~9 counrp ~~`'' '' san francisco ~o-~~'~ a planning ...sfmea.sfplanning.org/1144-1150 harrison...

~9 couNrp

~~~~`'' ''~~ SAN FRANCISCO~o-~~'~ a PLANNING DEPARTMENTlba.,~~~:..o ~~,

3S , ~ p7

Certificate of DeterminationCommunity Plan Evaluation

Case No.: 2016-001738ENV

Project Address: 1144-1150 Harrison Street

Zoning: Western SoMa Mixed Use -General (WMUG) District

Western SoMa Special Use District

55/65-X Height and Bulk District

Block/Lot: 3755/023

Lot Size: 75,625 square feet

Plan Area: Western SoMa Community Plan

Project Sponsor: Scott Youdall, 1140 Harrison Associates, LP, (925) 490-2990

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

~:Z~~rx~~►~~~~~~~~~

The project site is located midblock along the north side of Harrison Street, between 8th Street andLangton Street, in San Francisco's South of Market neighborhood. The project site consists of a roughlysquare-shaped parcel on the block bounded by Harrison Street to the south, 8~" Street to the west, FolsomStreet to the north and 7th Street to the east. There are several alleys in the immediate project vicinity.Berwick Place abuts the project site to the west. Hallam Street terminates at the northern boundary of theproject site, and Heron Street terminates at the western boundary of the project site. The project site iswithin the Western SoMa Light Industrial and Residential Historic District (historic district). The 75,625square foot site is currently occupied by a 25-foot tall, one-story plus mezzanine industrial buildingconstructed in 1907 that is a contributor to the historic district. The existing building varies in buildingheight at 26 feet and 6 inches along Harrison Street to 33 feet along Berwick Street and the northeastern

CEQA DETERMINATION(Continued on next page).

The project is eligible for streamlined environmental review per Section 15183 of the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3.

DETERMINATION

I do erebX certi hat the above determination has been made pursuant to State and Local requirements.

~,,--- ti f 19' ~ ! F~Lisa Gibson DateEnvironmental Review Officer

cc: Scott Youdall, Project Sponsor Project DistributionDoug Vu, Current Planner Historic Distribution ListSupervisor Jane Kim, District 6

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

Reception:415.558.6378

Fax:415.558.6409

PlanningInformation:415.558.6377

Certificate

PROJECTside of thbusiness buildings inventory The propoto seven‐scontainingamenity asize from units, 146private opwidened Hallam St The projeBerwick Pfloor and and six staccessiblealley wouFolsom St The projespaces, anlevel gara3,766 sf obicycle lomidblock along Hadrivewaywould reqon‐street the drivewcommercito four aloHarrison Place at Hcurb ramincludes a

1 Exceptionsfor measurethose section

of Determinatio

T DESCRIPThe building. until Augustin San Franc

y storage.

osed project wstory, 65‐foot g 341,780 squand leasing spapproximate6 two‐bedroopen space woHarrison Strtreet, and two

ct site has a gPlace, allowinthe basementories within te north‐southuld enhance treet, while al

ct would prond two servicage. The projef bicycle storounge space. passage, wit

arrison Street. at the southequest that thecommercial lway and theial loading zoong HarrisonStreet betweHarrison Streps at the intadditional tra

s from the provisement of height ins. A minor devi

on

ION (continuThe existingt 2017. The acisco, althoug

would demoltall1, approxi

uare feet (sf) opace, and 69,ely 425 sf to apom units, andould be provreet sidewalko common roo

grade change ng a courtyart level garagethe perimeterh midblock papedestrian anlso providing

ovide 172 on‐sce vehicle spaect would prorage on the gPrimary pedth pedestrian. Vehicular east corner of e San Franciscoading zone e midblock pone. The propn Street betweeen Langton et, reconstructersection of ansportation

sions of the Planin Sections 260 aiation in the mea

ued) g building coauto repair bgh it continue

lish the majorimately 430,0of residential ,547 sf of garpproximatelyd four three‐vided with prk, a 30‐foot wof decks on th

of 7.5 feet frord level at the, resulting inr of the projecassage directnd bicycle co a visual brea

site vehicle paces), as well ovide 372 Claground floor. destrian accesn access for taccess to thethe site with

co Municipal Talong the nor

passageway, aposed project een 7th Street aStreet and Bct the existingBerwick Placdemand man

nning Code with nd 261 of this Coasurement of buil

overs the entbusiness has s to use the p

rity of the exi000 gross squauses (371 unirage space. Thy 1,328 sf and ‐bedroom unirivate balconiwide public he sixth floor.

om Harrison he interior of n the buildingct site. The prtly connectingonnections beak in the mass

arking spacesas utility, trasass 1 and 41 CThe project wss for the rethe commercie basement lean 18‐foot‐wTransportatiorth side of Haand a 66‐footwould reducand 8th Streeterwick Placeg sidewalks ace and Heronnagement me

respect to heighode, and no suchlding height is al

tire parcel ansince relocatproject proper

isting masonrare foot (gsf),its), 6,600 sf ohe proposed would includ

nits. Approximies and deckmidblock pa.

Street upwarthe site to beg containing sroject would pg Hallam Stretween Harrsing of the pr

s (167 vehiclesh, and electrClass 2 bicyclewould also psidential useial uses provevel garage w

wide curb cut oon Agency (SFarrison Streett long passence the numbet, widen the se, install a raalong both sin Street. In easures such

ht are confined toh deviation shalllowed under Pla

1144-Case N

nd operated ted to other rty for limited

ry building a, mixed‐use aof commerciadwelling unide 131 studiomately 29,724ks, three commassage from H

rd to its northe inserted beseven stories provide a 30‐reet with Harrison Street, Hoject.

e spaces, threrical rooms we parking spacprovide approe would be pvided along Bwould be thon Harrison SFMTA) desigt west of the nger loadinger of travel lansidewalk fromaised crosswaides of Berwiaddition, theas providing

o minor deviatiol depart from thanning Code Sec

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

as an auto rexisting indud overflow v

and construct apartment buial uses, 12,250its would ranos, 90 one‐bed4 sf of publimon courtyaHarrison Stre

hwest corner etween the grwithin the in‐foot wide purrison Street.Hallam Stree

ee car share vwithin the baseces, approximoximately 650provided fromBerwick Placrough a propStreet. The spgnate a 52‐foodriveway betg zone west ones from fivem 8 to 15 feet alk across Beick Place, ande proposed pg car‐share pa

ons from the prohe purposes or inction 304(d)(6).

Street 38ENV

2

repair ustrial vehicle

a six‐ ilding 0 sf of nge in droom c and rds, a eet to

along round nterior ublicly . The et and

ehicle ement mately 0 sf of m the e and posed ponsor ot long tween of the lanes along erwick d add project arking

ovisions ntent of

Certificate

and memtime trancosts, and Constructcommencexcavationbasementto resist hhammers PROJECTThe propo San Franci

C82ex

Departmen

R

Departmen

R R R

Bay Area ASan FranciSan Franci

RH

San Franci

R

San Franci

RloB

Aco

of Determinatio

mberships, pronsportation ind providing le

tion of the prce in Novembn of approximlevel. The pr

hydrostatic upis not propos

T APPROVALosed project w

isco Planning

Conditional U23(c)(11) for axception abov

nt of Building I

Review and ap

nt of Public He

Review for comReview for comReview and ap

Air Quality Misco Fire Deparisco Departme

Review and aHarrison Stree

isco Board of S

Review and ap

isco Municipal

Review and aoading zone erwick Place.

Approval of consistency wi

on

oviding delivenformation dess accessory p

roposed projeber 2018 and bmately 52,947roposed buildplift pressuresed.

LS would require

Commission

Use (CUA) Aua major develve the base he

Inspection

pproval of dem

ealth

mpliance withmpliance withpproval of a D

Management Dirtment nt of Public W

pproval of pet sidewalk.

Supervisors

pproval of sid

l Transportatio

approval of along the n construction ith the Better

ery package ldisplays and parking than

ect would ocbe completed7 cubic yards ding would bees with the in

e the followin

uthorization plopment in theight limit of 5

molition and

h the Maher Oh article 38 of Demolition an

strict

Works

permits for re

dewalk legisla

on Agency

an on‐street orth side of

within the pStreets Plan

lockers, provinformation the neighbor

ccur for apprd by May 2021of soil to a dee supported bnstallation of

ng approvals:

pursuant to Phe Western So55‐X to the m

building perm

Ordinance, arthe Health C

nd Constructio

emoval of Un

ation to widen

commercial Harrison St

public right‐o

viding multimabout travelrhood parking

roximately 301. Project conepth of 20 feeby a structurapre‐drilled s

Planning CodoMA Special Umaximum heig

mits.

rticle 22A of thCode for enhanon Dust Cont

nderground S

n the sidewalk

loading zontreet between

of‐way (e.g.,

1144-Case N

modal wayfinl options, ung rate.

0 months, andnstruction is eet below gradal mat foundaoldier piles; u

de Sections 26Use District rght limit of 65

he Health Conced ventilattrol Plan.

Storage Tank

k on Harrison

ne and an onn the propos

sidewalk wi

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

ding signagenbundling pa

d is anticipatexpected to rede for the propation, thick enuse of pile dr

63.29, 303, 30requesting a h5‐X.

de. tion.

ks identified i

n Street.

n‐street passsed driveway

idening) to e

Street 38ENV

3

, real‐arking

ted to equire posed nough riving

04 and height

in the

senger y and

ensure

Certificate

San Franci

Agu

R

The condiof the 30‐San Franc

COMMUNCaliforniaprojects thor generasubject toproject‐spexaminatiparcel on the zoningsignificanpreviouslyat the timdiscussedto the proimpact.

This deteHarrison ProgrammProject (Wdeterminethe Weste

The Westpopulatiovibration;and servihazardou

As a resuIndustrialfrom 50‐Xneighborh

2 San FranciFinal Enviro2009082031, 26, 2018.

of Determinatio

isco Public Uti

Approval of auidelines.

Review and ap

itional use au‐day appeal pcisco Adminis

NITY PLAN EVa Public Resohat are consisal plan policio additional epecific significion of environwhich the prg action, genent off‐site andy identified in

me that the EId in the underoposed proje

ermination eStreet projec

matic EIR for Western SoMe if the projecern SoMa PEIR

tern SoMa PEon and housin; air quality; gce systems; bs materials; m

ult of the Wesl/Residential)X to 55/65‐X. Thood serving

sco Planning Deonmental Impactcertified Decem

on

ilities Commis

a stormwater

pproval of a d

uthorization isperiod for thisstrative Code

VALUATION ources Code stent with theies for whichenvironmentacant effects wnmental effecroject would beral plan or cd cumulativen the EIR, butIR was certifirlying EIR. Seect, then an E

valuates thect described the Western S

Ma PEIR).2 Prct would resuR.

EIR included ng; cultural angreenhouse gbiological resomineral and en

stern SoMa Coto Western The WMUG dg, commercia

partment, Westet Report (PEIR),

mber 6, 2012. Ava

sion

managemen

dewatering pe

s the Approvs CEQA exem.

OVERVIEW Section 2108 developmenh an Environal review excewhich are pecucts shall be limbe located; b)community ple impacts that which, as a ried, are deterction 15183(cEIR need not

potential pabove, and iSoMa Commuroject‐specificult in any sign

analyses of tnd paleontologas emissionsources; geolonergy resourc

ommunity PlaSoMa Mixeddistrict permil, institutiona

ern SoMa CommPlanning Deparailable online at:

nt plan that c

ermit.

val Action. Thmption determ

83.3 and CEQnt density estanmental Impaept as might uliar to the pmited to those were not analan with whicat were not dresult of subsrmined to ha) specifies that be prepared

project‐specifiincorporates nity Plan, Rezc studies wenificant enviro

the followingogical resourcs; wind and sogy and soils;ces; and agric

an, the projec‐Use ‐ Generaits residentialal, and indu

munity Plan, Rezortment Case Nos: http://www.sf‐p

complies with

he Approval Amination pur

QA Guidelinablished by exact Report (Ebe necessary

project or its se effects that:alyzed as signch the projectdiscussed in stantial new inave a more seat if an impacd for the pro

ic environmeby referencezoning of Adjaere preparedonmental imp

g environmences; transportshadow; recre; hydrology acultural and fo

ct site was rezal (WMUG) al uses and suustrial/PDR u

oning of Adjacens. 2008.0877E anplanning.org/ind

1144-Case N

h the City’s s

Action date ersuant to Sect

nes Section 1xisting zoningEIR) was certy to examine site. Section 1 a) are peculinificant effectt is consistentthe underlyinformation thevere adversect is not peculoject solely on

ental effects e informationacent Parcels, ad for the propacts that wer

ntal issues: latation and circeation; publicand water quorest resource

zoned from Sand the heighupports a flexiuses, such as

nt Parcels, and 3nd 2007.1035E, Stdex.aspx?page=1

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

stormwater d

establishes thetion 31.04(h)

5183 provideg, communitytified, shall nwhether ther

15183 specifieiar to the projts in a prior Et; c) are potening EIR; or dhat was not ke impact thanliar to the parn the basis o

of the 1144n contained iand 350 Eight oposed projere not identif

and use; aesthculation; noisc services, utiuality; hazardes.

SLR (Service/ht and bulk dible mix of smbars, restau

50 Eighth Street tate Clearinghou1893, accessed Fe

Street 38ENV

4

design

e start of the

e that y plan not be re are es that ject or EIR on ntially d) are known n that rcel or of that

4‐1150 in the Street ect to fied in

hetics; se and ilities, ds and

/Light district maller urants,

Project use No. ebruary

Certificate

retail, burequiring developm

Individuaproject‐levdevelopmenvironm1144‐1150SoMa PEdescribedmeasures the provievaluationCertificatecomplete

PROJECTThe squarLangton Sone‐story immediatthat frontsstory warfronts on 1900). Thinterior alinto two swest of thincludinglight inducommerci Harrison on both sExpressesclosest buMuni lineinclude thMission E

3 San FranciHarrison StrDepartment4 San FranciHarrison Str

of Determinatio

siness serviceCU authoriz

ment (R&D) fa

al projects thavel environm

ment proposamental review0 Harrison StrIR. This dete

d the impacts applicable toisions of then for the 1144e of DetermiCEQA evalua

T SETTING re‐shaped prStreet in the Splus mezzan

tely adjacent ts on Harrisonrehouse withHarrison Stre

here is a proplterations to thstories of offihe project siteg commercial,ustrial buildinial buildings.

Street is an easides of the ss (8‐Bayshoreus stops are apes near the prhe 9‐San BruExpress, 83X‐M

isco Planning Dereet, April 3, 201t, 1650 Mission Stisco Planning Dreet, August 21, 2

on

es, and lightzation. Large‐acilities are no

at could occumental evaluatal, the site, w would be rreet is consisermination aof the propo

o the project. e Planning C4‐1150 Harrisination and ation necessa

roject site is lSouth of Marknine industriato the east of tn Street. The ph mezzanine eet and a oneposed projecthe existing buice space wit. The surroun, residential, ngs, while Ha

ast‐west roadtreet. The proe, 8AX‐Bayshopproximatelyroject site incuno, 9R‐San Mid‐Market E

epartment, Comm18. This documetreet, Suite 400 a

Department, Com2017.

t manufactur‐scale commeot be permitte

r in the futurtion to determand the timequired. Thistent with, anlso finds thaosed 1144‐115The propose

Code applicabon Street proaccompanyinry for the pro

located on thket neighborhal building (1the project sitproperties acrindustrial bu‐story art gallt at 1170 Hauilding to tranth no expansinding area aroand light indallam Street

dway with fouoject site is sore “A” Expry 280 feet awalude the 12‐FBruno RapiExpress, 30‐S

munity Plan Evaent, and other cits part of Case Filmmunity Plan Ev

ring. All typeercial uses, loed within this

re under the mine if they wme of develos determinatind was encomat the Wester50 Harrison Sed project is able to the pject is requireng project‐spoposed projec

he north sidehood. The 75,1126 Harrisonte is a two‐stoross Berwick Puilding (1170lery space wiarrison Street nsform the exion of the buound the produstrial uses. and Langton

ur lanes traveserved by theress, and 8BXay near the inFolsom–Pacifid, 10‐TownsStockton, and

aluation Eligibilitted documents, le No. 2016‐0017aluation Eligibilit

es of residenoft‐style live/ws district.

Western SoMawould result inopment and ion concludempassed withrn SoMa PEIStreet projectalso consistenproject site.3,4 ed. In sum, thpecific initial ct.

e of Harrison,625‐square‐fon Street consory residentiaPlace to the w0 Harrison Stith mezzanine(Case No. 2

xisting one‐stuilding envelooject site is cha Harrison Strn Street consis

elling west, twe 27‐Bryant, 4X‐Bayshore “ntersection ofic and 19‐Polsend, 14‐Miss 45‐Union–St

ty Determination,are available for

738ENV. ty Determination

1144-Case N

ntial uses arework spaces,

a Community n further impto assess w

es that the prhin, the analyIR adequatelt, and identifnt with the zo4 Therefore, he Western Sostudy comp

n Street, betwoot project sitstructed in 19al building (cowest of the protreet construe (7 Heron St2015‐016239Etory warehouope. It is apparacterized byreet and Berwst of integrat

wo parking lan47‐Van Ness, “B” Express) f 8th and Harrk. Routes sligsion, 14R‐Mitockton. Ther

, Citywide Plannr review at the S

n, Current Planni

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

e permitted, , and research

Plan will unpacts specific whether addiroposed projysis in the Wely anticipatedfied the mitigoning controlno further CoMa PEIR anprise the ful

ween 8th Streete is occupied907). The proonstructed in oject site are aucted in 1900treet construcNV) that inv

use with mezzproximately 2y a variety ofwick Place coted residentia

nes, and sideand the Baybus lines, anrison streets. ghtly further ssion Rapid,re are bicycle

ing Analysis, 114San Francisco Pl

ing Analysis, 114

Street 38ENV

5

some h and

dergo to the itional ect at estern d and gation ls and CEQA nd this ll and

et and d by a operty 1901) a one‐) that cted in volves zanine 20 feet f uses, ontain al and

walks yshore nd the Other away 14X‐lanes

44‐1150 lanning

44‐1150

Certificate

on HowarEnclave), within a o POTENTIThe WestPopulatioand VibraUtilities, aHazards aThe proposite descrforecast fconsidereproposed in the We

Significanhistoric renot indiviLight Indua contribuloss of thwould noto other owould enthe vicinitsuch damresource transit imgeneratinmechanicgenerate econstructicomply wAQ‐7 woMinimizadetermineareas. Thethe projec

The Westcultural a 5 Page & Tur6 San Francis

of Determinatio

rd, Folsom, 7tSALI (Servicone‐block rad

AL ENVIRONtern SoMa PEon and Housination; Air Quand Service Sand Hazardouosed 1144‐115ribed in the Wor the Westerd the incremproject woulstern SoMa P

nt and unavoiesources, tranidually eligibustrial and Reutor to the hihe existing strot convey its soffsite historinsure that proty during dem

mage is documimpact. Tran

mpacts identifg uses, Mitigal equipmentexcessive conion activities with the Consould reduce cation Plan fored that the pe proposed prct vicinity, but

ern SoMa PEand paleontol rnbull, 1140‐1150sco Planning Dep

on

th and 8th strece/Arts/Light ius include 30

NMENTAL EFEIR includedng; Cultural auality; GreenhSystems; Biolus Material; M50 Harrison SWestern SoMrn SoMa Com

mental impactld not result iPEIR.

idable impactnsportation anble for listingesidential Hisstoric districtructure was dsignificance. Iic resources oject contractomolition and mented and rnsit ridership fied in the Wgation Measurt meets the renstruction noisis minimizedstruction Dusconstruction‐r health riskproposed buiroject would t at levels com

IR identified logical resour 0 Harrison Street Hpartment, Histori

ets. The surroIndustrial, an0‐X, 40‐X, 55‐

FFECTS d analyses of and Paleontohouse Gas Emlogical ResouMineral and EStreet project iMa PEIR andmmunity Plan.ts of the propin any new o

ts were identnd circulationg in the Califostoric Districtt, the proposedetermined nIn addition, tin the projecors use all feaconstruction,repaired. Thegenerated b

Western SoMre M‐NO‐1c equirements ose, Mitigationd to the maximst Control Orrelated air qks and hazarilding would shade nearbymmonly expe

feasible mitigrces, transpo

Historic Resource ic Resource Evalua

ounding parcnd P (Public)‐X, and 55/65‐

environmenological Resoumissions; Winurces; GeologyEnergy Resouis in conform would repre Thus, the pposed 1144‐11or substantiall

tified in the Wn, noise, air qornia Registet.5,6 Although ed project is cnot to materihe proposed ct vicinity. Masible means t, and undertaerefore, the pby the projecta PEIR. As twould ensurof the Noise On Measure M‐mum extent frdinance, andquality impacds. The shadnot shade o

y streets, sidected in urban

gation measurtation and c

Evaluation‐ Partsation Response for

cels are within) zoning dist‐X.

ntal issues incurces; Transpnd and Shadoy and Soils; Hurces; and Agance with theesent a smal

project analyz150 Harrisonly more sever

Western SoMaquality, and ser but is a conthe proposedcompatible wially impair tproject woul

Mitigation Meto avoid damake a monitorproject wouldt would not the proposedre that projecOrdinance. Si‐NO‐2a wouldfeasible. The d implementacts by requirdow fan anaoutdoor recreewalks, and pn areas.

ures to addrescirculation, n

s One and Two, Mr 1144‐1150 Harri

1144-Case N

n the WMUGtricts. Height

cluding: Lanportation and ow; RecreatioHydrology agriculture ande height, use all part of thezed in the Wn Street projecre impacts th

a PEIR for thshadow. The ntributor to td project invowith the histothe historic dd not cause aeasures M‐CPmage to the hiring program d not contribuconsiderably

d project wouct generated nince the propd ensure thatproposed proation of Mitigring a Constalysis for theeation facilitiprivate prope

ss significant noise and vib

March 2, 2017. ison Street, Febru

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

G, RED (Residand bulk dis

nd Use; AesthCirculation;

on; Public Serand Water Qud Forest Resouand density fe growth tha

Western SoMa ct. As a resulhan were iden

he following tproject buildthe Western olves demolitric district andistrict such ta significant imP‐7a and M‐Cistoric buildinto ensure thaute to any hiy contribute tuld involve nnoise from roposed project t project noiseoject is requirgation Measutruction Emise proposed pes or other prty at times w

impacts relaration, air qu

uary 28, 2018.

Street 38ENV

6

dential stricts

hetics, Noise rvices, uality; urces. for the at was PEIR lt, the ntified

topics: ding is SoMa tion of nd the that it mpact CP‐7b ngs in at any istoric to the noise‐ooftop could e from red to ure M‐ssions project public within

ted to uality,

Certificate

wind, biomeasures to the pro

Mi

D. CulturResources

M‐CP‐1a: Historical

M‐CP‐1b:

M‐CP‐1c: I

M‐CP‐4a: PPreliminarAssessmen

M‐CP‐4b: AccidentaArcheolog

M‐CP‐7a: PResourcesConstructi

M‐CP‐7b: MonitorinResources

of Determinatio

ological resouidentified in

oposed project

itigation Meas

ral and Paleos

DocumentatResource

Oral Histories

Interpretive P

Project‐Specifry Archeologicnt (PAR)

Procedures fol Discovery ofgical Resources

Protect Historfrom Adjacenion Activities

Construction ng Program for

on

urces, and han the Westernt.

Table 1 –

sure

ontological

tion of a

s

rogram

ic cal

or f s

rical nt

r Historical

azards and hn SoMa PEIR

– Western SoM

A

Not Applicabbuilding is a nhistoric resou



Applicable: Trequire more grade excavat

Not Applicabby implementarcheological

Applicable: Aresources are

Applicable: Hpresent in pro

hazardous maand states w

Ma PEIR Mit

Applicability

ble: The existinnot an individurce.



The project wothan five feet tion.

ble: This is suptation of M‐CPtesting.

Adjacent historpresent.

Historic resouroject vicinity.

aterials. Tablwhether the m

tigation Meas

ng dual

N

ng dual

N

ng dual

N

ould of below

PPaPM(P

perseded P‐4a,

N

ric Ttadr(1

rces are TtmrpadM

1144-Case N

le 1 below limitigation mea

sures

Com

Not Applicabl

Not Applicabl

Not Applicabl

Pursuant to thPAR, the projeagreed to impPlanning DepMitigation Me(ArcheologicaProject Mitiga

Not Applicabl

The project spto implement adjacent histodamage causerelated constru(see Project M1).

The project spto implement monitor adjacresources for dproject‐relatedactivities and damage (see PMeasure 2).

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

ists the mitigasure would

mpliance

le

le

le

he results of thect sponsor haplement the artment’s Staneasure #3 al Testing), as ation Measure

le

ponsor has agrpractices to prric resources fed by project‐uction activiti

Mitigation Meas

ponsor has agra program to ent historic damage caused constructionto repair suchProject Mitigat

Street 38ENV

7

gation apply

he as

ndard

3.

reed rotect from

es sure

reed

ed by n h tion

Certificate

Mi

E. Transpo

M‐TR‐1c: TOptimizatWB off‐ram

M‐TR‐4: Loading S

M‐C‐TR‐2Impact FImpacts

F. Noise a

M‐NO‐1a:Residentia

M‐NO‐1b:Sensitive U

M‐NO‐1c: Generating

M‐NO‐1d:Environm

M‐NO‐2a:Noise Con

of Determinatio

itigation Meas

ortation and C

Traffic Signal tion (8th/Harrismp)

Provision paces on Folso

: Impose DeFees to Offs

nd Vibration

Interior Noiseal Uses

Siting of NoisUses

Siting of Noisg Uses

: Open Spaceents

General Cntrol Measures

on

sure

Circulation

son/I‐80

of New om Street

evelopment set Transit

e Levels for

se‐

se‐

e in Noisy

onstruction s

A

Not applicablremoved from

Not Applicabnot involve anFolsom Streetgenerate neglfreight loadinactivities alon

Not Applicabsuperseded bSection 423, EImpact Fees aFund.

Not applicablenvironment longer a CEQ


Applicable: Tnoise‐generat


Applicable: Tnew construc

Applicability

le: Automobilem CEQA analy

ble: The projecny physical cht and is expectligible demandng/service vehing Folsom Stre

ble: This measuy Planning CoEastern Neighband Public Ben

le: Impacts of on the project

QA topic.


QA topic.

The project proting uses.


QA topic.

The project proction that could

e delay is ysis.

N

ct would hanges to ted to d for icle eet.

N

ure is ode borhoods nefits

TNai

the t is no

N

the t is no

N

oposes TacFSriapimnM

the t is no

N

oposes d generate

Tt

1144-Case N

Com

Not Applicabl

Not Applicabl

The project is Neighborhooda portion of wimprovements

Not Applicabl

Not Applicabl

The project spa noise study compliance wFrancisco GenSan Francisco requirements implementatioattenuation mproject sponsoimplement nomeasures durinoise‐generatiMitigation Me

Not Applicabl

The project spto develop and

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

mpliance

le

le

subject to Easds Tier 2 impawhich funds tras.

le

le

ponsor has prethat demonstr

with the San neral Plan and Noise Ordinawith on of noise

measures. The or has agreed toise attenuationing siting of fuing uses (Projeeasure 4).

le

ponsor has agrd implement a

Street 38ENV

8

tern act fee, ansit

epared rates

the ance

to n uture ect

reed a set

Certificate

Mi

M‐NO‐2b:During Pil

G. Air Qu

M‐AQ‐2: ManagemDevelopm

M‐AQ‐3: RToxic Air Sensitive R

M‐AQ‐4: SPM2.5 or TACs

M‐AQ‐6: MinimizatPollutants

M‐AQ‐7: CMinimizatRisks and

I. Wind an

M‐WS‐1: SAnalysis a

L. Biologi

M‐BI‐1a: PStatus Bird

of Determinatio

itigation Meas

Noise Controle Driving

uality

Transportatioent Strategies

ment Projects

Reduction in EContaminant

Receptors

Siting of Usesother DPM

Construction tion Plan for C

Construction Etion Plan for HHazards

nd Shadow

Screening‐Levand Wind Test

cal Resources

Pre‐Constructid Surveys

on

sure

ol Measures

on Demand for Future

Exposure to ts for New

s that Emit and Other

Emissions Criteria Air

Emissions Health

el Wind ting

s

ion Special‐

A

excessive con

Not Applicabinclude pile‐d

Not Applicabnot generate mvehicle trips.

Not Applicabsuperseded bCode Article 3Exposure Zon

Not Applicabconstruction anot result in s

Not Applicabnot exceed thconstruction tsignificance.

Applicable: Tconstruction iquality.

Not Applicabnot exceed 80

Applicable: Tbuilding dem

Applicability

nstruction nois

ble: The projecdriving activiti

ble: The projecmore than 3,50

ble: This measuy San Francisc38 (Air Pollutane).

ble: The projecand operationsubstantial em

ble: The projece BAAQMD thresholds of

The project inclin an area of p

ble: The projec0 feet in height

The project inclmolition.

se. odM

ct does not ies.

N

ct would 00 daily

NsDO

ure is co Health ant

N

ct‐related n would missions.

N

ct would N

ludes poor air

TtEHM

ct would t.

N

ludes TtsqJbt(

1144-Case N

Com

of noise attenuduring construMitigation Me

Not Applicabl

Not applicablesubject to the TDemand ManOrdinance.

Not Applicabl

Not Applicabl

Not Applicabl

The project spto implement Emissions MinHealth Risk anMitigation Me

Not Applicabl

The project spto conduct prespecial‐status qualified bioloJanuary 15 andbuilding demoto take place d(Project Mitiga

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

mpliance

uation measuruction (Projecteasure 5).

le

e, but project iTransportationagement

le

le

le

ponsor has agra Constructionimization Pland Hazards (Peasure 6).

le

ponsor has agre‐constructionbird surveys bogist between d August 15 ifolition is schedduring that peation Measure

Street 38ENV

9

res t

is n

reed n an for Project

reed n by a

f duled riod e 7).

Certificate

Mi

M‐BI‐1b: PStatus Bat

O. HazardMaterials

M‐HZ‐2: Materials A

M‐HZ‐3: SCorrective

PUBLIC NA “Notifioccupantsby the penvironm

Six membpublic intwould beInitial StuPaleontolosignificanthose iden

of Determinatio

itigation Meas

Pre‐ConstructiSurveys

ds and Hazard

Hazardous Abatement

Site Assessmene Action

NOTICE ANDication of Pros and ownerspublic in resmental review

bers of the puterested in hie preserved audy Checklistogical Resournt adverse enntified in the W

on

sure

ion Special‐

dous

Building

nt and

D COMMENT oject Receivin of propertiessponse to thas appropriat

ublic were intistoric resouras part of the t under Sectiorces). No othenvironmental Western SoM

A

Applicable: Tremoval of trevacant buildin

Applicable: Tdemolition of

Not Applicabby San Franci22A (Maher O

ng Environms within 300 fhe notice wete for CEQA a

terested in lerces and one project. Thes

on 1 (Land Uer comments impacts asso

Ma PEIR.

Applicability

The project invees and demolng.

The project inclf a pre‐1970s b

ble: This is supisco Health CoOrdinance).

mental Reviewfeet of the proere taken intanalysis.

earning more member of tse issues rais

Use and Landwere receiveociated with

volves lition of a

TtsqlvdM

ludes building.

TtcbsadfwapM

perseded ode Article

N

w” was maileoject site. Oveto considerat

about the prthe public intsed by the pud Use Plannined. The propothe issues id

1144-Case N

Com

The project spto conduct prespecial‐status qualified bat blarge trees arevacant buildindemolished (PMeasure 8).

The project spto ensure that containing polbiphenyls (PCsuch as fluoreare removed adisposed, andfluorescent ligwhich could care similarly rproperly dispoMitigation Me

Not Applicabl

ed on July 5erall, concerntion and inc

roject with twterested in wublic are addng) and Sectioosed project wdentified by t

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

mpliance

ponsor has agre‐constructionbat surveys bybiologist whene to be removengs are to be Project Mitigat

ponsor has agrany equipmenlychlorinated

CBs) or mercurscent light baland properly d that any ght tube fixturcontain mercurremoved intacosed of (Projeceasure 8).

le

5, 2017 to adjns and issues rcorporated in

wo members whether PDR dressed in theon 3 (Culturawould not resthe public be

Street 38ENV

10

reed n y a n ed or

tion

reed nt

ry, llasts,

es, ry, t and ct

jacent raised n the

of the space e CPE al and sult in eyond

Certificate

CONCLUAs summ

1. Thth

2. Thp

3. Thth

4. Thinse

5. ThP

TherePublic

7 The CPE Planning De

of Determinatio

SION arized above

he proposed he Western So

he proposed roject or the p

he proposed hat were not i

he proposed nformation thevere than we

he project spEIR to mitiga

efore, no furthc Resources C

Initial Study Chepartment, 1650 M

on

and further d

project is conoMa Commun

project wouproject site th

project woulidentified in t

project woulhat was not knere already an

ponsor will unate project‐rela

her environmCode Section 2

hecklist is availaMission Street, S

discussed in t

nsistent with tnity Plan;

uld not resultat were not id

ld not result the Western S

d not result innown at the tinalyzed and d

ndertake feasated significa

mental review21083.3 and C

able for review uite 400, San Fra

the project‐sp

the developm

t in effects ondentified as si

in potentiallSoMa PEIR;

n significant ime the Westedisclosed in th

sible mitigatioant impacts.

w shall be reqCEQA Guidel

online at http://ancisco, in Case F

pecific initial s

ment density e

n the environignificant effe

ly significant

effects, whichern SoMa PEIhe PEIR; and

on measures

quired for thelines Section 1

/sf‐planning.org/File No. 2016‐001

1144-Case N

study7:

established fo

nment that aects in the We

off‐site or cu

h, as a result IR was certifi

specified in

e proposed p15183.

/community‐plan1738ENV.

1150 Harrison No. 2016-00173

or the project s

are peculiar testern SoMa P

umulative im

of substantiaed, would be

the Western

project pursua

n‐exemptions or

Street 38ENV

11

site in

to the PEIR;

mpacts

al new e more

SoMa

ant to

r at the

1 1 4 4 - 1 1 5 0 H A R R I S O N S T R E E T C A S E N O . 2 0 1 6 - 0 0 1 7 3 8 E N V M I T I G A T I O N M O N I T O R I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G P R O G R A M A P R I L 2 0 1 8 1

EXHIBIT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Adopted Mitigation/Improvement Measures

Responsibility for

Implementation

Mitigation Action and Schedule

Monitoring and Reporting Responsibility

Status / Date Completed

MITIGATION MEASURES

Project Mitigation Measure 1: Protect Historical Resources from Adjacent Construction Activities (Implementing Western SoMa PEIR Mitigation Measure M-CP-7a)

The project sponsor shall consult with Planning Department environmental planning/preservation staff to determine whether adjacent or nearby buildings constitute historical resources that could be adversely affected by construction‐generated vibration. For purposes of this measure, nearby historic buildings shall include those within 100 feet of a construction site if pile driving would be used; otherwise, it shall include historic buildings within 25 feet, if heavy equipment would be used. (No measures need be applied if no heavy equipment would be employed.) If one or more historical resources is identified that could be adversely affected, the project sponsor shall incorporate into construction specifications for the proposed project a requirement that the construction contractor(s) use all feasible means to avoid damage to adjacent and nearby historic buildings. Such methods may include maintaining a safe distance between the construction site and the historic buildings (as identified by the Planning Department preservation staff),

Project sponsor and construction contractor(s) under the direction of the Environmental Review Officer (ERO).

Prior to and during demolition and construction activities.

Planning Department Preservation Technical Specialist to review monitoring reports provided by Project sponsor and/or contractor.

Considered complete upon end of construction and documentation by a qualified historic preservation profession at the direction of preservation staff that all identified protection methods were undertaken.




Responsibility for

Implementation




using construction techniques that reduce vibration, appropriate excavation shoring methods to prevent movement of adjacent structures, and providing adequate security to minimize risks of vandalism and fire.

Project Mitigation Measure 2: Construction Monitoring Program for Historical Resources (Implementing Western SoMa PEIR Mitigation Measure M-CP-7b)

For those historical resources identified in Mitigation Measure M‐CP‐7a, and where heavy equipment would be used, the project sponsor shall undertake a monitoring program to minimize damage to adjacent historic buildings and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. The monitoring program, which shall apply within 100 feet where pile driving would be used and within 25 feet otherwise, shall include the following components. Prior to the start of any ground‐disturbing activity, the project sponsor shall engage a historic architect or qualified historic preservation professional to undertake a pre‐construction survey of historical resource(s) identified by the San Francisco Planning Department within 125 feet of planned construction to document and photograph the buildings’ existing conditions. Based on the construction and condition of the resource(s), the consultant shall also establish a maximum vibration level that shall not be exceeded at each building, based on existing condition, character‐defining features, soils conditions, and anticipated construction practices (a common standard is

Project sponsor, construction contractor(s), and qualified historic preservation professional under the direction of the ERO.

Prior to and during ground‐disturbing, demolition, or construction activities.

The project sponsor and construction contractor(s) at the direction of preservation staff shall monitor vibration levels during ground‐disturbing, demolition, or construction activities and report to Planning Department Preservation Technical Specialist.

In the event that vibration levels exceed the maximum limit established by the historic preservation professional and preservation staff, construction shall be halted and alternative construction techniques shall be implemented to the extent feasible.

Considered complete upon end of construction.




Responsibility for

Implementation




0.2 inch per second, peak particle velocity). To ensure that vibration levels do not exceed the established standard, the project sponsor shall monitor vibration levels at each structure and shall prohibit vibratory construction activities that generate vibration levels in excess of the standard.

Should vibration levels be observed in excess of the standard, construction shall be halted and alternative construction techniques put in practice, to the extent feasible. (For example, pre‐drilled piles could be substituted for driven piles, if feasible based on soils conditions; smaller, lighter equipment might be able to be used in some cases.) The consultant shall conduct regular periodic inspections of each building during ground‐disturbing activity on the project site. Should damage to either building occur, the building(s) shall be remediated to its pre‐construction condition at the conclusion of ground‐disturbing activity on the site.

Project Mitigation Measure 3: Procedures for Archeological Testing (Implementing Western SoMa PEIR Mitigation Measure M-CP-4b)

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

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

Prior to and during soil disturbing activities

Project sponsor to retain a qualified archeological consultant who shall report to the ERO.

Qualified archeological consultant will scope archeological testing program with ERO.

Considered complete when ERO approves archeological testing plan scope.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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

Project sponsor’s qualified

In the event that an

Consult with descendant communities to determine

Considered complete after

1 By the term “archeological site” is intended here to minimally include any archeological deposit, feature, burial, or evidence of burial.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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 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

archeological consultant Archeological consultant at the direction of the ERO.

archeological site is uncovered during the construction period Prior to soil disturbing activities.

appropriate treatment of archeological finds and report findings as appropriate Submittal of draft ATP to ERO for review and approval. Distribution of the ATP by the archeological consultant.

Archeological consultant undertake activities specified in ATP and immediately notify ERO of any encountered archeological resource.

Final Archeological Resources Report is approved and provide to descendant groups. Considered complete upon completion of the archeological testing program outlined in the ATP.

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.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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 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;

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

During soils‐ disturbing activities.

Project sponsor/archeological consultant shall meet 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.

Considered complete upon completion of archeological monitoring plan as outlined in the AMP.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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

Whether or not significant archeological resources are




Responsibility for

Implementation




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

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.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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 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

Archeological Consultant, ERO,

Following discovery of

Notification of ERO, Coroner and, as warranted, notification

Considered complete on




Responsibility for

Implementation




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

and Coroner.

human remains.

of NAHC.

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 to the archeological consultant for scientific and historical analysis of remains and funerary objects.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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 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

Archeological consultant at the direction of the ERO. Archeological consultant at the direction of the ERO.

Following completion of cataloguing, analysis, and interpretation of recovered archeological data. Following completion of FARR and review and approval by ERO.

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

Considered complete upon review and approval of FARR by ERO. Considered complete upon certification to ERO that copies of FARR have been distributed.




Responsibility for

Implementation




different final report content, format, and distribution than that presented above.

Project Mitigation Measure 4 – Siting of Noise –Generating Uses (Implementing Western SoMa PEIR Mitigation Measure M-NO-1c)

To ensure that project noise from the mechanical equipment meets the Police Code section 2909 noise requirement, the project sponsor shall undertake the following:

• For heat pumps and supply fans, the project sponsor shall construct an acoustical barrier/roof parapet along the east edge of the project building that is a minimum of two feet taller than the top of the tallest rooftop mechanical equipment; and

• For all other rooftop mechanical equipment such as exhaust fans, future tenant equipment, air handling units, or similar equipment, the project sponsor shall incorporate a combination of noise attenuation measures into stationary equipment installed on the project building. Noise attenuation measures can include providing sound enclosures, increasing setback distances from the property plane, providing louvered vent openings, and locating vent openings away from the property plan. The final rooftop mechanical equipment configuration shall demonstrate that noise levels along the property plan to the east are reduced to 58 dBA and

Project sponsor, architect, acoustical consultant, and construction contractor. Project designer to incorporate mechanical equipment specifications and documentation into construction plans demonstrating compliance with Police Code section 2909 noise requirements.

Prior to issuance of architectural addendum and at final building inspection.

Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection to review and approve plans demonstrating compliance with Police Code section 2909.

Considered complete upon approval of final construction plan set and final building inspection.




Responsibility for

Implementation




noise levels along the property plane to the north are reduced to 62 dBA.

Project Mitigation Measure 5: General Construction Noise Control Measures (Implementing Western SoMa PEIR Mitigation Measure M-NO-2a)

To ensure that project noise from construction activities is minimized to the maximum extent feasible, the project sponsor shall undertake the following:

• The project sponsor shall conduct noise monitoring at the beginning of major construction phases (e.g., demolition, excavation) to determine the need and the effectiveness of noise‐attenuation measures.

• The project sponsor shall require the general contractor to ensure that equipment and trucks used for project construction use 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).

• The project sponsor shall require the general contractor to avoid placing stationary noise sources (such as generators and compressors) within noise‐sensitive buffer areas (measured at linear 20 feet) between immediately adjacent

Project sponsor and construction contractor(s).

Prior to and during demolition or construction activities.

The project sponsor and construction contractor(s) shall submit a noise attenuation plan to the Department of Building Inspection and monthly reports to the Planning Department.

Considered complete upon final monthly report.




Responsibility for

Implementation




neighbors. The project sponsor shall construct barriers around such sources and/or the construction site, which could reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dBA. To further reduce noise, the contractor shall locate stationary equipment in pit areas or excavated areas, if feasible.

• The project sponsor shall require the general contractor to use impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) that are hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used, along with external noise jackets on the tools, which could reduce noise levels by as much as 10 dBA.

• The project sponsor shall require that all construction equipment be in good working order and that mufflers are inspected and determined to be functioning properly. The project sponsor shall require that all construction equipment and engines be operated so as to avoid unnecessary idling.

• The project sponsor shall include noise control requirements in specifications provided to




Responsibility for

Implementation




construction contractors. Such requirements could include, but not be limited to: performing all work in a manner that minimizes noise to the extent feasible; undertaking the most noisy activities during times of least disturbance to surrounding residents and occupants, as feasible; and selecting haul routes that avoid residential buildings inasmuch as such routes are otherwise feasible.

• Prior to the issuance of each building permit, along with the submission of construction documents, the sponsor shall submit to the San Francisco Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection (DBI) a list of measures to respond to and track complaints pertaining to construction noise. These measures shall include: (1) a procedure and phone numbers for notifying DBI, the Department of Public Health, and the Police Department (during regular construction hours and off‐hours); (2) a sign posted on‐site describing noise complaint procedures and a complaint hotline number that shall be answered at all times during construction; (3) designation of an on‐site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the project; and (4) notification of neighboring residents and non‐residential building managers within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of extreme noise‐generating activities




Responsibility for

Implementation




(defined as activities generating noise levels of 90 dBA or greater at 50 feet) about the estimated duration of the activity.

Project Mitigation Measure 6: Construction Emissions Minimization Plan for Health Risks and Hazards (Implementing Western SoMa PEIR Mitigation Measure M-AQ-7)

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 off‐road 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 off‐road emission standards automatically meet this requirement.

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

Project sponsor, contractor(s).

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

Project sponsor, contractor(s) to submit certification statement to the ERO.

Considered complete upon submittal of certification statement.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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 (ERO) or designee 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




Responsibility for

Implementation




the equipment used for on‐site 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 off‐road equipment, according to the table below.

Table – Off-Road Equipment Compliance Step-down Schedule

Engine Emission Standard Emissions Control

Tier 2 ARB Level 2 VDECS

Tier 2 ARB Level 1 VDECS

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.




Responsibility for

Implementation




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.

C. 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.

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


Prepare and submit a Plan prior to issuance of a permit specified in Section 106A.3.2.6 of the San Francisco Building Code.

Project sponsor, contractor(s) and the ERO.

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




Responsibility for

Implementation




fuels, the description shall also specify the type of alternative fuel being used.

2. The ERO 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.

D. 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


Submit quarterly reports.

Project sponsor, contractor(s) and the ERO.

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



Adopted Miti

~9 counrp ~~~~`'' ''~~ san francisco ~o-~~'~ a planning ...sfmea.sfplanning.org/1144-1150 harrison...

Documents

~9 counrp ~~`'' '' san francisco ~o-~~'~ a planning ...sfmea.sfplanning.org/1144-1150 harrison...