E rn^NTS DEPT. DO APR 13 1998 San Francisco Planning Department 299 DOLORES STREET Draft Environmental Impact Report 97.823 Draft EIRPublication Date: April 11, 1998 DraftElRPublic Hearing Date: May 14, 1998 DraftPublic Comment Period: April 11 to May 14, 1998 Written commentsshouldbe sentto: The Environmental Review Officer San Francisco Planning Department 1660 Mission Street San Francisco, CA94103 D REF 711.4097 T93075d Onpusl-consumerrecycledpjper./ESA9K0053 SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY 3 1223 04655 3690 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY REFERENCE BOOK Not to be takenJram the Library PLANNING DEPARTMENT City and County of San Francisco 1660 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 DATE: April 11, 1998 TO: DistributionList forthe 299 Dolores Street Project Draft EIR FROM: Hillary Gitelman, Environmental Review Officer SUBJECT: Request forthe Final Environmental Impact Report for the 299 Dolores StreetProject (Case No. 97.823E) This is the Draft ofthe Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 299 Dolores Street Project. A public hearing will be held on the adequacy and accuracy ofthis document. After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled "Summary ofComments and Responses" which 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 EIR. Public agencies and members ofthe public who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically receive a copy ofthe Comments and Responses document, along with notice ofthe date reserved for certification; others may receive such copies andnotice on request or by visiting our office. This DraftEIR togetherwith the Summary ofComments and Responses document will be considered by the City Planning Commission in an advertised public meeting and certified as a Final EIR if deemed adequate. Aftercertification, we will modify the DraftEIR as specified by the Comments and Responses document and print bothdocuments in a single publication called the Final Environmental Impact Report. TheFinal EIR will add nonew information to the combination ofthe two documents except to reproduce the certification resolution. It will simply provide the information in one rather than two documents. Therefore, ifyou receive a copy ofthe Comments and Responses document in addition to this copy ofthe DraftEIR, you will technically have a copy ofthe FinalEIR. We are aware that many people who receive the DraftEIR and Summary ofComments and Responses have no interest in receiving virtually the same information after the EIR has been certified. To avoid expending money and paperneedlessly, we would like to send copies ofthe FinalEIR to private individuals only ifthey requestthem. Ifyou would like a copy ofthe Final EIR, therefore, please fill out and mail the postcard provided inside the back cover to the Major Environmental Analysis Office ofthe Planning Department within two weeks after certification ofthe EIR. Any private party notrequesting a Final EIR by that time will not be mailed a copy. Thankyou for yourinterest in this project. Digitized by the Internet Archive 2014 in https://archive.org/details/299doloresstreet1 9sanf 1 1 E San Francisco Planning Department 299 DOLORES STREET Draft Environmental Impact Report 97.823 DraftEIRPublication Date: April 11, 1998 DraftEIRPublic HearingDate: May 14, 1998 DraftPublic CommentPeriod: April 11 toMay 14, 1998 Written commentsshouldbesentto: TheEnvironmental Review Officer SanFrancisco PlanningDepartment 1660Mission Street San Francisco, CA94103 Thisreporthasbeenprimedonpost-consumerrecycledpaper./ESA980053 REF 711.4097 T93075d 299 Dolores Street : draft environmental 1998. 3 1223 04655 3690 299 DOLORES STREET DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY I. 1 H. PROJECTDESCRIPTION 9 A. Site Location and Project Characteristics 9 B. Project Sponsor's Objectives 15 C. Project Approval Requirements and General Plan Policies 16 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 19 A. Zoning andLand Use 19 B. Cultural Resources 20 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 27 A. Cultural Resources 27 B. Growth Inducement 29 V. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THEPOTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT 30 VI. SIGNIFICANTENVIRONMENTALEFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IFTHE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 34 VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 35 VIE. DRAFTEIR DISTRIBUTIONLIST 39 IX. APPENDICES 55 X. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS ORGANIZATIONS ; AND PERSONS CONSULTED 97.823E ii 299DoloresStreet 299 DOLORES STREET DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page LIST OFFIGURES 1. Project Location 10 2. Site Plan 11 3. Ground Floor Plan 12 4. Second Floor Plan 13 5. Elevations 14 6. Photographs ofthe Project Site 23 97.823E iii 299DoloresStreet SUMMARY I. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (pages 9-18) The project would demolish a three-story building containing about 11,760 square feet on a large L-shaped lot with frontage on bothDolores and 16th Streets. A new, two-story, approximately 10,850-sq.-ft. building would be constructed on the same part ofthe site. The building to be demolished was designed by Willis Polk and Company, rated "2" on the SanFrancisco Planning Department 1976 Architectural Survey, and was determined to appear eligible for listing on the National RegisterofHistoric Places. The building was used for child care from around 1912, until the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. Child care activities were then transferred from this unreinforced masonry building to other buildings on site, including a 7,000-sq.-ft. building constructed in 1984, which would remain andcontinue to provide classrooms and other facilities forchild care activities, and two, one-story, 960-sq.-ft. temporary buildings (containing one classroom, a staffroom and administrative offices), which would be removed after project construction. The 1911 building currently provides storage space for the Holy Family Day Home and occasional meeting space foradults. The new building would continue the child care use, adding about 50 children to the approximately 100 existing children, for a total of 150 children. The building would contain fourclassrooms, ancillary administrative offices, a new computer lab, a new multi-purpose room, a new toy library, and anew conference/staffroom. The existing building has two classrooms and the new building would have four. The site served 150 children prior to 1989, and currently serves 100 children; the site's existing Conditional Use permitted 150 children. The new building would enable the site to service 150 children, with approval ofan amendment to the existing Conditional Use authorization. The project would demolish the existing three-story building and remove the two one-story temporary buildings and construct a two-story, 30-foot-tall building containing classroom and ancillary office space. The new building would cover approximately 20percent ofthe lot. The existing one off-street loading space would continue to be provided on the 16th Street side ofthe project site. The existing three-story structure, to be demolished, is constructed ofunreinforced masonry (brick). The new building would be a wood-frame structure. Exterior materials would include a 97.823E 1 299DoloresStreet Summary I. combination ofwood siding and stucco. As currently proposed, the building would have a main entrance on Dolores Street. B. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED This environmental impact report, for the Holy Family Day Home at 299 Dolores Street, focuses on the issues ofcultural resources, specifically historic architectural resources and archaeological resources. The historic architectural resource issue relates to the proposed project's effects on the 1911 building, to be demolished, which has been determined to appeareligible for listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places. The archaeological resource issue is focused on the potential for subsurface resources to be discovered at the project site during construction activities. All other potential environmental effects were found to be at a less-than-significant level or to be mitigated to a level ofless-than-significance with mitigation measures agreed to by the project sponsor. Please see the Initial Study, included in this document as Appendix A, for analysis ofissues other than cultural resources. The primary area ofcontroversy associated with the proposed project is whether the 1911 building should be demolished, or whether it should be seismically upgraded and retained. The project sponsor believes that remodeling the existing building, including upgrading to meet the seismic safety requirements ofapplicable building code standards, would prove economically infeasible. On the other hand, some may feel that the building proposed for demolition should be preserved because it appears eligible for listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places. While economic issues such as the cost ofremodeling and retrofitting the existing buildings are not environmental concerns, the EER does discuss possible rehabilitation ofthe 1911 building in Chapter VII, Alternatives, p. 35. The City Planning Commission (or Board ofSupervisors on appeal) will decide whether to approve or disapprove the proposed project afterreview and certification ofthe EIR. In selecting or rejecting project alternatives, decision makers may also make use ofother information in the public record, such as cost estimates associated with remodeling/seismically upgrading ofthe building. Some concern was expressed by a neighboring development about construction and operational noise ofthe project. Project noise was determined not to be a potentially significant environmental impact. (Please see the Initial Study, p. A.15, for a discussion ofnoise impacts of the project.) While noise from children associated with the Holy Family Day Home could be noticeable and annoying to neighbors, noise levels would not be above levels that are common 97823E 299DoloresStreet