,000 and 15,000 square feet and a footprint of

approximately 6,750 square feet. The fire station’s staffing level and equipment would not differ from

the current condition at Fire Station No. 1. (The existing fire station is staffed by 13 firefighters and

3 San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Visitor Survey, Morey Group, April, 2010. This document is available for

review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.

STRE

ET

STREET

STRE

ET

PLAN VIEW (GROUND LEVEL)

BUILDING SECTION

45’0”34’0”

not to scaleSFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project Initial StudyFire Station Relocation and Housing

Project Plan View and Building SectionSOURCES: SFMOMA; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.

FIGURE 14

24



25

houses three vehicles.4) The fire station would have three bay doors (as opposed to two bay doors at

the existing fire station) fronting on Folsom Street and a surface area for firefighter parking located at

the rear of the station. The staff parking area would be accessed from Falmouth Street. The new fire

station would rest on a pile-supported foundation. Excavation to a depth approximately 3 feet below

the grade at the sidewalk would be required for the pile cap and grade beam construction.

The residential building fronting Shipley Street would be a four-story, 45-foot-tall structure with a

subterranean parking garage. The garage would comprise approximately 5,550 square feet and would

be accessed from Falmouth Street. The above-grade structure would have a gross area of about

14,000 square feet, and would include up to 13 residential units. The residential units would consist of

about two studios (approximately 450 square feet in size); five one-bedroom units (approximately 700

feet in size); and six two-bedroom units (approximately 1,000 square feet in size). Approximately

1,040 square feet of open space to serve the residential uses would be provided on the site. Excava-

tion to a depth of 10 feet below grade would be required for construction of the building’s basement-

level garage (which would contain 10 vehicle spaces with a portion of the subterranean parking area

being located beneath the 20-foot at grade parking easement provided for the fire fighters’ vehicles).

c. Construction and Phasing

The first phase of project construction would be the demolition of the existing commercial building at

935 Folsom Street and the construction of a new fire station on the site. This would allow the fire

company currently housed in Fire Station No. 1 at 676 Howard Street to relocate, and to ensure no

interruption in fire protection services. It is anticipated that the residential building on Lot B would be

built after the construction of the fire station is completed and that Lot B would function as a staging

and parking area during construction of the new fire station. Approximately 425 cubic yards of soil

would be removed (and exported off-site) from the fire station site for grade beams and pile caps and

approximately 1,225 cubic yards of soil would be removed (and exported off-site) from the residential

site for the below-grade parking; this would constitute about 24 truck loads from the fire station site

and 68 truck loads from the residential site, assuming 18 cubic yards per truck. Approximately 5 to 25

4 Personal communication with Thomas Doudiet, Captain, San Francisco Fire Department, July 21, 2010. This

document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.



26

workers would be on the site depending on the phase of construction. Construction of the new fire

station is expected to begin in late 2011 to early 2012 and take a total of about 12 months to

complete; demolition would take approximately 2 weeks followed by approximately 11½ months of

construction. If the residential building were constructed subsequent to the fire station it would take

approximately 14 to 16 months to complete.

The first steps on the SFMOMA Expansion site would be the demolition of the Heald Building (670

Howard Street) and Fire Station No. 1 (676 Howard Street). Soil would then be excavated to

approximately 19 to 20 feet below the ground surface (approximately 9 to 10 additional feet of

excavation below the existing basement levels of 670 and 676 Howard Street) throughout this area

and under Hunt Street to accommodate the basement and foundation of the SFMOMA Expansion. It

is estimated that approximately 6,225 cubic yards of soil would be removed from the site for disposal;

this would constitute about 350 truck loads, assuming 18 cubic yards per truck. The average work

force over the 2-year construction period would be 200 workers, which would fluctuate through the

duration of construction. The maximum anticipated work force would be 300 individuals on the

SFMOMA site. Construction of the SFMOMA Expansion would take about 2 years to complete;

abatement and demolition of 676 and 670 Howard Street would take up to 4 additional months before

the start of construction activities.

Table 3 summarizes the construction phasing associated with the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project, including the typical construction equipment that would be

used as part of each phase.



27

Table 3: Construction Phasing

Phase SFMOMA Expansion

(Month Start/Month Finish)

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project

(Month Start/Month Finish)a Typical Equipment Phase 1: Abatement and Demolition (Pre- Construction)

0/(4) 1/1 hoe ram; claw excavator; bobcat; dump truck*

Phase 2: Clearing/Grubbing 1/2 1/1 excavator; dump truck Phase 3: Excavation/ Offhaul/Shoring/ Underpinning

2/4 2/2 excavator; backhoe; bobcat; dump truck; driller*; chain saw/saw*; tie back drill rig*

Phase 4: Foundation 4/8 2/4 portable crane; pile rig ; bobcat; excavator; saw; concrete truck; concrete pump truck

Phase 5: Superstructure and Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, and Fire Protection Systems

8/14 4/8 tower crane*; portable crane ; concrete truck; concrete pump truck; steel fabrication devices; main lift*

Phase 6: Exterior Envelope 10/20 7/11 tower crane*; man lift*; portable crane

Phase 7: Interior Finishes 14/24 8/12 tower crane*; man lift* Phase 8: Site Work 22/24 11/12 bobcat; portable crane; backhoe

a The phasing assumptions for construction of the Fire Station only are listed in this column. The phasing of the Housing Project is approximately identical, although the total construction period would last approximately 14-16 months.

* = would be used in construction of the SFMOMA Expansion only. = would be used in construction of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project only.

Source: SFMOMA Expansion, Machine Noise Matrix, Joel Roos, September 13, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.

B. PROJECT SETTING

1. SFMOMA Expansion Site Setting

The SFMOMA expansion site is located at 151 Third Street, in the South of Market/Yerba Buena

neighborhood, near the heart of Downtown San Francisco. The approximately 74,355 square foot

SFMOMA Expansion site is a flat site developed with the five-story 151 Third Street SFMOMA

building, which is 105 feet in height (plus a sky-lit rotunda reaching a height of 145 feet); the four-

story Heald Building (at 670 Howard Street), the two-story Fire Station No. 1 (at 676 Howard Street),

and paved areas associated with parking pads and Hunt Street (a 3,500-square-foot City-owned right-

of-way). Please refer to Figures 3, 4, and 5 for photographs of the SFMOMA Expansion site and its

surroundings. 151 Third Street is within the C-3-O (Downtown Office) Use District, and the 500-I

Height/Bulk District (500-foot height limit, with limitations on maximum plan dimensions above 150



28

feet). 670 Howard Street is within the C-3-S (Downtown Support) Use District, and the 320-I Height/

Bulk District. 676 Howard Street is within the P (Public) Use District, and the 320-I Height/Bulk

District. (See Figure 15 and Figure 16 for a map of zoning and height/bulk regulations in and around

the SFMOMA Expansion site.)

The segment of Third Street adjacent to the SFMOMA Expansion site contains 10-foot-wide

sidewalks, and the segment of Howard Street adjacent to the site contains 12-foot-wide sidewalks.

There are no building setbacks. Minna Street, to the north of the site, is 21 feet in width and contains

7.5-foot-wide sidewalks.

The SFMOMA Expansion site and much of the surrounding land to the north, south, and west5 lie

within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area. The 87-acre Yerba Buena Center

Redevelopment Project Area generally extends from Market Street to Harrison Street and west of

Fourth Street to east of Third Street. The Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area has been

developed as a convention center, office, housing, hotel, arts, and recreation area. The Museum

acquired the 151 Third Street building site from the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to a Disposition

and Development Agreement (DDA) executed in 1991. The Redevelopment Plan is scheduled to

expire on January 1, 2011, after which the San Francisco Planning Department and Planning Com-

mission will be the primary reviewing and approving agencies for development proposals within its

boundaries.

Land uses surrounding the site (which is in close proximity to San Francisco’s Downtown retail and

financial districts) include hotel, retail, office, residential, convention, parking, and public and cul-

tural facilities that typify Downtown San Francisco and its immediate surroundings in the South of

Market neighborhood. Figure 17 illustrates the concentration of cultural facilities near the SFMOMA

Expansion site. These cultural facilities include:

• Museum of the African Diaspora (685 Mission Street)

• Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and Gardens (701 Mission Street)

5 By convention, Howard Street, and streets that parallel it, including Folsom Street, are considered east-west streets,

while numbered streets, such as Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc., are considered to run north-south.



29

o Center for the Arts Gallery

o Center for the Arts Theater

o Zeum: San Francisco Children’s Museum

• Cartoon Art Museum (655 Mission Street)

• Contemporary Jewish Museum of San Francisco (736 Mission Street)

• Museum of Craft and Folk Art (51 Yerba Buena Lane)

• California Historical Society (678 Mission Street)

• Society of California Pioneers (300 Fourth Street)

Major structures near the site include: the Metreon (101 Fourth Street); Paramount Apartments (680

Mission Street); Moscone Center North and South (747 Howard Street); Moscone Center West (800

Howard Street); St. Patrick’s Church (756 Mission Street); and the Fifth and Mission Garage (833

Mission Street) and the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building (134-140 New Montgomery

Street). Parks and recreational spaces in the vicinity of the project site include Union Square (0.3 of a

mile to the northwest of the site); South Park (0.5 of a mile southeast of the site), the South of Market

Recreation Center and the Victoria Manalo Draves Park (0.7 of a mile southwest of the site), and

Howard Langton Park (0.8 of a mile southwest of the site). In addition, the Yerba Buena Gardens

open space and recreational facilities, including an esplanade, gardens, plazas, a bowling alley,

skating rink, historic carousel, and playground, are directly across Third Street from the site. In

addition, numerous privately-owned public open spaces are located east of the site. Such open space

areas located in the area bound by Market Street on the north; First Street on the east; Howard Street

on the south; and Second Street on the west include: 595 Market Street; 555/575 Market Street; 525

Market Street; 100 First Street; 25 Jessie Street; 49 Stevenson Street; 71 Stevenson Street; 55 Second

Street; Golden Gate University; 560 Mission Street; 555 Mission Street; 101 Second Street; and

Foundry Square.6

6Secrets of San Francisco: A Guide to the City’s Privately Owned Public Open Spaces, San Francisco Planning +

Urban Research Association, November 19, 2008. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case

File No. 2010.0275E.



30

North of the site, across Minna Street, land uses include the 42-story St. Regis Hotel and Residences,

which also houses the Museum of the African Diaspora, and four- to five-story office buildings

fronting Mission Street. East of the existing SFMOMA building, land uses include an 8-story parking

garage; the SFMOMA Sculpture Garden is on the roof of this parking structure. Land uses east of

Fire Station No. 1 and the Heald Building include 3- and 4-story office and retail uses. South of the

site land uses include the 33-story W Hotel. Across Howard Street, land uses include a 12-story office

building and a 2-story restaurant. West of the site, across Third Street, land uses include the Moscone

North convention center, topped by the Yerba Buena Gardens cultural facilities and open space. The

Yerba Buena Gardens comprise approximately two blocks of public open space, galleries, a theater,

retail and recreational facilities.

2. Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site Setting

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located at 935 Folsom Street on the south side

of Folsom Street, between Fifth Street to the east and Sixth Street to the west. The project site

consists of a vacant, one-story-plus-mezzanine, 25-foot-tall, 18,208 square-foot industrial building

occupying the entire site. The building was previously used as a commercial laundry and later as an

apparel factory. The neighborhood around the project site, which is known as the East South of

Market neighborhood, contains a mixture of residential; production, distribution and repair (PDR);

hotel; bar; restaurant; retail; and surface parking uses. The neighborhood around the Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project site also contains numerous live/work lofts. Please refer to Figures 6

and 7 for photographs of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site and its surroundings.

The approximately 14,400-square-foot Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site (including the

9,000-square-foot Lot A and 5,400-square foot Lot B that would result from the proposed subdivision

of the site) is located within the East SoMa Area Plan (East SoMa Plan), which is one of the plans of

the recently concluded Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans (EN) planning effort. The

East SoMa Plan rezoned the project site from a Residential/Service Mixed Use (RSD) land use

district to a Mixed Use Residential (MUR) land use district; it also changed height controls from a

split 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk district to a 45-X district on the southern portion of the project site

facing Shipley Street and an 85-X district on the northern portion of the site facing Folsom Street.



31

(See Figure 15 and Figure 16 for a map of zoning and height/bulk districts in and around the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site.)

The site also lies within the South of Market Youth and Family Special Use District, and the South of

Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area, which the Board of Supervisors adopted

in 1990. The South of Market Youth and Family Special Use District is intended to protect and

enhance the environment for youth and families by expanding the provision of affordable housing in

certain lower-density areas in the South of Market neighborhood.7 The Redevelopment Plan uses the

Planning Department’s existing zoning and Planning Code controls. The Planning Commission and

the Planning Department are the primary reviewing and approving agencies.

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is in a mixed-use urban area containing a variety

of building types and uses. Heights vary from one to five stories (12 to 60 feet). Most buildings in the

two-block vicinity are two to four stories tall (ranging from 24 to 48 feet). Building types include

older commercial, mixed residential/commercial, live/work, and industrial structures, as well as

newer residential buildings. Nearby land uses include residential; live/work; production, distribution,

and repair (PDR), many of which are automotive supply and repair businesses; retail (including

restaurant and bar); hotel; and surface parking.

The urban development pattern in the neighborhood around the Fire Station relocation site consists of

blocks with dimensions of approximately 475 feet by 850 feet, 82-foot-wide streets, and smaller

intersecting alleys that create residential enclaves. These residential enclaves are located behind major

streets that are fronted by predominantly commercial and industrial uses.

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is bordered by Folsom Street to the north.

Across Folsom Street, to the north of the Fire Station relocation site, is a large surface parking lot

(containing approximately 400 parking spaces) that extends to Fifth Street. To the immediate west of

the large surface parking lot is a three-story structure that is occupied by a furniture and interiors

business. The site is bordered to the east by an open vehicle yard (923 Folsom Street) that is used by a

7 San Francisco Planning Code, Section 249.40A.



32

tour bus company for bus storage and maintenance. On the northeast side of the open vehicle yard is a

four-story structure (located at 917 Folsom Street) that contains a hotel with a bar on the ground floor.

To the southeast side of the open vehicle yard is a smaller-scale two-story structure (located at 214

Shipley Street) that contains a garage on the first floor and offices on the second floor.

The site is bordered to the south by Shipley Street. The area south of Shipley Street, across from the

project site, consists primarily of residential and live/work uses, with occasional storage or PDR uses.

Shipley Street to the west of Falmouth Street comprises one- to four-story residential and live/work

structures.

The site is bordered to the west by Falmouth Street. Beyond Falmouth Street, to the west of the site, is

a two-story mixed residential/retail building containing an adult business (fronting Folsom Street) and

two-story residential building (fronting Shipley Street).

Residential uses in the general two-block area around the project site are predominantly multi-family

flats or higher density buildings, including the 50-foot-tall 249 Shipley Street lofts (14 residential

units) directly to the south of the project site at the intersection of Shipley and Falmouth Streets. In

addition, there is a two-story building immediately to the west of the site across Falmouth Street with

apartments (estimated at two units) above an adult business. At 955-65 Folsom Street is a four-story

condominium loft building (containing 15 residential units). Mid-rise lofts at 239-250 Clara Street

(containing 15 residential units) are on the next block south of the project site. On Folsom Street, one

block to the east between Third Street and Fourth Street, is the 45- to 85-foot tall Yerba Buena Lofts

(containing approximately 200 residential units) and the 65- to 85-foot tall 829 Folsom Street residen-

tial building (containing approximately 69 residential units). A large commercial parking lot (located

at 900 Folsom Street) occupies the northwest corner of the Fifth and Folsom Street intersection across

Folsom Street from the project site (a mixed-use project is currently planned for this site; see Table 4).

Nearby parks include the South of Market Recreation Center and the Victoria Manalo Draves Park

approximately 0.2 of a mile southwest of the site. The Howard Langton Park is about 0.3 of a mile to

the west on Howard Street. Yerba Buena Gardens and Moscone Center are 0.2 of a mile to the north-

east on Folsom Street and extend about 0.2 of a mile north to Mission Street.

P

P

P

SLISLI

P

SLISLI

SLISLI

P

MURMUR

MUOMUO

SLISLI

MURMUR

SLISLI

MUR

MURMUR

MUR

MUR

C-3-SC-3-S

SSLSLISLI

SLISLI

SLISLI

MUR

MUOMUR

MUOMUO

MUOMUO

MUOMUO

MUOMUO

MURMUR

MURMUR

RED

MUR

MUOMUO

SLISLI

REDRED

P

MUGMUG

MUOMUO

RSD

MURMUR

SSO

MUR

MUGMUG

SLISLISPDSPD

SLISLI

MURMUR

NCTNCT

NCT

MUGMUG

NCTNCT

M-1M-1

MUGMUG NCTSLISLI

NCTNCT

NCTNCT

MUGMUG SLISLI

M

NCTNCT

NCTNCT

REDRED

NCTNCT

SSOSSO

UGMUG

SLISLI

NCTNCT

NCTNCT

NCT

NCTNCT

TCT

SLISLI

NCTNCT

MUR

MUGMUG

MUGMUG

MUOMUO

P

P

P

SLI

P

SLI

SLI

P

MUR

MUO

SLI

MUR

SLI

MUR

MUR

MUR

MUR

C-3-S

SSLI

SLI

SLI

MUR

MUOMUR

MUO

MUO

MUO

MUO

MUR

MUR

RED

MUR

MUO

SLI

RED

P

MUG

MUO

RSD

MUR

SSO

MUR

MUG

SLISPD

SLI

MUR

NCT

NCT

MUG

NCT

M-1

MUG NCTSLI

NCT

NCT

MUG SLI

M

NCT

NCT

RED

NCT

SSO

UG

SLI

NCT

NCT

NCT

NCT

T

SLI

NCT

MUR

MUG

MUG

MUO

P

P

SLISLI

C-3-SC-3-S

C-3-SC-3-S

P

C-3-RC-3-R

C-3-RC-3-R

P

P

P

C-3-SC-3-S

P

SSO

M

P

P

P

P

P

C-3-SC-3-S

C-3-SC-3-S

RSDRSD

RSD

PSLI

C-3-SC-3-S

C-3-SC-3-S

C-3-O

P

C-3-SC-3-S

C-3-SC-3-S

SLISLISLI

SLI

SLISLI

C-3-SC-3-S

C-3-GC-3-G

C-3-OC-3-O

P

C-3-RC-3-R

C-3-SC-3-S

M-1M-1

P

SLISLI

C-3-OC-3-O

P

SLISLI

C-3-OC-3-O

C-3-OC-3-O

P

C-3-RC-3-R

C-3-RC-3-R

RC-4RC-4

SLISLI

C-3-OC-3-O

SLISLI

C-3-RC-3-R

C-3-RC-3-R

3-R-3-R

TB DTTB DTR

C-3-O(SD)C-3-O(SD)C-3-RC-3-R

-G3-GC-3-RC-3-R

C 3 O(SC-3-O(SD

C-3-RC-3-R

C-3-RC-3-R

C-3-RC-3-RC-3-O(SD)C-3-O(SD)

SLISLI

C-3-O(SD)C-3-O(SD)

RHRH

C-3-RC-3-R C-3-O(SD)C-3-O(SD)

P

SLISLI

C-3-SC-3-S

M-1M-1

C-3-O(SD)C-3-O(SD)

C-3-O(SD)C-3-O(SD)

C-3-O(SD)C-3-O(SD)

TB DTRTB DTR

P

P

SLI

C-3-S

C-3-S

P

C-3-R

C-3-R

P

P

P

C-3-S

P

SSO

M

P

P

P

P

P

C-3-S

C-3-S

RSD

RSD

PSLI

C-3-S

C-3-S

P

C-3-S

C-3-S

SLISLI

SLI

SLI

C-3-S

C-3-G

C-3-O

P

C-3-R

C-3-S

M-1

P

SLI

C-3-O

P

SLI

C-3-O

C-3-O

P

C-3-R

C-3-R

RC-4

SLI

C-3-O

SLI

C-3-R

C-3-R

3-R

TB DT

C-3-O(SD)C-3-R

-GC-3-R

C 3 O(S

C-3-R

C-3-R

C-3-RC-3-O(SD)

SLI

C-3-O(SD)

RH

C-3-R C-3-O(SD)

P

SLI

C-3-S

M-1

C-3-O(SD)

C-3-O(SD)

C-3-O(SD)

TB DTR

0306

3752

3751

3750

3737

3736

3735

3734

3733

3732

3787

3786

3777

3776

3763

3762

3761

37603754

3753

3731

3725

3724

3723

3722

3721

3707

3706

3705

3704

15 0314 0313 0312

0311

03100309

7

341

33003

29

0328

032726

NEW MONTGOMERY ST

BLUXOME ST

S

HARRISON ST

HARRISON ST

ST

BRANNAN ST

BRYANT ST

MARKET ST

02ND ST

HOWARD ST

05TH ST

FOLSOM ST

GR

ANT AVE

ST

POS

GEARY ST

06TH ST

MISSION ST

03RD ST

04TH ST

OFARRELL ST

POW

ELL ST

UNIONSQUARE

NCTNCT

C-3-O

PP

C-3-O

Project Sites

USE DISTRICTS

RESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USE

COMMERCIAL

PublicPP

RC-4 = Commercial Combined/High Density

RC-4RC-4

Residential/ServiceRSDRSD

Service/Lt. IndustrialSLISLI

Service/Secondary OfficeSSOSSO

Residential EnclaveREDRED

Downtown - OfficeC-3-0C-3-0

Downtown - Office(Special Development)C-3-0(SD)C-3-0(SD)

Downtown - RetailC-3-RC-3-R

Downtown - SupportC-3-SC-3-S

Light IndustrialM1M1

Neighborhood CommercialTransit Cluster

NCTNCT

Mixed Use - GeneralMUGMUG

Mixed Use - ResidentialMURMUR

Mixed Use - OfficeMUOMUO

Block Number3753

feet

5000 250SFMOMA Expansion and

Fire Station Relocation andHousing Project Initial Study

Zoning MapSOURCES: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.

FIGURE 15

33



OS

45-X

85-X 45-X

130-G

130-E

85-X

85-X

45-X

45-X

45-X

130-G

45-X

65-X

85-X

85-X

85-X

65-X

65-X

85-X

85-X

55-X

40-X

45-X

85-X

85--X

45-X

85-X

45-X

65-X

OS

55-X

55-X

65-X

85-X

85-X

85-X

65-X

5-X

65-X

45-X

65-X

45-X

85-X

85-X

45-X

85-X85-X

85-X

45-X

45-X

130-E

440

65-X

45-X

85-X

45-X

45-X

65-X45-X

65-X

40-X/85-B

85-X

85-X

X

65-X

85-X

85-X

85-X85-X

40-X

65-X

85-X

55-X

55-X

65-X

550

85-X

85-X

85-X

85-X

65-X

85-X

55-X

85-X85-X

85-X

85-X

85-X85-X

85-X

65-X

65-X

65-X

665

65-X

65-X

45-X

85-X

500-S

550-S

OS

45-X

85-X 45-X

130-G

130-E

85-X

85-X

45-X

45-X

45-X

130-G

45-X

65-X

85-X

85-X

85-X

65-X

65-X

85-X

85-X

55-X

40-X

5-X

85-X

85-

45-X

85-X

45-X

65-X

OS

55-X

55-X

65-X

85-X

85-X

85-X

65-X

X

65-X

45-X

65-X

45-X

85-X

85-X

45-X

85-X85-X

85-X

45-X

45-X

130-E

4

65-X

45-X

85-X

45-X

45-X

65-X45-X

65-X

40-X/85-B

85-X

85-X

65-X

85-X

85-X

85-X85-X

40-X

65-X

85-X

55-X

55-X

65-X

5

85-X

85-X

85-X

85-X

65-X

85-X

55-X

85-X85-X

85-X

85-X

85-X85-X

85-X

65-X

65-X

65-X

6

65-X

65-X

45-X

85-X

500-S

550-S

340-I

340-I

50-X

400-I

30-X

OS

320-I

30-X

65-X30-X

160-F

200-S

160-F

320-S

400-X

450-S

320-I

130-F

500-I

130-L

200-X

80-130-F

80-130-F

80-130-F

160-S

80-X

0-F

80-130-F

160-F

340-I

400-X

90-X

250-S

120-X

200-S

160-S

200-400

200-S

340-I

550-S

500-I

500-I

80-130-F

80-130-F

120-X

350-S80-X

150-S

150-S

80-130-F

400-S

250-S

80 130 F

120-F

150-S

150-S

80-130-F80-130-F

80-130-F

40-X/85-B

40-X/85-B

200-S

500-S

-130-F

320-I

80-X

120-X

135-X

120-X

300-S

80-130-F

250-S150-S

150-S

350-S

160-F

150-S

OS

50-X

400-I

300-S

120-X

350-S

150-S

110-X

OS

285-S

160-S

160-F

90-X130-F

150-X80-130-F

90-X

340-I

340-I

50-X

400-I

30-X

OS

320-I

30-X

65-X30-X

160-F

200-S

160-F

320-S

400-X

450-S

320-I

130-F

500-I

130-L

200-X

80-130-F

80-130-F

80-130-F

160-S

80-X

F

80-130-F

160-F

340-I

400-X

90-X

250-S

120-X

200-S

160-S

200-400

200-S

340-I

550-S

500-I

500-I

80-130-F

80-130-F

120-X

350-S80-X

150-S

150-S

80-130-F

400-S

250-S

80 130 F

120-F

150-S

150-S

80-130-F80-130-F

80-130-F

40-X/85-B

40-X/85-B

200-S

500-S

-130-F

80-X

120-X

135-X

120-X

300-S

80-130-F

150-S

150-S

350-S

160-F

150-S

OS

50-X

400-I

300-S

120-X

350-S

150-S

110-X

OS

285-S

160-S

160-F

90-X130-F

150-X80-130-F

90-X

85-TB

50/85/

400-TB

0306

3752

3751

3750

37

3736

3735

3734

3733

3732

029

378

3786

3777

3776

3763

3762

3761

37603754

3753

3731

3725

3724

3723

3722

3721

3707

3706

3705

04

0314 0313 0312

0311

03100309

3003

29

0328

03276

NEW MONTGOMERY ST

BLUXOME ST

HARRISON ST

HARRISON ST

T ST

BRANNAN ST

BRYANT ST

MARKET ST

02ND ST

HOWARD ST05TH ST

FOLSOM ST

GR

ANT AVE

POST ST

GEARY ST

06TH ST

MISSION ST

03RD ST

04TH ST

OFARRELL ST

POW

ELL ST

UNIONSQUARE


250-S

320-I320-I

250-S

Project Sites

Block Number

“Numbers” are Height Limits in feet. See Planning Code Section 250 and following.

“Letters” refer to Bulk Limits. See Planning Code Section 270.

“Suffix Numbers” identify districts in which special regulations apply. See Planning Code Sections 263 and following.

00 - Z - 1

“Open Space” DistrictOS

3761

feet

5000 250

SFMOMA Expansion and Fire StationRelocation and Housing Project Initial Study

Height and Bulk DistrictsSOURCES: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.

FIGURE 16

34


Gea

ry S

tG

eary

St

Post

St

Post

St

Market

St

Market

St

Kearny StKearny St

Grant StGrant St

Stockton StStockton St

Powell StPowell St

Mason StMason St

O’F

arre

ll S

tO

’Far

rell

St

Ellis

St

Ellis

St

Howard S

t

Howard S

t

Folsom S

t

Folsom S

t

3rd S

t

3rd S

t

New M

ontgomery St

New M

ontgomery St

2nd S

t

2nd S

t

Hawthorn

e St

Hawthorn

e St Harr

ison S

t

Harriso

n St

Mission S

t

Mission S

t

5th S

t

5th S

t

4th S

t

4th S

t

Aldrich Alle

y

Aldrich Alle

yJe

ssie

St

Jess

ie St

Yerba B

uena L

n

Yerba B

uena L

n

Cyril Magnin StCyril Magnin St

Minna St

Minna St

Steven

son St

Steven

son St

Natoma

St

Natoma

St

YE

RB

A B

UE

NA

YE

RB

A B

UE

NA

GA

RD

EN

SG

AR

DE

NS

MU

SE

UM

OF

TH

EM

US

EU

M O

F T

HE

AFR

ICA

N D

IAS

PO

RA

AFR

ICA

N D

IAS

PO

RA

(MoA

D)

(MoA

D)

CA

RTO

ON

CA

RTO

ON

MU

SE

UM

MU

SE

UM

CA

LIFO

RN

IAC

ALI

FOR

NIA

HIS

TOR

ICA

LH

ISTO

RIC

AL

MU

SE

UM

MU

SE

UM

ME

XIC

AN

ME

XIC

AN

MU

SE

UM

MU

SE

UM

(PR

OP

OS

ED

)(P

RO

PO

SE

D)

SFM

OM

AS

FMO

MA

MU

SE

UM

OF

MU

SE

UM

OF

CR

AFT

CR

AFT

& F

OLK

AR

T&

FO

LK A

RT

MU

SE

UM

OF

MU

SE

UM

OF

PE

RFO

RM

AN

CE

PE

RFO

RM

AN

CE

& D

ES

IGN

& D

ES

IGN

(PR

OP

OS

ED

)(P

RO

PO

SE

D)

ZE

UM

ZE

UM

CE

NT

ER

FO

RC

EN

TE

R F

OR

TH

E A

RT

ST

HE

AR

TS

GA

LLE

RY

GA

LLE

RY CE

NT

ER

FO

RC

EN

TE

R F

OR

TH

E A

RT

ST

HE

AR

TS

TH

EA

TE

RT

HE

AT

ER

SO

CIE

TY

OF

SO

CIE

TY

OF

PIO

NE

ER

SP

ION

EE

RS

Gea

ry S

t

Post

St

Minna St

Steven

son St

Aldrich Alle

yJe

ssie

St

Howard S

t

Folsom S

t

Harriso

n St

Mission S

t

Market

St

3rd S

t

New M

ontgomery St

2nd S

t

4th S

t

Yerba B

uena L

n

5th S

t

Kearny St

Grant St

Stockton St

Powell St

Mason St

Cyril Magnin St

O’F

arre

ll S

t

Ellis

St

Natoma

St

Hawthorn

e St

CA

RTO

ON

MU

SE

UM

MU

SE

UM

OF

TH

EA

FRIC

AN

DIA

SP

OR

A(M

oAD

)

YE

RB

A B

UE

NA

GA

RD

EN

S

MU

SE

UM

OF

CR

AFT

& F

OLK

AR

T

MU

SE

UM

OF

PE

RFO

RM

AN

CE

& D

ES

IGN

(PR

OP

OS

ED

)

SFM

OM

A

ZE

UM

CE

NT

ER

FO

RT

HE

AR

TS

GA

LLE

RY CE

NT

ER

FO

RT

HE

AR

TS

TH

EA

TE

R

ME

XIC

AN

MU

SE

UM

(PR

OP

OS

ED

)

CA

LIFO

RN

IAH

ISTO

RIC

AL

MU

SE

UM

SO

CIE

TY

OF

PIO

NE

ER

S

CO

NT

EM

PO

RA

RY

CO

NT

EM

PO

RA

RY

JEW

ISH

MU

SE

UM

JEW

ISH

MU

SE

UM

OF

SA

N F

RA

NC

ISC

OO

F S

AN

FR

AN

CIS

CO

CO

NT

EM

PO

RA

RY

JEW

ISH

MU

SE

UM

OF

SA

N F

RA

NC

ISC

O

feet

500

025

0

proj

ect

site

FIG

UR

E 1

7

SOU

RC

ES:

GO

OG

LE E

ART

H; L

SA A

SSO

CIA

TES,

INC

., 20

10.

SFM

OM

A Ex

pans

ion

and

Fire

Sta

tion

Relo

catio

n an

d H

ousin

g Pr

ojec

t Ini

tial S

tudy

Cu

ltu

ral

Fac

ilit

ies

Nea

r SF

MO

MA

35

Photo 1: View looking east from the project site down Folsom Street

Photo 2: View looking west from the project site down Folsom Street

Project Site

Project Site

F IGU R E 18

SFMOM A Expansion and Fire StationRelocation and Housing Project Initial StudyViews from Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project Site SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2010.

36



37

3. Cumulative Setting

The project sites are located in areas subject to considerable redevelopment activity. Planned and

foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion site include the new residential and

office towers and the conversion of an existing office tower to residential and commercial uses.

Projects in the vicinity of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site include construction of

lower-scale mixed-use buildings and building conversions. Table 4 summarizes major planned

projects known to the Planning Department in 2010 that are within 0.125 of a mile of each of the

project sites.

Table 4: Planned Projects Within Vicinity of Project Sites SFMOMA Expansion Address Project Summary 706 Mission Street Construction of new 605-foot residential tower with 220 units and the Mexican Museum in

the lower floors. 134-140 New Montgomery Street

Conversion of an office building to contain 118 residential units and approximately 8,700 sq. ft. of ground floor commercial uses.

222 Second Street Construction of a 33-story, 432-foot office building, including 6,300 sq. ft. of ground floor retail space and 617,000 sq. ft. of office space.

Fire Station Relocation and Housing 900 Folsom Street/260 Fifth Street

Demolition of a two-story building and construction of a total of 448 residential units, 9,560 sq. ft. of retail space, and 323 parking spaces on two adjacent sites.

468 Clementina Street Demolition of an existing building and construction of two four-story residential buildings, including a 13-unit building fronting Tehama Street and a 12-unit building fronting Clementina Street (468 Clementina).

374 Fifth Street Conversion of 47 tourist hotel rooms to 47 single room occupancy (SRO) units. 397 Fifth Street Demolition of two existing buildings and construction of 24 residential units, and 5,110 sq.

ft. of retail space. 345 Sixth Street Demolition of a 2,973-sq.-ft. one-story office building and construction of a 37,200-sq.-ft.

37-unit five-story structure with residential over ground floor retail space. Source: Development Pipeline, City and County of San Francisco, August 4, 2010. This document is available for review

at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E and 2010.0275E.

4. APPROVALS REQUIRED

a. SFMOMA Expansion Approvals Required

• Planning Code Section 309 Downtown Project Approval (Planning Commission)

• Street Vacation of Hunt Street (Board of Supervisors)

• Rezoning of 676 Howard Street from P (Public) to C 3-S (Board of Supervisors, with




38

• Possible amendment of Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) (Redevelopment

Agency Commission)

• Lot Merger (Department of Public Works)


b. Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Approvals Required

• Planning Code Section 327/307 Eastern Neighborhoods Project Approval (Planning Commission

or Zoning Administrator)

• Rezoning of the fire station portion of the lot from MUR to P (Public) (Board of Supervisors with


• Design approval of new public building (Arts Commission)

• Lot Subdivision (Department of Public Works)


C. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS

Applicable Not Applicable

Discuss any variances, special authorizations, or changes proposed to

the Planning Code or Zoning Map, if applicable.

Discuss any conflicts with any adopted plans and goals of the City or

Region, if applicable.

Discuss any approvals and/or permits from City departments other

than the Planning Department or the Department of Building

Inspection, or from Regional, State, or Federal Agencies.

1. SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE

The San Francisco Planning Code (Planning Code), which incorporates the City’s Zoning Maps,

implements the General Plan and governs permitted uses, densities, and configurations of buildings



39

within the City. Permits to construct new buildings (or to alter and demolish existing ones) may not

be issued unless: 1) the proposed project conforms to the Planning Code; 2) allowable exceptions are

granted pursuant to provisions of the Planning Code; or 3) amendments to the Planning Code are

included as part of the project.

The following section discusses the land use districts and use, bulk, and height regulations associated

with each project site. A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with all applicable provisions

of the Planning Code (including floor-area-ratio (FAR), setbacks, vehicle and bicycle parking, open

space/landscaping) will be included in the EIR. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the land use and

bulk/height districts on the project sites.

SFMOMA Expansion Site. The SFMOMA Expansion site is located within three different

primary use districts. The existing museum (151 Third Street) is located within the C-3-O (Down-

town Office) Use District; the Heald Building (670 Howard Street) is located within the C-3-S

(Downtown Support) Use District; and Fire Station No. 1 (676 Howard Street) is located within the P

(Public) Use District. Half of Hunt Street (as divided by the centerline) is located within the C-3-O

District; the other half is located within the C-3-S District. The intent of these districts and the

consistency of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion with the specific land use controls associated with

each district is discussed below.

The C-3-O (Downtown Office) District is intended to protect and encourage the growth of Downtown

San Francisco as a business and employment center that is dense and located in close proximity to

transit. According to Section 210.3 of the Planning Code, in the District, “office development is sup-

ported by some related retail and service uses within the area, with inappropriate uses excluded in

order to conserve the supply of land in the core and its expansion areas for further development of

major office buildings.” Museums are principally permitted uses in the C-3-O district (Section 227

(p)).

According to Section 210.3 of the Planning Code, the C-3-S (Downtown Support) District “accom-

modates near the intensive downtown core areas important supporting functions such as wholesaling,

printing, building services, secondary office space and parking. It also contains unique housing



40

resources.” The Planning Code identifies this district as an opportunity area for “major developments

of new uses covering substantial areas.” Museums are permitted uses in the C-3-S District (Section

227 (p)).

The P (Public) District applies to land that is owned by a governmental agency and contains a public

use. According to the Section 234 of the Planning Code, the “purpose of designating such land as a P

District on the Zoning Map is to relate the Zoning Map to actual land use and to the Master Plan with

respect to such land.”

As part of the project, the Fire Station No. 1 property (676 Howard Street) would be rezoned from

Public to Downtown Support District because SFMOMA is not owned by a government agency and

thus cannot expand onto a property in a Public Use District. Therefore, after project implementation,

the SFMOMA Expansion site would comprise two use districts: Downtown Office District and

Downtown Support District, which would allow for development of new museum uses.

The site is located in two different height and bulk districts (see Figure 16). The existing museum is

located within the 500-I Height and Bulk District (establishing a 500-foot height limit, with limita-

tions on maximum dimensions above 150 feet). The Heald Building and Fire Station No. 1 sites (at

670 and 676 Howard Street, respectively) are within the 320-I Height and Bulk District (establishing

a 320-foot height limit, with limitations on maximum dimensions above 150 feet). The SFMOMA

Expansion would be designed to meet existing height and bulk regulations.

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site. The Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project site is located within the MUR (Mixed Use Residential) Use District (see Figure 15). Accord-

ing to Section 841 of the Planning Code, the Mixed Use Residential District is intended to serve “as a

buffer between the higher-density, predominantly commercial area of Yerba Buena Center to the east

and the lower-scale, mixed use service/industrial and housing area west of Sixth Street. The MUR

serves as a major housing opportunity area within the eastern portion of the South of Market area.

The district controls are intended to facilitate the development of high-density, mid-rise housing,

including family-sized housing and residential hotels. The district is also designed to encourage the

expansion of retail, business service and commercial and cultural arts activities. Continuous ground



41

floor commercial frontage with pedestrian-oriented retail activities along major thoroughfares is

encouraged. Hotels, nighttime entertainment, movie theaters, adult entertainment and heavy industrial

uses are not permitted. Office is restricted to the upper floors of multiple story buildings.”

As part of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, the approximately 9,000-square-foot

portion of the site that would contain the relocated Fire Station No. 1 (i.e., the northern two-thirds of

the site, fronting Folsom Street) would be rezoned from Mixed Use Residential to Public, to allow for

development of the fire station (which is a public building owned by a government agency). The

southern third of the site would retain MUR zoning, and the residential building proposed on the

southern approximately 5,400-square foot (60- foot by 90-foot) portion of the site would be permitted

by Section 841 of the Planning Code.

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located in two different height and bulk

districts (see Figure 16) and no height reclassification is proposed. The northern portion of the site

fronting Folsom Street is located within the 85-X Height and Bulk District (establishing an 85-foot

height limit with no bulk limits). The southern portion of the site fronting Shipley Street is within the

45-X Height and Bulk District (establishing a 45-foot height limit with no bulk limits). The proposed

fire station and residential building would be 34 feet and 45 feet in height, respectively, and thus

would meet existing height and bulk regulations.

Besides the proposed rezoning of 676 Howard Street from Public to Downtown Support District and

the proposed rezoning of the approximately 9,000-square-foot portion of the Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project site from Mixed Use Residential to Public, as discussed above, the proposed

projects would not require any variances, special authorizations, or changes to the Planning Code or

Zoning Map.

2. PLANS AND POLICIES

a. San Francisco General Plan

In addition to the Planning Code and zoning regulations, the project sites are subject to the

San Francisco General Plan (General Plan). The General Plan provides general policies and

objectives to guide land use decisions in the City. The compatibility of the proposed project with



42

General Plan policies that do not relate to physical environmental issues will be considered by

decision-makers as part of their decision whether to approve or disapprove the proposed projects.

Any potential conflicts identified as part of the process would not alter the physical environmental

effects of the proposed projects. The EIR will contain a discussion of the consistency of the projects

with applicable General Plan Elements, Objectives and Policies.

The Arts Element of the General Plan, which will be discussed in more detail in the EIR, is intended

to strengthen arts in the City and to incorporate consideration of arts and artists in the local decision-

making process. The Arts Element also seeks to make art accessible to City residents by supporting

museums, public art, and arts-related educational programs through public policy and other means.

The Community Facilities Element of the General Plan, which will also be discussed in more detail in

the EIR, seeks to provide adequate community facilities – including police, educational, library, fire,

and utilities-related infrastructure – throughout the City. Objective 5 of the Community Facilities

Element states: “Development of a system of firehouses which will meet the operating requirements

of the Fire Department in providing fire protection services and which will be in harmony with

related public service facilities and with all other features and facilities of land development and

transportation provided for in other sections of the General Plan.”

b. Downtown Area Plan

The SFMOMA Expansion site is located in the Downtown Area Plan. The Plan area is irregularly

shaped, but is generally bounded by Washington Street on the northeast; The Embarcadero on the

east; Folsom Street on the south; and Van Ness Avenue on the northwest. The Downtown Area Plan

was designed to promote development in Downtown that sustains the neighborhood as a commerce,

employment and visitor center while protecting the area’s existing housing stock. The Downtown

Area Plan places particular emphasis on reducing the use of private vehicles in favor of enhancing

travel by bicycle, foot, and public transit. The Plan also promotes the development of different kinds

of open space throughout Downtown, including a series of linked spaces around the high-density

Downtown core. The EIR will contain a discussion of the consistency of the SFMOMA Expansion

with policies in the Downtown Area Plan.



43

c. Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan

The SFMOMA Expansion site is located within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan area.

The Plan area is generally bounded by Market Street on the north; Second Street on the east; Harrison

Street on the south; and Fourth Street on the west. The Plan is intended to stimulate and attract private

investment in the area and assist in the relocation of businesses and residences that may be adversely

affected by the Plan. Other specific objectives are also outlined in the Plan, including the develop-

ment of a better connection between the Union Square and Yerba Buena shopping nodes, and the

expansion of arts and cultural facilities in the area. The EIR will contain a discussion of the

consistency of the SFMOMA Expansion with the Plan.

d. East SoMa Area Plan

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located within the East SoMa Area Plan. The

Plan area is irregularly shaped and is generally bounded by Mission Street and Folsom Street on the

north; The Embarcadero on the east; Townsend Street, Harrison Street, and Mission Creek Channel

on the south; and Seventh Street and Fourth Street on the west. The East SoMa Area Plan is one of

four neighborhood plans that were developed or updated as part of the Eastern Neighborhoods

planning process. The Eastern Neighborhoods effort was designed to guide land use change in four of

the eastern neighborhoods subject to the most land use change in a way that would foster the develop-

ment of vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods while stabilizing the conversion of industrial land and

encouraging the production of affordable housing.

The East SoMa Area Plan is intended to accomplish the following goals:

• Encourage an appropriate mix of uses.

• Retain and promote businesses and organizations that contribute to the diversity of the neighbor-

hood.

• Encourage more neighborhood-serving businesses.

• Attract jobs for local residents.

• Encourage a mix of incomes in renter- and owner-occupied housing.

• Increase affordable housing opportunities.



44

• Improve the character of streets and encourage pedestrian safety.

• Improve community facilities and enhance open spaces.

• Offer a variety of transportation options.

• Provide essential community services and facilities.

The EIR will include an analysis of consistency of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project

with policies in the East SoMa Plan.

e. Western SoMa Community Plan

Neither project site is located within the boundaries of the West SoMa Community Plan, but the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located in the vicinity of the Plan area. The Plan area is

irregularly shaped and consists of two connected areas: one generally referred to as “north of Harrison

Street,” roughly bounded by 13th Street to the east, Bryant Street to the south, Seventh Street to the

west, and Minna Street (an alleyway between Mission and Howard Streets) to the north, and the

second area, generally referred to as “south of Harrison Street,” roughly bounded by Townsend Street

to the south, Fourth Street to the east, Harrison Street to the north and Seventh Street to the west. The

West SoMa Area Plan would amend the Western SoMa Special Use District (SUD) and would

implement new planning policies and controls for land use, urban form, building height and design,

the street network, and open space. In general, the goal of the Plan is to maintain the mixed-use

character of the Plan area and preserve existing housing, while encouraging new residential and

resident-serving uses (including affordable housing) within the proposed Residential Enclave

Districts north of Harrison Street. Larger parcels south of Harrison Street would be targeted for local-

and region-serving commercial uses. The West SoMa Plan is currently undergoing environmental

review. The EIR will include discussion of the West SoMa Plan.

3. PROPOSITION M, THE ACCOUNTABLE PLANNING INITIATIVE

In November 1986, the voters of San Francisco approved Proposition M, the Accountable Planning

Initiative, which added Section 101.1 to the Planning Code to establish eight Priority Policies. These

policies are: 1) preservation and enhancement of neighborhood-serving retail uses; 2) protection of

neighborhood character; 3) preservation and enhancement of affordable housing; 4) discouragement



45

of commuter automobiles; 5) protection of industrial and service land uses from commercial office

development and enhancement of resident employment and business ownership; 6) maximization of

earthquake preparedness; 7) landmark and historic building preservation; and 8) protection of open

space. The Priority Policies, which provide general policies and objectives to guide certain land use

decisions, contain certain policies that relate to physical environmental issues. The consistency of the

proposed projects with these policies will be evaluated in the EIR.

4. OTHER PLANS

Environmental plans and policies, like the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and the Sustainability Plan

for San Francisco, directly address physical environmental issues and/or contain standards or targets

that must be met in order to preserve or improve specific components of the City’s physical environ-

ment. The EIR will contain a discussion of project consistency with other applicable plans.

5. ARTS COMMISSION CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW

The proposed Fire Station at the 935 Folsom Street site would be subject to the San Francisco Arts

Commission Civic Design Review process. The Civic Design Review Committee of the Arts Com-

mission is made up of architects, designers, and an art historian who conduct a three-phase review of

new and renovated civic construction projects to ensure the design quality of City structures. Projects

include buildings, viaducts, elevated ways, gates, fences, street furniture, lamps or other structures on

land belonging to the City and County. The Committee also reviews arches, bridges, approaches and

other structures extending over or onto any street, highway, park or other public place belonging to

the City.

The Arts Commission's responsibility for the approval of the design of structures on City property is

identified in Section 5.1003 of the City’s Charter. The Charter gives power to the Commission for the

review and approval of “the design of all public structures, any private structure which extends over

or upon any public property and any yards, courts, setbacks or usable open spaces which are an

integral part of any such structures.” Pursuant to the Administrative Code, Civic Design Review shall

also include review of conceptual designs, site plans, design development and construction drawings

for any project subject to the Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review under Charter Section

5.103(1).



46

This Charter-mandated responsibility is assigned to the Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review

Committee, which is composed of two architects, one landscape architect and one artist/designer. The

three-phase review process ensures that each project's design is appropriate to its context in the urban

environment, and that structures of the highest design quality reflect their civic stature. To this end

the committee will evaluate the design, scale and massing of the Fire Station for accessibility, safety

and aesthetic merit. The Committee's oversight ensures that high levels of design quality are

achieved, prior to the expenditure of large amounts of time and capital in the preparation of detailed

construction documents.

D. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The proposed project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The

following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor. Those

environmental topics for which the proposed project may result in a potentially significant impact

(and which will therefore be discussed in the EIR) and/or for which mitigation would be required to

reduce a significant impact to a less-than-significant level are indicated in the list below.

Land Use Air Quality Biological Resources

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Geology and Soils

Population and Housing Wind and Shadow Hydrology and Water Quality

Cultural and Paleo. Resources

Recreation Hazards/Hazardous Materials

Transportation and Circulation

Utilities and Service Systems

Mineral/Energy Resources

Noise Public Services Agricultural and Forest Resources

Mandatory Findings of Significance

On the basis of this Initial Study, topics for which there are project-specific effects that have been

determined to be potentially significant include: Land Use (cumulative effects); Aesthetics; Cultural



47

and Paleontological Resources; Transportation and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas

Emissions; Wind and Shadow; and Public Services. These topics, along with Compatibility with

Existing Zoning and Plans, will be evaluated in an EIR prepared for the projects. Impacts in other

topical areas would be less than significant; some with the mitigation measures identified in this

Initial Study, and will not be evaluated in the EIR. These topics include: Population and Housing;

Recreation; Utilities and Service Systems; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology and

Water Quality; Hazards/ Hazardous Materials; Minerals/Energy Resources; and Agricultural and

Forestry Resources.

E. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Topics:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

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?

Land use impacts are considered significant if they conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,

or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Land use

impacts are also considered significant if they divide the physical arrangement of an established

community or if they have a substantial impact upon the existing character of the vicinity. As noted in

the Project Description, the SFMOMA Expansion site is located within the C-3-O, Downtown Office



48

Use District; the Heald Building (670 Howard Street) and Hunt Street are located within the C-3-S,

Downtown Support Use District; Fire Station No. 1 (676 Howard Street) is located within the P,

Public Use District; and the proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located

within the MUR, Mixed Use Residential District.

Impact LU-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would not physically divide an existing community. (Less Than Significant)

SFMOMA Expansion: The division of an established community would typically involve the con-

struction of a barrier to neighborhood access (such as a new freeway segment) or the removal of a

means of access (such as a bridge or roadway). The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would involve

the expansion of an existing museum on the existing museum site and two adjacent parcels. As part of

the project, the structures at 670 and 676 Howard Street would be demolished. However, the demoli-

tion of these structures would not change access to the block surrounding the project site. As part of

the project, the short (115 linear foot) segment of Hunt Street that is located between the museum and

the 670 and 676 Howard Street buildings would be vacated and conveyed by the City to SFMOMA.

This segment of Hunt Street is “landlocked” and does not connect to any other public street because

the westerly extension of Hunt Street to Third Street was vacated by the City in the past and the land

conveyed to the developer of the W Hotel. Hunt Street is primarily used by firefighters at Fire Station

No. 1 for surface parking and is infrequently used by pedestrians or individual drivers. Therefore, the

vacation of this street would not be expected to pose access constraints in the vicinity of the project

site and vacation would not disrupt or divide the surrounding neighborhood. However, associated

pedestrian, vehicular and loading access will be evaluated in more detail in the EIR.

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project: The demolition of the existing vacant building at 935

Folsom Street, the proposed subdivision of the subject property on which it is located, and the

replacement of the building with a fire station (fronting Folsom Street) and residential uses fronting

Shipley Street would not divide an established community. No roadways or access routes surrounding

the site would be changed as part of the project, and the site is not used for travel between Folsom

Street and Shipley Street. The project would be constructed entirely on a subdivided lot; all access to

the fire station and the residential structure would occur on the site. Therefore, existing access to the



49

site would not be obstructed or otherwise eliminated, and the proposed fire station and residential

building would not disrupt or divide the neighborhood.


Project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations adopted for the

purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less Than Significant)

As part of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion, 676 Howard Street would be rezoned from P (Public)

to C-3-S (Downtown Support); the fire station portion of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project site (measuring approximately 9,000 square feet or approximately 62.5 percent of the site)

would be rezoned from MUR (Mixed Use Residential) to P. After this rezoning, the proposed

SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation Project would not substantially conflict with any

applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted

for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (such that an adverse physical

change would result). Therefore, the impact would be less than significant, but will be included in the

EIR for informational purposes.


Project could have substantial impacts upon the existing character of the sites’ respective

vicinities. (Potentially Significant)

SFMOMA Expansion: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would not introduce incompatible uses

into the area. The project would result in the demolition of two buildings (the vacant Heald Building

and Fire Station No. 1, which is currently occupied) and the expansion of museum uses. In addition,

the 676 Howard Street property would undergo a change in use from a fire station to part of a larger

museum. In particular, museum uses within and around the existing SFMOMA Expansion site would

intensify: up to 235,000 square feet of interior space would be added to the existing museum (an

approximate doubling of existing square footage) on a larger footprint. However, this expansion of

museum space would not be considered an adverse change to the character of the site or its vicinity.

As stated in the project setting section, the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area, which

encompasses the SFMOMA Expansion site, contains numerous museums and other cultural facilities.



50

The project, in terms of its proposed use, would be in keeping with and would enhance and strengthen

the arts-related character of the area. The loss of property zoned Public would not result in an adverse

impact to land use character because a nearby lot at 935 Folsom Street (approximately 2,000 feet

southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site) would be rezoned to Public and because the presence of a

fire station in this portion of Downtown is not critical to the land use character of the neighborhood

(which is characterized by a wide range of land uses). Downtown San Francisco contains a wide

mixture of uses with substantial visitor-serving potential. Therefore, the project would not result in a

substantial adverse change in land use character.

Similarly, the SFMOMA Expansion would be compatible with the built environment of the surround-

ing block and adjacent areas. The neighborhood surrounding the existing museum currently contains

a mixture of uses and building forms, including predominantly four- to five-story buildings (approxi-

mately 46 to 65 feet) fronting Mission Street, the 42-story St. Regis Hotel and Residences and the 33-

story (316-foot) W Hotel on Third Street and the 26-story 134-140 New Montgomery on New

Montgomery Street. Expansion of the existing museum would introduce a taller and more massive

building than currently exists to the site, but the building form would be similar in scale to many

structures in the vicinity of the site and would not be considered an incompatible building type.

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would result in demolition of the existing vacant building on the project site (formerly used

for a commercial laundry and later for apparel manufacturing) and would replace it with Fire Station

No. 1 and a residential building comprising five stories, including four above-grade levels (45 feet in

height). The portion of the site containing the relocated fire station would be rezoned to P, Public.

Therefore, the land use on the site would change. Introducing another land use – in this case a fire

station and residential building – into a mixed-use neighborhood containing a diversity of uses would

not result in a significant adverse change to the land use character of the general area (although the

loss of PDR space may be considered an adverse change to land use character, as discussed below).

The physical impacts of introducing a fire station on the site are addressed in the appropriate sections

of this Initial Study. The EIR will include a detailed evaluation of the impacts of the Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project on San Francisco Fire Department emergency response services.



51

Because the fire station would front onto Folsom Street, which contains predominantly parking and

service-oriented commercial uses (e.g., auto body shops, tire shop, gas station, and leather goods) in

the vicinity of the project site, it would not represent an incompatible land use in the context of the

built environment on the block surrounding the site and its immediate surroundings. Two and three-

story residential buildings (generally ranging from 24 to 36 feet in height) line Shipley Street behind

the project parcel and the residential building on the southern portion of the Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project site would function as a transition between more active uses along Folsom

Street and the predominantly residential Shipley Street frontage. The rezoning of the northern portion

of the site (measuring approximately 9,000 square feet or approximately 62.5 percent of the site) to

Public in order to reflect the public use of the fire station would not adversely affect the character of

the area because of the mixed use nature of the neighborhood (and the need for public services in the

neighborhood). Similarly, the proposed residential structure would be consistent with the Mixed Use

Residential Use District and would be designed to meet applicable planning requirements, including

height, parking, and open space requirements. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial

adverse change in land use character in the context of the built form of the block surrounding the site

and its immediate vicinity. However, this issue will be evaluated in more detail in the EIR.

The demolition of the PDR building (formerly used for a commercial laundry and later as an apparel

sewing factory) could contribute to a City-wide loss of PDR building space. Therefore, adverse

impacts to land use character could occur, and this issue and others will be evaluated in more detail in

the EIR.


Project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future project in the

vicinity of these sites could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to land use.

(Potentially Significant)

Cumulative land use impacts could result from changes in land use associated with the SFMOMA

Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, combined with potential land use-

changes associated with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in surrounding areas.



52

Development at the two sites would intensify land uses, but would result in new uses that are

consistent with surrounding uses.

The SFMOMA Expansion would result in the intensification of cultural uses on the site and would

contribute to the concentration of cultural amenities in Downtown and the South of Market

neighborhood in general. The SFMOMA Expansion would contribute to cumulative change in the

built environment through the demolition of the four-story Heald Building located at 670 Howard

Street and the two-story Fire Station No. 1 building located at 676 Howard Street, and the

development of a larger museum on the site.

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would result in the construction of a fire station

(fronting onto the commercial- and PDR-oriented Folsom Street) and a new residential building

(fronting Shipley Street, which has a more residential character), which are generally consistent with

growth anticipated to occur in the area. However, implementation of the Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project would result in the demolition of the PDR building (formerly used as an apparel

sewing factory), which could contribute to a City-wide loss of PDR building space. Therefore,

adverse cumulative land use impacts could occur, and this issue and others will be evaluated in more

detail in the EIR. This cumulative analysis will take into account the environmental analyses of other

major projects in the vicinity, including the EIRs prepared for the Transit Center District Plan and

Transit Tower, Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans, and Downtown Plan.

Based on the discussion above, the proposed project could contribute, in a considerable manner, to a

cumulative loss of PDR building space. Therefore, the EIR will include a discussion of land use and

the project’s consistency with applicable planning and zoning policies and regulations.



53

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

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?

Due to its topography, surrounding water bodies, and system of gridded streets, San Francisco has

many scenic views. In most of the City, these views are defined by trees, structures, and other

elements of the built or natural landscape. The Urban Design Element of the General Plan places

significant emphasis on the protection of views of open space and water bodies. Scenic vistas are

most expansive from the numerous hilltops in San Francisco.

Impact AE-1a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion could adversely affect scenic vistas.


The flat topography and concentration of skyscrapers around the SFMOMA Expansion site limit

scenic views in the vicinity of the site. In general, the vicinity of the site contains limited views of the

San Francisco Bay or open space areas. Yerba Buena Island is partially visible in the distance in an

easterly direction along Howard Street; it is partially obscured by the San Francisco Transbay

Terminal ramp. Views around the SFMOMA Expansion site are generally confined to the buildings



54

of Downtown San Francisco and lower-rise neighborhoods to the south. SFMOMA is most visible

from Minna Street and points along Third Street, in addition to Yerba Buena Gardens (where it

functions as a noted visual feature).

None of the streets bordering the project site are considered “Street Areas Important to Urban Design

and Views” in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Third Street and Howard Street in the

vicinity of the site are identified as streets having a “Good/Excellent” and “Good” quality, respec-

tively, of street views in the Urban Design Element (the top/middle and middle of the three rankings).

The most prominent open space within the vicinity of the site is the Yerba Buena Gardens.

However, given the proposed museum expansion’s proposed size (up to 235,000 square feet of new

interior space), height (up to 320 feet) and location, it may have the potential to alter views and vistas

in an adverse manner. The EIR will include visual simulations from a number of publicly accessible

viewpoints in order to evaluate the change on public views and vistas. Thus, the museum expansion

may have a potential adverse effect on scenic vistas and this topic will be evaluated in detail in the

EIR.

Impact AE-1b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not adversely

affect scenic vistas. (Less Than Significant)

The flat topography and preponderance of one- to five-story buildings (extending up to approximately

60 feet) in the vicinity of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing site limit scenic views in the

vicinity of the site. Refer to Figure 18 for east- and west-facing views in the vicinity of the site along

Folsom Street. In general, the vicinity of the site contains no expansive views of the San Francisco

Bay or open space areas. However, the relatively low-rise nature of the area allows for wide-open

views of the sky and the upper reaches of the City’s tall buildings and hills. In the vicinity of the

project site, views of buildings in Downtown San Francisco and Mission Bay are available to the

north, east, and south; views of the upper reaches of Potrero Hill, Bernal Heights, and Twin Peaks are

available to the south and west. Folsom Street in the vicinity of the site has limited and narrow views

of San Francisco Bay to the east and upper Market Street and Twin Peaks to the west.



55

None of the streets bordering the project site are considered “Street Areas Important to Urban Design

and Views” in the Urban Design Element of the General Plan. Folsom Street is identified as a street

having an “Average” quality of street views in the Urban Design Element (the lowest of three

rankings).

The proposed project would replace the existing 25-foot-tall building on the site with two buildings:

an approximately 34-foot fire station on the north side of the site and an approximately 45-foot

residential structure on the south side of the site. Although the new structures would be visible from

public viewpoints along Folsom Street, Shipley Street, Falmouth Street, and other nearby points,

these buildings would not degrade important view corridors or block scenic vistas, because none exist

in the area. The buildings would be located entirely within the existing lot line and would not pro-

trude into the view corridor of the public rights-of-way. Although the proposed Fire Station Reloca-

tion and Housing Project buildings would be taller than the existing structure they would replace, no

scenic views would be blocked since limited views are only available along an east/west transect on

Folsom Street (views to the north and south are not available through the project site). The two

proposed structures would be visible from the South of Market Recreation Center, and from streets in

the vicinity of the project site, but the change in view associated with the project would not be

considered substantial or adverse because the change would not degrade a view corridor or scenic

vista.

The proposed project could also change views from private residences in the vicinity of the project

site, including residences south of the site along Shipley Street and taller residential buildings within

a two- or three-block radius of the site (i.e., several hundred feet). The changes in views from private

residences (such as 239 to 249 Shipley Street) could include a small reduction in the currently avail-

able views, which could possibly reduce views of the sky and buildings. However, existing views

from these residences are not expected to include hillside or San Francisco Bay views due to the

height and orientation of the residential structures and the narrow width of Shipley Street (approxi-

mately 35 feet). These altered views would be limited due to the relatively low scale of the proposed

buildings in the context of similarly scaled buildings in the vicinity (such as the three/four-story

buildings located at 965 Folsom Street and 250 Clara Street) and would be an unavoidable conse-

quence of the proposed project. Changes to views would consist of a foreshortening of existing views



56

available from an already narrow set of streets (including Shipley Street and Falmouth Street).

Although these changes in views may be considered undesirable by some individuals, given the site’s

densely developed setting and limited extent of reduction in private views, the impact of the proposed

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project on private views would not be considered a significant

impact. Therefore, the impacts of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project on scenic vistas

will not be evaluated in the EIR.

Impact AE-2: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would not substantially adversely affect scenic resources. (Less Than Significant)

Scenic resources include trees, rock outcroppings, and other landscape features that contribute to the

scenic character of a public area. In the Urban Design Element of the General Plan, visual resources

that are given added protection – and that ostensibly are considered “scenic resources” – include

beaches and other natural areas, hillsides, and San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. No scenic

resources are located in the immediate vicinity of the project sites, and because the projects’ potential

effects to visual resources are generally limited to the site and its immediate surroundings, the

projects would not adversely affect off-site scenic resources. In both the SFMOMA Expansion and

Fire Station Relocation and Housing project sites, existing buildings or paved surfaces cover the

entire site. Therefore, there are no trees, rock outcroppings, or other natural landscape features that

would be considered scenic resources within the project sites. The buildings located at 670 and 676

Howard Street (the Heald Building and Fire Station No. 1, respectively) are considered potential

historic resources by nature of their contribution to historic districts.8, 9 The relationship of the

proposed SFMOMA Expansion building to the aesthetic character of buildings surrounding

SFMOMA on the Third and Howard Street block faces will be analyzed in the EIR.

8 Historic Resource Study, 15 Hunt Street (670 Howard Street), Page & Turnbull, July 24, 2009. This document is

available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.

9 Historic Resource Evaluation, 676 Howard Street, Page & Turnbull, May 10, 2010. This document is available for




57

The building located at 935 Folsom Street, which was constructed in 1923 and was previously used as

a commercial laundry and later as an apparel sewing factory, is also identified as a potential historic

resource.10 Associated cultural resources impacts will be evaluated in more detail in the EIR (refer to

Section E.4, Cultural and Paleontological Resources). However, the building does not represent a

superior or unique architectural specimen such that it would be considered a scenic resource.

Therefore, the demolition of the structure would not have a significant effect on a scenic resource,

and this issue will not be evaluated in the EIR.

Impact AE-3a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion may substantially affect the visual

character of the project site and its surroundings. (Potentially Significant)

As described in the Project Setting, the SFMOMA Expansion site is located in the Yerba Buena

Center Redevelopment Project Area, which is immediately west of the project site and contains

numerous museums, performance space, galleries and other cultural facilities. The visual quality of

the neighborhood around the site is also characterized by buildings that extend to the sidewalk and

range greatly in height, from the Heald Building (four stories) and SFMOMA building itself (five

stories) to the W Hotel (33 stories), and St. Regis Hotel and Residences (42 stories). The architecture

of the area is varied, with modern skyscrapers adjacent to lower-scale buildings (many with ground-

floor retail uses and offices on upper floors) post-dating the 1906 earthquake. Third Street and

Howard Street are busy with pedestrian activity and vehicle traffic during business hours, which

contribute to the area’s aesthetic character.

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would alter the visual character of the site and its surroundings

through demolition of two small scale buildings (670 and 676 Howard Street), and construction of up

to 235,000 square feet of new interior space. The project would result in a change to the visual

character of Third Street, Howard Street, and Minna Street, and may alter views from public places,

such as from Yerba Buena Gardens. The EIR will include visual simulations and will analyze the

proposed museum expansion’s effect on the visual character of its site and surroundings.

10 935 Folsom Street Eligibility for Listing in the California Register, Page & Turnbull, November 18, 2009. This




58

Impact AE-3b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not

substantially affect the visual character of its site and surroundings. (Less Than Significant)

The visual quality of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing site is characterized by the pattern of

surface parking lots, and commercial and other uses along Folsom Street, and lofts and apartment

buildings in the vicinity, some of which are of recent construction. The mix of open surface parking

lots, newer residential and live/work uses, and older industrial and commercial buildings bestows the

area with a dynamic visual character – one that is frequently subject to change. Newer, modern

residential structures alongside older buildings lend visual interest to the area.

Public open spaces near the project site include the South of Market Recreation Center and Victoria

Manalo Draves Park, which are located 0.2 of a mile southwest of the project site, respectively.

Howard Langton Park is located approximately 0.3 of a mile to the west of the site along Howard

Street. Yerba Buena Gardens and the Moscone Center are located approximately 0.2 of a mile to the

northeast and east of the site, respectively. The project site is visible from the South of Market

Recreation Center, but is not visible from other parks due to intervening structures.

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located along Folsom Street, in a relatively

flat portion of the City. Views of the project site in the area are limited to locations close to the site.

The existing building is visible from points along Folsom Street, Falmouth Street, and Shipley Street,

and from Fifth Street approximately one block north of Folsom Street. The existing view of the site is

of a one-story (with mezzanine) building that was constructed in 1923 and that was formerly occupied

by a commercial laundry operation and later as an apparel sewing factory.

The visual character of the project site and its vicinity is characterized by buildings generally ranging

from one to five stories (approximately 12 to 60 feet in height), with a mixture of uses and dates of

construction. In addition, surface parking lots are located throughout the area, which represent voids

in an otherwise uniform streetscape characterized by buildings extending to the public sidewalk.

A project would have a significant effect on aesthetic character if it would significantly degrade the

visual character or quality of a project site or its surroundings. The removal of the existing vacant



59

building on the site would change the visual character of the area, but not in a substantial or adverse

way because the existing building is not considered a superior architectural specimen that substan-

tially contributes to the visual quality of the site. The proposed fire station and residential building

would be of a contemporary character and scale and mass that are similar to those of other buildings

in the neighborhood. The fire station building would be approximately 34 feet in height; the residen-

tial building would be approximately 45 feet in height. The height of both buildings would be within

the pattern of extant building heights that characterize the neighborhood.


Project would not result in the creation of substantial new sources of light and glare. (Less

Than Significant)

In the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites,

existing buildings (including SFMOMA itself), streetlights, and illuminated signs all contribute to

nighttime lighting. In addition, windows contribute to glare. Many office buildings in Downtown are

illuminated at night, resulting in higher overall levels of light and glare compared to the Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project site. The proposed projects would increase the height and bulk of the

SFMOMA building on the site, result in the construction of two new buildings on the Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project site, and may increase existing nighttime lighting and glare levels.

However, this increase would not be considered significant. Exterior lighting, including illuminated

signage, would be designed in accordance with the Building Code. Lighting would thus be low glare

and would be directed downward to minimize light spillover in adjacent areas and in the public right-

of-way. The final design of the proposed structures would also be consistent with Planning Commis-

sion Resolution 9212, which prohibits the use of mirrored or reflective glass. Therefore, buildings

constructed as part of the proposed projects would not result in light or glare such that a significant

impact would result.

The relocation of Fire Station No. 1 to 935 Folsom Street would introduce light and glare associated

with Fire Department operations (i.e., flashing lights/sirens, and illumination in the garages). Accord-

ing to Fire Department Assistant Deputy Chief Thomas Doudiet, “the first choice of firefighters

responding to an urgent alarm (we call this a “code 3” response) is the use of the flashing red



60

lights.”11 Therefore, uses in the vicinity of the relocated fire station could be exposed to flashing

lights associated with Fire Department vehicles responding to emergency calls. However, these

flashing lights would be intermittent and their effects would be of short duration in any given

location. There may also be spillover light from the fire station’s garages, but the potential for glare

would occur only when the garage doors are open. While such lights could be considered a minor

nuisance, they are a typical component of the urban visual environment and operation of this type of

public service, and would not substantially contribute in a considerable manner to light or glare.

Therefore, light and glare associated with the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project would be less than significant and will not be addressed in the EIR.


Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in their

vicinities, could have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects related to scenic views and

resources, and visual character. (Potentially Significant)

Cumulative aesthetics impacts would result from changes in the visual setting associated with the

SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, combined with aesthetics-

related effects associated with other past, present, or reasonable foreseeable projects in surrounding

areas, such as, for example, the proposed 706 Mission Street project at the northwest corner of

Mission Street and Third Street, as well as mixed-use commercial/residential buildings on the north-

west corner of Folsom Street and Fifth Street. These projects, in combination with other known or

foreseeable projects, could change the visual environments of their site, and contribute to changes in

neighborhood character and viewsheds. These impacts will be evaluated in more detail in the EIR.

11 Personal communication with Thomas Doudiet, Captain, San Francisco Fire Department, August 25, 2010. This




61

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

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?

Impact PH-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would not induce substantial population growth in San Francisco, either directly or

indirectly. (Less Than Significant)

San Francisco consistently ranks as one of the most expensive housing markets in the United States.

It is a central city in an attractive region known for its agreeable climate, open space, recreational

opportunities, cultural amenities, a strong and diverse economy, and prominent educational institu-

tions. These factors continue to support strong housing demand in the City. Providing new housing to

meet this strong demand is particularly difficult because the amount of land available for residential

development is limited, and land and development costs are high.



62

The U.S. Census estimated the year 2000 population of San Francisco at 776,733.12 (The California

Department of Finance estimates the current population of San Francisco at 856,095.)13 As shown in

Table 5, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projected that San Francisco would have

a population of 810,000 by year 2010, with 346,680 households and 568,730 jobs, and that by 2030,

the City will have a population of 934,800, with 400,700 households and 748,100 jobs.14 Based on

these projections, ABAG expects an increase of 54,020 households and an increase of 179,370 jobs

between 2010 and 2030.

Table 5: San Francisco Projections 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Population 776,733 795,800 810,000 837,500 867,100 900,500 934,800

Households 329,700 338,920 346,680 359,170 372,750 386,800 400,700

Persons Per Households 2.30 2.29 2.28 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.28

Jobs 942,500 553,090 568,730 606,540 647,190 694,830 748,100

Source: Building Momentum, Projections and Priorities 2009, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. This

document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.

In May 2008, ABAG projected the Bay Area’s need for housing based on its Regional Housing Needs

Determination (RHND) 2007-2014 allocation. The RHND estimated the City will need to provide

31,193 new dwelling units between 2007 and 2014, or an average of 4,456 net new dwelling units per

year.15 The 2007-2008 annual housing production in San Francisco was 6,483 units. With these units

12 Building Momentum, Projections and Priorities 2009, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. This


13 E-1: State/County Population Estimates With Annual Population Change, California Department of Finance,

May, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and

2010.0275E.

14 Ibid.

15 San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007-2014, Association of Bay Area Governments, Adopted

May 15, 2008. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and

2010.0275E.



63

along with estimated units under construction, entitled or in the City’s planning pipeline, it is

anticipated that the City will meet its projected regional housing need goal.16

SFMOMA Expansion. There are no housing units within the SFMOMA Expansion site. According to

SFMOMA, the museum currently employs approximately 213 full-time-equivalent employees

(FTEs). In addition, SFMOMA uses the services of docents, volunteers, interns, on-site consultants

and contractors, and security personnel totaling the equivalent of 170 FTEs. Taking into account all

types of employment, there are currently 383 FTEs employed at SFMOMA. Upon completion of the

expansion, SFMOMA anticipates an approximately 23 percent increase in FTEs, to a total of 470 FTE

employees (including 267 SFMOMA employees and 203 docents, volunteers, interns, on-site consult-

ants and contractors, and security personnel). Please refer to Table 2 for a summary of existing and

projected employment at SFMOMA.

Although the proposed museum expansion would not include the development of housing on its site,

it could indirectly cause an incremental increase in population within San Francisco and other Bay

Area counties through housing demand created by employment growth. Upon completion of the

SFMOMA Expansion project, SFMOMA would have approximately 470 FTEs (including all types of

employees), 87 more FTEs than currently employed by the museum. As part of the SFMOMA

Expansion project, about 100 employees would also relocate from the SFMOMA’s “annex” (support

building) at 667 Mission Street to work within the expanded museum building. Therefore, project-

related employment growth would account for less than 0.2 percent of citywide employment growth

between 2010 and the year 2015, assuming that all employees in the project would be new to San

Francisco; in reality, some workers at the project would be likely to relocate from other jobs in San

Francisco. This potential increase in employment would be minimal in the context of the total

employment in greater San Francisco.

Based on a nexus study prepared for the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program (Planning Code Sections

313 et. seq.), the project would create demand for about 33 new dwelling units in San Francisco,

16 Draft Housing Element of the General Plan, City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, 2009. This




64

assuming that all SFMOMA employees would be new to San Francisco. (As noted above, some

workers would likely relocate from other jobs in San Francisco.)17 This demand for 33 dwelling units

would add to existing strong housing demand in the City – some of which could be offset by the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project’s proposed residential component, which would provide for

up to 13 dwelling units at the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site, about 2,000 feet

southwest of SFMOMA.

Housing demand in and of itself is not a physical environmental effect, but an imbalance between

local employment and housing can lead to long commutes with traffic and air quality impacts. Traffic

and air quality issues will both be analyzed in the EIR.

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project. The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project

includes the construction of a new fire station at 935 Folsom Street and relocation of 13 existing fire

station employees from 676 Howard Street to 935 Folsom Street; the proposed relocation of the fire

station would not alter the current number of fire station employees. In addition, the Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project includes the development of up to 13 housing units at 935 Folsom

Street, adding 13 housing units to San Francisco's housing stock. Using the average household

occupancy rate of 1.70 for Census Tract 178 (in which the subject property is located) the estimated

population of the proposed housing project would be about 22 new residents.18

In general, a project would be considered growth-inducing if its implementation would result in

substantial population increases and/or new development in other nearby areas that might occur if the

17 This method uses the estimated SFMOMA Expansion-related increase in FTE employment (87 FTEs), divided by

the percentage of San Francisco employees that live in the City (55 percent). The resulting number – 48 employees – is the

approximate number of employees generated by the project who would live in San Francisco. Dividing this number by the

average number of San Francisco workers in households where San Francisco workers reside (1.47 for Census Tract 179.01,

in which SFMOMA is located) yields an expected increased demand for 33 housing units.

18 Table QT-H3, Household Population and Household Type by Tenure. Website: factfinder.census.gov/

servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=14000US06075017800&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF2_U_QTH3&-ds_name=D&-

_lang=en, U.S. Census 2000, Viewed on June 22, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in

Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.



65

project were not approved and implemented, particularly if the project would facilitate growth by

removing a major obstacle to development in a particular area (such as by provision of major new

public services to an area where those services are currently not available).

Neither the estimated 87 new SFMOMA FTEs nor the approximately 22 potential future residents at

the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site would generate substantial population growth.

Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.


Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing units or create

demand for additional housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. (No

Impact)

There are no existing housing units on the SFMOMA Expansion site or the Fire Station Relocation

and Housing site. Therefore, development of the proposed projects would not displace housing units

or people.

As described above, the SFMOMA Expansion could create demand for approximately 33 dwelling

units in San Francisco by 2015. These new dwelling units would account for approximately 0.1

percent of San Francisco’s RHND 2007-2014 allocation. It is anticipated that the City could

accommodate this relatively small increase in demand for new housing if the SFMOMA Expansion

were implemented.

The 13 residential units that would be constructed as part of the proposed Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project would directly add about 22 new residents to the City’s population. Project-related

population growth within San Francisco would account for 0.08 percent of the City’s projected

population growth of 27,500 between 2010 and 2015. While potentially noticeable to immediately

adjacent neighbors, this increase would not substantially increase the existing area-wide population.

Therefore, the proposed project would not induce significant City-wide population growth.



66

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not have

significant physical environmental effects on population or housing. Population and housing issues

associated with the projects will therefore not be further evaluated in the EIR.


Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the

vicinity, would have a less-than-significant impact on population and housing. (Less Than

Significant).

The SFMOMA Expansion would result in approximately 87 additional FTEs, which could result in a

demand for approximately 33 new housing units in San Francisco. The residential component of the

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would result in 13 new residences (and 13 new

households).

However, this potential increase in population would be less than significant relative to projected

increases in population by 2030 and would not be considered a considerable contribution to

population growth. New employees generated by the two projects would not create the need for

substantial additional housing, and no residents would be displaced from the project sites. For these

reasons, the impacts of the projects on population and housing would be considered less than

significant. The projects would not make a significant contribution to potential cumulative effects

related to population, as the projects would not result in substantial housing and population

displacement, or create housing demand that would likely be unmet.

The proposed projects, together with planned and foreseeable projects within the vicinity of the

project sites (see Table 4), would add approximately 508 residential units to San Francisco (not

including long-term-stay hotel uses). These projects would incrementally add to San Francisco’s

housing supply and meet some of the existing demand for housing. Considered within the context of

regional housing needs projected by ABAG, this increase in the City’s housing stock would not be

considered significant or adverse, and could benefit housing affordability in San Francisco (by

increasing housing supply). Many of the planned residential projects will contain affordable housing

units or would be required to address affordable housing development through in lieu payments or



67

other means as required by the Planning Code. These projects would not have a significant impact on

cumulative population and housing growth in the project vicinity or San Francisco, and overall the

proposed projects would not considerably contribute to cumulative population and housing impacts.

There is a shortage of affordable housing in the City and this deficit is an existing condition. The

development of up to 10 market-rate residential units and 3 below-market-rate (BMR) units, as

required by the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and the SoMa Youth and Family Special

Use District, would not contribute in a considerable manner to a cumulative citywide shortfall in

affordable housing. Overall, the proposed project’s impacts related to population and housing, both

individually and cumulatively, would be less than significant.

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

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?



68

Impact CP-1a: The SFMOMA Expansion would result in the demolition of the existing Fire

Station No. 1 (676 Howard Street) and 670 Howard Street building, both of which may be

considered historically significant for the purposes of CEQA. Therefore, the project could

result in potentially significant impacts on historic architectural resources. (Potentially

Significant)

a. Individually-Eligible and Contributory Resources

The building at 676 Howard Street, also known as San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) Station

No.1, is located on the north side of Howard Street, between New Montgomery Street and Third

Streets. Completed in 1958, the reinforced concrete firehouse is designed in the International Style. It

is categorized by the San Francisco Planning Department as a “Category B” building (meaning it

requires further information and consultation) for the purposes of CEQA because the building was

constructed in 1958 and is over fifty years of age but possesses no known historic ratings.

The building at 670 Howard Street, also known as 15 Hunt Street, is located on the north side of

Howard Street and is the neighbor to the east of 676 Howard Street, Station No. 1 and was con-

structed just after the 1906 earthquake. The structure is a three-story heavy timber-frame brick-clad

industrial building. It was identified on the Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (UMB) Survey, was

rated a “C**” on the Heritage Downtown Survey, and was designated a Category V (Unrated, or

Non-Contributory) building as part of the Downtown Plan. A survey prepared by the architectural

consulting firm Kelley & VerPlanck assigned the building a rating of, “1/3CD - Appears eligible for

the CR (California Record) as a contributor to a California Register of Historic Places-eligible district

through a survey evaluation.” The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Commission adopted the

Planning Department’s findings related to the context statement and the survey conducted by Kelley

& VerPlanck, dated September 2008. It is categorized as a “Category 1/ A” building (Known Historic

Resource) for the purposes of CEQA because the building is identified as a contributor to a district on

an adopted survey.

The existing SFMOMA building was constructed in 1995 and designed by Mario Botta. Although the

architecture of the building is distinguished, it is not considered a historic resource, based on its age.



69

b. Historic Districts

There are two historic districts in the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion site (although neither

district encompasses the site):

• The New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District. This District is associated with the

reconstruction of San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood after the massive 1906 earth-

quake and fire. The District, which is an Article 11 District established as part of the Downtown

Area Plan, extends southward from Market Street, generally encompassing both sides of Second

and New Montgomery Street, as far south as Howard Street. The San Francisco Planning Depart-

ment is proposing to expand the District as part of the Transit Center District Plan. The expanded

District would encompass areas along both sides of Mission Street between New Montgomery

Street and Third Street (except the northeast corner of Third Street and Mission Street) and would

cross Third Street to include the Aronson Building (700 Mission Street) on the northwest corner

of Third Street and Mission Street. The District would also extend westward on Natoma Street to

Hunt Street, but would not encompass the SFMOMA Expansion site.

• The Second and Howard Streets National Register District. This District, which is generally

contained within the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District, is also associated

with reconstruction after the 1906 earthquake and fire, united by buildings designed in the Com-

mercial Style with limited Renaissance-Baroque ornament. The District is generally bounded by

properties bordering Minna Street on the north; properties bordering Second Street and Malden

Alley on the east; Tehama Street and Howard Street on the south; and New Montgomery Street

on the west.

The EIR will evaluate indirect impacts associated with the SFMOMA Expansion on these two

historic districts (including the potentially expanded New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation

District).

Fire Station No. 1 is a contributing resource to a potential 1952 Firehouse Bond Act Thematic

Historic District. This Thematic Historic District would also comprise 14 other fire stations con-

structed within 4 to 5 years after passage of a bond measure in 1952, which allowed for the moderni-

zation of fire houses across San Francisco. The demolition of Fire Station No. 1 could result in a



70

significant adverse effect to the integrity of the potential thematic district. This potential impact, and

others concerning historic resources, will be addressed in the EIR.

The demolition of the Heald Building (670 Howard Street) could have an indirect impact on the

historic integrity of the nearby New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District, which may be

expanded as part of the creation of the Transit Center District Plan, as described above. Because the

SFMOMA Expansion project would result in demolition of two buildings identified as potential

historic resources to accommodate a site for its future expansion, the project may result in significant

adverse effect to historical resources. Therefore, these potential effects will be evaluated in the EIR.

Impact CP-1b: The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would result in the demolition

of the existing building at 935 Folsom Street, which is considered historically significant for the

purposes of CEQA. Therefore, the project would have a potentially significant impact on

historic architectural resources. (Potentially Significant)

The existing building on the Fire Station relocation site (935 Folsom Street), which was constructed

in 1923 and was previously used as a commercial laundry and later as an apparel sewing factory, is

identified as a potential historic resource.19 The Planning Department has determined that the

building may be eligible for listing in the California Register based on its association with the

redevelopment of the South of Market neighborhood following the 1906 earthquake and fire, as well

as for its representation of industrial architecture designed by a notable local architect.20 Therefore,

potential adverse effects on historical resources associated with the demolition of the existing 935

Folsom Street building will be evaluated in the EIR.

Impact CP-2: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project could result in damage to, or destruction of, as-yet unknown archaeological or human

19 935 Folsom Street Eligibility for Listing in the California Register, Page & Turnbull, November 18, 2009. This


20 Historic Resources Evaluation Response, 935 Folsom Street, San Francisco Planning Department, April 30, 2009.

This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2009.0291E.



71

remains, should such remains exist beneath the project site. (Less Than Significant With

Mitigation Incorporated)

The following discussion is based on Preliminary Archaeological Review conducted for the project

sites, and includes a summary of the geophysical setting of the sites as it relates to archaeological

resources, the history of the sites, and the potential of the sites to contain archaeological resources,

including human remains.21

Geophysical Setting. The SFMOMA Expansion site and the Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project site are located in an area that was subject to vacillating periods of stable and unstable sand

dune activity and sea level change during the Holocene Period. The Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project site is located within a former high tidal marsh (Sullivan Marsh) that gradually

expanded westward beyond Mission and Seventh Streets within the last 4,000 years. The area north of

this large wetland became a place of dense prehistoric settlement and use during a period of relative

sand dune stability, beginning 2,000 years before present (BP) and ending 1,000 years BP. Beginning

approximately around 1,000 years BP, this part of San Francisco experienced a roughly 700-year

period of intermittent sand dune activity that appears to have rendered the area currently known as

SOMA less attractive to Native Americans, based on the sparsity of indigenous occupation during this

period and the apparent abandonment of former settlements.

History of Project Sites. The dunes also served to retard the development of infrastructure and

construction of portions of SOMA during the early Gold Rush period (1848-1850). It appears that by

or during the 1860s the SFMOMA Expansion site had been graded and the Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project site had been drained and filled for structures containing housing and possibly

ground-floor commercial establishments. Both project sites currently have basements, the construc-

tion of which may have disturbed some portion of historic archaeological deposits/features that may

have been present.

21 MEA Preliminary Archaeological Review: Checklist, San Francisco Planning Department, October 7, 2010. This




72

During the early Gold Rush period, the SFMOMA Expansion site was situated along the western

edge of a tent and shanty encampment area known as Happy Valley. Grading and filling of this area

accelerated after 1853, following the City’s adoption of a second system of street grades. The Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site probably remained unimproved marsh land adjoining the

timber platform and piles of the Folsom Street causeway until at least the 1860s. From the late 1880s

until the end of the 19th century the SFMOMA Expansion site contained a row of three two-story

dwellings along Howard Street. In addition, a two-story building on Howard Street was used for

wood and coal sales with lodgings above. Hunt Street contained smaller, more modest two-story

dwellings. During this same period, the Fire Station Relocation and Housing project site contained

generally two-story dwellings along Folsom, Shipley, and Falmouth streets. At the corner of Shipley

and Falmouth Streets was a two-story building with a saloon at ground level. The buildings located at

929 Folsom Street were used for some type of industrial purpose related to dyeing and cleaning. Both

the SFMOMA Expansion site and the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site are located

within the area burned by the fire following the 1906 Earthquake.

Archaeological Sensitivity. There are two sedimentary layers within the SFMOMA Expansion site

that have a high potential to contain prehistoric archaeological deposits: native sand deposits and the

upper few feet of the Colma Formation. Within SOMA, late Holocene to historic period sand dunes

sometimes contain weakly developed buried soils (paleosols) that have formed a stable land surface

for use by prehistoric populations, even when the sand dune formations have occurred over older

marsh plains as with the Yerba Buena/Surprise/Moscone Shellmound, and as also is the case with the

SFMOMA Expansion site. Within the SFMOMA Expansion site, archaeologically sensitive sand

dune deposits occur at a depth of 10 feet and greater (to a depth of 27 feet below the ground surface

(bgs) in the eastern portion of the site to a depth of 28 feet to 36 feet bgs in the western portion of the

site). Archaeological geoprobing of the SFMOMA Expansion site may permit more localized

identification of buried soils or midden deposits. The second geological unit of high archaeological

sensitivity in the SFMOMA Expansion site is the upper portion of the Colma Formation, a well

developed buried soil generally dating from the Pleistocene to early or middle Holocene age, resulting

from stabilized sand dunes. Although Colma Formation deposits generally pre-date documented

prehistoric occupation of the Bay Area, in some cases the upper, more recently-formed portions of

this geological unit are contemporaneous with the presence of prehistoric populations. The only



73

documented archaeological site within the Colma Formation in San Francisco is the Middle Holocene

human remains discovered 75 feet bgs in the Civic Center BART Station in former marsh deposits

over dense sand deposits of the Colma Formation (CA-SFR-28), dated to nearly 6,000 years BP. The

SFMOMA Expansion site, like SFR-28, has marsh deposits overlying Colma Formation deposits.

Within the site, the strata of moderate to high archaeological sensitivity for older prehistoric deposits

is the upper 3 feet of the Colma Formation found at a depth of 28 feet to 32 feet bgs in the eastern part

of the site and at a depth of 30 feet to 36 feet bgs in the western part of the site. Excavation to

approximately 19 to 20 feet bgs would be required as part of the SFMOMA Expansion (and soil

strengthening activities could occur below that depth). Therefore, archaeologically-sensitive dune

deposits on the site may be encountered during construction of the project and associated archaeologi-

cal materials may be damaged or destroyed. Historic-period archaeological deposits within deposits in

closer proximity to the surface could also be affected by project-related construction activities.

There is a moderate potential that prehistoric deposits may be present within two geological units

underlying the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site: beach sand deposits and marsh

deposits. The identification of native beach sand deposits below the historic fill beginning at a depth

of 10 feet to 20 feet bgs could be explained by the historical ecology of the site, which indicates that

within the historical period marshland in the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site fronted

on a slough that cut through the marsh until it reached the Mission Creek estuary. There is the

possibility that within such an ecologically rich locus for prehistoric populations associated with any

of the several nearby prehistoric settlements in SOMA, these sand formations may have served as a

platform for a variety of resource procurement or processing activities. Marsh deposits that occur at a

depth of 17-18 feet bgs have a low to moderate potential to contain prehistoric deposits since marsh

deposits do not provide a stable land surface. However, as was the case with CA-SFR-28, archaeo-

logical deposits can be well preserved within marsh deposits. The Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project would require excavation to a depth of 10 feet below grade (and soil strengthening

activities could occur below that depth). Therefore, marsh deposits may be encountered during

construction activities and associated archaeological materials could be damaged or destroyed.

Historic-period archaeological deposits within deposits in closer proximity to the surface could also

be affected by project-related construction activities.



74

There are 14 documented prehistoric sites within a two-block radius of the SFMOMA Expansion site,

nearly all of which are shell middens. There are two recorded prehistoric sites within two blocks of

the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site. The State Historic Preservation Office recently

determined that seven of the prehistoric sites comprise an archaeological district. In addition, human

remains have been encountered in four of the prehistoric sites located in the vicinity of the SFMOMA

Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites. Therefore, construction activity on

the two sites could damage or destroy prehistoric human remains.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce damage to or destruction of

archaeological resources, including human remains, to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure M-CP-2 (applies to SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project): Based on a reasonable presumption that archaeological resources may be

present within the project site, the following measures shall be undertaken to avoid any poten-

tially significant adverse effect from the proposed project on buried or submerged historical

resources. The project sponsor shall retain the services of an archaeological consultant from the

Planning Department (Department) pool of qualified archaeological consultants as provided by

the Department archaeologist. The archaeological consultant shall undertake an archaeological

testing program as specified herein. In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an

archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery program if required pursuant to this measure.

The archaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the

direction of the Environmental Review Officer (ERO). [For the SFMOMA Expansion, the

archaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this mitigation

measure, and with the requirements of the project archaeological research design and treatment

plan (Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Archaeological Research Design and

Treatment Plan for the Transit Center District Plan Area. February 2010) at the direction of the

Environmental Review Officer (ERO). In instances of inconsistency between the requirement

of the project archaeological research design and treatment plan and of this archaeological

mitigation measure, the requirements of this archaeological mitigation measure shall prevail.]

All plans and reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted first and

directly to the ERO for review and comment, and shall be considered draft reports subject to



75

revision until final approval by the ERO. Archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery

programs required by this measure could suspend construction of the project for up to a

maximum of 4 weeks. At the direction of the ERO, the suspension of construction can be

extended beyond 4 weeks only if such a suspension is the only feasible means to reduce to a

less-than-significant level potential effects on a significant archaeological resource as defined

in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(c).

Archaeological Testing Program. The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit to the

ERO for review and approval an archaeological testing plan (ATP). The archaeological testing

program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved ATP. The ATP shall identify the

property types of the expected archaeological resource(s) that potentially could be adversely

affected by the proposed project, the testing method to be used, and the locations recommended

for testing. The purpose of the archaeological testing program will be to determine to the extent

possible the presence or absence of archaeological resources and to identify and to evaluate

whether any archaeological resource encountered on the site constitutes an historical resource

under CEQA.

At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the archaeological consultant shall

submit a written report of the findings to the ERO. If based on the archaeological testing

program the archaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological resources may be

present, the ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant shall determine if

additional measures are warranted. Additional measures that may be undertaken include

additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring, and/or an archaeological data

recovery program. If the ERO determines that a significant archaeological resource is present and

that the resource could be adversely affected by the proposed project, at the discretion of the

project sponsor either:

A. The proposed project shall be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on the

significant archaeological resource; or

B. A data recovery program shall be implemented, unless the ERO determines that the

archaeological resource is of greater interpretive than research significance and that

interpretive use of the resource is feasible.



76

Archaeological Monitoring Program. If the ERO, in consultation with the archaeological

consultant, determines that an archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented, the

archaeological monitoring program shall minimally include the following provisions:

• The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the

scope of the AMP reasonably prior to the commencement of any project-related soils

disturbing activities. The ERO, in consultation with the archaeological consultant, shall

determine what project activities shall be archaeologically monitored. In most cases, any

soils-disturbing activities, such as demolition, foundation removal, excavation, grading,

utilities installation, foundation work, driving of piles (foundation, shoring, etc.), site

remediation, etc., shall require archaeological monitoring because of the risk these

activities pose to potential archaeological resources and to their depositional context;

• The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on the alert for

evidence of the presence of the expected resource(s), of how to identify the evidence of the

expected resource(s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of apparent discovery of

an archaeological resource;

• The archaeological monitor(s) shall be present on the project site according to a schedule

agreed upon by the archaeological consultant and the ERO until the ERO has, in

consultation with project archaeological consultant, determined that project construction

activities could have no effects on significant archaeological deposits;

• The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples and

artifactual/ ecofactual material as warranted for analysis;

• If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing activities in the

vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to

temporarily redirect demolition/excavation/pile driving/construction activities and

equipment until the deposit is evaluated. If in the case of pile driving activity (foundation,

shoring, etc.), the archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the pile driving activity

may affect an archaeological resource, the pile driving activity shall be terminated until an

appropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in consultation with the ERO. The

archaeological consultant shall immediately notify the ERO of the encountered

archaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort to



77

assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit,

and present the findings of this assessment to the ERO.

Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeological consultant shall submit a written report of the findings of the monitoring program to the ERO.

Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The archaeological data recovery program shall be

conducted in accordance with an archaeological data recovery plan (ADRP). The archaeological

consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the ADRP prior to

preparation of a draft ADRP. The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ADRP to the

ERO. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the

significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. That is, the ADRP

will identify what scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource,

what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would

address the applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the

portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project.

Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological

resources if nondestructive methods are practical.

The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements:

• Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and

operations.

• Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system and

artifact analysis procedures.

• Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-field

discard and deaccession policies.

• Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program

during the course of the archaeological data recovery program.

• Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource

from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities.

• Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results.



78

• Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any

recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation

facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities.

Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. The treatment of human

remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing

activity shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws. This shall include immediate

notification of the Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco and in the event of the

Coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the

California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall appoint a Most

Likely Descendant (MLD) (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). The archaeological

consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement

for the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and associated or unassociated

funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into

consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation,

and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.

Final Archaeological Resources Report. The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft

Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical

significance of any discovered archaeological resource and describes the archaeological and

historical research methods employed in the archaeological testing/monitoring/data recovery

program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource shall be

provided in a separate removable insert within the final report.

Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California

Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one (1) copy and

the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. The Major Environ-

mental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive one bound, one unbound, and

one unlocked, searchable PDF copy on CD or DVD of the FARR along with copies of any formal

site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National

Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high



79

public interest in or high interpretive value of the resource, the ERO may require a different final

report content, format, and distribution than that presented above.


Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to paleontological resources. (No Impact)

There are no known paleontological resources at the project site. As described in Section E.13,

Geology and Soils, the project sites are underlain to the proposed depth of excavation primarily by

artificial fill and marine or shoreline deposits. The fill does not typically contain paleontological

resources (also known as fossils), and the underlying deposits are not of a type likely to contain rare

or important fossils. Therefore, the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project would not result in any adverse effects on paleontological resources. This topic will

not be discussed further in the EIR.


Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the

vicinity, could result in cumulatively considerable effects to cultural resources. (Potentially

Significant)

Cumulative cultural resources impacts may include adverse effects to the City’s historical physical

setting related to the loss of historically significant buildings. These cumulative effects, which would

occur in conjunction with other planned or foreseeable projects near the subject properties, could

include indirect effects to the integrity of the New Montgomery-Second Street Conservation District,

direct effects to the integrity of the potential San Francisco 1952 Firehouse Bond Act Thematic

Historic District, and the loss of historic structures in San Francisco more generally. The potential of

the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project to contribute to

cumulative impacts will be addressed in the EIR.



80

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

5. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION— Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or

policy establishing measures of effectiveness for

the performance of the circulation system, taking

into account all modes of transportation including

mass transit and non-motorized travel and

relevant components of the circulation system,

including but not limited to intersections, streets,

highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle

paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion manage-

ment program, including but not limited to level of

service standards and travel demand measures,

established by the county congestion manage-

ment agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,

including either an increase in traffic levels,

obstructions to flight, or a change in location, that

results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs

regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance

or safety of such facilities, or cause a substantial

increase in transit demand which cannot be

accommodated by existing or proposed transit

capacity or alternative travel modes?



81

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not

result in a change in air traffic patterns, and thus would not result in substantial safety risks related to

air traffic. Therefore, topic 5c is not applicable.

Impact TR-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of

effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of

transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the

circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,

pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. (Potentially Significant)

The introduction of intensified gallery/exhibit, arts, support spaces, fire protection and residential

uses, and the trips generated by those uses, would result in increased demand on the local transporta-

tion system, including increased transit demand, parking demand and traffic, which could result in

significant transportation impacts. These impacts will be examined in the EIR.


Project could conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not

limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, established by the county

congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. (Potentially Significant)

As noted under Impact TR-1, the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project could conflict with level of service standards and travel demand measures such that a

significant impact on the environment may occur. This impact will be examined in the EIR.


Project could result in substantially increased hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp

curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. (Potentially Significant)

The EIR for the proposed projects will evaluate whether the removal of the existing fire house and

construction and operation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion fronting Howard Street would

result in incompatible land uses and/or any design feature(s) that may increase the potential for



82

hazards. A detailed analysis will also be prepared to evaluate whether the proposed fire station at 935

Folsom Street, in conjunction with new housing to its south, would also increase roadway hazards.


Project could result in inadequate emergency access. (Potentially Significant)

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would result in the demolition of Fire Station No. 1 at 676

Howard Street to accommodate an expansion of SFMOMA on that site. As part of the Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project, a new replacement fire station site would be constructed at 935

Folsom Street, about 2,000 feet to the southwest. Folsom Street is a major easterly one-way corridor

that connects the Mission District to the Embarcadero. Shipley Street, which borders the proposed fire

station site to the south, is a minor westerly one-way street; Falmouth Street, which borders the site to

the west, is a minor two-way street. The EIR will evaluate changes in emergency access associated

with the SFMOMA Expansion and the proposed new station location as it relates to its service area,

response times, as well as conflicts with existing and future traffic on Folsom Street.

Impact TR-5: The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project

could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or

pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities, or cause

a substantial increase in transit demand which cannot be accommodated by existing or

proposed transit capacity or alternative travel modes. (Potentially Significant)

The introduction of intensified gallery/exhibit, arts, support spaces, fire protection and residential

uses, and the trips generated by those uses, would result in increased demand on the local

transportation system, including increased transit and parking demand, and traffic, which could

conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

These impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.



83

Impact TR-6: The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, in

combination in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in

the vicinity, could result in cumulative impacts to the transportation and circulation system.


Changes to the City’s transportation and circulation system that would result from the proposed

projects in conjunction with other planned and foreseeable projects in the City will be addressed in

the EIR. This analysis will take into account cumulative impacts to roadway capacity, bike,

pedestrian, and transit facilities, and other components of the City’s transportation system.

Topics:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Not

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?

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?



84

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

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 sites are not within an airport land use plan area, nor are they in the vicinity of a private

airstrip. Therefore, topics 6e and 6f are not applicable.

Impact NO-1a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion project would not result in a substantial

permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, would not expose persons to

noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and

would not be substantially affected by existing noise levels. (Less Than Significant)

The Environmental Protection Element of the San Francisco General Plan contains Land Use

Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise.22 These guidelines, which are similar to State

guidelines promulgated by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, indicate maximum

acceptable noise levels for various newly developed land uses. Museum uses are not included as part

of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. However, the new museum uses that would be developed

as part of the SFMOMA Expansion (which include gallery and support space, among other uses)

resemble “commercial” uses, which include retail, movie theaters, and restaurant uses. For

commercial uses, the maximum satisfactory noise level without the need to incorporate noise

insulation into a project is 70 A-weighted decibels (dBA) on the day-night equivalent level (Ldn),

The guidelines state that new commercial development should be generally discouraged at noise

levels 77 dB Ldn and above (new commercial development in areas subject to noise levels between

22 San Francisco General Plan, Environmental Protection Element, Policy 11.1.



85

67 and 80 dBA Ldn should be undertaken “only after a detailed analysis of the noise mitigation

requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design”).

Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion site are typical of those in and

around Downtown San Francisco. These noise levels are influenced primarily by transportation uses,

including car, bus, truck, and emergency vehicle traffic. Third Street, which defines the western

boundary of the project site, is a major northerly one-way street with high traffic volumes. According

to the San Francisco City-wide Noise Map23 prepared by the San Francisco Department of Public

Health, noise levels along Third Street adjacent to the project site are above 70.0 dBA Ldn; noise

levels along Minna Street and Howard Street adjacent to the project site range from 65.1 to 70.0 dBA

Ldn. Because the SFMOMA Expansion site would be subject to noise levels above 70.0 dBA Ldn

along the Third Street frontage, the SFMOMA Expansion would be required to undergo a detailed

analysis of noise reduction requirements, and if necessary, such requirements would need to be

incorporated into the design of the project. Such analysis and noise insulation features would be

required in accordance with the General Plan, Noise Ordinance, and California Code of Regulations,

Title 24 (California Building Standards Code). Therefore, impacts on occupants of the SFMOMA

Expansion associated with the existing noise environment would be less than significant.

Operation of the SFMOMA Expansion could increase ambient noise levels, primarily through

increased visitation and the use of stationary equipment, such as heating and ventilation systems. The

closure of Fire Station No. 1 at 676 Howard Street would decrease noise in the vicinity associated

with fire trucks and other emergency vehicles.

Increased pedestrian activity around SFMOMA and increased vehicle trips could contribute to the

noise environment and increase ambient noise levels when the museum is open. However, this

increase would likely not be noticeable. Museum visitation is expected to increase by approximately

25 percent after implementation of the project. Staffing would also increase by approximately 87 FTE

employees. The large majority of new visitors and employees would travel to and from the museum

23 San Francisco City-wide Noise Map, San Francisco Department of Public Health, March, 2009. This document is

available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.



86

via modes that do not involve a private vehicle (e.g., by public transit). In general, traffic must double

in volume to produce a noticeable increase in average noise levels. Similarly, sidewalk crowds would

need to double to generate a noticeable increase in average noise levels. Because (based on projected

increases in employment and visitation) traffic and pedestrian volumes would not double as a result of

the project, permanent ambient noise levels around the site would not perceptibly increase.

The SFMOMA Expansion would likely include new mechanical equipment, such as heating and

ventilation systems, that could produce operational noise. However, such equipment would be similar

to that currently used at SFMOMA and would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in

ambient noise levels. Operational noise is subject to Section 2909 of the Noise Ordinance, which

establishes noise limits for mechanical equipment. Under Section 2909, stationary sources are not

permitted to result in noise levels that exceed (by more than 10 dBA) the existing ambient noise level

in the public right-of-way, at a distance of 25 feet or more. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance

would thus minimize noise associated with mechanical equipment on the site and other stationary

noise sources. Therefore, operational period noise associated with the SFMOMA Expansion would

not be considered significant.

Impact NO-1b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project may result in

permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity associated with fire station

and emergency vehicle operations, could expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards

established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, and could be substantially adversely

affected by existing noise levels. (Potentially Significant).

For residential uses, the maximum satisfactory noise level without the need to incorporate noise

insulation into a project is 60 dBA Ldn. The guidelines state that new residential development should

be generally discouraged at noise levels 65 dB Ldn and above (new residential development in areas

subject to noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA Ldn should be undertaken “only after a detailed

analysis of the noise mitigation requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in

the design”).



87

Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project relocation site

are influenced primarily by traffic along Folsom Street, which is a major easterly one-way thorough-

fare that connects the Mission District and the Embarcadero. The area has also been subject to

significant redevelopment activity in recent years, which has also contributed to the noise environ-

ment. According to the San Francisco City-wide Noise Map, noise levels along Folsom Street and

local streets in the vicinity of the site range from 65.1 to 70.0 dBA Ldn.

Noise associated with fire trucks and other emergency vehicles could adversely affect the noise

environment. In addition, new vehicle traffic associated with the Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project could increase ambient noise levels in and around the site. Operation of the proposed project

could also increase ambient noise levels, primarily through vehicle trips associated with the Fire

Station and residential uses, and the use of stationary equipment, such as heating and ventilation

systems, as well as testing of firefighting equipment and of the building’s emergency generator. In

addition, sirens associated with emergency vehicles could also increase noise levels. These issues will

be evaluated in the EIR.

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would be subject to the following four mitigation

measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Eastern

Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans.24 The applicability of these mitigation measures to the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site at 935 Folsom Street will be discussed in more detail in

the EIR.

Mitigation Measure F-3: Interior Noise Levels: For new development including noise-sensitive

uses located along streets with noise levels above 60 dBA (Ldn), where such development is

not already subject to the California Noise Insulation Standards in Title 24 of the California

Code of Regulations, the project sponsor shall conduct a detailed analysis of noise reduction

requirements. Such analysis shall be conducted by person(s) qualified in acoustical analysis

and/or engineering. Noise insulation features identified and recommended by the analysis shall

24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans, San Francisco

Planning Department, July 10, 2008. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos.

2009.0291E and 2010.0275E.



88

be included in the design, as specified in the San Francisco General Plan Land Use Compatibil-

ity Guidelines for Community Noise to reduce potential interior noise levels to the maximum

extent feasible.

Mitigation Measure F-4: Siting of Noise-Sensitive Uses: To reduce potential conflicts between

existing noise-generating uses and new sensitive receptors, for new development including

noise-sensitive uses, the Planning Department shall require the preparation of an analysis that

includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify potential noise-generating uses within 900 feet

of, and that have a direct line-of-sight to, the project site, and including at least one 24-hour

noise measurement (with maximum noise level readings taken at least every 15 minutes), prior

to the first project approval action. The analysis shall be prepared by persons qualified in

acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Title

24 standards, where applicable, can be met, and that there are no particular circumstances about

the proposed project site that appear to warrant heightened concern about noise levels in the

vicinity. Should such concerns be present, the Department may require the completion of a

detailed noise assessment by person(s) qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering prior

to the first project approval action, in order to demonstrate that acceptable interior noise levels

consistent with those in the Title 24 standards can be attained.

Mitigation Measure F-5: Siting of Noise-Generating Uses: To reduce potential conflicts

between existing sensitive receptors and new noise-generating uses, for new development

including commercial, industrial or other uses that would be expected to generate noise levels

in excess of ambient noise, either short-term, at nighttime, or as a 24-hour average, in the

proposed project site vicinity, the Planning Department shall require the preparation of an

analysis that includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify potential noise-sensitive uses

within 900 feet of, and that have a direct line-of-sight to, the project site, and including at least

one 24-hour noise measurement (with maximum noise level readings taken at least every 15

minutes), prior to the first project approval action. The analysis shall be prepared by persons

qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable

certainty that the proposed use would comply with the use compatibility requirements in the

General Plan and in Police Code Section 29091, would not adversely affect nearby noise-



89

sensitive uses, and that there are no particular circumstances about the proposed project site that

appear to warrant heightened concern about noise levels that would be generated by the pro-

posed use. Should such concerns be present, the Department may require the completion of a


to the first project approval action.

Mitigation Measure F-6: Open Space in Noisy Environments: To minimize effects on develop-

ment in noisy areas, for new development including noise-sensitive uses, the Planning Depart-

ment shall, through its building permit review process, in conjunction with noise analysis

required pursuant to Mitigation Measure F-4, require that open space required under the

Planning Code for such uses be protected, to the maximum feasible extent, from existing

ambient noise levels that could prove annoying or disruptive to users of the open space. Imple-

mentation of this measure could involve, among other things, site design that uses the building

itself to shield on-site open space from the greatest noise sources, construction of noise barriers

between noise sources and open space, and appropriate use of both common and private open

space in multi-family dwellings, and implementation would also be undertaken consistent with

other principles of urban design.

Impact NO-2a: During construction, the proposed SFMOMA Expansion would result in a

temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels and vibration in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project. (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)

Construction noise is regulated by the San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 29 of the Police Code),

amended in November 2008, and project construction activities would be required to comply with the

provisions of the Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance requires that construction work be con-

ducted in the following manner: 1) noise levels from individual pieces of construction equipment,

other than impact tools, must not exceed 80 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the source; 2) the

intake and exhaust systems of impact tools (e.g., jackhammers) must be muffled to the satisfaction of

the Director of Public Works or the Director of Building Inspection; and 3) if noise would exceed the

ambient noise level by 5 dBA at the property line of the project site, the construction work must not



90

be conducted between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless a special permit is authorized by the

Department of Public Works (DPW) or the Director of Building Inspection.

Please refer to Table 3 for a summary of the construction phasing, including the construction equip-

ment that would be used as part of each phase. No noise-sensitive uses such as schools or hospitals

are located adjacent to the project site. However, the land uses surrounding the project site include

hotel, office, retail, residential and cultural uses that would be expected to be adversely affected by

construction noise. The noisiest phases of the approximately 2-year construction period would occur

between Phase I (Demolition) and Phase 4 (Foundation), comprising a total of approximately 8

months. Phase 5 through Phase 8 would involve relatively quieter construction activities, such as

installation of plumbing and electrical systems, and interior finishes. Maximum instantaneous noise

levels (Lmax) resulting from the noisiest construction activities proposed as part of the project (e.g.,

use of hoe rams) would range up to 84 dBA at 100 feet and would be considered significant.

Demolition and construction activities proposed as part of the SFMOMA Expansion would also

generate perceptible groundborne vibration levels when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., hoe

rams and excavators) are used. Construction activities, especially those associated with excavation,

are a known source of groundborne noise and vibration. Typical groundborne vibration levels

measured at a distance of 25 feet from heavy construction equipment in full operation range up to

approximately 94 vibration-decibels (VdB). These vibration levels would not be expected to cause

damage to buildings of normal, modern northern California construction. The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) construction vibration damage threshold for buildings considered to be

particularly fragile structures is approximately 90 VdB, while the damage threshold for structures

made of engineered concrete and masonry is 98 VdB. The structural integrity of the buildings

immediately adjacent the project site has not been ascertained. Therefore, for the purposes of this

analysis, it is assumed that buildings adjacent to the site may be fragile and could be adversely

affected by vibration caused by construction of the SFMOMA Expansion.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction-period noise and

vibration impacts associated with construction of the SFMOMA Expansion to a less-than-significant

level:



91

Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): The following two-part

measure shall be implemented:

• To reduce daytime noise impacts associated with construction activities to the maximum

extent feasible, the following measures shall be implemented in addition to all measures set

forth in the Noise Ordinance:

o At least 10 days prior to the start of construction, the project sponsor shall notify

occupants of properties within 100 feet of the project site’s lot line (comprising the

following addresses: 151 Third Street and 670 and 676 Howard Street). Notification

shall include an estimation of the duration of construction activities, including

anticipated start and completion dates and the daily construction times.

o Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise

control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers,

ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever

feasible).

o Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project

construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid

noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.

However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the

compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the

exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used

where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be

used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.

o Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and

they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds. Insulation barriers or other

measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.

o Ground clearing, excavation, foundation pouring, building erection and exterior

finishing activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

• The project applicant shall prepare a vibration impact assessment to determine potential

construction-related groundborne vibration impacts for all structures located within 25 feet



92

of construction activities expected to generate more than 90 VdB. Measures shall be

identified and implemented that would reduce groundborne vibration impacts from extreme

noise generators by prescribing methods of construction to be utilized so as not to exceed

the FTA’s groundborne vibration damage threshold of 90 VdB at the nearest façade of all

adjacent structures. Such methods may include restrictions on the number or types of

construction equipment that may operate at a time within 25 feet of structures, restrictions

on equipment hours of operation, or requirements to use alternative construction techniques.

The vibration impact assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review

and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.

Impact NO-2b: During construction, the proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project

would result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels and vibration in the

project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (Less Than Significant With


Please refer to the discussion under Impact NO-2a regarding the requirements of the San Francisco

Noise Ordinance. Please refer to Table 3 for a summary of the construction phasing of the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project, including the construction equipment that would be used as

part of each phase. Noise-sensitive residential uses are located to the south and west of the site. The

noisiest phase of each approximately 1-year to 14-month construction period would occur during

Phase 4 (Foundation), when piles would be driven into the subsurface. Maximum instantaneous noise

levels (Lmax) resulting from the noisiest construction activities proposed as part of the project (e.g.,

use of pile drivers) would range up to 96 dBA at 100 feet and would be considered significant. In

addition, pile driving could result in typical groundborne vibration levels of 104 VdB at a distance of

25 feet from the operating equipment. The structural integrity of the buildings immediately adjacent

to the Fire Station Relocation and Housing site has not been ascertained. Therefore, for the purposes

of this analysis, it is assumed that buildings adjacent to the site may be fragile and could be adversely

affected by vibration caused by construction of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project.



93

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction-period noise and

vibration impacts associated with construction of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project to a

less-than-significant level:

Mitigation Measure M-NO-2b (applies to Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project only):

The following two-part measure shall be implemented:

• Implement Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a.

• The project sponsor shall require that the project contractor predrill holes (if feasible based

on soils) for piles to the maximum feasible depth to minimize noise and vibration from pile

driving. The project sponsor shall also require that the construction contractor limit pile

driving activity to result in the least disturbance to neighboring uses.

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would also be subject to the following mitigation

measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Eastern

Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans, which would further reduce construction-period noise and

vibration impacts.25

Mitigation Measure F-1: Construction Noise: For subsequent development projects within

proximity to noise-sensitive uses that would include pile-driving, individual project sponsors

shall ensure that piles be pre-drilled wherever feasible to reduce construction-related noise and

vibration. No impact pile drivers shall be used unless absolutely necessary. Contractors would

be required to use pile-driving equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling

devices. To reduce noise and vibration impacts, sonic or vibratory sheetpile drivers, rather

than impact drivers, shall be used wherever sheetpiles are needed. Individual project sponsors

shall also require that contractors schedule pile-driving activity for times of the day that would

minimize disturbance to neighbors.



2009.0291E and 2010.0275E.



94

Impact NO-3: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, may

result in cumulatively-considerable noise impacts (Potentially Significant).

Construction activity in the vicinity of the two project sites, including demolition, excavation, and

building construction activities, would occur in conjunction with other planned and foreseeable

projects. However, such activities would be conducted in compliance with the San Francisco Noise

Ordinance, which would reduce adverse effects to noise levels. Therefore, the impacts of the

proposed projects on the cumulative construction-related noise levels would not be considered

significant.

However, the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would generate new vehicle trips and

operational noise sources. These sources could represent a significant cumulative contribution to local

noise levels, when combined with noise generated by other projects. Cumulative operational noise

impacts associated with the Fire Station Relocation could be considered significant and thus will be

evaluated in the EIR. Operational-period noise increases associated with the SFMOMA Expansion

would be limited by the nature of the museum uses and museum visitorship/employment increases,

and mode of transport, as described above. Therefore, the SFMOMA Expansion would not make a

significant cumulative contribution to ambient noise levels.



95

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

7. AIR QUALITY—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 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin encompasses San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa,

San Mateo, and Napa counties, and includes parts of Solano and Sonoma counties. Although air

quality in the air basin has generally improved over the last several decades, elevated levels of ozone,

carbon monoxide, and particulate matter have occurred. The federal Clean Air Act and California

Clean Air Act contain ambient air standards and related air quality reporting systems to be used by

regional regulatory agencies in developing air pollution control measures. The Bay Area Air Quality

Management District (BAAQMD) is the primary responsible regulatory agency in the Bay Area for

planning, implementing, and enforcing the federal and State ambient air quality standards for criteria

pollutants. Criteria air pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur

dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and lead.



96

In most of the Bay Area, transportation-related sources account for a majority of air pollutant

emissions. Therefore, a major focus of BAAQMD is reducing vehicle trips associated with new

development. Localized air quality issues include CO hotspots associated with stagnant traffic. Third

and Howard Streets (adjacent to the SFMOMA Expansion site), Folsom Street (adjacent to the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site), and Interstate 80 (three blocks south of the Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project site) experience high traffic volumes that could affect local pollutant

levels.

Impact AQ-1: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the local

applicable air quality plan. (Potentially Significant)

The EIR will evaluate the proposed projects’ air quality impacts related to local air quality plans.


Relocation and Housing Project could violate an air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (Potentially Significant)

The EIR will evaluate the proposed projects’ impacts related to air quality standards and existing or

projected air quality violations.


Relocation and Housing Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a

criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal,

State, or regional ambient air quality standard. (Potentially Significant)

The EIR will evaluate the proposed projects’ air quality impacts associated with criteria pollutant

emissions and ambient air quality standards.


Relocation and Housing Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations. (Potentially Significant)



97

The EIR will evaluate the proposed projects’ air quality impacts related to exposure of pollutant

concentrations to sensitive receptors.

Impact AQ-5: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (No

Impact)

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not

result in a perceptible increase or change in odors in or around the project sites, as the projects would

not include uses prone to generation of odors. A small restaurant may be developed as part of the

SFMOMA Expansion, but associated food service activities would not be expected to result in

objectionable odors. Observation indicates that surrounding land uses adjacent to Yerba Buena

Gardens and in East SoMa are not sources of noticeable odors, and therefore would not adversely

affect project occupants. This topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.


Relocation and Housing Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future projects in the vicinity, could result in cumulative air quality impacts. (Potentially

Significant)

Emissions generated by the proposed projects could result in significant cumulative air quality

impacts and will be analyzed in the EIR.



98

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS— Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

directly or indirectly, that may have a significant

impact on the environment?

a) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or

regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose

of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they

capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse

does. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change.

The primary GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor.

While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, carbon dioxide

(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are largely emitted from human activities, accelerat-

ing the rate at which these compounds occur within the earth’s atmosphere. Emissions of carbon

dioxide are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing

associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, per-

fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. Greenhouse

gases are typically reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” (CO2E) units.26 The SFMOMA Expansion

site currently generates GHGs via heating and energy needs, and vehicle trips associated with visitors

and employees and with the existing fire station. The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site

26 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently measured in

“carbon dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global warming”)

potential.



99

generates relatively low volumes of GHGs (primarily associated with the decay of building materials

in the existing vacant structure).

Impact GG-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

project would result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions that could have a significant

impact on the environment. (Potentially Significant)

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would generate

construction-, operation-, and traffic-related GHG emissions; impacts related to GHGs will be

evaluated in the EIR.

Impact GG-2: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, which could conflict with

applicable plans, policies, or regulations of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing such

emissions. (Potentially Significant)

The proposed projects’ impacts related to GHGs will be evaluated in the EIR.

Impact GG-3: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future projects in the vicinity, could result in cumulative impacts to global climate change.


Cumulative impacts associated with emissions of GHGs will be analyzed in the EIR.



100

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

9. 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

Generally, winds in San Francisco originate on the Pacific Ocean, and blow through the City in an

easterly direction. Wind speeds are highest in the spring and summer and lowest in the fall. Wind

speed varies daily, being strongest in the afternoon and lightest in the morning.

A building’s exposure, massing, and orientation affect nearby ground-level wind accelerations.

Exposure is a measure of the degree to which a building extends above surrounding structures into the

wind stream. A building surrounded by taller structures is unlikely to cause adverse wind accelera-

tions at the ground level, while even a small building can cause wind acceleration if it is freestanding

and exposed. Massing affects how much wind the building intercepts and whether wind accelerations

occur at ground level. In general, slab-shaped buildings (oriented perpendicular to the prevailing wind

direction) have the greatest potential for wind acceleration and buildings with an unusual shape or

setbacks have a lesser effect. Generally, the more complex the building is geometrically, the less

ground level wind acceleration that would be expected to occur. Building orientation also affects the

amount of wind a structure intercepts and the corresponding extent of wind acceleration. Buildings

with a wide axis perpendicular to prevailing winds will generally cause greater ground-level wind

acceleration.

Impact WS-1a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion could alter wind in a manner that substan-

tially affects public areas within the vicinity of the 151 Third Street and 670-676 Howard Street

sites. (Potentially Significant)



101

Planning Code Section 148, Reduction of Ground-Level Wind Currents in C-3 (Downtown Commer-

cial) Districts, establishes two comfort criteria and a hazard criterion used in analysis of wind impacts

in San Francisco. The 7-miles-per-hour (mph) and 11-mph seating and pedestrian comfort criteria are

based on pedestrian-level wind speeds that include the effects of turbulence; these are referred to as

“equivalent wind speeds,” which are speeds exceeded 10 percent of the time. The hazard criterion is

an equivalent wind speed of 26 mph for a full hour, or approximately 0.0114 percent of the time, not

to be exceeded more than once during the year.

Implementation of the SFMOMA Expansion would result in the construction of up to 235,000 square

feet of new interior building space in a building no more than 320 feet in height. Because the addition

would be substantially taller than the structures that currently exist on the site, it has the potential to

generate strong ground-level winds. These potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR, based on a

wind tunnel analysis. The EIR will evaluate whether the proposed project would result in exceedances

of the pedestrian comfort and hazard criteria such that public areas could be adversely affected.

Impact WS-1b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not alter

wind in a matter that substantially affects public areas. (Less Than Significant)

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is currently occupied by a one-story (with

mezzanine) structure that is 25 feet in height. The project would result in the demolition of the

existing building and replacement with two buildings oriented along an east/west axis (i.e., parallel to

Folsom and Shipley Streets). The fire station building that would extend along Folsom Street would

be 34 feet in height; the residential building that would extend along Shipley Street would be 45 feet

in height. The two buildings would be separated by an approximately 46-foot-wide at-grade surface

parking lot and parking easement.

Two key factors in determining a project’s effect on wind patterns are wind sheltering and building

design. Wind sheltering can be provided by structures in the vicinity of a site. The Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project site, which is generally flat, is surrounded by one- to three-story

buildings (approximately 12 feet to 36 feet in height) north across Folsom Street; two- to five-story

(approximately 24 feet to 60 feet in height) buildings to the south and west along Shipley Street; and



102

two- to four-story buildings (approximately 24 feet to 48 feet in height) to the west along Folsom

Street. These buildings provide some wind sheltering. The design of the proposed buildings –

including the space between the structures, the orientation of the long axes of the buildings parallel to

prevailing westerly winds, and the relatively low height of the structures – would limit wind

acceleration. In general, buildings lower than 85 feet do not result in adverse wind effects.

Based on an analysis of exposure, massing, and orientation of the proposed buildings within their

moderately-scaled local setting, the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would be unlikely to

cause substantial wind accelerations at the ground level or otherwise substantially alter the wind

environment along Folsom Street, Shipley Street, or Falmouth Street. Since the proposed buildings

would not be expected to change the wind environment or create wind hazards – either individually or

cumulatively— the impacts of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project on wind patterns

would be less than significant and will not be discussed in the EIR.

Impact WS-2: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion, in combination with other past, present, or

reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in significant cumulative wind impacts.


In combination with cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed

SFMOMA Expansion could result in significant cumulative wind impacts. These topics will be

discussed in the EIR.

Shadow

San Francisco adopted Section 295 of the Planning Code in response to Proposition K (passed by

voters in November 1984). Section 295 protects parks and recreation centers under the jurisdiction of

the Recreation and Park Department (or properties the Recreation and Park Department may acquire)

from shadow generated by buildings higher than 40 feet. The period of the day protected from

shadow extends from one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset, year round, unless the

Planning Commission, in consultation with the Recreation and Park Commission, finds the impact to

be less than significant.



103

Impact WS-3a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion could create new shadow that could

adversely affect outdoor recreation facilities or other public areas within the project site

vicinity. (Potentially Significant)

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would exceed 40 feet in height and is therefore subject to

Proposition K because it has the potential to generate new shadow, which could cover portions of

Yerba Buena Gardens (which is not under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department), to

the east of the site. Potential shadow-related direct and cumulative impacts will be evaluated in the

EIR, based on a shadow fan analysis and computer-generated modeling.

Impact WS-3b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not create

new shadow in a manner that adversely affects outdoor recreation facilities or other public

areas. (Less Than Significant)

The 45-foot-tall residential structure constructed as part of the proposed Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project would be subject to Proposition K because it would be over 40 feet in height. The

34-foot-tall fire station would not be subject to Proposition K. The parks under the jurisdiction of the

Recreation and Park Department that are closest to the project site are the South of Market Recreation

Center and Victoria Manalo Draves Park, which are located 0.2 of a mile southwest of the project

site, respectively. Howard Langton Park is located approximately 0.3 of a mile to the west of the site

along Howard Street. Yerba Buena Gardens and the Moscone Center are located approximately 0.2 of

a mile to the northeast and east of the site, respectively. Based on a shadow fan analysis conducted by

the Planning Department, the proposed residential structure would not cast shadow on any properties

under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission and therefore would be in compliance

with Section 295 of the Planning Code.27

In the morning, shadow from the buildings on the site would extend west toward the South of Market

Recreation Center and Victoria Manalo Draves Park; in the afternoon, shadows would extend toward

the east and cover portions of Folsom Street. Morning and afternoon shadows would cover sidewalks

27 Memo Regarding Compliance with Section 295 of the San Francisco Planning Code, Ben A. Fu, August 23, 2010.




104

on streets around the project site and residential uses to the west of the site. Based on the scale and

height of the proposed buildings, and the relatively short duration of associated off-site shadows, new

shadow would not substantially interfere with the use of public sidewalks or private residences. Like-

wise, these shadows would not affect parks in the area due to the relatively low height of the proposed

buildings, intervening structures, and the distance between local parks and the Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project site. This conclusion was verified by the shadow fan analysis conducted by the

Planning Department. Therefore, the proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not

create shadow in a manner that substantially affects outdoor recreational facilities or other public areas

– either individually or cumulatively – and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

Impact WS-4a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion, in combination with other past, present,

or reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in significant cumulative shadow

impacts. (Potentially Significant)

In combination with cumulative development in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed SFMOMA

Expansion could result in significant cumulative shadow impacts. This topic will be discussed in the

EIR.

Impact WS-4b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, in combination

with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in

significant cumulative shadow impacts. (Less Than Significant)

As noted above, the proposed residential structure would be 45 feet and would be subject to Proposi-

tion K. However, based on a shadow fan analysis conducted by the San Francisco Planning Depart-

ment, the structure would not cast shadow on any properties under the jurisdiction of the Recreation

and Park Commission and therefore would be in compliance with Section 295 of the Planning Code.

In addition, neither the proposed residential structure nor the 34-foot fire station would result in other

significant shadow impacts. Build-out of the East SoMa Plan would cast shadow on existing parks.

However, because the proposed residential structure would not cast shadow on those parks or other

public areas, the cumulative contribution of the project on neighborhood shadow levels would not be

considered significant.



105

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

10. RECREATION—Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and

regional parks or other recreational facilities such

that substantial physical deterioration of the

facilities would occur or be accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational

facilities that might have an adverse physical

effect on the environment?

c) Physically degrade existing recreational

resources?

Impact RE-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities,

but not to an extent that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be

accelerated. (Less Than Significant)

Parks and recreational spaces in the vicinity of the project sites are limited and include South Park

(0.5 of a mile southeast of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.6 of a mile northeast of the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site), the South of Market Recreation Center and the Victoria

Manalo Draves Park (0.7 of a mile southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.2 of a mile

southwest of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site) and Howard Langton Park (0.8 of a

mile southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.3 of a mile west of the Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project site). In addition, the open space and recreational facilities, including a bowling

alley, skating rink and playground, at Yerba Buena Gardens are directly across Third Street from the

SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.2 of a mile northeast of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project site. Please refer to the Setting section for a discussion of privately-owned open spaces in the

vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion site.



106

As described in Topic 3, Population and Housing, above, upon completion of the SFMOMA

Expansion, SFMOMA anticipates an increase of up to 87 FTE employees. In addition, the proposed

13 residential units on the Fire Station relocation site would result in the addition of about 22

residents.

Although new employees and residents may utilize parks and recreational spaces in the vicinity of the

sites, use would likely be modest (based on the size of the projected population and employment

increases), and it is unlikely that substantial physical deterioration would be expected. In addition, the

proposed projects would not substantially increase demand for or use of City-wide facilities such as

Golden Gate Park or the waterfront. The increased use of local recreational facilities would be minor

compared with the current use of these facilities. The incremental residential growth that would result

from the proposed project would not require the construction of new recreational facilities or the

expansion of existing facilities.

Therefore, impacts on recreational activities and facilities would be less than significant and they will

not be discussed in the EIR.


Project would not require the construction of recreational facilities that may have a significant

effect on the environment. (Less Than Significant)

The proposed projects do not include active recreational facilities and would not require the

construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, the projects would not result in the

construction of recreational facilities that would themselves have a physical environmental impact.

The Planning Code does not require the SFMOMA Expansion or the Fire Station to include open

space. Although the proposed residential development would not include active recreational facilities,

it would provide approximately 1,040 square feet of on-site open space for passive recreational use

for project residents. This provision of open space would meet the requirements of Article 1.2,

Section of the Planning Code, which requires 80 square feet of space per dwelling unit (if not

accessible to the public). In addition, the project site is within walking distance of several parks,



107

including the two-block Yerba Buena Gardens. Therefore, project residents would have convenient

access to private and public open space.


Project would not physically degrade existing recreational facilities. (Less Than Significant)

Neither the SFMOMA Expansion nor the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would result in

the physical alteration of any recreational resource within the vicinity of the project sites or in the

City as a whole. Both sites are within walking distance of the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and

Gardens, and the projects could increase use of this recreational facility. However, visitation to Yerba

Buena Center for the Arts and Gardens would not increase such that physical deterioration of the

facility would be expected to occur. An approximately 17,250 square-foot sculpture garden and

coffee bar is located on the roof of the parking garage at 147-151 Minna Street and is accessed from

the fifth floor of the existing SFMOMA. The sculpture garden would be preserved as part of the

SFMOMA Expansion and access would continue to be available from the museum. Therefore, the

projects would not physically degrade any existing recreational resources and this topic will not be

discussed in the EIR.


Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in their

vicinities, would not contribute to cumulative effects related to recreational resources. (Less

Than Significant)

Use of recreation facilities in the vicinity of the project sites would also likely increase with

development of the cumulative projects listed in Table 4. As discussed above, the Planning Code

would not require open space to be provided as part of the SFMOMA Expansion or the Fire Station

Relocation. Provision of 1,040 square feet of open space as part of the proposed residential structure

would fulfill Planning Code open space requirements for that use. In addition, the 900 Folsom Street

project (proposed to the northeast of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site) would

provide 5,465 square feet of publicly-accessible open space, linking Folsom Street to Clementina



108

Street, and would help satisfy demand for recreational facilities generated by the proposed projects.28

Therefore, the contribution of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project to cumulative recreation-related impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and

will not be discussed in the EIR.

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

11. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of

the applicable Regional Water Quality Control

Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water

or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm

water drainage facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supply available to serve

the project from existing entitlements and

resources, or require new or expanded water

supply resources or entitlements?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider that would serve the project

that it has inadequate capacity to serve the

project’s projected demand in addition to the

provider’s existing commitments?

28 Case No. 2007.0689EXK, Motion 18088. May 20, 2010 (approval).



109

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

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 sites are within an urban area that is served by utility service systems, including water,

wastewater and stormwater collection and treatment, and solid waste collection and disposal systems.

Impact UT-1: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to wastewater

collection and treatment facilities. (Less Than Significant)

The SFPUC owns and operates three wastewater treatment facilities for the City and County of

San Francisco: the Oceanside Treatment Plant, the Southeast Treatment Plant, and the North Point

Wet Weather Facility. These facilities combined can treat up to 465 mgd of combined wastewater and

stormwater runoff.29 The project sites are served primarily by the Southeast Treatment Plant, which

treats an average dry weather flow of about 67 million gallons a day and can treat up to 250 million

gallons a day when it rains. The SFPUC oversees San Francisco’s wastewater and stormwater

collection and conveyance infrastructure. The Department of Public Works operates in conjunction

with the SFPUC, and is responsible for the system’s maintenance and repairs. San Francisco contains

almost 900 miles of sewers, 36 overflow points, 4 outfalls, and 17 pump stations, and storage tanks

along the City’s coastline.30

29 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Website: www.sfwater.org, September 26, 2007.

30 Ibid.



110

Implementation of the proposed projects would generate approximately 32,985 gallons of wastewater

per day.31 Although the proposed projects would incrementally increase the need for wastewater

treatment in San Francisco, the SFPUC treatment plant that serves the sites would accommodate this

demand, because the wastewater generated by the proposed projects would comprise less than 0.05

percent of the dry weather treatment capacity of the Southeast Treatment Plant. Therefore, the

proposed projects would have a less-than-significant effect on the capacity of the Southeast Treatment

Plant. The design of the proposed projects would include water-conserving measures, such as low-

flush toilets and urinals, as required by California State Building Code Section 402.0(c), which would

also reduce wastewater. The proposed projects would not substantially increase wastewater genera-

tion and would not have a significant impact on wastewater treatment facilities. This topic will not be

discussed further in the EIR.

The proposed projects would incrementally increase the total wastewater/stormwater volume dis-

charged by the project sites, particularly since impervious surfaces now completely cover the project

sites. The proposed projects would not substantially increase demand for wastewater treatment. No

major new sewer facilities would be needed to serve the proposed projects. The proposed projects

would meet the wastewater pre-treatment requirements of the SFPUC, as required by the San Francisco

Industrial Waste Ordinance in order to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. The

proposed projects would have a less-than-significant impact on wastewater and stormwater infrastruc-

ture and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.

Impact UT-2: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm

water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects. (Less Than Significant)

31 This assumes that waste water generated is 95 percent of the water used (213 gallons of water per day per 13

residential units and 0.142 gallons of water per day per square foot of museum space). Source: Prasifka, David W., Water

Supply Planning, 1994.



111

The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing sites are currently covered

entirely with impervious surfaces; the proposed projects would not create any additional impervious

surfaces, thus resulting in little or no adverse effect on the total storm water volume discharged

through the combined sewer system. In addition, The San Francisco Stormwater Design Guidelines,

which were adopted by SFPUC on January 12, 2010 (Ordinance No. 83-10), require project appli-

cants proposing development or redevelopment projects disturbing more than 5,000 square feet of

ground to manage stormwater on-site. Both the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project would result in the disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet of ground surface and

would therefore be required to comply with the Stormwater Design Guidelines. The Stormwater

Design Guidelines could require landscape features and structural elements such as swales, rain

gardens, and green roofs to be incorporated as part of site design to reduce surface runoff and

improve water quality. The implementation of these guidelines could reduce storm water volumes

discharged from the project sites. Therefore, no new storm water drainage facilities would be

required to be constructed as a result of the proposed projects. This topic will not be further discussed

in the EIR.

Impact UT-3: The SFPUC has sufficient water supply and entitlements to serve the proposed

SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, and implementation of

the proposed project would not require expansion or construction of new water treatment

facilities. (Less Than Significant)

Existing uses on the SFMOMA Expansion site include the 28,000 square-foot Heald Building at 670

Howard Street and the 14,410 square-foot Fire Station No. 1 at 676 Howard Street. If the Heald

Building were occupied with office uses, it would use approximately 3,980 gallons of water per day

and generate approximately 3,780 gallons of wastewater per day.32 The Fire Station at 676 Howard

32 This assumes an annual water use of 0.142 gallons of water per day per square foot and that waste water

generated is 95 percent of the water used. Source: Prasifka, David W., Water Supply Planning, 1994.



112

Street uses approximately 1,280 gallons per day and generates approximately 1,215 gallons of

wastewater per day.33

The San Francisco Water Department (SFWD), a division of the San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission (SFPUC), supplies approximately 265 million gallons per day (mgd) of water to

approximately 2.4 million people in San Francisco, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties.

The SFPUC distributes water via the Regional Water System (SFPUC RWS). The SFPUC obtains

approximately 85 percent of its water from the Sierra Nevada snowmelt stored in the Hetch Hetchy

Reservoir, which is located in the Tuolumne River in Yosemite National Park. The SFPUC obtains

the remaining 15 percent of its water from runoff in the Alameda and Peninsula watersheds.34

As noted above, the majority of the SFPUC’s water supply originates in the upper Tuolumne River

watershed, high in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, remote from human development and pollution. The

California Department of Health Services has determined that this water is exempt from certain

standard filtration requirements due to its relative purity. Hetch Hetchy water is protected in pipes and

tunnels as it is conveyed to the Bay Area, requiring only primary disinfection and pH adjustment to

control for corrosion in the pipelines. Small amounts of local water may be blended with Hetch

Hetchy water. Water from the Alameda watershed is treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment

Plant in Sunol, while water from the Peninsula Watershed is treated at the Harry Tracy Water

Treatment Plant in San Bruno.

Three pipelines transport water from the Peninsula portion of the regional SFPUC facilities north to

San Francisco: Sunset Supply Pipeline, Crystal Springs Pipelines, and San Andreas Pipelines. These

pipelines distribute water to wholesale and retail customers in the Peninsula, but terminate in three

reservoirs within San Francisco: Merced Manor and Sunset reservoirs on the west side of the City,

and University Mound reservoir on the east side of the City. Water is distributed throughout the City

33 This assumes that wastewater generated is 95 percent of the water used. Source: Prasifka, David W., Water

Supply Planning, 1994.

34 2005 Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission, December, 2005. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos.

2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.



113

through a series of mains and laterals. The SFPUC is currently engaged in a system-wide Water

System Improvement Program (WSIP) to repair, upgrade, and retrofit existing water delivery

infrastructure, most of which was built in the early to mid 1900s. The WSIP includes 36 projects

within the City of San Francisco, but extends as far as portions of the Hetch Hetchy system in

Tuolumne County.

The additional 235,000 square feet of museum space and 13 new residential units that would be

developed as part of the proposed projects would consume an estimated 36,139 gallons of water per

day in total.35 (Water use associated with the relocation of Fire Station No. 1 would not be expected to

increase as part of the proposed projects because fire station operations would remain the same.)

Although the proposed projects would incrementally increase the demand for water in San Francisco,

the SFPUC would meet the estimated increase in demand within its anticipated water supply for

San Francisco. The designs of the proposed projects would specify water-conserving measures, such

as low-flush toilets and urinals, as required by the California State Building Code Section 402.0(c).

During project construction, the project sponsor and project building contractor must comply with

Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991 requiring the use of non-

potable water for dust control activities. Since project water demand could be accommodated by the

existing and planned system-wide water supply evaluated as part of the Water Supply Assessment

prepared for the Proposed Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Project36 and would use

best-practice water conservation devices, it would not result in a substantial increase in water use and

could be served from the existing water supply entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed

projects would result in less-than-significant project-specific water supply impacts and the EIR will

not discuss this topic further.

35 This assumes an annual water use of 213 gallons of water per day per 13 residential units and 0.142 gallons of

water per day per square foot of museum space. Source: Prasifka, David W., Water Supply Planning, 1994.

36 Final Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Project,

PBS&J and SFPUC, Adopted October 27, 2009. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case

File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.



114

The project sites are currently served by the SFPUC water distribution system and the increase in

water demand from the proposed projects would be only incrementally greater than the existing

demand; no new major water infrastructure would be needed to serve the proposed projects. There-

fore, the proposed projects would result in less-than-significant project-specific and cumulative water

supply impacts and the EIR will not discuss this topic further.

Impact UT-4: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the

projects’ solid waste disposal needs. (Less Than Significant)

Sunset Scavenger Company and Golden Gate Disposal, subsidiaries of Recology, Inc., handle solid

waste collection services for residential and commercial garbage and recycling in San Francisco.

Non-hazardous solid waste is taken to the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility. The

Altamont Landfill handles construction, demolition and mixed municipal waste. This landfill

comprises approximately 2,170 acres (480 acres of permitted landfill area) and has a permitted

maximum daily disposal capacity of 11,150 tons per day and receives an average input of 7,505 tons

per day.37 The facility’s current permit was issued in August 2005; its next permit review date is

August 2010. The landfill is projected to have sufficient capacity to operate until at least 2031 and the

potential to operate through 2071, depending on City-wide incorporation of waste flow and waste

reduction measures.38

Impact UT-5: The construction and operation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project would follow all applicable statutes and regulations

related to solid waste. (Less Than Significant)

37 Facility/Site Summary Details; Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility, Website:

www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS, California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2007. This document is available for review at

the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.

38 Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan, Alameda County Waste Management Authority,

February 26, 2003. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and

2010.0275E.



115

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires municipalities to adopt

an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) to establish objectives, policies, and programs

relative to waste disposal, management, source reduction, and recycling. Reports filed by the

San Francisco Department of the Environment showed the City generated 1.88 million tons of waste

material in 2002. Approximately 63 percent (1.18 million tons) was diverted through recycling,

composting, reuse and other efforts while 700,000 tons went to a landfill.39 In addition, the City had a

goal to divert most (75 percent) of its solid waste (through recycling, composting, etc.) by 2010 and

all waste by 2020.40

San Francisco Ordinance No. 27-06 requires a minimum of 65 percent of all construction and

demolition debris to be recycled and diverted from landfills. Furthermore, the projects would be

required to comply with City Ordinance No. 100-09, which requires everyone in San Francisco to

separate their refuse into recyclables, compostables and trash. Altamont Landfill is required to meet

federal, State, and local solid waste regulations.

Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would not impede the City from meeting the requirements described above, and the impact

would be less than significant. Therefore, this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.

Impact UT-6: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in

their vicinities, would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on utilities and service

systems. (Less Than Significant)

39 Community Indicators Report, Website: www.sfgov.org/wcm_controller/community_indicators/

physicalenvironment/index.htm, San Francisco Office of the Controller, 2010. This document is available for review at the

Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.

40 Zero Waste Webpage, Website: www.sfenvironment.org/ our_programs/program_info.html?ssi=3&ti=#Reports.

San Francisco Department of the Environment, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in

Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.



116

The proposed cumulative development in the vicinity of the project sites, as listed in Table 4, was

included in the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Proposed Candlestick Point-Hunters Point

Shipyard Phase II Project. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to pay the applicable

Wastewater Capacity Charge to fund the cost of expansion of the wastewater conveyance and

treatment system, if necessary. Cumulative projects would also predominately replace existing

buildings and impervious surfaces. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater would be less than

significant. This topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.

Topics:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

12. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the project:

a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts

associated with the provision of, or the need for,

new or physically altered governmental facilities,

the construction of which could cause significant

environmental impacts, in order to maintain

acceptable service ratios, response times, or

other performance objectives for any public

services such as fire protection, police

protection, schools, parks, or other services?

Impact PS-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would increase demand for police service, but not to an extent that would result in

substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of such service. (Less Than

Significant)

The SFMOMA Expansion site currently receives police and fire protection services from the

San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). The nearest police station to both the SFMOMA

Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites is the Southern Station at 850

Bryant Street, which is located approximately 0.7 of a mile southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion

site and 0.3 of a mile south of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing project site. The proposed



117

projects would increase development intensity on their sites and would increase the demand for, and

use of, police services, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in these areas. This

topic will not be discussed in the EIR.


Project may increase or alter demands for fire protection services, through changes to service

areas and response times associated with the proposed relocation of Fire Station No. 1 from 676

Howard Street to 935 Folsom Street. (Potentially Significant)

Fire Station No. 1 is located at 676 Howard Street, on the SFMOMA Expansion site. Fire Station No.

8, at 36 Bluxome Street between Fourth Street and Fifth Street, is about 0.7 of a mile to the southwest

of the SFMOMA Expansion site and about 0.5 of a mile southeast of the Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project site.

The General Plan’s Community Facilities Element contains the following principles related to the

provision of fire facilities in San Francisco:

• In general, firehouses should be distributed throughout the City so that each firehouse has a

primary service area extending within a radius of 0.5 of a mile. This spacing should vary in

relation to population densities, building intensities and types of construction, the pattern of

trafficways, and with the relative degree of fire hazard.

• Firehouses should be located on streets close to and leading into major or secondary

thoroughfares.

• Firehouses should be so located so that no topographic barriers require time-consuming detours

within the primary service area of each firehouse.

The EIR will include an analysis of the effects of the proposed relocation of Fire Station No. 1 on

acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives such as those listed above.

Moreover, as discussed under topic 4, Cultural Resources, the proposed demolition of Fire Station

No. 1 and construction of a replacement station could result in significant impacts to historic architec-

tural resources. The potential of the proposed projects to result in direct, indirect, and cumulative

impacts to cultural resources will also be analyzed in the EIR.



118


Project would directly and indirectly generate school-aged students who would be

accommodated within existing school facilities. (Less Than Significant)

The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, or Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), restricts the ability of

local agencies such as the City of San Francisco to deny land use approvals on the basis that public

school facilities are inadequate. SB 50 establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees at

$2.24 per square foot of residential construction and $0.21 per square foot of commercial construction

as of 2006. These fees are intended to address local school facility needs resulting from new develop-

ment. Public school districts can, however, impose higher fees provided they meet the conditions

outlined in the act.

The San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) provides public primary and secondary educa-

tion in the City and County of San Francisco. The Bessie Carmichael Elementary School (and

Filipino Education Center Campus) at 375 Seventh Street is approximately 0.7 of a mile southwest of

the SFMOMA Expansion site and 0.3 of a mile southwest of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project site. Middle schools in the vicinity of the project sites include: International Studies Academy

at 655 De Haro Street (approximately 1.5 miles south of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 1.3 miles

south of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site); Everett Middle School at 450 Church

Street (2.2 miles southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 1.7 miles southwest of the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site); and Francisco Middle School at 2190 Powell Street

(0.9 of a mile northwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site and 1.2 miles northwest of the Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project site). The closest high school to the project sites is Mission High

School at 3750 Eighteenth Street, approximately 2.2 miles southwest of the SFMOMA Expansion site

and 1.7 miles southwest of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site.

Based on a student generation rate employed by the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)

of 0.203 students per dwelling unit and the assumptions in Section E.3, Population and Housing, the



119

projects would potentially generate, indirectly, up to about three K-12 students.41 Similar to other

City-wide developments, the proposed projects would be assessed $2.42 per gross square foot for the

increase in residential space, or approximately $28,943 for the additional 11,960 square feet of gross

unit area. Given that SFUSD has adequate facilities to accommodate growth, the estimated three

additional new students would not require new school facilities, and it is anticipated that all new

students could be accommodated by existing schools under the jurisdiction of the SFUSD. The

SFUSD is currently not a growth district, and facilities throughout the City and County are generally

underutilized. The SFUSD currently has more classrooms District-wide than it needs, and the surplus

is predicted to increase over the next 10 years as enrollment shrinks. The SFUSD has responded to

these trends with its decisions in January 2006 over school closures and mergers. The SFUSD is not

planning to construct new schools near the project site. The proposed project's 13 residential units

would not substantially increase demand for school facilities in San Francisco and would not result in

a significant impact. As with all new development, the project sponsor would be required to pay one-

time school impact fees under Government Code Section 65995(b)(3), as stated above. Therefore, the

EIR will not discuss school-related impacts further.


Project would result in an incremental increase in the use of parks and open spaces in the

project vicinity, but the increased use would result in a less than significant impact. (Less Than

Significant)

As described in Topic 3, Population and Housing, above, upon completion of the SFMOMA Expansion,

SFMOMA anticipates an increase of up to 87 FTEs. In addition, the proposed 13 residential units on the

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site would result in the addition of about 22 residents.

Although new employees and residents may utilize parks and recreational spaces in the vicinity of the

sites, use would likely be modest (based on the size of the projected population and employment

increases), and it is unlikely that substantial physical deterioration would be expected. In addition, the

41 Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Community Plan Initial Study. Case No. 2004.0160E, Final EIR.

City/County of San Francisco, August 7, 2008. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case

File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.



120

proposed projects would not substantially increase demand for or use of City-wide facilities such as

Golden Gate Park, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and Gardens, or the waterfront. The increased use

of local recreational facilities would be minor compared with the current use of these facilities. The

incremental residential growth that would result from the proposed projects would not require the

construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. See Topic 10,

Recreation and Open Space, above, for further discussion of the impacts of the proposed projects on

recreational facilities. This topic will not be discussed in the EIR.


Project would increase demand for government services, but not to the extent that would result

in significant physical impacts. (Less Than Significant)

The incremental daytime non-residential population growth that would result from the proposed arts,

support and residential uses that would be included as part of the proposed projects would not

necessitate the need for other new or physically altered governmental facilities. Therefore, this topic

will not be discussed in the EIR.


Project, combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity,

could result in a significant cumulative impact to public services. (Potentially Significant)

Cumulative development in the vicinity of the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing sites would incrementally increase demand for public services, including police, fire

protection and schools, but not beyond levels anticipated and planned for by public service providers.

In addition, as described above, the relocation of Fire Station No. 1 from 676 Howard Street to 935

Folsom Street could change Fire Department operations and response times. These changes, in

combination with service changes associated with other cumulative development projects, will be

evaluated in the EIR



121

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

13. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES— Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly

or through habitat modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or 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?



122

The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites do not include

riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as defined by the California Department of

Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; therefore, Topic 13b is not applicable

to the proposed projects. In addition, the project sites do not contain any wetlands as defined by

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, Topic 13c is not applicable to the proposed projects.

The project sites do not fall within any local, regional or State habitat conservation plans. Therefore,

Topic 13f is not applicable to the proposed projects.

Impact BI-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would have no impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-

status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Depart-

ment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (No Impact)

The project sites and the majority of the Downtown/Yerba Buena Gardens and East SoMa areas

around the sites are developed and covered with structures and other impermeable surfaces; therefore,

the proposed projects would not affect any rare plants or possible animal habitats, including riparian

habitat. The sites do not provide habitat for any rare or endangered plant or animal species, and the

proposed projects would not have an adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,

or special-status species. There are two street trees on the Howard Street frontage of the SFMOMA

expansion site; there are three street trees on the Folsom Street frontage of the Fire Station expansion/

housing site. These trees do not provide habitat for protected plant and animal species (see Impact BI-

3, below). This topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.

Impact BI-2: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or

migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (No Impact)

Neither the SFMOMA Expansion site nor the Fire Station Relocation and Housing site are located

within established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; the sites are also not located on or

in the vicinity of wildlife nurseries. The project sites are located within the Downtown/Yerba Buena

Gardens and East SoMa areas of San Francisco, areas which are developed and generally covered



123

with existing structures. Therefore, the projects would not interfere with the movement of any native

resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife

corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Impact BI-3: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station

Relocation and Housing Project would not conflict with local tree protection regulations. (Less

Than Significant)

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors amended the City's Urban Forestry Ordinance, Public Works

Code, Sections 8.02-8.11, to require disclosure and protection of certain trees, including street trees,

and to require a permit from the Department of Public Works (DPW) to remove any protected trees.42

Protected trees include landmark trees, significant trees, or street trees located on private or public

property. DPW requires that adjacent street trees be protected during construction, replaced if

damaged, and that additional street trees be added as feasible along certain streets.

Under the Ordinance, a “landmark” tree has the highest level of protection. It must meet certain

criteria for age, size, shape, species, location, historical association, visual quality, or other

contribution to the City’s character. The Urban Forestry Council and the Board of Supervisors must

find the tree worthy of landmark status after public hearings. A “significant” tree is a tree: (1) located

either on DPW property or on private property within 10 feet of a public right-of-way and (2) that has

a diameter at breast height (DBH)43 greater than 12 inches, or a height greater than 20 feet, or a

canopy greater than 15 feet. A “street tree” is a tree within the public right-of-way or on DPW's

property. Removal of a landmark, significant, or street tree requires a permit from DPW. In addition,

all such trees are subject to certain maintenance and protection standards. The San Francisco Planning

Department, Department of Building Inspection (DBI), and DPW have established guidelines to

ensure that the provisions concerning protected trees are implemented. As part of these guidelines, the

Planning Department requires that a “Tree Disclosure Statement” accompany all permit applications

that could potentially affect a protected tree, whether the tree is on the project site or adjacent sites.

42 San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Ordinance No. 17-06, amending Public Works Code Sections 801 et seq.

43 “Breast height” is 4.5 feet above the ground surface surrounding the tree.



124

There are no landmark or significant trees on either of the project sites. There are two existing street

trees within the public right-of-way of the Howard Street sidewalk and three existing street trees

within the public right-of-way of the Folsom Street sidewalk; these five trees are protected trees under

the Ordinance. The proposed projects would likely remove these trees pursuant to City and DPW

requirements and would add up to six street trees to the sidewalks adjacent to the SFMOMA

expansion site and several street trees to the sidewalks adjacent to the Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project site (in addition to replacing any trees removed during the construction period). As

discussed in “Plans and Policies,” Planning Code Section 143 requires that project sponsors of new

buildings in the C-3 and MUR land use districts plant one street tree for each 20 feet of property

frontage along each street or alley unless waived by the Zoning Administrator as infeasible. The final

number and placement requirements of additional street trees and required street tree protection

during construction would be subject to review and approval by DPW. The proposed project would

comply with the San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance and DPW requirements.

Based on the above information, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts

on biological resources, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

Impact BI-4: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project, combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity,

would make no contribution to cumulative biological impacts. (No Impact)

Based on the above, the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not result in any significant effect with regard to biology and would not contribute in a considerable manner to cumulative effects on biological resources. This topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.



125

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

14. GEOLOGY AND SOILS— Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of

loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the

State Geologist for the area or based on

other substantial evidence of a known fault?

(Refer to Division of Mines and Geology

Special Publication 42.)

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction?

iv) 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?



126

The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would connect

to the City’s sewer and stormwater collection and treatment system and would not use a septic waste

disposal system. Therefore, Topic 14e is not applicable to the project site.

Impact GE-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project could result in exposure of people and structures to potential substantial adverse

geology- and soils-related effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of

a known earthquake fault, expansive soils, seismic ground-shaking, liquefaction, lateral

spreading, or other ground instabilities, but the impact would be less-than-significant. (Less

Than Significant)

The project sites are located in the same seismic setting. In particular, the sites are not located within

an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and no

known or potentially active fault exists on the project sites. In a seismically active area, such as the

San Francisco Bay Area, the possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously

existed. No evidence of active faulting on the sites has been found on either of the sites and the risk of

surface faulting is low.

The San Francisco General Plan Community Safety Element contains maps that show areas of the

city subject to geologic hazards. The project site is located in an area subject to “very violent”

groundshaking (Modified Mercalli Intensity X) from earthquakes along the Peninsula segment of the

San Andreas Fault and the North and South segments of the Hayward Fault (Map 2 of the Commu-

nity Safety Element).44 The sites are located approximately 7 miles east of the San Andreas Fault and

11 miles west of the northern Hayward Fault. Therefore, it is likely that the sites will experience

44 Continued research has resulted in revisions to ABAG’s earthquake hazard maps. Available on ABAG website

(viewed January 31, 2010) at: http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mapsba.html. Based on the current (2003) ABAG

mapping, the shaking hazard potential at the project site is considered to be “very violent.” The original 1995 ABAG maps,

published in On Shaky Ground and included in the General Plan Community Safety Element, identified the potential for

“extreme damage” in the project area. ABAG notes on its website, “The damage, however, will not be uniform. Some

buildings will experience substantially more damage than this overall level, and others will experience substantially less

damage.” Buildings that are expected to experience greater damage are older buildings that have not received seismic

strengthening improvements.



127

periodic minor or major earthquakes associated with a regional fault. The 2007 Working Group on

California Earthquake Probabilities estimates that there is a 63 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 or

greater earthquake will occur in the San Francisco Bay Area within 30 years. Like the entire

San Francisco Bay Area, the project site is subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on

regional fault lines.

Groundshaking associated with an earthquake on one of the regional faults around the SFMOMA

Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing sites may result in ground failure, such as that

associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction.45 The project sites are

located within a Special Geologic Study Area, as shown in the Community Safety Element of the

San Francisco General Plan (Map 4), and are designated as potentially liquefiable on a map titled

“Zones of Liquefaction Potential, City and County of San Francisco,” published by the California

Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. The project sites are not located in an

area subject to landslides, tsunami, or reservoir inundation (Maps 5, 6, and 7 in the Community

Safety Element).46

SFMOMA Expansion Site. The following section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Study

prepared for the SFMOMA Expansion site.47 The area around the project site and the site itself are

generally flat. The SFMOMA basement extends to approximately 16 feet below the ground surface

(approximately 18 feet above SF Datum). The site is underlain by artificial fill, and bedrock is located

approximately 200 feet below the ground surface.

45 Liquefaction is the transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state during which saturated soil temporarily

loses strength resulting from the buildup of excess pore water pressure, which may occur during earthquakes. Lateral

spreading is a phenomenon in which surface soil is displaced along a zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied

layer. Differential compaction is a phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is made more dense by

earthquake vibrations, causing differential settlement.

46 San Francisco General Plan, Community Safety Element, City and County of San Francisco, April, 1997. This


47 Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Proposed SFMOMA Expansion, San Francisco, CA, Treadwell and Rollo,

March 10, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.



128

Based on soil borings extracted from the project site, the fill layer underlying the site is 9 to 12 feet in

thickness. The layer of fill consists of varying amounts of silt and clay, and sandy clay. The fill is

loose to medium-dense and stiff, and does not appear to have been compacted. A 12- to 24-foot thick

layer of dune sand underlies the fill. The mat foundation for the existing museum is supported by this

sand layer. The dune sand is underlain by a 4- to 8-foot thick marsh deposit consisting of clays and

silts with varying amounts of sand. An approximately 50- to 55-foot thick layer of dense to very-

dense sand with varying clay and silt content over clay (with layers of dense sand) is located under

the marsh deposit. Groundwater occurs approximately 10 to 30 feet below the ground surface, based

on Department of Conservation data. Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared for the

site, the potential for liquefaction on the site is low due to the density of the soil below the ground-

water table. For similar reasons, lateral spreading is unlikely to occur at the site. Because the undocu-

mented fill underlying the sites are loose to medium dense, differential compaction may occur on the

site. However, risks associated with differential compaction would be reduced with implementation

of standard building engineering and design measures.

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site. This section is based on the Preliminary Geotech-

nical Study48 and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment49 prepared for the site, in addition to other

available geologic data. The area around the project site is generally flat and slopes gently towards the

southwest. The site itself is level and is located approximately 20 feet above SF Datum. The site is

underlain by artificial fill, and bedrock is located approximately 200 feet below the ground surface.

A subsurface investigation conducted in the year 2000 at the project site that included analysis of two

soil borings and groundwater samples indicates that the project site is underlain by fill to a depth of at

least 11 feet (which probably varies between 10 to 20 feet). This fill consists of very loose to medium

dense sand, with varying amounts of gravel, clay, silt, and sandy gravel. The fill contains gravel,

48 Preliminary Geotechnical Study, 935 Folsom Street – Proposed Firehouse, San Francisco, California, Treadwell

and Rollo, January 25, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No.

2009.0291E.

49 Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 935 Folsom Street, Treadwell and Rollo, February 16, 2010.




129

brick, wood, and concrete fragments, and was most likely deposited between 1850 and 1900, and then

as part of the rebuilding effort following the 1906 earthquake. Medium dense to dense dune sand,

along with peat, marine deposits, and older bay and alluvial deposits, underlies the fill. Investigations

in the vicinity of the site indicate the presence of stiff over-consolidated marine clay below the dune

sand. These deposits may extend to about 65 feet below the ground surface. In general, the depth of

the free groundwater table fluctuates with seasonal and annual rainfall (although is expected to occur

approximately 8 to 10 feet below the ground surface); zones of seepage may be encountered near the

ground surface following rainstorms.

Because the undocumented fill and underlying sands that are present on the site are loose to medium

dense, the potential for liquefaction to occur is high. For similar reasons, the potential for lateral

spreading to occur is also high. It is expected that the site could experience between 0.5 to 2 feet of

lateral spreading following a strong earthquake. Although these constraints would require careful

foundation design, associated risks would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementa-

tion of standard building engineering and design measures used in areas that are unsuitable for

foundation support.

Plan Review. The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) would require the

preparation of a final geotechnical report pursuant to the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act during

its review of the building permits for the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project. In addition, DBI could require that additional site-specific soils reports be

prepared in conjunction with permit applications, as needed. In reviewing final building plans, DBI

refers to a variety of information sources to determine existing hazards and assess requirements for

mitigation. Sources reviewed include maps of Special Geologic Study Areas and known landslide

areas in San Francisco. In addition, the building inspector’s working knowledge of areas of special

geologic concern is also used to identify hazards and associated mitigation requirements.

To ensure compliance with all Building Code provisions regarding structural safety, when DBI

reviews the final geotechnical report and building plans for a proposed project, it determines the

necessary engineering and design features for the project to reduce potential damage to structures

from groundshaking and other seismic hazards. Therefore, potential damage to structures from



130

geologic hazards on the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing sites would

be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through DBI review of the building permit application,

and geology and soils will not be further evaluated in the EIR.


Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including

the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. (No Impact).

As shown on the official State of California Seismic Hazards Zone Map for San Francisco prepared

under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990,50 the project sites are not located within an area

subject to landslide (Map 5 of the Community Safety Element). Therefore, the proposed projects

would not result in landslide-related impacts, and this topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.


Project would not result in substantial loss of topsoil or erosion. (No Impact)

The SFMOMA Expansion site and Fire Station Relocation and Housing site are currently covered

entirely with impervious surfaces and do not contain native top soil. Although excavation would

occur as part of the projects, compliance with standard erosion-control measures would reduce the

potential for erosion to a less-than-significant level.


Project would not result in impacts to site topographical features. (No Impact)

The project sites are located on blocks that are generally flat. The project sites themselves are both

flat and contain no unique topography. The proposed projects would have no impact with respect to

topographical features, and this topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.

50 The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking,

liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This Act requires the State

Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to

regulate certain development projects within these zones.



131


Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the site

vicinity, would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils. (Less Than

Significant)

The proposed projects would result in no impact to topographical features, loss of topsoil or erosion,

or risk of injury or death involving landslides. Therefore, the projects would not have a considerable

contribution to related cumulative impacts associated with the projects listed in Table 4. In addition,

the building plans of planned and foreseeable projects would be reviewed by the Department of

Building Inspection (DBI), and potential geologic hazards would be reduced during the DBI permit

review process. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the projects related to geology, soils, and

seismicity would be less than significant, and this topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.

Topics:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

15. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or

interfere substantially with groundwater recharge

such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer

volume or a lowering of the local groundwater

table level (e.g., the production rate of 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)?

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?



132

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

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?

Flood risk assessment and some flood protection projects are conducted by federal agencies, includ-

ing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps). The flood management agencies and cities implement the National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP) under the jurisdiction of FEMA and its Flood Insurance Administration. Currently, the City

does not participate in the NFIP and no flood maps are published for the City. However, FEMA is



133

preparing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the City and County of San Francisco for the first

time. FIRMs identify areas that are subject to inundation during a flood having a 1 percent chance of

occurring in a given year (also known as a “base flood” or “100-year flood”).

FEMA refers to the flood plain that is at risk from a flood of this magnitude as a special flood hazard

area (SFHA). Because FEMA has not previously published a FIRM for the City and County of

San Francisco, there are no identified SFHAs within San Francisco’s geographic boundaries. FEMA

has completed the initial phases of a study of the lands leading to San Francisco Bay. On September

21, 2007, FEMA issued a preliminary FIRM of San Francisco for review and comment by the City.

The City has submitted comments on the preliminary FIRM to FEMA. A final FIRM may be released

in 2010, after FEMA completes the more detailed analysis that Port and City staff requested in 2007.

Meanwhile, the City published its own interim flood plain maps in 2008.51

FEMA has tentatively identified SFHAs along the City’s shoreline in and along the San Francisco

Bay consisting of Zone A (in areas subject to inundation by tidal surge) and Zone V (areas of coastal

flooding subject to wave hazards).52 In August 2008, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed

Ordinance 188-08 to enact a floodplain management program to govern new construction and

substantial improvements in flood-prone areas of San Francisco, and to authorize the City’s

participation in NFIP.

Specifically, the proposed floodplain management ordinance includes a requirement that any new

construction or substantial improvement of structures in a designated flood zone must meet the flood

damage minimization requirements in the ordinance. The NFIP regulations allow a local jurisdiction

to issue variances to its floodplain management ordinance under certain narrow circumstances,

without jeopardizing the local jurisdiction’s eligibility in the NFIP. However, the particular projects

that are granted variances by the local jurisdiction may be deemed ineligible for federally backed

51 Interim Floodplain Maps, City and County of San Francisco, July, 2008. This document is available for review at

the Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.

52 Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps, FEMA, September, 2007. This document is available for review at the

Planning Department in Case File Nos. 2009.0291E. and 2010.0275E.



134

flood insurance by FEMA. The Board of Supervisors will consider the revised Floodplain Manage-

ment Ordinance, which incorporates the changes requested by FEMA, sometime within 2010.

According to the preliminary maps, the project sites are not located within Zone A or Zone V and are

therefore not expected to be subject to significant flood hazards (and would not expose persons,

structures, or housing to such hazards). Thus topics 15g and 15h are not applicable.

Impact HY-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project would not violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water

quality. (Less Than Significant).

Wastewater generated on the SFMOMA Expansion site and stormwater runoff generated on the

SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites flows into the City’s

combined sewer system and into the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant, where it is treated prior

to discharge into San Francisco Bay. Treatment is undertaken consistent with the effluent discharge

standards established by the plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit. In accordance with the permit, discharges of treated wastewater and stormwater into

San Francisco Bay meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Combined Sewer Overflow

Control Policy, and associated State requirements in the Water Quality and Control Plan for the

San Francisco Bay Basin and would not violate water quality standards.

The San Francisco Stormwater Design Guidelines, which were adopted by SFPUC on January 12,

2010, require project applicants proposing development or redevelopment projects disturbing more

than 5,000 square feet of ground surface to manage stormwater on-site. Based on the Stormwater

Design Guidelines, the discharge of pollutants must be reduced to the maximum extent practicable

using management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods. As

discussed under Impact UT-2, both the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project would result in the disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet of ground surface and

would therefore be required to comply with the Stormwater Design Guidelines. Therefore, the

projects would not be expected to otherwise degrade water quality.



135


Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with

groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of

the local groundwater table level. (Less Than Significant)

The project sites are completely covered with impervious surfaces. Groundwater on the SFMOMA

Expansion site occurs approximately 10 to 30 feet below the ground surface; groundwater in the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site fluctuates with seasonal conditions, but is expected to

occur at roughly the same depth as on the SFMOMA Expansion site (due to the proximity and similar

elevations of the two sites).

The projects would not result in use of groundwater, although groundwater may be encountered

during the project construction period. Any groundwater encountered during construction of the

proposed projects would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Industrial Waste Ordinance

(Ordinance Number 199-77), requiring that groundwater meet specified water quality standards

before it is discharged into the sewer system. The Bureau of Systems Planning, Environment, and

Compliance of the SFPUC must be notified of projects requiring dewatering, and may require water

analysis before discharge. If dewatering is necessary, the final soils report required for the projects

would address the potential settlement and subsidence associated with the dewatering. The report

would contain a determination as to whether or not a lateral movement and settlement survey should

be prepared to monitor any movement or settlement of surrounding buildings and adjacent streets. If a

monitoring survey is recommended, the DPW would require that a Special Inspector (as defined in

Article 3 of the Building Code) be retained by the project sponsor to perform this monitoring.

Because the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station relocation sites would remain almost totally

impervious after project implementation, the project would not affect groundwater recharge.


Project would not result in altered drainage patterns that would cause substantial erosion or

flooding. (No Impact)



136

No streams or creeks occur on the project sites. In addition, the project sites are covered with impervi-

ous surfaces. This coverage would not substantially change as part of the projects and drainage

patterns would remain generally the same. Therefore, the projects would not be expected to result in

substantial erosion or flooding associated with changes in drainage patterns.


Project would not contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or

planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted

runoff. (Less Than Significant)

During operation of the expanded museum, fire station, and residential structure, all wastewater and

stormwater runoff from the project sites would be treated at the Southeast Water Pollution Control

Plant. Treatment would be provided pursuant to the effluent discharge standards contained in the

City’s NPDES permit for the plant. During operation and construction, the proposed projects would

be required to comply with all local wastewater discharge and water quality requirements (including

the San Francisco Stormwater Design Guidelines, described above under Impact HY-1). The Storm-

water Design Guidelines would ensure that all stormwater generated by the projects is managed on-

site such that the projects would not contribute additional volumes of polluted runoff to the City’s

storm water infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed projects would not exceed the capacity of existing

or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.


Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death

involving inundation associated with failure of a levee or dam, or by seiche, tsunami, or

mudflow. (No Impact)

The project sites are not located in an area subject to landslides/mudslides, tsunami, or reservoir

inundation (Maps 5, 6, and 7 in the Community Safety Element).53 Therefore, the proposed SFMOMA

Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not be exposed to such hazards.

53 San Francisco General Plan, Community Safety Element, City and County of San Francisco, April, 2007. This




137



vicinity, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts to hydrology and water

quality. (Less Than Significant).

The proposed projects would not have a significant impact on water quality standards, groundwater,

drainage, or runoff, and thus would not make a significant cumulative contribution to associated area-

wide impacts. Impervious surface coverage on the sites would remain generally the same after project

implementation. Therefore, the projects would not contribute to potential increases in stormwater

runoff associated with area-wide redevelopment projects. These area-wide projects would generally

occur on already-developed sites and would not result in substantial changes to impervious surface

coverage or drainage patterns. The project sites are not located within a 100-year flood zone; there-

fore, the projects would not be expected to contribute to flood hazards. Therefore, cumulative

hydrology and water quality impacts will not be discussed further in the EIR.

Topics:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

16. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS— Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use,

or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through reasonably foreseeable

upset and accident conditions involving the

release of hazardous materials into the

environment?



138

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

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?

The SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project sites are not located

within an airport land use plan, or within 2 miles of a public or private airport. Therefore, employees

at the site and visitors to the site would not be exposed to significant aircraft-related hazards, and

topics 16e and 16f are not discussed further.



139

There are certain areas of the city that consist of fill and are covered by an ordinance called the Maher

Ordinance. These areas, which were once highly industrialized and contaminated, or consist of

imported fill consisting of soil and debris from the 1906 earthquake, often contain lead and other

pollutants. To protect public and worker health and safety due to these historic pollutants, projects

that involve disturbance of these soils of more than 50 cubic yards require investigation, site manage-

ment and reporting subject to Article 22A of the San Francisco Health Code. The project sites are not

located within a Maher area.

Impact HZ-1: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or reasonably foreseeable accident condi-

tions involving the release of materials into the environment. (Less Than Significant with


SFMOMA Expansion Site. This setting information and subsequent impact analysis is primarily

based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site.54 The SFMOMA

Expansion site is part of a neighborhood that was built on top of debris following the 1906 earthquake

and fire. Historic topographic maps and fire insurance (Sanborn) maps indicate that, prior to the 1906

earthquake and fire, the site was occupied by a wood and coal yard and single-family dwellings

fronting Howard Street. Most of the buildings on surrounding blocks were single-family dwellings

and duplexes, although other uses also were present. Commercial uses fronted Third Street. After the

1906 earthquake and fire, which destroyed all buildings on and around the site, the site and surround-

ings were developed with mixed commercial, industrial, restaurant, and lodging uses. By 1950, the

site was fully developed with a fire station at 676 Howard Street (replaced by the current Fire Station

No. 1 in 1958), the Heald Building, the Occidental Hotel (on the site of the current SFMOMA

structure) and a parking garage and auto repair shop. Major land use changes since that time include

the demolition of the parking garage and Occidental Hotel, and the development of Fire Station No. 1

(1958) and SFMOMA (1995).

54 Phase I Site Assessment, SFMOMA Expansion Project, Treadwell and Rollo, March 5, 2010. This document is

available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.



140

Hazardous materials issues on the site are generally associated with historic building materials and

uses, as summarized below.

During construction of Fire Station No. 1, a 1,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST)

was installed approximately 4 feet beneath the sidewalk on Howard Street for use in fueling fire

engines. The UST was closed in place in the 1980s and soil samples were analyzed for petroleum

hydrocarbons. No detectable hydrocarbons were found and the San Francisco Department of Public

Health (DPH) issued a certificate of completion letter in 1988.

In 1992, a 300-gallon UST was discovered and removed from beneath Natoma Street near the

northwestern border of the Natoma Parking Pad, a 600-gallon UST was removed from beneath the

center of the current SFMOMA footprint, and two heating oil tanks were removed from beneath the

sidewalk of Minna Street on the northwestern side of the existing SFMOMA building. After gasoline

was detected in soil samples, approximately 1,400 cubic yards of soil were excavated and removed

from the center of the current SFMOMA footprint (near the 600-gallon UST). Additional soil was

removed around the other UST locations and oil tanks. After subsequent monitoring (including the

installation of monitoring wells in 1998) indicated reductions in petroleum hydrocarbon concentra-

tions, DPH granted case closure in February 2002. Off-site contamination has been remediated and is

unlikely to pose a hazard to redevelopment of the project site. Existing hazardous materials concerns

on the site include residual hydrocarbon contamination associated with former USTs and potentially

contaminated fill.

The expanded museum would be expected to use small amounts of commercially-available hazardous

materials that are similar to those used in the current museum. These materials would include paints,

cleaners, toners, solvents, disinfectants, and other materials that would not be expected to pose a

significant public health or safety hazard. These materials are consumed through use or discarded

according to their labeling.

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site indicates that residual

hydrocarbons may exist around the sites of removed USTs in and around Hunt Street and the Natoma

Street parking pad. In addition, fill material below Hunt Street may contain elevated levels of heavy



141

metals and residual petroleum hydrocarbons. Therefore, construction of the project could cause these

materials to be released into the environment or pose risks of exposure to workers. Special soil

handling and sampling may be required prior to project construction.

Implementation of the following multi-part mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-

than-significant level:

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1a (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): The following actions

shall be implemented by the project sponsor:

Step 1 (Preparation of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment): The project sponsor

shall conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the project site. If residual

contamination is identified on the project site that requires preparation and implementation

of a Site Mitigation Plan, Step 2 (and subsequent steps) shall be implemented.

Step 2 (Preparation of Site Mitigation Plan): A Site Mitigation Plan shall be prepared, if

warranted based on the results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. The SMP

shall include a discussion of the level of contamination of soils and groundwater on the

project site and mitigation measures for managing contaminated soils on the site, including,

but not limited to: 1) the alternatives for managing contaminated soils on the site (e.g.,

encapsulation, partial or complete removal, treatment, recycling for reuse, or a combination

of methods); 2) the preferred alternative for managing contaminated soils on the site and a

brief justification as to why; and 3) the specific practices to be used to handle, haul, and

dispose of contaminated soils on the site. The SMP shall be submitted to the DPH for

review and approval. A copy of the SMP shall be submitted to the Planning Department to

become part of the case file.

Step 3 (Handling, Hauling, and Disposal of Contaminated Soils): The following measures

shall be implemented:

(a) Specific work practices: If, based on the results of the soil tests conducted, DPH

determines that the soils on the project site are contaminated at or above potentially



142

hazardous levels, the construction contractor shall be alert for the presence of such

soils during excavation and other construction activities on the site (detected through

soil odor, color, and texture and results of onsite soil testing), and shall be prepared

to handle, profile (i.e., characterize), and dispose of such soils appropriately (i.e., as

dictated by local, State, and federal regulations) when such soils are encountered on

the site. If excavated materials contain over 1 percent friable asbestos, they shall be

treated as hazardous waste, and shall be transported and disposed of in accordance

with applicable State and federal regulations. These procedures are intended to

mitigate any potential health risks related to chrysotile asbestos, which may or may

not be located on the site.

(b) Dust suppression: Soils exposed during excavation for site preparation and project

construction activities shall be kept moist throughout the time they are exposed, both

during and after construction work hours.

(c) Surface water runoff control: Where soils are stockpiled, visqueen shall be used to

create an impermeable liner, both beneath and on top of the soils, with a berm to

contain any potential surface water runoff from the soil stockpiles during inclement

weather.

(d) Soils replacement: If necessary, clean fill or other suitable material(s) shall be used to

bring portions of the project site, where contaminated soils have been excavated and

removed, up to construction grade.

(e) Hauling and disposal: Contaminated soils shall be hauled off the project site by

waste-hauling trucks appropriately certified with the State of California and

adequately covered to prevent dispersion of the soils during transit, and shall be

disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility registered with the State

of California.

Step 4 (Preparation of Closure/Certification Report): After construction activities are

completed, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit a closure/certification report to

DPH for review and approval. The closure/certification report shall include the mitigation

measures in the SMP for handling and removing contaminated soils from the project site,



143

whether the construction contractor modified any of these mitigation measures, and how

and why the construction contractor modified those mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1b (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): If, based on the results

of the soil tests conducted, the DPH determines that the soils on the project site are contami-

nated with contaminants at or above potentially hazardous levels, any contaminated soils

designated as hazardous waste and required by DPH to be excavated shall be removed by a

qualified Removal Contractor and disposed of at a regulated Class I hazardous waste landfill in

accordance with U.S Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as stipulated in the SMP.

The Removal Contractor shall obtain, complete, and sign hazardous waste manifests to accom-

pany the soils to the disposal site. Other excavated soils shall be disposed of in an appropriate

landfill, as governed by applicable laws and regulations, or other appropriate actions shall be

taken in coordination with the DPH. If the DPH determines that the soils on the project site are

contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially hazardous levels, a Site Health and

Safety (H&S) Plan shall be required by the California Division of Occupational Safety and

Health (Cal-OSHA) prior to initiating any earthmoving activities at the site. The H&S Plan

shall identify protocols for managing soils during construction to minimize worker and public

exposure to contaminated soils. The protocols shall include at a minimum:

• Sweeping of adjacent public streets daily (with water sweepers) if any visible soil material

is carried onto the streets.

• Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to placement to

confirm that the soil meets appropriate standards.

• The dust controls specified in the Construction Dust Control Ordinance (176-08).

• Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils. The H&S Plan shall identify site

access controls to be implemented from the time of surface disruption through the

completion of earthwork construction. The protocols shall include as a minimum:

o Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry, such as

fencing or other barrier or sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent entry and

based upon the degree of control required.



144

o Posting of "no trespassing" signs.

o Provision for on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about security

measures and reporting/contingency procedures.

If groundwater contamination is identified, the Site Health and Safety Plan shall identify

protocols for managing groundwater during construction to minimize worker and public

exposure to contaminated groundwater. The protocols shall include procedures to prevent

unacceptable migration of contamination from defined plumes during dewatering.

The H&S Plan shall include a requirement that construction personnel be trained to recognize

potential hazards associated with underground features that could contain hazardous sub-

stances, previously unidentified contamination, or buried hazardous debris. Excavation

personnel shall also be required to wash hands and face before eating, smoking, and drinking.

The H&S Plan shall include procedures for implementing a contingency plan, including appro-

priate notification and control procedures, in the event unanticipated subsurface hazards are

discovered during construction. Control procedures shall include, but would not be limited to,

investigation and removal of underground storage tanks or other hazards.

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1c (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): If the DPH determines

that the soils on the project site are contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially

hazardous levels, all trucks and excavation and soil handling equipment shall be decontami-

nated following use and prior to removal from the site. Gross contamination shall be first

removed through brushing, wiping, or dry brooming. The vehicle or equipment shall then be

washed clean (including tires). Prior to removal from the work site, all vehicles and equipment

shall be inspected to ensure that contamination has been removed.



145

Pre-demolition hazardous materials inspections reports were prepared for the structures located at 670

Howard Street (Heald Building) and 676 Howard Street (Fire Station No. 1).55 The purpose of the

inspections was to ascertain whether the structures contain asbestos, lead, or other materials and

chemicals that could pose a potential risk to human health. The report prepared for the Heald Building

indicates that the building is not likely to contain asbestos, but has lead-containing materials (includ-

ing paint, heavy timber columns, and girders). The report prepared for the Fire Station No. 1 structure

indicates that the building contains asbestos (in floor tile and mastic) and lead (mainly in the form of

loose and peeling paint). Regulations associated with the remediation of asbestos, lead, and other

hazardous building materials are summarized below.

Lead. Demolition must comply with Chapter 34, Section 3423 of the San Francisco Building Code,

Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint on Pre-1979 Buildings and Steel Structures. Where there is any

work that may disturb or remove lead paint on the exterior of any building built prior to December 31,

1978, Chapter 34 requires specific notification and work standards, and identifies prohibited work

methods and penalties. Chapter 34 applies to buildings or steel structures on which original construc-

tion was completed prior to 1979 (which are assumed to have lead-based paint on their surfaces),

where more than 10 total square feet of lead-based paint would be disturbed or removed. The ordi-

nance contains performance standards, including establishment of containment barriers, at least as

effective at protecting human health and the environment as those in the Housing and Urban Develop-

ment Guidelines (the most recent Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards)

and identifies prohibited practices that may not be used in disturbance or removal of lead-based paint.

Any person performing work subject to the ordinance shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent

migration of lead paint contaminants beyond containment barriers during the course of the work, and

any person performing regulated work shall make all reasonable efforts to remove all visible lead paint

contaminants from all regulated areas of the property prior to completion of the work.

The ordinance also includes requirements for notification, notice contents, and signs. Notification

includes notifying bidders for the work of any paint-inspection reports verifying the presence or

55 Predemolition Hazardous Materials Inspection Report, 670 Howard Street, San Francisco, VBA, Inc.,

August 13, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2010.0275E.



146

absence of lead-based paint in the regulated area of the proposed project. Prior to commencement of

work, the responsible party must provide written notice to the Director of the DBI, of the location of

the project; the nature and approximate square footage of the painted surface being disturbed and/or

removed; anticipated job start and completion dates for the work; whether the responsible party has

reason to know or presume that lead-based paint is present; whether the building is residential or

nonresidential, owner-occupied or rental property, and approximate number of dwelling units, if any;

the dates by which the responsible party has or will fulfill any tenant or adjacent property notification

requirements; and the name, address, telephone number, and pager number of the party who will

perform the work. (Further notice requirements include: Sign When Containment is Required, Notice

by Landlord, Required Notice to Tenants, Availability of Pamphlet related to protection from lead in

the home, Notice by Contractor, Early Commencement of Work [by Owner, Requested by Tenant],

and Notice of Lead Contaminated Dust or Soil.) The ordinance contains provisions regarding inspec-

tion and sampling for compliance by the DBI, and enforcement, and describes penalties for non-

compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. These regulations and procedures in the San

Francisco Building Code would ensure that potential impacts of demolition, due to lead-based paint,

would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Asbestos. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991,

requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demon-

strated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding

hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD) is vested by the California legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants,

including asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement, and is required to be notified 10

days in advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work. Notification includes the names and

addresses of operations and persons responsible; description and location of the structure to be

demolished/altered including size, age and prior use, and the approximate amount of friable asbestos;

scheduled starting and completion dates of demolition or abatement; nature of planned work and

methods to be employed; procedures to be employed to meet BAAQMD requirements; and the name

and location of the waste disposal site to be used.



147

The BAAQMD randomly inspects asbestos removal operations. In addition, BAAQMD will inspect

any removal operation for which a complaint has been received. The local office of Cal-OSHA must

be notified of pending asbestos abatement. Asbestos abatement contractors must follow State regula-

tions contained in 8CCR1529 and 8CCR341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related work

involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing material. Asbestos removal contractors must

be certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the State of California. The owner of the

property where abatement is to occur must have a Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by

and registered with the Office of the California Department of Health Services in Sacramento. The

contractor and hauler of the material is required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which details the

hauling of the material from the site and its disposal. Pursuant to California law, the DBI would not

issue the required permit until the applicant has complied with the notice requirements described

above. These regulations and procedures, already established as a part of the permit review process,

would ensure that any potential direct and cumulative impacts of demolition due to asbestos would be

reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mercury and PCBs. While abatement programs similar to those described for asbestos and lead

based paint have not been adopted for PCB and mercury testing and cleanup, items containing PCBs

and mercury that are intended for disposal must be managed as hazardous waste and must be handled

in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws prior to the start of demolition.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1d would reduce direct and cumulative impacts of

potential hazardous building materials to a less-than-significant level:

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1d (applies to SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project): The City shall condition future development approvals to require that the

project sponsor ensures that any equipment containing PCBs or mercury, such as fluorescent

light ballasts, are removed and properly disposed of according to applicable federal, State, and

local laws prior to the start of building demolition, and that any fluorescent light tubes, which

could contain mercury, are similarly removed and properly disposed of. Any other hazardous

materials identified, either before or during work, shall be abated according to applicable

federal, State, and local laws.



148

Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project Site. This setting information and subsequent impact

analysis is primarily based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project

site.56 Similar to the SFMOMA site, the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is located in

a neighborhood destroyed by the 1906 earthquake and fire. Based on Sanborn maps, the site con-

tained a single-story residence, a two-story residence, and a furniture storage and maintenance shop

between 1887 and 1899. By 1913, Arcade Stables occupied the site. The existing building on the site,

which was used as a laundry and later an apparel manufacturing facility, was constructed in 1923.

The project site is listed as a State of California registered leaking UST site, due to a 2,200-gallon

heating oil tank that was removed from beneath Shipley Street in 2001. However, case closure was

granted in 2005. In addition, a site at 923 Folsom Street (approximately 150 feet northeast of the Fire

Station Relocation and Housing Project site), which contained four USTs that were removed in 1996,

was identified as having the potential to affect the project site. Based on recent groundwater monitor-

ing data, contamination originating from the 923 Folsom Street site is moving towards the southeast.

The DPH granted case closure to the property in November 2009. Based on the status of the site,

distance from the Fire Station relocation site, and direction of contaminant flow, contamination at the

923 Folsom Street site is not expected to adversely affect the site.

In addition, an Asbestos, Lead, and PCB Inspection Report was prepared for the site in March 2010.57

The findings of the report are summarized below:

• A total of 33 samples of asbestos-containing materials were identified in the existing building.

Asbestos-containing materials are regulated BAAQMD, Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos

Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing.

• The building contains numerous areas of loose and peeling paint, which is thought to contain

lead.

56 Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 935 Folsom Street, Treadwell and Rollo,

February 16, 2010. This document is available for review at the Planning Department in Case File No. 2009.0291E.

57 Asbestos, Lead and PCB Inspection Report, 935 Folsom Street VBA, Inc., 2010. This document is available for




149

• Although PCBs were not identified in skylights and windows, PCB-containing light ballasts

could occur inside light fixtures in the building.

Employees and occupants of the fire station and the residential building would be expected to use

small amounts of commercially-available hazardous materials that would include paints, cleaners,

toners, solvents, disinfectants, and other materials that would not be expected to pose a significant

public health or safety hazard. These materials are consumed through use or discarded according to

their labeling. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site identified no

on- or off-site hazards (besides building materials containing lead, asbestos, and PCBs) that could

pose a public or environmental health risk. The Phase I Environmental Assessment included the

results of vapor intrusion analysis that compared the results of two previous subsurface investigations

at the site to Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for hazardous materials. Based on this compari-

son, groundwater underlying the site would not result in hazards due to the intrusion of vapor into the

buildings on the site.

However, the existing building contains lead and asbestos, and may contain PCBs. Compliance with

existing regulations and procedures, already established as a part of the permit review process, would

insure that any potential direct impacts of demolition due to the presence of lead and asbestos would

be reduced to a less-than-significant level. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure M-HZ-

1d would reduce risks associated with PCB- and mercury-containing building materials to a less-than-

significant level. Please refer to the SFMOMA Expansion impacts discussion, above, for additional

detail.

Impact HZ-2a: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion would not emit hazardous emissions or

handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 of a mile of

an existing school. (No Impact)

No schools are located within 0.25 of a mile of the SFMOMA Expansion site. Therefore, the SFMOMA

Expansion would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,

substances, or waste within 0.25 of a mile of an existing school.



150

Impact HZ-2b: The proposed Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project could emit hazard-

ous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 of a mile of an existing school. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Bessie Carmichael Elementary School/Filipino Education Center on 375 Seventh Street is located

within approximately 0.25 of a mile of the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site. Imple-

mentation of Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1d and compliance with existing regulations would ensure

that potential impacts associated with the release of lead, asbestos, and PCBs during the construction

period would be less than significant.


Project are not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern-

ment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public

or the environment. (No Impact)

Neither the SFMOMA Expansion site nor the Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site is

included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section

65962.5. Therefore, implementation of the proposed projects would not create a related significant

hazard to the public or the environment.


Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less Than Significant)

As part of the SFMOMA Expansion, the short segment of Hunt Street that is located between the

museum and the Heald Building would be vacated. This segment of Hunt Street is primarily used by

firefighters at Fire Station No. 1 for parking and is infrequently used by pedestrians or individual

drivers. Hunt Street is not used as a primary emergency access route. Therefore, the vacation of the

street would not interfere with emergency evacuation. The streets surrounding the SFMOMA

Expansion site and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project site would not be altered as part of

the project. Therefore, the SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project

would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan



151

or emergency evacuation plan. The EIR will include a detailed evaluation of the effects of the

relocation of Fire Station No. 1 on emergency response times.


Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death

involving fires. (Less Than Significant)

The City requires that existing and new buildings meet fire safety standards through compliance with

the applicable provisions of the Building Code and Fire Code. In addition, the San Francisco Fire

Department and DBI review final building plans larger than two residential units to ensure code

compliance. The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project

would comply with all Building Code and Fire Code standards. Therefore, the proposed projects

would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exposure of persons or structures to fire

risks.



vicinity, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous

materials. (Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated)

Hazards-related impacts are generally site-specific and typically do not combine with impacts from

other planned and foreseeable projects to result in significant cumulative impacts. New developments

in the vicinity of the project sites would be subject to similar regulatory requirements and mitigation

measures as the proposed project. Therefore, large, unexpected releases of hazardous materials of the

type that would contribute to significant cumulative impacts are not expected. Implementation of

Mitigation Measures M-HZ-1a, M-HZ-1b, M-HZ-1c, and M-HZ-1d, and compliance with existing

regulations pertaining to the treatment and management of hazardous materials would ensure that the

projects would not make a significant cumulative contribution to the release of hazardous materials.

Therefore, cumulative hazards impacts will not be further evaluated in the EIR.



152

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

17. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES—Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of value to the

region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a 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?

Impact ME-1: The proposed SFMOMA and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would

not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally-important mineral

resource recovery sites. (No Impact)

All land in San Francisco, including the project site, is designated Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4)

by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) under the Surface Mining and Reclamation

Act of 1975.58 This designation indicates that there is inadequate information available for assignment

to any other MRZ and thus the SFMOMA Expansion site and Fire Station Relocation and Housing

Project site are not designated areas if significant mineral deposits. No sites in San Francisco, includ-

ing the project sites, are designated areas of significant mineral deposits. Since the project sites are

developed, future evaluation or designation of the sites would not affect or be affected by the proposed

projects. There are no operational mineral resource recovery sites in the project areas whose opera-

tions or accessibility would be affected by the construction or operation of the proposed projects. This

topic will not be further discussed in the EIR.

58 CDMG, Open File Report 96-03 and Special Report 146 Parts I and II.



153

Impact ME-2: Implementation of the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Reloca-

tion and Housing Project would not encourage activities which would result in the use of large

amounts of fuel, water, or energy, or use these in a wasteful manner. (Less Than Significant)

Development of the museum space, fire station and residential uses as part of the proposed projects

would not result in the consumption of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy. The generation of

electricity to serve the proposed projects would consume natural gas and coal fuel. All buildings

constructed as part of the proposed projects would meet or exceed current State and local standards

regarding energy consumption, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations enforced by

DBI. They would not use fuel or water in an atypical or wasteful manner.

In addition, new private-sector residential buildings, new non-residential buildings larger than 5,000

square feet, and major renovations to areas larger than 25,000 square feet in existing building (or

mechanical, electrical, or plumbing upgrades to areas larger than 25,000 square feet) are required to

conform to energy conservation standards specified by the San Francisco Building Code, including

the San Francisco Green Building Ordinance. The measures required by the San Francisco Green

Building Ordinance are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with new construc-

tion and rehabilitation activities, increase energy efficiency, and realize other environmental gains.

The SFMOMA Expansion would be subject to the San Francisco Green Building Ordinance. More-

over, the proposed residential structure would be considered a “Group R” building and would be

subject to the ordinance. In addition, under the Municipal Green Building Ordinance, all municipal

projects (new construction and major renovations over 5,000 square feet) are required to achieve

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification from the U.S. Green

Building Council or equivalent.59 Therefore, the proposed new fire station structure would require

LEED silver certification or equivalent. Compliance with the San Francisco Green Building

59 LEED is a green building certification system which provides third-party verification that a building or commu-

nity was designed and built using strategies intended to improve performance in metrics such as energy savings, water

efficiency, carbon emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources. Buildings can

qualify for four levels of certification based on the number of “points” a projects receives for incorporating green design

features: Certified = 40-49 points; Silver = 50-59 points; Gold = 60-79 points; and Platinum = 80 points and higher.



154

Ordinance and Municipal Green Building Ordinance would reduce the use of energy by the proposed

projects.

Based on the above information, the proposed projects would not result in significant adverse impacts

on mineral or energy resources, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR.

Impact ME-3: The proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing


vicinity, would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts to energy and minerals. (Less

Than Significant)

As described above, no known minerals exist at the project sites, and therefore the proposed SFMOMA

Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would not contribute to any cumulative

impacts related to mineral resources. The project-generated demand for electricity would be negligible

in the context of overall demand within San Francisco and the State, and would not in and of itself

require a major expansion of power facilities. Therefore, the energy demand associated with the project

would result in a less-than-significant physical environmental effect. The proposed projects would not

contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to energy and natural resources. Overall, the

project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to mineral and energy resources.



155

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

18. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES—Would the project

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on

the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland

Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural

use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,

or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause

rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public

Resources Code Section 12220(g)) or timberland

(as defined by Public Resources Code Section

4526)?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of

forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing

environment which, due to their location or

nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to

non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest

use?

The project sites and cumulative projects are located within an urban area and are developed with

buildings and other impervious surfaces. The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland

Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the City and County of San Francisco, including the

project sites, as Urban and Built-Up Land, which is defined as “… land [that] is used for residential,

industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation

yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures,

and other developed purposes.”



156

Neither the project sites nor the sites designated for cumulative development include or are zoned for

agricultural uses, forest land, or timberland. The proposed and cumulative projects would not convert

any prime farmland, unique farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use,

and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural land use or a Williamson Act contract.

The proposed and cumulative projects would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of

forest land. The projects would redevelop urban sites and would not involve any changes to the

environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-

forest use. Based on the above information, the proposed and cumulative projects would not result in

significant adverse impacts on agriculture and forest resources, and this topic will not be discussed in

the EIR.

Similar to the proposed SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project, the

cumulative projects would be located on land classified by the California Department of Conserva-

tion’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Urban and Built-Up Land that does not contain

forest resources. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future projects, would not result in adverse cumulative impacts to agriculture and forest

resources.

Topics 18a through 18e are not applicable.



157

Topics:


Impact


with

Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

Not

Applicable

19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE—Would the project:

a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the

environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a

fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife

population to drop below self-sustaining levels,

threaten to eliminate a plant or animal

community, reduce the number or restrict the

range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or

eliminate important examples of the major

periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Have impacts that would be individually limited,

but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively

considerable” means that the incremental effects

of a project are considerable when viewed in

connection with the effects of past projects, the

effects of other current projects, and the effects

of probable future projects.)

c) Have environmental effects that would cause

substantial adverse effects on human beings,

either directly or indirectly?

The EIR will evaluate potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, related to Land Use;

Aesthetics; Cultural Resources; Transportation and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas

Emissions; Wind and Shadow; and Public Services (including emergency response).



158

F. MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

Mitigation measures identified in the analyses in Section E are recapitulated here.

Mitigation Measure M-CP-2 (applies to SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation and

Housing Project): Based on a reasonable presumption that archaeological resources may be

present within the project site, the following measures shall be undertaken to avoid any poten-

tially significant adverse effect from the proposed project on buried or submerged historical

resources. The project sponsor shall retain the services of an archaeological consultant from the

Planning Department (Department) pool of qualified archaeological consultants as provided by

the Department archaeologist. The archaeological consultant shall undertake an archaeological

testing program as specified herein. In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an

archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery program if required pursuant to this measure.

The archaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the

direction of the Environmental Review Officer (ERO). [For the SFMOMA Expansion, the

archaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this mitigation

measure, and with the requirements of the project archaeological research design and treatment

plan (Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Archaeological Research Design and

Treatment Plan for the Transit Center District Plan Area. February 2010) at the direction of the

Environmental Review Officer (ERO). In instances of inconsistency between the requirement

of the project archaeological research design and treatment plan and of this archaeological

mitigation measure, the requirements of this archaeological mitigation measure shall prevail.]

All plans and reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted first and

directly to the ERO for review and comment, and shall be considered draft reports subject to

revision until final approval by the ERO. Archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery

programs required by this measure could suspend construction of the project for up to a

maximum of 4 weeks. At the direction of the ERO, the suspension of construction can be

extended beyond 4 weeks only if such a suspension is the only feasible means to reduce to a

less-than-significant level potential effects on a significant archaeological resource as defined

in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(c).



159

Archaeological Testing Program. The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit to the

ERO for review and approval an archaeological testing plan (ATP). The archaeological testing

program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved ATP. The ATP shall identify the

property types of the expected archaeological resource(s) that potentially could be adversely

affected by the proposed project, the testing method to be used, and the locations recommended

for testing. The purpose of the archaeological testing program will be to determine to the extent

possible the presence or absence of archaeological resources and to identify and to evaluate

whether any archaeological resource encountered on the site constitutes an historical resource

under CEQA.

At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the archaeological consultant shall

submit a written report of the findings to the ERO. If based on the archaeological testing

program the archaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological resources may be

present, the ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant shall determine if

additional measures are warranted. Additional measures that may be undertaken include

additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring, and/or an archaeological data

recovery program. If the ERO determines that a significant archaeological resource is present and

that the resource could be adversely affected by the proposed project, at the discretion of the

project sponsor either:

A. The proposed project shall be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on the

significant archaeological resource; or

B. A data recovery program shall be implemented, unless the ERO determines that the

archaeological resource is of greater interpretive than research significance and that

interpretive use of the resource is feasible.

Archaeological Monitoring Program. If the ERO, in consultation with the archaeological

consultant, determines that an archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented, the

archaeological monitoring program shall minimally include the following provisions:

• The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the

scope of the AMP reasonably prior to the commencement of any project-related soils



160

disturbing activities. The ERO, in consultation with the archaeological consultant, shall

determine what project activities shall be archaeologically monitored. In most cases, any

soils-disturbing activities, such as demolition, foundation removal, excavation, grading,

utilities installation, foundation work, driving of piles (foundation, shoring, etc.), site

remediation, etc., shall require archaeological monitoring because of the risk these

activities pose to potential archaeological resources and to their depositional context;

• The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on the alert for

evidence of the presence of the expected resource(s), of how to identify the evidence of the

expected resource(s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of apparent discovery of

an archaeological resource;

• The archaeological monitor(s) shall be present on the project site according to a schedule

agreed upon by the archaeological consultant and the ERO until the ERO has, in

consultation with project archaeological consultant, determined that project construction

activities could have no effects on significant archaeological deposits;

• The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples and

artifactual/ecofactual material as warranted for analysis;

• If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing activities in the

vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to

temporarily redirect demolition/excavation/pile driving/construction activities and

equipment until the deposit is evaluated. If in the case of pile driving activity (foundation,

shoring, etc.), the archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the pile driving activity

may affect an archaeological resource, the pile driving activity shall be terminated until an

appropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in consultation with the ERO. The

archaeological consultant shall immediately notify the ERO of the encountered

archaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort to

assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit,

and present the findings of this assessment to the ERO.

Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeological

consultant shall submit a written report of the findings of the monitoring program to the ERO.



161

Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The archaeological data recovery program shall be

conducted in accordance with an archaeological data recovery plan (ADRP). The archaeological

consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the ADRP prior to

preparation of a draft ADRP. The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ADRP to the

ERO. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve the

significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. That is, the ADRP

will identify what scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource,

what data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would

address the applicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the

portions of the historical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project.

Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological

resources if nondestructive methods are practical.

The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements:

• Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, and

operations.

• Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system and

artifact analysis procedures.

• Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-field

discard and deaccession policies.

• Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive program

during the course of the archaeological data recovery program.

• Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resource

from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities.

• Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results.

• Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of any

recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curation

facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities.



162

Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. The treatment of human

remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing

activity shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws. This shall include immediate

notification of the Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco and in the event of the

Coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the

California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall appoint a Most

Likely Descendant (MLD) (Public Resources Code Section 5097.98). The archaeological

consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement

for the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and associated or unassociated

funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into

consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation,

and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.

Final Archaeological Resources Report. The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft

Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical

significance of any discovered archaeological resource and describes the archaeological and

historical research methods employed in the archaeological testing/monitoring/data recovery

program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource shall be

provided in a separate removable insert within the final report.

Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California

Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one (1) copy

and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. The Major

Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive one bound, one

unbound, and one unlocked, searchable PDF copy on CD or DVD of the FARR along with

copies of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for

nomination to the National Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical

Resources. In instances of high public interest in or high interpretive value of the resource, the

ERO may require a different final report content, format, and distribution than that presented

above.



163

Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): The following two-part

measure shall be implemented:

• To reduce daytime noise impacts associated with construction activities to the maximum

extent feasible, the following measures shall be implemented in addition to all measures set

forth in the Noise Ordinance:

o At least 10 days prior to the start of construction, the project sponsor shall notify

occupants of properties within 100 feet of the project site’s lot line. Notification shall

include an estimation of the duration of construction activities, including anticipated

start and completion dates and the daily construction times.

o Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise

control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake

silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds,

wherever feasible).

o Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project

construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid

noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.

However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the

compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the

exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used

where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be

used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.

o Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and

they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds. Insulation barriers or other

measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.

o Ground clearing, excavation, foundation pouring, building erection and exterior

finishing activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

• The project applicant shall prepare a vibration impact assessment to determine potential

construction-related groundborne vibration impacts for all structures located within 25 feet

of construction activities expected to generate more than 90 VdB. Measures shall be



164

identified and implemented that would reduce groundborne vibration impacts from extreme

noise generators by prescribing methods of construction to be utilized so as not to exceed

the FTA’s groundborne vibration damage threshold of 90 VdB at the nearest façade of all

adjacent structures. Such methods may include restrictions on the number or types of

construction equipment that may operate at a time within 25 feet of structures, restrictions

on equipment hours of operation, or requirements to use alternative construction

techniques. The vibration impact assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Department

for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.

Mitigation Measure M-NO-2b (applies to Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project only):

The following two-part measure shall be implemented:

• Implement Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a.

• The project sponsor shall require that the project contractor predrill holes (if feasible based

on soils) for piles to the maximum feasible depth to minimize noise and vibration from pile

driving. The project sponsor shall also require that the construction contractor limit pile

driving activity to result in the least disturbance to neighboring uses.

The Fire Station Relocation and Housing Project would be subject to the following four mitigation

measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Eastern

Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans.60

Mitigation Measure F-3: Interior Noise Levels: For new development including noise-sensitive

uses located along streets with noise levels above 60 dBA (Ldn), where such development is

not already subject to the California Noise Insulation Standards in Title 24 of the California

Code of Regulations, the project sponsor shall conduct a detailed analysis of noise reduction

requirements. Such analysis shall be conducted by person(s) qualified in acoustical analysis

and/or engineering. Noise insulation features identified and recommended by the analysis shall



2009.0291E and 2010.0275E.



165

be included in the design, as specified in the San Francisco General Plan Land Use

Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise to reduce potential interior noise levels to the

maximum extent feasible.

Mitigation Measure F-4: Siting of Noise-Sensitive Uses: To reduce potential conflicts between

existing noise-generating uses and new sensitive receptors, for new development including

noise-sensitive uses, the Planning Department shall require the preparation of an analysis that

includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify potential noise-generating uses within 900 feet

of, and that have a direct line-of-sight to, the project site, and including at least one 24-hour

noise measurement (with maximum noise level readings taken at least every 15 minutes), prior

to the first project approval action. The analysis shall be prepared by persons qualified in

acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Title

24 standards, where applicable, can be met, and that there are no particular circumstances about

the proposed project site that appear to warrant heightened concern about noise levels in the

vicinity. Should such concerns be present, the Department may require the completion of a


to the first project approval action, in order to demonstrate that acceptable interior noise levels

consistent with those in the Title 24 standards can be attained.

Mitigation Measure F-5: Siting of Noise-Generating Uses: To reduce potential conflicts

between existing sensitive receptors and new noise-generating uses, for new development

including commercial, industrial or other uses that would be expected to generate noise levels

in excess of ambient noise, either short-term, at nighttime, or as a 24-hour average, in the

proposed project site vicinity, the Planning Department shall require the preparation of an

analysis that includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify potential noise-sensitive uses

within 900 feet of, and that have a direct line-of-sight to, the project site, and including at least

one 24-hour noise measurement (with maximum noise level readings taken at least every 15

minutes), prior to the first project approval action. The analysis shall be prepared by persons

qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering and shall demonstrate with reasonable

certainty that the proposed use would comply with the use compatibility requirements in the

General Plan and in Police Code Section 29091, would not adversely affect nearby noise-



166

sensitive uses, and that there are no particular circumstances about the proposed project site that

appear to warrant heightened concern about noise levels that would be generated by the

proposed use. Should such concerns be present, the Department may require the completion of

a detailed noise assessment by person(s) qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering

prior to the first project approval action.

Mitigation Measure F-6: Open Space in Noisy Environments: To minimize effects on develop-

ment in noisy areas, for new development including noise-sensitive uses, the Planning Depart-

ment shall, through its building permit review process, in conjunction with noise analysis

required pursuant to Mitigation Measure F-4, require that open space required under the

Planning Code for such uses be protected, to the maximum feasible extent, from existing

ambient noise levels that could prove annoying or disruptive to users of the open space.

Implementation of this measure could involve, among other things, site design that uses the

building itself to shield on-site open space from the greatest noise sources, construction of noise

barriers between noise sources and open space, and appropriate use of both common and

private open space in multi-family dwellings, and implementation would also be undertaken

consistent with other principles of urban design.

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1a (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): The following actions

shall be implemented by the project sponsor:

Step 1 (Preparation of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment): The project sponsor

shall conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the project site. If residual

contamination is identified on the project site that requires preparation and implementation

of a Site Mitigation Plan, Step 2 (and subsequent steps) shall be implemented.

Step 2 (Preparation of Site Mitigation Plan): A Site Mitigation Plan shall be prepared, if

warranted based on the results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. The SMP

shall include a discussion of the level of contamination of soils and groundwater on the

project site and mitigation measures for managing contaminated soils on the site, including,

but not limited to: 1) the alternatives for managing contaminated soils on the site (e.g.,



167

encapsulation, partial or complete removal, treatment, recycling for reuse, or a combination

of methods); 2) the preferred alternative for managing contaminated soils on the site and a

brief justification as to why; and 3) the specific practices to be used to handle, haul, and

dispose of contaminated soils on the site. The SMP shall be submitted to the DPH for

review and approval. A copy of the SMP shall be submitted to the Planning Department to

become part of the case file.

Step 3 (Handling, Hauling, and Disposal of Contaminated Soils): The following measures

shall be implemented:

(a) Specific work practices: If, based on the results of the soil tests conducted, DPH

determines that the soils on the project site are contaminated at or above potentially

hazardous levels, the construction contractor shall be alert for the presence of such

soils during excavation and other construction activities on the site (detected through

soil odor, color, and texture and results of onsite soil testing), and shall be prepared to

handle, profile (i.e., characterize), and dispose of such soils appropriately (i.e., as

dictated by local, State, and federal regulations) when such soils are encountered on

the site. If excavated materials contain over 1 percent friable asbestos, they shall be

treated as hazardous waste, and shall be transported and disposed of in accordance

with applicable State and federal regulations. These procedures are intended to

mitigate any potential health risks related to chrysotile asbestos, which may or may

not be located on the site.

(b) Dust suppression: Soils exposed during excavation for site preparation and project

construction activities shall be kept moist throughout the time they are exposed, both

during and after construction work hours.

(c) Surface water runoff control: Where soils are stockpiled, visqueen shall be used to

create an impermeable liner, both beneath and on top of the soils, with a berm to

contain any potential surface water runoff from the soil stockpiles during inclement

weather.

(d) Soils replacement: If necessary, clean fill or other suitable material(s) shall be used to

bring portions of the project site, where contaminated soils have been excavated and

removed, up to construction grade.



168

(e) Hauling and disposal: Contaminated soils shall be hauled off the project site by

waste-hauling trucks appropriately certified with the State of California and

adequately covered to prevent dispersion of the soils during transit, and shall be

disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility registered with the State

of California.

Step 4 (Preparation of Closure/Certification Report): After construction activities are

completed, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit a closure/certification report to

DPH for review and approval. The closure/certification report shall include the mitigation

measures in the SMP for handling and removing contaminated soils from the project site,

whether the construction contractor modified any of these mitigation measures, and how

and why the construction contractor modified those mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1b (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): If, based on the results

of the soil tests conducted, the DPH determines that the soils on the project site are contami-

nated with contaminants at or above potentially hazardous levels, any contaminated soils

designated as hazardous waste and required by DPH to be excavated shall be removed by a

qualified Removal Contractor and disposed of at a regulated Class I hazardous waste landfill in

accordance with U.S Environmental Protection Agency regulations, as stipulated in the SMP.

The Removal Contractor shall obtain, complete, and sign hazardous waste manifests to accom-

pany the soils to the disposal site. Other excavated soils shall be disposed of in an appropriate

landfill, as governed by applicable laws and regulations, or other appropriate actions shall be

taken in coordination with the DPH. If the DPH determines that the soils on the project site are

contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially hazardous levels, a Site Health and

Safety (H&S) Plan shall be required by the California Division of Occupational Safety and

Health (Cal-OSHA) prior to initiating any earthmoving activities at the site. The H&S Plan

shall identify protocols for managing soils during construction to minimize worker and public

exposure to contaminated soils. The protocols shall include at a minimum:

• Sweeping of adjacent public streets daily (with water sweepers) if any visible soil material

is carried onto the streets.



169

• Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to placement to

confirm that the soil meets appropriate standards.

• The dust controls specified in the Construction Dust Control Ordinance (176-08).

• Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils. The H&S Plan shall identify site

access controls to be implemented from the time of surface disruption through the

completion of earthwork construction. The protocols shall include as a minimum:

o Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry, such as

fencing or other barrier or sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent entry and

based upon the degree of control required.

o Posting of “no trespassing” signs.

o Provision for on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about security

measures and reporting/contingency procedures.

If groundwater contamination is identified, the Site Health and Safety Plan shall identify

protocols for managing groundwater during construction to minimize worker and public

exposure to contaminated groundwater. The protocols shall include procedures to prevent

unacceptable migration of contamination from defined plumes during dewatering.

The H&S Plan shall include a requirement that construction personnel be trained to recognize

potential hazards associated with underground features that could contain hazardous sub-

stances, previously unidentified contamination, or buried hazardous debris. Excavation

personnel shall also be required to wash hands and face before eating, smoking, and drinking.

The H&S Plan shall include procedures for implementing a contingency plan, including

appropriate notification and control procedures, in the event unanticipated subsurface hazards

are discovered during construction. Control procedures shall include, but would not be limited

to, investigation and removal of underground storage tanks or other hazards.

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1c (applies to SFMOMA Expansion only): If the DPH determines

that the soils on the project site are contaminated with contaminants at or above potentially



170

hazardous levels, all trucks and excavation and soil handling equipment shall be

decontaminated following use and prior to removal from the site. Gross contamination shall be

first removed through brushing, wiping, or dry brooming. The vehicle or equipment shall then

be washed clean (including tires). Prior to removal from the work site, all vehicles and

equipment shall be inspected to ensure that contamination has been removed.

Mitigation Measure M-HZ-1d (applies to SFMOMA Expansion and Fire Station Relocation

and Housing Project): The City shall condition future development approvals to require that the

project sponsor ensures that any equipment containing PCBs or mercury, such as fluorescent

light ballasts, are removed and properly disposed of according to applicable federal, State, and

local laws prior to the start of building demolition, and that any fluorescent light tubes, which

could contain mercury, are similarly removed and properly disposed. Any other hazardous

materials identified, either before or during work, shall be abated according to applicable

federal, State, and local laws.

G. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this Initial Study:

LII I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,

and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

LI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been

made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

LI I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially

significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached

sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the

effects that remain to be addressed.

LII I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR

or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided

or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions

or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental

documentation is required.

DATE

Bill Wycko Environmental Review Officer

for

John Rahaim Director of Planning

CASE NOS. 2009.0291E AND 2010.0275E SFMOMA EXPANSION/FIRE STATION RELOCATION AND HOUSING PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY 0 27. 2010

171



172

H. LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

1. REPORT AUTHORS San Francisco Planning Department

1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103

Environmental Review Officer: Bill Wycko Senior Environmental Reviewer: Sarah B. Jones Environmental Coordinator: Michael Jacinto Preservation Technical Specialist: Tim Frye Archaeologist: Randall Dean

2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LSA Associates, Inc.

2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94701

Principals-in-Charge: Shannon Allen and David Clore Project Manager: Adam Weinstein Staff: Patty Linder, Charis Cronan

3. PROJECT SPONSOR San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

151 Third Street San Francisco, CA 94103-3107

Greg Johnson, Expansion Project Director 4. SPONSOR’S ATTORNEY Farella Braun and Martel, LLP

235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104

Steven L. Vettel, Partner 5. PROJECT MANAGER Pacific Union Development Company

601 Van Ness, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94102

Joel Roos, Partner

notice of preparation of an environmental impact...

Documents