Ancisco Planning1a

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
260 FIFTH STREET PROJECT

San Francisco Planning Department City and County of San Francisco Case No. 2007.0690E
State Clearinghouse No. 2008062036 Draft EIR Publication Date: July 29, 2009 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: September 10, 2009 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: July 29, 2009 - September 15, 2009 Final EIR Certification Date: May 20, 2010
DATE: TO: FROM:
May 5, 2010 MembersofthePlanningCommissionandInterestedParties BillWycko,EnvironmentalReviewOfficer CaseNo.2007.0690E, 260 Fifth Street Project
RE:
AttachedforyourreviewpleasefindacopyoftheCommentsandResponsesdocument for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the abovereferenced project. This document,alongwiththeDraftEIR,willbebeforethePlanningCommissionforFinal EIR certification on May 2 , 2010. Please note that the public review period ended on September 15,2009. The Planning Commission does not conduct a hearing to receive comments on the CommentsandResponsesdocument,andnosuchhearingisrequiredbytheCalifornia Environmental Quality Act. Interested parties, however, may always write to CommissionmembersortothePresidentoftheCommissionat1650MissionStreetand express an opinion on the Comments and Responses document, or the Commissions decisiontocertifythecompletionoftheFinalEIRforthisproject. PleasenotethatifyoureceivetheCommentsandResponsesdocumentinadditiontothe DraftEIR,youtechnicallyhavetheFinalEIR.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningthe CommentsandResponsesdocumentortheenvironmentalreviewprocess,pleasecontact meat(415)5759024. Thankyouforyourinterestinthisprojectandyourconsiderationofthismatter. Attachment:CommentsandResponsesdocument.

www.sfplanning.org
260 Fifth Street Project
Comments and Responses

Table of Contents A. Introduction...........................................................................................................C&R1
PurposeoftheCommentsandResponsesDocument...................................................C&R1 EnvironmentalReviewProcess........................................................................................C&R1 . OrganizationofCommentsandResponses....................................................................C&R1 ListofPersonsCommenting ..............................................................................C&R3 . LocalandRegionalAgencies............................................................................................C&R3 Organizations......................................................................................................................C&R3 Individuals...........................................................................................................................C&R3 CommentsandResponses..................................................................................C&R4 . Introduction.........................................................................................................................C&R4 1. GeneralComments................................................................................................C&R4 2. ProjectDescription.................................................................................................C&R7 3. Plans,Policies,andLandUse.............................................................................C&R23 4. Transportation......................................................................................................C&R27 5. CulturalandPaleontologicalResources...........................................................C&R48 6. Alternatives ..........................................................................................................C&R54 . 7. InitialStudy..........................................................................................................C&R65 DraftEIRRevisions............................................................................................C&R77 TextChangesinResponseToComments.....................................................................C&R77
B.
C.
D.
Appendices A. DEIRCommentLetters B. TranscriptofDEIRPublicHearing
CaseNo.2007.0690E 2605THSTREETPROJECT
C&Ri
COMMENTSANDRESPONSES MAY5,2010
List of Tables
TableS2 TableII1 TableV1 TableB8 ComparisonofImpactsofAlternativesto SignificantImpactsofProposedProject(revised)....................................C&R31 ProjectCharacteristics(revised)..................................................................C&R32 ComparisonofImpactsofAlternativesto SignificantImpactsofProposedProject(Revised)...................................C&R33 . ParkingDemandandSupply(Revised)....................................................C&R43
List of Figures
Figure1 Figure2 FigureC&R1 Figure13 Figure5 FigureC&R2 Figure15a FigureC&R3 FigureC&R4 ProjectLocation(Revised)............................................................................C&R12 ExistingSitePlan(Revised).........................................................................C&R13 ExistingPlanningCodeUseDistricts andHeightandBulkDistricts.....................................................................C&R14 EasternNeighborhoodPlanningAreasand OtherPlanningAreas(Revised)..................................................................C&R16 ProposedGroundLevelPlan(Revised).....................................................C&R29 TransitLinesandBusStopLocations........................................................C&R38 . ExistingMuralonNorthElevationof260FifthStreet.............................C&R51 ProjectwithNoPlanningCodeExceptions ViewfromClementinaLookingNortheast...............................................C&R61 ProjectwithNoPlanningCodeExceptions ViewfromTehamaLookingSoutheast......................................................C&R62
C&Rii
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

A. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES DOCUMENT ThisCommentsandResponsesdocumentrespondstocommentsonthe260FifthStreetProject DraftEnvironmentalImpactReport(DEIR).Thisdocumentwaspreparedinaccordancewith the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and presents all comments verbatim,theCitysresponsestocomments,copiesofthelettersreceived,andatranscriptofthe publichearing.ResponsesareprovidedtoallcommentsregardingwhethertheDEIRidentifies and analyzes the possible environmental impacts and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. The DEIR, together with this Comments and Responses document, will be consideredbythePlanningCommissioninanadvertisedpublicmeeting,andthencertifiedasa FinalEIRifdeemedadequate. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS A Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and an Initial Study for the 260 FifthStreetProjectwasdistributedonJune11,2008.WrittencommentsonthescopeoftheEIR wereaccepteduntilJuly1,2008.CommentsregardingthescopeoftheEIRwereaddressedin theDEIR.TheDEIRwasdistributedforpublicreviewandcommentinaccordancewithCEQA on July 29, 2009. The public review period for the DEIR began on July 29, 2009 and ended September 15, 2009. During the public comment period, the document was reviewed by various State, regional, and local agencies, as well as by interested organizations and individuals.Commentletterswerereceivedfromtwoorganizationsandthreeindividuals.A publichearingbeforetheCitysPlanningCommissionwasheldonSeptember10,2009toobtain oral comments on the DEIR. During the public hearing, oral comments were offered by one individual representing the Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force and five members of theSanFranciscoPlanningCommission.ThisCommentsandResponsesdocument,alongwith theDEIR,willbebeforethePlanningCommissionforFinalEIRcertificationonMay20,2010. ORGANIZATION OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ThisdocumentcontainsthepubliccommentsreceivedontheDEIRpreparedfortheproposed 260FifthStreetProject,andresponsestothosecomments. Following this introduction, Section B presents a list of all persons and organizations that provided written comments, and the date of their communications or oral testimony at the
C&R1
A.
Introduction
publichearingontheDEIRbeforetheSanFranciscoPlanningCommissionheldonSeptember 10,2009. Section C contains summaries of all comments on the DEIR made orally during the public hearing and received in writing during the public comment period, from July 29, 2009 to September15,2009.Commentsaregroupedbyenvironmentaltopicandgenerallycorrespond tothetableofcontentsoftheDEIR;wherenocommentsaddressedaparticulartopic,however, that topic appears under the Section C, General Comments. The name of the commenter is indicatedfollowingeachcommentsummary.Theoriginalcommentlettersareincludedasan appendixandaremarkedtocrossreferencethecommentandresponsenumberreferencedin SectionC. Section D contains text changes to the DEIR made by the EIR preparers subsequent to publication of the DEIR to correct or clarify information presented in the DEIR, including changestotheDEIRtextmadeinresponsetocomments. Some of the responses to comments on the DEIR provide clarification regarding the DEIR; where applicable, changes have been made to the text of the DEIR, and are shown in double underlineforadditionsandstrikethroughfordeletions. ItshouldbenotedthattheCommentsandResponsescomponentoftheenvironmentalreview processisintendedtorespondtocommentsontheadequacyoftheapproachandanalysisina DEIR.Commentsregardingthemeritsofandconcernsabouttheprojectshouldbedirectedto thePlanningCommissiontoassistwithitsdecisionofwhetherornottoapprovetheproject,a decision that will be made at a public hearing subsequent to certification (determination of completeness) of the Final EIR. In order to approve the project, the Planning Commission would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as required by the CEQA, to explain the greater public good that would be achieved despite the significant and unavoidableimpactsthatwouldoccurasidentifiedintheEIR.Somecommentsdonotpertain tothephysicalenvironmentalissues,but,insomeinstances,responsesareincludedtoprovide additionalinformationforusebydecisionmakers. The comment letters received and the transcripts of the public hearings are reproduced in AppendicesAandB,respectively. ThesecommentsandresponseswillbeincorporatedintotheFinalEIRasanewchapter.Text changesresultingfromcommentsandresponseswillalsobeincorporatedintheFinalEIR,as indicatedintheresponses.
C&R2
B.
ListofPersonsCommenting
B.
LIST OF PERSONS COMMENTING
LOCAL AND REGIONAL AGENCIES SanFranciscoPlanningCommission PresidentRonMiguel,publichearingcommentsSeptember10,2009 VicePresidentChristinaOlague,publichearingcommentsSeptember10,2009 CommissionerMichaelAntonini,publichearingcommentsSeptember10,2009 CommissionerHisashiSugaya,publichearingcommentsSeptember10,2009 CommissionerGwynethBorden,publichearingcommentsSeptember10,2009 SanFranciscoHistoricPreservationCommission CourtneyDamkroger,VicePresident,writtencomments,August31,2009 ORGANIZATIONS AllianceforaBetterDistrict6 MarvisJ.Phillips,writtencommentsAugust13,2009 WesternSoMaCitizensPlanningTaskForce JimMeko,publichearingcommentsSeptember10,2009andwrittencommentsSeptember18, 2009 INDIVIDUALS AnnandJamesFunsten,writtencommentsSeptember14,2009 SueHestor,writtencommentsSeptember15,2009 TeresaDulalas,writtencommentsSeptember15,2009
C&R3
C.
CommentsandResponses
C.
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
INTRODUCTION SincepublicationoftheDEIR,theprojectsponsorhasrevisedandupdatedseveralelementsof theproposedproject,asdescribedbelow: Theprojectwouldinclude102offstreetparkingspaces,comparedto133aspresented inthe DEIR (a reduction of 31 spaces). The project wouldstill require an exception for providing offstreet parking in excess of one space per four residential units, under Section 151.1; the total number of proposed parking spaces would be less than the maximumpermittedwithanexception.Thereducedparkingwouldeliminateparking spaces on the groundfloor level and there would be no Clementina Street driveway. Access to basementlevel parking would be via the proposed driveway from Tehama Street. The project would have offstreet loading spaces for two vansize vehicles in the basement level garage compared to no offstreet loading spaces as presented in the DEIR.TheprojectwouldmeetrequirementsunderSection152.1;theprojectwouldnot requireanexceptiontoprovisionofoffstreetloading. Therefore, some responses herein discuss project effects or approvals in terms of the changes noted above. Section C, Comments and Responses, and Section D, Draft EIR Revisions, includestextchangestotheDEIRinresponsetothechangesidentifiedabove. Some of the comments also reference the 900 Folsom Street Project, proposed on a site immediatelyadjacentto260FifthStreet;bothprojectshavethesameprojectsponsor.Thetwo projectsareseparateforpurposesofprojectreviewundertheCEQAandthePlanningCode.The responsesinthisdocumentfocusonthe260FifthStreetProject.Responsestocommentsonthe 900FolsomStreetProjectareprovidedinaseparatecommentsandresponsesdocument.1 1. GENERAL COMMENTS
Comment 1.1 TheSoMaLeadershipCouncilhasmetwiththeprojectsponsorsfor900FolsomStreet/260Fifth Streetsixtimes.Progresshasbeenmade.Weappreciatetheirdecisiontoincludetheaffordable component on site. We think the addition of a pedestrian alley along the west side, from Folsom to Clementina Streets, is an improvement. We applaud their decision to remove at
1
The 900 Folsom Street Comments and Responses document is available for review at the Planning Department,1650MissionStreet,Suite400,aspartofCaseNo.2007.0689E.
C&R4
C.
grade parking and appreciate the more considerate scale introduced along the alleys. Nevertheless,wecontinuetohaveconcernsabouttheproject.(JimMeko,September18,2009). Response 1.1 Theprojectwouldincludeatleast15percentBelowMarketRate(BMR)units,oratleast 27 BMR units, as stated on DEIR p. 26. The pedestrian alley between Folsom to ClementinaStreetsidentifiedinthecommentwouldbeacomponentoftheadjacent900 FolsomStreetProject.Removalofexistingatgradeparkingwouldalsobeacomponent of both the 260 Fifth Street and the 900 Folsom Street projects. This comment also concerns the merits of the project and does not concern the adequacy of the DEIR. Accordingly,nofurtherresponseisnecessary. Comment 1.2 Im responding on behalf of several concerned community members who were not able to attendbecauseofourwork.Thisisourfirsttimehearingaboutthis.Weareangryandworried about the many developments happening right now in the SOMA that are against poor and lowincomefamilies,seniors,andindividuals. Besidesthis,weredealingwiththemostinsensitiveanddiscriminatoryissuesofPrivatizingthe 6thStreetPark&RecCenterandtheVictoriaManaloDravesPark!We,thecommunityplanted the seed FOUGHT SOOOOO VERY HARD andOTHERS (the Harriet Condo Owners) REAP???!!! Were notgoing to accept this!!!!These high income earners and developers just dont understand the deeper issues of our SOMA neighborhood. THIS IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.Gentrificationcontinuesonbecausewe,thepoorandlowincome,happen toliveintheNewestandTrendiestpartoftownthatdevelopersareeyeing...lotsandproperties ownedbythecity,schooldistrict,andprivateownersthatneedthemoneyinthiseconomyor atanytime. Whatever happened to the money and landthatredevelopment has that was supposed to beusedfortheconstructionofourSOMAHighSchool?Whereandwhousedthatmoneyand landanyway?TheSOMAHighSchoolismuchmoreaprioritythanthis900Folsom. Wehearpeopletalkingaboutthehistoricalbackgroundofeveryoneelse....butnoonewantsto talkandhearabouttheFilipinos,theSpanish,thehomeless,thepoor,thelowincome,thebig families, the seniors, the abused......... we also want peace, homes, income, a clean and caring SOMA,parks,justlikeafamily....werepeopletoo.DevelopersandtheCitydontlookatusas priority.Theywanttoseeandhear$bling$$bling$intheireyesandears. Clearlyagainthebuilding.....
C&R5
C.
1) is not targeted for big real families: we want to protect our families, youth, seniors, homelesspoorlowincome 2) itsclosedistancetoFEC(FilipinoEducationCenterMiddleSchoolCampus) 3) thereisaclearmessagethatSanFranciscoisacityforhighincomesingles 4) thereisaclearmessageofgentrification:family,income,racial/culturaldiscrimination 5) heightlimitations:noexceptions 6) Developers:nomore HowwepraysomeonerichandpowerfulwillknowaboutourordealintheSOMAandfeelour hearts,minds,andspirits,andhelpusmakeSOMAourHOMEforever. Yeah,sure,theCityandDeveloperswouldjustlaughatus.Butwewillfight....andpleasetake noteofthat. Weknowyouunderstandhowwefeel.WealsoknowthatthereareahandfulfromtheCity whoalsocare.Andweseekyourhelp.Canyoupleaseletusknowwhenthenextmeetingwill be? We would really appreciate that. Hopefully we can attend that date. (Teresa Dulalas, September15,2009) Response 1.2 Thesecommentconcernsthemeritsoftheprojectanddonotconcerntheadequacyof the DEIR. The commentor notes housing and height limit issues associated with the project.Theproposedprojectwouldbeconsistentwiththe85XHeightandBulkdistrict and would not require an exception to heightand bulk limits. Please see Response to Comment 7.1, concerning housing issues and Response to Comment 6.1 concerning heightlimitsapplicabletotheproject. The Planning Commission will consider Final EIR certification on May 20, 2010 and projectapprovalsatthatdate,oralaterdate. Asnotedabove,someofthecommentsalsoreferencethe900FolsomStreetProject.The responsesinthisdocumentfocusonthe260FifthStreetProject.Responsestocomments on the 900 Folsom Street Project are provided in a separate comments and responses document.2
2
C&R6
C.
Comment 1.3 Justaquickcommenttofollowuponthat.IthinkwhatMr.Mekowastalkingaboutalsogoes beyondanythingintheEIRbecauseIthinkthatsomeofthingshehasbeentryingtoaddress andworkwithusandtheDepartmentandotherdevelopersonissomethingthatisntquiteas tangibleasjustsayingitisgoingtobesohighandbigandallthatkindofstuffanditshouldbe smaller. Ithinkheshoweduswherewasthatsite,Mr.Meko,ontheoldbus And that seemed to be the kind of direction that the community wanted to have other developerstakealookat,whichwasmuchmoreinnovativeandprovidedaccesstomoreopen space and that kind of thing in a more creative way to arrange retail and housing and everything. SoIthinkthatsthekindofthingthatisntcoveredintheEIR,butwouldjustliketomentionit sinceIthinktheCommissioniswellawareofthatparticularexampleandprobablywouldlike the developers of both of these projects to push more in that direction. (Commissioner Sugaya, September10,2009) Response 1.3 ThiscommentconcernsthemeritsoftheProjectanddoesnotconcerntheadequacyof theDEIR.Accordingly,nofurtherresponseisnecessary. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Comment 2.1 Projectsponsorisplayingashellgamewithunitmix,includingtheintroductionoftheconcept of minitwo bedroom units which cannot legally be called two bedroom because they dont meetPlanningCodeexposurerequirements.EasternNeighborhoodscallsfor40%oftheunitsto berealtwobedroomunits.(JimMeko,September18,2009) Fourth. At our meeting the project sponsors talked about something called a junior 2 bedroom.Thatsonebedroomwithacribroom.AccordingtoAGItherearenoplansfora playgroundorotheryouthactivityareaswithineitherprojectbuttheywanttoputinacrib room.LastIknowachildisonlyinacrib1218months.Wheredoesthechildorchildrengo later.AndIneverheardinmy30yearsindoinglanduseofajunior2bedasawaytomeet thefamilyhousingrequirements.Pleasediscuss. Fifth.Iamveryconcernedaboutthefollowingat2605thStreet,anexceptionto841of20percent familyinsteadof40percentandat900Folsomis37percentnotthe40percentwhichworksout tobe30.25percentofthetotalof40percentforthetotalprojectandaccordingtoAGIwiththe Junior2beditwillmaketheirfamilytotal55percent.Butasstated,whatcapacityisJunior
C&R7
C.
2 bed and does a crib room add up to family housing. Please discuss. (Marvis J. Phillips, August13,2009) Response 2.1 Theproposedprojectwouldprovide22percentoftheunitswithtwoormorebedrooms. Approximately23percentwouldbejuniortwobedroomsunits,foratotalof45percent with two bedrooms or more. However, the proposed project would still need an exception to Planning Code Section 207.6 dwelling unit mix requirements. While the 23 percent junior twobedroom units would provide familysize housing, those units wouldnotqualifyasfulltwobedroomunits,pursuanttoPlanningCodeSection841and asdefinedinPlanningCodeSection102.7.Inaddition,perPlanningCodeSection315,the unitmixforaffordableunitsmustbeproportionatetotheunitmixforthemarketrate units. Toclarifytheunitmix,DEIRp.26,paragraphthree,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would contain a total of 179 dwelling units. Of the 179 dwellingunits,therewouldbe139studiosandonebedroomunits,33twoand threebedroom units, and seven townhouses. Approximately 22 percent (40 units)oftheunitswouldhavetwoormorebedroomsand23percent(41units)of the units would be junior twobedrooms. At least fifteen percent of the total unitswouldbedesignatedasBelowMarketRate(BMR)asrequiredbyPlanning CodeSection315,theResidentialAffordableHousingProgram.Salespricesfor marketrate units (approximately 151 units) would range from $500,000 to $1,200,000. Sales prices for belowmarketrate units (approximately 27 units) wouldrangefrom$150,000to$250,000. DEIR p. 2, paragraph three and p. 46, paragraph one, are revised as follows (the paragraph includes changes to theloading exception discussed under Response 4.3, p. C&R30): The project site is located within a Mixed UseResidential (MUR) zone. The proposed project would require Planning Commission review for exceptions under Planning Code Section 329 Large Project Authorization in Eastern NeighborhoodsMixedUseDistricts.Section329reviewistriggeredbecausethe project sponsor proposes construction of a new building greater than75 feet in height,resultinginanetadditionofmorethan25,000gsf.Theproposedproject wouldrequireapprovalofexceptionsthroughtheSection329reviewprocessfor:
C&R8
C.
(a) exception for providing offstreet parking in excess of one space per four residentialunits;(b)exceptiontoallowfortheprovisionofnooffstreetfreight loading spaces, where one space would otherwise be required, pursuant to PlanningCodeSection152.1;(cb)exceptiontotherequirementfora25percent rearyardsetbackattheloweststorycontainingadwellingunit(namely,thefirst story), pursuant to Planning Code Section 134; (d c) authorization for Modification of the Horizontal Massing Breaks pursuant to Planning Code Section270.1(d);(ed)authorizationforModificationtoDwellingUnitExposure perPlanningCodeSection329;(fe)authorizationforModificationtoDwelling Unit Mix per Planning Code Section 207.6; and (g f) exception to allow the constructionoffewerthan40percenttwobedroomorlargerunits,pursuantto Planning Code Section 841. The proposed project would include 2022 percent twobedroomortownhouseunits(atotalof3640units). DEIRp.15,paragraphthree,isrevisedasfollows(theparagraphincludeschangestothe loadingexceptiondiscussedunderResponse4.3,p.C&R30): Priortodevelopingtheproposedproject,andsubjecttocertificationofthisEIR and adoption of findings under CEQA, the proposed project would require approvalunderSection329ofthePlanningCodefor(a)itsprovisionofmorethan one parking space per four residential units, (b) its provision of less than 25 percentrearyardsetbackattheloweststorycontainingadwellingunit(thefirst floor),(c)itsfailuretoprovidebuildingmassingasprescribedunderthePlanning Code for this location, (d) its failure to provide two required offstreet freight loading spaces, and (e d) its nonconforming bedroomcount ratio. (The Mixed UseResidential,orMUR,zoningrequiresthat40percentofthetotalunitmix be twobedroom units, and encourages threebedroom units. The proposed project would include 2022percent twobedroom or townhome units.) The projectwouldbeconsistentwiththeMURzoningandtheEastSoMaAreaPlanin allwaysotherthanthosenotedabove. As stated on DEIR p. 38, Project Description, Intended Uses of the EIR, the proposed projectwouldrequireanumberofexceptionsandmodificationsthatareoutlinedand permitted under Planning Code Section 329, Large Project Authorization in Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed Use Districts exceptions (adopted in December 2008 as part of
C&R9
C.
the Eastern Neighborhoods project). Approval of the following exception would be requiredtoallowtheproposedunitmix: Authorization for Modification to Dwelling Unit Mix per Planning Code Section 207.6. TheexceptionunderPlanningCodeSection841wouldnotberequiredbecauseitwould becoveredbytheexceptionforPlanningCodeSection207.6. DEIRp.38,bulletseven,isdeletedasfollows: Exceptiontoallowtheconstructionoffewerthan40percenttwobedroomorlarger units,pursuanttoPlanningCodeSection841. TheSection329processwascreatedaspartoftheEasternNeighborhoodsPlan,andis intended to permit modifications to certain Planning Code requirements when such modifications would result in a better overall project design. Such exceptions and modifications are permissible, provided that the Planning Commission makes certain findings, which would be considered as part of project approval process, including a publichearing. Comment 2.2 Ninth.Ofthe15%rateforonsiteaffordableunitsthats40for900Folsomand27for2605th St. How many of the Affordable units will be for wheelchair bound persons. How many studios?Howmany1bd?Howmany2bd/ths?Foreachbuilding?PleaseDiscuss.(MarvisJ. Phillips,August13,2009) Response 2.2 The proposed project would comply with the American Disabilities Act and would, therefore, provide units pursuant to all statutory requirements. The unit mix is identifiedonp.26oftheDEIRandclarifiedunderResponse2.1,p.C&R8.PerPlanning CodeSection315,theunitmixforaffordableunitsmustbeproportionatetotheunitmix forthemarketrateunits.Thetotalnumberofaffordableunitsthatwouldbedesigned forwheelchairboundpersonsisnotknownatthistime.
C&R10
C.
Comment 2.3 This is one of two adjacent sites being developed simultaneously. At a bare minimum there shouldbeaplanshowingwhereTHISprojectissitedandwhere/howthe900Folsomprojectis sited. Buildings on abutting properties should also be shown along with a description of the uses and heights. PARTICULARLY housing. It is difficult to understand the context of these projectswiththeminimalinformationprovided.NOTE,DEIRonpage44explainstheENplan goaltocreateacompleteneighborhoodwithabalanceofhousingandjobs. Please include a map showing the zoned land use categories (MUR, MUO) and heights in surrounding blocks as well. This DEIR is seriously deficient in helpful graphics. (Sue Hestor, September15,2009) Page27onsomegraphictheEIRneedstoshowthewidthsofClementinaandTehama.(Sue Hestor,September15,2009) WidthofClementinashouldbeshownonatleastonegraphic.(SueHestor,September15,2009) SouthofMarketPlanningareasareextremelyconfusing.PleaseincludeamapofallSouthof Market plan areas that shows the boundaries of ESOMA plus the boundaries of all planning areasthatabutESOMA.AtaminimumthiswouldbeWSOMA,RinconHill,RinconHillSUD, the Transbay Terminal area (under whatever name it currently is called), all Redevelopment areas.Whatarethetypesofhousingallowed/encouragedineachofthoseareas.Therangewill beverygreat6thStreetRedevelopmenttoRinconHillhighrisetowers.(SueHestor,September 15,2009) Response 2.3 Figure 1, Project Location, DEIR p. 22, has been revised to indicate the adjacent 900 Folsom Street site, on p. C&R12 below. Figure 2, Existing Site Plan, DEIR p. 23, has been revised to indicate existing land uses on adjacent properties and the width of ClementinaStreet,onp.C&R13below.FigureC&R1,p.C&R14herein,illustratesthe current Planning Code Use Districts and the Planning Code Height and Bulk Districts in theprojectsiteandvicinity.
C&R11
n io iss M
et tre S
PROJECT SITE
5t
et tre S
St
re
et
S a n Pa b l o B a y
rd wa Ho
80
101
SAN R A FA E L
RICHMOND
580 24
Te
m ha
re St
et
900 FOLSOM PROJECT
C&R-12
St
OAKLAND
80
SAN FRANCISCO
ALAMEDA
PROJECT LOCATION
D A LY C I T Y
580
le
in nt
re St
et
s ol
om
re St
et
Pa c i f i c Ocean
1
101
S a n Fr a n c i s c o Bay
6t h
S A N M AT E O
92
St re et
on ris r Ha
et tre S
280
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: Google Earth / PBS&J, 2007.

PALO ALTO
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION (REVISED)
TEHAMA STREET
100.00 WAREHOUSE 3 STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING 1 STORY PORTION WAREHOUSE 4 STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING
80.167 MEASURED
LOT 150
2 STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WAREHOUSE
1 STORY PORTION
1 STORY PORTION 155.187 MEASURED 175.00
7 STORY (STEPPED) WOOD FLAMED BUILDING RESIDENTIAL
75.00
2 STORY CONCRETE BUILDING LOT 8
275.00
CONCRETE WALK EDGE OF SIDEWALK
CLEMENTINA STREET
SOURCE: AGI Capital Group, Inc., 2007.
14.5 FEET WIDE
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Site Boundary
FIGURE 2: EXISTING SITE PLAN (REVISED)
5TH STREET
C&R-13
-4
160-F RC-4 90-X 90-X 3
160-F
034
0
C-3-G
03
42
37
24
C-3-R
340-I P 130-F
ST
C-3-G 90-X
Height and Bulk C-3-G
320-S
C-3-G
3
Use
130-G 72 85-X
85-X
ST
C-3-S
37
04
49
160-F C-3-G
5 03
120-F 45-X 85-X 85-X X

C&R-14
37
25
40-X/85-B
C-3-G
85-X
3 O 70 H3 45-X
C-3-G
RD
NCT 130-F NCT T NCT S NCT
C-3-G
37
33
130-L
C-3-S
C-3-S 85-X
37
51
85-X
M C-3-S 40-X/85-B SO 5 L 72 O 85-X 45-X F 3 NCT MUR NCT NCT 2
ST
65-X 85-X NCT 85-X RS R RED 85-X 45-X NCT R 5-X MUR A 85-X 85-X 85-X 85-X H 6 45-XMUG T 1 H NCT 2 S NCT 65-X 7 MUG 85-X T MUR 65-X 76 3 85-X 3 AN NCT MUG SLR 85-X RED 65-X 85-X 45-X RY53 53 45-X MUR B 45-X 37 P ST OS SLI 37 RED 65-X N 50-X MUR MUG MUG 65-X 65-X O Use MUGDistricts Legend: SI RED 85-X P SLI MUR Mixed-Use Residential IS 77 NCT Neighborhood Commercial-Transit NCT 30-X RSD Residential Service District M 65-X NCT 65-X RED 85-X 37 27 P Public Use 85-X 45-X SLI NORTH T P 85-X C-3-S Downtown Support Commercial 37 NCT OS S 45-X 0 N 6 P Project Location MUG SLI MUG P 60 SLI NA 37 NCT SLR N 376 SLR P RA 65-X RED 260 65-X 8 E ST NCT 30-X FIFTH STREET PROJECT P B 45-X 7 SLR SLR FIGURE C&R-1: EXISTING PLANNING CODE USE DISTRICTS AND HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICTS 65-X 3 SLIOM X SLI LU MUG B P SLR RED
37
32
85-X MUG
NCT
NCT
75 3
RSD ST 85-XD AR W 50-X O H 40-X/85-B MUR MUR ST 2 N 3 O 37 30-X IS MUR
RC-4 85-X M-1 33 7 355-X 85-X 45-X C-3-S 45-X ST 8 M RSD 2 SO 55-X 55-X 76FOL MUR 3 85-X 45-X
65-X 85-X
JONES
ST
05
TH 05
TH
TH 06
ST
ST
55-X 85-X
37
65-X 5
ST
37
31
31
07
NOT TO SCALE
TH
SOURCE: San Francisco Planning Department.
ST
37
37
54
54
37
30
C.
DEIR p. 45 notes that the Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed Use Residential (MUR) district zoning as adopted in December 2008, serves as a buffer between the higher density, predominantly commercial area of Yerba Buena Center to the east and the lowerscale, mixed use service/industrial and housing area west of Sixth Street. The MURservesasamajorhousingopportunityareawithintheeasternportionoftheSouth of Market. The district controls are intended to facilitate the development of high density, midrise housing, including familysized housing and residential hotels. The district is again designed to encourage the expansion of neighborhood commercial, retail,businessserviceandculturalartsactivities.Continuousgroundfloorcommercial frontage with pedestrianoriented retail activities along major thoroughfares is encouraged. Figure13,EasternNeighborhoodPlanningAreas,DEIRp.43,illustratestheboundaries ofEastSoMa,whichincludestheprojectsite.AsshowninFigure13,theprojectiswell within the extensive Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area. Land uses and existing or proposeddevelopmentcontrolsin nearbyplanareaswouldnotbedirectlyrelevantto evaluation of the project. For informational purposes, Figure 13 has been revised to indicateotherplanningareasinthegeneralvicinity,includingtheWestSOMAplanning area, on p.C&R16 below. Figure 13 also identifies the Transit Center District, Rincon Hill,andtheSouthofMarketProjectArea.Thehousinggoalsandobjectivesforthese areas encourage a variety of housing types and affordability levels. In particular, the Redevelopment Plan for the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area encourages a mixture of housingtypesandsizes,includinghighdensityhousingtocapitalizeontransitoriented development opportunities and to provide housing opportunities close to downtown SanFrancisco.3TheobjectivesandpoliciesoftheRinconHillAreaPlanencouragemixed use development in close proximity to downtown, with a primary
SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency,RedevelopmentPlanfortheTransbayRedevelopmentProjectArea, adoptedJune21,2005.
C&R15
San Pacific Ocean

1 101
PROJECT SITE
80
Francisco Bay
Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area Proposed Planning Areas 0 2000
San Francisco
PROJECT AREA
280
Transit Center DistrictF

d S t
Rincon Hill Plan Area Feet
ss Av Van Ne
101
s ol
om
Rincon Hill
South of Market Redevelopment Project Area
Fi
rs
Th ir
Fi ft h S t
East SoMa
S t en d S ns t
e rk
Te nt
13th St
Po tre Po tre ro Av
West SoMa
ry
t an
h S t
To
S ev en th
Th ird St
Dub oce Av
t
280
Division St
Gu err ero St
Mis sio n St
SOURCE: Eastern Neighborhoods Final EIR.
SOURCE: ESA
FIGURE 13: EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS PLANNING AREAS AND OTHER PLANNINGRezoning(REVISED) Case No. 2004.0160E: Eastern Neighborhoods AREAS and Area Plans (203091)
Do lor es St
Showplace Square/ Potrero

18 th St
Ma rip os a St
Mission District
Hill
Central Waterfront
25 th St
26 th
Cesar Chavez St
St
Ce sa r Ch av ez St Tu lar e S t Isl ais Cr ee k
101
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
C&R-16
Figure 1 Project Location
C.
focusonresidentialdevelopment,affordablehousing,andprovidingarangeofhousing types and sizes.4 The Folsom and Main Residential/Commercial Special Use District (PlanningCodeSection249.1)implementszoningcontrolssupportingtheRinconHillArea Plan.ThemainintentofPlanningCodeSection249.1isto convertanunderutilizedand outmodedindustrialareatoauniqueresidentialneighborhoodclosetodowntown. TheprojectsiteiswithintheSouthofMarketRedevelopmentProjectArea.Thehousing goalsofRedevelopmentPlanfortheSouthofMarketRedevelopmentProjectAreaencourage residential development.5 The redevelopment plan includes several goals focused on provision of affordable housing for all levels of housing affordability. That redevelopment plan does not include any housing or affordability goals or policies specifictotheprojectsite.However,asstatedonDEIRp.26,atleastfifteenpercentof the total units would be designated as BMR. Sales prices for marketrate units (approximately 151 units) would range from $500,000 to $1,200,000. Sales prices for belowmarketrate units (approximately 27 units) would range from $150,000 to $250,000. Comment 2.4 The main objective is a hefty financial return. It must be listed. Creating transitoriented housing opportunities is so much bunk for a project that exceeds the 1:4 parking ratio and instead seeks to maximize it. This is particularly true for a site with close access to freeway ramps for the Bay Bridge, southbound 1280, and southbound 1101. This is an autooriented projectatanautoaccommodatingsite. Providing15%BMRunitsisnotaGOALoftheproject.ItisaREQUIREMENTofSanFrancisco law. OBJECTIVESdonotproperlyincludeREQUIREMENTS.(SueHestor,September15,2009)
City of San Francisco, San Francisco General Plan, Rincon Hill Area Plan, adopted July 6, 1995and as amendedthroughMay25,2005. 5 SanFranciscoRedevelopmentAgency,RedevelopmentPlanfortheSouthofMarketRedevelopmentProject Area,adoptedDecember6,2005.
4
C&R17
C.
Response 2.4 Asdescribedonp.21oftheDEIR,theprojectsponsorsobjectivesforthe260FifthStreet projectareto: Createahighquality,sustainable,welldesignedprojectthatisresponsivetothe surroundingneighborhood; Provide residential and retail mixeduses consistent with land use and design goalsadoptedfortheEasternNeighborhoods; Create transitoriented housing opportunities located in Downtown San Francisco; Provide 15 percent BMR units to contribute to the Citys supply of moderate incomehousing;and ConstructaprojectthatwillqualifyforLeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmental Design(LEED)Goldcertification.
TheDEIRlistsprojectobjectivesasproposedbytheprojectsponsor.Thecommentors objectionstotheprojectarenoted.CEQAdoesnotprohibitprojectobjectivesthatreflect coderequirementsandtheinclusionofeachobjectivedoesnotaffecttheadequacyofthe EIR.TheDEIRanalysisisaccuratewithregardstotransportationimpactsastheyrelate toparking. TheprojectwouldprovideBelowMarketRateunitsasrequiredbythePlanningCode. DEIRp.21,fifthbulletunderProjectObjectivesisrevisedasfollows: Provide 15 percent BMR units to contribute to the Citys supply of affordable housing;and
See Response to Comment 2.1 on p. C&R8 for a text change to DEIR p. 26 regarding affordablehousingrequirements. Comment 2.5 Eighth.Ofthe14,320grosssqftofCommonspaceat2605thSt,HowmuchisdevotedtoYouth Activitiesandhowmuchtoadult?AndwherewiththebuildingentranceatthetimeoftheEIR isitdistributed?AGIstatesatthemeeting,wearestilldesigningtheinteriorwehavenoplans yettheEIRshowssomeproposeddesignsandtheyarestatingtheywillexceedthe841required
C&R18
C.
40%withthesejunior2bd.(Whichwillbringthetotalto55%).Butshownoareasforyouth activities.Pleasediscuss.(MarvisJ.Phillips,August13,2009) Response 2.5 AsstatedintheDEIR, ChapterII,ProjectDescription,p.24theprojectwouldprovide 12,560gsfofcommonopenspace/commonareasforitsresidents,whichwouldexceed Planning Code requirements.6 The common area would be accessible to all residents. Theprojectwouldalsoprovideafitnessfacilityonsite.PlanningCodeSection135does notrequirethatcommonopenspaceareasbedevotedtoyouthoradultactivities.The commonareaswouldbecontrolled,programmed,andmaintainedbythecondominium owners association. Additionally, parks and recreational facilities in the area include theSouthofMarketRecreationCenterandtheVictoriaManaloDravesPark(oneand1.5 blocks to the south of the project site, respectively) and Yerba Buena Gardens (two blockstotheeast)whichincludeareasprovidingbothyouthandadultactivities.DEIR AppendixA,InitialStudy,pp.5051,describestheavailabilityofrecreationalfacilitiesin thevicinityandconcludesthattheprojectwouldnothaveanadverseeffectonexisting recreationalfacilities. PleaseseeResponsetoComment2.1onp.C&R8,regardingtheunitsize. Comment 2.6 TenthandLast.Idonotapproveofamasswallandbalconies,stepbacks.Donotbreakupthe shearwalllookofboththe5thStFrontageof2605thStandtheFolsomFrontageof900Folsom. I akin a design style to that of a 201 Turk. Different styles with 1 concept, mass is mass and breaklineareanewasset.Pleasediscusswhatmakestheneedtogetanexceptiontothe270. Forhorizontalmassingandwhynotsimplybreakupsaidmass.(MarvisJ.Phillips,August13, 2009)
Section135ofthePlanningCoderequiresthataminimumof48gsfofcommonusableopenspaceper unitbeprovidedintheRSDzoningdistrictor8,592gsffortheproposed179units.
C&R19
C.
Response 2.6 Thecommentaddressesthemeritsoftheprojectdesign.AppendixA,InitialStudy,pp. 2730,Aesthetics,concludesthattheprojectwouldnothaveanadverseeffectonvisual resources. The comment notes that the project would require an authorization for modification of the horizontal massing breaks pursuant to Planning Code Section 270.1 (d),asdiscussedonDEIRp.38.PleaserefertoResponse6.1,Alternatives,p.C&R57for furtherdiscussionoftherequestedexceptiontoPlanningCode270.1(d). Comment 2.7 Page37LEED.Pleaseexplainthecapturedenergyintheexistingbuildingandnetouttheloss caused by demolition and removal of that building. Please explain the LEED standards REQUIREDofSanFranciscobuildings.Pleasealsoexplaintherelationshipbetweentheexcess parking and resultant traffic in this project on LEED. Parking is not environmentally advantageous.(SueHestor,September15,2009) Response 2.7 The project would require demolition of the existing 260 Fifth Street building. While therewouldbealossofthecapturedenergyfrombuildingmaterialsandenergyused duringconstructionactivitiesin1923,asnotedinAppendixA,InitialStudy,p.45,the project would be subject to the Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance, adopted in 2006. That ordinance requires all construction and demolition debristobetransportedtoaregisteredfacilitythatcanrecycleaminimumof65percent construction and demolition debris. This ordinance applies to all construction, demolitionandremodelingprojectswithintheCity.Thatrequirementwouldlimitthe energylossesfromprojectdemolition. SanFranciscosGreenBuildingOrdinance(SanFranciscoBuildingCodeChapter13C), effective in 2008, requires newly constructed commercial buildings over 5,000 sq. ft., residentialbuildingsover75feetinheight,andrenovationsonbuildingsover25,000sq. ft. to be subject to LEED and green building certifications. The ordinance makes San Franciscothecitywiththemoststringentgreenbuildingrequirementsinthenation.
C&R20
C.
Chapter 13C requires all highrise residential buildings to meet LEED Silver requirements. As stated on DEIR p. 37, the project sponsor would seek LEED Gold certification for the project. Therefore, the project would exceed the LEED Silver requirements of the Green Building Ordinance. In order to achieve LEED Gold certificationorequivalentasrecognizedbytheSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment,the projectwouldinclude: Convenient access to public transportation, bicycle storage facilities, and preferred parkingforlowemittingandfuelefficientvehicles; Onsiterenewableenergy; Waterefficientlandscaping; Optimizedenergyperformance; Vegetatedrooftoreducestormwaterrunoffanddecreaseheatislandeffect;and Use of lowemitting adhesives, sealants, paints, coatings and carpet to limit off gassingandpromotehighairqualitywithintheresidentialunits. LEEDstandardsencourageprojectsnottoexceedlocalparkingrequirements.Planning CodeSection151.1wouldpermitupto0.25parkingspacesperunit,or45spacesforthe proposed project, which would include 179 units. Under MUR zoning, the parking in excessof45spaceswouldneedanexceptionunderSections151.1(f)and329. AsstatedonDEIRp.71,theproposedprojectwouldgenerateademandof214parking spaces for the residential use, and 44 parking spaces for the retail use, or a combined demand for 258 parking spaces. Since publication of the DEIR, the proposed project wasrevisedtoincludeatotalofinclude102parkingspacescomparedtothe133spaces originally proposed. Thus, the proposed project would fall short of demand by approximately151spaces.Inaddition,theproposedprojectwoulddisplacethe35space public parking lot on the project site. LEED is a measurement system designed for ratingnewandexistingcommercial,institutional,andresidentialbuildings.Thesystem is divided into the following five categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy andatmosphere,materialsandresources,andindoorenvironmentalquality.Pointsare
C&R21
C.
earnedbymeetingrequirementsunderthefivecategories.7Projectsarenotrequiredto meetallrequirementsinordertoobtainLEEDcertification.Theproposedprojectwould be designed to meet other performance criteria to obtain LEED Gold requirements. Therefore, exceedance of minimum parking requirements established under the Planning Code would not affect the proposed projects ability to obtain LEED Gold certification. Theproposedprojectwouldprovide60bicyclestoragespacesexceedingthe57spaces required by the Planning Code. In addition, as stated on p. 58 of the DEIR, MUNI operates14buslineswithinthevicinityoftheprojectsite,includingseveralcrosstown buslinesthatservethedowntownarea.MUNIMetrolinesandBARTservethePowell Street Station about three blocks north of the site. Although the proposed project wouldexceedtheminimumrequirementsforparking,bicyclestoragefacilitieswouldbe providedandtheprojectsiteisservedbymultiplepublictransitopportunities. AppendixA,InitialStudy,pp.4647quantifiestheprojectscontributiontogreenhouse gas (GHG)emissions, including traffic increases, and concludes thatthe project would havealessthansignificanteffectonGHG.ThatfindingwouldbeconsistentwithLEED goals. Comment 2.8 Seventh.Astoretail,atthemeetingtheProjectSponsortoldusthattherewasonesmallretail andseverallive/workspacesinthe900FolsomStreetProjectandnoneinthe260FifthStreet, yetthetwoEIRsstateat900FolsomStreet4,279grosssqftand260FifthStreet5,173grosssqft. Couldyoudiscussatthe900Folsomsitehowmanygrosssqftofspaceforalllive/workspace and total on the Folsom/Fifth Street frontage. And on the 260 Fifth Street site Fifth Street frontageandtheClementinelive/workfrontage.(MarvisJ.Phillips,August13,2009) Response 2.8 As stated on DEIR p. 24, the proposed project would include 5,173 square feet of groundfloor retail space fronting on Fifth Street. The proposed project would not
United States Green Building Council, New Construction and Major Renovation Reference Guide, Version2.2,2007.
C&R22
C.
provideanylive/workspace.ThecommentisnotrelevanttotheadequacyoftheDEIR andnofurtherresponseisnecessary. The 260 Fifth Street Project and 900 Folsom Street Project are separate for purposes of projectreviewundertheCEQAandthePlanningCode.Responsestocommentsonthe 900 Folsom Street Project are provided in a separate comments and responses document.8 3. PLANS, POLICIES, AND LAND USE
Comment 3.1 In terms of the environmental impacts where I predict, evaluate, and try to mitigate the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of the development proposal, first of all, this crossesthelinebetweenFifthStreet.Ithasalwaysbeenasacredline. Totheeast,largescalemarketratedevelopment,tothewestofit,sensitivitytotheneedsofthe Sixth Street corridor. This crosses the line. The direct and the indirect displacement must be evaluated.Theheightsofthisprojectparticularlyonthealleywillhaveadeleteriouseffecton theneighborslivingonthoseresidentialenclaves.(JimMeko,September18,2009) Mosttroublingofcourse,andwerealizethisisnotanissuetobeaddressedinthedraftEIR,is the issue of displacement. Indirect displacement is inevitable when a project so massive is introduced into an economically fragile area. Fifth Street has always been regarded as the dividing line between the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Area and the Sixth Street Earthquake Recovery Zone. Until the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan was adopted, the preservation of the affordable nature of this area was of prime importance and was reflected in the underlying zoning. Now not only do local residents fear the creeping gentrification but so do local merchants. But the impact on the cultural fabric of this community will be profound. Please readtheattachedletterfromTeresaDulalas.(JimMeko,September18,2009) As with the remainder of South of Market, deed restrictions should be imposed, requiring tenantstoacknowledgethattheyaremovingintoamixedusedistrictwherecommercial,light industrial and other uses exist that generate noise and other nuisances at all hours of the day sevendaysaweek.(JimMeko,September18,2009) Response 3.1 As described on DEIR p.43, Section III.A, under Plans, Policies, and Land Use, and Appendix A, Initial Study, pp. 2327, the proposed project would have a lessthan
8
C&R23
C.
significant effect on a project level for the land use. The Initial Study found that the project,withresidentialandretailuses,wouldbeconsistentwiththeexistingcharacter of the area and would not present a physical barrier to movement throughout the community. The proposed project would not result in a significant adverse impact on the character of Fifth Street, Folsom Street, and the surrounding East SoMa neighborhood.TheInitialStudyfoundnoidentifiableprojectspecificconflictwithCity land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigatinganenvironmentaleffectandconcludedthatdevelopmentofnonProduction, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) uses on a site zoned to permit future PDR uses would not, in itself, constitute a projectspecific physical environmental effect. The Initial Study, pp. 2526, found that the project would not have projectlevel impacts on land use; cumulative effects on areas of PDR space could be potentially significant, and wouldbediscussedintheEIR. The proposed project, combined with the 900 Folsom Street Project, would change the character of the project site and vicinity. As stated on p. 30 of the Initial Study, the change in aesthetic character, however, would be consistent with the varied urban characterofthearea.Inaddition,asstatedonp.30oftheInitialStudy,mostviews from streets and publically accessible parks within the project vicinity are not panoramic; they are urban views down developed corridors already flanked by buildings.ThecharacterofClementinaStreetwouldbecomparabletootheralleysin theprojectvicinityandEastSOMA. Theproposedprojectwouldcastnewshadowsonsurroundingproperties.However,it was concluded in the Initial Study that the proposed project would not have a significant shadow impact. With regard to the effects ofthe proposed building height onsurroundingresidentialuses,theInitialStudy,pp.2526statesthattheprojectfalls within this trend and would be compatible with its surroundings. The proposed buildings would be nine stories tall and would be higher than immediately adjacent uses. The buildings would fall within height restrictions set in the Planning Code and
C&R24
C.
would be similar in scale to uses within a block of the project site, such as the Yerba Buena Lofts on Folsom Street, about one halfblock east on Folsom Street, and the 14 story Alexis Towers apartment building directly across from the project site on Fifth Street. A ninestory mixeduse development is also proposed for 900 Folsom Street, acrossClementinaStreetfromtheprojectsite.The900FolsomStreetProjectiscurrently underreviewbythePlanningDepartment.Theproposedprojectwouldnotresultina significant adverse impact to the character of Fifth Street or Folsom Street and the surroundingEastSoManeighborhood. DEIR p. 45 notes that the Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed Use Residential (MUR) district zoning as adopted in December 2008, serves as a buffer between the higher density, predominantly commercial area of Yerba Buena Center to the east and the lowerscale, mixed use service/industrial and housing area west of Sixth Street. The MURservesasamajorhousingopportunityareawithintheeasternportionoftheSouth of Market. The district controls are intended to facilitate the development of high density, midrise housing, including familysized housing and residential hotels. The district is again designed to encourage the expansion of neighborhood commercial, retail,businessserviceandculturalartsactivities.Continuousgroundfloorcommercial frontage with pedestrianoriented retail activities along major thoroughfares is encouraged. Proposed development of new residential and retail uses at the project site would be consistent with the Eastern Neighborhoods MUR zoning and would be considered a buffer use that would bring residential and commercial opportunities to the South of MarketDistrict. The 260 Fifth Street DEIR pp. 4851 evaluates the potential cumulative effects of displacement of PDR uses and cites the EN project FEIR conclusions that, while the character of land uses and neighborhoods would change as a result of the rezoning in the Eastern Neighborhoods, new residential development would be directed to areas mostsuitableforfutureresidentialdevelopment,andPDRuseswouldbeencouragedin
C&R25
C.
areas best suited for PDR uses. The cumulative physical land use change associated withsuchdevelopment(andasaresultoftheENrezoning),specificallythelossofland available for development of PDR uses, is considered to be a significant impact under CEQA. The EN project FEIR concluded that rezoning in the Eastern Neighborhoods would result in reduction in the supply of land and buildings available for PDR use, basedonconservativeassumptionsforfuturePDRactivities.Thispotentiallossofspace availableforPDRusescouldresultindisplacementofPDRbusinessesandjobs,which wouldbeapotentiallyadversesocialandeconomiceffectstemmingfromthephysical land use changes that would be enabled by the rezoning. In certifying the EN project FEIR,thePlanningCommissionthereforefoundthatimplementationoftheENproject would result in a potentially significant, adverse impact in the cumulative supply of landforPDRusesthatwouldnotbemitigable. As noted on DEIR pp. 4951, the proposed project would contribute to cumulative impactonthedeficitofPDRspace,andthiswouldbeasignificantunavoidableimpact oftheproject. PleaseseeResponse1.2,p.C&R6,regardingthecommentsfromTeresaDulalas,noted inthecommentabove. The project sponsor does not propose deed restrictions acknowledging surrounding landuseconditions.Theprojectsponsorisnotawareofsuchapractice.Asdiscussedin the DEIR and in the comments and responses, the project would not be subject to significantadverselanduse,traffic,ornoiseeffectsatthissite. Comment 3.2 ThediscussionoftheEasternNeighborhoodsRezoning,inlightofthecommentsimmediately above[Comments2.4,2.7,6.1,and7.1],needsamajoroverhaul/rewrite.Thenumberandrange ofexceptionsundercutstheESOMAplan,particularlyifthissetsthetonefordevelopmentin theESOMAandtherelationtoheightsofnearbybuildings.WhatotherprojectsinESOMAare being reviewed? How many of them request similar exceptions? What are the EN/ESOMA parkingassumptions(howmuchwillbeprovidedfornewhousing)?(SueHestor,September15, 2009)
C&R26
C.
Response 3.2 As described on DEIR p. 38, the DEIR would be used for consideration of a Planning CodeSection329authorization,andotherdiscretionaryprojectapprovalsrequiredunder the recently adopted MUR zoning, by the Planning Commission. The Section 329 processwascreatedaspartoftheEasternNeighborhoodsPlanandisintendedtopermit modifications to certain Planning Code requirements when such modifications would result in a better overall project design. Please refer to Response 2.1, p. C&R8 for a discussion of the exception to Planning Code Section 207.7, dwelling unit mix requirements. In addition, refer to Response 6.1, p. C&R57, for further description of PlanningCode329andhowitappliestotheproposedproject.AsnotedinResponse6.1, the Section 329 process was created as part of the EasternNeighborhoods Plan, and is intended to permit modifications to certain Planning Code requirements when such modifications would result in a better overall project design. Such exceptions and modifications are permissible, provided that the Planning Commission makes certain findings, which would be considered as part of project approval process, including a publichearing. AsstatedintheInitialStudy,p.25,thebuildingswouldfallwithinheightrestrictions set in the Planning Code and would be similar in scale to uses within a block of the projectsite,suchastheYerbaBuenaLoftsonFolsomStreet,aboutonehalfblockeaston FolsomStreet,andthe14storyAlexisTowers apartmentbuildingdirectlyacrossfrom the project site on Fifth Street. The proposed project would be consistent with the height limits established by the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan and analyzed in the EasternNeighborhoodsEIR.Futuredevelopmentproposedintheprojectvicinity and EastSOMAwouldbereviewedunderENcontrolsincludinguse,height,andbulk. 4. TRANSPORTATION
Comment 4.1 Clementinaisaneastboundstreetthatgivesaccessto5thStreet,whichgivesaccesstotheBay Bridge onramp. Fifth Street ditto. Tehama Street gives access to 6th Street, which is the on ramp for southbound I280. Both 5th and 6th Streets also lead to westbound give access to
C&R27
C.
westboundHarrisonwhichleadstoonrampsforsouthboundI101.(SueHestor,September15, 2009) Response 4.1 DEIRSectionIII.B,Transportation,presentsregionalaccessandlocalstreetsconditions onpp.5355.ThetextnotesaccesstoU.S.101southboundatSeventhStreet,andI280 on Sixth Street or King Street. Figure 14, Transportation Study Area, DEIR p. 56, also illustrates the street network, oneway streets and freeway access to U.S. 101 in the projectvicinity. Comment 4.2 Sixth. In any green environment bicycle parking must be included in the retail envelope in ordertoallowemployeesandcustomersofretailsomewheretoparktheirbikes.Irealizethat usuallyitstheretailthatprovides,butinlive/workareas,placestoparkwouldbenice.Please discuss either bike racks on the sidewalk or a room within the building envelope and if it is possible.(MarvisJ.Phillips,August13,2009) Response 4.2 As stated on DEIR p. 37, there would be 60 bicycle spaces in the groundfloor garage. Figure5,ProposedGroundLevelPlan,hasbeenupdatedtoillustratetherevisedfloor plan with the ground floor parking and parking access on Clementina Street removed andotherreconfiguredusesasshownonp.C&R29below.Figure5alsoillustratesthe bicycleparkinglocationonthegroundfloor.Thebicycleroomwouldbeaccessiblefrom the building lobby. As discussed in the Introduction to this document, p. C&R4, the project would no longer have groundfloor parking with a driveway from Clementina Street.Theprojectsponsorwouldnotberesponsibleforinstallationofbicyclerackson thesidewalktoserveretailcustomers.TheMunicipalTransportationAgency(MTA)is responsibleforinstallationofbikeracksinthepublicrightofway.Bicyclerackrequests can be made through the MTAs Bicycle Program (additional information regarding MTA and bike rack request is available online at: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bpark/ 3176.html#row).
C&R28
TEHAMA STREET
CLEMENTINA STREET
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: AGI Capital Group, Inc., 2009.
FIGURE 5: PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL PLAN (REVISED)
FIFTH STREET
C&R-29
C.
Comment 4.3 3.Projectsponsorsrequestforanexemptionfromoffstreetloadingrequirementwouldplace an additional burden on surrounding properties and has the potential to disrupt the pending FolsomBoulevardproject.(JimMeko,September18,2009) Page 24 the lack of loading spaces for the uses in the building at this site understates the amountofloadingavailableontheadjacentPARKINGLOTS. Page29doessponsorassumethatLOADINGofgoodsforthecommercialspaceswilloccuron 5thStreet,orTehama,orClementina?(SueHestor,September15,2009) Response 4.3 As discussed in the Introduction, p. C&R4, since publication of the DEIR, the project sponsor has revised several elements of the proposed project; the project would now provideoffstreetloadingspacefortwovansizevehiclesinthebasementlevelgarage, andwouldmeetloadingrequirementsunderPlanningCodeSection152.1.Asdiscussed on DEIR p. 72, the project as reviewed in the DEIR with no offstreet loading space would not have significant impacts on loading conditions. The provision of offstreet loading would further reduce any effects of loading activities associated with the project. Implementation of Improvement Measure ITR2, DEIR, p. 79, would also accommodate service vehicles and movein/moveout operations, and would improve conditionsresultingfromloadingoperations. DEIRp.2,paragraphthreeandp.46,paragraphone,arerevisedasshowninResponse2.1,p. C&R8. ThedescriptionoftheproposedprojectinTableS2,DEIRp.10isrevisedasshownbelowonp. C&R31.
C&R30
C.
TABLE S-2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT (REVISED) B: Adaptive Reuse/ Preservation, New Development on Lot 50
46dwellingunits. 2,660gsfretail. 24atgradeparkingspaces. Oneapproximately35foot tall,twostorybuildingand oneapproximately60foot tall,sixstorybuildingwith connectingcorridor. Preservationoftwostory structure,whichwouldnot beLEEDrated. Newsixstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated.
Project
Description 179dwellingunits. 5,173gsfretail. 133102belowgradeparking spaces:15percentbelowgrade and85percentatgradeparking spaces. One85foottall,ninestory buildingwithtwowings BuildingwouldbeLEEDrated Gold. 2loadingspaces
A: No Project
Nochangeatsite. 42,000gsfoffice/art gallery. 35atgradeparking spaces. Onetwostory structure(with mezzanine). Structurewould remainnonLEED rated.
C: Adaptive Reuse/ Partial Preservation, Addition to 260 Fifth St.

80dwellingunits. 2,660gsfretail. 24atgradeparkingspaces Oneapproximately55foot tall,fourstorybuildingand oneapproximately60foot tall,sixstorybuildingwith connectingcorridor. Preservationoftwostory structure. Newsixstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated; secondstructurewould includetwoLEEDrated upperstoriesatopanon LEEDratedtwostorybase.
D: Adaptive Reuse/ Partial Preservation, with PDR Space

52dwellingunits. Noretailspace. 37atgradeparkingspaces. 28,645gsfPDR. Twoapproximately55foot tall,fourstorybuildingswith connectingcorridor. Preservationoforiginaltwo storystructure. Newfourstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated;second structurewouldincludetwo LEEDratedupperstoriesatop anonLEEDratedtwostory base.
C&R31
C.
DEIRp.15,paragraphthree,isrevisedasshowninResponse2.1,p.C&R9. LoadinginformationinTableII1oftheDEIR,p.25,isrevisedasfollows:
TABLE II-1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS (REVISED) Total Proposed Project Use/Characteristics Area/Amount Residential 143,229gsf Retail 5,173gsf LobbyandAmenities 2,888gsf CoreCirculationandService 20,168gsf TOTALGSF(notinc.parking,openspace) 211,199 gsf Parking 31,917gsf OpenSpace 14,320gsf DwellingUnits 179units VehicleParkingSpaces 133102spaces BicycleParkingSpaces 60spaces LoadingSpaces 02 HeightofBuilding 85feet NumberofStories 9
Source:AGICapital,2008.
DEIRp.38,bullettwoisdeletedasfollows: Exceptiontoallowfortheprovisionofnooffstreetfreightloadingspaces,where onespacewouldotherwiseberequired,pursuanttoPlanningCode Section152.1.
DEIRp.72,paragraphfive,isrevisedasfollows: Based on the Planning Code, the project would be required to provide one offstreet loadingspaceforresidentialuse.Theproposedprojectwouldnotprovidethenumberof fullsize loading spaces that would meet the Planning Code requirement. The proposed projectwouldrequireavariancefromoffstreetloadingrequirementsprovideoffstreet loading spaces for two vansize vehicles in the basement level garage. The proposed projectwould,however,alsoincludeanapplicationforoneortwoyellowzonesalong FifthStreettoaccommodateitsloadingdemandinthatalternativelocation.Becausethe yellow zone parking would be adequate to accommodate movein and moveout and otherloadingactivities,therewouldbenosignificantimpactfromloadingactivitiesat the proposed project. Implementation of Improvement Measure ITR2, p. 79, would accommodate service vehicles and movein/moveout operations, and would improve conditionsresultingfromloadingoperations.
C&R32
C.
ThedescriptionoftheproposedprojectinTableV1,DEIRp.110isrevisedasfollows:
TABLE V-1 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT (REVISED) B: Adaptive Reuse/ Preservation, New Development on Lot 50
46dwellingunits. 2,660gsfretail. 24atgradeparkingspaces.
Project
179dwellingunits. 5,173gsfretail. 133102belowgradeparking spaces:15percentbelowgrade and85percentatgradeparking spaces. Description One85foottall,ninestory buildingwithtwowings BuildingwouldbeLEEDrated Gold. 2loadingspaces
A: No Project
Nochangeatsite 42,000gsfoffice/art gallery. 35atgradeparking spaces. Onetwostory structure(with mezzanine). Structurewould remainnonLEED rated.

80dwellingunits 2,660gsfretail 24atgradeparkingspaces

52dwellingunits. Noretailspace 37atgradeparkingspaces. 28,645gsfPDR. Twoapproximately40foot tall,fourstorybuildingswith connectingcorridor. Preservationoforiginaltwo storystructure. Newfourstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated;second structurewouldincludetwo LEEDratedupperstoriesatop anonLEEDratedtwostory base.
Atwostoryadditiontoan Oneapproximately20foot existingtwostorybuilding, tall,twostorybuildingand andoneapproximately60 oneapproximately60foot tall,sixstorybuildingonLot foottall,sixstorybuilding 150withconnectingcorridor. withconnectingcorridor. Preservationoftwostory Preservationoftwostory structure. structure,whichwouldnot beLEEDrated. Newsixstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated. Newsixstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated; secondstructurewould includetwoLEEDrated upperstoriesatopanon LEEDratedtwostorybase.
C&R33
C.
Comment 4.4 p.59PedestrianConditions.5thStreetisnotapleasantstreettowalkalonggiventheheavy volume of traffic, particularly in evenings. 5th Street also has more pedestrian accidents than many streets. Please check pedestrian accident statistics. Itis hard to walk anywhere near the CentralFreewaybecauseofthetraffic.(SueHestor,September15,2009) p.69pedestrianimpacts.Pleaseexplainthedestinationscontemplatedbyallthesepedestrian trips. The immediate area is not wellserved by retail for working people. Many nearby residents are in senior housing complexes which provide meals and have minivans to go to services. The 27 bus turns at Harrison and does not provide access to the south. The nearest southbound bus to Mission Bay is on 3rd Street. Please explain the destinations assumed for pedestrians.(SueHestor,September15,2009) Response 4.4 TheSanFranciscoDepartmentofPublicHealth(SFDPH)analyzespedestrianinjuriesin trafficaccidentsfromapublichealthperspective.SFDPHnotesthattrafficaccidentsin general are a leading cause of death and injury in the United States. Beyond direct injuriesanddeaths,asmatterofpublichealth,SFDPHstatesthatincreasedpedestrian safety can encourage walking, which in turn can have direct health benefits such as reducingobesityandindirectbenefitssuchasimprovedairqualityresultingfromlesser trafficvolumes.Thereareanumberoffactorsthatcontributetoincreasedpedestrian vehicle collisions, and the number of collisions at an intersection is a function of the traffic volume, travel speeds, intersection configuration, traffic control, surrounding land uses, location, and number of pedestrians. The project would generate new pedestriantripsandincludeimprovementsthatwouldenhancepedestriansafetyatthe project site and vicinity, including new sidewalk paving on Fifth Street and Tehama Street. In addition, implementation of Improvement Measure ITR1, DEIR p. 79, recommends curb ramp upgrades to the Fifth/Tehama and Fifth/Clementina intersection,toimprovesidewalkaccessfordisabledpersonsandotherpedestrians. AsstatedonDEIRp.69,thepedestriantripsgeneratedbytheproposedprojectwould beaccommodatedonthesidewalksinthevicinitywithoutadverseeffects.Itisexpected that project pedestrian trips would be distributed on Clementina, Folsom, and Fifth
C&R34
C.
Streets, with the majority of trips occurring near Fifth and Folsom Streets. Pedestrian destinationswouldincluderetailandcommercialusessuchastheWholeFoodsMarket onFourthStreet.PedestrianscouldalsoaccessretailestablishmentsMarketandMission streetsandnearUnionSquare.PowellStreetStationwouldbeamajortransitstationfor pedestrians seeking access to other destinations in the city and region. Currently, pedestrianvolumesonFifthStreetbetweenClementinaandFolsomStreetsarerelatively higherthanonotherstreetsinthearea.DEIRp.69concludesthattheprojectwouldnot have adverse effects on pedestrian conditions. The project would install new sidewalk pavingonClementinaStreet.Giventhattheadditionofpedestrianandvehiculartraffic generatedbytheproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallyaffectpedestrianconditions in the vicinity of the project site, and given that the proposed project includes enhancements to existing pedestrian facilities, the proposed project would not have significantadverseimpactsonpedestrianconditionsorsafety. Table B5, DEIR p. 66, presents the proposed project trip generation by mode during weekday PM peak hour. As shown on Table B5, 248 peakhour walking trips are expected to be generated as a result of the proposed project. Given the location of the proposed project, most walking trips would be towards or from downtown and other employmentcenters(mostofwhicharelocatedgenerallynorthoftheprojectsite).The proposedprojectwouldnotresultinasubstantialnumberofwalkingtripsunderI80. Retail services are available in the Mission Street and Market Street corridors, and a WholeFoodsMarketisatFourthStreetandFolsomStreet.Theproposedprojectwould also provide approximately 5,173 gsf of retail space that could serve workers and residentsintheprojectvicinity.Pedestrianswouldalsoaccesslocalorregionaltransit services on Third Street, Fourth Street, Fifth Street, Mission Street, and Market Street, without crossing under the I80 freeway to the south. The 14 bus lines serving the project vicinity are noted on DEIR pp. 5859, and Table B2, Nearby Weekday Transit Service. The 27Bryant bus provides direct service on Fifth Street between the project site, Market Street, and North of Market neighborhoods. That route does not continue
C&R35
C.
directlysouth,butonthebasisofthediscussionaboveofpedestriantravelpatternsand destinations,thiswouldnotbeaconstrainttotransittravel. Comment 4.5 Asisnotedabove,thissitehasEXCELLENTaccesstofreewaysandtheBayBridge.Comeon theEIRcan/shouldsayit.Onpage54explainaccessfromClementina,Tehama,5thStreet.You couldshowroutestofreewayrampsonmapatpage53. Compare the incentive to WALK or take transit by spelling out the distance IN FEET NOT BLOCKStotransitlinesvscartofreeway. DISTANCES SHOULD BE DESCRIBED IN FEET NOT BLOCKS. SOUTH OF MARKET BLOCKSAREMUCHLONGERTHANBLOCKSTOTHENORTHOneblockNOMisalot faster to walk than a SOM block. (Will it take an ordinance directing MEA to change its terminology?) Go through EVERY page on land use (p. 5759) and provide FEET where you say BLOCK. MUNI services levels and routes are being changed. Please verify every route and the timing therefore.Itake27regularlyanditREALLYdoesntcomethatfrequentlyaround7orso.The number 12 is much less frequent. It would be helpful if the routes are shown on a map. (Sue Hestor,September15,2009) Response 4.5 DEIR Section III.B, Transportation presents regional access and local streets conditions onpp.5355.ThetextnotesaccesstoU.S.101southboundatSeventhStreet,andI280 on Sixth Street or King Street. Figure 14, Transportation Study Area, DEIR p. 56, also illustrates the street network, oneway streets and freeway access to U.S. 101 in the projectvicinity. Please see Figure C&R2, p. C&R38, which is based on Figure 4 in the projects transportation study.9 The figure depicts the transit routes and stops in the project vicinity.TableB2,DEIRp.58NearbyWeekdayMuniService,providesPMpeakservice frequency on listed Muni lines. Service after the peak (at 7 p.m., as noted in the
CHSConsultingGroup,900FolsomStreetand260FifthStreetProjectsTransportationStudy,May2009. ThisdocumentisavailableforreviewatthePlanningDepartment,1650MissionStreet,Suite400,as partofCaseNo.2007.0690E.
C&R36
C.
comment)isreducedonmosttransitlines,includingthe27Bryant;thatlinerunsona 15to20minuteheadwayafter6p.m. Blocks South of Market (and north of I80) are approximately 830 feet eastwest and approximately 550 feet northsouth. Folsom Street is about 1,650 feet south of Market Street,orabouta10to15minutewalk. DEIRp.58,paragraphone,sentencethree,isrevisedasfollows: MUNI Metro lines and BART serve the Powell Street Station about 1,500 feet (threeblocks)northofthesite. DEIRp.58,paragraphthree,sentencethree,isrevisedasfollows: ThecloseststationtotheprojectsiteisthePowellStreetstationonMarketStreet, approximately1,500feet(threeblocks)northwestoftheprojectsite. DEIRp.59,paragraphone,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: The San Francisco terminal is located at Fourth and Townsend Streets, approximately2,500feet(fiveblocks)southeastoftheprojectsite. DEIRp.59,paragraphtwo,sentencethree,isrevisedasfollows: Ingeneral,SamTransservicetodowntownSanFranciscooperatesalongMission Street to the Transbay Terminal, which is on Mission Street, between First and FremontStreets,about4,150feet(fiveblocks)eastoftheprojectsite. DEIRp.59,paragraphthree,sentencesix,isrevisedasfollows: The San Francisco terminal is at the Ferry Building, near Market Street about 6,640feet(eightblocks)eastoftheprojectsite.
C&R37
Po we ll S t
Hy de St
Ta ylo rS t
Ma so nS t
ne s
Sto
Jo
Market Street
Market Street
Stevenson St
Stevenson St
Ke
Annie St Jessie St
St
ate Av e
kS t
ck to
La
Ell
is S
Fa rre ll
Gr an tA ve
St
Ge
ar
yS t
Jessie St Mint St
Jessie St
arn yS t
Ambrose Bierce
Al lis ter
rki n
nG
Tu r
St
nS t
lde
O'
Ba gle yP l
Mc
St
Go
Ed dy St
4th Street
6th Street
8th Street
7th Street
5th Street
3rd Street
Tehama St
Laskie St
Mission Street
Minna St Russ St Minna St Mary St
Mission Street
Minna St
Natoma St
Natoma St
Masset Pl
Natoma St
Howard Street
Summer St Tehama St Langton St Rausch St Harriet St Moss St Russ St
260 Fifth St Project

Gallagher
Howard Street
Hawthorne St
C&R-38
Kaplan Ln
Clementina St
Clementina St
900 Folsom St Project

Folsom Street
Falmouth Rodgers Hallam Ringold St Brush Cleveland Sherman St Shipley St
Folsom Street
Mabini Hawthorne St Bonifacio Lapu Lapu St
Columbia Sq St
Tandang Sora
4th Street
6th Street
7th Street
8th Street
3rd Street
5th Street
Langton St
Harriet St
Heron St Berwick
Clara St
Rizal St
St. Francis Pl
McLea
SOURCE: CHS Consulting, 2008.
Gordon Converse
Harrison Street
Chesley
Harrison Street
Perry St
LEGEND
Homer
MUNI Route Route Number Street Bryant MUNI Bus Stop within 2 blocks of project sites
Harriet St
80
Oak Grove Merlin St
Morris St
Bryant Street
900 Folsom and 260 5th Street Projects Transportation Study
Consulting CHS Group

Figure 4 Transit Lines and Bus Stop Locations

FIGURE C&R-2: TRANSIT LINES AND BUS STOP LOCATIONS
C.
Comment 4.6 We are writing you as the owners of 409411413 Tehama Street which is located on the northerly side of the proposed project. This building is residential on the second and third floors and is occupied by families who would be affected by vehicle traffic entering the proposed new parking areas from Tehama Street. At present there is a parking lot which containsperhaps40spaces.Thenewprojectistoinclude133parkingspacesandweweretold thatitisplannedthatallofthemwouldbeaccessedbyadrivewayorrampontheeasterlyside of our building. At present the entry to the parking lot is from 5th Street. In our opinion it would be better to keep the entrance location on 5th Street. (James W. Funsten, September 14, 2009) TheparkingallentersthisprojectonTehamaAlley.Thisisgoingtobeamajordisruptiontoa very vibrant residential community, and those are my remarks, and I hope to forward the recommendationstoleadershipcounseliftheychoosetovotenextweek.Thankyou.(JimMeko, September10,2009) BylocatingentranceandegresstotheparkingalongTehamaandClementinaalleys,theproject condemnsthosewholiveintheseresidentialenclavestoanunhealthyandunsafedisruptionto thepeacefulandquietuseandenjoymentoftheirhomes.LefthandturnsoffofSixthStreetwill endangerlives.Ratherthanusingthealleys,theparkingfacilityshouldbeaccessiblefromFifth Street. Its a one way street. Entering and exiting parking garages has been shown to have a trafficcalmingeffect.(JimMeko,September18,2009) Response 4.6 AsdiscussedintheDEIR,vehicleswoulduseTehamaStreettoenterorexittheproject parkingareas.PleaseseeFigure4,ProposedBasementLevelFloorPlan,DEIRp.28,and Figure 5, Proposed Ground Level Floor Plan, DEIR p. 29 for the location of parking access,onp.C&R29above. As stated on DEIR p. 66, the proposed project would generate 77 inbound and 59 outbound vehicletrips during the weekday PM peak hour, a total of 136 trips to and fromtheprojectsite.About136tripstoandfromtheprojectsiteinonehourtranslates toabouttwovehicletripsperminuteduringtheweekdayPMpeakhour.Abouthalfof those trips would be generated by residential uses at the site, and more likely to use project parking, as shown in Table 5, Proposed Project Trip Generation by Mode WeekdayPMPeakHour,DEIRp.66.Asstatedonp.66ofDEIR,sixtripsarecurrently generatedbytheexistingparkinguseontheprojectsiteand130ofthe136tripswould,
C&R39
C.
therefore,benewvehicletrips.TheDEIRfoundthattheprojecttripsonthosestreets, whileanincreasefromcurrentconditions,wouldnotbeconsideredtohavesignificant adversetraffic,pedestrianconditions,noise,orairqualityimpacts.Asdescribedinthe DEIR,p.67,andasshownonTableB7,p.68,thelevelofservicefortheweekdayPM peakhour at the intersection of Fifth Street and Folsom Street would remain the unchanged (LOS B) after the proposed project is constructed, indicating that the intersectionoperatingconditions(andthereforetraffic)wouldnotworsenasaresultof the proposed project. Therefore, while the project would increase vehicle trips on Tehama Street, approximately one to two per minute during the afternoon peak hour, those vehicle trips would not cause adverse environmental effects on the surrounding community.SeeResponse7.2,p.C&R68,foradiscussionoftheairqualityandnoise effects related to the increased vehicle trips to and from the project site. The changes traffic on Tehama Street with the proposed project would not be considered a substantialdisruptiontoexistingconditions. The comments suggest providing parking access from Fifth Street. The project, as revised,wouldinclude102parkingspaces,comparedto133aspresentedintheDEIR. The project would no longer have a driveway on Clementina Street. The 102 spaces wouldbeaccessedfromTehamaStreet,andtherevisedprojectwouldgenerateasimilar level of trips on Tehama Street as analyzed in the DEIR. (The 31 spaces eliminated wouldhavebeenaccessedfromClementinaStreet).FifthStreetisatwowaystreet,and aparkingdrivewayonFifthStreetcouldcreatepotentialleftturnconflictsonthetwo way street if vehicles exited the garage heading north on Fifth Street. Parking access fromTehamaStreetwoulddispersetrafficfromFifthStreettoSixthStreet,comparedto if all driveway entries and exits were on Fifth Street. The project parking access from Tehama Street would mean that most vehicles entering oneway westbound Tehama would turn right from southbound Fifth Street; exiting vehicles would turn west on TehamatoSixthStreetandgenerallyturntonorthboundSixthStreet,withfewturning conflictsoradverseeffectsonpedestriansafety.
C&R40
C.
Theprojectwouldstillrequireanexceptionforprovidingoffstreetparkinginexcessof onespaceperfourresidentialunits,underSection151.1;thetotalnumberofproposed parkingspaceswouldbelessthanthemaximumpermittedwithanexception.Referto Response 6.1, p. C&R57 for further description of an option that would have 1:4 parking. DEIRp.1,paragraphthree,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would have about 143,229 gross square feet (gsf) of residential space, with up to 179 residential townhouse, studio, onebedroom and twobedroom units, 5,173 gsf of groundlevel retail space fronting Fifth Street, and 14,320 gsf of open space/common areas, and approximately 133 102 parkingspaces. DEIRp.2,paragraphtwo,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would have approximately 31,917 gsf of parking and would have 133 102 parking spaces (including triplestackers10). Approximately 15% of parking spaces would be at ground level, and the remaining 85% All of parking spaces would be in a belowgrade garage with accessviaarampfromTehamaStreet.Therewouldbe60bicyclespacesinthe groundfloorgarage. ThedescriptionoftheproposedprojectinTableS2,DEIRp.10isrevisedasshownon p.C&R31. DEIRp.15,paragraphthree,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: The new building would contain up to 179 residential units, approximately 14,320 gross square feet (gsf) of open space and 2,888 gsf of lobby/amenities/common areas, approximately 5,173 gsf of groundlevel retail space,and133102parkingspaces.
10
Stackersarehydraulicliftsthatallowmorethanonevehicletoparkinaparkingspace.Thisproject proposes using 46 stackers, each of which will allow three cars to park in a stacked formation in a singleparkingspace,providing138parkingspaceswheretherewouldotherwisebeonly46parking spaces.
C&R41
C.
DEIRp.17,paragraphthree,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: As presented in Chapter II, Project Description, pp2139, this EIR analyzes a proposed project with 179 residential units and 133 102 parking spaces. (includingtheproposedbasementparkinglevel),whilethepreviousprojectwas for175residentialunitsand177offstreetparkingspaces. DEIRp.24,paragraphfour,sentencefour,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would have 31,917 gsf of parking and would provide approximately133102parkingspaces(includingstackers). ParkinginformationinTableII1,DEIR,p.25,isrevisedasshownonp.C&R32. DEIRp.26,paragraphfour,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would have approximately 31,917 gsf of parking and would provide 133 102 parking spaces (including triplestackers11) on two stories.Mostprojectparking,114parkingspaces,wouldbeprovidedinainone belowgradegarage,accessedbywayofanentry/exitrampfromTehamaStreet. Theremaining19parkingspaceswouldbeatgrade,inagarageadjacenttothe groundfloorretailusesandresidentlobby,withdirectaccessfromClementina Street. Figure 5 (Proposed Ground Level Plan) of the DEIR, p. 29, is revised to illustrate the revisedgroundfloorplanisrevisedasshownonp.C&R29. DEIRp.37,paragraphone,isrevisedasfollows: Both garage levels The belowgrade garage would provide direct access to the residentlobby.Therewouldbe60bicyclespacesinonthegroundfloorgarage. DEIRp.70,paragraphthree,isrevisedasfollows: ParkingSupply.Theproposedprojectwouldprovideatotalof133102parking spaces; 114 parking spaces in a basement with driveway access from Tehama
11
Stackersarehydraulicliftsthatallowmorethanonevehicletoparkinaparkingspace.Thisproject proposesusingstackersthatwillallowthreecarstoparkinastackedformationinasingleparking space.
C&R42
C.
Street, and 19 parking spaces in a groundlevel garage with driveway access fromClementinaStreet.TherewouldbenonewcurbcutsonClementinaorFifth Streets.PlanningCodeSection151.1wouldpermitupto0.25parkingspacesper unit, or 45 spaces. Additional spaces can be approved as an exception, at 0.75 space for each studio or onebedroom unit, and one space per twobedroom or largerunit.Theproposedprojectwouldhave139studiooronebedroomunits permitting104spaces,and40twobedroomorlargerunitspermitting40spaces, a total of 144 spaces. Under MUR zoning, the parking in excess of 45 spaces wouldneedanexceptionunderPlanningCodeSections151.1(f)and329. ParkinginformationinTableB8onpage71oftheDEIRisrevisedasfollows:
TABLE B-8 PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY (REVISED)12 Land Use Retail Residential(Studioand1bedroom) Residential(2bedroomand Townhouse) Total ExistingParking(Removed)
Long-term Short-term Demand Demand 4 156 54 214 44 44
Total Demand 48 156 54 258
Supply 133102 (35)
Difference 114156 149191
Source:CHSConsultingGroup.October11,2007survey.
DEIRp.71,paragraphone,isrevisedasfollows: Theproposedprojectwouldgeneratealongtermdemandof214parkingspaces for the residential use, and a shortterm demand for 44 parking spaces for the retailuse,oracombineddemandfor258parkingspaces.Theproposedproject wouldprovide133102onsiteparkingspaces.Thus,theproposedprojectwould fallshortofdemandbyapproximately114156spaces.Inaddition,theproposed projectwoulddisplacethe35spacepublicparkinglotontheprojectsite.Afield
12
The 900 Folsom Street and 260 Fifth Street Projects Transportation Study, March 2009, analyzed project parking with a total of 190 spaces. All parking analyses have been revised to reflect the reduced parkingsupply(i.e.,themoreconservativeparkingscenario),whilethetrafficanalysesassumedup to190vehiclestobeaccommodatedintheproposedproject(i.e.themoreconservativescenariofor potentialprojectrelatedtransportationimpacts).
C&R43
C.
survey showed that 26 vehicles occupy the lot during a typical weekday at midday.Overall,basedonaparkingsurveyconductedonOctober11,2007,the proposed project would cause a parking shortage of approximately 149 191 parkingspaces(114156spaceprojectdeficitplus35spacesonsite).Basedon26 occupiedspaces,thenetparkingdeficitwouldbe140182spaces. DEIRp.78,paragraphone,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: Theproposedprojectwouldprovide133102parkingspaces,andwouldthusfall shortofparkingdemandby125156spaces. DEIRp.78,paragraphtwo,sentencestwoandthreearerevisedasfollows: Overall, the 900 Folsom Street and 260 Fifth Street projects, combined, could causeaparkingshortageofapproximately550576parkingspaces.Thisincludes a125156spaceprojectdeficiencyplus26currentvehiclesparkedonsiteatthe projectsite,anda153spaceprojectdeficiency plus246currentvehiclesparked onsiteatthe900FolsomStreetsite. DEIRp.117,paragraphone,sentenceone,isrevisedasfollows: Thisalternativewouldprovide24atgradeparkingspaces,comparedto133102 combinedabovegroundandbelowgradespaceswiththeproposedproject. DEIRp.122,paragraphtwo,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: Thisalternativewouldprovide24atgradeparkingspacescomparedto133102 combinedabovegroundandbelowgradespaceswiththeproposedproject. The description of the proposed project in DEIR Table V1, is revised as shown on p. C&R33. DEIRp.128,paragraphfive,sentenceone,isrevisedasfollows: Withthisalternative,projectwouldprovideabout37parkingspacesratherthan the133102oftheproposedproject.
C&R44
C.
Comment 4.7 P.65ModeSplit.MEAcontinuestoassumethatthenumberofparkingspacesprovidedin new housing projects is irrelevant to how people use their cars, particularly for commutes. Please explain the number of south of market projects (the entire south of Market, not just ESOMA) that have been granted parking in excess of 1:4 in the past five years, or during the developmentoftheENPlan.ThatshouldincludeallofRinconHillPLUS10th&Marketaswell as all pending projects, e.g. 1415 Mission. This is the area where freeway access is readily available to the east and south. Please explain HOW MUCH NEW PARKING HAS BEEN APPROVED in mid to large size projects. How many THOUSANDS of new parking spaces. PleaseincludeallofRinconHill.(SueHestor,September15,2009) MEAappearstowanttoignorechangingcommuteandworkpatterns.Thisismostevidentin thetableatpage67whichisbasedonthe1990census.Pleaseexplaininclearlanguagewhatthe DEIRclaimstheinformationinthattableshows.(SueHestor,September15,2009) Response 4.7 ThetransportationstudyandDEIRevaluatetheprojectspecificandcumulativeimpacts oftheproposedprojectonparkingdemandandparkingsupply.Asstatedonp.71of theDEIR,Theproposedprojectwouldgenerateademandof214parkingspacesforthe residentialuse,and44parkingspacesfortheretailuse,oracombineddemandfor258 parking spaces. The revised project would include 102 parking spaces. Thus, the proposedprojectwouldfallshortofdemandbyapproximately156spaces.Asstated on DEIR p. 63, San Francisco does not consider parking supply as part of the permanent physical environment. Parking conditions are not static, as parking supply and demand varies from day to day, from day to night, from month to month, etc. Hence, the availability of parking spaces (or lack thereof) is not a permanent physical condition, but changes over time as people change their modes and patterns of travel. Parkingdeficitsareconsideredtobesocialeffects,ratherthanimpactsonthephysical environmentasdefinedbyCEQA.Thisisconsistentwithparkingimpactsevaluatedin the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Community Plans EIR, which determined there would be a shortfall in supply relative to demand in the East SOMA
C&R45
C.
neighborhood.13TheEasternNeighborhoodsFEIRconcludedthatthisimpactwouldbe lessthansignificantforthereasonssimilartothoseidentifiedfortheproposedproject. The 260 Fifth Street DEIR reviewed projects and cumulative parking impacts on the basisofconditionsatthetimeofanalysis.Theinformationrequestedbythecommenter regarding past approval of parking spaces for mid to large size projects in the SoMa neighborhoodisnotrelevanttotheadequacyoftheDEIR. DEIRTableB6,p.66,presentsthetripdistributionpatternstoandfromtheprojectsite, SanFranciscoSuperdistricts,andtheregion.AspresentedinTableB6,themajorityof trips are to and from San Francisco Superdistrict 1, which includes downtown and SoMa.Superdistrict2coversnorthwestSanFrancisco,Superdistrict3coverssoutheast SanFrancisco,andSuperdistrict4coverssouthwestSanFrancisco.AsstatedonDEIRp. 66,Thesepatternswereusedasthebasisforassigningprojectrelatedtripstothelocal streetsinthestudyarea,andthetransittripstothelocalandregionaltransitoperators. Tripdistributionpatternsforresidentialuseswerebasedon2000Censusdata,andare themostrecentU.S.Censusdataavailable.Theanalysisofregionaltripdistributionis appropriate based on that census data. The footnote citing the 1990 Census was a typographicalerror. ThesourceforDEIRTableB6isrevisedasfollows:
Source:19902000U.S.Census,SanFranciscoPlanningDepartment,CHSConsultingGroup.
Comment 4.8 Theexcessiveamountofparkingincludedinthisprojectisnecessitatedbythetypeofresidents thatthisprojectintendstotarget:youngupscalesingleswhocommutetotheSiliconValleyfor work and have the excess income that allows them to live in a trendy South of Market neighborhood.IncreasedaccesstogoodtransitalongatwowayFolsomStreet,theadditionof the new Central Subway one block away, situated a short distance from Caltrain and within walking distance of Market Street all make this an ideal location for a transitfriendly project.
13
EasternNeighborhoodsRezoningandCommunityPlanFinalEIR,p.301.PlanningDepartmentCase No.2004.0160E.TheEIRisonfileforpublicreviewatthePlanningDepartment,1650MissionStreet Suite 4000 as part of Case No. 2004.0160E. Also available on the MEA website at: http://www.sf planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4003.
C&R46
C.
ThisprojectisinaRedevelopmentAreaandtherearemanyneedsthattakeahigherpriority thancreatinganothertrendyneighborhood.(JimMeko,September18,2009) 2.EasternNeighborhoodszoningallows1:4parkingasofright.Projectsponsorattemptstowin approvalfornearlythreetimesthatmuch.(JimMeko,September18,2009) Response 4.8 Thecommentorisconcernedabouttheamountofparkingwiththeprojectandthetype ofresidentsthistypeofprojectintendstotarget.Asdescribedonp.C&R4,theproject wouldnowinclude102parkingspaces,comparedto133aspresentedintheDEIR.The projectwouldstillrequireanexceptionforprovidingoffstreetparkinginexcessofone spaceperfourresidentialunits,underPlanningCodeSection151.1. Planning Code Section 151.1 would permit up to 0.25 parking spaces per unit, or 45 spaces.Additionalspacescanbeapprovedasanexception,at0.75spaceforeachstudio or onebedroom unit, and one space per twobedroom or larger unit. The proposed projectwouldhave139studiooronebedroomunitspermitting104spaces,and40two bedroom or larger units permitting 40 spaces. Therefore, the maximum amount of parking spaces permitted with an exception would be 144. Under MUR zoning, the parking in excess of 0.25 parking spaces per unit would need an exception under Planning Code Sections 151.1(f) and 329. The total number of proposed parking spaces would be less than the maximum permitted with an exception. The reduced parking would eliminate parking space on the groundfloor level and the Clementina Street driveway. Access to basementlevel parking would be from the proposed driveway accessed from Tehama Street. Therefore; the project would serve residents with and withoutavehicle.Additionally,theprojectsiteiswellservedbypublictransitandisin walkingdistanceofdowntownSanFrancisco.AsshowninTableB5,ProposedProject Trip Generation by Mode Weekday PM Peak Hour, DEIR p. 66, transit and walking tripswouldbeabout60percentofpeakhourtrips,comparedtoabout33percentvehicle trips.
C&R47
C.
See also Response to Comment 4.4, above regarding commute patterns expected for projectresidents,andResponsetoComment6.1,Alternatives,forfurtherdescriptionof aprojectthatwouldhave1:4parking. 5. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Comment 5.1 HPC (Historic Preservation Commission) stated that they concurred with the Kelley and Ver PlanckHistoricalResourceEvaluation(HRE)thatthebuildingat260FifthStreetappearstobe eligibleasacontributortoapotentialLightIndustrialandResidentialHistoricDistrict,under theCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources.TheHPCalsoagreedwiththeDEIRconclusions of a significant and unavoidable impact on historical resources. (Courtney Damkroger, Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission, August 31, 2009) Response 5.1 The 260 Fifth Street building has been identified as a contributor to a potent CRHReligible historic district, and therefore is an historical resource pursuant to CEQA. Additionally, the commentor concurs with DEIR conclusions of a significant and unavoidable impact on historicalresources.Accordingly,nofurtherresponseisnecessary. Comment 5.2 HPC recommends that mitigation measure MCR3, which is HABS documentation of the existingbuilding,beconductedbyaqualifiedhistoricpreservationprofessional.TheHPCalso recommendsthatanexhibit(aphysicaldisplay)beplaceinapubliclocationwithinoroutside ofthenew260FifthStreetbuilding,andthattheexhibitbedevelopedbyaHistorianmeeting theSecretaryoftheInteriorprofessionalqualifications. The HPC recommends that more information be provided in the Final EIR regarding the existingmuralonthe260FifthStreetbuildingfade.Theinformationshouldincludeattheleast identification and significance of the artist, contacting the artist regarding the mural, the date and condition of the mural, and any other pertinent information. The mural should also be included in the HABS documentation under mitigation measure MCR3. Both the San FranciscoMuralResourceCenterandtheSFArtsCommissionweresuggestedasresource. AsanadditionalmitigationmeasuretheHPCrecommendsthattheProjectSponsorworkwith the Planning Department to determine an amount to contribute toward the study and designation of the Light Industrial and Residential Historic District as defined. (Courtney Damkroger, Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission, August 31, 2009)
C&R48
C.
Response 5.2 The commentor recommends that Mitigation Measure MCR3: Historic Resources, be conductedbyaqualifiedhistoricpreservationprofessionalandincludedocumentation ofthemuraloftheGoldenGateBridgeonthenorthelevation. DEIR p. 102, Mitigation Measure MCR3, paragraph one, sentence two, is revised as follows: Thissurveyshallbecompletedbyaqualifiedhistoricpreservationprofessional andinaccordancewithHABSLevelIIdocumentationstandards. DEIRp.102,bulletoneofMitigationMeasureMCR3isrevisedasfollows: Writtendata:Abriefreportdocumentingtheexistingconditionsandhistory ofthebuildingshallbeprepared,focusingonthebuildingsarchitecturaland contextual relationship with the greater Eastern SoMa neighborhood. The reportshallincludedocumentationofthemuralonthenorthelevationofthe building. Documentation of the mural shall be coordinated with the San FranciscoArtsCommission.
DEIRp.103,bullettwoofMitigationMeasureMCR3isrevisedasfollows: Photographs:Photographswithlargeformat(4inchx5inch)negativesshall beshotofexteriorandinteriorviewsofthe260FifthStreetbuilding.Exterior photographsshallincludethemuralonthenorthelevation.Historicphotos of the building, where available, shall be photographically reproduced. All photosshallbeprintedonarchivalfiberpaper.
Thecommentorisrequestingthatanexhibit,intheformofaphysicaldisplay,beplaced inapubliclocationwithinoroutsidethenewbuilding.Theprojectwouldincludesuch adisplayaspartofthepubliclobbyareaaccessiblefromFifthStreet. DEIR p. 103, Mitigation Measure MCR3, is revised to add the following paragraph afterparagraph3: The project sponsor shall construct a publically accessible display in the Fifth Street lobby documenting the history of the 260 Fifth Street building. The display shall be prepared based on the documentation required in Mitigation MeasureMCR3.
C&R49
C.
Thecommentorrequestsmoreinformationregardingtheexistingmuralontheproject sitebuildingfade. DEIRp.88,isrevisedtoaddthefollowingtexttotheendofparagraphone: Figure15a,ExistingMuralonNorthElevationof260FifthStreet,p.88a,presents aphotographofthemuraloftheGoldenGateBridge.Themuralpresentsaview oftheGoldenGateBridgeasviewedfromtheSanFranciscoBayshorelinenear southern abutment of the bridge. The Mural was painted in 1986 by David Wehrle.Mr.Wehrlewasnotifiedabouttheproposeddemolitionofthemuralon June 22, 2007. Mr. Wehrle, as confirmed in a written notice, has elected not to attempt preservation of the mural. Additionally, the San Francisco Arts CommissionwasnotifiedoftheplannedmuraldemolitiononJune12,2007.The SomArtsCulturalCenterwasnotifiedoftheproposedmuraldemolitiononJune 18, 2007. Neither organization found any significance in the mural, nor expressedanydesiretopreservethemural. The commentor requests that mitigation measures include project sponsor financial contribution to the Planning Department survey of the potential California Register eligibleSouthofMarketLightIndustrialandResidentialHistoricDistrict.Thatsurveyis underway, as discussed on DEIR pp. 8889. There is no mechanism available for a financialcontributiontothesurveybytheprojectsponsor,andcompletionofthesurvey wouldnotreduceoravoidthesignificantphysicalenvironmentaleffectofthelossofthe 260FifthStreetbuildingasacontributortothepotentialhistoricdistrict. Comment 5.3 p. 88 Mural on building. Please provide a photo of the mural on the building to be demolished.(SueHestor,September15,2009) Response 5.3 Thecommentorrequestedaphotoofthemural. Figure15aisaddedtotheDEIRonp.88a(seep.C&R51).
C&R50
C&R-51
SOURCE: Kelly and VerPlanck, 2009.
FIGURE 15a - EXISTING MURAL ON NORTH ELEVATION OF 260 FIFTH STREET
C.
Comment 5.4 p.90BillGrahamhistoryonthissite.Explaintheexpertiseoftheconsultantswhoconcluded (p.96)thatBillGrahamdidnotreallydomuchofimportanceinthelast5yearsofhislife.With whomdidtheycheck?AsIrememberwhenhisplanecrashed,hewasreturningfromstaginga big concert. WHOM in the Bill Graham arena did the consultants talk to? (Sue Hestor, September15,2009) Response 5.4 ThecommentorrequestsfurtherinformationonBillGrahamsassociationwiththe260 Fifth Street building. Kelly and VerPlanck prepared the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the existing building at 260 Fifth Street. Kelly and VerPlanck is a firm that specializes in the identification, documentation, and evaluation of historic resources in theBayAreaandthroughoutCalifornia.Inaddition,KellyandVerPlanckareapproved HREconsultantsbytheSanFranciscoPlanningDepartment,andmeettheSecretaryof theInteriorsProfessionalStandards. Criterion2fordesignationontheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricResourcesisassociation withthelivesofpersonsimportanttolocal,California,ornationalhistory.CriterionB fordesignationontheNationalRegisterconsidersthelivesofpersonssignificantinthe past.Pages9598oftheDEIRsummarizetheKellyandVerPlanckreportthatincludes backgroundonBillGrahamscareerfromthe1960suntilhisdeathin1991andprovides thebasisfortheconclusionthatthe260FifthStreetbuildingdoesnothaveasignificant associationwithBillGrahamthatwouldmeetthecriteria foranhistoric resource;that conclusion was confirmed in the Planning Departments HRER. The DEIR, p. 96, describesthehistoryofthebuilding,andnotes: The building is associated with the OBrien Brothers as architects and Meyers Brothersascontractors.NeitherKelleyandVerPlancknortheHRERfoundthat those associations would rise to significance under CRHR Criterion 2. The warehouse building was formerly occupied by the offices of Bill Graham Presents, then Bill Graham Enterprises after the death of Mr. Graham. Bill Graham was arguably an important historic personage who moved to San Francisco in the early 1960s. Bill Graham launched a career managing, producing and, in particular, promoting concerts in 1965, and continued this careeruntilhisdeathin1991.Hewasinstrumentalinshapingthemodernmusic
C&R52
C.
industryduringhis26yearcareer.Hepurchasedthe260FifthStreetspacefive years before his death, and used the office space for administrative functions. According to Kelley and VerPlanck, the final five years of Bill Grahams career were long after the period of his most important concert promotion and management activities. The offices never served as a host site for concerts and otherimportanteventsforwhichBillGrahamwasknown.KelleyandVerPlanck and the HRER concluded that the building is not meaningfully associated with importanthistoricfiguresasithousedtheofficesofBillGrahamPresentsforthe final five years of Grahams life, well after he made major contributions to the musicindustry.Therefore,thebuildingwouldnotmeettheCRHRcriterionfor associationwithpersons. While Graham appears to be a significant person as defined by Criterion 2, his associationwiththesubjectpropertywasbriefandappearstohaveoccurredwellafter the time period when he achieved significance. According to the National Register Bulletin,HowtoApplytheNationalRegisterCriteriaforEvaluation,eligibleproperties areusuallythoseassociatedwithapersonsproductivelife,reflectingthetimeperiod whenheorsheachievedsignificance.Insomeinstancesthismaybethepersonshome; inothercases,apersonsbusiness,office,laboratory,orstudiomaybestrepresenthisor her contribution. Properties that pre or postdate an individuals significant accomplishmentsareusuallynoteligible.14Inaddition,Eachpropertyassociatedwith an important individual should be compared to other associated properties to identify thosethatbestrepresentthepersonshistoriccontributions.15Themostimportanttime periods of Grahams career is considered to be the 1960s and 1970s, when he helped inventthepopularmusicindustryasitistoday.Itcouldalsobearguedthatthereare otherpropertiesthatbetterrepresentGrahamshistoriccontributionsandthataremore directlyassociatedwithhisworkinthe1960sand1970s.16 DEIRp.96,statesthatKelleyandVerPlanckfoundthatthebuildingdoesnotembody distinctdesigncharacteristicsofthetime,norrepresentanimportantworkofamaster
U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,NationalParkService,NationalRegisterBulletin:HowtoApplythe NationalRegisterCriteriaforEvaluation,1995. 15 Ibid.
14
16
San Francisco Planning Department, Historical Resource Evaluation Response for 260 5th Street,
December 21, 2007. This report is available for review at the Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street,Suite400,aspartofCaseNo.2007.0690E.
C&R53
C.
builder or architect, nor demonstrate outstanding artistic merit in its design, under CRHRCriterion3.TheHRERfoundthatthebuildingsprominentcornerlocationand wellexecuted design convey distinctive characteristics of an industrial building type constructed in SoMa in the 1920s, the period of significance of the potential California Registereligiblehistoricdistrict.Therefore,thebuildingwouldmeettheCRHRcriterion forarchitecture,asacontributortoapotentialhistoricdistrict. KelleyandVerPlanckandtheHRERnotedthatbuildingsinteriorhasbeenremodeled forvarioususesovertimeanddoesnotpossessoriginalintegrity.KellyandVerPlanck concluded that the building would not be eligible for individual listing on the CRHR. The HRER found that the buildings exterior appears to retain sufficient integrity to convey the sense of time and place associated with the period of significance of the potentialCaliforniaRegistereligiblehistoricdistrict. TheinformationsourcesfortheDEIRanalysisofhistoricresourcearepresentedonp.14 of the Historical Evaluation: 252260 Fifth Street, prepared by Kelley and VerPlanck in June 2007. The information on the career of Bill Graham was based on accounts published at the time of his death (source, San Francisco Chronicle Index, 19501980). Those accounts consistently note the importance of Bill Grahams role in the music industryinthe1960sand1970s. 6. ALTERNATIVES
Comment 6.1 Along with the DEIR for 900 Folsom St, this DEIR is one of the first to come through after adoptionoftheEasternNeighborhoods(EN)controls.Whenthedeveloperboughtthissitethe Eastern Neighborhood process was underway and generally well publicized to the developmentcommunity.Itisdisappointingthatitsocavalierlydisregardsincludingaproject thatcomplieswiththecontrolsfortheEasternSOMAareaintheEasternNeighborhoods.The lackofacodecomplyingalternativeisunacceptable.(SueHestor,September15,2009) ThisisthemosttroublingaspectoftheDEIR.ItisasthoughthewholeEasternNeighborhoods planningprocessistossedoutthewindowexceptwherethedevelopercangetMORE.CEQA requiresthattheCommissionbeenabledtoapproveaprojectthatcomplieswiththePlanning CodeandEastSouthofMarketAreaPlan.Thismustbeadded. Atabareminimumaprojectthatdoesnotinvolveaheightexceptionmustbeincluded. EXCESSPARKING1:4parkingwouldbe45spaces;here179spacesarerequested NO FREIGHT LOADING SPACES asking for no spaces, when 2 are required, burdens the immediateareaandisdifficulttojustify,particularlyinlightofEXCESSparkingspaces.
C&R54
C.
NONCOMPLIANCEWITH25%REARYARDREQUIREMENTforfirstfloorunits. FEWERTHANCODEREQUIRED40%PERCENTOF2BRORLARGERDWELLINGUNITS whichreducestheabilityforfamiliestofindhousingintheSouthofMarket.Havingonly20% oflargerunitsunderminesENassumptionsonwhowillbehousedinnewhomesinESOMA. Sincetheprojectsponsorgroupisthesameforboth900FolsomAND2605thStreetitishardto understandwhy a solution to all of the deficiencies/excesses could not have beenworked out giventheextraordinaryamountoflandbetweenthetwoprojects. To put it bluntly, it appears that the developer intends to cherry pick from the ESOMA plan/controlsONLYaspectswhicharemoregeneroustothem,specificallyincludingthechange fromRSDzoning(whichwouldhaverequiredaCUwithstandardsofaffordabilityforhousing because its height exceeds 40) to MUR. Additionally the developer wishes to exploit the additional5inallowableheight(85insteadofamaximumallowedviaCUof80.) Relying on the EN FEIR is inappropriate for projects, such as this and 900 Folsom, which so substantiallydeviatefromthecontrolsintheENFEIR.(SueHestor,September15,2009) Ifthereisnt[acodecomplyingalternative],thereshouldbe.(CommissionerOlague) With the Eastern neighborhood plan just recently approved, both projects seek exceptions which are in all areas. I find that disturbing to the extent that we have exception to height, parking,massing,loading,unitmix,etcetera,etcetera.AndasfarasImconcerned,thatsano go. At a minimum, these EIRs would have to show projects that operate within the guidelines whichwespentsevenyearsofwhatthedepartmentspentoncreating.Sothesearenotflyby nightideaswhichallofasuddenjustsaybecauseweIthinkImjustkindofpickingupon what Mr. Meko said. He said it with a significant amount more of sensitivity. We all of a suddenhave(inaudible)andtheyaregoingtoputsomebigbuildingup. Itisabigconcerntome.Inadditiontosettingabadprecedentforotherbuildingstodothe same, we are qualitatively digging into what the project EIR for the eastern neighborhood as established as finite quantities. And this to be all of a sudden be dug in by two projects, I personallyhaveabigissuewiththat.Andthatisacommentwhichcoulddriftthroughevery aspectofquantitativeandqualitativestatementswithinthisEIR.(CommissionerMoore) Onthisagain,foraquickreadonthis,Ididnoticethereappeartobemorealternativesonthis one[260FifthStreet]thantheotherone[900FolsomStreet]asfarasalternativestoproposed project.YouvegottheadaptivereuseredevelopmentonLot150,andthenyouvegoteither the addition in different places, addition with PDR space. So it looks like this perhaps addressessomeoftheconcernsandanalyzesdifferentthings.Andagain,ifthereareareasof all of thesedifferent alternatives that, you know, make any of them not be codecompliant notthatwecouldntgrantexceptionsaswaspointedout,butthenitmightbehelpfultohavean alternativethatwascodecompliant,youknow,justtoanalyzethat.
C&R55
C.
But it looks like thats been pretty thoroughly. I will have to study this a little more and interfaceitagainstwhatwaspassedineasternneighborhoodsandfigureout,youknow,where we areandcheck again on the impacts on theadjacent buildings and,you know,at a greater length. Butitseemstome,ifIamnotmistaken,wehaveacommentperiodandthenIguess,itcomes backforcertificationaftertheendofthecommentperiod. Andobviously,ifweanalyzeit,itanalyzesthe85footheight.Onewouldpresumethatalower heightwouldallbeconsideredintheanalysistoo. Usually, when you go higher is when your analysis is, you know, you havent looked at the impact.Ifyouhaveagreaterimpact,onewouldassumethelowerbuilding,youknow,would havelesserimpact. Yeah,Ithinkwearekindofjumpingahead,butIthinkwearecommentingonbothofthese.I lookedatthe260Fifth,andIdoseetheresanadaptivereusepartialpreservationalternative with PDR space on that one. I think theres one in the 900 Folsom also. So, you know, that seemstobewhatyouwouldexpectoutofanenvironmentalimpactreportandthatisthatthese alternatives are presented and it doesnt mean we are, you know, approving any particular project at this time, but we are looking at the analysis of these different projects. And then when the project comes before us, it has been adequately analyzed in the alternative. (CommissionerAntonini) Ithinkmyquestionwasanswered.Ithadtodowiththeproposedprojectandthenumberof exceptionsthatboththisoneandthenextonecomingupareaskingforversusnoversus,but thatswhattheEIRanalyzesandthereshouldbeanalternativeforacodecomplyingbuilding,I assume.(CommissionerSugaya) Yes. I would say that the adequacy of the document is not accurate then, because the alternatives provided within this document are no projects, no surface parking, and then an environmentally superior and thats it. There are no it does not actually analyze a code compliant project proposal, and that should be one of the alternatives explored. So that is somethingthatneedstobeansweredinthisEIR. MaybethisisjustaninadequacywithCEQA,butitseemslikeitwouldmakesensethatoneof thealternativeswouldactuallybewithintheparametersofthePlanningCodeasitexists. IwouldjustsayforthisEIRandforthenextone,ifwecanmakesurethatissomethingthatis addedthatwouldbegreat.(CommissionerBorden) Thatwasmyproblemalso.IappreciateMr.MekoscommentsparticularlywiththeClementina Alley. I think that is very pertinent in this instance because projects coming into the Eastern Neighborhoods are relatively new. I think that the public and the people who bring forth projectshavetounderstandthecriteriabywhichthisCommissionandDepartmentwilltakea lookatthings.
C&R56
C.
WeallknowhowlongittooktodoEasternNeighborhoodsandthethoughtthatwentintoit. Andtohavethesetwocomeinwiththenumberofexceptionstheyhaverightoffthebatand nothaveanyanalysisofacodecomplyingprojectisannoyingtome,anditwillbeonanyother projectsthatcomeforwardinthatmanner. Imnotsayingthatwedontgrantexceptions.Ofcourse,wegrantexceptions,andIknowwe arenotlookingatspecificsofaprojectbeforeusatthemoment,onlyattheEIR.ButIthinkthat wehavetosetthebasisforthat,andwehavetosetthetoneatthispoint.(PresidentMiguel) Response 6.1 The commentors address the proposed projects compliance with Planning Code requirements and the requested Planning Code exceptions or modifications. The comments also call for review of a project alternative that would not require the proposedPlanningCodeexceptionsormodifications. The project, if approved, would be code compliant, as it would not require any exceptions that are not permitted by the Planning Code; i.e., it would not require any specialzoningchangesorcodeamendments.Theproposedprojectwould,asstatedon DEIR p. 38, Project Description, Intended Uses of the EIR, require a number of exceptions and modifications that are outlined and permitted under Planning Code Section329,LargeProjectAuthorizationinEasternNeighborhoodsMixedUseDistricts exceptions (adopted in December 2008 as part of the Eastern Neighborhoods project). TheSection329processwascreatedaspartoftheEasternNeighborhoodsPlan,andis intended to permit modifications to certain Planning Code requirements when such modifications would result in a better overall project design. Such exceptions and modifications are permissible, provided that the Planning Commission makes certain findings, which would be considered as part of project approval process, including a publichearing.Theexceptionsandmodificationswouldbeconsideredandgrantedas provided under Planning Code Section 329(d), which sets forth the basis for such exceptions: (d) Exceptions. As a component of the review process under this Section 329, projectsmayseekspecificexceptionstotheprovisionsofthisCodeasprovided forbelow:
C&R57
C.
(1) (3)
Exceedingtheprincipallypermittedaccessoryresidentialparkingratiodescribed inSection151.1andpursuanttothecriteriatherein; ModificationofthehorizontalmassingbreaksrequiredbySection270.1inlight ofanyequivalentreductionofhorizontalscale,equivalentvolumeofreduction, anduniqueandsuperiorarchitecturaldesign,pursuanttothecriteriaofSection 270.1(d). Exceptionforrearyards,pursuanttotherequirementsofSection134(f); WherenotspecifiedelsewhereinthisSubsection(d),modificationofotherCode requirements which could otherwise be modified as a Planned Unit Development (as set forth in Section 304), irrespective of the zoning district in whichthepropertyislocated.
(7) (9)
The DEIR lists the Planning Code exceptions or modifications on DEIR p. 38, Project Description, Intended Uses of the EIR. As discussed in the Introduction to this document,p.C&R4,sincepublicationoftheDraftEIR,theprojectsponsorhasrevised severalelementsoftheproposedproject: The project would include 102 offstreet parking spaces, compared to 133 as presentedintheDEIR(areductionof31spaces).Theprojectwouldstillrequirean exceptionforprovidingoffstreetparkinginexcessofonespaceperfourresidential units, under Section 151.1; the total number of proposed parking spaces would be less than the maximum permitted with an exception. The reduced parking would eliminate parking spaces on the groundfloor level and there would be no Clementina Street driveway. Access to basementlevel parking would be via the proposeddrivewayfromTehamaStreet. The project would have offstreet loading spaces for two vansize vehicles in the basementlevelgaragecomparedtonooffstreetloadingspacesaspresentedinthe DEIR.TheprojectwouldmeetrequirementsunderSection152.1;theprojectwould notrequireanexceptiontoprovisionofoffstreetloading.
C&R58
C.
Therequiredexceptionsareasfollows:17 Exceptionforprovidingoffstreetparkinginexcessofonespaceperfourresidential units, pursuant to Planning Code Section 151.1, including findings under Section 151.1(f) that the additional parking would not unduly impact pedestrian spaces or movement,transitservice,bicyclemovement,ortheoveralltrafficmovementinthe area; would not degrade the overall urban design quality of the project; would be architecturally screened and, where appropriate, lined with active use; and would not diminish the quality and viability of existing or planned streetscape enhancements. Exception to the requirement for a 25 percentrear yard setback at the lowest story containing a dwelling unit (namely, the first story), pursuant to Planning Code Section134. Authorization for Modification of the Horizontal Massing Breaks pursuant to PlanningCodeSection270.1(d) Authorization for Modification to Dwelling Unit Exposure per Planning Code Section329 Authorization for Modification to Dwelling Unit Mix per Planning Code Section 207.6. TheDEIRdidnotincludeanalternativethatwouldnotrequirethenotedexceptionsor modifications.Contrarytothecommentersassertion,CEQAdoesnotrequireanalysis of a project that complies with the Planning Code and East South of Market Area Plan. Withregardtoprojectalternatives,DEIRp.109notes,asstatedinSection15126.6(a)of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effectsoftheproject,andevaluatethecomparativemeritsofthealternatives.
17
NotethatthereferencetoanexceptionunderPlanningCodeSection841onDEIRp.38isdeletedper therevisionsidentifiedinResponse2.1,p.C&R7.Thereferencetotheoffstreetloadingexceptionis deletedpertherevisionsidentifiedinResponse4.3,p.C&R26.
C&R59
C.
TheDEIRincludedthefollowingfouralternatives: A. B. C. D. AlternativeA:NoProject AlternativeB:AdaptiveReuse/Preservation,NewDevelopmentonLot150 AlternativeC:AdaptiveReuse/PartialPreservation,Additionto260FifthStreet AlternativeD:AdaptiveReuse/PartialPreservation,withPDRSpace
As stated on DEIR p. 109, Alternatives B and C were formulated to respond to the significantprojectlevelandcumulativeimpactonanhistoricalresource(thewarehouse building at 260 Fifth Street), and Alternative D was formulated to respond the significantprojectlevelandcumulativeimpactonanhistoricalresourceandtofurther respondtopotentialcumulativePDRlanduseimpactsoftheproposedproject.Anyof thealternativescouldbeimplementedunderCitycontrolsandwouldrequiremanyof thesameapprovalsastheproposedproject. Therefore, the DEIR did not evaluate a project alternative that would not require PlanningCodeexceptionsormodifications.Neitherthesignificantprojecteffectsonan historicalresourceoroncumulativePDRlanduseimpactsdiscussedintheDEIRwould bereducedoravoidedbysuchanalternative. A Project with No Permitted Exceptions is presented below for informational purposes,andcomparedtotheproposedprojectdesignandfeatures.Pleasenotethat the discussion of the Project with No Permitted Exceptions is related to the project designandprogramatthetimeofDEIRpublication.Asnotedabove,theprojectasnow proposed would provide fewer parking spaces, and would not require exceptions for provisionofoffstreetloading.FiguresC&R4andC&R5,onp.C&R61andp.C&R62 respectively,depictoveralldesignofaProjectwithNoPermittedExceptions,asviewed from Clementina Street looking northeast, and from Tehama Street looking southeast, respectively. As shown in Figure C&R3, the horizontal mass reduction prescribed by Planning Code Section 270.1(d), would intersect the rear yard setback prescribed by
C&R60
16 ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE THE SITE AT 260 5TH STREET HAS AN UNUSUAL SHAPE AND SHALLOW DEPTH. BECAUSE IF THE UNIQUE CONFIGURATION, THE HORIZONTAL MASS REDUCTION PRESCRIBED BY THE PLANNING CODE INTERSECTS THE REAR YARD SETBACK, CAUSING THE BUILDING TO BE CUT IN HALF. BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION, EACH BUILDING MUST HAVE 2 EXIT STAIRS AND AN ELEVATOR TOWER. THIS DUPLICATION OF CIRCULATION CAUSES A COMBINED LOSS OF 1 UNIT X 7 FLOORS, OR 7 UNITS.
NON-HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT AS ALLOWED BY SECTION 263.21
85 BUILDING HEIGHT
C&R-61
ALLEY WAY LIGHT PLAN SETBACK - 10 ABOVE 50 (1.25 X WIDTH OF ALLEY) -76,000 CU. FT.
BAY PROJECTIONS AS PERMITTED BY THE SF PLANNING CODE, SEC. 136
30 W X 60 D X 66 H HORIZONTAL MASS REDUCTION AT 200 - LOSS OF 6 UNITS
SOURCE: Architecture International, 2009.
FIGURE C&R-3: PROJECT WITH NO PLANNING CODE EXCEPTIONS - VIEW FROM CLEMENTINA LOOKING NORTHEAST
DEPTH OF BUILDING AFTER ALLEYWAY LIGHT PLANE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS IS TOO NARROW TO ALLOW FOR A DOUBLE LOADED CORRIDOR. LOSS OF 6 UNITS X 4 FLOORS = 24 UNITS ALLEY WAY LIGHT PLANE SET-BACK, SOUTH SIDE OF TEHAMA - 14,625 CU.FT. ALLEYWAY LIGHT PLAN SETBACK - NORTH SIDE OF CLEMENTINA
BACK SIDE OF HORIZONTAL MASS REDUCTION ALONG FOLSOM INTERSECTS REAR YARD SETBACK AT INSIDE CORNER OF THE BUILDING.
REAR YARD SETBACK - 25% OF LOT DEPTH
C&R-62
SOURCE: Architecture International, 2009.
260 FIFTH STREET VIEW FROM TEHAMA LOOKING SOUTH EAST MASSING DIAGRAM SHOWING A BUILDING WITH NO PERMITTED MODIFICATIONS 900 FOLSOM / 260 FIFTH STREET
FIGURE C&R-4: PROJECT WITH NO PLANNING CODE EXCEPTIONS - VIEW FROM TEHAMA LOOKING SOUTHEAST
C.
Section 134. This would require the project to be designed as separate towers. Each tower would need two exits (staircase) and an elevator. The building would include permittednonoccupiablespaceupto85feet. The reduced building space resulting from the horizontal massing break, rear yard setback, and dwelling unit exposure with the Project with No Permitted Exceptions wouldinclude142dwellingunits,comparedto179unitswiththeproposedproject. Therewouldbe36parkingspaces,a1:4ratioofparkingspacestodwellingunits,with noexceptionsperSection151;therewouldbeoffstreetloadingspace,perSection152. TheProjectwithNoPermittedExceptionswouldhaveaunitmixwith40percenttwo bedroomorlarger,andwouldnotrequireanexceptionunderSection207.6. TheProjectwithNoPermittedExceptionswouldnotreduceoravoidsignificantproject effects on an historical resource or on cumulative PDR land use impacts. The Project withNoPermittedExceptionswouldgeneratefewerpersontripsandvehicletripsand would reduce parking demand compared to the proposed project, and would not change the conclusions on the lessthansignificant project impacts on traffic, parking, loading, pedestrian, and bicycle impacts, presented in DEIR Section III.B, Transportation. The Project with No Permitted Exceptions would not change conclusions on other effects discussed in the Initial Study, DEIR Appendix A, with regard to lessthansignificant impacts related to project design or massing, including aesthetics,visualresources,orshadoweffects. The project sponsor believes that a Project with No Permitted Exceptions would limit attainmentofprojectobjectivesanddecreasefeasibility,byreducinghousingdensityat an urban infill location by about 37 units; decreasing housing affordability due to inefficient and larger units (920 sf compared with 829 sf); limiting design features by using standard popout windows and loss of the glass bridge; and requiring two building cores with separate elevator towers, emergency exits, and other duplicative structure,therebyincreasingthecostofthehousing.
C&R63
C.
Comment 6.2 HPC [The Historic Preservation Commission] stated that Alternative B (Adaptive Reuse/PreservationNew Development on lot 150) would be preferred over the proposed project, but understood that the alternative may not be feasible for the Project Sponsor. (CourtneyDamkroger,President,HistoricPreservationCommission,August31,2009) Response 6.2 ThecommentorexpressesapreferenceforAlternativeBovertheproposedproject.As described on DEIR p. 115, Alternative B: Adaptive Reuse/Preservation New Development on Lot 150, would respond to the significant projectspecific and cumulative impacts that would occur with the proposed project due to the loss of an historical resource (the 260 Fifth Street building) on the project site. This alternative would also respond to potential archaeological and paleontological impacts that could resultfromexcavationfortheproposedprojectsbasementlevelparking. Alternative B would adaptively reuse the existing twostory warehouse building and construct an approximately 60foottall, sixstory building on the existing surface parkinglot(Lot150)onthenorthernportionoftheprojectsite.AsstatedDEIRpp.119 120,AlternativeBwouldfeasiblyattainmost,butnotall,ofthebasicobjectivesofthe project. It would create a highquality, sustainable, welldesigned project that is responsivetothesurroundingneighborhood;provideresidentialandretailmixeduses consistent with land use and design goals adopted for the Eastern Neighborhoods; create transitoriented housing opportunities located in Downtown San Francisco; and provide the required 15 percent BMR units to contribute to the Citys supply of moderate income housing. However, because the adaptively reused building at 260 Fifth Street would not be LEED certified (though the new sixstory building would be LEEDcertified),AlternativeBwouldnotfullymeettheprojectobjectivetoconstructa project that will qualify for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Goldcertification.Finally,thecreationof46ratherthan179newdwellingunitswould produce 26 percent of the housing that would otherwise be accommodated on the projectsite,thusadverselyaffectingtheCitystotalhousingsupply.
C&R64
C.
If the Planning Commission were to approve the proposed project, despite significant impacts to historic resources that cannot be mitigated, the Planning Commission must adopt findings, under CEQA Guidelines Section15093. Those findings, called a StatementofOverridingConsiderations,mustbesupportedbysubstantialevidencein the record, and are used to explain the reasons why the specific economic, social, or otherbenefitsoftheproposedprojectwouldmakeitsunavoidableenvironmentaleffects acceptable. 7. INITIAL STUDY
Population and Housing Comment 7.1 Regarding the goal of providing housing, please explain the current supply and demand for marketratehousingattheanticipatedsalesprices(notedonp.26).(SueHestor,September15, 2009) FinancingofthisprojectiscomingfromCalPERS,whichistheretirementsystemforCalifornia Public Employees. Please provide information on the average INCOME LEVELS of California PublicEmployees,aswellastheaveragepensions.COULDTHEYAFFORDTOLIVEINTHE HOUSINGBEINGPRODUCEDONTHISSITE?Theprojectedsalespricesformarketrateunits is$500,000$1.2million.Whatlevelofincomeisnecessarytobuyoneofthoseunits? ProvideinformationonthecumulativeamountofhousingbeingproposedinthegreaterSOMA (SOMAiscutupintoMANYplanningareasseecommentbelow)andthehousingNEEDED inSanFranciscoperthatneededperHousingElementstandards. There is PLENTY of information on how housing in the EN, particularly that near freeway ramps,isbeingheavilyoccupiedbypersonswhoworkinSiliconValley.Itispartlyaresultof the relative youth of that work force and their desire to be in a more active residential environment.Itispartlyaresultoftheirwellpaidjobs,whichgivethemtheabilitytopaymore forhousingcomparedtotheSanFranciscoworkforce,particularlyserviceworkers.Itispartly thetypeofhousingbeingconstructed,whichisnotwellsuitedforfamilies.Anditistheeaseof accesstofreewayrampsinthisarea.Pleasediscuss.(SueHestor,September15,2009) Response 7.1 Thecommentorrequestsinformationonthecurrentsupplyanddemandformarketrate housing,affordabilityandotherhousingbeingproposedinSOMA.DEIRAppendixA, InitialStudy,pp.3033discusseshousing,includingaffordablehousing,andpopulation
C&R65
C.
topics and concludes that the proposed project would have a lessthansignificant cumulative impact on population and housing. The additional (social or economic information) requested on the level of income necessary to buy a unit in the proposed buildingisnotrelevanttotheadequacyoftheDEIR. AsstatedinDEIRAppendixA,InitialStudy,p.32,incompliancewiththeResidential InclusionaryAffordableHousingProgram,atleast15percentoftheproposedprojects housingunitswouldbeaffordable(2009maximumincomelimitsfornomorethan100 percent median income include: no more than $60,500 for a one person household, no morethan$69,100foratwopersonhousehold.Themedianincomelimitsincreasefor larger families).18 The proposed project would, therefore, incrementally facilitate the CitysabilitytomeetitshousingneedsasexpressedintheCitysGeneralPlan,given that a key focus of the Housing Element is to provide new affordable housing and maintaintheaffordabilityofthathousing. InitialStudyp.32alsostates,ithasbeenarguedthatrecentandongoingdevelopment in formerly light industrial neighborhoods such as SoMa and the Mission District has hadanadversecumulativeeffectontheavailabilityandcostofsitespotentiallysuitable to accommodate affordable housing and supportive services for lowerincome and homeless persons. This argument posits that, as developers acquire sites at relatively lower land costs in these neighborhoods, nonprofit developers and service providers are increasingly less able to afford locations for the construction of affordable housing projects and related services. Because the proposed project would provide at least 15 percent affordable housing, it would not contribute to the potential cumulative effect hypothesized above. For this reason, the impact on affordable housing would be less thansignificant. Cumulative development in the project vicinity, including the proposed 900 Folsom Street Project and development that could occur under the proposed Eastern
18
San Francisco Mayors Office of Housing, 2009 Qualifying Income Maximum Amounts, available onlineat:http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/moh_page.asp?id=48083.
C&R66
C.
Neighborhoods rezoning, would induce substantial growth and concentration of populationinSanFrancisco,butisnotanticipatedtoresultinsignificantadverseeffects. Implementation of the proposed rezoning and area plans would increase the housing supply potential in the Eastern Neighborhoods and citywide. Although gentrification and displacement of lower income households could result over time, there would be moresupplyrelativetodemand,morehousingchoices,andmore(relatively)affordable housingunitsdevelopedbecausetheInclusionaryAffordableHousingProgramwould require belowmarketrate units be developed in conjunction with marketrate projects offiveormoreunits.Cumulativepopulationandhousingimpacts,therefore,wouldbe lessthansignificant. A substantial amount of housing in proposed in the SoMa and the surrounding neighborhoods. As stated in the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Community PlansFinalEIR,Theproposedrezoningwouldresultinmorehousingsupplypotential in the Eastern Neighborhoods and in San Francisco than would be the case under existingplansandzoning.Underexistingzoning,infillsitesthroughouttheCitythatare suitableforresidentialdevelopment(includingthepotentialforabout3,500unitsinthe Eastern Neighborhoods) have the potential to provide an additional 29,000 units of housing.Theproposedrezoning wouldalmostdoublethehousingsupplypotentialin SanFrancisco.19 Thecommentregardingoccupationofunitsnearfreewayrampsbypersonswhowork inSiliconValleyisnotrelevanttotheadequacyoftheDEIR. Air Quality and Noise Comment 7.2 Oursecondconcernisthedustcontrolandconstructionimpact.Thelargeconcretewallthatis slatedfordemolitionisonthepropertylineofourbackyard.Itwouldseemthattheremovalof
19
Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Community Plans Final EIR, Appendix A, p. 38. Planning Department Case No. 2004.0160E. The EIR is on file for public review at the Planning Department, 1650MissionStreetSuite4000aspartofCaseNo.2004.0160E.AlsoavailableontheMEAwebsiteat: http://www.sfplanning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=4001.
C&R67
C.
this wall would result in much dust and dirt. The wall needs to be watered down during demolitiontopreventdustandpossiblynettedorcleanedandswept,butthereappearstobeno spacetodoso,oraccessfromanystreetforthatpurpose.Alsotheconstructionwouldbelikely to disturb the existing wall between our property and existing parking lot. We are concerned about the air quality and noise issues affecting 409, 411413 Tehama Street both from the constructionandfromthesubsequentgarageentranceuse. (JamesW.Funsten,September14,
2009)
Response 7.2 As stated in DEIR Appendix A, Initial Study, pp. 3940, construction emissions during demolition,foundationexcavation,andsitegradingcouldcauseadverseeffectsonlocal airqualitybyaddingwindblowndusttotheparticulatematterintheatmospherewhile soilisexposed.TheInitialStudyrecommendedimplementationofMitigationMeasure 1,ConstructionAirQuality,describedinAppendixA,InitialStudy,p.70,toreducethe air emission effects of construction activities to a lessthansignificant level. Since the publication of the Initial Study, the City has adopted the Dust Control Ordinance (Ordinance17608,effectiveJuly30,2008),theintentofwhichistoreducethequantity ofdustgeneratedduringsitepreparation,demolitionandconstructionworkinorderto protect the health of the general public and of onsite workers, to minimize public nuisance complaints, and to avoid orders to stop work by the DBI. The Dust Control Ordinance requires project sponsors and responsible contractors for construction activitiestocontrolconstructiondustonthesiteorimplementotherpracticesthatresult in equivalent dust control that are acceptable to the Director of SFDPH. Dust suppressionactivitiesmayincludewateringallactiveconstructionareassufficientlyto prevent dust from becoming airborne; increased watering frequency may be necessary wheneverwindspeedsexceed15milesperhour.MitigationMeasureMAQ1hasbeen revised to remove construction dustrelated measures (see below). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MAQ1 would be required to reduce constructionrelated air quality impacts resulting from diesel emissions to a lessthansignificant level. The project sponsor would implement this mitigation measure and is subject to the Dust Control Ordinance; hence, the project would not causesignificantconstructionrelatedairqualityeffects.Thedustcontrolplanisapublic
C&R68
C.
document and would be available for review by interested parties after approval by SFDPH. If the commenter believes the dust control plan is not being adhered to, complaintscanbefiledwiththeEnvironmentalHealthAirQualitySectionofSFDPH at(415)2523911.Inaddition,theprojectsponsorwouldprovideacommunityliaison during the construction of the project, as a contact point who would help resolve constructionnoiseandairqualityissues. Demolition of the existing structure would occur in stages allowing access to areas where the existing structure may be on or adjacent to property lines. The proposed projectwouldbesubjecttotheDustControlOrdinanceduringallstagesofdemolition andconstruction. MitigationMeasure1onp.70oftheInitialStudyisrevisedasfollows: MitigationMeasure1:ConstructionAirQuality The Project Sponsor shall require the contractor(s) to spray the site with water during demolition, excavation, and construction activities; spray unpaved construction areas with water at least twice per day; cover stockpiles of soil, sand,andothermaterial;covertruckshaulingdebris,soils,sand,orothersuch material; and sweep surrounding streets during demolition, excavation, and constructionatleastonceperdaytoreduceparticulateemissions. Ordinance17591,passedbytheBoardofSupervisorsonMay6,1991,requires thatnonpotablewaterbeusedfordustcontrolactivities.Therefore,theProject Sponsorshallrequirethecontractor(s)toobtainreclaimedwaterfromtheClean Water Program for this purpose. The Project Sponsor shall require the project contractor(s)tomaintainandoperateconstructionequipmentsoastominimize exhaust emissions of particulates and other pollutants, by such means as a prohibition on idling motors when equipment is not in use or when trucks are waiting in queues, and to implement specific maintenance programs to reduce emissions for equipment that would be in frequent use for much of the constructionperiod. As stated in DEIR Appendix A, Initial Study, pp. 3637, demolition, excavation, and project construction would temporarily increase noise in the project vicinity.
C&R69
C.
Construction would take about 21 to 27 months. During the majority of construction activity, noise levels would be above existing levels in the project area. However, compliance with the Noise Ordinance would reduce potential construction noise impactstoalessthansignificantlevel. Potential effects on adjacent properties during excavation and construction are consideredduringtheCitysbuildingpermitprocess.AsstatedinDEIRAppendixA, InitialStudy,pp.5859,Inreviewingthefinalbuildingplans,theDBIreferstoavariety of information sources to determine existing hazards and assess requirements for development. Sources reviewed include maps of Special Geologic Study Areas and known landslide areas in San Francisco as well as the building inspectors working knowledge of areas of special geologic concern. During the DBIs review of building permits for the site, they would require the preparation of an updated geotechnical report. In addition, the DBI could require that additional sitespecific soils report(s) be prepared in conjunction with permit applications, as needed. Potential damage to structures from geologic hazards would be mitigated through the DBI review of the building permit application and implementation of the Building Code. In view of the above discussion, the proposed project would not have a significant effect related to geologic hazards. Implementation of those code requirements would avoid risks of damagetothe409,411413TehamaStreetstructureadjacenttotheprojectsite. TrafficrelatedairqualityandnoiseimpactsaffectingotherresidentialusesonTehama Streetresultingfromtheautomobilesenteringandexitingtheparkinggaragewouldbe lessthansignificant.AsstatedintheDEIRAppendixA,InitialStudy,p.39,TheBay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established thresholds for projectsrequiringitsreviewforpotentialairqualityimpacts.Thesethresholdsarebased on the minimum size project which the BAAQMD considers capable of generating emissionswiththepotentialtoexceedthethresholdsof80poundsperdayforreactive organicgases(ROG),nitrogenoxides(NOx),andparticulatematterwithadiameterof lessthan10microns(PM10).TheBAAQMDconsidersresidentialprojectsgreaterthan
C&R70
C.
510apartmentunits,officeprojectsgreaterthan280,000gsf,retaildevelopmentgreater than87,000squarefeet,andprojectsthatwouldgeneratemorethan2,000vehicletrips per day as candidates for potentially significant vehicular emissions. Since the project includes up to 175 units and about 5,719 square feet of retail development and would result in approximately 483 daily vehicle trips, it would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold and no significant air quality impacts due to vehicular emissions are anticipatedfromtheproject. AsstatedintheDEIRAppendixA,InitialStudy,pp.3637,Trafficnoisecreatedbythe projectwouldbeattributabletoadditionalautomobilesandlimitedtruckdeliveries,and thegeneralcomingandgoingofresidents,employees,andothervisitors.Preliminary review indicates that the proposed project would result in approximately 483 daily vehicle trips and 69 PM peakhour trips.20 An increase of 483 daily trips would contribute to traffic noise levels by only a small amount compared to existing noise levels on the surrounding streets. The proposed project traffic would result in an approximate increase of 0.1 dBA21 during the PM peak hour along Fifth Street on the projectblock(betweenFolsomStreetandHowardStreet),andlessthan0.1dBAincrease duringthePMpeakhouralongotherroadwaysegmentsintheprojectvicinity.22Given theenvironmentalconditionswithintheCitywheretrafficnoiselevelsalongCitystreets arebetweenabout60dBAand70dBA,anoiselevelincreaseof0.1dBAwouldnotbe perceptible. Therefore, the projectgenerated traffic would not cause a significant increaseintheambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinity.
CHSConsulting,900FolsomStreetand260FifthStreetProjectsTransportationStudy,Memorandum to PBS&J, November 2007. This document is available for public review by appointment at the PlanningDepartment,1650MissionStreet,Suite400,aspartofCaseNo.2007.0690E. 21 PBS&J, Memorandum Re: 260 Fifth Street Air Quality and Noise Calculations, April 15, 2008. This document isavailableforpublic review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650Mission Street,Suite400,aspartofCaseNo.2007.0690E. 22 PBS&J, Memorandum Re: 260 Fifth Street Air Quality and Noise Calculations, April 15, 2008. This document isavailableforpublic review by appointment at the Planning Department, 1650Mission Street,Suite400,aspartofCaseNo.2007.0690E.
20
C&R71
C.
As discussed above, compliance with existing regulations, building permit processes, and implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential construction related impacts on surrounding uses to lessthansignificant levels. Potential air quality and noise impacts related to the driveway use on Tehama Street wouldalsobelessthansignificant. Utilities and Service Systems Comment 7.3 Myfirstcomment:Atthe11AugustMeetingoftheallianceAGImadeapresentation.Atthat meeting Jim Meko of Western Zones comments that there is already a brownout electrical problem in SOMA when all the clubs are in operation. Could you discuss what plans the developer needs to address to mitigate this possible problem? Since the project sponsors answer to that question was: We are paying 1.1 million to the PUC to mitigate utility problems,theelectricGridisnotundertheJurisdictionofthePUCbutthatofPG&E. Second, the question of LowWater Pressure was brought up, so could you discuss the mitigationmeasurestoensurethattheadditionof450totalunits,271ofFolsom,&174on5th St?Dontmakethisproblemworse.(MarvisJ.Phillips,August13,2009) Response 7.3 AsdiscussedintheEasternNeighborhoodsRezoningandCommunityPlansFinalEIR InitialStudy,SanFranciscoispromotingandundertakingelectricityproductionthrough distributed generation, which involves many smaller powergenerating facilities, as opposedtotraditionalcentralizedplants.23Forexample,in2003,theCityinstalleda675 kilowatt solar power array atop Moscone Convention Center and in 2005 installed another255kilowattsofsolargenerationattheSoutheastWastewaterTreatmentPlant and approved the installation of solar panels on the North Point Wet Weather Facility and at Norcal Waste Systems Recycle Central facility at Pier 96. Together, these four facilitieswillhavethecapacitytogeneratemorethan1.5megawatts.Finally,theCityis also actively promoting energy conservation through such projects as improving
23
Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Community Plans Final EIR, Appendix A, p. 38. Planning Department Case No. 2004.0160E. The EIR is on file for public review at the Planning Department, 1650MissionStreetSuite4000aspartofCaseNo.2004.0160E.AlsoavailableontheMEAwebsiteat: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/EN_FinalEIR_Part13_Appendices.pdf
C&R72
C.
efficiency in public buildings and encouraging businesses and residents to conserve through programs operated by the Department of the Environment and the San FranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommission(SFPUC).InSanFrancisco,gasandelectricityare generallydistributedbyPG&Eandtheprimarycommunication(telephone)networkis generallyownedandoperatedbySBC.Overthepastdecades,communitiessuchasSan Franciscohavebeenconnectedwithhardwireandfiberopticsystemstoprovideaccess to telephone, cable television, internet, and other digital services. The Eastern Neighborhoods are currently served by such utilities and subsequent future developmentprojectsthatwouldbefosteredwiththeEasternNeighborhoodRezoning andCommunityPlanscouldtapintoexistingpowerandcommunicationsgrids. Because the project area is intensively developed, provision of additional electrical serviceswouldbelimitedineffecttotemporaryconstructionperiodimpactssuchasin street trenching. These effects, common in urban area, would not be considered significant.ThatconclusionisconsistentwithDEIRAppendixA,InitialStudy,p.68and the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Community Plans Final EIR Initial Study, pp.3640.24 DEIR, Appendix A, Initial Study, p. 53, states that the project would not exceed the SFPUC Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) water supply projections and/or needs.Noadditionalconstructionofwatersupplyinfrastructurewouldberequiredto servetheprojectorcumulativedevelopment. TheUWMPestimatescitywidewaterdemand,includingallforeseeabledevelopmentin San Francisco, through 2030, based on growth projections prepared by the Planning Department and ABAG. The SFPUCs forecast of future water use in San Francisco reliesupontheresidentialprojectionsusedbythePlanningDepartmentinthisEIR,and upon the employment projections of ABAGs Projections 2002 which are greater than
24
C&R73
C.
the Planning Department estimate of future job growth. Therefore, the 2005 UWMP accounts for and accommodates the increased residential population and changes in employment foreseen by the three project options. The Eastern Neighborhood Rezoning, including the proposed project, would not require a major expansion of the SFPUCs water facilities, nor would it adversely affect the Citys water supply.25 Any issues related with water supply and/or pressure would be interim and localized, and would be upgraded as a perneed basis. Overall, it is expected that adequate water pressureandsupplywouldservetheproposedproject. Basedontheabovediscussionofelectricityandwateravailability(includingsupplyand pressure), the project would not, in and of itself, require a major expansion of power facilities nor would major new water facilities be required. Therefore, the proposed projectwouldnotresultinasignificantphysicalenvironmentaleffectonwatersupply andelectricity.ThatconclusionisconsistentwithDEIRAppendixA,InitialStudy,p.53. Hydrology and Water Quality Comment 7.4 Third.Wewholivehereknowofthestormwaterbackupandoverflowduringwinter,please discuss the mitigation measures the project sponsor is taking or suppose to take when this problemarises.WedontneedrawsewerflowingonFolsombecausethesystemisovertaxed. (MarvisJ.Phillips,August13,2009) Response 7.4 Thecommentorisconcernedaboutstormwaterbackupandoverflowsduringwinter. As stated in Appendix A, Initial Study, p. 53, of the DEIR, projectrelated wastewater andstormwaterwouldflowtotheCityscombinedstormwaterandsewersystemand would be treated to standards contained in the Citys National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant priortodischargeintotheBay.Theprojectwouldnotrequiresubstantialexpansionof wastewater/stormwatertreatmentfacilitiesoranextensionofasewertrunklineasthe
25
Ibid,p.34.
C&R74
C.
siteiscurrentlyservedbyexistingfacilities.Currentsewersystemisadequatetohandle thenewwastewater/stormwaterthatwouldresultfromtheproposedproject. AsdescribedintheEasternNeighborhoodsRezoningandCommunityPlansFinalEIR InitialStudy,theSFPUChasidentifiedalargeareaoftheSouthofMarketmostlyin the western portion, but including blocks in Eastern SoMa west of Third Street and in Showplace Square where existing deficiencies in the sewer system have resulted in floodingduringperiodsofheavyrain.26Theseproblemstypicallyrelatetotheelevation of the street (or building basement, where applicable) being below the grade of the sewerline,andcanresultininteriorfloodingwhenwastewater(primarilystormrunoff) flows back through the buildings sewer pipes during heavy rains. As a result, the SFPUC has begun requiring review by Department of Public Works (DPW) hydraulic engineers of building permits in this area so that improvements can be made on a projectbyprojectbasistoensurethatpropertiesareremovedfromriskofflooding.For propertiespronetofloodingbecauseofthegradedifferentialbetweenthebuildingand the sewer main, a building permit application could trigger a requirement to install a valve to prevent reverse sewage flow, along with ensuring that the buildings internal sewer piping can store buildinggenerated wastewater until storm flows recede and building flows can enter the sewer. In some instances where building floor levels are particularlylowrelativetothesewermain,pumpscouldberequiredtoforcebuilding wastewaterflowintothemain.ThisDPWSFPUCreview processwillensure,as older buildingsarerenovatedandnewstructuresarebuilt,thatlocalizedinternalfloodingin theSoMaandShowplaceSquareareasisgraduallyeliminatedasaconcern.
26
C&R75
C.
Other Topics Comment 7.5 Thankyou.JimMeko.Again,364TenthStreet.IwouldsimplypointoutthatIthinkthisis moretheportionofthisdevelopmentthatCommissionerOlaguewasreferringtowithitsbeing adjacenttoClementinaTowers.SothereareissueswhichIdobelievetheDepartmentofPublic Health would want to have analyzed with their health and development measurement tool. Thankyou.(JimMeko,September18,2009) Response 7.5 TheSFDPHHealthyDevelopmentMeasurementTool(HDMT)useschecklisttoreview a number of factors based on, among others, a proposed projects energy conservation features, residential density on infill sites, transportation conditions encouraging or avoidingadverseeffectsonpedestrianorbicycleuse,noiseandairqualityeffects,and access to open space and community services. The tool is intended to help public agenciesevaluatedevelopmentplansagainsttargetsforhealthydevelopment. The HDMT has not as yet been applied to the proposed project. However, this EIR, including the Initial Study, found that the proposed project would not have adverse effectsrelatedtoenergyuse,transportation,noise,airquality,oraccesstoopenspaceor community services, and the project would be expected to meet SFDPH goals of encouraginghealthydevelopment.
C&R76
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
D.
DRAFT EIR REVISIONS
Below are revisions to the DEIR. Revisions have been made in response to public comments that have been made on the DEIR. Changesmade in response to commentsare listed below. DeletionstotheDEIRtextareshownwithstrikethroughandadditionsareshownwithdouble underline. TEXT CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DEIRp.1,paragraphthree,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would have about 143,229 gross square feet (gsf) of residential space, with up to 179 residential townhouse, studio, onebedroom and twobedroom units,5,173gsfofgroundlevelretailspacefrontingFifthStreet,and14,320gsfofopen space/commonareas,andapproximately133102parkingspaces. DEIRp.2,paragraphtwo,isrevisedasfollows: Theproposedprojectwouldhaveapproximately31,917gsfofparkingandwouldhave 133 102 parking spaces (including triplestackers27). Approximately 15% of parking spaceswouldbeatgroundlevel,andtheremaining85%Allofparkingspaceswouldbe inabelowgradegaragewithaccessviaarampfromTehamaStreet.Therewouldbe60 bicyclespacesinthegroundfloorgarage. DEIR p. 2, paragraph three and p. 46, paragraph one, are revised as follows (the paragraph includeschangestotheloadingexceptiondiscussedunderResponse4.3,p.C&R30): The project site is located within a Mixed UseResidential (MUR) zone. The proposed projectwouldrequirePlanningCommissionreviewforexceptionsunderPlanningCode Section 329 Large Project Authorization in Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed Use Districts. Section 329 review is triggered because the project sponsor proposes constructionofanewbuildinggreaterthan75feetinheight,resultinginanetaddition of more than 25,000 gsf. The proposed project would require approval of exceptions throughtheSection329reviewprocessfor:(a)exceptionforprovidingoffstreetparking inexcessofonespaceperfourresidentialunits;(b)exceptiontoallowfortheprovision
27
Stackersarehydraulicliftsthatallowmorethanonevehicletoparkinaparkingspace.Thisproject proposes using 46 stackers, each of which will allow three cars to park in a stacked formation in a singleparkingspace,providing138parkingspaceswheretherewouldotherwisebeonly46parking spaces.
C&R77
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
of no offstreet freight loading spaces, where one space would otherwise be required, pursuant to Planning Code Section 152.1; (c b) exception to the requirement for a 25 percentrearyardsetbackattheloweststorycontainingadwellingunit(namely,thefirst story),pursuanttoPlanningCodeSection134;(dc)authorizationforModificationofthe Horizontal Massing Breaks pursuant to Planning Code Section 270.1 (d); (e d) authorization for Modification to Dwelling Unit Exposure per Planning Code Section 329;(fe)authorizationforModificationtoDwellingUnitMixperPlanningCodeSection 207.6; and (g f) exception to allow the construction of fewer than 40 percent two bedroomorlargerunits,pursuanttoPlanningCodeSection841.Theproposedproject wouldinclude2022percenttwobedroomortownhouseunits(atotalof3640units).
C&R78
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
ThedescriptionoftheproposedprojectinTableS2,DEIRp.10isrevisedasshownbelowonp.C&R79.
TABLE S-2 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT (REVISED) B: Adaptive Reuse/ Preservation, New Development on Lot 50
46dwellingunits. 2,660gsfretail. 24atgradeparkingspaces. Oneapproximately35foot tall,twostorybuildingand oneapproximately60foot tall,sixstorybuildingwith connectingcorridor. Preservationoftwostory structure,whichwouldnot beLEEDrated. Newsixstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated.
Project
Description 179dwellingunits. 5,173gsfretail.
A: No Project
Nochangeatsite. 42,000gsfoffice/art gallery.

80dwellingunits. 2,660gsfretail. 24atgradeparkingspaces Oneapproximately55foot tall,fourstorybuildingand oneapproximately60foot tall,sixstorybuildingwith connectingcorridor. Preservationoftwostory structure. Newsixstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated; secondstructurewould includetwoLEEDrated upperstoriesatopanon LEEDratedtwostorybase.

52dwellingunits. Noretailspace. 37atgradeparkingspaces. 28,645gsfPDR. Twoapproximately55foot tall,fourstorybuildingswith connectingcorridor. Preservationoforiginaltwo storystructure. Newfourstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated;second structurewouldincludetwo LEEDratedupperstoriesatop anonLEEDratedtwostory base.
133102belowgradeparking spaces:15percentbelowgrade 35atgradeparking and85percentatgradeparking spaces. spaces. Onetwostory structure(with One85foottall,ninestory mezzanine). buildingwithtwowings BuildingwouldbeLEEDrated Gold. 2loadingspaces Structurewould remainnonLEED rated.
C&R79
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
DEIRp.15,paragraphthree,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: Thenewbuildingwouldcontainupto179residentialunits,approximately14,320gross square feet (gsf) of open space and 2,888 gsf of lobby/amenities/common areas, approximately5,173gsfofgroundlevelretailspace,and133102parkingspaces. DEIR p. 15, paragraph three, is revised as follows (the paragraph includes changes to the loadingexceptiondiscussedunderResponse4.3,p.C&R30): Prior to developing the proposed project, and subject to certification of this EIR and adoptionoffindingsunderCEQA,theproposedprojectwouldrequireapprovalunder Section329ofthePlanningCodefor(a)itsprovisionofmorethanoneparkingspaceper four residential units, (b) its provision of less than 25 percent rear yard setback at the loweststorycontainingadwellingunit(thefirstfloor),(c)itsfailuretoprovidebuilding massingasprescribedunderthePlanningCodeforthislocation,(d)itsfailuretoprovide two required offstreet freight loading spaces, and (e d) its nonconforming bedroom count ratio. (The Mixed Use Residential, or MUR, zoning requires that 40 percent of the total unit mix be twobedroom units, and encourages threebedroom units. The proposed project would include 2022percent twobedroom or townhome units.) The project would be consistent with the MUR zoning and the East SoMa Area Plan in all waysotherthanthosenotedabove. DEIRp.17,paragraphthree,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: AspresentedinChapterII,ProjectDescription,pp2139,thisEIRanalyzesaproposed project with 179 residential units and 133 102 parking spaces. (including the proposed basementparkinglevel),whilethepreviousprojectwasfor175residentialunitsand177 offstreetparkingspaces. DEIRp.21,fifthbulletunderProjectObjectivesisrevisedasfollows: Provide 15 percent BMR units to contribute to the Citys supply of affordable housing;and
DEIRp.24,paragraphfour,sentencefour,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would have 31,917 gsf of parking and would provide approximately133102parkingspaces(includingstackers).
C&R80
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
LoadinginformationinTableII1oftheDEIR,p.25,isrevisedasfollows:
TABLE II-1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS (REVISED) Use/Characteristics Residential Retail LobbyandAmenities CoreCirculationandService TOTALGSF(notinc.parking,openspace) Parking OpenSpace DwellingUnits VehicleParkingSpaces BicycleParkingSpaces LoadingSpaces HeightofBuilding NumberofStories
Source:AGICapital,2008.
Total Proposed Project Area/Amount 143,229gsf 5,173gsf 2,888gsf 20,168gsf 211,199 gsf 31,917gsf 14,320gsf 179units 133102spaces 60spaces 02 85feet 9
DEIRp.25,paragraphthree,isrevisedtoaddthefollowingsentenceaftersentencetwo: ThelobbyonFifthStreetwouldincludeapublicallyaccessibledisplaydocumentingthe historyofthe260FifthStreetbuilding. Toclarifytheunitmix,DEIRp.26,paragraphthree,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would contain a total of 179 dwelling units. Of the 179 dwelling units, there would be 139 studios and onebedroom units, 33 two and threebedroom units, and seven townhouses. Approximately 22 percent (40 units) of the units would havetwoormorebedroomsand23percent(41units)oftheunitswouldbejuniortwo bedrooms. At least fifteen percent of the total units would be designated as Below MarketRate(BMR)asrequiredbyPlanningCodeSection315,theResidentialAffordable Housing Program. Sales prices for marketrate units (approximately 151 units) would range from $500,000 to $1,200,000. Sales prices for belowmarketrate units (approximately27units)wouldrangefrom$150,000to$250,000.
C&R81
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
DEIRp.26,paragraphfour,isrevisedasfollows: The proposed project would have approximately 31,917 gsf of parking and would provide 133 102 parking spaces (including triplestackers28) on two stories. Most projectparking,114parkingspaces,wouldbeprovidedinainonebelowgradegarage, accessed by way of an entry/exit ramp from Tehama Street. The remaining 19 parking spaces would be atgrade, in a garage adjacent to the ground floor retail uses and residentlobby,withdirectaccessfromClementinaStreet. Figure 5 (Proposed Ground Level Plan) of the DEIR, p. 29, is revised to illustrate the revised groundfloorplanisrevisedasshownonp.C&R29. DEIRp.37,paragraphone,isrevisedasfollows: BothgaragelevelsThebelowgradegaragewouldprovidedirectaccesstotheresident lobby.Therewouldbe60bicyclespacesinonthegroundfloorgarage. DEIRp.38,bulletseven,isdeletedasfollows: Exceptiontoallowtheconstructionoffewerthan40percenttwobedroomorlarger units,pursuanttoPlanningCodeSection841. DEIRp.58,paragraphone,sentencethree,isrevisedasfollows: MUNI Metro lines and BART serve the Powell Street Station about 1,500 feet (three blocks)northofthesite. DEIRp.58,paragraphthree,sentencethree,isrevisedasfollows: The closest station to the project site is the Powell Street station on Market Street, approximately1,500feet(threeblocks)northwestoftheprojectsite. DEIRp.59,paragraphone,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: The San Francisco terminal is located at Fourth and Townsend Streets, approximately 2,500feet(fiveblocks)southeastoftheprojectsite.
28
Stackersarehydraulicliftsthatallowmorethanonevehicletoparkinaparkingspace.Thisproject proposesusingstackersthatwillallowthreecarstoparkinastackedformationinasingleparking space.
C&R82
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
DEIRp.59,paragraphtwo,sentencethree,isrevisedasfollows: Ingeneral,SamTransservicetodowntownSanFranciscooperatesalongMissionStreet totheTransbayTerminal,whichisonMissionStreet,betweenFirstandFremontStreets, about4,150feet(fiveblocks)eastoftheprojectsite. DEIRp.59,paragraphthree,sentencesix,isrevisedasfollows: TheSanFranciscoterminalisattheFerryBuilding,nearMarketStreetabout6,640feet (eightblocks)eastoftheprojectsite. DEIRp.70,paragraphthree,isrevisedasfollows: ParkingSupply.Theproposedprojectwouldprovideatotalof133102parkingspaces; 114 parking spaces in a basement with driveway access from Tehama Street, and 19 parkingspacesinagroundlevelgaragewithdrivewayaccessfromClementinaStreet. TherewouldbenonewcurbcutsonClementinaorFifthStreets.PlanningCodeSection 151.1wouldpermitupto0.25parkingspacesperunit,or45spaces.Additionalspaces canbeapprovedasanexception,at0.75spaceforeachstudiooronebedroomunit,and onespacepertwobedroomorlargerunit.Theproposedprojectwouldhave139studio or onebedroom units permitting 104 spaces, and 40 twobedroom or larger units permitting40spaces,atotalof144spaces.UnderMURzoning,theparkinginexcessof 45spaceswouldneedanexceptionunderPlanningCodeSections151.1(f)and329. ParkinginformationinTableB8onpage71oftheDEIRisrevisedasfollows:
TABLE B-8 PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY (REVISED)29 Land Use
Retail Residential(Studioand1bedroom) Residential(2bedroomandTownhouse) Total ExistingParking(Removed)
Long-term Short-term Demand Demand

4 156 54 214 44 44
Total Demand
48 156 54 258
Supply
133102 (35)
Difference
114156 149191
Source:CHSConsultingGroup.October11,2007survey.
29
The 900 Folsom Street and 260 Fifth Street Projects Transportation Study, March 2009, analyzed project parking with a total of 190 spaces. All parking analyses have been revised to reflect the reduced parkingsupply(i.e.,themoreconservativeparkingscenario),whilethetrafficanalysesassumedup to190vehiclestobeaccommodatedintheproposedproject(i.e.themoreconservativescenariofor potentialprojectrelatedtransportationimpacts).
C&R83
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
DEIRp.71,paragraphone,isrevisedasfollows: Theproposedprojectwouldgeneratealongtermdemandof214parkingspacesforthe residential use, and a shortterm demand for 44 parking spaces for the retail use, or a combineddemandfor258parkingspaces.Theproposedprojectwouldprovide133102 onsite parking spaces. Thus, the proposed project would fall short of demand by approximately114156spaces.Inaddition,theproposedprojectwoulddisplacethe35 space public parking lot on the project site. A field survey showed that 26 vehicles occupythelotduringatypicalweekdayatmidday.Overall,basedonaparkingsurvey conductedonOctober11,2007,theproposedprojectwouldcauseaparkingshortageof approximately 149 191parking spaces (114156 space project deficit plus 35 spaces on site).Basedon26occupiedspaces,thenetparkingdeficitwouldbe140182spaces. DEIRp.72,paragraphfive,isrevisedasfollows: Based on the Planning Code, the project would be required to provide one offstreet loadingspaceforresidentialuse.Theproposedprojectwouldnotprovidethenumberof fullsize loading spaces that would meet the Planning Code requirement. The proposed projectwouldrequireavariancefromoffstreetloadingrequirementsprovideoffstreet loading spaces for two vansize vehicles in the basement level garage. The proposed projectwould,however,alsoincludeanapplicationforoneortwoyellowzonesalong FifthStreettoaccommodateitsloadingdemandinthatalternativelocation.Becausethe yellow zone parking would be adequate to accommodate movein and moveout and otherloadingactivities,therewouldbenosignificantimpactfromloadingactivitiesat the proposed project. Implementation of Improvement Measure ITR2, p. 79, would accommodate service vehicles and movein/moveout operations, and would improve conditionsresultingfromloadingoperations. DEIRp.78,paragraphone,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: Theproposedprojectwouldprovide133102parkingspaces,andwouldthusfallshortof parkingdemandby125156spaces. DEIRp.78,paragraphtwo,sentencestwoandthreearerevisedasfollows: Overall, the 900 Folsom Street and 260 Fifth Street projects, combined, could cause a parkingshortageofapproximately550576parkingspaces.Thisincludesa125156space project deficiency plus 26 current vehicles parked on site at the project site, and a 153
C&R84
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
spaceprojectdeficiencyplus246currentvehiclesparkedonsiteatthe900FolsomStreet site. DEIRp.88,isrevisedtoaddthefollowingtexttotheendofparagraphone: Figure 15a, Existing Mural on North Elevation of 260 Fifth Street, p. 88a, presents a photographofthemuraloftheGoldenGateBridge.Themuralpresentsaviewofthe Golden Gate Bridge as viewed from the San Francisco Bay shoreline near southern abutmentofthebridge.TheMuralwaspaintedin1986byDavidWehrle.Mr.Wehrle wasnotifiedabouttheproposeddemolitionofthemuralonJune22,2007.Mr.Wehrle, as confirmed in a written notice, has elected not to attempt preservation of the mural. Additionally, the San Francisco Arts Commission was notified of the planned mural demolitiononJune12,2007.TheSomArtsCulturalCenterwasnotifiedoftheproposed muraldemolitiononJune18,2007.Neitherorganizationfoundanysignificanceinthe mural,norexpressedanydesiretopreservethemural. DEIRp.97,paragraphthreeisrevisedtoaddthefollowingsentenceaftersentencesix: The proposed project would include a publically accessible display in the Fifth Street lobby documenting the history of the 260 Fifth Street building. The display would be prepared based on the survey required under Mitigation Measure MCR3: Historic Resources. DEIRp.102,MitigationMeasureMCR3,paragraphone,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: Thissurveyshallbecompletedbyaqualifiedhistoricpreservationprofessionalandin accordancewithHABSLevelIIdocumentationstandards. DEIRp.102,bulletoneofMitigationMeasureMCR3isrevisedasfollows: Writtendata:Abriefreportdocumentingtheexistingconditionsandhistoryofthe building shall be prepared, focusing on the buildings architectural and contextual relationshipwiththegreaterEasternSoManeighborhood.Thereportshallinclude documentationofthemuralonthenorthelevationofthebuilding.Documentation ofthemuralshallbecoordinatedwiththeSanFranciscoArtsCommission.
C&R85
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
DEIRp.103,bullettwoofMitigationMeasureMCR3isrevisedasfollows: Photographs:Photographswithlargeformat(4inchx5inch)negativesshallbeshot ofexteriorandinteriorviewsofthe260FifthStreetbuilding.Exteriorphotographs shallincludethemuralonthenorthelevation.Historicphotosofthebuilding,where available, shall be photographically reproduced. All photos shall be printed on archivalfiberpaper.
DEIR p. 103, Mitigation Measure MCR3, is revised to add the following paragraph after paragraph3: The project sponsor shall construct a publically accessible display in the Fifth Street lobby documenting the history of the 260 Fifth Street building. The display shall be preparedbasedonthedocumentationrequiredinMitigationMeasureMCR3.
C&R86
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
ThedescriptionoftheproposedprojectinTableV1,DEIRp.110isrevisedasfollows:
TABLE V-1 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT (REVISED) B: Adaptive Reuse/ Preservation, New Development on Lot 50
46dwellingunits. 2,660gsfretail. 24atgradeparkingspaces.
Project
179dwellingunits. 5,173gsfretail. 133102belowgradeparking spaces:15percentbelowgrade and85percentatgradeparking spaces. Description One85foottall,ninestory buildingwithtwowings BuildingwouldbeLEEDrated Gold. 2loadingspaces
A: No Project
Nochangeatsite 42,000gsfoffice/art gallery. 35atgradeparking spaces. Onetwostory structure(with mezzanine). Structurewould remainnonLEED rated.

80dwellingunits 2,660gsfretail 24atgradeparkingspaces

52dwellingunits. Noretailspace 37atgradeparkingspaces. 28,645gsfPDR. Twoapproximately40foot tall,fourstorybuildingswith connectingcorridor. Preservationoforiginaltwo storystructure. Newfourstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated;second structurewouldincludetwo LEEDratedupperstoriesatop anonLEEDratedtwostory base.
Atwostoryadditiontoan Oneapproximately20foot existingtwostorybuilding, tall,twostorybuildingand andoneapproximately60 oneapproximately60foot tall,sixstorybuildingonLot foottall,sixstorybuilding 150withconnectingcorridor. withconnectingcorridor. Preservationoftwostory Preservationoftwostory structure. structure,whichwouldnot beLEEDrated. Newsixstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated. Newsixstorybuilding wouldbeLEEDrated; secondstructurewould includetwoLEEDrated upperstoriesatopanon LEEDratedtwostorybase.
C&R87
D.
DraftEIRRevisions
DEIRp.117,paragraphone,sentenceone,isrevisedasfollows: This alternative would provide 24 atgrade parking spaces, compared to 133 102 combinedabovegroundandbelowgradespaceswiththeproposedproject. DEIRp.122,paragraphtwo,sentencetwo,isrevisedasfollows: This alternative would provide 24 atgrade parking spaces compared to 133 102 combinedabovegroundandbelowgradespaceswiththeproposedproject. ThedescriptionoftheproposedprojectinTableV1,isrevisedasshownonp.C&R32. Page128oftheDEIR,paragraphfive,sentenceone,isrevisedasfollows: Withthisalternative,projectwouldprovideabout37parkingspacesratherthanthe133 102oftheproposedproject. MitigationMeasure1onp.70oftheInitialStudyisrevisedasfollows: MitigationMeasure1:ConstructionAirQuality The Project Sponsor shall require the contractor(s) to spray the site with water during demolition, excavation, and construction activities; spray unpaved construction areas withwateratleasttwiceperday;coverstockpilesofsoil,sand,andothermaterial;cover truckshaulingdebris,soils,sand,orothersuchmaterial;andsweepsurroundingstreets during demolition, excavation, and construction at least once per day to reduce particulateemissions. Ordinance17591,passedbytheBoardofSupervisorsonMay6,1991,requiresthatnon potable water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, the Project Sponsor shall require the contractor(s) to obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water Program for thispurpose.TheProjectSponsorshallrequiretheprojectcontractor(s)tomaintainand operateconstructionequipmentsoastominimizeexhaustemissionsofparticulatesand other pollutants, by such means as a prohibition on idling motors when equipment is notinuseorwhentrucksarewaitinginqueues,andtoimplementspecificmaintenance programstoreduceemissionsforequipmentthatwouldbeinfrequentuseformuchof theconstructionperiod.
C&R88
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A DEIR COMMENT LETTERS
August 31, 2009

Mr. BiIWycko Acting Environmental Review Offcer
San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103

Dear Mr. Wycko,
On Wednesday, August 19, 2009, the Histonc Preservation Commission (HPC) held a public hearing and took public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated July 29, 2009, for the 260 Fifth Street project. After discussion the HPC arrived at the following comments:
The HPC stated that they concurred with the Kelley and Verplank Histoncal Resource
5.1
Evaluation (HRE) that the building at 260 Fifth Street appears to be eligible as a contnbutor to a potential Light Industrial and Residential Historic District, under the California Register of Histoncal Resurces. The HPC also agreed with the DEIR conclusions of a significant
and unavoidable impact on histoncal resourcs.
The HPC recommends that mitigation measure M-CR-3, which is HABS documentation of
the existing building, be conducted by a qualified historic preservation professionaL. The
HPC also recmmends that an exhibit (a physical display) be place in a public loction witin or outside of the new 260 Fif Street building, and that the exhibit be develope by a
histonan meeting the Secretary of the Intenots professional qualifications.
5.2
. The HPC recmmends that more information be provided in the Final EIR regarding the existing mural on the 260 Fif Street building fade. The informatin should include at the
least identiftion and significance of the artst, contacing the artist regarding the mural,
the date an coditn of the mural, and any other pertnent information. The mural should
also be included in the HABS docmentan under mitat meaure M--R-3. Both the
San Francis Mural Resurce Center and th SF Ar Comision were sugges as
resurc.
As an additonal mitgatin measure th HPC remmends that the Projec Sponsor work wi the Planning Departnt to deterine an amont to cotrbute towrd the sty and
desnatin of the Light Industral and Residential Histonc Distrct as defined in the South of
Market Hisri Context Statement
5.3
The HPC staed that Alternatie B (Adaptive Reusresrvn-New Development on lot

150) would be prrred over th propo projec, bu underoo that the alteratie may
not be feasible for the Project Sponsor.
The Histonc Preservation Commission appreciates the opportunit to partcipate in the review of
this environmental docment
~) c=.'v\~(fY~ Gl~
Court~~y -Damk~er
Vice President
Sincerely,
San Francisc Histonc Preservation Commission
.S CpJ -L'lNJco g/..lIV&I\~ DePt.

.;J) !AyC)\Q tJ,/ieCJ-6)'1I3.f.UIGv OF'RCk
fUJT j3~1JtJ - PkJNN~/(
l(Pro__ /nlS5/()~57Jv)11G "'?____

5a~ hUJlV:Yu+- (A 9~/63 - ;lV77
"
A'JS i .8 2009
CITY & COUNTY OF S.F.

PLANPUNG OII2.AR1MENI
MEA
.D~rt _ (hR. iJJhllW, 4ILAJ~ i

-_._..._._._------_._- ----------_.
_________ fh't__N!if_J5_M R.VfS ~. Pl.1 u.tf'~ / ~f' IJ4/5 ZArv

________________ fAse (;WlK CI4AI~ t- ~G: J~l. V1\(,~ r:VC r- iJ~ J'v~
__________ ~) lo~f: fIf.Xf; t(j/lv'e CAn./i) I QfY l- R.i-rlf"~ ""(J4
_____________ ~ Cvrm'"lu.. O/' l5 Iva. ;i o'7. DG,lrG eCt ~ rqNl') CAe; /W. -: Ci;. 6~eto C; ~" SVit sr .
--_._---~_._._._--_..._--._.._.- --------_._----_.
P~i mGt (i~~fl J34/L-DJI' fhi) J12oJ6O P D uCQl ~~I) lOr

p 2 C-JLD/~I)IjL( 1/0"" ~ j&~E:iOT~"" PRuJe.c-'t L)
l15 Tl.JG Gt/G(s 5lpre. --------~------- ------_._---------
_.__.__.._------.-.._.._---- _........__._.._-------_.._----------
c: 0 '( m ~ i' \ ")
_.-...__._-..-_...._-,---_..._--_...._._...-
_~ t' _f .!J~yr __ C (' ~-e Nt ~~T1 E: -l-_ A (A os CA"J i rn ~ c.~, l ~
D~ ~4______._____ mf= t) l-L\ ~NC~ ~ ~ \ (' : vG' ~ lJ R.~)~r..,- ~,$J~

___~_____~_____ _._ __ __Pr_ \AI l"_~ ~~'" ~ \ m (Y\ IGf; K.o 0 l~ CN ~ 0 '\ ~ ~ '5CJ fu
7.3
_________________________ (0 N1 ~ ~(\~ )\D Tl~ l~ t 5 ro l. ($.(. (.'2 yy
________________ ~~w ~ ~_1 ii Q i. ; Cit ~(c.~ c J I~U C3 c. ~ IY J rJ
5_!?_~_~_Ul_~ ~_ If _~ lJ ~ _~I ') I) P R. & 0 P (; l\ii ~ V\
I c~
_..:' -- .... ~
QlL -y. _cty (1l.~(J\,~~ wA.Cj'1 J()(A~ I.)~~____d DE u ~(, f'ei1l

N ~$ '.) Tu AQOI2~,?) ; tU ~ i 9'lnJZj~PTl: TJ- i ~
PtYS5( r'ZEPRuIJ(rn - 5)Ng i:77& PRo 5 & cr S PcJ/\:;-- ri

...~ A 1\:iVVC:lj 10 JJQ'( H-ti.SI)&V l/~? .. tl OJ &'
,:1'(1: PA'I/I\~ 11.1 fY"TC? 7le: PUC 1'0 ml'1)(/)-1J

U,f2-JI7 iJ((O("3L'=rYl~ --) 17-, r;~~CI(/C. ~rJD t~ l'e/j
~~ -
7.3 Con't
/) l0&C~. i ~ J UJS/TIOTtd( ot'C TN ~ Ou G I JLl r

tfJ4 i () D 1.)(; - G~
5e:co.tl\ TI..E;~u-:rn~~_ 0 ~L..ow - tA.oT&Z ):/ fG~SSt. i()' N:; \O(L'i \. r 4 P j '39 (qq ctL': o~_tld _~_~~~ ~__lJ~~--
fl i\\v.A\~~~ ~~A~""~'"~ \~i~S~R.~__I1~~Y nL~

lC 'J \) ) T\ ~ () ,,:: .(J t"o i U \ ~ ~ 011\ l \" ~ '2 ') I 0 ~ :QcY
~ \ C ON )..~ S'r /J N (Y IJ 1((5 T tJ tJ fJ Io fJ L~ /'
CA(JCL~G #
T7~I2. f/- -(AJQ() 11iQ' f-~((t. KI\XUJ d~ TJ.G'
~ ty lN~ -r L-t )3 C:c. vp (. V\ 0 v '4 rt..'O, 10 ~ ~, rv ")

b. "\-i\~~ t Y ~~~ g ? \'5 c(.~~N_E .f!JT\ .T uo fh t.iJvi/
7.4
~ ~ -yQp~&i\ ()-\o~j~ )1 ., A )O\J CJ fl ~~ () PJ~'- "t 0 '\ ($.("
W ~ ~N ~ \ ~ t ~O.~ ~(r ~ (( \ J ~:) , ~ (; IJdl\ r N ~(:'-l~

Mr0 SCs~ Jc-LO()fl.~ OIU rcJ~s(J1y IJr: CtA)'..""" TtL~
S'I S-rc:(' $ ou 6. 1 p~ c.,
2.1
P()#'nJ .. P;T 0 U\~rn '- G \ll\";T\4.C: tR~~ T

S Q c (' Sc: ~ 1 P L\c ~ ~ ~C-vi t ~ f' ~ \14 \ f\ ';
~LL~~ lA u ~ l."-t(J~ ~ \1G:l" ~Ct.W\ ii T~\ t:l t) lA
p~ 20Fte
~\
Ie
6f\ l: 1'3 c:~ R~ () UJ rri-t (7 C R i l~ CXM
r: C GVlIJI PV
'to ,4 ~ 1 T4 ~\G& P R~ ~() IJ\J t$) r:vz p P tJ 'I ~ f~l/-; -------aJ(( ----------- .~-_._-------,_.__.__......._-_.._--_._-.-._---- on~&i Y()C4I\~ P(''tlul'17 R'Cc~$ ./'tl4 II\
G/1ld.i I)RJ~(,r 1"3(/'1 Dl~'1 (.,lI\.'T' 't1.)~'t )f\ /0
\) C l(, (\~ fJ rz OCJl' ~ ~ ~ i- J )~ I\ '-/\ JO GJJ, Ll~ i ~
0WL'- JI\ /J ti C(i(3 it J Z-l ~ fhcJAirtJ.t~ ,'/ lr t. &R.~ IJc;~

'Ti.~ CW ((.\. oft G~ (CDfl\l"J ~(: 'LAJ~(-L - . - ~-_._._._._---_._-_..._---
~~Q , N ~ u ~(C i~ ~.a R~ I/\ ~7 '3c. '-rl~ 0 \~

I-
o OJ (\ e tAJ\cJ~ LA~ . 0 ~ ~ 'l\ ~ U1\CU(G -e i3 \~ J9 .J
KJ lA IJY '10 (h I:'-l:'-J Tl (:: FvO m J (. '7 l'- t.~ J iA ~

-
Guf:(y'"
2.1 Con't
Q&Ql.(R~ ~G,'Vyt~ , :Jl.'-1)5G: l~ /JI;)G4.~_
p)~,
--_.-------- ~. 1 : (Y \J ~~ 'I L Co I\ C ~CL~~(I A L\ '1 ,)-\ ~~ f=OJ.~ou(lr
'\Q1 2 c." ~f~ ~ T ~~ b~ G~ ptl(Jf' \ 0 -i -Y J ~ ~Q ~

-
FA f') L'I l "- OS T ~ \) & c: L. ~ \'( & Q'-(~ 6. f- V\? f~;r
----_._----_._---_..._--
'=uo f0dM iS ~ ~ ~ r 1).l(j Lf a~ c. ~\CJ). WURJ S lil ______
________ '""\. G' S.:2S~ oi- '"" 1~C' ot: yc~ 1C l~ '\0tAl _______
P Qo:'.. ?~ _ A c c.~ 1!Y '- P- L (A L ~ T1 , It' ~ (A N L ~~_'~ J:~_~
tt U\.nLL f'tCl:~ ~~nt)mi(.~ ,.l5~ 'St' ~ \...f3V\'1 ~~__~P't~-~-------
W L~J: \' ~~\QctL::_,,~ ~ ~V\f\ tL G~~ ~ "\t; ~OV\ \~(j,~ ~__.~________.__.__._,.__._
\l n
\, C tG \ \'1 r~OJM A 0 0 CA ~o p P (Y, (, '7 ~ ~~.f\ r "'6 .A~(; ,) tS c. ~ ~
- I _____0 ----....-..----.-
S1 ~J)
4.2
J ~ A~i ei neE:1\ fl\Ultl~__"S'1 CLSl t t0Rk,\lV __!:~ T:__

_~_~~_~~_~~~l:_"l___L~_2~~_~_____~~1__~~___g~~_~~1.L--- ------
P. 3 etl=lc
l~.. Q..(~~..~ A~.L9L1 edY_.d?~G~~/~.._ Pn..7..__.C4t..~)~.m.L.rL(~.

_0\=. K~ ~..~ '.i . ...~(j.I'.~ .W.t-J;f, 'tu I'LJI-t. .. . J.. ...ttr?~t_~_.l..
4.2 Con't
Wo 1 (A S C4..P''- JI J ~ T l+(;'-. _ ..is /7 (l~. .Tl?l:..! ~f(pLltn'"J
)341.. JIv /.lylf/()(JEll~t)l.t- . PL4Cb... -~._t?4~~Q.4~fJ .i7Grvle __ fLtf~~.. ..i:JJj(ftSJ ~ /JH~ I1JGK- f) _.. ...... ... .... ..... ........... ...... . .... ........ ........ ...._.__......-..._.._..._..-_.... ......-.,--_.......
_01JlHfl.. ')P~NtJ (J~ ,q ._.K1r ~ -.!.~I~_~'-.....___.__
CA (LiJI I\~ t;f1(jfTLv(J~ GOL4LO 13~'" fh$5( (3L6- )~(JC, L l-
...SgV g~~lll
tl5 70 ge-;/J. .~I.I&gf!?(Il:?;J/f\S__Tti.egQJ~!.Sfbj;S~
JV~..O. L.S.7J.)Bl.T-tlE~g'tV!f~_...~Il.Il~_f(~....:s~~J ..fl.0.r:._ S~u C'M~
~ .,'- -._-".. .. . .. - . . . ,~, ...... .'. .. .- '-, -.. .~.~ .~ _.... ~. ...- _.,- . '. -, - ",. -," .".---"..,..-......- . '--" -'''- _._"' ._',' -.. '_.- ,- -..... ~-~-_., --,_..-~- -........ .. ,'- .. - . ,'" .-- -_. .. - '. ....-.. _.--~_...".. '.""-- _.. . ....~~..~ , . ~- ._....... '-""'. -'. ,. ..... .~ ~-'.' .. --., ".' ..' ....., . ' -..-
L) V ~- J fAcf.k.sl;~ S p~( ~~ II\ I f-1: q (J F6~S.cJh? PI2 dJ" ,.. rv (J
I\JOf\G' I "'11~,_ bO~Il~jJ va b..? G (~/) JT,oTlJ

2.8
or 700 ...~...,.. . ......1 ...................-.........._................. AN IJ '2~o tA7 S)" .tClt.-S1Y ~ 279 ~flSJ S~ fl . ....
. ..... ......J.. . ............ -_........":..._............ .......... .... .............1.. ........ .__.....__......-"....... .......
J 173 t: (2oS) St Pr ('Ll Yo~ :tJGtlJ' jO'r TJJ s- 900
M~St7J!hdGu. mlJNyc;'~~~~ for CJ~ S ~ lOW );)U(

~A(i\Q L \\J ~ 1 CA(Jr'K S " ,Q (,~ ~ i- (jzl ~ D1 11~ ~ f d~~ )
.5-i"jr F(~~Jl"'# lQ rv ON l " - l (J S''' l" S"\ S C'-L: n:fW S',iFO/l/Tri$/l ~ 1).(; e l-E te "" A.Tlf\Q )r~~j
L v~ jpu(;f21~ f@.\iT45'e.,
P. y o'~t
E L ,TH _
OF 1)4 e J~_ 3zo ~Rc~"" ~.. -FY at: (UMMCI
S~A. pT Z~cJ 5'l~. S'1_-l~ov (hvi(~ i ~ P~~U~ ____.___

10 ~dVl'~~ AC:iiui ~"'(b~ t\ ~YJ ~ (jV\ () lIGIJ 'TU \C t:vt,
iQ "" 0 fN f+ 19ZJ:t lI\H't~ T)~ ~ 3", i L UIVv ~ f\ u'.u r- q 'r ,u 6-'"
2.5
T) mE: o~ ~\~ G ~ \f J ~ 1 i \0 \~, R\ V\\ ~() ~ r: ~l.__,_._______-____
S$oT~t~ 6Q\ \~~ yYGT~i\~~ ~~ ~lc.~ \i~ ~J (--SlSIVI'"J

l'~~ )
1\\ '-\t'~R v.~ l~JJ\J ~ ~o \J\f\l) "'J f: r T\~ ~'
& \ Jl 5)"U(\' S()K'G" tRl..(Se-t: D Sl1 (\1) AAv, TH~'J
LA(\ ') )R~ oS, ~\i~") ,\14 '='1 w i t.l cS'iC-'~~ )\4 ~'- c: &~ J. ________
~~l~' ~~ ~~ ~~~& ~~~~ ~~~R~ 7~~~

-----------------_..._-----_...------
\()~l '"\. ~r6) I31" S ~ON ri'- ~\'p\~ t:Vl 'JUIA't \~

Pc\ui't\'=~ 1. 9 ~E:t:-sa- \J1JG u.~J
~-
$l~ S ~~~ (. ~ ~ 15\j(JG- ~u LC 1 S ~ f( '1l. ~~~ul\ '=~LlJL+~

900 Folsom Comment
C1cp F'2.Sc. 1~J:~ ~. L B i l (J G.R~~;) Se. l= C~V' ~ ~v~ ~ ~4\ P~(L~4)t'- ~ u~ 1= i ~ 1'l4\~ V Ro ~ \rC, ~J 0 tA'r(~
'Adirtl r ~\'lA ~ ~ t~ ~Q~ ~ P PL9 , PL.f5&'- Pl~~4 J ~
kJ I '\1\-~ ~!-'---------------.-------_.--.-
OFFo~b~~_~I'I~ ~~~\~ ~o ~~p~.~q~~~-2.2
Jt t4 :3 (i . a!- \1-\ iU S of ~_ JZ~ F~ G~ - ~ l tt
AV\VJ '2) 1=(.1,1. ~oo~4L 57 i WC( _)\ '7 Q : TJ 1:-- _____

PFFu2vQB~~ tA~'_Tf- (J1(,~ 131:- Fvll2 tlJ--~~~C_IJ~~_________,_..__
i3(.t.O e c=Rl(jf'C~-4 t-~ uU (h4f\~ S'll\ \? l c ~ 3. CJ_VU_ rn ti~~__.___._.
.._----,_._--.....-..._.....,---,---_....---.. -_..._,..-.---_._._--_.---~_...._---_......_---_....._.._...""" ... _..-..--_...--..........._._..._--_.................-..-_............ .....,.... _...,......... ...........,........ ..,.... .......- ...... .. ,'............... ..... ....... .',..
\ b -r ~ ~UN (Y Ol/'- ~ / f. i ~ ~ ~R . X 3vi t LO(~

~ ~ o~ C,
"....__..,....___...........,._..,...._ ...___.._.____......_ _...__....___________..._..__.._._..._,_......._... ..... 0..................... .......... '..... .' .........'............. ._.._. . ..... ..
~ U:~~q th ~c.l. ~ ~
J ~I1 hJ J. /. s
I po NO T t: f pf2lj()(5 0 F' p (Y /0 S) // /J~(.

r:~ lJ 42.CopU)~;' ---.... ....-... .-.. ..J. ..'-... .-..... . jTl Ioc.):J:i wObi ~uCr1 O ~ \3\~'=~'(" \J~~~ SI-~PR C/lJ( "OCJ/( P'
130-r 114&- S--+h ~r FRli'-'t 0)& 0 ~ i Ce 0 0'.~ ~ \
~ \ "J ~ Q" i=L~c."" Ffl ~~ ~~~ 0 ~~ t1 (X J"C 0 lJ ~ N\ .,

2.6
t'1K.' l\ ~ .~ ~.S \? I\ ~ \'1 ~&. \ 0 \1~ A\'o t~
-o \ -, lAQ\,
1 CON e ()T ~
~ Di ~t-C2R~i\T SIJ~~\) V\ l't)~

IY/JJ5 15 (T/Q~ ~ r: fA ": /7 (~r: K '-IN &-
fJ~ P ~\f /O~5~T" . ..._P_~rT.~'w )JJJ~..J) IN 1~.l-rhD kG 15 m~ N e-a Tb e-&.~T r: NG;l~~e'I~N 't I:
)- "2 ) ~ l(d J ~ \~ oR.) ?cA~ ~~ m t:"'31f\/') ~ tv to LA l-J ~
fv SftrPL'- JdR~J( (.)0 'SAH') mD~S" ON 13clr.

p\~JGG'\~ 4,
"' 1Jf'-!YOt. __~ E\j? YOu. (\5.1 1i~II\J.
$lNCE;~~l":
\vtA R~\~ ~.~ \?\4 ).\P~

LAN 1: V\~ e c. 1-\ ~ l ~
A LLiA~C~ Fr? r: GC=TT6L PljT "
cc. F)l.~
J 4 32 J-H2.S
(3 AIlSC1 ~o:Ci
p. C ot=~
From: Brett Bollinger [Brett.Bollinger@sfgov.org] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 6:43 AM To: Rice, Michael F Cc: jherzog@agicapital.com Subject: Fw: response to 900 Folsom/260 Fifth Street draft EIR Attachments: dulalas_letter.doc FYI-See below Brett Bollinger, LEED-AP City and County of San Francisco Planning Department- MEA 1650 Mission Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 t: 415-575-9024 f: 415-558-6409 ----- Forwarded by Brett Bollinger/CTYPLN/SFGOV on 09/21/2009 06:42 AM ----Jim Meko <Jim.Meko@comcast .net> To Bill Wycko <Bill.Wycko@sfgov.org>, 09/18/2009 10:30 Brett Bollinger AM <Brett.Bollinger@sfgov.org> cc Ron Miguel <rm@well.com>, Christina Olague <c_olague@yahoo.com>, Michael Antonini <wordweaver21@aol.com>, Kathrin Moore <mooreurban@speakeasy.net>, Bill Lee <bill.lee@flysfo.com>, Hisashi Sugaya <hs.commish@yahoo.com>, plangsf@gmail.com, John Rahaim <john.rahaim@sfgov.org>, Dean Macris <dean.macris@sfgov.org>, Larry Badiner <larry.badiner@sfgov.org> Subject response to 900 Folsom/260 Fifth Street draft EIR
SOMA LEADERSHIP COUNCIL RESPONSE TO
file:///P|/...reet/C&R/Letters%20and%20Transcript/04.%20Meko%20e-mail%20900%20Folsom260%20Fifth%20Street%20draft%20EIR.txt[3/17/2010 12:01:13 PM]
900 FOLSOM STREET/260 FIFTH STREET DRAFT EIR The SoMa Leadership Council has met with the project sponsors for 900 Folsom Street/260 Fifth Street six times. Progress has been made. We appreciate their decision to include the affordable component on site. We think the addition of a pedestrian alley along the west side, from Folsom to Clementina Streets, is an improvement. We applaud their decision to remove at-grade parking and appreciate the more considerate scale introduced along the alleys. Nevertheless, we continue to have concerns about the project. This response was vetted with the entire voting membership of the SoMa Leadership Council. Time permitting, everyone's comments have been included. Most troubling of course, and we realize this is not an issue to be addressed in the draft EIR, is the issue of displacement. Indirect displacement is inevitable when a project so massive is introduced into an economically fragile area. Fifth Street has always been regarded as the dividing line between the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Area and the Sixth Street Earthquake Recovery Zone. Until the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan was adopted, the preservation of the affordable nature of this area was of prime importance and was reflected in the underlying zoning. Now not only do local residents fear the creeping gentrification but so do local merchants. Boyd Lighting, immediately adjacent to the project, has concerns about construction disruption, the loss of customer parking, neighborhood safety and congestion along Clementina Alley. But the impact on the cultural fabric of this community will be profound. Please read the attached letter from Teresa Dulalas. As with the remainder of South of Market, deed restrictions should be imposed, requiring tenants to acknowledge that they are moving into a mixed use district where commercial, light industrial and other uses exist that generate noise and other nuisances at all hours of the day seven days a week. From the beginning, the project sponsor has insisted on bringing residential development along Folsom Street down to the sidewalk level. Experience has shown that this will have a negative impact on the pedestrian experience. The most recent iteration of the project changes semantics but not use. "Flex space" and "live/work" are interesting buzz words but they are not true retail or commercial uses. The space remains residential. At every meeting we've attended, the consensus has been that the project should emulate the block of Folsom Street immediately to the east which include a vibrant mix of restaurants, retail and commercial establishments. The contrast between that side of Folsom Street with the dead frontage of Yerba Buena Lofts to the south is clear: new development should not be allowed to destroy the pedestrian experience again. Project sponsor claims that commercial brokers caution against putting commercial uses along Folsom Street. They ignore the recommendations of the South of Market Redevelopment Project Area Committee, the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, the Western SoMa Plan, the Rincon Area Plan, numerous neighborhood associations and the SoMa Leadership Council. Major resources are about to be poured into the Folsom Street corridor to create a pedestrian-friendly transit-oriented ceremonial center to the community that ties together the entire South of Market, yet this project intends to create a blank wall of frosted glass along half the
900 Folsom Comment
1.1
3.1
block. We are troubled by the number of exceptions requested. 1. It appears that the project is seeking additional height where portions of the lot are currently zoned for 45 feet. Our reading of the DEIR indicates that they have sought exceptions. 2. Eastern Neighborhoods zoning allows 1:4 parking as of right. Project sponsor attempts to win approval for nearly three times that much. 3. Project sponsor's request for an exemption from off-street loading requirement would place an additional burden on surrounding properties and has the potential to disrupt the pending Folsom Boulevard project. 4. We find the shadow analysis to be incomplete. Project sponsor assures us that no parks are shadowed. Their own publicly-accessible open space, which is billed as a sidewalk park, is shadowed and portions of the Clementina and Tehama residential enclaves will experience significant loss of solar access. 5. Private open space would be relegated in part to a roof top patio. The draft EIR includes no analysis of wind patterns and conditions in South of Market 85 feet above the ground. Experience has shown that this kind of open space is useless. 6. Project sponsor is playing a shell game with unit mix, including the introduction of the concept of "mini-two bedroom units" which cannot legally be called two bedroom because they don't meet Planning Code exposure requirements. Eastern Neighborhoods calls for 40% of the units to be real two bedroom units. The excessive amount of parking included in this project is necessitated by the type of residents that this project intends to target: young upscale singles who commute to the Silicon Valley for work and have the excess income that allows them to live in a trendy South of Market neighborhood. Increased access to good transit along a two-way Folsom Street, the addition of the new Central Subway one block away, situated a short distance from Caltrain and within walking distance of Market Street all make this an ideal location for a transit-friendly project. This project is in a Redevelopment Area and there are many needs that take a higher priority than creating another trendy neighborhood. By locating entrance and egress to the parking along Tehama and Clementina alleys, the project condemns those who live in these residential enclaves to an unhealthy and unsafe disruption to the peaceful and quiet use and enjoyment of their homes. Left hand turns off of Sixth Street will endanger lives. Rather than using the alleys, the parking facility should be accessible from Fifth Street. It's a one way street. Entering and exiting parking garages has been shown to have a traffic-calming effect. We agree with Sue Hestor's analysis of this project: "It is as though the whole Eastern Neighborhoods planning process is tossed out the window -- except where the developer can get MORE. CEQA requires that
6.1
900 Folsom Comment 900 Folsom Comment Con't
4.8
900 Folsom Comment
2.1
4.8
4.6
the Commission be enabled to approve a project that complies with the Planning Code and East South of Market Area Plan. This must be included." Jim Meko, chair Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force 366 Tenth Street San Francisco CA 94103 (415) 552-2401 office (415) 624-4309 cell (415) 552-2424 fax www.sfgov.org/westernsoma (See attached file: dulalas_letter.doc)
6.1 Con't
4.6
7.2
SUE C. HESTOR
Attorney at Law 870 Market Street, Suite 1128 . San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 362-2778 . FAX (415) 362-8048
September 15, 2009

Brett Bollinger
Planning Department 1650 Mission Street 5th fl

San Francisco CA 94103
2007.0690E - 260 Fifth Street DEIR comments
Dear Mr. Bollinger:

Along with the DEIR for 900 Folsom St, this DEIR is one of the first to come through after adoption of the Eastern Neighborhoods (EN) controls. When the developer bought this site the Eastern
Neighborhood process was underway and generally well publicized to the development community. It is disappointing that it so cavalierly disregards including a project that complies with the controls for
the Eastern SOMA area in the Eastern Neighborhoods. The lack of a code complying alternative is
unacceptable.
Aspects of the project that do NOT comply with the controls that apply in the Eastern SOMA are set out on page 38 EXCESS PARKING - 1:4 parking would be 45 spaces; here 179 spaces are requested
NO FREIGHT LOADING SPACES - asking for no spaces is difficult, particularly in light of the
EXCESS parking spaces
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH 25% REAR YARD REQUIREMENT - for first floor units MODIFICATION OF HORIZONTAL MASSING BREAKS - design issues were supposedly critical in the ESOMA - this could unleash a wave of such massing excesses DWELLING UNIT EXPOSURE - this is a NEW site. There is no excuse when starting from scratch
6.1
to not design a building with appropriate dwelling unit exposure.

MODIFICATION TO DWELLING UNIT MIX - the required dwelling unit mix should be analyzed. Again because of its size, this will be a precedent setting project. FEWER THAN CODE REQUIRED 40% PERCENT OF 2-BR OR LARGER DWELLING UNITS - which
reduces the ability for families to find housing in the South of Market. Having only 20% of larger units undermines EN assumptions on who will be housed in new homes in
ESOMA.
To put it bluntly, it appears that the developer intends to cherry pick from the ESOMA plan/controls ONLY aspects which are more generous to them, specifically including the change from RSD zoning
(which would have required a CU with standards of affordability for housing because its height exceeds
40') to MUR. Additionally the developer wishes to exploit the additional
5' in allowable height (85'
instead of a maximum allowed via CU of 80').
6.1 Con't
Relying on the EN FEIR is inappropriate for projects, such as this and 900 Folsom, which so substantially
deviate from the controls assumed in the EN FEIR.
Page 21- Project Objectives
The main objective is a hefty financial return. It must be listed.
2.4
Creating "transit-oriented housing opportunities" is so much bunk for a project that exceeds the 1:4 parking ratio and instead seeks to maximize it. This is particularly true for a site with close access to freeway ramps for the Bay Bridge, southbound 1-280, and southbound 1-101. This is an auto-oriented project at an auto-accommodating site.
Providing 15% BMR units is not a GOAL of the project. It is a REQUIREMENT of San Francisco law.
Similarly LEED goals must differentiate between that which is REQUIRED in San Francisco and the
amount of any higher standards.

OBJECTIVES do not property include REQUIREMENTS.
7.1
Regarding the goal of providing housing, please explain the current supply and demand for market rate
housing at the anticipated sales prices (noted on p. 26).

Clementina is an eastbound street that gives acess to 5th Street, which gives access to the Bay Bridge
4.1
on-ramp. Fifth Street - ditto. Tehama Street gives access to 6th Street, which is the on-ramp for
southbound 1-280. Both 5th and 6th Streets also lead to west-bound give access to west-bound Harrison
which leads to on-ramps for southbound 1-101.
4.3 2.3 4.3
Page 24 - the lack of loading spaces for the uses in the building at this site understates the amount of
loading available on the adjacent PARKING LOTS.
Page 27 - on some graphic the EIR needs to show the widths of Clementina and Tehama.
Page 29 - does sponsor assume that LOADING of goods for the commercial spaces will occur on 5th Street, or Tehama, or Clementina?
Page 37 - LEED. Please explain the captured energy in the existing building and net out the loss caused
2.7
by demolition and removal of that building. Please explain the LEED standards REQUIRED of San
Francisco buildings. Please also explain the relationship between the excess parking and resultant
traffic in this project on LEED. Parking is not environmentally advantageous.
Page 39 - Type of housing proposed and nature of financing entity
7.1
Financing of this project is coming from CalPERS, which is the retirement system for California Public Employees. Please provide information on the average INCOME LEVELS of California Public Employees,
as well as the average pensions. COULD THEY AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE HOUSING BEING PRODUCED ON
THIS SITE? The projected sales prices for market rate units is $500,000 - $1.2 million. What level of
income is necessary to buy one of those units?
Provide information on the cumulative amount of housing being proposed in the greater SOMA (SOMA is cut up into MANY planning areas - see comment below) and the housing NEEDED in San Francisco per that needed per Housing Element standards.
There is PLENTY of information on how housing in the EN, particularly that near freeway ramps, is
being heavily occupied by persons who work in Silicon Valley. It is partly a result of the relative youth
of that work force and their desire to be in a more active residential environment. It is partly a result
7.1 Con't
of their well-paid jobs, which give them the ability to pay more for housing compared to the San
Francisco work-force, particularly service workers. It is partly the type of housing being constructed,
which is not well-suited for families. And it is the ease of access to freeway ramps in this area. Please
discuss.
Pages 41-45
The discussion of the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning, in light of the comments immediately above,
needs a major overhaul/rewrite. The number and range of exceptions undercuts the ESOMA plan,
particularly if this sets the "tone" for development in the ESOMA. What other projects in ESOMA are being reviewed? How many of them request similar exceptions? What are the EN/ESOMA parking
3.2
assumptions (how much will be provided for new housing)?

South of Market Planning areas are extremely confusing. Please include a map of all South of Market plan areas that shows the boundaries of ESOMA plus the boundaries of all planning areas that abut ESOMA. At a minimum this would be WSOMA, Rincon Hill, Rincon Hill SUD, the Transbay Terminal area 2.3 (under whatever name it currently is called), all Redevelopment areas. What are the types of housing allowed/encouraged in each of those areas. The range will be very great - 6th Street Redevelopment to Rincon Hill highrise towers.
Paucity & quality of graphics
This is one of two adjacent sites being developed simultaneously. At a bare minimum there should be
a plan showing where THIS project is sited and where/how the 900 Folsom project is sited. Buildings
on abutting properties should also be shown along with a description of the uses and heights.
PARTICULARLY housing. It is difficult to understand the context of these projects with the minimal
information provided. NOTE, DEIR on page 44 explains the EN plan goal
2.3
"to create a complete
neighborhood with a balance of housing and jobs."

Please include a map showing the zoned land uses (MUR, MUO) and heights in surrounding blocks as welL. This DEIR is seriously deficient in helpful graphics.
p. 53 - Transportation
As is noted above, this site has EXCELLENT access to freeways and the Bay Bridge. Come on - the EIR
can/should say it. On page 54 explain access from Clementina, Tehama, 5th Street. You could show
4.5
routes to freeway ramps on map at page 56.
4.5 Con't
Compare the incentive to WALK or take transit by spelling out the distance - IN FEET NOT BLOCKS - to
transit lines vs car to freeway.
REPEATED COMMENT ON SAN FRANCISCO EIRSDISTANCES SHOULD BE DESCRIBED IN FEET - NOT BLOCKS. SOUTH OF MARKET BLOCKS ARE MUCH LONGER THAN BLOCKS TO THE NORTH. Look at the map on page 56 which shows a snippet of North
of Market blocks. One "block" NOM is a lot faster to walk than a SOM "block." (Will it take an
ordinance directing MEA to change its terminology?)
4.5
Go through EVERY page on "transit" (p. 57-59) and provide FEET where you say "BLOCK." MUNI
services levels and routes are being changed. Please verify every route and the timing therefor. Please
define "peak period" timing for the frequency on p. 58. I take 27 regularly and it REALLY doesn't come
that frequently around 7 or so. The number 12 is much less frequent. It would be helpful if the routes are shown on a map.
p. 59 - Pedestrian Conditions. 5th Street is not a pleasant street to walk along given the heavy volume
4.4
of traffic, particularly in evenings. 5th Street also has more pedestrian accidents than many streets. Please check pedestrian accident statistics. It is hard to walk anywhere near the central freeway because of the traffic.
P. 65 - Mode Split. MEA continues to assume that the number of parking spaces are irrelevant to how
people use their cars, particularly for commutes. Please explain the number of south of market projects (the entire south of Market, not just ESOMA) that have been granted parking in excess of 1:4
in the past five years, or during the development of the EN Plan. That should include all of Rincon Hill PLUS 10th & Market as well as all pending projects, e.g. 1415 Mission. This is the area where freeway access is readily available to the east and south. Please explain HOW MUCH NEW PARKING HAS BEEN APPROVED in mid to large size projects. How many THOUSANDS of new parking spaces. Please include all of Rincon HilL.
4.7
MEA appears to want to ignore changing commute and work patterns. This is most evident in the table at page 67 which is based on the 1990 census. Please explain in clear language what the DEIR claims
then information in that table shows.

p. 69 - pedestrian impacts
Please explain the destinations contemplated by all these pedestrian trips. The immediate area is not
4.4
well-served by retail for working people. Many of the nearby residents are in senior housing
complexes which provide meals and have mini-vans to go to services. Walking to Mission Bay involves a difficult hike crossing freeway ramps. The 27 bus turns at Harrison. Please explain the destinations
assumed for pedestrians.

p. 88 - Mural on building
5.3
Please provide a photo of the mural on the building to be demolished.

4
p.90 - Bill Graham history on this site
Explain the expertise ofthe consultants who concluded (p. 96) that Bill Graham did not really do much
of importance in the last 5 years of his life. With whom did they check? As I remember when his plane
crashed, he was returning from staging a big concert. WHOM in the Bill Graham "arena" did the consultants talk to?
LACK OF A CODE-COMPLYING ALTERNATIVE
5.4
This is the most troubling aspect of the DEIR. It is as though the whole Eastern Neighborhoods planning process is tossed out the window - except where the developer can get MORE. CEQA
requires that the Commission be enabled to approve a project that complies with the Planning Code and East South of Market Area Plan. This must be added.
Respectfully submitted,
6.1
Sue C. Hestor
Hi Jim, We need your help. I'm responding on behalf of several concerned community members who were not able to attend because of our work. This is our first time hearing about this. We are angry and worried about the many developments happening right now in the SOMA that are against poor and low-income families, seniors, and individuals. Besides this, we're dealing with the most insensitive and discriminatory issues of Privatizing the 6th Street Park & Rec Center and the Victoria Manalo-Draves Park! We, the community planted the seed - FOUGHT SOOOOO VERY HARD - and OTHERS (the Harriet Condo Owners) REAP???!!! We're not going to accept this!!!! These high income earners and developers just don't understand the deeper issues of our SOMA neighborhood. THIS IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. Gentrification continues on because we, the poor and lowincome, happen to live in the Newest and Trendiest part of town that developers are eyeing...lots and properties owned by the city, school district, and private owners that need the money in this economy or at any time. Whatever happened to the money and land that redevelopment has that was supposed to be used for the construction of our SOMA High School? Where and who used that money and land anyway? The SOMA High School is much more a priority than this 900 Folsom. We hear people talking about the historical background of everyone else....but no one wants to talk and hear about the filipinos, the spanish, the homeless, the poor, the low-income, the big families, the seniors, the abused......... we also want peace, homes, income, a clean and caring SOMA, parks, just like a family....we're people too. Developers and the City don't look at us as priority. They want to see and hear $bling$ $bling$ in their eyes and ears. Clearly again the building..... 1) 2) 3) 4) is not targeted for big real families: we want to protect our families, youth, seniors, homeless-poor-low-income it's close distance to FEC (Filipino Education Center Middle School Campus) there is a clear message that san francisco is a city for high income singles there is a clear message of gentrification: family, income, racial/cultural discrimination
1.2
5) height limitations: no exceptions 6) Developers: no more How we pray someone rich and powerful will know about our ordeal in the SOMA and feel our hearts, minds, and spirits, and help us make SOMA our HOME forever. Yeah, sure, the City and Developers would just laugh at us. But we will fight....and please take note of that. We know you understand how we feel. We also know that there are a handful from the City who also care. And we seek your help. Can you please let us know when the next meeting will be? We would really appreciate that. Hopefully we can attend that date. We thank you for connecting with us. God bless. Take care always, Teresa Dulalas mtdulalas@yahoo.com 415-829-3309
APPENDIX B TRANSCRIPT OF DEIR PUBLIC HEARING
7.5
7.5
6.1
6.1 Con't

Ancisco Planning1a

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancisco Planning1a

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

260 FIFTH STREET PROJECT

DATE: TO: FROM:

May 5, 2010 MembersofthePlanningCommissionandInterestedParties BillWycko,EnvironmentalReviewOfficer CaseNo.2007.0690E, 260 Fifth Street Project

260 Fifth Street Project

Comments and Responses

Appendices A. DEIRCommentLetters B. TranscriptofDEIRPublicHearing

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

LIST OF PERSONS COMMENTING

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

SOURCE: Google Earth / PBS&J, 2007.

260 FIFTH STREET PROJECT

FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION (REVISED)

2 STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WAREHOUSE

2 STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WAREHOUSE

3 STORY CONCRETE BUILDING WAREHOUSE

1 STORY PORTION 155.187 MEASURED 175.00

7 STORY (STEPPED) WOOD FLAMED BUILDING RESIDENTIAL

2 STORY CONCRETE BUILDING LOT 8

14.5 FEET WIDE

FIGURE 2: EXISTING SITE PLAN (REVISED)

160-F RC-4 90-X 90-X 3

Height and Bulk C-3-G

120-F 45-X 85-X 85-X X

NCT 130-F NCT T NCT S NCT

M C-3-S 40-X/85-B SO 5 L 72 O 85-X 45-X F 3 NCT MUR NCT NCT 2

RSD ST 85-XD AR W 50-X O H 40-X/85-B MUR MUR ST 2 N 3 O 37 30-X IS MUR

SOURCE: San Francisco Planning Department.

San Pacific Ocean

Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area Proposed Planning Areas 0 2000

Transit Center DistrictF

Rincon Hill Plan Area Feet

South of Market Redevelopment Project Area

SOURCE: Eastern Neighborhoods Final EIR.

Showplace Square/ Potrero

Ce sa r Ch av ez St Tu lar e S t Isl ais Cr ee k

260 FIFTH STREET PROJECT

Figure 1 Project Location

SOURCE: AGI Capital Group, Inc., 2009.

260 FIFTH STREET PROJECT

FIGURE 5: PROPOSED GROUND LEVEL PLAN (REVISED)

C: Adaptive Reuse/ Partial Preservation, Addition to 260 Fifth St.

D: Adaptive Reuse/ Partial Preservation, with PDR Space

DEIRp.38,bullettwoisdeletedasfollows: Exceptiontoallowfortheprovisionofnooffstreetfreightloadingspaces,where onespacewouldotherwiseberequired,pursuanttoPlanningCode Section152.1.

C: Adaptive Reuse/ Partial Preservation, Addition to 260 Fifth St.

D: Adaptive Reuse/ Partial Preservation, with PDR Space

CHSConsultingGroup,900FolsomStreetand260FifthStreetProjectsTransportationStudy,May2009. ThisdocumentisavailableforreviewatthePlanningDepartment,1650MissionStreet,Suite400,as partofCaseNo.2007.0690E.

260 Fifth St Project

900 Folsom St Project

SOURCE: CHS Consulting, 2008.

900 Folsom and 260 5th Street Projects Transportation Study

Consulting CHS Group

Figure 4 Transit Lines and Bus Stop Locations

Stackersarehydraulicliftsthatallowmorethanonevehicletoparkinaparkingspace.Thisproject proposesusingstackersthatwillallowthreecarstoparkinastackedformationinasingleparking space.

Long-term Short-term Demand Demand 4 156 54 214 44 44

Total Demand 48 156 54 258

Supply 133102 (35)

Difference 114156 149191

260 FIFTH STREET PROJECT

FIGURE 15a - EXISTING MURAL ON NORTH ELEVATION OF 260 FIFTH STREET

NotethatthereferencetoanexceptionunderPlanningCodeSection841onDEIRp.38isdeletedper therevisionsidentifiedinResponse2.1,p.C&R7.Thereferencetotheoffstreetloadingexceptionis deletedpertherevisionsidentifiedinResponse4.3,p.C&R26.

TheDEIRincludedthefollowingfouralternatives: A. B. C. D. AlternativeA:NoProject AlternativeB:AdaptiveReuse/Preservation,NewDevelopmentonLot150 AlternativeC:AdaptiveReuse/PartialPreservation,Additionto260FifthStreet AlternativeD:AdaptiveReuse/PartialPreservation,withPDRSpace

l(Pro /nlS5/()~57Jv)11G "'?__

_______ fh'tN!if_J5_M R.VfS ~. Pl.1 u.tf'~ / ~f' IJ4/5 ZArv

P~i mGt (ifl J34/L-DJI' fhi) J12oJ6O P D uCQl I) lOr

D~ ~4__._ mf= t) l-L\ ~NC~ ~ ~ \ (' : vG' ~ lJ R.~)~r..,- ~,\(J~

fl i\\v.A\~ A~""~'"~ \~i~S~R.~__I1~~Y nL~

W L~J: \' ~~\QctL::_,,~ ~ ~V\f\ tL G~~ ~ "\t; ~OV\ \~(j,~ ~.~__..._,.__._

J ~ A~i ei neE:1\ fl\Ultl~"S'1 CLSl t t0Rk,\lV !:~ T:__

S~A. pT Z~cJ 5'l~. S'1_-l~ov (hvi(~ i ~ P~~U~ __._

T) mE: o~ ~\~ G ~ \f J ~ 1 i \0 \~, R\ V\\ ~() ~ r: ~l.__,_.___-