P~9 COUIy?,fo w~~' '~ z SAN FRANCISCO ~- ~ ~ .~ PLANNING …sfmea.sfplanning.org/1075-1089 Folsom...

P~9 COUIy?,fo

w~~' '"~ z SAN FRANCISCO~- ~ ~ .~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT

1 Sys-~= :O,'c~1

Certificate of DeterminationCommunity Plan Evaluation

Case No.: 2016-008438ENV

Project Address: 1075-1089 Folsom Street

Zoning: SOMA Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT)

65-X Height and Bulk District

SOMA Youth and Family Special Use District

Block/Lot: 3754/038, 039

Lot Size: 3,402 and 3,341 square feet

Plan Area: Eastern SoMa subarea of the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan

Project Sponsor: Jonathan Pearlman, Elevation Architects, (415) 537-1125 ext. 101

Staff Contact: Alesia Hsiao, (415) 575-9044, [email protected]

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1650 Mission St.Suite 400San Francisco,CA 94103-2479

Reception:415.558.6378

Fax:415.558.6409

PlanningInformation:415.558.6377

The project site consists of two adjacent lots at 1075 Folsom Street and 1089 Folsom Street on the south

side of Folsom Street, between 7th and Sherman streets, on the block bounded by Folsom Street to the

north, Cleveland Street to the south, 7th Street to the west, and Sherman Street to the east in the South of

Market neighborhood. The approximately 3,341 square-foot lot at 1075 Folsom Street is currently

occupied by a vacant 2-story industrial building constructed in 1924; the approximately 3,402 square-foot

lot at 1089 Folsom Street is currently occupied by a vacant 1-story industrial building constructed in 1951

and an asphalt-paved parking area.

The project site is served by two curb cuts along Folsom Street: one in front of 1075 Folsom Street

(approximately 161/z-feet) and one in front of 1089 Folsom Street (approximately 16-feet).

(Continued on next page.)

CEQA DETERMINATION

The project is eligible for streamlined environmental review per Section 15183 of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3

DETERMINATION

I do hereby certify that the above determination has been made pursuant to State and Local requirements.

Lisa M. Gibson

Environmental Review Officer

~~n,~-Q,✓ ! ~~ 1 gDate

cc: Jonathan Pearlman, Project Sponsor; Supervisor Jane Kim, District 6; Kimberly Durandet, Current

Planning Division; Virna Byrd, M.D.F.; Exemption/Exclusion File

Certificate

PROJECT

The prop

approxim

through s

storage ro

square fee

approxim

space (a t

approxim

penthouse

The prop

would be

be located

of the bui

and instal

remain.

Construct

work wou

constructi

inches of

of a mat s

PROJECT

The propo

San Franci

Fi

th

C

Departmen

R

Departmen

D

H

D

H

D

San Franci

• R

San Franci

A

gu

of Determinatio

T DESCRIPT

posed project

mately 25,756 g

sixth floors, a

oom, and a tr

et (sf) in size.

mately 1,122 sf

total of 15 pr

mately 65 feet

es).

posed project

located with

d within the fi

lding’s comm

ll three street

tion of the pr

uld consist o

ion would re

depth along t

lab foundatio

T APPROVAL

osed project w

isco Planning

indings, upon

hat shadow

Commission ju

nt of Building I

Review and ap

nt of Public He

Department of

Health Code.

Department of

Health Code.

Department of

isco Municipal

Review and ap

isco Public Uti

Approval of a

uidelines.

on

ION (continu

t would dem

gross square

as well as co

rash room on

. Each SRO u

f of common o

ivate decks a

tall per the S

would not p

hin a bicycle s

irst floor com

mercial space.

trees along F

roposed proj

of demolition

quire excavat

the perimeter

on system. Pil

L

would require

Commission

n the recomm

would not

urisdiction (Se

Inspection

pproval of dem

ealth

f Public Healt

f Public Heal

f Public Healt

l Transportatio

pproval of clo

ilities Commis

a stormwater

ued)

molish the ex

foot building

ommercial sp

n the first floo

nit would be

open space in

and balconies

San Francisco

provide off‐s

torage room

mmercial space

The project w

olsom Street.

ect would oc

n of the exist

tion of appro

r and remova

le driving wo

e the followin

mendation of

adversely af

ection 295).

molition and

th review for

lth review for

th review and

on Agency

osure of two c

sion

managemen

xisting buildi

g with 48 sing

pace, a reside

or. The comm

approximate

n the rear yard

s) on floors tw

o Planning Co

street vehicle

on the first fl

e and four cla

would remov

The existing

ccur for appr

ting structure

oximately two

al of approxim

ould not be req

ng approvals:

f the Recreati

ffect public

building perm

compliance w

r compliance

d approval of

curb cuts alon

nt plan that c

ings on the

gle room occu

ential lobby,

mercial space

ely 350 sf in s

d and approx

wo to six. Th

ode (73 feet, 9

e parking; 48

loor, one class

ass II bicycle s

e two existing

10‐foot sidew

roximately 19

es, excavation

o feet below e

mately 425 cu

quired.

ion and Park

open spaces

mits.

with the Mah

with enhanc

a Dust Contr

ng Folsom Stre

complies with

1075

site and con

upancy (SRO

a communit

would be ap

size. The proj

ximately 1,500

he proposed b

9 inches with

class I bicyc

s I bicycle pa

spaces would

g curb cuts an

walk along Fo

9 months. On

n, and subgr

existing grad

ubic yards of s

k Director an

s under Rec

her Ordinance

ced ventilatio

rol Plan.

eet.

h the city’s s

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

nstruct a six‐

O) units on th

ty room, a b

pproximately

ect would pr

0 sf of private

building wou

h stair and ele

cle parking s

rking space w

be located in

nd two street

olsom Street w

n‐site constru

rade work. P

de with an ex

soil for instal

nd/or Commi

creation and

e, article 22A

on, article 38

stormwater d

Street 38ENV

2

‐story,

he first

bicycle

1,141

rovide

e open

uld be

evator

spaces

would

n front

trees,

would

uction

Project

xtra 10

llation

ission,

Park

of the

of the

design

Certificate

San Franci

D

ju

The appro

date estab

Section 31

COMMUN

California

projects th

or genera

subject to

project‐sp

examinati

parcel on

the zoning

significan

previously

at the tim

discussed

to the pro

impact.

This deter

Street pro

EIR for t

prepared

environm

After seve

was adop

housing d

adequate

and busin

districts in

The Plann

Neighbor

August 7,

adopted t

In Decem

signed th

1 Planning D2 San Francis

Planning

planning3 San Franci

http://ww

of Determinatio

isco Recreation

Determination

urisdiction.

oval of the bu

blishes the sta

1.04(h) of the

NITY PLAN EV

a Public Reso

hat are consis

al plan polici

o additional e

pecific signific

ion of environ

which the pr

g action, gene

nt off‐site and

y identified in

me that the EI

d in the under

oposed proje

rmination eva

oject described

the Eastern N

for the pro

mental impacts

eral years of a

pted in Dece

development

supply of spa

nesses. The E

n some areas,

ning Commis

hoods Rezon

, 2008, the Pla

the Preferred

mber 2008, aft

he Eastern Ne

Department Case

sco Planning Dep

g Department

g.org/index.aspx?

isco Planning D

ww.sf‐planning.o

on

n and Parks De

n that shado

uilding permi

art of the 30‐d

San Francisco

VALUATION

ources Code

stent with the

ies for which

environmenta

cant effects w

nmental effec

roject would b

eral plan or c

d cumulative

n the EIR, but

IR was certifi

rlying EIR. Se

ect, then an E

aluates the po

d above, and

Neighborhood

oposed proje

s that were no

analysis, com

ember 2008. T

in some are

ace for existin

Eastern Neigh

, including th

ssion held pu

ning and Area

anning Comm

Project for fin

ter further p

eighborhoods

e No. 2004.0160E

partment. Easter

Case No. 2

?page=1893, acce

Department. San

org/Modules/Sho

epartment:

ow would n

it would be th

day appeal pe

o Administrat

OVERVIEW

Section 2108

developmen

h an Environ

al review exce

which are pecu

cts shall be lim

be located; b)

community pl

e impacts tha

t which, as a r

ied, are deter

ction 15183(c

EIR need not

otential proje

incorporates

ds Rezoning

ect to determ

ot identified i

munity outre

The Eastern

eas previousl

ng and future

hborhoods P

e project site

ublic hearings

a Plans and re

mission certifie

nal recommen

public hearing

s Rezoning a

and State Cleari

rn Neighborhood

2004.0160E, cer

ssed August 17,

Francisco Plann

owDocument.asp

not adversely

he Approval

eriod for this C

tive Code.

83.3 and CEQ

nt density esta

nmental Impa

ept as might

uliar to the p

mited to those

were not ana

lan with whic

at were not d

result of subs

rmined to ha

) specifies tha

t be prepared

ct‐specific en

by reference

and Area P

mine if the

n the Eastern

each, and pub

Neighborhoo

ly zoned to

e production,

PEIR also incl

at 1075 and 1

s to consider t

elated Planni

ed the Eastern

ndation to the

gs, the Board

and Planning

nghouse No. 200

ds Rezoning and

rtified August

2012.

ning Commissio

px?documentid=

y affect ope

Action for th

CEQA exemp

QA Guidelin

ablished by ex

act Report (E

be necessary

project or its s

e effects that:

alyzed as sign

ch the project

discussed in

stantial new in

ave a more se

at if an impac

d for the pro

nvironmental

e information

Plans (PEIR)1

project wo

n Neighborho

blic review, th

ods PEIR wa

allow indust

, distribution,

luded change

1089 Folsom S

the various a

ing Code and

n Neighborho

e Board of Sup

d of Supervi

g Code amen

05032048

d Area Plans Fina

7, 2008. A

on Motion 17659

=1268, accessed A

1075

en spaces un

he project. Th

ption determi

nes Section 1

xisting zoning

EIR) was cert

y to examine

site. Section 1

a) are peculi

nificant effect

t is consistent

the underlyi

nformation th

evere adverse

ct is not pecul

oject solely on

effects of the

contained in1. Project‐spe

uld result i

oods PEIR.

he Eastern Ne

as adopted i

trial uses, wh

, and repair (

es to existing

Street.

aspects of the

d Zoning Map

oods PEIR by

pervisors.2,3

sors approve

ndments. New

al Environmenta

Available online

9, August 7, 200

August 17, 2012.

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

nder Comm

e Approval A

ination pursu

5183 provide

g, community

tified, shall n

whether ther

15183 specifie

iar to the proj

ts in a prior E

t; c) are poten

ing EIR; or d

hat was not k

e impact than

liar to the par

n the basis o

e 1075‐1089 Fo

n the Program

ecific studies

in any signi

eighborhoods

n part to su

hile preservin

PDR) employ

g height and

e proposed Ea

p amendment

y Motion 1765

ed and the M

w zoning dis

al Impact Report

e at: http://w

08. Available on

Street 38ENV

3

mission

Action

uant to

e that

y plan

not be

re are

es that

ject or

EIR on

ntially

d) are

known

n that

rcel or

of that

olsom

mmatic

were

ificant

s PEIR

upport

ng an

yment

d bulk

astern

ts. On

59 and

Mayor

stricts

(FEIR),

www.sf‐

nline at:

Certificate

include d

residentia

districts re

The Easte

of the env

as well as

Draft EIR

largely on

Project, re

Project aft

discussed

Neighbor

6,600,0000

the lifetim

developm

throughou

A major i

existing in

reducing

topics, the

rezoning

ability to m

As a resu

District. T

encourage

intended

Buena Ce

Street. Th

discussed

1075 and

Neighbor

Individua

Plans will

impacts s

whether a

proposed

analysis i

projection

and descr

mitigation

consistent

4 Table 2 Fo

based on

scenario

of Determinatio

districts that w

al and comme

eplaced existi

ern Neighborh

vironmental e

the potential

R evaluated th

n the Mission

epresents a co

ter fully cons

d in the PEIR

hoods Plan c

0 square feet o

me of the Pl

ment would r

ut the lifetime

issue of discu

ndustrially‐zo

the availabili

e Eastern Nei

by analyzing

meet its hous

ult of the Eas

The MUR Dist

e the expansi

to serve as

enter to the ea

he proposed

d further in th

d 1089 Folso

hoods, was d

al projects tha

l undergo pr

specific to th

additional en

project at 10

n the Eastern

ns. This deter

ribed the im

n measures a

t with the zo

orecast Growth b

proposed rezon

figures for parce

on

would permi

ercial uses an

ing industrial

hoods PEIR i

effects of imp

l impacts und

hree rezoning

n District, and

ombination o

idering the en

. The Eastern

could result i

of net non‐res

lan (year 202

result in a to

e of the plan.4

ussion in the

oned land wo

ity of land tr

ighborhoods P

g its effects o

sing needs as

tern Neighbo

trict is intend

ion of retail, b

a buffer betw

ast and the lo

project and i

he Communit

om Street si

designated as

at could occu

roject‐level en

he developme

nvironmental

075 and 1089

n Neighborho

rmination also

mpacts of the

pplicable to t

oning control

by Rezoning Op

ning scenarios. A

els affected by the

it PDR uses

nd residentia

l, commercial

s a comprehe

plementation

der several pro

g alternatives

d a “No Proje

of Options B a

nvironmental

n Neighborho

in approxima

sidential spac

25). The Eas

otal populati4

e Eastern Nei

ould be rezon

raditionally u

PEIR assesses

on the cityʹs a

expressed in

orhoods rezon

ded to facilitat

business serv

ween high‐de

ower‐scale, m

its relation to

ty Plan Evalu

ite, which is

a site with a h

ur in the futur

nvironmental

ent proposal,

review wou

9 Folsom Stre

oods PEIR, in

o finds that t

proposed 10

the 1075 and

s and the pr

tion Chapter IV

baseline for exis

e rezoning.

in combinati

al and PDR u

l, residential s

ensive progra

of the Eastern

oposed altern

s, two comm

ect” alternativ

and C. The P

l effects of the

oods PEIR es

ately 7,400 to

ce (excluding

stern Neighb

ion increase

ighborhoods

ned to primar

used for PDR

s the significa

ability to mee

the cityʹs Gen

ning process,

te the develop

vice and comm

ensity, predo

mixed use serv

o PDR land

ation (CPE) I

s located in

height limit o

re under the

evaluation t

, the site, an

uld be requir

eet is consist

ncluding the

the Eastern N

075 and 1089

1089 Folsom

ovisions of th

of the Eastern N

sting conditions i

ion with com

uses; and new

single‐use, an

ammatic docu

n Neighborho

native scenari

munity‐propos

ve. The altern

Planning Com

e Preferred P

timated that

o 9,900 net d

PDR loss) bu

borhoods PEI

of approxim

rezoning pro

rily residentia

employment

ance of the cu

et its future P

neral Plan.

, the project

pment of high

mercial and c

ominately com

vice/industria

supply and

Initial Study C

n the East S

of 65 feet.

Eastern Neig

to determine

nd the time

red. This det

tent with and

Eastern Neig

Neighborhood

9 Folsom Str

m Street projec

the Planning

Neighborhoods

in the year 2000

1075

mmercial use

w residential‐

nd mixed‐use

ument that pr

oods Rezonin

ios. The Easte

sed alternativ

native selected

mmission ado

roject and the

implementat

dwelling unit

uilt in the Plan

IR projected

mately 23,900

ocess was the

al and mixed

t and busines

umulative lan

PDR space n

site has been

h‐density, mi

cultural arts a

mmercial are

al and housin

cumulative l

Checklist, un

SoMa Distric

ghborhoods R

if they woul

of developm

termination c

d was encom

ghborhoods P

ds PEIR adeq

reet project, a

ct. The propo

Code applica

Draft EIR show

was included to

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

es; districts m

‐only districts

districts.

resents an an

ng and Area P

ern Neighborh

ves which fo

d, or the Pref

opted the Pref

e various scen

tion of the Ea

ts and 3,200,0

n Area throu

that this lev

0 to 33,000 p

e degree to w

d‐use districts

sses. Among

nd use effects

eeds as well

n rezoned to

d‐rise housin

activities. It i

eas near the Y

ng area west o

land use effe

nder Land Use

ct of the Ea

Rezoning and

ld result in fu

ment and to a

concludes tha

mpassed withi

PEIR develop

quately antici

and identifie

osed project i

able to the p

ws projected net

provide context

Street 38ENV

4

mixing

s. The

nalysis

Plans,

hoods

cused

ferred

ferred

narios

astern

000 to

ghout

vel of

people

which

s, thus

other

of the

as its

MUR

ng and

is also

Yerba

of 6th

ects is

e. The

astern

d Area

urther

assess

at the

in the

pment

ipated

ed the

is also

project

growth

t for the

Certificate

site.5,6 The

sum, the

specific in

PROJECT

The proje

Cleveland

the north

Street is a

on the ea

parking o

Street resp

Recently a

40

4‐

an

d

sp

10

an

un

sq

sq

28

bu

bu

un

26

st

oc

The proje

and featur

two to fo

Draves P

5 Josh Switzk

Analysis,

noted), is

2016‐00846 Jeff Joslin,

& 1089 Fo7 Class II bik

are distin

Design, u8 A class IV b

the separ

flexible p

Guidance

of Determinatio

erefore, no fu

Eastern Neig

nitial study co

T SETTING

ct site is loca

d Street to the

side of the s

a one‐way, fou

st side of the

on the east sid

pectively.

approved and

0 Cleveland S

‐story, 5‐unit,

nd common o

eck. The new

paces within a

052‐1060 Fols

nd construct

nits and 17 p

quare foot rea

quare feet of p

80 7th Street,

uildings: a 65

uilding (colle

nits and no p

62 7th Street,

tory, mixed‐u

ccupancy resi

ct site vicinit

res low‐ to m

our stories wh

ark is less th

ky, San Francisco

1075 & 1089 Fol

s available for re

438ENV.

San Francisco Pl

olsom Street, Octo

keways (bike lane

nct needs that c

updated July 2, 20

bikeway (separa

rated bikeway a

posts, inflexible

(Separated Bikewa

on

urther CEQA

ghborhoods P

omprise the fu

ated on the no

e south. Folso

treet and a p

ur‐lane street

e street. Sherm

de of the stree

d proposed pr

Street, which

, 5,658 square

open space w

w building w

a bicycle stora

som Street an

a new six‐sto

parking space

ar yard on th

private open

which would

5‐foot‐tall mi

ectively measu

arking.

which would

use building

idential units

ty is character

mid‐density sca

hile the build

han a block

o Planning Depa

som Street, July 1

eview at the San

lanning Departm

ober 16, 2017.

es) are establishe

can be served by

018).

ated bikeway) is

nd the through

physical barrier

ays/Cycle Tracks),

evaluation fo

PEIR and this

ull and compl

orth side of F

om Street is a

protected bike

t with parkin

man Street is

et. Class II7 and

rojects within

would replac

e foot residen

would be prov

ould include

age room in t

nd 190‐194 Ru

ory, 64½ ‐foot

es. Common

he second flo

space in the f

d demolish a

ixed‐use resid

uring approx

d demolish th

g approximat

and 906 squa

rized by a mi

ale of develop

dings on 7th

away, located

artment, Commun

11, 2018. This do

Francisco Planni

ment, Community

ed along streets i

y them (Californ

a bikeway for th

vehicular traffic

rs, or on‐street

, May 3, 2018.)

or the 1075 an

Certificate o

lete CEQA ev

Folsom Street

an eastbound

e lane on the

g on the wes

s a narrow on

d IV8 bicycle f

n one block in

ce the existing

ntial condom

vided in the r

e a single par

the ground flo

uss Street, wh

t‐tall, 58,673 g

usable open

oor and a 5,24

form of balcon

vacant two‐s

dential buildi

ximately 25,65

he existing w

tely 39,222 s

are feet of gro

ix of resident

pment. The bu

h Street range

d along Sher

nity Plan Evaluati

ocument (and all

ing Department,

Plan Evaluation

in corridors whe

nia Department

he exclusive use

c. The separation

parking. (Califo

nd 1089 Folso

of Determinat

valuation nece

t between 7th

d three‐lane, o

south side of

t side of the s

ne‐way, one‐

facilities are l

nclude:

g building on

minium buildin

rear yard, priv

rking space a

oor garage.

hich would d

gross square f

space for 60

41 square foo

nies, terraces,

story nightclu

ing and a fiv

59 gross squa

warehouse and

square feet

ound‐floor co

tial, PDR, com

uildings on F

e from one t

rman Street b

ion Eligibility Det

l other documen

, 1650 Mission St

Eligibility Determ

ere there is signif

of Transportati

of bicycles and i

n may include, b

ornia Departmen

1075

om Street pro

tion and acco

essary for the

Street and Sh

one‐way stree

f the street. R

street and a p

‐lane street ru

located on Fo

n the lot with

ng. 1,008 squ

vate decks, a

and six Class

demolish the

feet mixed us

units would

ot roof deck.

, or patios.

ub and replac

ve‐story, 52‐f

are feet) with

d construct a

in size with

ommercial reta

mmercial, and

Folsom Street

to five stories

between Fols

termination, Cityw

nts cited in this r

treet, Suite 400, a

mination, Current

ficant bicycle dem

ion, Chapter 100

includes a separ

but is not limite

nt of Transporta

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

oject is requir

ompanying pr

e proposed pr

herman Stree

et with parkin

Running nort

protected bike

unning south

olsom Street a

a new 40‐foo

uare feet of p

nd a common

s 1 bicycle pa

existing struc

se building w

d consist of a

3 units have

ce it with two

foot‐tall resid

up to 20 dw

a 65‐foot‐tall,

h 96 single

ail space.

d recreationa

are predomin

s. Victoria M

som and Har

wide Planning and

eport, unless oth

as part of Case F

Planning Analys

mand, and wher

0 Bicycle Transp

ation required b

ed to, grade sepa

ation, Class IV B

Street 38ENV

5

ed. In

roject‐

roject.

t, and

ng on

th, 7th

e lane

h with

and 7th

ot‐tall,

rivate

n roof

arking

ctures

with 63

2,420

1,262

o new

dential

welling

seven

room

al uses

nately

Manalo

rrison

d Policy

herwise

File No.

is, 1075

re there

ortation

between

aration,

Bikeway

Certificate

streets. Be

located so

SoMA Ne

Market Y

Industrial

The proje

14R, 14X,

POTENTI

The Easte

and polic

(growth i

archeolog

previously

1075 and

described

forecast fo

PEIR con

result, the

identified

Significan

following

The prop

architectu

site is no

contributo

District.9 A

proposed

determine

would no

project sit

not contr

transporta

specific an

Eastern N

the area s

impacts. H

be expect

lower leve

shadows f

not contri

9 Tim Kelley10 Tim Kelley11 San Franci

of Determinatio

essie Carmich

outh of the p

eighborhood C

Youth and Fam

l and Residen

ct site is loca

19, 27, 47, 8, 8

AL ENVIRON

ern Neighbor

ies; visual qu

inducement);

gical resource

y issued initi

1089 Folsom

d in the Easter

or the Eastern

sidered the i

e proposed pr

d in the Easter

nt and unav

g topics: land u

posed projec

ural resources

ot individuall

or to the Na

Although the

new buildin

ed not to ma

ot convey its s

te would not

ribute to an

ation impacts

nd cumulativ

Neighborhood

surrounding V

However, sha

ed to substan

els of weekda

from other re

ibute consider

y Consulting, LLC

y Consulting, LL

isco Planning De

on

hael Element

project site, s

Commercial T

mily Special

ntial Historic D

ated within a

83X, 8AX and

NMENTAL EF

hoods PEIR i

uality and ur

transportati

es; historic arc

ial study for

m Street proje

rn Neighborh

n Neighborho

incremental i

roject would

rn Neighborh

oidable impa

use, historic a

t would no

s, transportati

ly eligible fo

ational Regist

e proposed pr

ng compatible

aterially impa

significance.1

t result in a s

ny significant

s , the propo

ve traffic and

ds PEIR determ

Victoria Man

adow on Victo

ntially affect

ay and weeke

easonably fore

rably to shad

C, Part I Historica

LC, Historical Reso

epartment, Histor

tary School a

outh of Clev

Transit (NCT

Use District,

District.

quarter mile

d 8BX.

FFECTS

included ana

ban design; p

ion; noise; ai

chitectural re

the Eastern N

ect is in conf

hoods PEIR a

oods plan area

impacts of th

not result in

oods PEIR.

acts were id

architectural r

ot contribute

ion and circu

r listing in t

ter‐eligible W

roject involve

e with the hi

air the charac0,11 As such, t

significant ad

t and unavo

sed project w

d transit impa

mined that pr

nalo Draves P

oria Manalo D

the use and e

end use and w

eseeable deve

ow impacts id

al Resource Evalua

ource Evaluation P

ric Resource Evalu

and the Ukra

veland Street.

T) Zoning Dist

and the Nat

of several lo

alyses of envi

population, h

ir quality; p

esources; haza

Neighborhood

formance wit

and would re

as. Thus, the p

he proposed

any new or s

dentified in

resources, tra

to significa

ulation, and sh

the California

Western SoMa

es demolition

istoric district

cter defining

the proposed

verse impact

oidable impa

would not co

acts identifie

rojects develo

Park could re

Draves Park g

enjoyment of

would be of s

elopment pro

dentified in th

ation – 1075 Folso

Part 2– 1075 Folso

uation Response fo

ainian Orthod

. The project

trict, 65‐X He

tional Registe

ocal transit lin

ironmental is

housing, busi

arks, recreat

ards; and oth

ds Rezoning

th the heigh

epresent a sm

plan analyzed

1075 and 10

substantially

the Eastern

ansportation a

ant and una

hadow. The e

a Register of

a Light Indu

n of a contrib

t and the los

features of t

d demolition o

t on historic r

acts to histo

ontribute cons

d in the East

oped in the So

esult in signif

generated by

f the park as

short duration

ojects. Therefo

he Eastern Ne

om Street San Fran

om Street San Fra

or 1075‐1089 Folso

1075

dox Church

site is also l

eight and Bulk

er‐eligible We

nes including

sues includin

iness activity,

tion and ope

her issues no

and Area Pla

ht, use and d

mall part of th

d in the Easte

89 Folsom St

more severe

Neighborhoo

and circulatio

avoidable im

existing build

f Historical R

ustrial and R

butor to the h

ss of the exis

the historic d

of the existin

resources, an

oric resource

siderably to s

tern Neighbo

outh of Marke

ficant and un

the proposed

the shade w

n, and would

ore, the propo

eighborhoods

ncisco, California,

ancisco, California

om Street, March

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

of St. Micha

located withi

k District, Sou

estern SoMa

g Muni lines 1

ng: land use;

, and employ

en space; sha

ot addressed i

ans. The prop

density for th

he growth tha

ern Neighborh

treet project.

impacts than

ods PEIR fo

on, and shado

mpacts on hi

ding on the p

Resources bu

esidential Hi

historic distric

ting structure

district such t

ng buildings o

nd therefore w

es. In regar

significant pr

orhoods PEIR

et neighborho

navoidable sh

d project woul

would occur d

d not combine

osed project w

s PEIR.

, May 2015.

a, January 2017.

h 8, 2018.

Street 38ENV

6

el are

in the

uth of

Light

12, 14,

plans

yment

adow;

in the

posed

he site

at was

hoods

As a

n were

or the

ow.

istoric

project

ut is a

istoric

ct, the

e was

that it

on the

would

ds to

roject‐

R. The

ood in

hadow

ld not

during

e with

would

Certificate

The propo

to PDR la

thus, the p

considers

noted in t

lofts with

proposed

considera

of PDR sp

The Easte

related to

transporta

and states

M

F. Noise

F‐1: Co

Driving)

F‐2: Const

F‐3: Interi

F‐4: Siting

F‐5: Siting

F‐6: Op

of Determinatio

osed project w

nd supply. Th

proposed pro

the presence

the PEIR, PDR

h one of the

project’s, re

ably to the sig

pace.

ern Neighborh

o noise, air

ation. Table 1

s whether eac

T

Mitigation Me

onstruction

truction Nois

ior Noise Lev

g of Noise‐Sen

g of Noise‐Ge

pen Space

on

would contrib

he existing va

oject would re

e of PDR bus

R uses typica

largest PDR

emoval of a

gnificant and

hoods PEIR i

quality, arch

1 below lists t

ch measure w

Table 1 – East

easure

Noise (Pil

se

els

nsitive Uses

nerating Uses

in Nois

bute to signif

acant building

emove appro

inesses and a

ally occupied

R clusters in

approximately

unavoidable

identified fea

heological res

the mitigation

ould apply to

tern Neighbo

le Not App

project w

driving.

Applicab

construct

heavy eq

Not App

and proc

Title 24 w

existing a

would no

proposed

the proje

Not App

and proc

Title 24 w

existing a

would no

proposed

the proje

s Not App

project w

noise‐gen

sy Not App

longer re

ficant and un

gs are former

ximately 6,74

activities and

small floor p

East SoMa a

y 6,743 gsf

land use imp

asible mitigati

sources, histo

n measures id

o the propose

orhoods PEIR

Applicability

licable: the p

would not invo

ble: temporary

tion noise fro

quipment.

licable: the re

cedures set for

would ensure

ambient noise

ot adversely a

d residential u

ct site.

licable: the re

cedures set for

would ensure

ambient noise

ot adversely a

d residential u

ct site.

licable: the pr

would not incl

nerating uses

licable: CEQA

equires the

navoidable im

r industrial bu

43 square feet

how they m

plate‐building

as printing a

of existing

pact identified

ion measures

orical resour

dentified in th

ed project.

R Mitigation M

y

proposed

olve pile

N

y

m use of

T

t

o

a

P

egulations

rth by

that

e levels

affect the

uses on

N

egulations

rth by

that

e levels

affect the

uses on

N

roposed

lude

.

N

A no N

1075

mpacts on lan

uildings dedi

t of existing P

may operate a

gs with garag

and publishin

PDR space

d in the PEIR

s to address s

rces, hazardo

he Eastern Ne

Measures

Com

Not Applicab

The project sp

to develop an

of constructio

attenuation m

Project Mitiga

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

nd use with re

icated to PDR

PDR use. The

s PDR cluster

es and upper

ng. Therefore

would contr

R related to th

significant im

ous materials

eighborhoods

mpliance

ble

ponsor has ag

nd implement

on noise

measures und

ation Measur

ble

ble

ble

ble

Street 38ENV

7

espect

R uses,

e PEIR

rs. As

r floor

e, the

ribute

he loss

mpacts

s, and

s PEIR

greed

t a set

er

re 3.

Certificate

M

Environm

G. Air Qu

G‐1: Cons

G‐2: Air

Uses

G‐3: Siting

G‐4: Sitin

TACs

J. Archeol

J‐1: Prope

J‐2: Prop

Studies

J‐3: Missi

District

of Determinatio

Mitigation Me

ments

uality

struction Air Q

Quality for S

g of Uses that

ng of Uses th

logical Resou

erties with Pre

perties with

ion Dolores

on

easure

Quality

Sensitive Lan

t Emit DPM

hat Emit othe

urces

evious Studie

no Previou

Archeologica

considera

existing e

condition

project’s

project w

those env

Applicab

project w

construct

Pollutant

nd Not App

measure

by Health

the proje

with the

Health in

program

Not App

residenti

uses are n

substanti

er Not App

residenti

uses are n

substanti

TACs.

es Not App

was not e

previous

us Applicab

located in

previous

would im

mitigatio

the prelim

review.

al Not App

is not loc

Applicability

ation of the ef

environmenta

ns on a propo

future users i

would not exa

vironmental c

ble: the propo

would include

tion within th

t Exposure Zo

licable: this m

has been sup

h Code Articl

ct sponsor ha

Department o

n the Article 3

.

licable: the pr

al and comm

not expected

ial levels of D

licable: the pr

al and comm

not expected

ial levels of ot

licable: the pr

evaluated in a

studies.

ble: the projec

n an area with

studies. Proj

mplement Tes

on measure ba

minary archeo

licable: the pr

cated within th

y

ffects of

al

osed

if the

acerbate

conditions

osed

e

he Air

one.

T

t

C

M

c

P

mitigation

perseded

le 38, and

as enrolled

of Public

38

N

roposed

mercial

to emit

DPM.

N

roposed

mercial

to emit

ther

N

N

roject site

any

N

ct site is

h no

ject

sting

ased on

ological

T

t

D

M

(

t

P

roject site

the

N

1075

Com

The project s

to develop a

Construction

Minimization

construction

Project Mitiga

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

The project sp

to implement

Department’s

Mitigation M

(Testing) in co

this mitigatio

Project Mitiga

Not Applicab

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

mpliance

ponsor has a

and implem

Emis

n Plan to re

emissions u

ation Measur

ble

ble

ble

ble

ble

ponsor has ag

t the Planning

s Standard

Measure #3

ompliance wi

on measure un

ation Measur

ble

Street 38ENV

8

agreed

ment a

ssions

educe

under

re 2.

greed

g

ith

nder

re 1.

Certificate

M

K. Histori

K‐1: Inter

Review

Neighbor

K‐2: Ame

the Plann

Vertical A

Historic D

K‐3: Ame

the Plann

Alteration

in the D

(Central W

L. Hazard

L‐1: Haza

E. Transp

E‐1: Traffi

E‐2: Intell

E‐3: Enha

E‐4: Intell

E‐5: Enha

of Determinatio

Mitigation Me

ical Resource

rim Procedur

in th

hoods Plan ar

endments to

ning Code

Additions in t

District (East S

endments to

ning Code

ns and Infill

Dogpatch Hi

Waterfront)

dous Material

ardous Buildin

portation

ic Signal Insta

igent Traffic M

nced Funding

igent Traffic M

nced Transit

on

easure

es

res for Perm

he Easter

rea

Article 10 o

Pertaining t

the South En

SoMa)

Article 10 o

Pertaining t

Developmen

storic Distri

ls

ng Materials

allation

Management

g

Management

Funding

Mission D

District.

mit

rn

Not App

mitigatio

Planning

of

to

nd

Not App

mitigatio

Planning

of

to

nt

ct

Not App

mitigatio

Planning

Applicab

the demo

buildings

Not App

delay rem

analysis

t Not App

delay rem

analysis

Not App

delay rem

analysis

t Not App

delay rem

analysis

Not App

mitigatio

Applicability

Dolores Arch

licable: plan‐l

on completed

g Department

licable: plan‐l

on completed

g Commission

licable: plan‐l

on completed

g Commission

ble: the projec

olition of exist

s.

licable: autom

moved from C

licable: autom

moved from C

licable: autom

moved from C

licable: autom

moved from C

licable: plan l

on by SFMTA

y

heological

N

level

by

N

level

by

n

N

level

by

n

N

ct involves

ting

T

t

d

b

a

f

p

e

P

mobile

CEQA

N

mobile

CEQA

N

mobile

CEQA

N

mobile

CEQA

N

level

A

N

1075

Com

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

The project sp

to remove an

dispose of an

building mate

accordance w

federal, state,

prior to demo

existing build

Project Mitiga

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

mpliance

ble

ble

ble

ble

ponsor has ag

d properly

ny hazardous

erials in

with applicabl

, and local law

olishing the

dings under

ation Measur

ble

ble

ble

ble

ble

Street 38ENV

9

greed

le

ws

re 4.

Certificate

M

E‐6: Trans

E‐7: Trans

E‐8: Muni

E‐9: Rider

E‐10: Tran

E‐11: T

Managem

Please see

of the app

project w

PEIR.

PUBLIC N

A “Notifi

occupants

by the p

environm

individua

about the

would ca

shading,

continuou

topic 8, W

The propo

issues ide

CONCLU

As summ

1. Th

th

2. Th

p

N

12 The initial

2016‐0084

of Determinatio

Mitigation Me

sit Corridor Im

sit Accessibili

i Storage and

r Improvemen

nsit Enhancem

Transportatio

ment

e Exhibit 1 for

plicable mitig

would not res

NOTICE AND

ication of Pro

s and owners

public in res

mental review

al requested a

proposed pr

ast a shadow

between 3:00

us new shado

Wind and Shad

osed project w

entified by the

SION

arized above

he proposed

he Eastern Ne

he proposed

roject or the

Neighborhood

l study is availab

438ENV.

on

easure

mprovements

ity

Maintenance

nts

ment

on Deman

r the Mitigati

gation measu

ult in signifi

D COMMENT

oject Receivin

of properties

sponse to th

w as appropri

a copy of the e

oject’s potent

on Victoria

0 p.m. and 4

ow for longer

dow.

would not re

e public beyon

and further d

project is con

eighborhoods

project wou

e project sit

ds PEIR;

ble for review at t

s Not App

mitigatio

Not App

mitigatio

e Not App

mitigatio

Not App

mitigatio

Not App

mitigatio

nd Not App

mitigatio

ion Monitorin

res. With imp

icant impacts

ng Environme

s within 300 f

he notice we

iate for CEQA

environmenta

tial to shadow

Manalo Drav

4:00 p.m. How

r than 15 min

sult in signifi

nd those iden

discussed in t

nsistent with t

s Rezoning an

uld not result

te that were

the Planning Dep

Applicability

licable: plan l

on by SFMTA

licable: plan l

on by SFMTA

licable: plan l

on by SFMTA

licable: plan l

on by SFMTA

licable: plan l

on by SFMTA

licable: plan l

on by SFMTA

ng and Repor

plementation

s beyond tho

ental Review

feet of the pro

ere taken int

A analysis. T

al document.

w the Victoria

ves Park all

wever, no sin

nutes. This is

icant adverse

ntified in the E

the project‐sp

the developm

nd Area Plans

t in effects on

e not identif

partment, 1650 M

y

level

A

N

level

A

N

level

A

N

level

A

N

level

A

N

level

A

N

rting Program

n of these mit

ose analyzed

w” was maile

oject site. Ove

to considerat

Two individu

The second in

a Manalo Dra

year round

ngle location

s further disc

e environmen

Eastern Neigh

pecific initial s

ment density e

s;

n the environ

fied as sign

Mission Street, Su

1075

Com

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

Not Applicab

m (MMRP) for

tigation meas

in the Easter

d on June 27

erall, concern

tion and inc

uals submitte

ndividual sha

aves Park. Th

and on the d

n within the

cussed in init

ntal impacts a

hborhoods PE

study12:

established fo

nment that a

nificant effect

uite 400, San Fra

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

mpliance

ble

ble

ble

ble

ble

ble

r the complet

sures the prop

rn Neighborh

7, 2017 to adj

ns and issues r

corporated in

ed comments

ared their con

he proposed p

days of maxi

park would

tial study che

associated wit

EIR.

or the project s

are peculiar t

ts in the Ea

ancisco, in Case F

Street 38ENV

10

te text

posed

hoods

jacent

raised

n the

s. One

ncerns

project

imum

be in

ecklist

th the

site in

to the

astern

File No.

Certificate

3. Th

th

4. Th

in

w

5. Th

N

There

Public

of Determinatio

he proposed

hat were not i

he proposed

nformation th

would be more

he project s

Neighborhood

efore, no furth

c Resources C

on

project woul

identified in t

project woul

hat was not

e severe than

sponsor will

ds PEIR to mit

her environm

Code Section 2

ld not result

the Eastern N

d not result in

known at th

were already

undertake f

tigate project‐

mental review

21083.3 and C

in potentiall

eighborhood

n significant

he time the E

y analyzed an

feasible mitig

‐related signi

w shall be req

CEQA Guidel

ly significant

s PEIR;

effects, which

Eastern Neigh

nd disclosed in

gation measu

ficant impact

quired for the

lines Section 1

1075

off‐site or cu

h, as a result

hborhoods P

n the PEIR; an

ures specifie

ts.

e proposed p

15183.

5-1089 Folsom 2016-00843

umulative im

of substantia

PEIR was cer

nd

ed in the Ea

project pursua

Street 38ENV

11

mpacts

al new

tified,

astern

ant to

File No.2016-008438ENV 1075-1089 Folsom Street

Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

(Including the Text of the Mitigation Measures)

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Responsibility for Implementation

Mitigation Action and Schedule

Monitoring/Report Responsibility

Status/Date Completed

Mitigation Measures from the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan EIR Archeology Project Mitigation Measure 1- Archeological Testing (Implementing Eastern Neighborhoods Mitigation J-2) Based on a reasonable presumption that archeological resources may be present within the project site, the following measures shall be undertaken to avoid any potentially 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 rotational Department Qualified Archaeological Consultants List (QACL) maintained by the Planning Department archaeologist. The project sponsor shall contact the Department archeologist to obtain the names and contact information for the next three archeological consultants on the QACL. The archeological consultant shall undertake an archeological testing program as specified herein. In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an archeological monitoring and/or data recovery program if required pursuant to this measure. The archeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the direction of the Environmental Review Officer (ERO). 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. Archeological monitoring and/or data recovery programs required by this measure could suspend construction of the project for up to a maximum of four weeks. At the direction of the ERO, the suspension of construction can be extended beyond four weeks only if such a suspension is the only feasible means to reduce to a less than significant level potential effects on a significant archeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Sect. 15064.5 (a) and (c). Consultation with Descendant Communities: On discovery of an

archeological site1 associated with descendant Native Americans, the

Overseas Chinese, or other potentially interested descendant group an

appropriate representative2 of the descendant group and the ERO shall be

contacted. The representative of the descendant group shall be given the opportunity to monitor archeological field investigations of the site and to

Project sponsor, archeological consultant at the direction of the ERO. Project sponsor’s qualified archeological consultant.

Prior to issuance of site permits. In the event that an archeological site is uncovered during the construction period.

Project sponsor to retain a qualified archeological consultant who shall report to the ERO. Qualified archeological consultant will scope archeological testing program with ERO. Consult with descendent communities to determine appropriate treatment of archeological finds and

Considered complete when ERO approves archeological testing plan scope. Considered complete after Final Archeological Resources Report is approved and provide to descendant groups.

1 By the term “archeological site” is intended here to minimally include any archeological deposit, feature, burial, or evidence of burial. 2 An “appropriate representative” of the descendant group is here defined to mean, in the case of Native Americans, any individual listed in the current Native American Contact List for the City and County of San Francisco

maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission and in the case of the Overseas Chinese, the Chinese Historical Society of America. An appropriate representative of other descendant groups should be

determined in consultation with the Department archeologist.









offer recommendations to the ERO regarding appropriate archeological treatment of the site, of recovered data from the site, and, if applicable, any interpretative treatment of the associated archeological site. A copy of the Final Archaeological Resources Report shall be provided to the representative of the descendant group. Archeological Testing Program. The archeological consultant shall prepare and submit to the ERO for review and approval an archeological testing plan (ATP). The archeological testing program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved ATP. The ATP shall identify the property types of the expected archeological 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 archeological testing program will be to determine to the extent possible the presence or absence of archeological resources and to identify and to evaluate whether any archeological resource encountered on the site constitutes an historical resource under CEQA. At the completion of the archeological testing program, the archeological consultant shall submit a written report of the findings to the ERO. If based on the archeological testing program the archeological consultant finds that significant archeological resources may be present, the ERO in consultation with the archeological consultant shall determine if additional measures are warranted. Additional measures that may be undertaken include additional archeological testing, archeological monitoring, and/or an archeological data recovery program. No archeological data recovery shall be undertaken without the prior approval of the ERO or the Planning Department archeologist. If the ERO determines that a significant archeological 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 archeological resource; or

B) A data recovery program shall be implemented, unless the ERO determines that the archeological resource is of greater interpretive than research significance and that interpretive use of the resource is feasible.

Archeological Monitoring Program. If the ERO in consultation with the archeological consultant determines that an archeological monitoring program shall be implemented the archeological monitoring program shall minimally

Project sponsor/Archeological consultant at the direction of the ERO. Project sponsor/ archeological consultant at the

Prior to soil disturbing activities. During soils‐ disturbing activities.

report findings as appropriate. Submittal of draft ATP to ERO for review and approval. Archeological consultant undertake activities specified in ATP and immediately notify ERO of any encountered archeological resource. Project sponsor/archeological consultant shall meet

Considered complete upon completion of the archeological testing program outlined in the ATP. Considered complete upon completion of archeological monitoring









include the following provisions:

The archeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the AMP reasonably prior to any project-related soils disturbing activities commencing. The ERO in consultation with the archeological consultant shall determine what project activities shall be archeologically 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 archeological monitoring because of the risk these activities pose to potential archaeological resources and to their depositional context;

The archeological 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 archeological resource;

The archeological monitor(s) shall be present on the project site according to a schedule agreed upon by the archeological consultant and the ERO until the ERO has, in consultation with project archeological consultant, determined that project construction activities could have no effects on significant archeological deposits;

The archeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples and artifactual/ecofactual material as warranted for analysis;

If an intact archeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archeological 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 or deep foundation activities (foundation, shoring, etc.), the archeological monitor has cause to believe that the pile driving or deep foundation activities may affect an archeological resource, the pile driving or deep foundation activities shall be terminated until an appropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in consultation with the ERO. The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the ERO of the encountered archeological deposit. The archeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the

direction of the ERO.

and consult with ERO on scope of AMP. Archeological consultant to monitor soils‐disturbing activities specified in AMP and immediately notify ERO of any encountered archeological resource.

plan as outlined in the AMP.









encountered archeological deposit, and present the findings of this assessment to the ERO.

Whether or not significant archeological resources are encountered, the archeological consultant shall submit a written report of the findings of the monitoring program to the ERO. Archeological Data Recovery Program. The archeological data recovery program shall be conducted in accord with an archeological data recovery plan (ADRP). The archeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the ADRP prior to preparation of a draft ADRP. The archeological 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 archeological 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 archeological 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 archeological data recovery program.

Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archeological 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

ERO, archeological consultant, and project sponsor.

In the event that an archeological site is uncovered during the construction period.

Archeological consultant to prepare an ADRP and to undertake the archeological data recovery program in consultation with ERO.

Considered complete upon completion of archeological data recovery plan as outlined in the ADRP.









value, identification of appropriate curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities.

Human Remains, 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, including 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) (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097.98). The ERO shall also be immediately notified upon discovery of human remains. The archeological consultant, project sponsor, ERO, and MLD shall have up to but not beyond six days after the discovery to make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects with appropriate dignity (CEQA Guidelines. Sec. 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, curation, possession, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. Nothing in existing State regulations or in this mitigation measure compels the project sponsor and the ERO to accept recommendations of an MLD. The archeological consultant shall retain possession of any Native American human remains and associated or unassociated burial objects until completion of any scientific analyses of the human remains or objects as specified in the treatment agreement if such as agreement has been made or, otherwise, as determined by the archeological consultant and the ERO. If no agreement is reached State regulations shall be followed including the reinternment of the human remains and associated burial objects with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097.98). Final Archeological Resources Report. The archeological consultant shall submit a Draft Final Archeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical significance of any discovered archeological resource and describes the archeological and historical research methods employed in the archeological testing/monitoring/data recovery program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archeological resource shall be provided

Archeological consultant, ERO, and Coroner. Archeological consultant at the direction of the ERO.

Following discovery of human remains. Following completion of cataloguing, analysis, and interpretation of recovered

Notification of ERO, Coroner and, as warranted, notification of NAHC. Archeological consultant to prepare FARR.

Considered complete on finding by ERO that all State laws regarding human remains/burial objects have been adhered to, consultation with MLD is completed as warranted, and that sufficient opportunity has been provided has been provided to the archeological consultant for scientific and historical analysis of remains and funerary objects. Considered complete upon review and approval of FARR by ERO.









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 Environmental Planning division of the Planning Department shall receive one bound, one unbound and one unlocked, searchable PDF copy on CD 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 the high interpretive value of the resource, the ERO may require a different final report content, format, and distribution than that presented above.

Archeological consultant at the direction of the ERO.

archeological data. Following completion of FARR and review and approval by ERO.

Following approval from the ERO, archeological consultant to distribute FARR.

Considered complete upon certification to ERO that copies of FARR have been distributed.

Noise Project Mitigation Measure 2- Construction Noise (Implementing Portions of Eastern Neighborhoods PEIR Mitigation Measure F-2) The project sponsor shall develop a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant. Prior to commencing construction, a plan for such measures shall be submitted to the Department of Building Inspection to ensure that maximum feasible noise attenuation will be achieved. These attenuation measures shall include as many of the following control strategies as feasible:

Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the construction site, particularly where a site adjoins noise-sensitive uses;

Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce noise emission from the site;

Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings housing sensitive uses;

Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements; and

Post signs on-site pertaining to permitted construction days and hours and complaint procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem, with telephone numbers listed.

Project sponsor, contractor(s), and acoustical consultant.

Prior to and during demolition and construction activities.

Project sponsor, contractor(s) to submit a noise attenuation to the Department of Building Inspection.

Considered complete upon receipt of final monitoring report at completion of construction.

Air Quality Project Mitigation Measure 3- Construction Air Quality (Implementing Eastern Neighborhoods PEIR

Project sponsor, contractor(s).

Submit certification

Project sponsor, contractor(s) to submit

Considered complete upon submittal of









Mitigation Measure G-1). The project sponsor or the project sponsor’s Contractor shall comply with the following:

A. Engine Requirements. 1. All off-road equipment greater than 25 hp and operating

for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall have engines that meet or exceed either U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 2 offroad emission standards, and have been retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy. Equipment with engines meeting Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final offroad emission standards automatically meet this requirement.

2. Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel engines shall be prohibited.

3. Diesel engines, whether for off-road or on-road equipment, shall not be left idling for more than two minutes, at any location, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable state regulations regarding idling for off-road and on-road equipment (e.g., traffic conditions, safe operating conditions). The Contractor shall post legible and visible signs in English, Spanish, and Chinese, in designated queuing areas and at the construction site to remind operators of the two minute idling limit.

4. The Contractor shall instruct construction workers and equipment operators on the maintenance and tuning of construction equipment, and require that such workers and operators properly maintain and tune equipment in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

B. Waivers. 1. The Planning Department’s Environmental Review Officer or

statement prior to construction activities requiring the use of off‐road equipment.

certification statement to the ERO.

certification statement.









designee (ERO) may waive the alternative source of power requirement of Subsection (A)(2) if an alternative source of power is limited or infeasible at the project site. If the ERO grants the waiver, the Contractor must submit documentation that the equipment used for onsite power generation meets the requirements of Subsection (A)(1).

2. The ERO may waive the equipment requirements of Subsection (A)(1) if: a particular piece of off-road equipment with an ARB Level 3 VDECS is technically not feasible; the equipment would not produce desired emissions reduction due to expected operating modes; installation of the equipment would create a safety hazard or impaired visibility for the operator; or, there is a compelling emergency need to use off-road equipment that is not retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 VDECS. If the ERO grants the waiver, the Contractor must use the next cleanest piece of equipment available, according to the Table below:

Table—Off-Road Equipment Compliance Step-Down Schedule Compliance

Alternative

Engine Emission Standard Emissions Control

1 Tier 2 ARB Level 2 VDECS

2 Tier 2 ARB Level 1 VDECS

3 Tier 2 Alternative Fuel* How to use the table: If the ERO determines that the equipment requirements cannot be met, then the project sponsor would need to meet Compliance Alternative 1. If the ERO determines that the Contractor cannot supply off-road equipment meeting Compliance Alternative 1, then the Contractor must meet Compliance Alternative 2. If the ERO determines that the Contractor cannot supply off-road equipment meeting Compliance Alternative 2, then the Contractor must meet Compliance Alternative 3. ** Alternative fuels are not a VDECS.

A. Construction Emissions Minimization Plan. Before starting on-site construction activities, the Contractor shall submit a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (Plan) to the ERO for review and approval. The Plan shall state, in reasonable detail, how the Contractor will meet the requirements of Section A.


Prepare and submit a Plan prior to issuance of a permit specified in

Project sponsor, contractor(s) and the ERO.

Considered complete upon findings by the ERO that the Plan is complete.









1. The Plan shall include estimates of the construction timeline by

phase, with a description of each piece of off-road equipment required for every construction phase. The description may include, but is not limited to: equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation. For VDECS installed, the description may include: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, ARB verification number level, and installation date and hour meter reading on installation date. For off-road equipment using alternative fuels, the description shall also specify the type of alternative fuel being used.

2. The project sponsor shall ensure that all applicable requirements of the Plan have been incorporated into the contract specifications. The Plan shall include a certification statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Plan.

3. The Contractor shall make the Plan available to the public for review on-site during working hours. The Contractor shall post at the construction site a legible and visible sign summarizing the Plan. The sign shall also state that the public may ask to inspect the Plan for the project at any time during working hours and shall explain how to request to inspect the Plan. The Contractor shall post at least one copy of the sign in a visible location on each side of the construction site facing a public right-of-way.

C. Monitoring. After start of Construction Activities, the Contractor shall

submit quarterly reports to the ERO documenting compliance with the Plan. After completion of construction activities and prior to receiving a final certificate of occupancy, the project sponsor shall submit to the ERO a final report summarizing construction activities, including the start and end dates and duration of each construction phase, and the specific information required in the Plan.


Section 106A.3.2.6 of the San Francisco Building Code. Submit quarterly reports.

Project sponsor, contractor(s) and the ERO.

Considered complete upon findings by the ERO that the Plan is being/has been implemented.

Hazardous Materials Project Mitigation Measure 4- Hazardous Building Materials (Implementing Eastern Neighborhoods PEIR Mitigation Measure L-1)

Project sponsor and construction contractor(s).

Prior to and during demolition and construction

The project sponsor and construction contractor(s) to submit

Considered complete upon submittal of a monitoring report.









The sponsor shall ensure that any equipment containing PCBs or DEHP, such as fluorescent light ballasts, are removed and properly disposed of according to applicable federal, state, and local laws prior to the start of renovation, 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.

activities. a report to the Department of Public Health, with copies to the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection, at end of the construction period.

Improvement Measures Historical Resources Project Improvement Measure 1- Interpretive Program on Site History The project sponsor shall facilitate the development of an interpretive program focused on the history of the project site. The interpretive program should be developed and implemented by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in displaying information and graphics to the public in a visually interesting manner, such as a museum or exhibit curator. This program shall be initially outlined in a proposal for an interpretive plan subject to review and approval by Planning Department Preservation Staff. The proposal shall include the proposed format and location of the interpretive content, as well as high-quality graphics and written narratives. The proposal prepared by the qualified consultant describing the general parameters of the interpretive program shall be approved by Planning Department Preservation Staff prior to issuance of the architectural addendum to the Site Permit. The detailed content, media and other characteristics of such interpretive program shall be approved by Planning Department Preservation Staff prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. The interpretative program shall include but not be limited to the installation of permanent on-site interpretive displays or screens in publicly accessible locations. Historical photographs may be used to illustrate the site's history. The primary goal is to educate visitors and future residents about the property's historical themes, associations, and lost contributing features within broader historical, social, and physical landscape contexts. These themes would include but not be limited to the subject property's original

Project sponsor and museum or exhibit curator in consultation with the Planning Department Preservation Technical Specialist.

Prior to issuance of the architectural addendum, develop an interpretive display.

Planning Department Preservation Technical Specialist to review and approve interpretive display.

Considered complete upon installation of interpretive display.









function as well as the history of the surrounding neighborhood as a mixed residential and industrial area largely reconstructed after the 1906 Earthquake and Fire.

P~9 COUIy?,fo w~~' '~ z SAN FRANCISCO ~- ~ ~ .~ PLANNING …sfmea.sfplanning.org/1075-1089 Folsom...

Documents

Transcript of P~9 COUIy?,fo w~~' '~ z SAN FRANCISCO ~- ~ ~ .~ PLANNING …sfmea.sfplanning.org/1075-1089 Folsom...