MAIDEN LANE 116-124 5" Draft Environmental Impact Report 98.833E Prepared by: The City and County of$an Francisco Planning Department Draft EIR Publication Date: May 8, 1999 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: June 3, 1999 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: May 8, 1999 to June 7, 1999 DOCUMENTS DEPT. MAY 1 0 1999 SAN FRANCISCO PIIRI IP, IRRARY i Written comments on this documentshouldbe sentto: . HillaryE. Gitelman, EnvironmentalReview Officer ~ SanFranciscoPlanningDepartment 711.4097 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 On225d 5/S GOVERNMENTINFORMAI SAN FRANCISCO PUH SAN FRAr^SCO PUBLIC LIBRARY REFERENCE BOOK Not to be taken from the Library SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY PLANNINGCOMMISSION ADMINISTRATION CURRENTPLANNING/ZONING LONGRANGEPLANNING (415) 558-6378 FAX:558-6409 FAX:558-6426 FAX:558-6409 FAX:558-6426 DATE: May 1999 1, TO: Distribution List for the 116-124 Maiden Lane Draft ELR FROM: Hillary Gitelman, Environmental Review Officer SUBJECT: Request forthe final Environmental Impact Report forthe 116-124 Maiden Lane Project (Planning Department File No. 98.833E) This is the Draft ofthe Environmental Impact Report forthe 116-124 Maiden Lane project. A public hearing will be held ofthe adequacy and accuracy ofthis document. After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled "Summary ofComments and Responses" that will contain a summary ofall relevant comments on this Draft EIR and our responses to those comments. It may also specify changes to this Draft ELR. Those who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically receive a copy on the Comments and Responses document, along with notice ofthe date reserved for certification; others may receive such copies and notice on request orby visiting our office. This Draft ELR together with the Summary ofComments and Responses document will be considered by the City Planning Commission in an advertised public meeting and certified as aFinal ELR ifdeemed adequate. After certification, we will modify the Draft EIR as specifiedby the Comments and Responses Document and printboth documents in a single publication called the Final EIR. The Final ELR will add no new information to the combination ofthe two documents except to reproduce the certification resolution. It will simplyprovide the information in one, rather than two, documents. Therefore, ifyou receive a copy ofthe Comments and Responses in addition to this copy ofthe Draft ELR, you will technically have a copy ofthe Final ELR. We are aware that manypeople who receive the DraftELR and summary ofComments and Responses have no interest in receiving virtually the same information afterthe EIR has been certified. To avoid expending money and paper needlessly, we would like to send copies of the Final ELR to private individuals only iftheyrequest them. Ifyou would like a copy ofthe Final ELR, therefore, please fill out and mail the postcard provided inside the back coverto the MajorEnvironmental Analysis Office ofthe Planning Department within two weeks after certification ofthe ELR. Any private party not requesting a Final ELR by that time will notbe mailed a copy. Public agencies on the distribution list will automatically receive a copy of the Final ELR. Thank you foryour interest. Digitized by the Internet Archive 2014 in i https://archive.Org/details/1 61 24maidenlane81 99sanf 1 MAIDEN LANE 116-124 Draft Environmental Impact Report 98.833E Prepared by: The City and County ofSan Francisco Planning Department Draft EIR Publication Date: May 8, 1999 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: June 3, 1999 DraftEIR Public Comment Period: May 8, 1999 to June 7, 1999 Written commentson thisdocumentshouldbe sentto: HillaryE. Gitelman, EnvironmentalReview Officer - San Francisco Planning Department 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 3 1223 05247 5135 11111111 MAIDEN LANE 116-124 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY I. 1-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION H. A. Site Location and Project Characteristics II- B. Project Sponsor's Objectives II-4 C. Approvals Required 11-10 D. General Plan Policies II-1 HI ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Zoning and Land Use LQ-1 B. Historic Architectural Resources m-2 C. Urban Design and Visual Quality HI-1 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS IV. A. Land Use IV- B. Historical Architectural Resources IV-I C. Urban Design and Visual Quality IV-6 D. Growth Inducement F/-7 V. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES V- VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTALEFFECTS THAT CANNOT VI- BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED VH ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT VH- Vm. DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE EIR VHI- IX. EIR AUTHORS; ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS K-l CONSULTED X. APPENDICES 98.833E i 116-124Maiden Ln. LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 1. Project Location n-2 2. Zoning, Height and Bulk Maps TnT-3O J. Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District Boundaries T1T1-C5 4. Basement Plan TT id 5. Ground Floor Plan n-7 6. Second Floor Plan n-8 7. Proposed Front Elevation n-9 8. Existing Building m-8 9. Street Setting (looking west) m-12 10. Street Setting (looking east) m-13 98.833E ii 116-124MaidenLn. SUMMARY I. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing building at 116-124 Maiden Lane is an 89-year old, unreinforced masonry building (UMB) and is subject to requirements for seismic strengthening under the Earthquake Hazard Reduction Ordinance. The ordinance was adopted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1992 in an effort to reduce injury and loss of life from unreinforced masonry buildings during seismic events. The project site is in downtown San Francisco, situated slightly less than a block east of Union Square on the north side ofMaiden Lane, approximately 70 feet west of the northwest corner of MaidenLane and Grant Avenue. The siteis currently occupiedby afour-story commercialbuilding with basement that was built as office and retail space in 1909. It is constructed of unreinforced masonry. The project would demolish the existing, partially occupied, four-story retail/office building and construct a new two-story building with approximately 4,990 sq.ft. ofretail space. The existing structure is only partially occupied: the basement and ground floor are vacant, the second floor is occupied by the offices, a restaurant is on the third floor and the fourth floor is occupied by an art gallery. The new building's footprint would be virtually identical to that ofthe existing structure. During construction ofthe replacement building, the existing basement which has a ceiling height ofapproximately eight feet maybe deepened by about two feet for a total floor to ceiling height of 10 feet. The projectis proposed as ahigh-endretail usethatwouldbe consistent with the current retail uses along Maiden Lane and in the surrounding area. The project sponsor has stated that the building would most likely have a single, multi-floor, retail tenant and have a single address. The project sponsor seeks to meettherequirements ofthe Earthquake Hazard Reduction Ordinance for the existing unreinforced masonry structure by replacing the existing structure with a code compliant, economically viable and seismically safer structure that would provide retail space with more usable and efficientfloorplates. The sponsor also seeks to develop unifiedretail space within the new building in orderto maximize the potential forretail leasing. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS B. This environmental documentfortheproposedproject at 116-124 MaidenLane focuses on the issue of historic architectural resources. This issue specifically relates to the proposed demolition ofthe building at 116-124 Maiden Lane, a Category IV (Contributory)building, and the construction ofa new replacement building. All otherpotential environmental effects were found to be at less than 98.833E I-l 116-124MaidenLn. significantlevels withthemitigationmeasurestobeimplementedbytheprojectsponsor. Additional information on and analysis ofother environmental issues can be found in the Initial Study for the project which is included in this document as Appendix A. 1. Historic Architectural Resources (p. IV-1) The historical architectural resources impact assessment in this EIR has two aspects. First, the impacts oftheproject onthe 116-124 MaidenLanebuilding itselfmustbe considered; secondly, the impacts ofthe project on the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter (KMMS) Conservation District needs to be evaluated. 16-124 Maiden Lane Building 1 The 116-124Maiden Lane building is designated a Category IV, or "contributory" building, under Article 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code. Article 11 is a "local register of historical resources" as defined by Public Resources Code Section 5020.l(k). Article 11 permits the demolition of Contributory Buildings, however, and it is not clear therefore that Category IV buildings meet the definition ofahistoric resource under CEQA. When the building at 116-124 Maiden Lane was evaluated forthe Downtown Plan and Article 11, it scored 34 points out ofapossible 90 total points; this placed it in the approximate middle ofthe "Contextual" categorywhosebuildings hadcumulativepointscores ofbetween 20to44points. The buildinghas verylimitedornamentation andhasbeen alteredovertime. Thebuilding's integrityhas been affectedbythe replacement oforiginal windows withmodern aluminum sashes and substantial renovation to the ground level street facade. For all of these reasons, the 116-124 Maiden Lane building is not considered a "significant historic resource" as definedby CEQA. Because the building is not asignificanthistoric resource, the demolition ofthe building as allowed underArticle 11 is not a significant environmental impact forthe purposes ofCEQAbut would be considered a less than significant impact. Kearnv-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District Eventhoughthe 116-124MaidenLanebuildingitselfis not asignificanthistoric resource withinthe context ofCEQA, it is clearthat the KMMS Conservation District should be considered one. The district was established in 1985 to protect and preserve the basic characteristics and maintain the scale and characterofthe Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter area. This portion ofthe City was found to possessconcentrationsofbuildingsthattogethercreatedasubareaofarchitectural andenvironmental quality and importance which contributes to the overall beauty and attractiveness ofthe City. The KMMS characteristics that were considered ofimportance in the designation ofthe Conservation District were: the unique history as the major retailing area of the City; the attractive pattern of small-scaled, light-colored development which, although dense, has a comfortable scale with a notable collection of shops; the concentration ofbuildings with quality architectural features and compatible detailing and ornament; the rare homogeneous collection ofearly Twentieth Century 98.833E 1-2 116-124MaidenLn.