Skip to main content

Full text of "50 Oak Street : San Francisco Conservatory of Music"

See other formats


3 1223 


06436 4202 


h- 








O 




1 1 i 




* 1 * 




I— 




U 




< 




Q_ 








< 








z 

III 




1 1 1 




. z 




O 








> 




z 

LU 




1— 












3EF 




711. 558 




F466d 






iflN FRANCISCO CONSERVATORY OF TOSIC 



SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 
2001.0862E 

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2002072001 

DRAFT El R PUBLICATION DATE: 
DECEMBER 7, 2002 

DRAFT EIR PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 
JANUARY 9, 2003 

DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: 
DECEMBER 9, 2002 TO JANUARY 23, 2003 



Written comments should be sent to: 
PAUL MALTZER, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OFFICER 
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 
1660 MISSION STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
DEC - 9 200Z 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 




REFERENCE BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 



PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

City and County of San Francisco • 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 • San Francisco. ( ftHforafai • 94 1§3-2414 



MAIN NUMBER DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PLANNING INFORMATION COMMISSION CALENDAI 

PHONE: 558-641 1 PHONE: 558-6350 PHONE: 558-6377 INFO: $5t-642? 



(415) 558-6378 



4TH FLOOR 
FAX: 558-6426 



5TH FLOOR 
FAX: 558-6409 



MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL 
FAX: 558-5991 



IN 1 1 KM I Will St 1 1 
WWW SH,<.\ <)K(,PI \SM«... 



DATE: December 7, 2002 

TO: Distribution List for the 50 Oak Street Project Draft EIR 

FROM: Paul Maltzer, Environmental Review Officer 

SUBJECT: Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 50 Oak Street Project 
(Planning Department File No. 2001.0862E) 



This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 50 Oak Street Project. A 
public hearing will be held on the adequacy and accuracy of this document. After the public 
hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled "Summary of Comments and 
Responses" that will contain a summary of all relevant comments on this Draft EUR and our 
responses to those comments. It may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. Public agencies, 
and members of the public who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatical!) receh e 
a copy of the Comments and Responses document, along with notice of the date reserved tor 
certification; others may receive such copies and notice on request or by \ isitine cur office, this 
Draft EIR together with the Summary of Comments and Responses document will be considered 
by the Planning Commission in an advertised public meeting and certified as a Final EIR if 
deemed adequate. 

After certification, we will modify' the Draft EIR as specified by the Comments and Responses 
document and print both documents in a single publication called the Final EIR. The Final FIR 
will add no new information to the combination of these two documents except to reproduce the 
certification resolution. It will simply provide the information in one document rather than two. 
Therefore, if you receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document in addition to this 
copy of the Draft EIR, you will technically have a copy of the Final EIR. 

We are aware that many people who receive the Draft EIR and the Summary of Comments and 
Responses have no interest in receiving virtually the same information after the FIR has been 
certified. To avoid expending money and paper needlessly, we would like to send copies of the 
Final EIR to private individuals only if they request them. If you would Like a cop) of the final 
EIR, therefore, please fill out and mail the postcard prov ided inside the back cover to the Major 
Environmental Analysis Office of the Planning Department within two weeks after certification 
of the EIR. Any private party not requesting a Final EIR by that time w ill not be mailed a cop) 
Public agencies on the distribution list will automatically receive a copy of the Final MR 



Thank you for your interest in this project. 



J 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2014 



https://archive.org/details/50oakstreetsanfr7200sanf 




SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 
2001 .0862E 

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2002072001 

DRAFT EIR PUBLICATION DATE: 
DECEMBER 7, 2002 

DRAFT EIR PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 
JANUARY 9, 2003 

DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: 
DECEMBER 9, 2002 TO JANUARY 23, 2003 



Written comments should be sent to: 

PAUL MALTZER, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OFFICER 

SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

1660 MISSION STREET, SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94101 



3 1223 06436 4202 



50 OAK STREET 
SAN FRANCISCO CONSERVATORY OF MUSK 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



I. SUMMARY I 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 24 

A. Introduction 24 

B. Objectives of the Project Sponsor 24 

C. Project Location 25 

D. Project Characteristics 27 

E. Approvals Required and Project Schedule 44 

F. General Plan Goals and Policies 4d 

IH. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 49 

A. Land Use and Zoning 4'> 

B. Historic Architectural Resources 55 

C. Transportation 81 

D. Growth Inducement 100 

IV. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE 
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT 102 

V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE 
AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 113 

VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 114 

A. No Project 114 

B. Alternative Without Allowable Bulk Exceptions 115 

C. Historic Preservation Alternative 11" 

VII. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 122 

VIII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 125 



APPENDICES 

A. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study 

B. Architectural Surveys 

C. The Proposed Project in Relation to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 
for Rehabilitation 



i 



Table of Contents 



LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Project Location 26 

Figure 2 Proposed Oak Street Elevation (South) 30 

Figure 3 Proposed Hickory Street Elevation (North) 31 

Figure 4 Proposed Franklin Street Elevation (West) 32 

Figure 5 Proposed Building Section 33 

Figure 6 Change in Massing: View from Hickory Street 34 

Figure 7 Proposed Second Basement 35 

Figure 8 Proposed First Basement 36 

Figure 9 Proposed First-Floor Plan 37 

Figure 10 Proposed Mezzanine Plan 38 

Figure 1 1 Proposed Second-Floor Plan 39 

Figure 1 2 Proposed Third-Floor Plan 40 

Figure 13 Proposed Fourth-Floor Plan 41 

Figure 14 Proposed Fifth-Floor Plan 42 

Figure 1 5 Proposed Sixth-Floor Plan 43 

Figure 16 Project Site in Civic Center Area Plan Context 51 

Figure 17 Existing View of 50 Oak Street 

(View Looking Northwest on Oak Street) 57 

Figure 18 Existing Entrance to 50 Oak Street 59 

Figure 19 Existing View of 50 Oak Street 

(View Looking Southwest on Hickory Street) 60 

Figure 20 50 and 70 Oak Street, 

Existing First- and Second-Floor Plans 62 

Figure 2 1 50 and 70 Oak Street, 

Existing Third- and Fourth-Floor Plans 63 

Figure 22 50 and 70 Oak Street, 

Existing Fifth-Floor Plan 64 

Figure 23 50 and 70 Oak Street, 

Existing First and Second Basements 65 

Figure 24 Existing Ballroom Interior, 50 Oak Street 66 

Figure 25 Existing Lodge Rooms A and B 67 

Figure 26 Existing Views of 70 Oak Street 72 

Figure 27 Transportation Study Area 82 

Figure 28 Alternative Without Allowable Bulk Exceptions 118 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Existing Character-Defining and Secondary Interior 

Spaces at 50 Oak Street and 70 Oak Street 69 

Table 2 Intersection Levels of Service: Existing and Existing- 

Plus-Project (Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Conditions) 89 

Table 3 Intersection Levels of Service: Existing, Existing-Plus-Project and 

Future (Year 2020) Cumulative (P.M. Peak Hour Conditions) 98 



ii 



I. SUMMARY 



A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



The proposed project would develop a new facility for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music 
in the Civic Center area of San Francisco. The Conservatory would relocate there from its 
current location at Ortega Street and Nineteenth Avenue. The project site is located on Lots 5 and 
7 of Assessor's Block 834, bounded by Oak, Franklin, and Hickory Streets and Van Ness 
Avenue. The site is currently occupied by two buildings: a four- to five-story. 6 1 ,000-gross- 
square-foot (gsf) building at 50 Oak Street; and a three- to four-story, 30,000-gsf building at 
70 Oak Street, a total of 91,000 gsf. 

The project would develop one, structurally integrated facility for the Conservatory on the two 
lots. The facility would contain approximately 125,000 gsf. The address of the building would 
be 50 Oak Street. The existing 70 Oak Street building would be demolished. Project work at the 
existing 50 Oak Street building would consist of a seismic upgrade and major alteration 
integrated with the new construction on the 70 Oak Street site. No parking or loading is 
proposed. 

Regarding 50 Oak Street, the project would retain all four walls of the building (a Category II. 
Significant building) including retaining and repairing historic exterior detailing and 
ornamentation of the Oak Street and Hickory Street facades, under the superv ision ot the 
project's preservation architect. Alteration of the Oak Street facade would include demolition of 
the current main entryway (including the entry stair, entry doors, walls and ceiling) and 
construction of a reconfigured entry at the same location, but at street level rather than accessed 
by stairs, that would meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Alteration of the 
Hickory Street facade would include removal of metal fire escape ladders and relocation and infill 
of some window and door openings. Most of the rest of the structure, and all of the interior of the 
building, except for most of the Ballroom, would be demolished and the interior reconfigured 
Some interior features would be salvaged and reused in the building. Plans include adaptiv e 
reuse of the Ballroom as the seating chamber for a concert hall. The west wall of the Ballroom 
would be demolished, for installation of a stage in the location of the former "0 ( )ak Street 
building, and the existing floor within the ballroom would be replaced w ith new flooring. The 



] 



I. Summary 



80-foot-tall new construction on the site of the demolished 70 Oak Street building would be 
contemporary in style, rather than a replica or imitation of the adjacent Beaux Arts facade at 50 
Oak Street. 

A lobby, concert hall, support facilities for the performance halls, and two classrooms would be 
accommodated on the first floor; the audience chamber for the concert hall would be the existing 
Ballroom at 50 Oak Street; the performance stage and support areas would be built within the 
new construction on the site of the demolished 70 Oak Street building. The second through fifth 
floors would contain classrooms, studio spaces, a conference room, a lounge, and faculty and 
administrative offices. The sixth floor would contain the library, listening room, and studio 
spaces surrounding an outdoor terrace. Two basement levels would contain the recital hall and 
salon, recording studio spaces, classrooms, recording rooms, and storage spaces and other support 
facilities. The project architect is Simon, Martin- Vegue, Winkelstein, and Morris (SMWM). The 
preservation architect is Page and Turnbull. Construction of the proposed project would take 
approximately 26 to 28 months; it is scheduled to open in the fall of 2005. 

The project would require the following review and approval actions; acting bodies are shown in 
italics: 

• Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board review and recommendation(s) and Planning 
Commission approval of a Permit to Alter a Category II, Significant building. 

• Planning Commission approval under Planning Code Section 309, Permit Review in 
C-3 Districts, of construction and substantial alteration of structures in the C-3 Districts. 

• Planning Commission approval of bulk exceptions, under Planning Code Section 272, 
Bulk Limits: Special Exceptions in C-3 Districts, to bulk restrictions under Planning 
Code Section 270. 

• Planning Director and Department of Public Works approval of a Lot Line Adjustment to 
merge the two lots on the site. 

Department of Public Works approval of a Revocable Sidewalk Encroachment Permit. 

In addition to the above, the project requires acceptance by the Planning Commission of an 
abbreviated Institutional Master Plan, under Planning Code Section 304.5. 



2 



L Summar\ 



B. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 



No areas of controversy surrounding the proposed project have been identified, based on 
responses to the Notice of Preparation for this EIR. An issue to be resolved is the balance 
between the Conservatory of Music's program requirements and preser\ation of the historic 
fabric of the Category II, Significant building at 50 Oak Street. 



C. MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 



The Initial Study for the 50 Oak Street project concluded that the following effects of the project 
would either be insignificant or reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures 
included in the project, and thus required no further analysis in this EIR: land use. \ isual qualh) 
and urban design, population and housing, noise, air quality, shadow, wind, utilities public 
services, biology, geology/topography, water, energy/natural resources, hazards, and 
archaeological resources. (See Appendix A for the Initial Study.) 

Land use and zoning are included in this EIR for informational purposes to orient the reader 
Chapter III assesses potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas of historic 
architectural resources, transportation, and growth inducement. 



LAND USE AND ZONING (p. 49) 



Land Use 



The project site is in the western portion of the Dow ntown Plan Area of San Francisco, one-half 
block south of the Civic Center district, w hich is identified as the cultural, ceremonial, and 
governmental center of San Francisco. In the immediate vicinity is a mix of residential; 
commercial (office and retail); institutional (educational): City office: arts; performing arts; and 
parking uses. 

The proposed project would change land use at the site from commercial and cultural uses (office, 
performing arts, and fitness-related uses) to a post-secondary educational facility that trains 
students for professional careers in music. The proposed use would be similar to existing cultural 
and educational uses in the performing arts neighborhood of the Civic C enter and immediate 
vicinity. 



3 



I. Summary 



The project's use and scale of development would be compatible and consistent with the 
surrounding area. The project would not disrupt or divide an established community, or have a 
substantial impact on the existing character of the vicinity. It would not result in significant 
effects related to land use. 

Zoning 

The property is within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Land Use District, which 
permits a base floor area ratio (FAR) of 6:1, or 106,200 sq. ft. for combined Lots 5 and 7. The 
project would contain about 98,500 gsf attributable to the FAR. It is within an 80-E Height and 
Bulk District, which permits buildings up to 80 feet in height, and a maximum building length 
and diagonal dimension of 1 1 0 feet and 1 40 feet, respectively, for portions above 65 feet in 
height. Built prior to current zoning, the existing nonconforming 87-foot-tall building at 50 Oak 
Street exceeds the present 80-foot height limit, as well as the maximum allowable length and 
diagonal dimensions at the fifth floor and portions of the fourth floor of the building. 

All new project construction is proposed at, or below, the 80-foot height limit; the existing 
nonconforming portion of the 50 Oak Street building above 80 feet would be retained. The 
proposed 50 Oak Street project would exceed the allowable maximum length and diagonal 
dimensions for the upper 1 5 feet of the building. 

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES (p. 55) 

Existing Buildings 

The project site is occupied by two buildings, 50 Oak Street and 70 Oak Street, both designed by 
William Shea, an architect responsible for a number of large public, institutional and church 
commissions in San Francisco. 

Fifty Oak Street was built for the Young Men's Institute (Y.M.I.) which, along with the Young 
Ladies' Institute (Y.L.I.) occupied the building from its construction in 1914 until 1995. 
Although located outside local and National Register Civic Center Historic Districts, the 
structure's Beaux Arts style, massing, and scale are consistent with the character of prominent 
Beaux Arts buildings in the Civic Center. The main entrance to 50 Oak Street is on the south 
facade. Overall, the distinguishing original architectural features of the building remain intact. 
An historic resources study, prepared by the preservation architect for the project and peer- 



4 



I. Summar\ 



reviewed by an independent preservation consultant, identifies and describes interior spaces thai 
contribute to the architectural character of 50 Oak Street. These character-detinini: spaces are the 
Ballroom, Ballroom Lobby, Lodge Room A, Lodge Room B, Main Entr\, and Mam l ritr\ 
Lobby. 

The 50 Oak Street building's existing status on local registers and surveys and the national and 
state registers is summarized below. According to the historic resource study, the building meets 
criteria for listing on the California Register, as described in more detail below, and in the 
Historical Resources section of the EIR. The 50 Oak Street building is not currentK listed on the 
National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. I his 
building is not designated a City Landmark, nor is it within an Historic District under Article 10 
of the Planning Code. It is designated a Category II, Significant building under Article 1 I ot the 
Planning Code. The building is identified in the 1976 Planning Department Survej as a "'4'" (with 
"5" being the highest rating). Under the San Francisco Heritage Downtown Inventor) the 
building is listed as an Inventory Group A (the highest Heritage rating), placing it in the top 1 
percent of San Francisco, surveyed structures. According to the historic resources stud) . it is 
likely that 50 Oak Street is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under 
Criterion A (Pattern of Events) and under Criterion C (Design/Construction). It also appears to 
be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources under California 
Register Criteria 1 and 3 (corresponding in substance to National Register Criteria A and C). 

Based on 50 Oak Street's local designation under Article 1 1. the building meets the criteria to be 
presumed an historic resource being a "resource included in a local register of historical 
resources," under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(2). Information presented in the historic 
resources study and peer review supports a lead agency determination that those interiors ot 50 
Oak Street, identified as character-defining, are also historical resources for the purposes 
CEQA, under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3) and (4). 

Seventy Oak Street was built in 1923, for the Y.M.I, and Y.L.I.. as an adjunct to 50 < >ak Street 
and its subordinate character is evident in its simpler design and materials, driven in part b) a 
smaller budget. The historic resources study does not identify character-defining interior spaces 
at 70 Oak Street; it identifies two secondary spaces. The 70 Oak Street building is not listed on 
the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register and. according to the historic 
resources study, it is unlikely that 70 Oak Street w ould be found eligible. The buildh it a 
designated City Landmark, not w ithin a Historic District under Article 10 of the Planning ( ode, 
nor is it designated under Article 1 1 of the Planning Code. The buildine is not identified in the 



5 



I. Summary 



1976 Citywide Survey. Under the San Francisco Heritage Downtown Inventory the building is 
listed as an Inventory Group C++, which indicates that the building is of contextual importance. 
In view of the above, the 70 Oak Street building does not meet criteria for an historical resource 
in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. 

50 Oak Street: Proposed Exterior Alterations 

On the Oak Street elevation, the project would remove the existing, original entrance including 
the stairs, ceiling, walls and finishes; and install a glazed, accessible, grade-level entrance in the 
same facade opening. New wood window sash, matching the original sashes, would be installed 
in existing wood window frames. The Oak Street facade would be cleaned, terra cotta would be 
patched and repaired, or replaced in kind as required, and the facade would be repointed. The 
sheet metal cornice would be restored, as well as the iron balconies and window grilles. Non- 
original fire escapes would be removed and copies of the original balconies would be installed 
where removed. 

At the rear, Hickory Street facade, the proposed expansion would require construction of a 
partial, one-story rooftop addition, visible from Hickory Street. (At the front of the building, this 
expansion would fill in the building's existing volume because the" existing building is higher at 
the front than at the rear.) The two upper, existing exit doors at the existing fourth floor would be 
removed and the openings infilled. The position of the lower exit doors from the ballroom would 
be lowered to provide exiting at grade. The three tall windows that open into the ballroom would 
be rehabilitated. New window openings are proposed for the fifth floor. The facade would be 
cleaned, repaired and repainted. Existing original metal fire escape ladders would be removed 
and metal balconies would be repaired and repainted. 

The proposed project would entail demolition of distinguishing original exterior entrance 
components that contribute to the building's architectural character, specifically, the wood entry 
door, marble stairs, and entrance vestibule coffered ceiling, marble sidewalls and finishes. The 
stairs are part of the original entry sequence, ascending to an elevated main floor, effecting the 
transition between the street and lobby. This relationship would be lost with the proposed 
changes. Demolition of original entrance features of 50 Oak Street could materially impair the 
physical characteristics of the historic architectural resource that convey its historical significance 
and justify, in part, its designation under Article 1 1 . These changes would constitute a substantial 
adverse change in the significance of an historic architectural resource, under CEQA Guidelines 



6 



L Summary 



(Section 15064.5(b)(2)(B)), and would, therefore, be considered a significant em ironmental 
impact under CEQA. 

The proposed alterations at the rear, Hickory Street elevation, would not appear to material!) alter 
the physical characteristics of the building that convey its significance or justify ii^ designation 
under Article 1 1. These would be relatively minor changes to a secondary facade or would be 
basically restorative and stabilizing in nature. This work would not constitute a significant 
impact to an historic resource under CEQA. 

50 Oak Street: Proposed Interior Alterations 

The project would demolish existing floors, interior walls and structural systems and construct 
new floors, integrated with the proposed new construction at 70 Oak Street into one structure 
The project would incorporate an additional floor within the existing five-story building 
envelope, necessitating realignment of floor levels. Interior character-defining features identified 
in the historic resources study and peer review would be removed, including the Ballroom I obb\ . 
Lodge Room A and Lodge Room B, and Main Entry Lobby. 

The character-defining Ballroom would be retained and reused as the audience chamber tor a new 
concert hall as follows. A new audience chamber floor would be constructed. The floor would 
be lower than the existing floor and inclined to accommodate seating. The Ballroom's ceiling, 
and north, east and south walls and interior finishes would be retained in situ or removed and 
reinstalled in the same location if in situ retention during construction is infeasible. The Ballroom 
floor and the west wall of the Ballroom would be demolished and a stage would be constructed 
on the 70 Oak Street portion of the site. 

Significant, character-defining interior spaces and the structural and spatial integration between 
the exterior and interior of the building are elements of the building's overall integnt\ The 
proposed demolition of interior structural systems and significant interior spaces, and the addition 
of a new floor which would change the floor levels could materially impair the ph) sical 
characteristics of the historic architectural resource that convey its historical significance and 
justify, in part, its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined b\ the lead 
agency for the purposes of CEQA. These changes would constitute a substantial adverse chan ce 
in the significance of an historic architectural resource, under CEQA Guidelines I Section 
15064.5(b)(2)(C)), and would, therefore, be considered a significant environmental impact under 
CEQA. 



I. Summary 



70 Oak Street: Proposed Demolition 

Based on research in the historic resources study for this EIR as explained in the Historic 
Architectural Resources section in Chapter III and this Summary chapter, 70 Oak Street does not 
meet the criteria for an historical resource under CEQA. Demolition of 70 Oak Street would, 
therefore, not constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic 
architectural resource, and would not be considered a significant environmental impact under 
CEQA. 

70 Oak Street: Proposed New Construction 

New construction, at the site of 70 Oak Street, would be a six-story steel and concrete structure 
over two basement levels occupying the site of the existing 70 Oak Street building. It would be 
structurally and programmatically integrated with the altered 50 Oak Street building to form one 
building which would, collectively, have a 50 Oak Street address. The facade of the new 
construction would be a contemporary interpretation of the architectural composition of 50 Oak 
Street. The base, middle and top would be defined and the horizontal banding at the base of 50 
Oak Street would be carried across to the new construction at the site of 70 Oak Street. The top 
of the new structure would be defined with a prominent horizontal cornice line at the library. The 
new exterior finishes would consist of limestone in two colors (gray at the base to match the 
polished gray granite of the base of 50 Oak Street and beige above to match the terra cotta of 50 
Oak Street). Exterior finishes on the Hickory Street facade and the west wall would be 
architectural grade, cast-in-place, gray and beige concrete with cast reveals, lot line windows 
would be painted aluminum frame windows. 

The proposed new construction at the 70 Oak Street parcel would not destroy, alter or obscure 
distinctive exterior features of 50 Oak Street because its juncture with 50 Oak Street would occur 
along the existing interior lot line. The new facade is intended to be clearly differentiated from 
the 50 Oak Street building to avoid creating a false sense of history. In its urban streetscape 
context, the overall visual effect of the new construction would be that of a new, separate, 
neighboring, infill building. The design intent of the proposed new construction is to defer to 50 
Oak Street's facade and to be visually subordinate, emphasizing the primacy of that historic 
facade. The new construction would continue the street wall along Oak Street and would be 
rectilinear in massing. Major horizontal elements of the historic facade would be carried through 
to, and suggested by, the new construction. The new facade would be further divided by vertical 
and horizontal mullions, intended to reinforce the sense of human scale, depth and play of light 



8 



I. Sunuuai) 



and shadow that characterizes the 50 Oak Street historic facade. Cladding tor the Oak Street 
facade of the new construction would be limestone, similar in tone and color to the terra cotta and 
grey granite base on the historic facade. 

The exterior design of the new construction appears to meet the Secretary oj the Interior !s 
Standards for Rehabilitation relevant to new additions. The new construction has been designed 
to be differentiated, and compatible with the historic 50 Oak Street facade. It would, therefore, 
not be considered a substantial adverse change to the significance of an historic architectural 
resource, under the general rule that projects meeting the Standards are considered mitigated to 
less-than-significant levels. 

TRANSPORTATION (p. 81) 

The proposed project would generate approximately 155 net new person trips during the p.m. 
peak hour, of which 65 would be new trips in automobiles. With the addition of project- 
generated trips, all five of the study intersections would continue to operate at the same 
acceptable LOS as with existing conditions. Thus, automobile traffic resulting from the proposed 
project would not cause significant traffic impacts. The project would not generate significant 
impacts on pedestrian circulation in the area, nor would it generate significant bicycle impacts, bs 
described in Section III.C, Transportation, p. 94. 

The project area is well served by transit. Muni, BART, and Golden Gate Transit are a\ ailable 
within walking distance, and SamTrans. Caltrain, and AC Transit can be reached from oearb) 
Muni service routes. All Muni corridors currently operate between 40 percent and 80 percent of 
capacity. The project would add 75 new trips on Muni during the p.m. peak hour. With this 
project-generated ridership, there would be a 1 percent increase in capacity utilization on some 
corridors and less than a 1 percent increase on others. No transit corridors studied would exceed 
100 percent occupancy. Therefore, the project would not cause significant impacts on Muni I he 
project would generate less than a 1 percent increase on other regional transit g) stems In \ ieu ol 
the above, the project would not cause significant transit impacts. 

No parking is required for the project under the Planning Code, and none is proposed The 
project would generate a parking demand of approximate]) 12"? spaces, 106 to 121 long-term and 
4 to 6 short-term spaces, during the weekday mid-day period. The proposed project's parking 
demand would be accommodated with the available off-street parking supply in the area No 
significant impacts would be created by the project's daytime parking demands. 



9 



I. Summary 



Approximately 45 to 265 parking spaces would be needed during weekday evenings, weekend 
afternoons, and weekend evenings for the expected maximum 350 performances held at the 
Conservatory each year. The existing weekday evening occupancy rate for surface parking lots in 
the parking study area (from about Ninth and Mission Streets to Gough and Hayes Streets) is 
approximately 21 percent to 33 percent, with about 775 to 660 vacant spaces. In addition, the 
Civic Center Garage is approximately 1 5 percent to 39 percent occupied on nonperformance and 
performance weekday evenings, respectively, with about 520 to 720 vacant spaces. The proposed 
project's parking demand for performances could be accommodated within one and one-half 
blocks of the project site on evenings when no other major Civic Center performances were held. 
On evenings with other Civic Center performances, some Conservatory patrons would find 
parking at the Civic Center Garage or at other lots more than one and one-half blocks away. All 
parking increases due to multiple performances in the project area could be accommodated, 
assuming use of the Performing Arts Garage and the Civic Center Garage, as well as surface lots 
in the parking study area. 

The proposed project is not required to provide off-street loading, and none is proposed. Loading 
activities for the proposed project would occur in an existing yellow loading zone on Hickory 
Street at the rear of the project site. The impacts from project-generated deliveries could create 
temporary congestion in the loading areas on Hickory Street; these impacts would be short term 
and would not be significant. 

Future cumulative transportation impacts were assessed by considering the project's contribution 
to reasonably foreseeable growth through the year 2020. All but two intersections in the project 
vicinity would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS of D or higher, in 2020. The 
intersections at Van Ness Avenue/Market Street and Gough/Market Streets would deteriorate 
from LOS D under existing-plus-project conditions to LOS E under 2020 cumulative conditions. 
At these intersections there would, therefore, be significant cumulative traffic impacts due to 
anticipated background traffic growth. The project's share of future growth at these intersections 
would be 3 percent and 1 percent, respectively. Therefore, project traffic impacts would not 
represent a considerable contribution to 2020 cumulative traffic conditions, and the project would 
not have a significant cumulative traffic impact. 

GROWTH INDUCEMENT (p. 100) 

The San Francisco Conservatory of Music currently operates at another location in the Sunset 
neighborhood of San Francisco. Upon relocation to 50 Oak Street, Conservatory staff would 



10 



I. Summary 



increase by 21, and full-time enrollment would increase by about 50 students. The potential new 
demand for services and housing could be accommodated. Direct growth and any potential 
growth induced by the proposed project would fall within ABAG's regional forecasts of 
employment, household, and population growth. The project would be infill development in a 
developed urban area and would not require new infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not 
have a significant growth-inducing impact. 



D. MITIGATION MEASURES (p. 102) 



Mitigation measures identified in this EIR and the Initial Study as necessary to mitigate 
significant environmental effects are listed below. The mitigation measure below would reduce, 
but not eliminate, significant impacts on historical resources. The mitigation for significant 
cumulative traffic impacts is included below; however, implementation of this measure would not 
be the responsibility of the project sponsor. Improvement measures that would reduce non- 
significant impacts are also listed. Most of the measures have been included in the project; other 
measures may be required by decision makers as conditions of project approval if the project is 
approved. 



MITIGATION MEASURE IDENTIFIED BY THIS REPORT THAT IS INCLUDED IN 
THE PROJECT 



Historical Resources 



1. The project sponsor shall provide historic documentation of the 50 Oak Street building's 
exterior and interior, meeting Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) recordation 
standards. Such documentation shall include the following: 

• A HABS outline report including descriptive and historical information. 

• Photographic documentation of the exterior of the 50 Oak Street building. Such 
documentation shall meet HABS standards of detail and quality tor photographic 
documentation in 4x5 or 5x7 photographs and negatives. 

• Photographic documentation of the interior of the 50 Oak Street building such 
documentation shall meet HABS standards of detail and quality tor photographic 
documentation in 4x5 or 5x7 photographs and negatives. It shall include the 
interior spaces and features identified in the historic resources stud) and shall be 
keyed to a description in the outline report of the location, condition, and 
significance of each space or feature. 



I. Summary 



An appropriately conserved set of the existing architectural drawings of 50 Oak 
Street. 

A display of photographs and interpretive materials concerning the history and 
architectural features of 50 Oak Street shall be installed inside the proposed 
project in an area accessible to the public. 

Copies of the narrative, photographic documentation and any available architectural 
drawings of the building shall be submitted to the San Francisco Planning Department 
prior to authorization of any permit that may be required by the City for alteration at 50 
Oak Street. 

In addition, the project sponsor shall prepare and transmit the photographs and 
descriptions of 50 Oak Street to the History Room of the San Francisco Public Library, 
and to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Information 
Resource System. 

The above measure would reduce the adverse effect of the project on the historical resource at 50 
Oak Street, but would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, a 
significant unavoidable impact would remain. 

MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED BY THE INITIAL STUDY THAT ARE 
INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT 

Implementation of the measures identified in the Initial Study would, for the following topics, 
reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 

Construction Air Quality 

2. To reduce particulate emissions, 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, and other material; cover trucks hauling debris, soils, sand or other such material; 
and sweep surrounding streets during demolition, excavation, and construction at least 
once per day. Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, 
requires that non-potable water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, the project 
sponsor shall require that contractor(s) obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water 
Program for this purpose. The project sponsor shall require the project contractor(s) to 
maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize 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 implementation of 
specific maintenance programs to reduce emissions for equipment that would be in 
frequent use for much of the construction period. 



12 



[. Summary 



Archaeological Resources 

The following mitigation measure for archaeological resources has been rc\ iscd and expanded 
since publication of the Initial Study; the approach to mitigation has not changed, but more 
detailed procedures have been included. The project sponsor has agreed to carry out the measure 
as revised. 

3. Based on a reasonable presumption that archaeological resources ma) be present \\ uhin 
the project site, the following measures shall be undertaken to avoid any potential!) 
significant adverse effect from the proposed project on buried or submerged historical 
resources. The project sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological 
consultant having expertise in California prehistoric and urban historical archeolog) 
The archaeological consultant shall undertake an archaeological testing program as 
specified herein. In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an 
archaeological monitoring and/or data recover)' program if required pursuant to this 
measure. The archaeological consultant's work shall be conducted in accordance with 
this measure at the direction of the Environmental Review Officer (ERO). All plans and 
reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted first and direct]) 
to the ERO for review and comment, and shall be considered draft reports subject to 
revision until final approval by the ERO. Archaeological monitoring and or data 
recovery programs required by this measure could suspend construction of the project tor 
up to a maximum of four weeks. At the direction of the ERO. the suspension of 
construction can be extended beyond four weeks only if such a suspension is the onl) 
feasible means to reduce to a less than significant level potential effects on a significant 
archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Sect. 15064.5 (ai(c>. 

Archaeological Testing Program. The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit 
to the ERO for review and approval an archaeological testing plan ( ATP). The 
archaeological testing program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved VI P 
The ATP shall identify the property types of the expected archaeological resource! s | that 
potentially could be adversely affected by the proposed project, the testing method to be 
used, and the locations recommended for testing. The purpose of the archaeological testing 
program will be to determine to the extent possible the presence or absence of archaeological 
resources and to identify and evaluate whether any archaeological resource encountered on 
the site constitutes an historical resource under CEQA. 

At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the archaeological consultant 
shall submit a written report of the findings to the ERO. If based on the archaeological 
testing program the archaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological 
resources may be present, the ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant 
shall determine if additional measures are warranted. Additional measures that ma; 
undertaken include additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring, and or 
an archaeological data recover) program. If the ERO determines that a significant 
archaeological resource is present and that the resource could be adversely affected by the 
proposed project, at the discretion of the project sponsor either: 



13 



I. Summary 



A) The proposed project shall be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on the 
significant archaeological resource; or 

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

Archaeological Monitoring Program. If the ERO in consultation with the archaeological 
consultant determines that an archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented the 
archaeological monitoring program shall minimally include the following provisions: 

• The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on 
the scope of the AMP reasonably prior to any project-related soils-disturbing 
activities commencing. The ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant 
shall determine what project activities shall be archaeologically monitored. In most 
cases, any soils-disturbing activities, such as demolition, foundation removal, 
excavation, grading, utilities installation, foundation work, driving of piles 
(foundation, shoring, etc.), site remediation, etc., shall require archaeological 
monitoring because of the risk these activities pose to potential archaeological 
resources and to their depositional context; 

• The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on the alert 
for evidence of the presence of the expected resource(s), of how to identify the 
evidence of the expected resource{s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of 
apparent discovery of an archaeological resource; 

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

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

• If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing activities in the 
vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered 
to temporarily redirect demolition/excavation/pile-driving/construction activities and 
equipment until the deposit is evaluated. If in the case of pile-driving activity 
(foundation, shoring, etc.), the archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the 
pile-driving activity may affect an archaeological resource, the pile-driving activity 
shall be terminated until an appropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in 
consultation with the ERO. The archaeological consultant shall immediately notify 
the ERO of the encountered archaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant 
shall make a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the 



14 



I. Summary 



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

Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeological 
consultant shall submit a written report of the findings of the monitoring program to the 
ERO. 

Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The archaeological data recover) program shall re- 
conducted in accord with an archaeological data recover,' plan ( ADRP). The archaeological 
consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the ADRP prior 
to preparation of a draft ADRP. The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ADRP to 
the ERO. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recover* program will 
preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. 
That is, the ADRP will identify' what scientific/historical research questions are 
applicable to the expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to posses--, 
and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. I HstZ 
recovery, in general, should be limited to the portions of the historical propem that could 
be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data recover} methods shall 
not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestrucm e methods arc- 
practical. 

The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements: 

• Field Methods and Procedures . Descriptions of proposed field strategies, 
procedures, and operations. 

• Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system 
and artifact analysis procedures. 

• Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post- 
field discard and deaccession policies. 

• Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interprets e 
program during the course of the archaeological data recover} program. 

• Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeotogj 
resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionallv damaging activities. 

• Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results. 

• Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of 
any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate 
curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities. 



15 



I. Summary 



Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. The treatment of 
human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any 
soils-disturbing activity shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws. This shall 
include immediate notification of the Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco and 
in the event of the Coroner's determination that the human remains are Native American 
remains, notification of the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) 
who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097.98). The 
archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to 
develop an agreement for the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and 
associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines. Sec. 15064.5(d)). The 
agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, 
analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated 
or unassociated funerary objects. 

Final Archaeological Resources Report. The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft 
Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical 
significance of any discovered archaeological resource and describes the archaeological and 
historical research methods employed in the archaeological testing/monitoring/data recovery 
program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource shall be 
provided in a separate removable insert within the final report. 

Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California 
Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one (1) 
copy and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. The 
Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive three 
copies of the FARR along with copies of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 
series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic 
Places/California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high public interest in or 
the high interpretive value of the resource, the ERO may require a different final report 
content, format, and distribution than that presented above. 

Hazards and Hazardous Materials 

4. Prior to any demolition or excavation at the project site, the project sponsor shall conduct 
surveys to identify any asbestos-containing materials and any lead-based paint in existing 
structures proposed for demolition or alteration. If sampling identifies the presence of such 
materials, they shall be removed and disposed of at an approved site in accordance with 
applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 

Soil and groundwater samples shall be collected in such areas as directed by the project 
sponsor's site assessment consultant and based on conclusions and recommendations in the 
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Sampling would extend at least to depths proposed 
for excavation. The samples shall be collected in accessible areas prior to any site 



16 



L Summary 



development activities, and in areas that are not currently accessible dunng proposed 
demolition activities. 

Soil and groundwater samples shall be characterized (analyzed) for metals, petroleum 
hydrocarbons and gasoline/diesel components, volatile and semi-volatile organic 
compounds, and other constituents, as requested by the Department of Public I [eahfa 1 1 )PI 1 1 
In addition, groundwater characterization shall be carried out for total suspended solids, total 
settleable solids, pH, total dissolved solids, and turbidity. Samples shall be analv zed b\ 
state-accredited laboratories. Based on the results of soil and groundwater characterization, .1 
Site Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified individual, in coordination with DPH 
and any other applicable regulatory agencies. The sampling and studies shall be completed 
by a Registered Environmental Assessor or a similarly qualified indiv idual. Excavated soils 
shall be disposed of in an appropriate landfill, as governed by applicable laws and 
regulations, or other appropriate actions shall be taken in coordination with DPH. 

Prior to initiating any earth-moving or dewatering activ ities at the site, a Worker Health and 
Safety Plan, as required by Cal-OSHA, shall be prepared to ensure worker safetv . The 
Worker Health and Safety Plan shall identify protocols for managing soils dunng 
construction to minimize worker and public exposure to soils with hazardous levels of 
chemicals. The protocols shall include at a minimum: 

• Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to 
placement, to confirm that the soil meets appropriate standards. 

The dust controls specified in Mitigation Measure 2: Construction Air Oualitv 
p. 12. 

Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall identify site access controls to be implemented 
from the time of surface disruption through the completion of earthwork construction. The 
protocols shall include at a minimum: 

Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian vehicular entry . such OS 
fencing or other barrier, or sufficient height and structural integritv to prev ent entry . 
and based on the degree of control required. 

• Posting of "no trespassing" signs. 

Providing on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about secunt> 
measures and reporting/ contingency procedures. 

If hazardous levels of chemicals are found in groundwater, the Worker Health and Safct) 
Plan shall identify protocols for managing groundwater during construction to minimize 



17 



I. Summary 



worker and public exposure. The protocols shall include procedures to prevent unacceptable 
migration of chemicals from defined plumes during dewatering. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall include a requirement that construction personnel 
be trained to recognize potential hazards associated with underground features that could 
contain hazardous substances, previously unidentified contamination, or buried hazardous 
debris. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall include procedures for implementing a 
contingency plan, including appropriate notification and control procedures, in the event 
unanticipated subsurface hazards are discovered during construction. Control procedures 
could include, but would not be limited to, further investigation and removal of underground 
storage tanks or other hazards. 

All reports and plans prepared in accordance with this measure shall be submitted to DPH 
and any other appropriate agencies identified by DPH, pursuant to procedures in the Final 
Voluntary Cleanup plan. The Worker Health and Safety Plan and Site Mitigation Plan shall 
be submitted at least two weeks prior to initiating excavation or dewatering. When all 
hazardous materials have been removed from existing buildings, and soil and groundwater 
analysis and other activities have been completed, as appropriate, the project sponsor shall 
submit to the San Francisco Planning Department and DPH (and any other agencies 
identified by DPH) a report stating that the applicable mitigation measure(s) have been 
implemented. The report shall describe the steps taken to comply with the mitigation 
measure(s) and include all verifying documentation. The report shall be certified by a 
Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual who states that all 
necessary mitigation measures have been implemented, and specifying those mitigation 
measures that have been implemented. 

MITIGATION MEASURE THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY OTHER AGENCIES 

Project traffic would not individually contribute significantly to cumulative traffic conditions in 
nearby intersections, though significant traffic impacts are anticipated at the intersections of Gough 
and Market Streets and Van Ness Avenue and Market Street for 2020 cumulative conditions. The 
following mitigation measure for significant cumulative traffic impacts could not be carried out by 
the project sponsor or imposed by the Planning Commission. Implementation would be the 
responsibility of the Department of Parking and Traffic. 

5. The southbound approach at the intersection of Gough Street and Market Street has two 

lanes for access to Haight Street and Market Street westbound, and two lanes to continue on 
Gough Street and Market Street eastbound. The first two lanes are projected to carry about 
1,025 vehicles, the latter two lanes are forecast to carry about 1,790 vehicles in the p.m. peak 
hour, resulting in an overall LOS E. The intersection geometry at this location does not 



18 



L Summary 



allow for physical modifications to the geometry to add capac i ty to improve the intersection 
operation without acquiring property and demolishing buildings. The only possible 
improvement would appear to be the modification of the signal timing, i.e. reduce the Market 
Street green time by 2.0 seconds and increase the Gough Street green time by 2.0 seconds 
This signal timing change would improve this intersection to LOS D with an average delav 
of 38.4 seconds vehicle. However, it could cause minor delays on the transit operations on 
this portion of Market Street. 

At the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street, signal timing changes would not improve 
LOS under future cumulative conditions. Adding lanes at this intersection would require either 
substantially narrowing sidewalks (to about five feet) or property acquisition and demolition of 
existing buildings. Therefore, no improvements are suggested for the Van Ness Avenue and Market 
Street intersection. 

IMPROVEMENT MEASURES IDENTIFIED BY THIS REPORT 

Improvement measures are actions or changes that would reduce effects of the project that were 
found through the environmental analysis to have less-than-significant impacts. Improvement 
measures identified in the EIR may be required by decision makers as conditions of approval 

Historical Resources 

The project sponsor could provide photographic documentation of the 70 Oak Street building 
exterior and interior. The views would include full facade views, and exterior detail and interior 
view s of the features and spaces described in the historic resources study prepared b> Page and 
Tumbull. All photographs would be appropriately identified and bound in a volume suitable for 
long-term storage. The project sponsor would transmit the photographs to the History Room of the 
San Francisco Public Library in a form acceptable to the Library, and also include copies with the 
documentation created under the mitigation measure for Historical Resources (see pp. 1 1-12 1 

Parking 

Project-related parking demand could be met in parking facilities within walking distance ot the 
project site. Parking would not be a significant environmental impact. The follow ing measure would 
facilitate transient parking activity as preparatory students are dropped off or picked up b> parents for 
music lessons. The project sponsor could petition the San Francisco Department of Parking and 



19 



I. Summary 



Traffic to change four to six existing parking spaces to passenger loading spaces for use for student 
drop-off and pick-up activities in front of the project site, on Oak Street throughout the day. 

Loading 

Loading activities would not cause significant impacts. The existing yellow loading zone could be 
retained on Hickory Street to accommodate project freight activities. 

Construction 

Construction impacts would be temporary and of short-term duration. Therefore, they would not be 
considered significant environmental impacts. In order to reduce potential non-significant 
construction impacts, the project sponsor could implement the following improvement measures: 

To the extent possible, truck movements should be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. 
and 3:30 p.m. or other times as approved by the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) to 
minimize disruption of the general traffic flow on adjacent streets. Construction traffic 
occurring between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. 
would coincide with peak hour traffic, and could impede traffic flow and slow traffic and 
Muni bus movement. 

The project sponsor and construction contractor(s) could meet with the Traffic Engineering 
Division of the Department of Parking and Traffic, the Department of Public Works, the Fire 
Department, Muni's Street Operation and Special Events Office and the Planning 
Department to determine feasible traffic measures to reduce traffic congestion and pedestrian 
circulation impacts during construction of the project and to ensure that construction 
activities do not impact Muni bus stops or routes in the vicinity. 

E. ALTERNATIVES (p. 1 14) 
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

Under Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, 50 Oak Street would not be seismically upgraded, 
altered, or reused as proposed for the project. Seventy Oak Street would not be demolished and a 
new structure would not be constructed there. Lots 5 and 7 would not be merged. The Conservatory 
of Music would not relocate to the project site. Space in the 50 and 70 Oak Street buildings would 
probably continue to be rented. 



20 



I. Summary 



If the No Project Alternative were implemented, none ofthe impacts associated W nli the project 
would occur. That is, existing conditions generally would not change. The facades and interiors, 
including character-defining features ofthe historic resource at 50 Oak Street, a Category II. 
Significant building, would not be altered and/or demolished. The buildings could deteriorate or 
other development could be proposed for all or part ofthe site. 

ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT ALLOWABLE BULK EXCEPTIONS 

Alternative B would be a design that would not require a bulk exception to the 80-1 1 [eight and Bulk 
District requirements. Under Alternative B, as in the proposed project, the interior floors of 50 ( )ak 
Street would be demolished and realigned, including one additional floor. In contrast w ith the 
project, which would be a six-story structure, the building would not exceed five stories along the 
entire 160-foot-long Hickory Street frontage to a depth of 30 feet. New construction on the majority 
ofthe site of 70 Oak Street would contain five floors and would not exceed 65 feet in height along 
the Hickory Street and Franklin Street-facing elevations, unlike the project. A new sixth floor could 
be constructed for an approximately 1 10- by 86-foot-wide area extending along the entire southern 
portion of the 50 Oak Street building and for approximately 20 feet of new construction at the site of 
70 Oak. This would result in approximately 13 percent less floor area than with the proposed project, 
which would probably result in less, or no, program spaces such as the library and other space tor 
accessory uses proposed as part ofthe project. 

With the alternative, the effect on visual quality and urban design along Oak Street would differ from 
the project; the alternative design would create a varying rectangular profile for the new construction 
on the 70 Oak Street site. A 20-foot-wide portion ofthe building would be at SO feet in height, and 
the remaining, approximately 50-foot-wide portion would not exceed 65 feet in height. B\ 
comparison, the project would have a regular rectangular shape. 

Alternative B would create less shadow than the proposed project on nearby sideu alks: \«. md 
conditions would be similar to the proposed project. Because the amount of exca\ ation on the she 
would not change, the effect of the alternative on geology and soils, hydrology and dewatenng. 
hazards, and archaeological resources would be the same as with the proposed project. ( Mher impacts 
such as land use. air quality, noise, population, and transportation w ould be roughly the same, or 
slightly less than the project. 

As with the proposed project, interior demolition, realignment of floor le\ els. and remo\ al of the 
original entrance features under Alternative B would undermine the 50 ( >ak Street building's ability 
to convey its historical significance, including its eligibility for inclusion in the California Registef 



21 



I. Summary 



Therefore, as with the proposed project, this alternative would constitute a substantial and adverse 
change in the significance of an historic architectural resource, which would be considered a 
significant environmental impact under CEQA. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE 

Alternative C, the Historic Preservation Alternative, would conform to the Secretary of the Interior 's 
Standards for Rehabilitation to the greatest extent reasonable and feasible while conserving as much 
of the Conservatory's program as could be accommodated on the site. The alternative would 
demolish 70 Oak Street and replace it with new construction, as with the project. It would retain and 
rehabilitate the existing 50 Oak Street building, including its exterior and interior character-defining 
features, bringing the building into conformity with current structural, systems and accessibility 
standards. The existing Oak Street and Hickory Street facades for 50 Oak Street would be retained, 
as with the project. In comparison to the project, which would demolish the existing entry and create 
a new at-grade entry, the alternative would retain and rehabilitate the main entry, including stairs, 
ceiling, sidewalls and finishes. Access to the building for the disabled users would be created by 
converting a basement and first-floor window into a grade-level entrance in one of the bays flanking 
the main, central entrance. Existing floor levels would be maintained. The Ballroom, a character- 
defining space, would be retained in its present configuration and used as small recital hall, rather 
than serving as the raised seating area for a large concert hall as in the project. The other character- 
defining spaces would also be retained and reused. As with the project, original interior finishes and 
fixtures in these spaces would be retained wherever feasible. 

Given the applicable height limit, retention of the Lodge Rooms in their existing configuration and 
their location over the Ballroom would preclude the incorporation of the new fifth and sixth floors at 
the rear of the 50 Oak Street building that are proposed with the project. Retention, under Alternative 
C, of the existing floor levels in the 50 Oak Street building and aligning these floor levels in the new 
construction at 70 Oak Street would also result in one less floor in the new construction at the 70 Oak 
Street site than with the proposed project. The use of the Lodge Rooms for music instruction, 
practice or performance would be precluded because the floor slab under the Lodge Rooms would 
not have adequate acoustic separation from the Ballroom below nor provide adequate structural 
support for the necessary acoustic separation between the Lodge Rooms. 

The net result of the Historic Preservation Alternative would be about 20 percent less program space 
than with the proposed project; there would be 30 percent fewer studios, practice rooms, and 
classrooms. No space would be available for faculty offices unless other program space were 



22 



L Summary 



eliminated. Thus, with Alternative C, the space for use by the Consen atory of Music would he- 
reduced and would not meet the Conservatory's objectives to provide three acoustically designed 
performance spaces and to increase enrollment. 

The effects of this alternative on land use, population, employment and housing, transportation, air 
quality, noise, and growth inducement would be similar to, or less than, those of the project as 
proposed, due to less enrollment and fewer and smaller performances. Effects of the alternative on 
visual quality and urban design, wind, and shadows would be similar to the project. The effect ol 
Alternative C on geology and soils, hydrology and dewatering, hazards, and archaeological resources 
would be the same as the project. 

The overall architectural integrity of the 50 Oak Street building, both interior and exterior, would be 
substantially retained under this alternative. The modification of windows and the building's granite 
base to create an at-grade entrance would be done in order to meet disabled accessibility 
requirements. Work would occur recessed within the existing bay configuration and would not entail 
the removal of distinctive character-defining features. Work w ould likely be found to meet the 
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. It would therefore not be expected to 
constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource under CEQA 
Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(l)(2). 



23 



II. 



PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



A. 



INTRODUCTION 



The project sponsor, the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, proposes to develop a new facility 
in the Civic Center. The architectural firm for the project is the San Francisco division of Simon 
Martin- Vegue Winkelstein Moris (SMWM), with Page and Turnbull as historic preservation 
architect. The Conservatory would relocate to the new facility from 1201 Ortega Street and 
Nineteenth Avenue. The project site is Lots 5 and 7 of Assessor's Block 834. It is currently 
occupied by two buildings: a four- to five-story, 6 1 ,000-gross-square-foot (gsf) building at 50 
Oak Street; and a three- to four-story, 30,000-gsf building at 70 Oak Street, a total of 91,000 gsf. 

The project would develop one structurally integrated facility for the Conservatory on the two 
lots. The facility would contain approximately 125,000 gsf. The address of the building would 
be 50 Oak Street. The existing 70 Oak Street building would be demolished. Project work at the 
existing 50 Oak Street building would consist of a seismic upgrade and major alteration that 
would connect with new construction on the 70 Oak Street site. No parking or loading dock is 



The San Francisco Conservatory of Music was founded in 1917, for the teaching and 
performance of music. The Conservatory seeks a new home to increase the school facility size, to 
enhance the existing programs, and to add new programs. The Conservatory believes that the 
new location in the cultural hub of the Civic Center of San Francisco would enable more artistic 
collaborations, artistic and intellectual cross-pollination, and additional opportunities for 
interaction between the students and world figures in music. The following items outline some of 
the objectives for the proposed project, as expressed by the Conservatory of Music: 

• Establish a new and expanded home for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music with 

world-class, state-of-the-art facilities for musical education and performance. As 
compared to the Conservatory's current, cramped quarters, the expanded facility should 
provide both increased area per student and room for increase in enrollment. 



proposed. 



B. 



OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR 



24 



II. Project Description 



Provide a facility with a variety of specialized spaces, adapted to the special needs ol 
musical education, including classrooms, studios, practice rooms, and performance 
spaces, as well as facilities to accommodate new and expanded programs, such as 
improvisation and choral music. 

Provide a facility with spaces that are all acoustically isolated from one another and from 
the external environment and that have dimensions, finishes, volumes, acoustical 
properties and other features appropriate to the specialized use. 

• As public performance is a critical component of each student's musical education, 
provide at least three state-of-the-art performance venues, each v> itfa excellent acoustic S 
These performance spaces would comfortably accommodate a range of audience sizes 
and a variety of performance types, and become destination venues for supports e public 
audiences. Provide one concert hail to accommodate a full orchestra on stage plus 
chorus, with seating for an audience of approximately 400 people. 

• Relocate the Conservatory to San Francisco's Civic Center to pro\ ide impltH ed 
accessibility to public transportation for faculty, students, and the public attending 
performances, and to eliminate travel for the many faculty who are also members of Other 
Civic Center arts organizations and for students who attend and participate in other ( h ic 
Center arts organizations and educational facilities. 

• Provide a facility located in the Civic Center to deepen the Conservatory's interactions 
with, and create synergy with, other schools and arts organizations, including 
opportunities for shared programs and spaces, and to allow the Conservator) to improve 
its outreach programs and to strengthen its connection to the public for on-campu» 
performances. 

• Provide a facility to advance the Conservatory's position as one of the premiere musical 
education institutions in the world and help to attract the world's most talented students 
and faculty. 

• Create a high-quality', aesthetically pleasing project that conveys and reinforces the 
Conservatory's identity and its commitment to both contemporary and traditional musical 
expression. 

C. PROJECT LOCATION 

The project site is on the half block bounded by Oak. Franklin, and Hickory Streets and Van Ness 
Avenue. (See Figure 1: Project Location.) It is about one-half block south of the Civic Center 
and less than one block north of Market Street. It is on the north side of Oak Street, between Van 
Ness Avenue and Franklin Street, occupying approximately 17,700 sq. ft. (0.41 acres) of land 
area. The immediate vicinity of the project site contains a mix of residential; commercial (office 



25 




SOURCE: Turnstone Consulting, SMWM Architecture 



50 OAK STICCT 



2001.0862E 



FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION 



26 



II. Project Description 



and retail); institutional (educational); City office; arts, performance and entertainment; and 
parking uses. 

D. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 
EXISTING BUILDINGS 

The entire project site is occupied by two buildings, 50 and 70 Oak Street. Both buildings have 
vacant space and spaces used for dance, performance and physical fitness uses, offices, and 
studios. The 50 Oak Street building, to be seismically upgraded and altered, was built in 1 1 > 1 4 
and contains approximately 61,000 gsf; it occupies the whole of Lot 5. Original l\ known as the 
Young Men's Institute and later as the International Center, it is a four- to B\ e-Storj . 75-foot- to 
87-foot-tall (97 feet at the top of the parapet) steel-and-concrete structure over a two-fo el 
basement. A ballroom is located on the first floor. A gymnasium and swimming pool located on 
the two basement floors are currently closed. The 70 Oak Street building, to he demolished, was 
built in 1923 and occupies the whole of Lot 7. The 53-foot- to 77-foot-tall, 30,000-gsf concrete- 
and-brick building has three to four stories and one basement level. A gymnasium and handball 
courts are located at the basement to the second-floor levels; they are currently closed. 

Both buildings are in the Beaux Arts tradition. The 50 Oak Street building is a Category II. 
Significant building, under Article 1 1 of the San Francisco Planning Code; it contains characti 
defining architectural features, including three-story, terra cotta. Ionic columns and a decorath e 
sheet-metal cornice topped by terra cotta ornament, with ornamental architectural emphasis along 
the Oak Street facade. The 70 Oak Street building is identified in the San Francisco Architectural 
Heritage Downtown Survey as an Inventory C++ building, of contextual importance 
Architecturally, it is not as detailed or ornate as the 50 Oak Street building: the main decorative 
feature below its metal sheet cornice is a horizontal band corresponding to the fretwork on the 
base of the 50 Oak Street building. 1 



' The descriptive information in this paragraph is from the Page & Turnbull. Historic Resources 
Study for the San Francisco Conservatory- of Music 50 and ~0 Oak Street. San Francisco California. 
(hereinafter "Page & Turnbull, Historic Resources Study") February 25. 2002. revised June 6. 2002. This 
report is on file with the San Francisco Planning Department. 1660 Mission Street, and is available for 
review by appointment as part of the project file. 



II. Project Description 



PROPOSED PROJECT 

The proposed project would provide a new facility for the Conservatory of Music among the 
other cultural uses in the Civic Center. The project includes seismic upgrade and major alteration 
of the existing 50 Oak Street building; and demolition of the existing 70 Oak Street building and 
replacement with a new, six-story structure. The four to five floors and two basement levels of 
the existing 50 Oak Street would be reconfigured to create six floors and two basement levels; the 
building interior would be demolished, except for the Ballroom, most of which would be retained 
and altered. Most of the building's exterior shell would remain, as follows. The Oak Street and 
Hickory Street facades would be retained and reused, as discussed below. All four facades would 
be seismically strengthened and supported by the new structure constructed within. Existing 
openings in the west wall in 50 Oak would be filled and new openings constructed. The new 
construction would be structurally integrated into one facility on the two lots, with one address: 
50 Oak Street. 

The project would retain and reuse the Oak Street and Hickory Street facades of the 50 Oak 
building, retaining and repairing historic exterior detailing and ornamentation under the 
supervision of the project's preservation architect. Alteration of the Oak Street facade would 
entail demolition of the main entryway, including the entry stair, walls, ceiling, and entry doors, 
and construction of a redesigned entry in the same facade opening located at street level that 
would meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; and removal of non-original 
fire escape ladders. Alterations along the Hickory Street facade would include realignment of 
two ground-floor exit doors, removal and infill of two fourth-floor exit doors, construction of new 
fifth-floor windows, and removal of original fire escape ladders. Except for most of the 
Ballroom, all of the interior of the building, and most of the structure, would be demolished and 
the replacement floors realigned. Reconfiguration and realignment of the floors at 50 Oak Street 
(including one to two new, additional floors) would not change the visual appearance of the Oak 
Street facade, as new floors would be constructed behind the existing spandrels or would be 
recessed one bay width from the facade. Some interior finishes and features would be salvaged 
and reused in the building. Plans include adaptive reuse of most of the Ballroom for concert hall 
seating. The Ballroom floor would be replaced, existing finishes would be restored, and acoustic 
materials added as required to meet programmatic needs of the Conservatory. The Ballroom 
would be structurally integrated into the new construction to ensure seismic stability. 
Construction of a new, partial, sixth floor facing Hickory Street would conform to the 80-foot 
height limit. The existing areas where the nonconforming building height exceeds 80 feet would 
remain. The 80-foot-tall, new construction on the site of the demolished 70 Oak Street building 
would include a contemporary facade, adjoining 50 Oak Street. To construct the proposed 



28 



II. Project Description 



basement area, the existing floor level of the basement would be lowered by approximatel) five 
feet. (See Figure 2, Proposed Oak Street Elevation (South); Figure 3, Proposed Hickory Street 
Elevation (North); Figure 4, Proposed Franklin Street Elevation ( West >; I igure 5, Proposed 
Building Section; and Figure 6, Change in Massing: View from Hickory Street, pp 30- \A ) 

The proposed development totaling approximately 125,000 gsf would include about 19,200 gsi "! 
performance space, including a concert hall, recital hall, and salon (small recital hall); l". 1 
of performing support space (backstage and warm-up areas); 26,500 gsf of educational studios 
and spaces (approximately 1 1 classrooms, 37 rehearsal and practice rooms, and 50 teaching 
studios and offices); 7,500 gsf of administrative offices; 7.000 gsf of library space. 2 1 ,600 gsf of 
corridor and circulation space; and 26,200 gsf of service and storage space. Of the total area, 
approximately 98,500 sq. ft. are applicable to the FAR under the Planning Code. : The net 
increase in floor area on the site would be approximately 34,000 gsf ( 125.000 gsf proposed - 
91,000 gsf existing space = 34,000 gsf)- 

A lobby, concert hall, support facilities for the performance halls, and two classrooms would be 
located on the first floor; the audience chamber for the concert hall would be in the existing 
Ballroom at 50 Oak Street; the performance stage and support areas would be built within the 
newly constructed portion on the site of the demolished 70 Oak Street building. The second 
through fifth floors would contain classrooms, studio spaces, conference room, lounge, and 
faculty and administrative offices. The sixth floor would contain the library, listening room, and 
studio spaces surrounding an outdoor terrace area. The two basement levels would contain the 
recital hall and salon, studio spaces, classrooms, recording rooms, and storage spaces and other 
support facilities. (See Figures 7-15: Floor Plans, pp. 35-43.) 

The main entrance to the project would be at 50 Oak Street, and two exit doors would face 
Hickory Street. There would be no off-street parking for the project: none is required in the C - ; 
Districts. Loading would be on-street at a designated entrance on Hickory Street: no loading 
dock is required under San Francisco Planning Code Section 161(h). and none is proposed 



2 In accordance with Section 102.9 of the San Francisco Planning Code. See letter from Lawrence 
Badiner, San Francisco Zoning Administrator, to Harry 0*Bnen dated September 20. 2001 The floor area 
attributed to the floor area ratio (FAR) for the project would be about 98.500 sq. ft. Approximately 1 2,323 
sq. ft. of performance space, 6.925 sq. ft. performance support space, and 7.250 sq. ft. of auxiliary building 
services space would be excluded from the gross floor area of the project for the purpose of calculating the 
FAR. This letter is on file with the San Francisco Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, and is 
available for review by appointment as part of the project file. 



29 




SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50 DM STREET 



2001.0862E 



FIGURE 2: PROPOSED OAK STREET ELEVATION (SOUTH) 



30 



i □ □ □ □ □ □ 




b a 



B B 



□ □ j □ □ □ □ 
11 / i i 



0 0 B □ 




SEISMIC UPGRADE AND MAJOR ALTERATION 



DEMOLITION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION 



20 



FEET 



SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50 OflK STREET 



2001.0862E 



FIGURE 3: PROPOSED HICKORY STREET ELEVATION NORTH' 



31 



HICKORY 
STREET 



OAK 
STREET 



20 



FEET 



SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50 OAK STKCCT 



2001 0862E FIGURE 4: PROPOSED FRANKLIN STREET ELEVATION (WEST) 



32 




SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consuming 

5QOM STREET 



2001 0862E FIGURE 6: CHANGE IN MASSING: VIEW FROM HICKORY STREET 



34 



HICKORY STREET 




OAK STREET 



L 



SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50 OAK STREET 



2001.0862E 



FIGURE 7: PROPOSED SECOND BA^EMFNT 

35 



HICKORY STREET 




FEET 



SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50 QflK STIC CT 

2001 0862E FIGURE 8: PROPOSED FIRST BASEMENT 



36 



HICKORY STREET 




SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



2001.0862E 



FIGURE 9: PROPOSED FIRST-FLOOR PI \s 




>C OflK STREET 



2001 0862E FIGURE 10: PROPOSED MEZZANINE PLAN 

38 



HICKORY STREET 




SOURCE: SMWM Architecture 



- ' :~ ::" 

20O1 0862E FIGURE 11: PROPOSED SECOND-FLOOR PLAN 



39 



HICKORY STREET 




SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50OM5TEICCT 

2001 0862E FIGURE 12: PROPOSED THIRD-FLOOR PLAN 



40 



HICKORY STREET 




OAK STREET 



N 



SOURCE: SMWM Architecture 



50 OflK STREE T 

2001.0862E FIGURE 13: PROPO^P D FOl RTH-FLOOR PI \S 



41 



HICKORY STREET 




OAK STREET 



IN 



20 



FEET 



SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50 OAK STREET 



2ooi.o862E FIGURE 14: PROPOSED FIFTH-FLOOR PLAN 

42 



HICKORY STREET 




OAK STREET 



FEE" 



SOURCE SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50 OdK STREET 



20O1.0862E 



FIGURE 15: PROPOSED SIVTH-FLOOR PI \\ 



43 



II. Project Description 



Sub-sidewalk vaults for storage, and a transformer are proposed within the Oak and Hickory 
Streets rights-of-way, outside both the northern and southern property lines of the project site. 
Existing vaults are located within these rights-of-way and the project calls for the retention of 
these areas within the existing footprints (adjacent to the site of 50 Oak Street) and the removal of 
the existing vault (adjacent to the 70 Oak Street parcel) to construct a utility vault approximately 
l/5th the size of the existing vault. To construct the vaults, a revocable sidewalk encroachment 
permit would be requested from the Department of Public Works. Street trees would be planted 
and street lamps installed in the Oak Street sidewalk, according to Planning Code requirements. 



E. APPROVALS REQUIRED AND PROJECT SCHEDULE 

Before any discretionary project approvals may be granted for the project, the Planning 
Commission must certify the Environmental Impact Report as accurate, objective, and adequate. 
This Draft EIR will first undergo a public comment period as noted on the cover, during which 
time the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft EIR. Following the close 
of the public comment period, the Planning Department will prepare and publish a Draft 
Summary of Comments and Responses, containing a summary of all substantive comments 
received and the Department's responses. It may also specify changes to the Draft EIR. The 
Draft EIR, together with the Summary of Comments and Responses, including revisions to the 
Draft EIR, if any, will be considered by the Planning Commission in a public meeting and 
presented to the Planning Commission for certification. The Commission and other decision 
makers will consider the information in the Final EIR in their deliberations on the project. As 
noted, no approvals or permits may be issued prior to EIR certification. 



APPROVALS REQUIRED 

The project would require the following review and approval actions (acting bodies are shown in 
italics): 



Permit to Alter a Category II, Significant Building. Landmarks Preservation Advisory 
Board review and recommendation and Planning Commission review and approval. The 
project requires approval of a Permit to Alter the 50 Oak Street building, a Category II, 
Significant building under Article 1 1 of the San Francisco Planning Code. Article 1 1 of 
the Planning Code is intended to preserve buildings and areas "of special architectural, 
historical and aesthetic character" and is applicable in the C-3 (Downtown) Districts. 
Under Article 11, "Major Alterations" require review and advice by the Landmarks 
Preservation Advisory Board, and review and approval by the Planning Commission. A 
"Major Alteration" is defined in Planning Code Section 1111.1 as an alteration that 



44 



II Project Description 



would "substantially change, obscure or destro> exterior character-defining !fWT8, 
materials, features or finishes": "affect all or an> substantial part of a building's structural 
elements, exterior walls or exterior ornamentation"; or would occur "b> \ irtue of 
construction which results in a substantial addition of height abo\e the height of the 
building." 

Planning Code Section 1 1 1 1.6 sets forth Permit to Alter standards that the Landmarks 
Preserv ation Advisory Board and Planning Commission will apply in their review of the 
Permit to Alter. 

• Planning Code Section 309: Permit Review in C-3 Districts. PUmnin 

review and approval. The project requires approval of new construction and substantial 
alterations to existing buildings in the downtown C-3 District. Planning Code Section 
309 provides procedures governing review of development in the C-3 Districts. Under 
Planning Code Section 309. the Planning Commission has broad authorit> to impose 
additional requirements on the project design, as conditions of approval, to further the 
objectives and policies of the General Plan. Section 309 also prov ides procedures for 
allowable exceptions to certain Code requirements, and for re\ iew ing compliance v. uh 
certain Code requirements relating specifically to downtown development, including the 
request for an allowable exception to bulk limits (discussed below ). 

Planning Code Section 272: Bulk Limits: Special Exceptions in C-3 Districts. 

Planning Commission review and approval. The project sponsor is requesting an 
allowable exception to upper bulk limits. Section 270 limits the bulk of a building abo\e 
65 feet to a maximum length of 1 10 feet and a maximum diagonal linear measurement of 
140 feet. The project would exceed these limits by measuring approximately 1 55 linear 
feet in length and 190 linear feet diagonally. That is. the top 15 feet of the building 
would exceed the maximum length by about 45 feet and the maximum diagonal length b> 
about 50 feet. Planning Code Section 2~2 provides for exceptions to bulk limitations in 
the C-3 Districts and criteria for review of such requests. Review b> the Planninc 
Commission of the request for an exception under Section 2"2 w ill take place as part of 
Section 309 review . 

• Lot Line Adjustment. Planning Director review and approval and Department 
Public Works review and approval. The project sponsor is requesting rev iew and 
approval of a lot line adjustment to merge Lots 5 and 7. 

• Revocable Sidewalk Encroachment Permit. Department of 'Public Works revieM mtd 
approval. The project sponsor is requesting Department of Public Works approval of a 
revocable sidewalk encroachment permit to construct, reconstruct, and use sub-sidewalk 
vaults within the Oak and Hickory Streets rights-of-way. 

In addition to the above approvals, the project sponsor is requesting Planning Commission 
acceptance of an abbreviated Institutional Master Plan for a post-secondary educational 



45 



II. Project Description 



institution in San Francisco. The Institutional Master Plan will describe the existing and 
anticipated future development of the institution under Planning Code Section 304.5. 

PROJECT SCHEDULE 

The project sponsor expects environmental review, project review, and detailed design to be 
completed by early 2003. Construction of the proposed project would take approximately 26 to 
28 months. The Conservatory of Music plans to complete the project prior to the start of the 
school year in the fall of 2005. 

F. GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES 
GENERAL PLAN PRIORITY POLICIES 

Before approving a permit for any project requiring an initial study under the California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or issuing a permit for any demolition, conversion or change 
of use, the City is required to find that the proposed project is consistent with the eight General 
Plan Priority Policies established by Planning Code Section 101.1 (Priority Policies). The 
Planning Commission's review of the project for consistency with the Priority Policies will take 
place as a component of its review of the required Planning Code approvals outlined in the 
Project Approvals section, above. The Priority Policies are preservation and enhancement of 
neighborhood-serving retail uses; protection of neighborhood character; preservation and 
enhancement of affordable housing; discouragement of commuter automobiles; protection of 
industrial and service land uses from commercial office development and enhancement of 
resident employment and business ownership; earthquake preparedness; landmark and historic 
building preservation; and protection of open space. 

GENERAL PLAN 

The Planning Commission, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and other City decision 
makers will evaluate the proposed project in the context of applicable objectives and policies of 
the General Plan, including those in the Downtown Area Plan and Civic Center Area Plan, and 
will consider potential conflicts with the General Plan as part of the decision-making process. 
This consideration of General Plan objectives and policies will be carried out independent of the 
environmental review process, as part of the decision to approve, modify, or disapprove a 
proposed project. Potential conflicts with provisions of the General Plan that would cause 



46 



II Project Description 



physical environmental impacts have been evaluated as part of the impacts anal) sis carried OVA 
for relevant, specific topics in this project's EIR and the Initial Studs (sec Appendix \ | \n> 
potential conflicts with General Plan objectives and policies not identified in the I IK could be 
considered in the project evaluation process and would not alter the pin sical en\ ironmental 
effects of the proposed project analyzed in this EIR. Some key objectives, goals, and policies ot 
the San Francisco General Plan, relevant to the project, are as follow s 

Urban Design Element 

Policy 4: Preserve notable landmarks and areas of historic, architectural, or aesthetic value, and promote 
the preservation of other buildings and features that provide continuity with past development 

Art Element 

Policy II.6.1: Encourage arts education offerings in the community and the schools to include arts and 
artists from many cultures. 

Objective IV. 10: Recognize in arts education programs that a partnership among artists, teachers, and arts 
organizations is essential to create and maintain quality arts education programming. 

Policy IV. 10.1: Support and increase the participation of artists in San Francisco's arts education progl 

Policy IV. 10.2: Support the efforts and dedication of arts teachers who have developed and maintained 
outstanding programs in the schools. 

Goal VI: Enhance, develop, and protect the physical environment of the arts m San Francisco 
Commerce and Industry Element 

Objective 7, Policy 3: Promote the provision of adequate health and education serv ices to all geographical 
districts and cultural groups in the city. 

Downtown Area Plan 

Objective 12: Conserve resources that provide continuity with San Francisco's past 

Objective 12, Policy 1 : Preserve notable landmarks and areas of historic, architectural, or aesthetic value, 
and promote the preservation of other buildings and features that provide continuity with past development 

Objective 12. Policy 2: Use care in remodeling significant older buildings to enhance rather than weaken 
their original character. 

Objective 12, Policy 3: Design new buildings to respect the character of older development nearby. 

Objective 13, Policy 1: Relate the height of buildings to important attributes of the city pattern and to the 
height and character of existing and proposed development. 

Objective 15: Create a building form that is visually interesting and harmonizes with surrounding 
buildings. 



4- 



II. Project Description 



Objective 15, Policy 1 : Ensure that new facades relate harmoniously with nearby facade patterns. 

Objective 15, Policy 2: Assure that new buildings contribute to the visual unity of the city. 

Objective 15, Policy 3: Encourage more variation in building facades and greater harmony with older 
buildings through use of architectural embellishments and bay or recessed windows. 

CIVIC CENTER AREA PLAN 

The project site is within the sphere of influence of the San Francisco Civic Center which 
contains similar types of uses and, therefore, objectives and policies of the Civic Center Area 
Plan may be considered relevant. The Civic Center Area Plan of the San Francisco General 
Plan was adopted in 1974 and revised in 1994 for public review. The 1994 review document, the 
published Civic Center Study, reviews policy and development goals for the Civic Center proper 
as well as "ring" neighborhoods, including North of Market, Mid-Market, South Van Ness, and 
Hayes Valley. The study proposes strategies to revitalize those areas using existing public 
resources focused on specific geographic areas to create safe and attractive destinations that will 
stimulate long-term private sector investments in these areas. The study proposes a goal to 
achieve a safe, dynamic, and pleasant 24-hour "campus" in the Civic Center and its environs. 
Relevant objectives and policies in the Civic Center Area Plan include the following: 

Objective 1 : Maintain and reinforce the Civic Center as the symbolic and ceremonial focus of community 
government and culture. 

Objective 1, Policy 2: Maintain the formal architectural character of the Civic Center. 

Objective 2: Develop the Civic Center as a cohesive area for the administrative functions of the City, State, 
and Federal Government, and as a focal point for cultural, ceremonial, and community activities. 

Objective 2, Policy 2: Locate civic cultural facilities in the Civic Center. 



48 



HI. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



An application for environmental evaluation tor the San Francisco Conservator* ot Musk 5<i ( >ak 
Street project was filed September 4, 2001. On the basis of an Initial Stud\ published on June 2*'. 
2002, the San Francisco Planning Department determined that an Environmental Impact Report 
(EIR) was required. The Initial Study determined that the following effects of the project would 
either be insignificant or be reduced to a less-than-significant level b\ mitigation measures 
included in the project and thus required no further analysis in this EIR: land use. \ isual qualuv 
and urban design, population and housing, noise, air quality, shadow, wind, utilities public 
services, biology, geology/topography, energy natural resources, hazards, archaeological 
resources, and water'. Therefore, the EIR does not discuss these topics, except as noted below . 
(See Appendix A for the Initial Study.) 

This chapter assesses the project's potentially significant impacts in the areas of historic 
architectural resources, transportation, and growth inducement. Land use and zoning are included 
in this chapter for informational purposes to orient the reader. Not all the impacts presented in 
this section are physical environmental effects as defined by the California En\ ironmental 
Quality Act (CEQA). Nonphysical effects are included here for informational purposes only. 



A. LAND USE AND ZONING 



LAND USE 

Existing Land Use in the Vicinity 



The project site is in the western portion of the Downtown Plan area of San Francisco. It is about 
a half-block south of the Civic Center. The Civic Center is identified as the cultural, ceremonial. 



1 Water usage generated by the project would be considered less-than-significant per Resolution 
02-0084, adopted May 14, 2002. In this Resolution, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 
determined that there is sufficient water supply to serve expected development projects in San Franc 
through the year 2020. The proposed project would fall within this expected development This Resolution 
is on file with the San Francisco Planning Department. 1660 Mission Street, and B a\ ailablc for rev icw by 
appointment as part of the project file. 



49 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
A. Land Use and Zoning 



and governmental center of San Francisco. (See Figure 16: Project Site in Civic Center Area 
Plan Context.) Civic Center holds symbolic importance because it contains key City public 
buildings and spaces, such as City Hall; the San Francisco Courts building; the Philip Burton 
Federal Building; the Edmund G. Brown State Office Building; the California State Office 
Building and the New State Office Building (Civic Center Complex); San Francisco Main 
Library; Civic Center Plaza; War Memorial Plaza; and United Nations Plaza. Many of the City's 
primary cultural institutions, such as the San Francisco Opera, San Francisco Ballet, and San 
Francisco Symphony, are located within the district in performance spaces such as the War 
Memorial Opera House, Davies Symphony Hall, and the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. The 
Asian Art Museum is under construction at the former Old Main Library in the Civic Center. In 
the immediate vicinity of the project site is a mix of residential; commercial (office and retail); 
institutional (educational); City office; arts, performance, entertainment; and parking uses. 

Across Hickory Street to the north are a four-story apartment building, a two-story office 
building, a two-story office-retail building, a five-story apartment building, an auto repair garage, 
and a parking lot. An eight-story, 100-foot-tall, 50-unit residential building with office and retail 
space was approved in January 2002 for this parking lot across Hickory Street at 41/77 Van Ness 
Avenue. In the block further north of the project site are the San Francisco Unified School 
District (SFUSD) offices at 135 Van Ness Avenue, City Landmark No. 140. Immediately 
adjacent to the site on the east is the approximately 125-foot-tall, seven-story, mixed use building 
at 25 Van Ness Avenue, a Category I Significant building under Article 11; it contains City 
offices as well as the New Conservatory Theater. Across Van Ness Avenue farther east is a five- 
story, City government office building at 30 Van Ness Avenue. Across Oak Street to the south 
are a two-story restaurant-office building, a three-story office building, a one-story auto repair 
garage, and two surface parking lots. Directly west of the site is a surface parking lot, and across 
Franklin Street one block west of the site at 150 Oak Street is the five- to six-story French- 
American and Chinese-American International Schools campus. 

The project site is located mid-block fronting Oak Street on Lots 5 and 7 of Assessor's Block 
834. The site, on the half block bounded by Oak, Franklin, and Hickory Streets and Van Ness 
Avenue, is occupied by two buildings, 50 and 70 Oak Street. Both buildings have vacant space 
and occupied spaces used for offices and dance, performance, and physical fitness uses. The 
approximately 61,000-gsf, four- to five-story 50 Oak Street building was built in 1914 and 
occupies the whole of Lot 5. The approximately 30,000-gsf, three- to four-story 70 Oak Street 
building was built in 1923 and occupies the whole of Lot 7. 



50 




SAN FRANCISCO 
BALLET 



EDMUND D. BROWN 

1 1 STATE 

I ' BUILDING 



VETERANS 
BUILDING 



OPERA HOUSE 



MCALLISTER ST 










y ' 




■ V 




ASIAN 
ART MUSEUM 




OLD FCDCRAL 
C* ftCl BUV.OMO 

k 1 L 


CfTYHALL 




CIVIC CENTER 
PLAZA 


RATON ST 




U N PLAZA 

s 










MAM uBKAir* 


I 

CD 


OOPMEUM f 
THEATRE f 



L 



OAVIES 
SYMPHONY 
HALL 




SAN FRANCISCO 
UNIFIED SCHOOL 
DISTRICT 
BUILDING 



' ■ ' r - 



Legend 

CIVIC CENTER AREA PLAN AREA 
■■■■■ CIVIC CENTER AREA PLAN CORE 
LZZZa ^COECTSITE 




400 



FEET 



SOURCE: San Francisco General Plan Civic Center Plan. Map 1, Turnstone Consulting 



50 OAK STREET 



2001 0862 E 



FIGURE 16: PROJECT SITE IN CIVIC CENTER AREA PLAN COS TEXT 

51 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
A. Land Use and Zoning 

Proposed Changes in Land Use 

The proposed project would change land use at the site from commercial and cultural uses (office, 
performing arts, and fitness-related uses) to a post-secondary educational facility that teaches 
music and prepares students for a professional career in music. The proposed Conservatory 
facility would be similar to existing cultural and educational uses in the Civic Center and 
immediate vicinity that emphasize the performing arts. Introducing the Conservatory in the Civic 
Center, the cultural center of the City, would add a compatible cultural/institutional land use to 
the area. The project would be similar to some existing uses such as the San Francisco Ballet 
School at 455 Franklin Street, near Fulton Street. The project proposes three performance spaces 
for performances to be given by Conservatory students and faculty. 

The proposed project's educational institutional use would be generally consistent and compatible 
with uses in the project vicinity. In particular, the 50 Oak Street project would be an educational 
use like the French-American and Chinese-American International Schools located on one 
campus one block west at 1 50 Oak Street, the San Francisco Ballet School, noted above, and 
administrative educational use associated with the SFUSD offices one block north of the site at 
135 Van Ness Avenue. 

Sub-sidewalk storage and utility vaults would be constructed in the Oak and Hickory Streets 
rights-of-way. Existing vaults are located within these City rights-of-way and the project would 
either retain these spaces or remove one vault to construct a new vault approximately one-fifth in 
size. City policy discourages construction of privately accessible amenities, such as vaults, 
within public rights-of-way. The proposed project would retain and, in one case, reduce the size 
of the three existing vaults. 

The project's use and scale of development would be compatible and consistent with the 
surrounding area. The project would not disrupt or divide an established community, or have a 
substantial impact on the existing character of the vicinity. As determined in the Initial Study 
(Appendix A), it would not result in significant effects related to land use. 

Existing Zoning 

The property is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Use District. The 
C-3-G District, as described in Planning Code Section 210.3, is composed of a variety of uses: 
retail, offices, hotels, entertainment, clubs and institutions, and high-density residential. Many of 



52 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
A Land I sc and Zoning 



the uses have a citywide or regional function. Post-secondar\ education is a principal permitted 
use in the C-3-G District. 

The C-3-G District permits a base floor area ratio (FAR) of 6: 1, or 106, 200 sq, ft lor combined 
Lots 5 and 7. The project site is within an 80-E Height and Bulk District, which permits 
buildings up to 80 feet in height, and a maximum building length and diagonal dimension of 
1 10 feet and 140 feet above 65 feet in height. 

Built prior to current zoning, the existing nonconforming 87-foot-tall building at 51 1 1 >ak Street 
exceeds the 80-foot height limit. The existing 50 Oak Street building measure 1 2<) fed in 
maximum length and 150 feet diagonally; therefore, it also exceeds the maximum allowable 
length and diagonal dimensions by ten feet at the fifth tloor and portions of the fourth floor of the 
building. 

Zoning and the Project 

The project proposes to seismically upgrade and alter the existing, approximately IS- foot- to 
87-foot-tall building at 50 Oak Street; and to demolish the existing 53-foot- to 77-foot-tall 
building at 70 Oak Street. New construction, 80 feet in height, at the 70 Oak Street site would be 
integrated with the major alteration at 50 Oak Street into one facility , The lots would be merged 
The project would include sub-sidewalk vaults within the Oak Street and Hickory Street right- 
of-way, discussed above. 

The project proposes a post-secondary educational institutional facilit) tor the purpose of 
academic, professional fine-arts education. As noted, the project would be a principal permitted 
use in the C-3-G District. The project would be 125,000 gsf. o\erall. About 9s.sn 
applicable to the FAR, and would be within the permitted 6:1 FAR of I06.2OO gsf tor the site 
All new project construction would be at. or below, the 80- foot height limit; the existing 
nonconforming portion of the 50 Oak Street building above 80 feet would be retained 

The proposed 50 Oak Street project would exceed the allowable maximum length and diagonal 
dimensions by 45 and 50 feet, respectively for the upper 1 5 feet of the building The length along 



2 The project floor area attributable to the FAR includes about 6.900 gsf of performance spacer. 
10,100 gsf of performance support space, 26.500 gsf of educational space. 7.500 gsf of office space. 7.000 
gsf of library space, 21,600 gsf of corridor and circulation space, and 18.900 gsf of service and storage 
space, a total of 98,500 gsf. 



53 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
A. Land Use and Zoning 



Oak Street would measure approximately 155 feet, and the diagonal dimension would measure 
approximately 1 90 feet, measuring from the southeast to the northwest corner of the proposed 
structure. As discussed in Chapter II, Project Description, p. 45, an exception to Planning Code 
bulk requirements is requested, under Planning Code Section 272. 



54 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

B. HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

The assessment of project impacts on historic architectural resources' under CEQA(< EQA 
Guidelines, Section 15064.5) is a two-step analysis: first, an analysis of whether the project site is 
an historic architectural resource or contains an historic architectural resource under ( EQA; and 
second, if the site is found to be or contain an historical resource, an anal) sis of w tiethei i he- 
project would cause a substantial adverse change to the resource. Thus, tins section has two 
components. The Setting discussion describes the existing buildings on the project site, and 
assesses whether the buildings are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The Impacts 
discussion reviews the criteria for significant impacts on historical resources under CEQ V 
describes the proposed work under the project, and assesses the impact of the project on historic 
architectural resources. 

SETTING 

This section describes the architecture and history of buildings on the site, and assesses whether 
these are historical resources under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines. Section I 5064.5(a i pro\ ides a 
definition of "historical resources." 2 Historical resources include resources listed in. or 
determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, resources 
included in an adopted local register, or identified as significant in a qualifying historical 
resources survey; or any building which a lead agency determines to be historical!) significant 
based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. 

The project site is occupied by two buildings, 50 Oak Street and 70 Oak Street, both designed b\ 
William Shea, an architect responsible for a number of large public, institutional and church 



For the purposes of this report, the term "historic architectural resources" is synonymous with 
"historical resources" under the CEQA Guidelines, sec. 15064.5. The former term is used here to exclude 
archeological resources, which are covered in the Initial Study. 

Note that these criteria define historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Thc> arc distinct 
from the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Public Resources Code. 
Section 5024.1, below . 

3 An historical resource is eligible for listing in the California Register if it: "(A) Is associated with 
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural 
heritage; (B) Is associated w ith the lives of persons important in our past: (C) Fmbodics the distinctive 
characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important 
creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or ma> he likely to >ield. 
information important in prehistory or history." Public Resources Code, sec. 5024.1. 



55 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

commissions in San Francisco. 4 An historic resources study, prepared by the project's 
preservation architect, evaluates each of the buildings for its historic significance. 5 An 
independent peer review of the historic resources study was also prepared for this EIR by an 
independent consultant. 6 The historic resources study, as revised in response to the peer review, 
and the peer review itself form the basis for the architectural and historic discussion in this EIR. 

50 OAK STREET BUILDING 

Architectural Description 

50 Oak Street is a five-story, reinforced concrete, steel, and wood frame building over two 
basement levels. (See Figure 17: Existing View of 50 Oak Street.) The building fronts on two 
streets. The south (front) facade is along Oak Street. The north (rear) facade is along Hickory 
Street. The building is outside the local and National Register Civic Center Historic Districts and 
the Civic Center Plan area. However, 50 Oak Street's Beaux Arts style, massing, and scale are 
consistent with the Beaux Arts character of prominent buildings in the Civic Center. 

Oak Street Facade 

The south facade is divided vertically into five structural bays and horizontally into three 
horizontal sections, a base, middle and top. The lowest section, the base, features a grey granite 
plinth (projecting base for a wall or column) at grade, below alternating ornamental bands and 
fields of flat, cream-colored terra cotta blocks. A horizontal belt course (projecting horizontal 
element separating the base from the middle section of the building) of polychrome terra cotta 



4 In 1890, William and his brother Frank established the firm of Shea and Shea. William Shea 
served as City architect from 1905 to 1907. William completed a number of large commissions, including 
many public buildings. He designed the dome on the old city hall, destroyed in 1906. Shea and Shea were 
best known for the design of the Whittel building at 155 Geary, and were most prolific in their work for the 
Catholic Church. In San Francisco they were responsible for the design of St. Brigid's, St. Vincent de 
Paul's, St. Paul's, St. James, Holy Cross, Star of the Sea, St. Monica's and St. Anne's. They were also 
frequently called upon to design club buildings, including a number of music halls and fraternal 
organization buildings. 

5 Page & Turnbull, Historic Resources Study, February 25, 2002, revised June 6, 2002. The 
historic resources study is on file with the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, and is 
available by appointment for public review as part of the project file. 

6 McGrew Architects, Peer Review Cover Letter and Annotated Text of the Historic Resources 
Study, March 18, 2002. The peer review is on file with the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, San 
Francisco, and is available by appointment for public review as part of the project file. 



56 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

divides the two-and-one-half-story base section from the three-story middle section of the 
building. The windows at the base level are deeply recessed and two are not original. The 
middle section features a giant order (columns extending through multiple floors) of four, three- 
story, buff-colored, Ionic terra cotta columns, flanked by giant pilasters (flat columns projecting 
from the wall) at each end. Tall wooden casement windows at the third and fourth floors and 
slightly shorter windows at the fifth floor are located between the columns and pilasters. The 
third-floor windows have decorative wrought iron balconies and the third- and fourth-floor 
windows are flanked by sidelights and topped by transoms. Above the columns, the top section 
of the facade features architrave and frieze bands (the horizontal bands below the cornice) 
surmounted with a projecting sheet metal dentilated (having a row of tightly spaced, teeth-like 
blocks) cornice topped by terra cotta antifixae (regularly spaced, upward-pointing ornament at the 
edge of the roof). 

The main entrance to 50 Oak Street is on the south facade. The entrance is distinguished by a 
two-story, terra cotta frame surrounding a recessed entry stair located in the center of the facade 
at the street level. The frame is surmounted by a triangular pediment topped with acroteria 
(upward pointing ornament at the apex and ends of the pediment), and is visually supported with 
curving terra cotta consoles (scrolled brackets). The stair has gray marble steps and white marble 
walls, articulated into panels. A wide articulated band topped with an egg and dart molding 
marks the top of the marble wall, which gives way to plaster walls framed by wave pattern 
molding. The ceiling is comprised of stenciled coffers (sunken ceiling panels formed by 
intersecting beams) with the top of each coffer framed by egg and dart molding. At the top of the 
steps are a pair of oak entry doors with ten lights (glazed panes in the door panel). The doors are 
set into an oak frame with a heavy cornice. The wood doors are clad in bronze. The frieze above 
the door contains the inscription "The Young Men's Institute Building and Donahue Library." 
(See Figure 18: Existing Entrance to 50 Oak Street.) 

Hickory Street Facade 

The north (rear) facade is secondary, and simpler than the south (front) facade. (See Figure 19: 
Existing View of 50 Oak Street.) This facade is of cement plaster and features small, filled-in 
basement windows, and three, two-story fixed metal windows located at the height of the first 
floor. These windows are topped with a single panel each, and capped with a continuous 
molding. This facade is terminated with a simple sheet metal cornice with modillions (regularly 
spaced brackets on the underside of the cornice). Steel fire-escape balconies dominate the facade, 



58 




SOURCE: Page and Turnbull. Turnstone Consulting 



50 OflK STREET 

2001 0862E FIGURE 19: EXISTING VIEW OF 50 OAK STREET 

(VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWEST ON HICKORY STREET) 



60 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

with a long, central balcony at the first floor and two at each level above, all connected b\ 
retractable ladders. 

Interior 

The historic resources study identifies and describes character-defining and secondary spaces 
within 50 Oak Street. According to the historic resources study, character-defining spaces are 
highly finished, functionally important spaces that inform the overall character of the building 
either by their size, their definition of the shape a building takes, or in their finishes. Character- 
defining spaces of 50 Oak Street, identified in the historic resources study and peer re\ icw . 
include the Ballroom, Ballroom Lobby, Lodge Room A, Lodge Room B. Main Entry, and Main 
Entry Lobby. Secondary spaces are those that also contribute to the building, but may not be as 
ornate or may not have as direct a relationship to the overall physical character of the building. 
They are often less highly finished and more purely functional than character-defining spaces. 
Secondary spaces include the Elevator Lobby and Stairs at Floors 2-5, Swimming Pool, 
Gymnasium, and Weight Room. (See Figures 20-23 for plans showing the location of these 
character-defining and secondary spaces on existing floor plans for 50 and 70 ( )ak Street, see also 
Table 1, p. 69.) 

According to the historic resource study and peer review, the most significant of the character- 
defining spaces of 50 Oak Street are those that were used for large gatherings or meetings by the 
Pacific Council of the Young Men's Institute. These spaces include the Ballroom and Lodge 
Rooms A and B. (See Figure 24: Existing Ballroom Interior, and Figure 25: Existing Lodge 
Rooms A and B.) The primary gathering place for large events and meetings of the Young Men's 
Institute, the Ballroom is the largest and most highly embellished of the interior spaces in 50 Oak 
Street. 

The double doors of the main entry lobby lead into the Ballroom through the Ballroom Vestibule, 
a one-story rectangular space with semicircular ends at east and west (sec Figure 20» The 
double-height Ballroom has a wood floor and a wood wainscot. The Ballroom walls are lined 
with paired, fluted pilasters topped with gold-leafed Corinthian capitals. On the north wall, there 
are four sets of paired pilasters, flanking two sets of double exit doors leading to Hickory street 
At the center of the north wall, two engaged columns (columns, circular or semicircular in 
section, that are attached to a wall) alternate with three high steel windows (current!) co\ crcd) 
Like the pilasters, the columns are fluted and topped with gold-leaf Corinthian capitals The east 
and west walls are marked by four sets of paired pilasters. Between the pairs of pilasters are inset 



61 



Key 




MAIN ENTRY 
ENTRY LOBBY 
BALLROOM VESTIBULE 
BALLROOM 
DONOHUE LIBRARY 
ELEVATOR / MAIN STAIR 
6a. BALCONY STAIR 
HANDBALL COURT 

CHARACTER DEFINING 



70 OAK 

FIRST FLOOR - EXISTING CONDITIONS 



50 OAK 



ENTRY LOBBY 
BALCONY 
BALLROOM 
DONOHUE LIBRARY 
ELEVATOR /MAIN STAIR 
5a. BALCONY STAIR 
6. GYMNASIUM (70 OAK) 
[ | CHARACTER DEFINING 
SECONDARY SPACE 




70 OAK 

SECOND FLOOR - EXISTING CONDITIONS 



FEET 



SOURCE: Page and Turnbull, Turnstone Consulting 

50 QflK STREET 



2001.0862E 



FIGURE 20: 50 AND 70 OAK STREET 
EXISTING FIRST- AND SECOND-FLOOR PLANS 



62 




Km 

1 LOOOEROOM 

2 ELEVATOR LO60V 

3 PARLOR 

4 BALLROOM 
& BUJARDSROOM 

6 ELEVATOR 'MAJM ST A* 

7 OYUHASaJII 

I I CHARACTER OEFlMMa 
SECONDARY SPACE 

■ 



70 OAK 

THIRD FLOOR - EXISTING CONDITIONS 



50 OAK 



K.y 

t LOOQEROOU 

2 ELEVATOR toeev 

3 PARLOR 

4 LOOOE »OOM a- 

5 LOOOE ROOM V 

6 ELEVATOR I MAM ST A* 

I I CHARACTER OEHNMO 
SECONQARV SPACE 




70 OAK 

FOURTH FLOOR - EXISTING CONDITIONS 



FEE1 



SOURCE Page and Tumbult. Turnstone Consulting 

50 OdK STREET 



2001 0862E 



FIGURE 21: _ > 0 \M) "0 ()\k STRFFT 
EXISTING THIRD- AND FOL RTH-FLOOR PI VNS 

63 




FEET 



SOURCE: Page and Turnbull, Turnstone Consulting 



50 OflK STICCT 

2001 0862E • FIGURE 22: 50 AND 70 OAK STREET 

EXISTING FIFTH-FLOOR PLAN 



64 



70 OAK 



BASEMENT LEVEL 1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 




K.y 

t — — POM 

2 LOCKER ROOMS 

3 OYMNASKJM 

4 WEIGHT ROOM 

5 MEChAMKAL 
| | SECONDARY SPACE 



50 OAK 



n 



Ui 




K«y 

1. wm pool 

2. LOCKER ROOMS 

3 QYMHAS1UM 

4 WEKXT ROOM 

5 LAVATORY 
« ELEVATOR ' ST AM 
7 HANDBALL COURT 

(ZD CHARACTER DEFMNO 
I I SECONDARY SPACE 



70 OAK 

BASEMENT LEVEL 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 



FEE1 



SOURCE: Page and Tumbull. Turnstone Consulting 

50 OflK STREET 



2001 0862 E 



FIGURE 23: 50 AND 70 OAK STREET 
EXISTING FIRST AND SECOND BASEMENTS 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

panels with brass grilles located in the wood wainscot below. On the south wall, four sets of 
paired pilasters frame two doors. At the center of the south wall is the opening from the 
Ballroom Vestibule into the Ballroom entry on the first floor and an undulating balcony on the 
second floor. 

The pilasters appear to support an entablature (the horizontal element that spans the columns and 
pilasters). Giant gilded plaster laurel wreaths are centered above each column and pilaster at the 
frieze (the upper portion of the entablature) and above this, a modillion band (regularly spaced 
block-like brackets) rings the room. The ceiling is elaborately coffered (having recessed panels 
formed by intersecting beams). Two pairs of intersecting beams divide the ceiling into nine 
recessed panels. Along their horizontal face, the beams have foliated (ornamented with 
representations of foliage) detail with gold highlights. In each of the nine inset panels are several 
rings of ornamental banding with gold highlights, accentuating the deep recess of each of the 
coffers. The flat elements of the ceiling vary between light and deep peach, while moldings are 
cream with gold highlights. The flat inset panels of the coffers are bright blue. 

Table 1 summarizes the interior spaces at 50 Oak Street and 70 Oak Street identified as character 
defining and secondary and their disposition under the proposed project. 

Integrity 

On the Oak Street facade, a number of basement windows have been replaced. At the second 
floor, the easternmost window of 50 Oak Street has been replaced. A fire escape has been added 
to this facade, necessitating removal of one of the third-floor ornamental balconies and alteration 
of one window on the fourth and fifth floors to accommodate egress to the fire escape. The 
condition of the terra cotta at 50 Oak Street is poor. Some terra cotta tiles are visibly cracked or 
missing and there is some glaze spall. There appear to be drainage problems at the balconies that 
may be causing additional deterioration of the terra cotta. The sheet metal cornice is rusting but 
appears intact. On the north facade, doors and windows have been boarded up. The windows of 
the Ballroom still exist behind plywood sheathing. These windows have been damaged, and 
some sections have been replaced. On the interior, alterations have been limited to insertion of 
partition walls. 

According to the historic resources study, the distinguishing original architectural features of the 
50 Oak Street building remain intact, although there has been deferred maintenance over the 
years. The historic fabric of the building has not been substantially altered, and those alterations 
that have taken place are readily reversible. 



68 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 



Table 1: Existing Character-Defining and Secondary Interior Spaces at 50 Oak sum iml 
70 Oak Street 



50 Oak Street 

Ballroom 
Ballroom Lobby 
Lodge Room A 
Lodge Room B 
Main Entry 
Main Entry Lobby 

Elevator Lobby and Stairs-Floors 2-5 
Swimming Pool 
Gymnasium 
Weight Room 
70 Oak Street 
Gymnasium 
Billiards Room 
Source: Page & Turnbull 

Historic Background 

Fifty Oak Street was built for the Young Men's Institute (Y.M.I.) and designed b\ William Shea 
This group built and then occupied the building from its construction in 1914 until 1995. 
According to the peer-reviewed historic resources study, the building was built to house the 
national offices of the Y.M.I, founded in 1883 in San Francisco, possibly unique as a national 
sports and fellowship organization founded on the West C oast. The building held the offices of 
the Grand Council of the Pacific, the administrative center of the organization. Now a I 1 8-year - 
old organization, the Y.M.I, and the Y.L.I, (founded I88 7 ) are national groups that continue t<< 
function as social and charitable associations for Catholics in America. The V.M.I and Y I I are 
part of the early 20 th Century growth of sports and fellowship organizations in the I S . which 
included the Y.M.C.A., Y.W.C.A. and the Young Hebrew Association. In 1995. the Archdiocese 
sold the building and the Y.M.I, and Y.L.I, found office space elsewhere. Both organizations 
continue to operate to this day. 



Character Secondary Disposition 

Defining Space in Prnpntcd Project 



X Partial Reuse 

X Demolition 

X IXmohtion 

X Demolition 

X Demolition 

X Partial Reuse 

X Demolition 

X Demolition 

X Demolition 

X Demolition 

X Demolition 

X Demolition 



69 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

Existing Status of 50 Oak Street Under Local, State and National Registers and Surveys 

According to the historic resources study, 50 Oak Street is the most significant surviving facility 
of this important organization (the Y.M.I.), making it, according to the study, eligible for listing 
on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A (Pattern of Events), and under 
Criterion C (Design/Construction) as an example of an historic social organization building type. 
It would also be eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources under 
California Register Criteria 1 and 3 (corresponding in substance to National Register Criteria A 
and C). 

However, the 50 Oak Street building is not currently nominated for, or listed on, the National 
Register of Historic Places, and it has no other National Register status. The building is not a 
designated City Landmark, nor within any Historic District under Article 10 of the Planning 
Code. The building is designated a Category II, Significant building under Article 1 1 of the 
Planning Code. The building is identified in the 1976 Citywide Survey as a "4" (with "5" being 
the highest rating). Under the San Francisco Heritage Downtown Inventory the building is listed 
as an Inventory Group A (the highest rating), placing it in the top 1 percent of San Francisco's 
surveyed structures. It is not currently listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. 

Status of 50 Oak Street Under CEQA 

Based on 50 Oak Street's local designation under Article 1 1, the building exterior meets the 
criteria to be presumed an historic resource, under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(2), 
being a "resource included in a local register of historical resources." 7 

Information presented in the historic resources study and peer review supports a lead agency 
determination that significant interiors, identified as character defining, would meet the criteria 
for listing on the California Register of Historical Places. As such, these interior spaces would 
also be considered historical resources under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3). 



7 The building's designation under Article 1 1 was premised on its exterior features. 



70 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Arclntcctur.il Resource 



70 OAK STREET 
Architectural Description 

Oak Street Facade 

Seventy Oak Street is a four-story building over a basement. (See Figure 2(y Existing Views of 
70 Oak Street.) In 1923 the building was built as an adjunct to 50 Oak Street and its subordinate 
character is evident in its simpler design and materials, driven in part by a smaller budget 
Seventy Oak Street has a more subtle tripartite (three-part) division, a simple rectangular block 
with a low plinth matching the granite base of its neighbor and a sheet metal cornice Ed the top 
Below the cornice, heavy flat horizontal banding corresponds to the meander fretwork on the 
of 50 Oak Street, visually tying the two buildings together at the first and second Qoors Seven!) 
Oak Street is divided into four horizontal bays, with paired casement u indows * nh a fixed 
transom, occupying each of the bays. A recessed, undecorated entry with marble steps is located 
in the western bay. As can be seen in Figure 26, the entry is secondary to that of 50 ( )ak Street 

Hickory Street Facade 

The rear facade along Hickory Street is cement plaster with fire escape balconies at each end of 
the facade. At the center of the building is a wide, flat bay topped by an elaborate molding that 
projects from the face of the wall over the property line. There are three large steel-frame 
industrial sash windows located on the top floor. A triangular parapet terminates the facade. 

Interior 

The historic resources study identifies no character-defining interior spaces at 70 Oak Street. The 
study identifies two secondary spaces, the Gymnasium, and the Billiards Room on the third floor. 
According to the historic resources study, as secondary spaces, these spaces are less highly 
finished and more purely functional than the character-defining spaces in 50 Oak Street Sec 
Table 1, p. 69. See also Figures 20-23, pp. 62-65. 

Integrity 

According to the historic resources smdy. the 70 Oak Street building retains most of its original 
historic fabric despite deferred maintenance over the years. There have been no major 



~1 




SO STREET 



2001 0862E FIGURE 26: EXISTING VIEWS OF 70 OAK STREET 

72 



HI. Environmental Sewing and impacts 

B. Historic Architectural Resources 

alterations. On the Oak Street facade, basement windows and all windows on the third lloor have 
been replaced. On the Hickory Street facade, doors and windows have been boarded up The 
cement plaster, especially on the south facade, is in very poor condition and lias been spalhng oil 
Netting now covers this facade to contain falling debris. 

70 Oak Street: Historic Background 

Seventy Oak Street was built in 1923 for the Y.M.I, and Y.L.I.; it was also designed b\ the firm 
of Shea and Shea, of which William Shea, architect of 50 Oak Street, w as a partner. In 1923 the 
Y.M.I, decided to expand activities at its building at 50 Oak Street, building a new Gymnasium 
and more meeting spaces at 70 Oak Street, adjacent to the original building. In this construction 
project, unlike at 50 Oak Street, the Y.L.I, was a full partner, and unlike 50 I >ak Street. 70 Oak 
Street was built not to provide the national organization with an administratis e center, but rather 
to provide local chapters with needed facilities. This limited fund-raising to local chapters and. 
without a bequest from the Bishop, the organization had to raise the construction funds b\ selling 
the deed to 50 Oak Street to the Archdiocese of San Francisco. This change in use and resultant 
restriction in fund-raising interest explains why the design and details of 70 ( )ak street Bit 
modest in comparison to the original building at 50 Oak Street. Rather than being a symbol of 
the Y.M.I, and Y.L.I, organizations, 70 Oak Street was a facility to house additional functions 
After the new construction was completed, social and charitable activities continued. 

Status of 70 Oak Street under Local, State and National Registers and Sum \ I 

According to the Historic Resources Report, and concurred w ith by the peer reviewer, it is 
unlikely that 70 Oak would be found eligible to the National Register or the C alifornia Register 
under Criteria A or Criterion 1 , respectively. Seventv ( )ak. as an addition to the Y M I complex, 
is secondary to 50 Oak. historically and architecturally. Architectural!) . the building is more 
economic in exterior and interior finishes. These differences make it unlikely that "0 ( )ak uould 
be found individually eligible to the National Register under Criterion (". or to the ( al i tornia 
Register under Criterion 3. 

Although 70 Oak Street was built and occupied by the Y.M.I, and Y.L.I.. two organizations that 
have made important contributions to broad patterns of California history, the association 
between the 70 Oak Street building and those organizations is less significant than that of 50 Oak 
Street. Seventv - Oak Street was not built as a symbol of the organization, as was 50 Oak Street 
Rather, it was built to house the activ ities of local chapters. As noted, the building is \isuall> less 



"3 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

distinguished, and subordinate to, 50 Oak Street, employing a simpler design and plainer 
materials than 50 Oak Street. 

The 70 Oak Street building is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and 
has no other National Register status. It is not a designated City Landmark, within any Historic 
District under Article 10 of the Planning Code, nor designated under Article 1 1 of the Planning 
Code. The building is not identified in the 1976 Citywide Survey. Under the San Francisco 
Heritage Downtown Inventory the building is listed as an Inventory Group C++, for contextual 
importance. 

Status of 70 Oak Street under CEQA 

The 70 Oak Street building does not meet criteria for historical resources in the CEQA Guidelines 
(Section 15064.5(a)(1) and (2)). As discussed above, the building is not listed in, or determined 
eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the California Register; has 
not been included in a qualified historical resources survey; nor included in a local register of 
historical resources adopted by the local government by ordinance or resolution. Information has 
not been presented which supports a conclusion that 70 Oak Street is an historical resource under 
CEQA. 

IMPACTS 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 
CEQA Guidelines 

The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, establish criteria for assessing a significant 
environmental impact on historical resources. They state, "[a] project with an effect that may 
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that 
may have a significant effect on the environment." The CEQA Guidelines define substantial 
adverse change as a "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or 
its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be 
materially impaired." The significance of an historic architectural resource is considered to be 
"materially impaired" when a project demolishes or materially alters the physical characteristics 
that justify the inclusion of the resource in the California Register, or that justify the inclusion of 



74 



III. Fnv ironmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

the resource in a local register, or that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register 
as determined by the lead agency. 

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 

The Secretary of the Interior 's Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards ) provide guidance lor 
work to historic properties to retain their historic significance through preserv ation of historic 
materials and features. They were developed to determine the eligibility of work on registered 
historic properties for federal historic preservation grant and tax credit programs. The Standards 
have also been adopted by local government bodies across the country (including the San 
Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board) as an analytic framew ork for review of 
proposed work to historic properties under local ordinances. 

Note that the Secretary of the Interior 's Standards for Rehabilitation are distinct from the 
standards for finding a significant impact under CEQA that are discussed above. While a project 
conforming to the Standards would generally constitute a less-than-significant impact under 
CEQA Guidelines, a project that does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for 
Rehabilitation may, or may not, constitute a significant impact under CEQA. For informational 
purposes, an evaluation of the proposed 50 Oak Street project, in relation to the Standards, is 
provided in Appendix C. Alternative C, the Historic Preserv ation Alternative of this FIR. 
presents a project and program that would conform to the Secretary- of the Interior s Standards 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK AND ANALYSIS OF PRO II ( I IMP\< IS 
UNDER CEQA 

The project has four main components for the purposes of this Historic Architectural Resources 
Impacts section: exterior alterations to 50 Oak Street; demolition and removal of the floors and 
interiors of 50 Oak Street; demolition of 70 Oak Street; and new construction at the site of 70 
Oak Street, which would be integrated with 50 Oak Street 

50 Oak Street: Proposed Exterior Alterations 

On the Oak Street elev ation, the project would demolish features of the existing, original entrance 
including the wood entry door, stairs, and entrance vestibule coffered ceiling, marble walls and 
finishes; and construct a new. glass entry with an accessible, grade-level entrance in the same 
facade opening. New wood window sash with laminated, acoustically rated gla/ing would be 
installed in existing wood window frames, which would be rehabilitated The new window 



"5 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

sashes would match the originals. The Oak Street facade would be cleaned, terra cotta would be 
patched and repaired, or replaced in kind as required, and the facade would be repointed. The 
sheet metal cornice would be restored, as well as the iron balconies and window grilles. Non- 
original fire escapes would be removed and copies of the original balconies would be installed 
where removed. 

At the rear, Hickory Street facade, the proposed expansion would require construction of a new, 
partial, one-story rooftop addition, visible from Hickory Street (at the front of the building, this 
expansion would not exceed the building's existing volume because the existing building is 
higher at the front than at the rear). The two upper, existing exit doors at the existing fourth floor 
would be removed and the openings infilled. The position of the lower exit doors from the 
Ballroom would be lowered to provide exiting at grade. New exit doors would be simple and 
functional in character. Plywood sheathing would be removed from the three tall windows that 
open into the Ballroom and these would be rehabilitated. New window openings are proposed for 
the fifth floor. The facade would be cleaned, repaired and repainted. Existing original metal fire- 
escape ladders would be removed and metal balconies would be repaired and repainted. 

The proposed project would entail demolition of distinguishing original exterior entrance features 
that contribute to the building's architectural character, specifically the wood entry door, marble 
stairs, and entrance vestibule coffered ceiling, marble sidewalls and finishes. The stairs are part 
of an original entry sequence, ascending to an elevated main floor entry lobby, effecting the 
transition between the street and lobby. This relationship would be lost with the proposed 
demolition of the existing original entry and construction of the proposed grade-level entrance. 
The new, recessed, glass entry would be constructed within the existing enframed, pedimented 
entrance opening in the facade. Such a large expanse of glass would alter the appearance of the 
building, although its visual impact could be lessened somewhat by its placement, recessed 
behind the facade plane within the entrance opening. 

Removal of original entrance features of 50 Oak Street would materially impair the physical 
characteristics of the historic architectural resource that convey its historical significance and that 
justify, in part, its designation under Article 1 1 . These changes would constitute a substantial 
adverse change in the significance of an historic architectural resource, under CEQA Guidelines 
(Section 15064.5(b)(2)(B)), and would, therefore, be considered a significant environmental 
impact under CEQA. 

Other exterior work to the front, Oak Street facade would be basically restorative and stabilizing 
in nature, including facade cleaning, terra cotta repair, removal of non-original fire escapes and 



76 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

replication of missing window grilles. The proposed window sash replacements would replicate 
the originals in configuration, material, profile and detail. This work would not constitute a 
significant impact to an historic resource. 

The proposed alterations at the rear. Hickory Street elevation, including installation of new- 
window openings at the fifth floor, removal of exit doors and repositioning of exit dcx>r locations, 
and a new sixth-floor addition, would not appear to material l\ alter the ph\ sical characteristics of 
the building, which convey its significance or which justify its designation under Article 1 1. 
These would be relatively minor changes to a secondary facade and would not constitute a 
significant impact on an historic resource. 

50 Oak Street: Proposed Demolition and Replacement of the Floors and Interiors 

The project would demolish existing floors, interior walls and structural systems and construct 
new ones, integrated w ith the proposed new construction at 70 Oak Street into one structure. The 
project would incorporate an additional floor w ithin the existing five-story building envelope, 
necessitating realignment of floor levels. Interior character-defining features identified in the 
historic resources study and peer review would be demolished, after salvage of materials as 
feasible. These features include the Ballroom Lobby. Lodge Room A and Lodge Room B. and 
Main Entry Lobby. 

Most of the character-defining Ballroom w ould be retained and reused as the audience chamber 
for a new concert hall as follows. The Ballroom's north, east and south walls and interior finishes 
would be retained in situ or removed and reinstalled at the same location if in titU retention 
during construction is infeasible. The Ballroom floor and the west wall of the Ballroom would be 
demolished and a stage would be constructed in the former 70 Oak Street space The new 
audience chamber floor would be lower than the existing Ballroom floor and inclined to 
accommodate raised seating. The building's eastern lot line wall adjoining 25 Van Ness would 
remain in place. 

Despite retention of architectural features, the proposed alterations to the Ballroom would change 
the space's proportions and architectural character. The proposed demolition of other Mgnificant 
interior spaces would eliminate character-defining features that contribute to the building *t 
overall architectural and historic significance. 

Regarding the proposed realignment of floor levels, except for through the proposed new grade- 
level entrance, the demolition of all of the floors and the realignment of floor lev els within the 



77 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

proposed project are intended to be minimally visible, or not visible, when viewed from the street 
level outside, because the fourth and fifth floors, which do not align with spandrels (the wall area 
above window openings), would be set back from the windows. However, these alterations 
would cause the loss of a clear, readable relationship between the floor levels, as these are 
expressed on the facade by the position of windows and spandrels, and the actual presence of 
floors and position of floor levels behind the facade, particularly at the first, fourth and fifth 
levels of the proposed project. This structural and spatial integration between the exterior and 
interior of the building is an element of the building's overall integrity. 

The proposed demolition of interior spaces, and the proposed changes to some of the new floor 
levels, could materially impair the physical characteristics of the historic architectural resource 
that convey its historical significance and that justify, in part, its eligibility for inclusion in the 
California Register as determined by the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. These changes 
would constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic architectural 
resource, under CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5(b)(2)(C)), and would, therefore, be 
considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. 

70 Oak Street: Proposed Demolition 

As discussed in the Setting, 70 Oak Street is not an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. 
Demolition of 70 Oak Street would, therefore, not constitute a substantial adverse change in the 
significance of an historic architectural resource, and would not be considered a significant 
environmental impact, under CEQA. 

Proposed New Construction on the 70 Oak Street Site 

New project construction on the site of 70 Oak Street would be a six-story steel and concrete 
structure over two basement levels. It would be structurally and programmatically integrated 
with the altered 50 Oak Street, to form a single building which would, collectively, have 50 Oak 
Street as its address. The facade of the new construction at the site of 70 Oak Street would be a 
contemporary interpretation of the architectural composition of 50 Oak Street. A base, middle 
and top would be defined and the horizontal banding at the base of 50 Oak Street would be 
carried across to the new construction. The top of the new structure would be defined with a 
prominent horizontal cornice line at the library. The exterior finishes would consist of limestone 
in two colors, gray at the base to match the polished gray marble of the base of 50 Oak Street and 
beige above to match the terra cotta of same. The gray limestone would have both a honed 
(smooth) and a rough-textured finish while the beige limestone would have a honed finish. The 



78 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

proposed curtain wall would be framed with stainless steel mullions and glazed with both clc 
and translucent glass. The cornice would be stainless steel. Exterior finishes on the Hickof) 
Street facade and the west wall would be architectural grade, cast-in-place. gra> and beige 
concrete with cast reveals. Lot line windows would be painted aluminum frame w mdow S 

The proposed new construction would not destroy, alter or obscure distinctive exterior features ol 
50 Oak Street, as itsjuncture with 50 Oak Street would occur along the existing interior lot line ' 
The new construction would be clearly differentiated from the 50 ( )ak Street building 
Contemporary in style, it is intended to leave no ambiguity as to what portion of the building is 
original and thus avoid creating a false sense of history . In its urban streetscape context, the 
overall visual effect of the new construction would be that of a separate, neighboring new 
building. 

The design of the proposed new construction at the 70 Oak Street site is intended to defer to 50 
Oak Street's facade and to be visually subordinate, emphasizing the prhnac] of the historic 
facade. The new construction would continue the street wall along ( )ak Street and would be 
simple and rectilinear in massing. Major horizontal elements of the historic facade would 
carried through to and suggested by the new construction. The new facade would be further 
divided by vertical and horizontal mullions and sun shades, intended to reinforce B sense ol 
human scale, depth and play of light and shadow that characterizes the historic facade. ( ladd 
for the Oak Street facade of the new construction would be limestone, similar in tone and colot to 
the terra cotta and grey granite of the base on the historic facade. 

Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project that conforms to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards 
for Rehabilitation shall be considered as having been mitigated to a less-than-significant impact 
on an historic architectural resource (Section 15064.5(b)(3)). Secretary of the Interior's Standard 
No. 9 is the relevant standard applicable to additions to historic architectural resources It states: 

New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy 
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be 
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale 



8 To the extent that the new addition would necessitate or cause the removal and reconfiguration of 
50 Oak Street floors and interior, in order to integrate that building structurally and programmatically with 
its addition, that impact is discussed in the 50 Oak Street section of this document. This discussion focuses 
on the overall exterior visual impact of the new construction at 70 Oak Street on the historic resource. 50 
Oak Street. 



79 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
B. Historic Architectural Resources 

and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its 
environment. 

The exterior design of the new construction on the 70 Oak Street parcel appears to meet the 
Secretary of the Interior 's Standards for Rehabilitation relevant to new additions. The new 
construction has been designed to be differentiated, yet compatible with the historic 50 Oak Street 
facade. It would, therefore, not be considered a substantial adverse change and the addition 
would not be considered a significant impact on the historic resource, 50 Oak Street. 



80 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

C. TRANSPORTATION 

A transportation study for the proposed project was conducted by an independent consultant. 1 
The results are summarized in this section. The transportation study area is the area generalh 
bounded by Gough, Otis, Mission, Tenth and Hayes Streets | See Figure 27: I ransportatioi] 
Study Area.) 

SETTING 

REGIONAL HIGHWAYS 

There are no major regional highways in the immediate vicinity of the study area. Access to U.S. 
Highway 101 northbound and the Golden Gate Bridge is nearby, primarih via Van Ness Avenue 
and then Lombard Street, which are designated as U.S. 101. Franklin Street prm ides ad diti o n al 
access to U.S. 101 . The primary access route to U.S. Highway 101 southbound is via Van Ness 
Avenue to the freeway on-ramp at South Van Ness Avenue and Thirteenth Street. Gough Street 
provides additional access. Access to 1-80 eastbound is via Van Ness -\\enue to the freewa> on- 
ramp at South Van Ness Avenue and Thirteenth Street or at Br> ant and Eighth Streets 

LOCAL STREETS 

The project is located roughly in the Civic Center area of downtown San Francisco, in the block 
bounded by Fell Street to the north. Franklin Street to the west. Van Ness Avenue to the east, and 
Oak Street to the south. Oak Street is one-way westbound in front of the project site, between 
Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. Vehicular traffic accessing the main entrance of 50 Oak 
Street must therefore enter from Van Ness Avenue. Hickor\ Street is one-\\a> eastbound behind 
the project site between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street, and provides access to the project 
site's existing loading door and minor pedestrian exit 

Six streets are used as primary access routes for the project site: Oak Street. Van Ness Avenue. 
Market Street, Hickory Street, Franklin Street, and Gough Street. 



1 CHS Consulting Group. Conservatory of Music Project. Transportation StuaS. Jul> 1 2. 2<h>: \ 
copy of this report is on file with the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street. San Francisco, and is 
available for review by appointment as part of the project file. 



81 



uu 




SOURCE: CHS Consulting Group and Turnstone Consulting 



50 Om SHEET 

2001 0862E FIGURE 27: TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA 



82 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 



Oak Street is an east-west roadway that connects Market Street to Stanyan Street at ( iolden ( »atc 
Park. For most of its length. Oak Street forms a one-way couplet w ith Fell Street ( )ak Street is 
one-way eastbound west of Franklin Street with three travel lanes from Franklin to Baker Streets, 
and one-way westbound in front of the proposed project between Franklin Street and Van Ness 
Avenue with one travel lane. There is on-street parking on both sides of the street Parking is 
limited to 10 minutes on the north side of the street between Franklin and (iough Streets in front 
of the private elementary' school from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on school days, 
with one-hour meters in operation during other hours through 6:00 p.m. Between Van Ness 
Avenue and Franklin Street, sidewalks on Oak Street are 1 5 feet wide. West of Franklin Street, 
the sidewalks are 10 feet wide. 

Van Ness Avenue is a primary state highway (U.S. 101 ). It is a north-south major thoroughfare 
that connects Aquatic Park to Market Street, near Eleventh Street. South of Market Street. Van 
Ness Avenue becomes South Van Ness Avenue. Van Ness Avenue is generally a six-lane 
roadway with three lanes in each direction, with a landscaped or concrete median. In the pn> 
vicinity, left turns are prohibited in the northbound direction at McAllister, and in the southbound 
direction at Market Street. Within the vicinity of the project site, it has on-street parking and 16- 
foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. 

Market Street has two lanes in each direction and 25-foot- to 31 -foot-wide sidewalks Market 
Street is designated as a Transit Preferential Street between Castro Street and Steuart Street in the 
San Francisco General Plan and is heavily used by transit vehicles. It has streetcar tracks m the 
center lanes between Steuart and Castro Streets, bus-only lanes between Van Ness Avenue and 
Fifth Street for inbound traffic and between Van Ness Avenue and Eighth Street for outbound 
traffic. Transit stops are located at the curbside and at raised islands, staggered to avoid blockage 
of traffic circulation by transit vehicles stopped at the curb and others stopped at an island in the 
same block. Along both sides of the street at mid-blocks the sidewalks arc narrowed to 
accommodate pull-outs for passenger loading and delivery /ones. Parking is not permitted on 
Market Street in the study area and left turns are generally prohibited, except at few. designated 
intersections. 

Hickory Street is an east-west roadway running from Van Ness Avenue to ( )cta\ la Street and 
from Laguna Street to Webster Street. It is one-w ay eastbound from Octavia to Van Ness In the 
vicinity of the project site from Franklin to Van Ness it is 21 feet wide with 7-foot-wkk 
sidewalks on both sides with one travel lane and one parking lane. No parking is allowed on the 
north side of the street at any time. 



83 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

Franklin Street is a north-south roadway that provides access between Market Street and Fort 
Mason. Northbound Franklin Street between Market and Sacramento Streets forms a one-way 
couplet with southbound Gough Street. In the vicinity of the project, Franklin Street is one-way 
northbound with three travel lanes. It has on-street parking on the west side of the street and 
9-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is prohibited on the west side 
of the street from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. between Market and Fulton Streets, and also from 4:00 to 
7:00 p.m. north of Fulton Street; it is prohibited on the east side of the street at all times between 
Oak and Fell Streets and from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. north of Fulton Street. 

Gough Street is a north-south roadway between Bay Street and Mission Street. Between 
Sacramento and Market Streets, southbound Gough Street forms a one-way couplet with Franklin 
Street. Within the project vicinity, Gough Street is one-way southbound with three travel lanes. 
There is on-street parking on the west side of the street from Oak Street to Haight Street. On- 
street parking is prohibited on the east side of the street from Fell Street to Page Street during the 
hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. and at all times between Page and Market 
Streets. Thus, during these periods the number of travel lanes increases from three to four. 

Intersection Operating Conditions 

Intersection levels of service (LOS) were evaluated for five intersections in the vicinity of the 
proposed project: the three-way intersection of Tenth/Polk/Market Streets, Van Ness Avenue at 
Market Street, Franklin Street at Market Street, Gough Street at Market Street, and Franklin 
Street at Oak Street (see Figure 27, p. 82). LOS is a qualitative description of an intersection's 
performance based on the average delay per vehicle. LOS ranges from A (free flow) to F 
(congested or overloaded conditions). LOS A, B, C, and D are considered excellent to 
satisfactory service levels, while LOS E is undesirable and LOS F is unacceptable. 

Existing weekday p.m. peak hour (4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.) traffic conditions were evaluated based 
on traffic counts collected on Tuesday, October 30, 2001, and Thursday, November 15, 2001. 
Table 2, p. 89, presents LOS and estimated average delay at each study intersection for existing 
and existing-plus-project conditions. All five of the study intersections currently operate at LOS 
D or better conditions, considered acceptable conditions. While the intersection at Gough and 
Market Streets operates overall at LOS D, the southbound Gough Street approach operates at 
LOS F, with frequent delays. 



84 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

TRANSIT NETWORK 

The project site is served by the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni), the Ba> Area Rapid 
Transit system (BART), Golden Gate Transit, San Mateo Counts I ransit ( Sara I rans i. ( aliram. 
and AC Transit. Nineteen Muni routes serve the project site, including 12 bus lines, the I -line 
streetcar on Market Street, and six Metro subway lines with a stop at Van Ness Avenue Hid 
Market Street. Muni services were analyzed in terms of five transit corridors, or groups of Muni 
routes in the project vicinity: Market Street surface bus lines (Lines 6, 7, 71. 66, ami I i. Market 
Street subway lines (Lines J, K, L, M, and N), Mission Street lines i Lines 14, 26, ami 49 
southbound), north-south bus lines (Lines 47 and 49 northbound), and other east-west bus lines 
(Lines 21 and 5 which run on Hayes and McAllister Streets. respectivelv ). The Market Sireet 
subway lines operate at 73 percent capacity during the p.m. peak hour." All other corridor 
currently operate between 40 and 80 percent of capacity. 

BART operates a network of regional rail transit service that includes five rail lines covering 
Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and northern San Mateo Counties. The BAR I station 
closest to the project site (Civic Center) is located approximate!) three blocks east of the project 
site. It is directly accessible by Muni surface and metro subwa) lines, including lines from the 
Metro Station at Van Ness Avenue and Market Street less than a block from the project ^itc. 
Golden Gate Transit provides bus and ferry sen ices to the North Bay. The closest bus stops are 
along McAllister Street and Van Ness Avenue, accessible by Muni. The fern terminal is located 
at the Ferry Building, accessed via Muni Metro subway, the F-line streetcar, and the 7, 14. 21 . 66 
and 71 bus lines. SamTrans provides bus transportation between San I rancisco and San 
County. SamTrans routes include stops along Mission Street. Caltrain is a commuter train that 
provides rail services between San Francisco and Gilroy. about 25 miles south of San Jose. The 
Caltrain station is located at Fourth and Townsend Streets, accessed on the 4~ Muni bus route 
AC Transit provides both express and local bus serv ice from San Francisco to Alameda Count> 
All AC Transit buses come to and from the Transbay Terminal located on Mission Street between 
Fremont and First Streets and accessed on the 14 and 5 Muni bus routes, or from Market Street 



2 Muni capacity is estimated based on the number of seated and standing passengers that \ar: 
types of transit vehicles may safely and comfortably carry. Transit utilization rates are based on average 
vehicle occupancy for the p.m. peak hour, rather than individual transit \ehiclc ndcrship counts. Passenger 
loads tend to vary from bus to bus and day to day, particularly over one-hour or shorter periods of the da> 
Crowding has been observed on some transit vehicles serving the study area. 



85 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

PARKING CONDITIONS 

There are 18 public parking facilities in the study area with 2,410 spaces, including the Civic 
Center Parking Garage and the Performing Arts Garage. The estimated occupancy rate of surface 
parking lots in the study area is over 90 percent on a weekday midday, which exceeds the 85 to 
90 percent effective capacity the parking industry uses as a threshold, and thus would be 
considered fully occupied. Through the use of valet parking on weekdays, the Civic Center 
Garage's capacity is increased from its 843 marked stalls to at least 1,000 spaces. With this extra 
capacity, the Civic Center Garage is approximately 90 percent occupied during the weekday 
midday. The Performing Arts Garage occupancy is approximately 56 percent. 

The Performing Arts Garage experiences a much higher occupancy (98.5 percent) on evenings 
when a performance is held at the Davies Symphony Hall or the Opera House than on 
nonperformance evenings (13.1 percent). The Civic Center Garage occupancy is generally low 
on both nonperformance evenings (14.5 percent) and performance evenings (38.6 percent). 
Several surface parking lots nearest the performance halls experience higher occupancies on 
performance evenings due to very high demand by performing arts patrons. However, overall 
parking lot occupancy at other times is generally low, with rates of 21 percent and 33 percent on 
nonperformance and performance evenings, respectively. 

PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS 

In general, pedestrian volumes are low in front of the proposed project on Oak Street and on 
Franklin Street. Pedestrian volumes are generally high on Market Street and Van Ness Avenue. 
Most intersections in the study area have pedestrian crosswalks and signals on all approaches. 
The intersection at Market Street and Van Ness Avenue is currently equipped with a pedestrian 
countdown signal that has been in operation for approximately one year. Pedestrian countdown 
signals let people know how much time they have left to cross the street. Two intersections do 
not have pedestrian crosswalks at all four approaches: the intersection of Franklin/Oak Streets 
does not have a crosswalk on the north side of Oak Street; and the intersection of 
Market/Franklin/Page Streets does not have a crosswalk on the west side of Franklin Street 
crossing Market Street. While alternative crosswalks are available, the lack of crosswalks at 
these locations is an inconvenience to pedestrians. To the extent that this existing inconvenience 
motivates pedestrians to jaywalk, it may raise safety issues. 



86 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 



The intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street is identified in the San FranciM <> 
General Plan as a Transit Center; 3 it has bus stops that serve ten Muni transit lines and six Muni 
Metro lines (including the Castro Shuttle). At this intersection there is frequent conflict between 
pedestrians crossing and right-tum vehicle movements from Van Ness Avenue onto Market Street 
and from Market Street onto Van Ness Avenue. At the intersection of Hickory Street and Van 
Ness Avenue, vehicles turning right from Hickory Street to Van Ness Avenue must wait for a gap 
in both pedestrian and vehicle traffic on Van Ness Avenue. Some of these vehicles may move 
into the pedestrian crossing area to improve their sightline. which can cause conflicts * itfa 
pedestrian movements and inconvenience to pedestrians. In addition. Muni buses and trolle\ s 
(lines 47 and 49) stop on Van Ness Avenue along the 25 Van Ness building frontage, directly 
south of Hickory Street. 



BICYCLE CONDITIONS 



In the vicinity of the proposed project are five designated bicycle routes: on McAllister and 
Grove Streets, on Eleventh and Polk Streets, on Van Ness Avenue and Page Street, on ()cta\ ui 
and Valencia Streets, and on Market Street. Most of these routes are Class III routes, with bicycle 
signs only. Class II bicycle lanes (signs and designated lanes along the street) are provided on 
Polk Street between Market and Turk, and Grove Street from Van Ness to Market in the 
eastbound direction. Bicycle volumes are relatively high in the vicinit> of the study area; 
observations show a noticeable number of bicycles using Page Street and Market Street 



IMPACTS 



METHODOLOGY 



Trip Generation 



Trip generation calculations for the proposed project were based on faculty, staff and student data 
obtained from San Francisco Conserv atory of Music. A field survey was conducted at the 
Conservatory of Music site at 1201 Ortega Street to establish the p.m. peak hour person trip 



' A Transit Center includes a transfer point between two Muni lines and either a transit station or 
terminal, an intersection of two or more rail transit lines, an intersection of a rail transit line and a Transit 
Preferential Street, or the intersection of tw o or more Primary Transit Streets where one carries a regional 
transit line. San Francisco General Plan. Transportation Element Table 4. p. 1.4.43. adopted July l<>95 



8^ 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

generation rate, and this rate (2.43 person trips/ 1,000 gsf) was applied to the Conservatory data. 
A survey was conducted at the existing 50-70 Oak Street site to determine the person trips 
generated at this site during the p.m. peak hour. These existing project site trips were deducted 
from the total person trips estimated for the proposed project to obtain the net new person trips 
for the proposed project at the Oak Street site. 

The proposed project would generate approximately 155 net new person trips during the p.m. 
peak hour (about 305 trips generated by the proposed project minus the approximately 150 trips 
generated by uses in the existing 50-70 Oak Street buildings). The corresponding number of 
daily person trips for the proposed project would be about 1,560. 4 Of the 1 55 total p.m. peak 
hour person trips, approximately 65 would use cars, 75 would use transit, 10 would walk, and 5 
would use other modes such as bicycle and motorcycle. 5 Of the approximately 65 people who 
would drive, about 37 vehicle trips would be generated during the p.m. peak hour (8 inbound and 
29 outbound vehicle trips). Project vehicle trips were calculated by dividing the estimated project 
person-trips by auto by the vehicle occupancy rate (VOR) from the Citywide Travel Behavior 
Study provided in the San Francisco Guidelines for Environmental Review, Transportation 
Impacts, Interim Guidelines January 2000 ("SF Interim Guidelines"). 

Trip Distribution 

The trip distribution for student trips was based on resident zip code data for existing collegiate 
and preparatory students provided by the Conservatory of Music. About 65 percent of students 
reside in San Francisco, with the highest percentage of students (30.5 percent) in the southwest 
quadrant of the City. The trip distribution for faculty and staff and for visitors was based on data 
from the Van Ness Avenue Corridor in the SF Interim Guidelines. In general, over 50 percent of 
students, faculty and staff, and visitors would travel from destinations within San Francisco, 
about 10-20 percent from the East Bay, and about 15-20 percent from the South Bay/Peninsula 
areas. Fewer than 10 percent would come from the North Bay. The trip distribution data was 
used as the basis for assigning project-related vehicle-trips to local streets in the study area. 



4 The number of daily person trips was calculated by dividing the net new p.m. peak hour person 
trips by p.m. peak percentage of daily trips (9.7 percent) obtained from the Citywide Travel Behavior 
Survey for institutional uses. 

5 Travel by mode (mode split) was based on data from the Van Ness Avenue Corridor. 



88 



111. Environmental Setting and Impact 
C. Transportation 



TRAFFIC 

As defined by the City and County of San Francisco, the operational impact on signali/cd 
intersections is considered significant when project traffic causes level of ser\ ice to deteriorate 
from LOS D to E or F or from LOS E to F. For an intersection that operates at 1 ( is 1 or I under 
existing conditions, there may be a significant impact depending on the magnitude of the 
project's contribution to the worsening of delay. In addition, a project would ha\e a significant 
impact if it would cause major traffic hazards, or would contribute considerabh to cumulative 
traffic increases that would cause the LOS to deteriorate to unacceptable levels (i.e.. to LOS E or 
F). 

Project trips were assigned to the roadway network using the "TRAFFIX" computer software 
The net new project-generated traffic was assigned to the existing street network in accordance 
with the trip distribution patterns described above and added to existing traffic on the study area 
roadways. 

Table 2 presents the intersection LOS analysis for the Existing (2001 ) and Existing-Plus-Project 
scenarios. With the addition of project-generated trips, all five of the study intersections would 
continue to operate at the same LOS as existing conditions. For all of the intersections, increases 
in delays would be less than 1.5 seconds, and no significant impacts would occur. Similar to 



Table 2: Intersection Levels of Serv ice: Existing and Existing-Plus-Projcct 
(Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Conditions) 



Intersection 


F.xisting ( 


2001) 


K\islin<: FMus 


Project 




Delay 

(sec/veh) 


LOG 


Ddaj 
(sec \ch) 


LOS 


Tenth Street/Polk Street/Market Street 


15.5 


C 


15.5 


C 


Van Ness Avenue Market Street 


31.6 


D 


31.9 


D 


Franklin Street/Market Street 


25.0 


I) 


25.2 


D 


Gough Street "Market Street 


32.2 


D 


334 


D 


Franklin Street/Oak Street 


16.0 


C 


16.0 


C 



Source: CHS Consulting Group, July 2002 



89 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

existing conditions, the Gough Street southbound approach at Market Street would continue to 
operate at LOS F, and average stop delays at this approach would increase substantially. The 
intersection overall would continue to operate at LOS D. 

In summary, the project would not change the LOS at intersections studied, except at the Franklin 
and Market Streets intersection where LOS would degrade from LOS C to LOS D. As noted 
above, LOS A, B, C and D represent acceptable conditions. 

TRANSIT 

A project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would cause a substantial 
increase in transit demand that could not be accommodated by available transit capacity, resulting 
in unacceptable levels of transit service; or cause a substantial increase in operating costs such 
that significant adverse impacts in transit service levels could result. With the Muni and regional 
transit screenlines analyses, a project would have a significant effect on the transit provider if 
project-related transit trips would cause the capacity utilization standard to be exceeded during 
the weekday p.m. peak hour. 

For this analysis, transit impacts on Muni were examined in terms of five transit corridors (groups 
of lines with the same general direction of travel): Muni lines 47 and 49 northbound (north-south 
lines); Muni bus lines 6, 7, 71 and 66 (peak period only) and the F-line streetcar (Market Street 
surface lines); Muni Metro lines J, K, L, M, and N (Market Street subway lines); Muni lines 14, 
26, and 49 southbound (Mission Street lines); and Muni lines 2 1 and 5 (east- west lines). All 
corridors currently operate between 40 and 80 percent of capacity. Transit capacity is based on 
the number of both seated and standing passengers that various types of transit vehicles may 
safely and comfortably carry. In contrast to other transit operators, Muni has established a 
capacity utilization service standard which includes not only seating capacity but also substantial 
numbers of standees, with standees representing somewhere between 30 percent and 80 percent 
of seated passengers, depending upon the specific transit vehicle configuration. Thus, Muni 
corridors at or near capacity operate under noticeably crowded conditions with many standees. 
Because each corridor includes several Muni lines with multiple transit vehicles from each line, 
some individual transit vehicles operate at or above capacity and are extremely crowded during 
the p.m. peak hour at their most heavily used points, while others operate under less crowded 
conditions. Moreover, the extent of crowding is accentuated whenever target headways are not 
met through either missed runs and/or bunching in service. Thus, in common with other types of 
transportation operations such as roadways and parking facilities, transit operations may 



90 



111. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

experience substantial problems in serv ice delivers' well short of the established scr\ ice capaeit> 
utilization standards. 

The proposed project would generate about 75 trips on Muni during the p.m. peak hour, all ol 
w hich would use Muni as their primary mode or to transfer to regional carriers. Project-generated 
transit trips would be spread over the 20 Muni lines serv ing the area, resulting in small increases 
in the existing capacity utilization in each study corridor. That is, w ith project-generated 
ridership, there would be a 1 percent increase in capacity utilization on some corridors and less 
than 1 percent increase on others. No transit corridor studied would exceed loo percent 
occupancy. The project would generate less than a 1 percent increase on regional transit sv stems. 
In view of the above, the project w ould not cause significant impacts on transit sen ice. 

PARKING 

The Conserv atory of Music would not provide off-street parking. None is required tor non- 
residential uses in the C-3 Districts, in which commuter parking is discouraged. Thus, the project 
would be in conformity with Planning Code requirements and the City's Transit First poliev < in 
San Francisco Charter Section 16.102). 

The projected parking demand w as based on the av erage number of people in the building on 3 
typical day. The Conserv atory of Music would hav e approximately 1,078 total students and 
faculty/staff, an increase of about 220 people compared to existing conditions at the Ortega Street 
site. At the new 50 Oak Street site, there would be about 108 full-time facultv and staff, about 
320 collegiate students, about 150 part-time facultv . and about 500 part-time preparatory 
students. The majority of the increase in numbers of people is expected to be about 150 additional 
preparatory students, compared to the old location. The part-time facultv teach a few hours of 
classes per w eek; many are members of the San Francisco Symphony or the San Francisco Opera 
who would be expected to walk to the new site from the Opera House or Davies Svmphonv Hall 
These trips would not generate additional vehicle trips. Preparatory students typicallv 3ttend 
music classes once or twice a week, after regular schooling and on weekends The average 
number of people in the building on a given day would range between about 375 and 425. 
including most of the full-time facultv . staff, and collegiate students, and a few of the part-time 
faculty and preparatory students. 

Long-term parking demand w ould be generated bv facultv . staff and collegiate students The I OS 
full-time faculty and staff w ould generate a demand for about 30 parking spaces The collegiate 



91 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

students and part-time faculty would generate a demand for about 65 to 80 parking spaces. The 
project would generate a long-term parking demand for approximately 106 to 121 spaces and 
short-term parking demand for approximately four to six spaces. This analysis assumed no 
existing parking demand from the project site; thus it is a conservative approach. The project's 
parking demand can be accommodated by existing parking lots and garages in the project 
vicinity. 

The existing weekday midday, off-street, public-parking occupancy survey data indicate that the 
occupancy rate is approximately 82 percent with about 462 vacant spaces, primarily in the 
Performing Arts Garage and the Civic Center Garage. The proposed project's parking demand 
would be expected to be accommodated within this available off-street parking supply. With the 
project, the overall occupancy rate at these off-street parking facilities would increase from about 
82 percent to about 87 percent. In non-valet parking lots, at 85 to 90 percent occupancy there are 
parking spaces available, but people often must circulate throughout the parking facility to find a 
space. Some students may seek on-street parking spaces. Since the existing weekday midday on- 
street parking is generally full, students may seek on-street parking spaces outside of the parking 
study area in the Hayes Valley neighborhood or shift to other modes of transportation. 

It is anticipated that Conservatory students would be more likely to take transit to the new 
Conservatory location in the Civic Center than to the existing one on Ortega Street. This would 
reduce the number of students being driven to the Conservatory and dropped off by parents. 
Short-term parking demand would be generated primarily by preparatory students being dropped 
off and picked up by their parents. Approximately four to six spaces would be needed for the 
drop-off/pick-up activity. This parking demand would be transient (before and after class), and 
would be expected to take approximately one minute per vehicle. The project sponsor would 
petition the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic to convert four to six parking 
spaces to six passenger loading spaces for use by student drop-off and pick-up activities in front 
of the proposed project on Oak Street. It is anticipated that one-half of all parents dropping off 
students at the new Conservatory site would park in the vicinity and wait for lessons to end. This 
activity would increase the demand for parking during the weekday afternoon hours by 
approximately 12 spaces. On-street parking in the vicinity of the project is generally fully 
occupied; however, this demand could be met in available off-street parking lots nearby. 

There would be a project-generated demand for approximately 45 to 265 parking spaces during 
weekday evenings, weekend afternoons, and weekend evenings for the expected maximum 350 
performances held at the Conservatory each year. About 60 percent (210) of the annual 



92 



III. Environmental Setting and Impact 
C. Transportation 



performances have 50 or fewer patrons; 30 percent (105) ha\e between 5() and Ion patrons, and 
10 percent (35) have between 100 and 300 patrons. Two performances onl> each sear have 
attracted more than 300 patrons at the Ortega Street site. The existing weckdav evening 
occupancy rate for surface parking lots in the parking study area (generally from about Ninth and 
Market Streets to Hayes and Gough Streets) is approximate!) 2 1 percent to 33 percent, with about 
775 to 660 vacant spaces. In addition, the Civic Center Garage is approximate!) I 5 percent to » 1 ' 
percent occupied on nonperformance and performance weckdav evenings. respective!) . with 
about 520 to 720 vacant spaces. The proposed project's parking demand for performances could 
thus be accommodated within one and one-half blocks of the project site on evenings when no 
other major Civic Center performances were held. On evenings with other ( iv ic ( enter 
performances (such as the San Francisco Symphony or Opera), some Conservator) patrons would 
find parking at the Civic Center Garage or other lots further than one and one-half blocks, or 
change travel mode. 

The project would not include on-site parking, which is consistent with San Francisco Planning 
Code standards which do not require parking for the proposed use in a C-3-G district and with the 
City's "Transit First" policy. As discussed previously, the parking demand generated bv the 
project can generally be accommodated by existing parking lots and garages in the project 
vicinity. Parking occupancy rates in the project vicinity would increase slight I \ with the project, 
but there would be opportunities to park nearby aside from those occasions, generall) in the 
evening and on weekends w hen there is more than one large performance or other event 
occurring in the Civic Center area. The social inconv enience of having, on some occasions, to 
hunt for scarce parking spaces is not an environmental impact. The increased parking demand 
generated by the project would not substantial!) alter the existing character of the area-wide 
parking situation and would not be considered a significant environmental effect under CEQA. 
No significant parking impacts w ould be created by the proposed project 

On evenings with multiple performances (occasionally there are major performances in both the 
Opera House and Davies Symphony Hall), vehicles queue at the entrances to the Civ ic ( enter 
Garage and the Performing Arts Garage during the hour before performances begin, these queues 
can temporarily interfere with traffic flow at nearby intersections. Motorists parking to attend 
Conservator) performances could contribute to these queues. Because the queues occur for a 
short period in the evening, and occur on about 1 5 percent of w eekday evenings during the year, 
they are not considered to cause significant secondary traffic impacts. 



93 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

PEDESTRIANS 

The proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of about 85 pedestrian trips (including 75 
transit and 10 walk trips) to and from the site during the p.m. peak hour. Since the main entrance 
to the Conservatory would be located on Oak Street between Franklin Street and Van Ness 
Avenue, much of the project pedestrian traffic would be added to the crosswalks at Van Ness 
Avenue/Market Street. Designated crosswalks are located on all approaches at this intersection; 
the added volumes are not anticipated to be substantial and therefore would not create significant 
impacts. Pedestrians crossing this intersection and right-turn vehicle movements often conflict, 
causing temporary traffic back-ups. The remaining sidewalks and crosswalks in the study area 
generally have low pedestrian volumes. It is anticipated that the additional pedestrian trips would 
not result in significant impacts on pedestrian circulation in the area. 

BICYCLE CONDITIONS 

If all of the five "other" person-trips made during the p.m. peak hour were bicycle trips, it is not 
anticipated that the proposed project would generate significant bicycle impacts. Five bicycle 
trips would not add substantial bicycle traffic to existing relatively high levels on the nearby 
bicycle routes. The project would provide 12 bicycle parking facilities (in bike racks) inside the 
building. In addition, there would be three showers and approximately 300 lockers in the 
building available for use by students and faculty. 

LOADING 

The proposed project would not provide off-street loading space. The project is expected to 
generate approximately 13 delivery trips per day. According to the project sponsor, the 
Conservatory currently gets about seven, or about half the number of deliveries calculated for the 
proposed project using standard formulae. The deliveries are made by the U.S. Postal Service 
and major delivery services. Although the school capacity would increase, the project sponsor 
does not expect a doubling of deliveries. 6 If the sponsor's estimate is accurate, 13 delivery trips 
is a conservatively high estimate. Thirteen deliveries per day corresponds to a demand for less 
than one loading space, or 0.6 space, during an average loading hour and 0.75 space during the 
peak loading hour. 



6 Scott B. Lewis, Oppenheim/Lewis, Conservatory representative, telephone conversation with 
Turnstone Consulting, September 10, 2002. 



94 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 

The existing buildings at 50 and 70 Oak Street do not have off-street loading spaees. nor would 
any be required for the project under Planning Code Section 152.1. The proposed project is less 
than 100,000 gsf when exclusions for performance and circulation spaces arc accounted fof in 
accordance with Planning Code Section 102.9(b), and thus would not be required to pnmdc off- 
street loading. 

Loading activities for the proposed project would occur from Hickop* Street I lie proposed 
project would have a double door at the rear of the building on Uickors Street, which would lead 
to a freight elevator inside the building. There is an existing yellow loading zone on Hickory 
Street that would be maintained for freight vehicles making deliveries to the proposed project It 
this loading space were occupied when project-generated delivery vehicles arn\e, the deliver) 
vehicle might double park to make deliveries. A double-parked truck would block traffic 
circulation on Hickory Street, causing temporary traffic congestion problems on Hickory street 
and possibly at the parking lot vehicle entrance on Hickory Street lor the proposed new building 
at Hickory Street, Fell Street, and Van Ness Avenue. The project sponsor would consult \s nh the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to develop an enforceable plan to ensure that the loading zone 
would be available for vehicles destined to the Conservatory to reduce the likelihood ot double- 
parked trucks on Hickory Street. 

CONSTRUCTION 

Project construction is expected to take approximately 2 b to 28 months. During the construction 
period, there would be a peak construction-worker parking demand for up to 1 40 parking spec 
Worker vehicles would have to be accommodated in adjacent off-street and curbside parking 
spaces unless the project sponsor were to arrange for off-street parking nearb\ or a shuttle In 
addition, the sidewalk on Oak Street in front of the proposed project would be occupied b> 
contractors, and a temporary covered walkway would be installed along the entire Oak Street and 
Hickory Street frontages of the proposed project, resulting in a temporary loss of approximate!) 
32 on-street parking spaces. Additional parking spaces might be displaced during portions of the 
construction period for staging and unloading of trucks. Until a construction contractor is 
retained by the project sponsor the location of construction staging is not know n; staging is likely 
to occur on either or both of the Oak Street and Hickory Street sidew alks and or on pan of the 
parking lot adjacent to the w est of the site. 

The displacement of parking spaces by the temporary w alkw ay, construction trucks, and 
construction workers' vehicles would reduce the availability of on-strect parking in the vicinity of 



95 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 



the proposed project during the construction period. Those who would otherwise park in the 
displaced on-street spaces would need to find parking elsewhere, either in off-street parking 
facilities or in other neighborhoods, or change travel modes. Impacts associated with 
construction activities are considered not significant because they would be temporary and 
intermittent over the duration of construction. 

Construction would include demolition (about four months), excavation and foundation 
construction (about five months, beginning during the demolition phase), framing (about ten 
months, with some overlap with foundations), and interior finishing (about 20 months, beginning 
during the framing phase). The demolition and foundation phases would generate the greatest 
numbers of truck trips, ranging from 2 to 10 truck trips per day during most of the foundation 
work, to 15 to 25 truck trips per day during demolition. The most concentrated truck activity 
would occur during the concrete pours for the foundations. 

Due to the one-way directions of the streets in the area and the width of Hickory Street, it is 
anticipated that construction vehicles destined to the project site would travel southbound on Van 
Ness Avenue and turn right on Oak Street. Any construction traffic occurring between the hours 
of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. would coincide with peak traffic 
and could impede traffic flow. The impact of lane closures and construction traffic would lessen 
the capacity of the streets, slowing the movement of traffic (including Muni buses). To the extent 
possible, truck movements would be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 
minimize disruption of the general traffic flow on adjacent streets. 

The project sponsor and construction contractor(s) would meet with the Traffic Engineering 
Division of the Department of Parking and Traffic, the Department of Public Works, the Fire 
Department, Muni's Street Operation and Special Events Office, and the Planning Department to 
determine feasible measures to reduce temporary traffic congestion and pedestrian circulation 
effects during construction of the project and to ensure that construction activities do not 
temporarily impact Muni bus stops or routes in the vicinity. 

During foundation construction, there could be up to 20 concrete trucks coming to the site, with 
approximately three or four trucks on site at any given time. These trucks would have to come in 
one or two at a time, pull into the project site from Oak Street, discharge their concrete, then pull 
out for the next truck to come into the site. The curb space in front of the project site on Oak 
Street should be sufficient for approximately four concrete trucks. The waiting trucks would 



96 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 



need to park at off-site locations to be determined by the contractor. An> closure ol parking 
spaces would need to be coordinated with the Department of Parking and I r.it tk 

It is not likely that Muni would be affected by construction activity on ( )ak Street because there is 
no regular Muni bus stop on Oak Street in front of the proposed project. However, mans 
construction vehicles would turn right from Van Ness Avenue onto Oak Street in front ol a 
heavily used Muni bus stop. Adequate construction management would be required to a\oid 
trucks occupying this bus stop to avoid potential conflicts and disruptions to Muni sen ice In the 
event that a bus stop would need to be temporarily relocated, the project sponsor would be 
responsible for contacting the Muni Chief Inspector for approval prior to the start of Construction. 



FUTURE (YEAR 2020) CUMULATIVE (INCLUDING PRO. 1 1 ( I i 



Traffic 



Future cumulative intersection LOS conditions were calculated by adding future background 
traffic growth and proposed project traffic to the existing traffic volumes at each of the five stud> 
intersections. (See Figure 27. p. 82.) The grow th rates for the intersections of Tenth Market 
Streets and Van Ness Avenue/Market Street were obtained from background studies for the Mid- 
Market and South of Market Redevelopment Areas EIR For the other three intersections, growth 
rates were derived from these background studies as follows: for the cast-west movements, the 
approach and departure growth rates in the east west directions for the Van \ess Market 
intersection were used; for the north-south movements, the average grow th rates in the north- 
south movements for the two intersections of Market Tenth and Market "Ninth were applied. 

Table 3 presents a comparison of the existing, existing-plus-project. and future cumulative 
conditions. As shown on Table 3, the intersections of Tenth Street Polk Street Market Street, and 
Franklin/Oak Streets operate at LOS C w ith existing, existing-plus-proiect. and cumulative 
conditions. The intersection of Franklin Market Streets would operate at LOS D with existing, 
existing-plus-project. and 2020 cumulative conditions. The intersections of Van Ness 
Avenue/Market Street and dough Market Streets would deteriorate from LOS D under existing 
and existing-plus-project conditions to LOS E under 2020 cumulati\e conditions. 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 



Table 3: Intersection Levels of Service: Existing, Existing-Plus-Project, and Future 
(Year 2020) Cumulative (P.M. Peak Hour Conditions) 



Intersection 


Existing 




Existing 
Plus Project 


Future Cumulative 




Delay LOS 
(sec/veh) 


Delay LOS 
(sec/veh) 


Delay 
(sec/veh) 


LOS 


Tenth Street/Polk Street/Market 
Street 


15.5 


C 


15.5 


C 


17.0 


C 


Van Ness Avenue/Market Street 


31.6 


D 


31.9 


D 


53.4 


E 


Franklin Street/Market Street 


25.0 


D 


25.2 


D 


37.5 


D 


Gough Street/Market Street 


32.2 


D 


33.4 


D 


48.3 


E 


Franklin Street/Oak Street 


16.0 


C 


16.0 


C 


17.0 


C 



Source: CHS Consulting Group, July 2002 



At the intersection of Gough/Market Streets and Van Ness Avenue/Market Street, there would be 
significant cumulative traffic impacts due to anticipated background traffic growth, which would 
cause LOS at these intersections to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E for 2020 cumulative 
conditions. The project's share of future traffic growth at these intersections would be 3 percent 
and 1 percent, respectively. For the traffic movements that determine overall LOS performance 
at the Gough/Market intersection, the project would add about 17 vehicles to the southbound 
traffic movement on Gough Street, which would operate at LOS E for 2020 cumulative 
conditions. Similarly, the project would add about three vehicles to the southbound traffic 
movement and about one vehicle to the westbound traffic movement at the Van Ness/Market 
intersection; these two movements determine overall LOS performance at this intersection. In 
each of these instances, the project's contribution would be small, about 1 percent. In view of the 
above, project traffic would not represent a considerable contribution to 2020 cumulative traffic 
conditions, and although it would contribute to cumulative impacts, the project impact would not 
be considered a significant traffic impact. 

Parking Impacts 

Two existing parking lots within the parking study area would be displaced by development 
projects that have been approved by the City but have not yet begun construction. The two 



98 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
C. Transportation 



surface lots are located at Hayes and Polk Streets and at Fell Street and Van \css \\cnuc. and 
have a combined total of 80 parking spaces. 

With the expected loss of 80 parking spaces at these lots, sufficient off-street wcekda> c\cmru' 
parking within one and a half blocks of the proposed project would continue to be available tor 
Conservatory performances with up to approximately 240 patrons on evenings without another 
performance in the Civic Center area. The parking demand for Conservator) performances \s ith 
approximately 180 or fewer patrons could be accommodated within one and one-hall blocks of 
the proposed project on weekday evenings with another coinciding performance in the area. Any 
additional Conservatory performance parking demand could be accommodated at the C i\ ic 
Center Garage. 



QQ 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
D. Growth Inducement 



D. GROWTH INDUCEMENT 



Growth inducement under CEQA considers the ways in which proposed and foreseeable project 
activities could encourage and facilitate other activities that would induce economic or population 
growth in the surrounding environment, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study (see 
Appendix A, pp. 14-17) concluded that the project would not induce substantial growth or create 
a substantial demand for additional housing in San Francisco. This section summarizes the 
possibilities for growth and concludes that the project is unlikely to bring about induced growth 
at a significant level. 

The San Francisco Conservatory of Music employs 237 full- and part-time staff at 1201 Ortega 
Street. Upon relocating to 50 Oak Street, the Conservatory would increase staff by about 21. 
The Conservatory's 38 full-time faculty, 70 support staff, and 150 part-time faculty, a total of 258 
employees, would replace the approximately 65 employees currently in the 50 and 70 Oak Street 
buildings at the project site. 

The Conservatory expects to enroll 320 collegiate (full-time) and 500 preparatory (part-time) 
students (820 total students) at the project site. This would be an increase of about 25 percent, or 
200 students, 50 of whom would be full-time. The increased number of collegiate students and 
full-time employees could slightly increase demand for local housing. Approximately 39 
students and some of the 1 1 new full-time staff members could be expected to seek housing 
within the City. The potential increase in employment would be small in the context of total 
employment in San Francisco, and in the need for increased housing. The Conservatory is 
already located in San Francisco, and therefore most students and employees already reside in the 
City. Some Conservatory faculty have other jobs in the Civic Center area, particularly with the 
San Francisco Symphony or the San Francisco Ballet or San Francisco Opera symphonies. Thus, 
the above-estimated demand for housing could be conservatively high. 

While the increased daytime population at the site could result in an increase in the demand for 
retail goods, restaurants, and other services, there are businesses and services already located 
nearby to respond to this demand. The direct and any induced growth of the proposed project 
would fall within ABAG's regional forecasts of employment, household, and population growth. 

The project would be infill development in a developed urban area, and no expansion of 
municipal infrastructure not already under consideration would be required to serve the project. 



100 



III. Environmental Setting and Impacts 
D ( irouth Inducement 



Since the project does not have unusual labor requirements, it would be expected that proiect 
construction would meet its needs for labor within the regional labor market tor construction 
projects in San Francisco without attracting construction labor from areas be>ond the region's 
borders. 



101 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE 
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT 



In the course of project planning and design and in preparation of the Initial Study for the project, 
mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce or eliminate potential significant 
environmental impacts of the proposed project. In addition, during preparation of this EIR, 
further mitigation measures were identified to reduce or eliminate identified project impacts. In 
the following discussion, the measure included in the project that is identified in the EIR for 
historical resources is listed first. This measure would reduce, but not eliminate, significant 
impacts on historical resources. Listed second are mitigation measures for construction air 
quality, archaeological resources, and hazards and hazardous materials; these are included in the 
project and were discussed in the Initial Study (see Appendix A, pp. 43-46). A mitigation for 
significant cumulative traffic impacts is listed third. Implementation of this measure would not 
be the responsibility of the project sponsor. Improvement measures that would reduce non- 
significant impacts are listed at the end of this chapter. Most of the mitigation measures have 
been included in the project; other measures may be required by decision makers as conditions of 
project approval if the project is approved. 

Existing City, state, and federal regulations require a variety of protective and other measures that 
would also serve to mitigate potential project impacts. These measures are not identified in this 
chapter; rather, they are assumed to constitute part of the project, and compliance with the 
measures would be monitored by the appropriate regulatory agencies. City-mandated controls on 
the project would include a limitation on construction noise (San Francisco Noise Ordinance, 
Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code, 1 972); a prohibition on the use of mirrored glass on 
the building (City Planning Commission Resolution No. 9212); protective measures against lead- 
based paint exposure (Chapter 36 of the San Francisco Building Code, Work Practices for 
Exterior Lead-Based Paint) and the requirement for street trees (Planning Code, Section 143). 
The project sponsor and construction contractors would also be required to observe state and 
federal OSHA safety requirements related to handling and disposal of other hazardous materials, 
such as asbestos and hazardous materials in water and soils. 



102 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT 
Mitigation Measure Identified by this Report 

Historical Resources 

1. The project sponsor shall provide historic documentation of the 50 Oak Street building's 
exterior and interior, meeting Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) recordation 
standards. Such documentation shall include the following: 

• A HABS outline report including descriptive and historical information. 

Photographic documentation of the exterior of the 50 Oak Street building. Such 
documentation shall meet HABS standards of detail and quality for photographic- 
documentation in 4x5 or 5x7 photographs and negatives. 

• Photographic documentation of the interior of the 50 Oak Street building. Such 
documentation shall meet HABS standards of detail and quality for photographic 
documentation in 4x5 or 5x7 photographs and negatives. It shall include the 
interior spaces and features identified in the historic resources study and shall be 
keyed to a description in the outline report of the location, condition, and 
significance of each space or feature. 

An appropriately conserved set of the existing architectural drawings of 50 Oak 
Street. 

• A display of photographs and interpretive materials concerning the history and 
architectural features of 50 Oak Street shall be installed inside the proposed 
project in an area accessible to the public. 

Copies of the narrative, photographic documentation and any available architectural 
drawings of the building shall be submitted to the San Francisco Planning Department 
prior to authorization of any permit that may be required by the City for alteration at 50 
Oak Street. 

In addition, the project sponsor shall prepare and transmit the photographs and 
descriptions of 50 Oak Street to the History Room of the San Francisco Public Library, 
and to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Information 
Resource System. 

The above measure would reduce the adverse effect of the project on the historical resource at 50 
Oak Street, but would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, a 
significant unavoidable impact on historical resources would remain. 



103 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

Mitigation Measures Identified by the Initial Study 

Implementation of the following measures identified in the Initial Study would reduce impacts to 
less-than-significant levels: 

Construction Air Quality 

2. To reduce particulate emissions, 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, and other material; cover trucks hauling debris, soils, sand or other such material; 
and sweep surrounding streets during demolition, excavation, and construction at least 
once per day. Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, 
requires that non-potable water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, the project 
sponsor shall require that contractor(s) obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water 
Program for this purpose. The project sponsor shall require the project contractor(s) to 
maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize 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 implementation of 
specific maintenance programs to reduce emissions for equipment that would be in 
frequent use for much of the construction period. 

Archaeological Resources 

The following mitigation measure for archaeological resources has been revised and expanded 
since publication of the Initial Study; the approach to mitigation has not changed, but more 
detailed procedures have been included. The project sponsor has agreed to carry out the measure 
as revised. 

3. Based on a reasonable presumption that archaeological resources may be present within 
the project site, the following measures shall be undertaken to avoid any potentially 
significant adverse effect from the proposed project on buried or submerged historical 
resources. The project sponsor shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological 
consultant having expertise in California prehistoric and urban historical archaeology. 
The archaeological consultant shall undertake an archaeological testing program as 
specified herein. In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct an 
archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery program if required pursuant to this 
measure. The archaeological consultant's work shall be conducted in accordance with 
this measure at the direction of the Environmental Review Officer (ERO). All plans and 
reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted first and directly 
to the ERO for review and comment, and shall be considered draft reports subject to 
revision until final approval by the ERO. Archaeological monitoring and/or data 
recovery programs required by this measure could suspend construction of the project for 
up to a maximum of four weeks. At the direction of the ERO, the suspension of 



104 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

construction can be extended beyond four weeks only if such a suspension is the only 
feasible means to reduce to a less than significant level potential effects on a significant 
archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Sect. 15064.5 (a)(c). 

Archaeological Testing Program. The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit 
to the ERO for review and approval an archaeological testing plan (ATP). The 
archaeological testing program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved ATP. 
The ATP shall identify the property types of the expected archaeological resource! s) that 
potentially could be adversely affected by the proposed project, the testing method to be 
used, and the locations recommended for testing. The purpose of the archaeological testing 
program will be to determine to the extent possible the presence or absence of archaeological 
resources and to identify and evaluate whether any archaeological resource encountered on 
the site constitutes an historical resource under CEQA. 

At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the archaeological consultant 
shall submit a written report of the findings to the ERO. If based on the archaeological 
testing program the archaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological 
resources may be present, the ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant 
shall determine if additional measures are warranted. Additional measures that may be 
undertaken include additional archaeological testing, archaeological monitoring, and/or 
an archaeological data recovery program. If the ERO determines that a significant 
archaeological resource is present and that the resource could be adversely affected by the 
proposed project, at the discretion of the project sponsor either: 

A) The proposed project shall be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on the 
significant archaeological resource; or 

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

Archaeological Monitoring Program. If the ERO in consultation with the archaeological 
consultant determines that an archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented the 
archaeological monitoring program shall minimally include the following provisions: 

• The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on 

the scope of the AMP reasonably prior to any project-related soils disturbing 
activities commencing. The ERO in consultation with the archaeological consultant 
shall determine what project activities shall be archaeologically monitored. In most 
cases, any soils-disturbing activities, such as demolition, foundation removal, 
excavation, grading, utilities installation, foundation work, driving of piles 
(foundation, shoring, etc.), site remediation, etc., shall require archaeological 
monitoring because of the risk these activities pose to potential archaeological 
resources and to their depositional context; 



105 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

• The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on the alert 
for evidence of the presence of the expected resource(s), of how to identify the 
evidence of the expected resource(s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of 
apparent discovery of an archaeological resource; 

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

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

• If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing activities in the 
vicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered 
to temporarily redirect demolition/excavation/pile-driving/construction activities and 
equipment until the deposit is evaluated. If in the case of pile-driving activity 
(foundation, shoring, etc.), the archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the 
pile-driving activity may affect an archaeological resource, the pile-driving activity 
shall be terminated until an appropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in 
consultation with the ERO. The archaeological consultant shall immediately notify 
the ERO of the encountered archaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant 
shall make a reasonable effort to assess the identity, integrity, and significance of the 
encountered archaeological deposit, and present the findings of this assessment to 
the ERO. 

Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeological 
consultant shall submit a written report of the findings of the monitoring program to the 
ERO. 

Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The archaeological data recovery program shall be 
conducted in accord with an archaeological data recovery plan (ADRP). The archaeological 
consultant, project sponsor, and ERO shall meet and consult on the scope of the ADRP prior 
to preparation of a draft ADRP. The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ADRP to 
the ERO. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will 
preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. 
That is, the ADRP will identify what scientific/historical research questions are 
applicable to the expected resource, what data classes the resource is expected to possess, 
and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. Data 
recovery, in general, should be limited to the portions of the historical property that could 
be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall 
not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are 
practical. 



106 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements: 

• Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, 
procedures, and operations. 

• Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system 
and artifact analysis procedures. 

• Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post- 
field discard and deaccession policies. 

• Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive 
program during the course of the archaeological data recovery program. 

• Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological 
resource from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities. 

• Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results. 

• Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of 
any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate 
curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities. 

Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. The treatment of 
human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any 
soils-disturbing activity shall comply with applicable State and Federal laws. This shall 
include immediate notification of the Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco and 
in the event of the Coroner's determination that the human remains are Native American 
remains, notification of the California State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) 
who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5097.98). The 
archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to 
develop an agreement for the treatment of, with appropriate dignity, human remains and 
associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines. Sec. 1 5064.5(d)). The 
agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, 
analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated 
or unassociated funerary objects. 

Final Archaeological Resources Report. The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft 
Final Archaeological Resources Report (FARR) to the ERO that evaluates the historical 
significance of any discovered archaeological resource and describes the archaeological and 
historical research methods employed in the archaeological testing monitoring data recover) 
program(s) undertaken. Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource shall be 
provided in a separate removable insert within the final report. 

Once approved by the ERO, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: California 
Archaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one ( 1 1 



107 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

copy and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. The 
Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive three 
copies of the FARR along with copies of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 
series) and/or documentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic 
Places/California Register of Historical Resources. In instances of high public interest in or 
the high interpretive value of the resource, the ERO may require a different final report 
content, format, and distribution than that presented above. 

Hazards and Hazardous Materials 

4. Prior to any demolition or excavation at the project site, the project sponsor shall conduct 
surveys to identify any asbestos-containing materials and any lead-based paint in existing 
structures proposed for demolition or alteration. If sampling identifies the presence of 
such materials, they shall be removed and disposed of at an approved site in accordance 
with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 

Soil and groundwater samples shall be collected in such areas as directed by the project 
sponsor's site assessment consultant and based on conclusions and recommendations in 
the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Sampling would extend at least to depths 
proposed for excavation. The samples shall be collected in accessible areas prior to any 
site development activities, and in areas that are not currently accessible during proposed 
demolition activities. 

Soil and groundwater samples shall be characterized (analyzed) for metals, petroleum 
hydrocarbons and gasoline/diesel components, volatile and semi-volatile organic 
compounds, and other constituents, as requested by the Department of Public Health 
(DPH). In addition, groundwater characterization shall be carried out for total suspended 
solids, total settleable solids, pH, total dissolved solids, and turbidity. Samples shall be 
analyzed by state-accredited laboratories. Based on the results of soil and groundwater 
characterization, a Site Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified individual, in 
coordination with DPH and any other applicable regulatory agencies. The sampling and 
studies shall be completed by a Registered Environmental Assessor or a similarly 
qualified individual. Excavated soils shall be disposed of in an appropriate landfill, as 
governed by applicable laws and regulations, or other appropriate actions shall be taken 
in coordination with DPH. 

Prior to initiating any earth-moving or dewatering activities at the site, a Worker Health 
and Safety Plan, as required by Cal-OSHA, shall be prepared to ensure worker safety. 
The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall identify protocols for managing soils during 
construction to minimize worker and public exposure to soils with hazardous levels of 
chemicals. The protocols shall include at a minimum: 

• Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to 

placement, to confirm that the soil meets appropriate standards. 



108 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

• The dust controls specified in Mitigation Measure 2: Construction Air Quality, 
p. 104. 

• Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall identify site access controls to be implemented 
from the time of surface disruption through the completion of earthwork construction. 
The protocols shall include at a minimum: 

• Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian'vehicular entry, such 
as fencing or other barrier, or sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent 
entry, and based on the degree of control required. 

• Posting of "no trespassing" signs. 

• Providing on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about 
security measures and reporting contingency procedures. 

If hazardous levels of chemicals are found in groundwater, the Worker Health and Safety 
Plan shall identify protocols for managing groundwater during construction to minimize 
worker and public exposure. The protocols shall include procedures to prevent 
unacceptable migration of chemicals from defined plumes during dewatering. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall include a requirement that construction 
personnel be trained to recognize potential hazards associated with underground features 
that could contain hazardous substances, previously unidentified contamination, or buried 
hazardous debris. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall include procedures for implementing a 
contingency plan, including appropriate notification and control procedures, in the event 
unanticipated subsurface hazards are discovered during construction. Control procedures 
could include, but would not be limited to. further investigation and removal of 
underground storage tanks or other hazards. 

All reports and plans prepared in accordance with this measure shall be submitted to DPH 
and any other appropriate agencies identified by DPH. pursuant to procedures in the Final 
Voluntary Cleanup plan. The Worker Health and Safety Plan and Site Mitigation Plan 
shall be submitted at least two weeks prior to initiating excavation or dewatering. When 
all hazardous materials have been removed from existing buildings, and soil and 
groundwater analysis and other activities have been completed, as appropriate, the project 
sponsor shall submit to the San Francisco Planning Department and DPH (and any other 
agencies identified by DPH) a report stating that the applicable mitigation measure! s | 
have been implemented. The report shall describe the steps taken to comply with the 
mitigation measure(s) and include all verifying documentation. The report shall be 
certified by a Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual who 



109 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

states that all necessary mitigation measures have been implemented, and specifying 
those mitigation measures that have been implemented. 

MITIGATION MEASURE THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY OTHER AGENCIES 

Project traffic would not individually contribute significantly to cumulative traffic conditions in 
nearby intersections, though significant traffic impacts are anticipated at the intersections of 
Gough and Market Streets and Van Ness Avenue and Market Street for 2020 cumulative 
conditions. The following mitigation measure for significant cumulative traffic impacts could not 
be carried out by the project sponsor or imposed by the Planning Commission. Implementation 
would be the responsibility of the Department of Parking and Traffic. 

5. The southbound approach at the intersection of Gough Street and Market Street has two 
lanes for access to Haight Street and Market Street westbound, and two lanes to continue 
on Gough Street and Market Street eastbound. The first two lanes are projected to carry 
about 1,025 vehicles, the latter two lanes are forecast to carry about 1,790 vehicles in the 
p.m. peak hour, resulting in an overall LOS E. The intersection geometry at this location 
does not allow for physical modifications to the geometry to add capacity to improve the 
intersection operation without acquiring property and demolishing buildings. The only 
possible improvement would appear to be the modification of the signal timing, i.e. 
reduce the Market Street green time by 2.0 seconds and increase the Gough Street green 
time by 2.0 seconds. This signal timing change would improve this intersection to LOS 
D with an average delay of 38.4 seconds/vehicle. However, it could cause minor delays 
on the transit operations on this portion of Market Street. 

At the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street, signal timing changes would not 
improve LOS under future cumulative conditions. Adding lanes at this intersection would require 
either substantially narrowing sidewalks (to about five feet) or property' acquisition and 
demolition of existing buildings. Therefore, no improvements are suggested for the Van Ness 
Avenue and Market Street intersection. 

IMPROVEMENT MEASURES IDENTIFIED BY THIS REPORT 

Improvement measures are actions or changes that would reduce effects of the project that were 
found through the environmental analysis to have less-than-significant impacts. Improvement 
measures identified in the EIR may be required by decision makers as conditions of approval. 



110 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

Historical Resources 

The project sponsor could provide photographic documentation of the 70 Oak Street building 
exterior and interior. The views would include full facade views, and exterior detail and interior 
views of the features and spaces described in the historic resources study prepared by Page and 
Turnbull. All photographs would be appropriately identified and bound in a volume suitable for 
long-term storage. The project sponsor would transmit the photographs to the History Room of 
the San Francisco Public Library in a form acceptable to the Library, and also include copies with 
the documentation created under the mitigation measure for Historical Resources (see p. 103). 

Parking 

Project-related parking demand could be met in parking facilities within walking distance of the 
project site. Parking would not be a significant environmental impact. The follow ing measure 
would facilitate transient parking activity as preparatory students are dropped off or picked up by 
parents for music lessons. The project sponsor could petition the San Francisco Department of 
Parking and Traffic to change four to six existing parking spaces to passenger loading spaces for 
use for student drop-off and pick-up activities in front of the project site, on Oak Street 
throughout the day. 

Loading 

Loading activities would not cause significant impacts. The existing yellow loading zone could 
be retained on Hickory Street to accommodate project freight activities. 

Construction 

Construction impacts would be temporary and of short-term duration. Therefore, they w ould not 
be considered significant environmental impacts. In order to reduce potential non-significant 
construction impacts, the project sponsor could implement the following improvement measures: 

To the extent possible, truck movements should be limited to the hours between 9:00 a.m. 
and 3:30 p.m. or other times as approved by the Department of Parking and Traffic 
(DPT) to minimize disruption of the general traffic flow on adjacent streets. Construction 
traffic occurring between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 
6:00 p.m. would coincide with peak hour traffic, and could impede traffic flow and slow 
traffic and Muni bus movement. 



Ill 



IV. Mitigation Measures Proposed to 
Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project 

The project sponsor and construction contract or(s) could meet with the Traffic 
Engineering Division of the Department of Parking and Traffic, the Department of Public 
Works, the Fire Department, Muni's Street Operation and Special Events Office and the 
Planning Department to determine feasible traffic measures to reduce traffic congestion 
and pedestrian circulation impacts during construction of the project and to ensure that 
construction activities do not impact Muni bus stops or routes in the vicinity. 



112 



V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH 

CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS 
IMPLEMENTED 



In accordance with Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and with 
Section 15126(b) of the state CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this section is to identify 
environmental impacts that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an insignificant level by mitigation 
measures included as part of the proposed project, or by other mitigation measures that could be 
implemented, identified in Chapter IV, Mitigation Measures, pp. 102-1 10. 

The proposed project, with mitigation, would have the following unavoidable significant impact 
on historical resources, due to its impact on the Category II, Significant building at 50 Oak Street: 

The removal of original entrance features of 50 Oak Street would materially impair the 
physical characteristics of the historic architectural resource that convey its historical 
significance and which justify, in part, its designation under Article 1 1 . 

• The proposed demolition of interior spaces, and the proposed changes to the vertical 

alignment of some of the new floors, would materially impair the physical characteristics 
of the historic architectural resource that convey its historical significance and that 
justify, in part, its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by the 
lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. 

With implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Chapter IV, most potentially significant 
impacts would be reduced or eliminated to a less-than-significant level. Impacts on historical 
resources, specifically 50 Oak Street, would remain significant, as noted above. This chapter is 
subject to final determination by the City Planning Commission as part of the certification of the 
EIR. Measures under consideration may be required by the Planning Commission as conditions 
of project approval if the project were to be approved. The Final EIR will be revised, if 
necessary, to reflect the findings of the Commission. The project sponsor has agreed to 
implement all mitigation measures in Chapter IV (except those requiring implementation by a 
public agency) in an agreement dated December 3, 2002. 



113 



VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 



This chapter identifies alternatives to the proposed project and discusses the environmental 
effects associated with the alternatives. San Francisco decision makers must consider approval of 
an alternative if that alternative would substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental 
impacts identified for the proposed project and that alternative is determined to be feasible. The 
determination of feasibility will be made by City decision makers. 

The following alternatives are discussed and evaluated in this chapter: a No Project Alternative; 
an Alternative Without Allowable Bulk Exceptions; and an Historic Preservation Alternative. 

The project sponsor does not have control of other sites of sufficient size and appropriate location 
for the development program near the Civic Center or elsewhere in San Francisco, nor does the 
sponsor control another site that would avoid major alteration of an historic resource. No 
alternative sites have been identified within the City that would meet most of the project 
sponsor's objectives and substantially lessen or avoid the project's significant environmental 
impacts. 



A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 



The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines require a No 
Project Alternative be included in EIRs. The purpose of the No Project Alternative is to allow 
decision makers to compare the effects of the proposed project with the effects of not approving a 
project. 



DESCRIPTION 



Under the No Project Alternative, 50 Oak Street would not be seismically upgraded, and major 
alterations would not be made. Seventy Oak Street would not be demolished and no new 
structure would be constructed at its location. Lots 5 and 7 would not be merged. The 
Conservatory of Music would not relocate to the project site. Space in the 50 and 70 Oak Street 
buildings would probably continue to be rented. This alternative reflects existing physical 
conditions on the project site that are described in Section II, Project Description, and Section 
III.A, Land Use: Setting discussions on pp. 27 and 49-50, respectively. 



114 



VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 



IMPACTS 

If the No Project Alternative were implemented, none of the impacts associated with the project 
would occur. The environmental conditions at the site would continue to be as described in 
Section II, Project Description, and Section III. A, Land Use and Zoning, pp. 27 and 49-50, 
respectively. Existing conditions generally would not change. The facades of 50 Oak Street, a 
Category II, Significant building, and 70 Oak Street would not be altered and could continue to 
deteriorate. The interiors of the buildings would not be altered. 

Under the No Project Alternative, the Conservatory of Music would most likely sell the property 
and could attempt to locate a different development site elsewhere in San Francisco. 
Development at another site would probably result in project-specific and/or cumulative impacts. 
The nature and extent of any such potential impacts cannot be assessed without identification of 
the site to be developed. As noted above, the Conservatory does not control another property 
suitable for its purpose. 

The No Project Alternative does not preclude development of the site. If the buildings at 50 and 
70 Oak Street were sold, other new development could be proposed. Probable uses that would be 
proposed would include those permitted in the C-3-G District such as residential, retail, office, 
assembly and entertainment, institutional, or educational uses. 

B. ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT ALLOWABLE BULK EXCEPTIONS 
DESCRIPTION 

Alternative B would be a design for new construction on the site that would not require a bulk 
exception to the 80-E Height and Bulk District requirements. The maximum bulk of new 
construction under the alternative would therefore not exceed 1 10 feet in length and 140 feet in 
diagonal dimension for the portions above 65 feet in height, compared to project length of 1 55 ft 
and 1 90 ft. diagonal dimension above 65 feet. 

As with the proposed project, 50 Oak Street would be seismically upgraded and major alterations 
made, and 70 Oak Street would be demolished and a new : structure constructed and integrated 
with 50 Oak Street. Lots 5 and 7 would be merged. The existing 50 Oak Street building predates 
current height and bulk requirements, and new development on the site of 50 Oak Street under the 
alternative would not increase the nonconformity. 



115 



VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 



Under Alternative B, as in the proposed project, the interior of 50 Oak Street would be 
demolished and floors realigned. In contrast with the project, the building would not exceed five 
stories along the entire 160-foot-long Hickory Street frontage to a depth of 30 feet. The 
approximately 80-foot-tall existing facade along Hickory Street would remain, to preserve the 
historic fabric of the Category II, Significant building. The rear wall would function as a parapet 
and would require seismic bracing. New construction on the majority of the site of 70 Oak Street 
would contain five floors and would not exceed 65 feet in height along the Hickory Street and 
Franklin Street-facing elevations, unlike the project. A new sixth floor would be constructed for 
an approximately 1 1 0- by 86-foot-wide area extending along the entire southern portion of the 
50 Oak Street building and for approximately 20 feet of new construction at the site of 70 Oak; 
the sixth floor would be 80 feet in height, as with the proposed project.' 

Alternative B would result in approximately 1 3 percent less floor area than with the proposed 
project. It would be likely, under the No Bulk Exception Alternative, that the library and other 
program spaces proposed in the project to be on the sixth level would be eliminated, substantially 
reduced in size, or would need to be relocated, correspondingly reducing or eliminating other 
program space. 

As with the proposed project, all interior space in 50 Oak Street, except the Ballroom, would be 
demolished to permit new construction of performance spaces, a new main entry, and realignment 
of the floors. The Ballroom would be adapted and reused as a concert hall. Exterior finishes of 
50 Oak Street would be cleaned, patched, repaired, and the facade would be repointed, as they 
would be in the proposed project. 

IMPACTS 

The effect of Alternative B on land use, population, employment and housing, transportation, air 
quality, noise, and growth inducement would be similar to or slightly less than that of the project 
as proposed, due to 1 3 percent less space. 

Different effects on visual quality and urban design would occur along Oak Street, as the 
alternative design would create a varying rectangular profile for the new construction on the 



' The existing portions of the 50 Oak Street building that exceed the 80-foot maximum allowable 
height would be retained, as with the project. 



116 



VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 



70 Oak Street site since a 20-foot-wide portion of the building would be at 80 feet in height, and 
the remaining, approximately 45-foot-wide portion would not exceed 65 feet in height. This 
would result in a stepping down in scale from the 125-foot-tall 25 Van Ness Avenue, to the 97- 
foot-tall 50 Oak Street, to the 80-foot-tall and 65-foot-tall portions of new construction at the 
70 Oak Street site. By comparison, the proposed project would have a regular, rectangular 
configuration. (See Figure 25: Massing Diagram for Alternative B.) 

As with the proposed project, interior demolition, realignment of floor levels, and removal of the 
original entrance features under Alternative B would undermine the 50 Oak Street building's 
ability to convey its historical significance, including its eligibility for inclusion in the California 
Register. Therefore, as with the proposed project, this alternative would constitute a substantial 
and adverse change in the significance of an historic architectural resource, which w ould be 
considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. 

Alternative B would create slightly less shadow than the proposed project on nearby sidewalks. 
Wind conditions would be similar to the proposed project. Because the amount of excavation on 
the site would not change, the effect of the alternative on geology and soils, hydrology and 
dewatering, hazards, and archaeological resources would be the same as with the proposed 
project. 



C. HISTORIC PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE 



DESCRIPTION 



The Historic Preservation Alternative would conform to the Secretary of the Interior 's Standards 
for Rehabilitation to the greatest extent reasonable and feasible while conserv ing as much of the 
Conservatory's program as could be accommodated on the site. The alternative would demolish 
70 Oak Street and replace it with new construction, as with the project. It would retain and 
rehabilitate the existing 50 Oak Street building, including its exterior and interior character- 
defining features, and bring the building into conformity with current structural, systems, and 
accessibility standards. 

Like the project, this alternative would retain and repair the existing Oak Street and Hickory 
Street facades for 50 Oak Street. Unlike the project, the main entry (entrance stairs, ceiling. 



117 



SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consultiing 



50 QM STKCCT 



FIGURE 28: ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT 
ALLOWABLE BULK EXCEPTIONS 

118 



VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Projeet 



sidewalls and finishes) would be retained and rehabilitated, and would continue to function as the 
main entrance to the 50 Oak Street building and to the Conservatory facility under this 
Preservation Alternative. Access to the building for the disabled users would be a separate 
entrance at grade in one of the bays flanking the main central entrance. Disabled users would 
enter a vestibule with an elevator to the main lobby, one-half story up from street level. 
Consequently, basement and first-floor windows in one of these bays, as well as a portion of the 
granite base separating these windows, would be removed. 

The building would be brought into compliance with current building code requirements 
employing the State Historic Building Code wherever its application would preserve the integrity 
of interior spaces that have been identified as character defining in the historic resources stud\ . 
Existing floor levels would be maintained, and the existing slab structure would be strengthened 
by casting new steel and concrete below existing floors where possible. The existing ornamental 
ceilings would be removed, or temporarily removed and reinstalled, to allow for seismic 
strengthening of the floors above. 

The Ballroom, a character-defining space, would be retained in its present configuration and used 
as small recital hall under this Preservation Alternative, rather than serving as the raised seating 
area for a large concert hall with the stage in the new construction on the site of 70 Oak Street, as 
in the project. The other character-defining spaces identified in the historic resources study. 
Ballroom Lobby, Lodge Rooms A and B, and Main Entrance Lobby, would also be retained and 
reused. As with the project, original interior finishes and fixtures in these spaces (like art glass, 
lighting, paneling, doors and hardware) would be retained wherever feasible. 

Given the applicable height limits, retention of the Lodge Rooms in their existing configuration 
and their location over the Ballroom would preclude the incorporation of a new fifth floor and 
sixth floor at the rear of 50 Oak Street. (In the proposed project, two new floor levels at the rear 
would be achieved through interior demolition, realignment of floors, and a roof level addition at 
the rear). Retention, under this alternative, of the existing floor levels in the 50 Oak Street 
building and aligning these floor levels in the new construction at 70 Oak Street would also result 
in five floors in the new construction at the 70 Oak Street site (one less floor than with the 
proposed project). Transition stairs and ramps would be used at the lower levels to facilitate the 
movement of people and instruments, such as pianos, to and from the concert hall, between the 
differently aligned floor levels of the two structures. 



119 



VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 



A variation on this Preservation Alternative would include six above-grade floors in the new 
construction at 70 Oak Street, as with the proposed project. Gains in floor space under this 
variation would probably be more than offset by the loss of floor space to transition stairs and 
ramps, at all floor levels, to reconcile the differing floor heights. 

Under the Preservation Alternative, the Ballroom would become a subsidiary recital hall, rather 
than the main concert for the Conservatory, because the existing Ballroom's size and proportions 
would not accommodate a stage suitable for orchestra and chorus nor would it provide sufficient 
audience seating. Reuse of the existing Ballroom as a concert hall would not meet the 
Conservatory's acoustic standards. Under the alternative, the main concert hall would be located 
entirely within the new construction at the 70 Oak Street site, displacing other uses there. The 
use of Lodge Rooms A and B for music instruction, practice or performance would be precluded 
with this alternative because the underlying floor slab would not supply adequate acoustic 
separation from the Ballroom below nor provide adequate structural support for the necessary 
acoustic separation between the Lodge Rooms. 

The net result of the Historic Preservation Alternative would be over 20 percent less 
programmatic space than with the proposed project, resulting in 30 percent fewer studios, practice 
rooms and classrooms. Space would not be available for faculty offices or, other program space 
would be eliminated. Many resulting spaces could not be constructed to state-of-the-art standards 
for their proposed purpose as a music conservatory, in contrast with the proposed project. 

IMPACTS 

With Alternative C, the space available at the project site for use by the Conservatory of Music 
would be substantially reduced and would not meet the Conservatory's objectives to provide 
three acoustically designed performance spaces and to increase enrollment. Two performance 
spaces only would be provided in the alternative, rather than three with the proposed project. 
Neither would meet the Conservatory's design or acoustical standards. In addition, 30 percent of 
the studios, practice rooms and classrooms would be eliminated, and space would not be available 
for faculty offices without a further reduction in other program space. Because the number of 
classrooms would be approximately the same as at the facility on Ortega Street currently used by 
the Conservatory, the Conservatory would not be able to increase enrollment as it would with the 
proposed project. 



120 



VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 



Under Alternative C, effects on land use, population, employment and housing, transportation, air 
quality, noise, and growth inducement would be similar to or slightly less than those of the 
project as proposed, due to less enrollment and fewer, smaller performances. Effects of the 
alternative on wind and shadow would be similar to those of the project. The effect of 
Alternative C on geology and soils, hydrology and dewatering, hazards, and archaeological 
resources would be the same as the project. 

The overall architectural integrity of the 50 Oak Street building, both interior and exterior, would 
be substantially retained. This alternative would preserve more interior finishes and fixtures than 
the proposed project. The modification of windows and the building's granite base to create an 
at-grade entrance would be necessary to meet disabled accessibility requirements. Because this 
work would be relatively modest in size, recessed within the existing bay configuration, and 
would not entail the removal of a distinctive character-defining feature, it would likely be found 
to meet the Secretary of the Interior 's Standards for Rehabilitation. 2 As such, it would have a 
less-than-significant impact on the 50 Oak Street historical resource, under CEQA Guidelines, 
Section 15064.5(b)(3). In any event, such an alteration would not constitute a material 
impairment of the resource undermining its eligibility for listing on local, state or national 
registers of historical resources. It would therefore not constitute a substantial adverse change in 
the significance of an historical resource under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)( 1 ) and (2). 

This Historic Preservation Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project 
due to its lesser impact on the historic resource. 



2 The introduction to the Secretary of the Interior 's Standards for Rehabilitation state that the 
Standards "are to be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical 
feasibility." 



121 



VII. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 



EIR AUTHORS 

Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco 

1 660 Mission Street 

San Francisco, California 94103 

Environmental Review Officer: Paul Maltzer 
Senior Environmental Planners: Bill Wycko, AICP 

Joan A. Kugler, AICP 
EIR Coordinator: Carol Roos 

Historic Resources Planner: Adam Light 
Environmental Planner: Leigh Kienker 



EIR CONSULTANTS 



Turnstone Consulting 
330 Townsend Street, Suite 216 
San Francisco, California 94107 
Project Director: 
Project Manager: 
Deputy Project Manager: 



Barbara W. Sahm 
Nancy Cunningham Clark 
Julie Tilley, AICP 
Megan J. Burke 
S. Elizabeth Haines 
Devyani Jain 
Amber M. Santilli 



Donald J. Ballanti 

Certified Consulting Meteorologist 

1421 Scott Street 

El Cerrito, California 94530 

(Wind) 



CHS Consulting Group 
500 Sutter Street, Suite 216 
San Francisco, California 94103 
(Transportation) 



Chi Hsin Shao 
Mary Walther Pryor 



122 



VII. EIR Authors and Persons Consulted 



McGrew Architects 
Architecture and Preservation 
41 Sutter Street, Suite 101 

San Francisco, California 94104 Patrick McGrew 

(Historic Resources) 

6 th Street Studio 
23 1 Sixth Street 

San Francisco, California 94103 Valerie Reichert 

(Graphics) 



PROJECT SPONSOR 

San Francisco Conservatory of Music 
1201 Ortega Street 

San Francisco, California 94122-4498 Kathryn Wittenmyer 

Oppenheim Lewis 
2742 17 th Street 

San Francisco, California 94110 Scott Lewis 



PROJECT ATTORNEYS 

Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass 
222 Kearny Street, 7 th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94108 Harry O'Brien, Esq. 

PROJECT ARCHITECTS 

SMWM 

989 Market Street, 3 rd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94103 John Long, AIA 

Lisa Panozzo, AIA 

Page & Turnbull 
724 Pine Street 

San Francisco, California 94108 Jay Turnbull, FAIA 

Elizabeth Milnarik 
Betsy Sandidge, AIA 



123 



VII. EIR Authors and Persons Consulted 



PROJECT CONSULTANTS 

Green Environment, Inc. 
P.O. Box 7138 

San Carlos, California 94070 Mark Green, REA 1-03470 

Treadwell & Rollo 

Environmental and Geotechnical Consultants 
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1300 
San Francisco, California 941 1 1 Scott A. Walker 

John Gouchon 



124 



VIII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



LIST OF THOSE TO RECEIVE MAILED COPIES OF DRAFT EIR 



Federal and State Agencies 

Leigh Jordan, Coordinator 
Northwest Information Center 
Sonoma State University 
1303 Maurice Avenue 
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 

Nandini N. Shridhar 

California Department of Transportation 

Office of Transportation Planning - B 

P.O. Box 23660 

Oakland, CA 94623-0660 

Lucinda Woodward 

State Office of Historic Preservation 

Local Gov and Info Management Unit 

P.O. Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 



State Office of Intergovernmental 
Management, State Clearinghouse 
1400 Tenth Street. Room 121 
P.O. Box 3044 

Sacramento. C A 95812-3044 

Dr. Knox Mellon, SHPO 

Office of Historic Preservation 

California Department of Parks and Recreation 

P.O. Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 



Regional Agencies 

Judy Huang 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 
San Francisco Bay Region 
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 
Oakland, CA 94612 



City and County of San Francisco 

Pamela David, Director Marcia Rosen. Director 

Mayor's Office of Community Development Mayor's Office of Housing 

25 Van Ness Ave., Suite #700 25 Van Ness Ave. #600 

San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco. CA 94102 



125 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Bond M. Yee 

San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic 
Traffic Engineering Division 
25 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Anthony Delucchi, Director of Property 
San Francisco Real Estate Department 
25 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, C A 94102 

Chris Daly 

City Hall, Room #244 
Board of Supervisors 
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Glen Billy 
Mayor's Office 

1 Carlton B. Goodlett PI, Rm. 160 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 

1 660 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: Andrea Green, Recording Secretary 

Tim Kelley, President 

Suheil Shatara, Vice-President 

Ina Dearman 

Paul Finwall 

Nancy Ho-Belli 

Jeremy Kotas 

Penny Magrane 

Daniel Reidy 

Elizabeth Skrondal 



Peter Straus 
San Francisco Muni 
Service Planning Department 
1 145 Market Street, Suite 402 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Laurence Kornfield 

Department of Building Inspection 

1660 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Bill Lee 
CAO's Office 

1 Dr Carlton B. Goodlett PL, Rm. 352 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Steve Nickerson, Principal Administrative Analyst 
San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) 
875 Stevenson Street, Room 260 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

San Francisco Planning Commission 

1660 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: Linda Avery, Commission Secretary 

Shelley Bradford Bell, President 

Michael J. Antonini, Vice-President 

Rev. Edgar Boyd 

Lisa Feldstein 

Kevin Hughes 

Sue Lee 

William L. Lee 



Groups and Individuals 

James W. Haas, Chairman 
Civic Pride! 

1 Embarcadero Center, #2920 
San Francisco, CA 94111-3719 

Peter Bosselman 

Environmental Simulation Laboratory 
119 Wurster Hall 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94720 



Bruce White 

3207 Shelter Cove Ave. 

Davis, CA 95616 

Georgia Brittan 

San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth 

460 Duncan Street 

San Francisco, CA 94131 



126 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Susan R. Diamond 
Brobeck, Phleger, Harrison 
One Market Plaza 
San Francisco, C A 94105 

EIP Associates 

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, C A 94111 

Steven L. Vettel 

Morrison & Foerster, LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, C A 94105-2482 

Larry Mansbach 
Mansbach Associates 
582 Market Street, Suite 217 
San Francisco, C A 94104 

Marie Zeller 
Patri Merker Architects 
400 Second Street, Suite 400 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

James Chappell, Executive Director 

San Francisco Planning & Urban Research 

Association 

312 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, C A 94108 

Hartmut Gerdes 
Square One Productions 
1736 Stockton Street, Studio 7 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Calvin Welch 

Council of Community Housing Organizations 

409 Clayton Street 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

California Heritage Council 

P.O. Box 475046 

San Francisco, CA 94147 



Dorice Murphy 

Eureka Valley Trails & Art Network 

175 Yukon Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 14 



Jay Cahill 

Cahill Contractors, Inc. 

425 California Street, Suite 2300 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

ESA, Inc. 

225 Bush Street, Suite 1700 
San Francisco, CA 94 1 0 1 -4207 

EDAW 

Dan Cohen 

150 Chestnut Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



Gerry Katz 

Greenwood Press, Inc. 

P.O. Box 5007 

Westport, Conn 06881-5007 

Sally Maxwell 
Maxwell & Associates 
1522 Grand View Drive 
Berkeley, CA 94705 

Mrs. G. Bland Piatt 
362 Ewing Terrace 
San Francisco, CA 941 18 



Tony Kilroy 

San Francisco Tomorrow 
41 Sutter Street, #1579 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Joel Ventresca 

1278 44th Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

Diane Wong 
UCSF Campus Planning 
3333 California Street. Suite 1 1 
San Francisco. CA 94143-0286 

The Art Deco Society of California 
100 Bush Street, Suite 511 
San Francisco. CA 94104 



127 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Elizabeth Gardner 
San Francisco Independent 
988 Market Street, 6 ,h Floor 
San Francisco, C A 94102 

Courtney S. Clarkson 
Pacific Heights Residents Assn. 
3 1 09 Sacramento Street 
San Francisco, C A 94115 

F. Joseph Butler Architect 
1048 Union Street, #19 
San Francisco, C A 94133 



Fort Point and Presidio Historical 

Association 

P.O. Box 29163 

San Francisco, CA 94129 

Debra Stein 
GCA Strategies 

655 Montgomery St., Suite 1700 
San Francisco, C A 94111 

Nancy Shanahan 
Telegraph Hill Dwellers 
522 Filbert Street 
San Francisco, C A 94133 

Shirley Albright 

Landmarks Council of California 
306 Arguello Blvd., Apt. 101 
San Francisco, C A 94118 

Joseph B. Pecora 
882 Grove Street 
San Francisco, CA 941 17 



Stewart Morton 

P.O. Box 641225 

San Francisco, C A 94164-1225 

Winchell T. Hayward 
Victorian Alliance CA Heritage 
208 Willard North 
San Francisco, C A 94118 



Patricia Walkup 

Hayes Valley Neighborhood Assn. 

P.O. Box 423978 

San Francisco, CA 94142-3978 

J.G. Turnbull 

Page & Turnbull 

724 Pine Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Charles Chase, Executive Director 
Foundation for San Francisco 
Architectural Heritage 
2007 Franklin Street 
San Francisco, C A 94109 

Carey & Company, Inc. 

460 Bush Street 

San Francisco, C A 94108 

Alice Suet Yee Barkley, Esq. 
30 Blackstone Court 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Western Neighborhoods Project 

P.O. Box 460936 

San Francisco, C A 94146-0936 

Scott Lewis 
Oppenheim Lewis 
2742 17 th Street 
San Francisco, C A 94110 

David P. Cincotta 
Law Offices of David P. Cincotta 
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 915 
San Francisco, C A 94102 

Sue Hestor 

Attorney at Law 

870 Market Street, Room 1 128 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

Arnie Hollander 

The Lurie Company 

555 California Street, Suite 1500 

San Francisco, CA 94104 



128 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Harry O'Brien, Esq. 
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass 
222 Kearney Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 



Patrick McGrew 

McGrew/Architects 

582 Market Street, Suite 908 

San Francisco, CA 94104 



Libraries 

SF Pub Library Gov Info Ctr 
100 Larkin Street 
San Francisco, C A 94102 
(2 Copies) 

Government Information Services 
San Francisco Main Library, Civic Center 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
(3 copies) 



Institute of Government Studies 
109 Moses Hall 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94720 



Media 

San Francisco Independent 
988 Market Street, 6 th Floor 
San Francisco, C A 94102 



Gerald D. Adams 

San Francisco Chronicle 

901 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 



LIST OF THOSE TO RECEIVE MAILED NOTICES OF AVAILABILITY 



Regional Agencies 

Joseph Steinberger 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

939 Ellis Street 

San Francisco, C A 94109 

Jean Pedersen 

Association of Bay Area Governments 
101 8th Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 



Suzan Ryder 

Association of Bay Area Governments 
P.O. Box 2050 
Oakland, CA 94604-2050 

Craig Goldblatt 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission 
101 8th Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 



City and County of San Francisco 



Frank Chiu, Superintendent 
Department of Building Inspection 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco, C A 94103 



John Deakin. Director 
Bureau of Energy Conserv ation 
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 
1 155 Market Street. 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



129 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Maria Ayerdi 

Mayor's Office of Economic Development 

City Hall, Room 448 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, C A 94102-4689 

Deborah Learner 

Recreation & Park Department 

McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 

Fell and Stanyan Streets 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

Barbara Moy 

San Francisco Department of Public Works 
Bureau of Street Use and Mapping 
875 Stevenson Street, Room 465 
San Francisco, C A 94103 

Lorrie Kalos, Asst. Deputy Chief 
San Francisco Fire Department 
Division of Planning & Research 
698 Second Street 
San Francisco, CA 94107 



Patricia E. Martel, General Manager 
Public Utilities Commission 
1155 Market Street 
San Francisco, C A 94102 

Captain Timothy Hettrich 
San Francisco Police Department 
Planning Division 
Hall of Justice 

850 Bryant Street, Room 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 
Attn: TIDF Coordinator for PUC 
425 Mason Street, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Groups / Individuals 

African-American Historic Society 
Fort Mason Center 
Building C 

San Francisco, C A 94123 



Julie Angeloni 

Health Center for Homeless Vets 

205 13 th Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Michael Chan 

Housing Director 

Asian, Inc. 

1670 Pine Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Pat Christensen 

Executive Secretary 

S.F. Council of Dist. Merch. Assn. 

P.O. Box 3 1802 

San Francisco, C A 94131 



Richard Allman 
President 

S.F. Housing & Tenants Council 

109 Gates Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Agnes Batteiger 
Secretary 

Gray Panthers of San Francisco 
1 182 Market Street, Suite 203 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Gordon Chin 
Executive Director 
Chinatown Resource Center 
1525 Grant Avenue (Tower) 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mary Daugherty 
President 

The New Citywide Residents Alliance 

P.O. Box 15303 

San Francisco, CA 941 15 



130 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



John H. Elberling 

Tenants & Owners Development Corp. 

(TODCO) 

230 Fourth Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Gen Fujioka 

Asian Law Caucus 

720 Market Street, Suite 500 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

Ellen Johnck 

Executive Director 

Bay Planning Coalition 

10 Lombard Street, Suite 408 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1-6205 

Sheila Kolenc 
Assistant Director 
San Francisco Beautiful 
41 Sutter Street, Suite 709 
San Francisco, C A 94104 

Sam Murray 

New Bayview Committee 

4909 3 rd Street 

San Francisco, C A 94124 

Jake S. Ng 
President 

San Francisco Neighbors Assn. (SFNA) 
1900 Noriega Street, Suite 202 
San Francisco, C A 94122 

Linda Pasquinucci 
Manager 

St. Anthony Foundation 

818 Steiner Street 

San Francisco, C A 94117 

Mara Raider 
Empty the Shelters 
126 Hyde Street, #102 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Stanley Warren 

Secretary-Treasurer 

S.F. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council 

2660 Newhall Street, Room 1 16 

San Francisco, CA 94124-2527 



James C. Fabris 

Executive Vice President 

San Francisco Assn. of Realtors 

301 Grove Street 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

Ted Gullicksen 

Office Manager 

San Francisco Tenants Union 

558 Capp Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 10 

Arnold Johnson 

Neighborhoods in Transition (NIT-AMP) 
1 596 Post Street, Second Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94 1 3 1 

Bill Morrison 

California Lawyers for the Arts 

Fort Mason Center 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Janan New 

San Francisco Apartment Assn. 
1232 Market Street, Suite 104 
San Francisco, C A 94102-4806 

Joe O'Donoghue 
President 

Residential Builders Assn. of S.F. 
530 Divisadero Street, Suite 179 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 7 

Bok F. Pon 
President 

American Chinese Association 

435 14 ,h Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 941 18 

Chuck Turner 
Director 

Community Design Center 
1 705 Ocean Avenue 
San Francisco. C A 94112 

Teresita Williams 

Ex Offender Assistance Foundation 
9 Goldmine Drive. #C 
San Francisco. C A 94131 



131 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Kathy Opsather 

Theatre Row Business Association 

490 Geary Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Linda Mjellem 
Executive Director 
Union Square Association 
323 Geary Street, Suite 408 
San Francisco, C A 94102 

Ron Saturno 
President 

Civic Center Neighborhood Watch 

254 Ivy Street, #4 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Jean Tokarek 

Executive Director 

North of Market Senior Services 

333 Turk Street 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

Barbara Wenger 
Spokesperson 

Hayes Valley Neighborhood Parks Group 
300 Page Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102-5649 

Michael Dyett 

Dyett & Bhatia 

70 Zoe Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Chi-Hsin Shao 
CHS Consulting Group 
500 Sutter Street, Suite 216 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Richard Mayer 
NRG Energy Center 
410 Jessie Street, Suite 702 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Carol Lester 
Chicago Title 

388 Market Street, 13th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



Brother Kelly Cullen 
Executive Director 

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp. 

201 Eddy Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102-3324 

August Murphy 

Mid-Market/U.N. Plaza Association 
83 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Randy Shaw 

Director, Tenderloin Housing Clinic 

126 Hyde Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Vu-Duc Vuong 

Center for SE Asian Refugee Resettlement 

875 O'Farrell Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 



Bay Area Council 

200 Pine Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2702 



Stephen Weicker 
899 Pine Street, #1610 
San Francisco, CA 94108 

Mary Murphy 
Farella, Braun & Martel 
235 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

John Bardis 

Sunset Action Committee 
1501 Lincoln Way, #503 
San Francisco, CA 94122 

Chinatown Resource Center 

1525 Grant Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94133 



132 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution L 



Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods 

P.O. Box 42-5882 

San Francisco, CA 94142-5882 



John Vaughan 

Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. 
1 Maritime Plaza, Suite 900 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

DKS Associates 

1956 Webster Street, #300 

Oakland, CA 94612 



Carolyn Dee 
Downtown Association 
5 Third Street, Suite 520 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Gensler and Associates 
600 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



Dale Carleson 

Pacific Exchange 

115 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, C A 94104 

The Jefferson Company 

10 Lombard Street, 3rd Floor 

San Francisco, C A 94 1 1 1 - 1 1 65 

Jan Vargo 

Kaplan/McLaughlin/Diaz 

222 Vallejo Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Cliff Miller 

970 Chestnut Street, #3 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Robert Meyers Associates 

120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2290 

San Francisco, C A 94104 



Doug Longyear & Tony Blaczek 
Coldwell Banker 
Finance Department 
1699 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, C A 94109 

Frank Fudem 
Damon Raike & Co. 
100 Pine Street, Suite 1800 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

John Elberling 
Yerba Buena Consortium 
182 Howard Street, #519 
San Francisco, C A 94105 

Doug Stevens, State Coordinator 

Food and Fuel Retailers For Economic Equality 

770 L Street, Suite 960 

Sacramento, C A 95814 

Richard A. Judd 
Goldfarb & Lipman 
1300 Clay Street, 9th Floor 
City Center Plaza 
Oakland, CA 94612-1455 

Gruen, Gruen & Associates 

564 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Philip Fukuda 

TRI Commercial 

1 California Street. Suite 1200 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Howard Levy. Director 
Legal Assistance to the Elderly 
100 McAllister Street, #412 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

James C. DeVoy 
Milton Meyer & Co 
One California Street 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Jacob Herber 
Morrison & Foerster 
345 California Street 
San Francisco. CA 94104 



133 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Regina Sneed 
National Lawyers Guild 
558 Capp Street 
San Francisco, C A 94110 

Pillsbury, Winthrop LLP 
Environmental and Land Use Section 
50 Fremont Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105 

Bob Rhine 

Capital Planning Department 
UCSF 

145 Irving Street 

San Francisco, C A 94122 

Thomas N. Foster 
Rothschild & Associates 
300 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Stanley Smith 

San Francisco Building & Construction 

Trades Council 

2660 Newhall Street, #116 

San Francisco, CA 94124-2527 

Dale Hess, Executive Director 

San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau 

201 3rd Street, Suite 900 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

John Sanger, Esq. 

1 Embarcadero Center, 12 th Floor 

San Francisco, C A 94111 



Sedway Group 

505 Montgomery Street, #600 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1-2552 



John Kriken 

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP 
444 Market Street, Suite 2400 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Jon Twichell Associates 
70 Hermosa Avenue 
Oakland, CA 94618 



Bob Berman 

Nichols-Berman 

142 Minna Street 

San Francisco, C A 94105 

Peter Bass 

Ramsay/Bass Interest 

3756 Grant Avenue, Suite 301 

Oakland, CA 94610 

David P. Rhoades & Associates 

364 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2805 



Dee Dee Workman, Exec. Director 
San Francisco Beautiful 
41 Sutter Street, #709 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 
235 Montgomery Street, 12th Floor 
San Francisco, C A 94104-2902 



Walter Johnson 
San Francisco Labor Council 
1188 Franklin Street, #203 
San Francisco, C A 94109 

San Francisco Group 
Sierra Club 

85 2nd Street, 2 nd Floor 

San Francisco, C A 94105-3441 

Dave Kremer 
Shartsis Freise & Ginsburg 
One Maritime Plaza, 1 8th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Jim Ross 

Director, Public Affairs & Political Campaigns 

Solem & Associates 

550 Kearney Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Robert S. Tandler 

3490 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94118-1837 



134 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Sustainable San Francisco 
1540 Market Street, #160 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Howard M. Wexler, Esq. 
Farella, Braun & Martel, LLP 
235 Montgomery Street, 30th Floor 
San Francisco, C A 94104 

Bethea Wilson & Associates 
Art in Architecture 
2028 Scott Street, Suite 204 
San Francisco, CA 941 15 

Paul Kollerer/Tom Balestri 
Cahill Construction Services 
1599 Custer Avenue 
San Francisco, C A 94 1 24- 1 4 1 4 

Dennis Purcell 

Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass 
222 Kearny Street, 7th Floor 
San Francisco, C A 94108 

James Reuben 

Reuben and Alter 

235 Pine Street, 16th Floor 

San Francisco, C A 94104 

Bob Jacobvitz 

AIA, San Francisco Chapter 

130 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, C A 94104 



Jerry Tone 

Montgomery Capital Corp. 
244 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Eunice Willette 
1323 Gilman Avenue 
San Francisco, C A 94124 

David C. Levy, Esq. 
Morrison & Foerster, LLP 
425 Market Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 

Andrew Tuft 

Singer Associates 

140 Second Street, 2nd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Mary Anne Miller 

San Francisco Tomorrow 

1239 42nd Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

John Elberling 

Tenants & Owners Development Corp. 

230 Fourth Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Carolyn Diamond 
Executive Director 
Market Street Association 
870 Market Street, Suite 456 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Libraries 

Government Publications Department 
San Francisco State University Library 
1630 Holloway Avenue 
San Francisco, C A 94132 

Hastings College of the Law - Library 

200 McAllister Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102-4978 



Stanford University Libraries 
Jonsson Library of Gov Documents 
State & Local Documents Division 
Stanford, CA 94305 



135 



VIII. Draft EIR Distribution List 



Media 

Gabe Roth, City Editor 
San Francisco Bay Guardian 
520 Hampshire Street 
San Francisco, C A 94110 

Tim Turner 

San Francisco Business Times 
275 Battery Street, Suite 940 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

The Sun Reporter 

1791 Bancroft Avenue 

San Francisco, C A 94124-2644 



Patrick Hoge 

City Hall Bureau 

San Francisco Chronicle 

901 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Leland S. Meyerzone 

KPOO-FM 

P.O. Box 6149 

San Francisco, C A 94101 

Bill Shiftman 

Associated Press 

1390 Market Street, Suite 318 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Nearby Property Owners 

Property owners and occupants in the project vicinity, approximately 150 addresses, were sent 
Notices of Availability of the Draft EIR. A complete copy of this distribution list is available 
within the docket in the Planning Department at 1 660 Mission Street. 



136 



APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL 

STUDY 



g= 
6 
H 
£ 

= 
6: 

t 
t 

t= 
t= 
fc 
1 

fe: 
fc= 

fc 



PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

City and County of San Francisco 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 

(41^ ^R«7fi PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION CURRENT PLANNING/ZONING LONG RANGE PLANNING 
1 ' FAX: 558-6409 FAX: 558-6426 FAX: 558-6409 FAX: 558-6426 



June 29, 2002 

TO: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Interested Parties 

FROM: Paul Maltzer, Environmental Review Officer 

RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report 

The City and County of San Francisco Planning Department is the Lead Agency and will prepare an 
Environmental Impact Report for the following project: 

2001.0862E: 50 Oak Street Project -The proposed project is the seismic retrofit and alteration of the 
existing four- to five- story structure at 50 Oak Street and demolition of the adjacent three- to four- story 
structure and new construction of a six-story structure at 70 Oak Street, for the San Francisco Conservator) 
of Music. The two structures would be integrated as one building. The two existing structures total about 
91,000 gsf. The Conservatory of Music would contain about 125,000 gsf, including about 19.200 gsf of 
performance space; 17,000 gsf of performing support space; 26,500 gsf of educational studios and spaces; 
7,500 gsf of administrative office space; 7,000 gsf of library space; 21,600 gsf of corridor and circulation 
space; and 26,200 gsf of service and storage space. No parking spaces or loading spaces are proposed. The 
site occupies the north side of Oak Street, between the 25 Van Ness Avenue building and a parking lot at 
Hickory and Franklin Street, encompassing most of the half block bounded by Oak, Hickory, and Franklin 
Streets and Van Ness Avenue. The site includes Lots 5 and 7, in Assessor's Block 834. 

This Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Notice that an EIR is 
Determined to be Required for the above-referenced project are being sent to you because you have expressed 
an interest in the proposed project, or because you have been identified by the Planning Department as 
potentially having an interest in the project. Notice of publication of these documents will be printed in a 
newspaper of general circulation on the date of these notices. As stated in these Notices, the Planning 
Department has determined that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an EIR must 
be prepared prior to any final decision regarding the project. 

We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information 
which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your 
agency may need to use the EIR when considering a permit or other approval for this project. 

Written comments on the scope of the EIR will be accepted until the close of business on July 29. 2002. 
Written comments should be sent to: Paul Maltzer, Environmental Review Officer, San Francisco Planning 
Department, 1660 Mission Street, Ste. 500, San Francisco, CA 94103. Please include the name of a contact 
person in your agency. Thank you. 




Paul Maltzer 
Environmental Review Officer 



p 

= 
E: 
t 

t 
fc 
fc 
6: 
fc 

6 



PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

City and County of San Francisco 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 



(415) 558-6378 



PLANNING COMMISSION 
FAX- 558-6409 



ADMINISTRATION 
FAX: 558-6426 



CURRENT PLANNING/ZONING 
FAX: 558-6409 



LONC RANGE PLANNING 
FAX: 558-6426 



NOTICE THAT AN 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 
IS DETERMINED TO BE REQUIRED 



Date of this Notice: June 29, 2002 



Lead Agency: 



Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco 

1660 Mission Street - 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 



Agency Contact Person: Carol Roos 



Telephone: (415) 558-5981 



Project Title: 2001.0862E - 50 Oak Street Project 

Project Sponsor: San Francisco Conservatory of Music 

Project Contact Person: Scott Lewis, Oppenheim-Lewis, (415) 621-6067 



Project Addresses: 50 Oak Street, 70 Oak Street 
Assessor's Block and Lot(s): 834/5and 7 
City and County: San Francisco 



Project Description: The proposed project is the seismic retrofit and alteration of the existing four- to five- 
story structure at 50 Oak Street and demolition of the adjacent three- to four- story structure and new 
construction of a six-story structure at 70 Oak Street, for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. The two 
structures would be integrated as one building. The two existing structures total about 91,000 gsf. The 
Conservatory of Music would contain about 125,000 gsf, including about 19,200 gsf of performance space; 
17,000 gsf of performing support space; 26,500 gsf of educational studios and spaces; 7,500 gsf of 
administrative office space; 7,000 gsf of library space; 21,600 gsf of corridor and circulation space; and 
26,200 gsf of service and storage space. No parking spaces or loading spaces are proposed. The site occupies 
the north side of Oak Street, between the 25 Van Ness Avenue building and a parking lot at Hickory and 
Franklin Street, encompassing most of the half block bounded by Oak, Hickory, and Franklin Streets and Van 
Ness Avenue. The site includes Lots 5 and 7, in Assessor's Block 834. 



THIS PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND W 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. This determination is based upon the criteria 
of the Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources, Section 15063 (Initial Study), 15064 (Determining 
Significant Effect), Section 15064.5 (Determining Significant Impacts on Historical Resources), and 1 5065 
(Mandatory Findings of Significance), and the following reasons, as documented in the Environmental 
Evaluation (Initial Study) for the project, which is attached. 




Paul Maltzer 
Environmental Review Officer 
Planning Department 



The San Francisco Conservatory of Music, at 50 Oak Street 

INITIAL STUDY 
2001.0862E 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The project proposes to seismically retrofit and alter the existing four- to five-story structure at 
50 Oak Street; demolish the adjacent three- to four-story structure at 70 Oak Street; and 
construct a new, six-story building at 70 Oak Street for the San Francisco Conservatory of 
Music. The two structures would be connected and integrated into one building. For the 
purpose of simplification, the project will be referred to as 50 Oak Street herein. 

The site is located mid block fronting Oak Street on Lots 5 and 7 in Assessor's Block 834. The 
site is on the half block bounded by Oak, Franklin and Hickory Streets and Van Ness Avenue. 
The new facility would contain approximately 125,000 gross square feet (gsf) of institutional 
space, including performance spaces, practice rooms, studios, classrooms, offices, and ancillary 
space for building services; approximately 98,500 square feet of the floor area would be 
attributed to the FAR. The Planning Code requires no parking or off-street loading for the 
project and none is proposed. 

The project would require approval of a lot line adjustment to merge the existing lots; a Permit to 
Alter a Category II, Significant building (50 Oak Street) under Article 1 1 of the San Francisco 
Planning Code; review of substantial alterations to existing buildings in the C-3 Districts under 
Section 309 of the Planning Code, including a request for an exception to bulk limits under 
Section 272 of the Planning Code; and a revocable encroachment permit from the Department of 
Public Works to occupy sub-sidewalk vaults. 

The project site is located about a block south of the Civic Center and one block north of Market 
Street. It is on the north side of Oak Street, between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street, 
occupying approximately 17,700 sq. ft. (0.41 acres) of land area. (See Figure 1, Project 
Location.) 

The Civic Center area is identified as the cultural, ceremonial and governmental center of San 
Francisco. It holds symbolic importance, as it contains key City public and cultural buildings 
and spaces, such as City Hall; the San Francisco Courts building, the Philip Burton Federal 
Building; the Edmund G. Brown State Office Building; the Old State Office Building and the 
New State Office Building (Civic Center Complex); San Francisco Main Library; War Memorial 
Opera House; Veterans Building; Davies Symphony Hall; Bill Graham Civic Auditorium; the 
Asian Art Museum; Civic Center Plaza; War Memorial Plaza; and United Nations Plaza. 

The immediate vicinity of the project site contains a mix of residential; commercial (office and 
retail); institutional (educational); City offices; arts, performance and entertainment; and parking 
uses. Apartment units above ground-floor office and retail are the predominant uses north of the 
site and southwest across Franklin Street. The San Francisco Unified School District office 
building, located at 135 Van Ness Avenue one block to the north, is a City Landmark. Parking 
lots are located immediately west and south of the site. The French-American and Chinese- 



2001.0862E 



Page 1 



50 Oak Street 




SOURCE: Turnstone Consulting, SMWM Architecture 

50 Q$K STREET 



2001.0862E 



FIGURE I: PROJECT LOCATION 



Page 2 



American International Schools are both located in one campus west of the site across Franklin 
Street at 1 50 Oak Street. The Category I, Significant building at 25 Van Ness is east and 
adjacent to the site and contains office space for a variety of tenants, including space for various 
departments of the City and County of San Francisco, and the New Conservatory Theater. 

EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The entire project site is occupied by two buildings, 50 and 70 Oak Street. Both buildings have 
vacant space and spaces used for dance, performance and physical fitness uses, offices, and 
studios. The 50 Oak Street building, to be and altered, was built in 1914, and contains 
approximately 61,000 sq. ft.; it occupies the whole of Lot 5. Originally known as the Young 
Men's Institute and, later, as the International Center, it is a four- to five-story, 75-foot- to 87- 
foot-tall (97 feet at the top of the parapet) steel-and-concrete structure over a two-level 
basement. A ballroom is located on the first floor. A gymnasium and swimming pool are 
located on the two basement floors, and are currently closed. The 70 Oak Street building, to be 
demolished, was built in 1923 and occupies the whole of Lot 7. The three- to four- story, 53- 
foot- to 77-foot-tall, concrete-and-brick building contains about 30,000 sq. ft. and a one-level 
basement. A gymnasium and handball courts are located at the basement to the second-floor 
level; they are currently closed. 

Both buildings are in the Beaux Arts tradition. The 50 Oak Street building is a Category II, 
Significant building, under Article 1 1 of the San Francisco Planning Code; it contains character- 
defining architectural features, including three-story, terra cotta, Ionic columns and a decorative 
sheet-metal cornice topped by terra cotta ornament 1 , with ornamental architectural emphasis 
along the Oak Street facade. The condition of the terra cotta is poor; some tiles are visibly 
cracked or missing and there is some spall. 2 The 70 Oak Street building is identified in the San 
Francisco Architectural Heritage Downtown Survey as an Inventory C++ building, of contextual 
importance. It is architecturally not as detailed or ornate as the 50 Oak Street building; the main 
decorative feature below its metal sheet cornice is a horizontal band corresponding to the 
fretwork on the base of the 50 Oak Street building. 3 The cement plaster, especially on its south 
facade, is in very poor condition and has been spalling off. 4 

The site is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and 
within an 80-E Height and Bulk District. Built prior to current zoning, the existing 87-foot-tall 
building at 50 Oak Street (fronting Oak Street) exceeds the present 80-foot height limit. The 



Page &Turnbull, Historic Resources Study for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music 50 and 70 Oak 
Street San Francisco California, (Hereinafter "Page & Turnbull, Historic Resources Study") February 25. 2002, 
revised June 6, 2002, pp. 5-6. This report is on file with the San Francisco Planning Department, 1660 Mission 
Street, and is available for review as part of the project file. 

Page & Turnbull, Historic Resources Study pp. 12- 13 

3 Page & Turnbull, Historic Resources Study pp. 6-7 

4 Page & Turnbull, Historic Resources Study p. 13 



2001.0862E 



Page 3 



50 Oak Street 



C-3-G District permits a base floor area ratio (FAR) of 6:1 , or 106,200 sq. ft. for combined lots 
5 and 7, subject to height and building bulk limitations, with certain allowable exceptions. 

Proposed Project 

The San Francisco Conservatory of Music, founded in 1917, is dedicated to the teaching and 
performance of music. The Conservatory currently operates at 1201 Ortega Street at 19 ,h 
Avenue. The proposed project would provide a new facility for the Conservatory among the 
many cultural uses in the Civic Center. The project consists of (1) seismic retrofit and major 
alteration of the existing building at 50 Oak Street (five floors and two basement levels would be 
reconfigured to create six floors and two basement levels); and (2) demolition of the existing 
building at 70 Oak Street and its replacement by six-story new construction connected to 50 Oak 
Street containing two basement levels. The new structure on the two lots would be an integrated 
facility for the Conservatory, with one address: 50 Oak Street. Construction of the project would 
take approximately 26 to 28 months. 

A lobby, concert hall, support facilities for the performance halls, and two classrooms would be 
accommodated on the first floor; the audience chamber for the concert hall would be in the 
existing ballroom at 50 Oak Street; the performance stage and support areas would be built 
within the newly constructed portion on the site of the demolished 70 Oak Street building. The 
second through fifth floors would contain classrooms, studio spaces, conference room, lounge, 
and faculty and administrative offices. The sixth floor would contain the library, listening room, 
and studio spaces surrounding an outdoor terrace area. There would be a mechanical penthouse 
on the roof. The two basement levels would contain the recital hall and salon, studio spaces, 
classrooms, recording rooms, and storage spaces and other support facilities. 

The project would preserve and rehabilitate the south and north facades of the existing structure 
at 50 Oak Street, including retaining and repairing historic exterior detailing and ornamentation. 
Alteration of these facades would include removal of the main entryway, including the entry 
stair and entry doors at Oak Street, and construction of a reconfigured entry located at street 
level that is intended to meet ADA requirements; removal of metal fire escape ladders; and 
relocation and infill of some window and door openings. Plans include adaptive reuse of the 
existing ballroom; the ballroom floor would be rebuilt and the remaining interior spaces would 
be reconfigured. Construction of a new, partial, sixth floor facing Hickory Street would conform 
to the 80-foot height limit. The existing areas where the nonconforming building height exceeds 
80 feet would remain. The 80-foot-tall, new construction on the site of the demolished 70 Oak 
Street building would be contemporary in style, rather than a replica of the adjacent Beaux Arts 
facade at 50 Oak Street. (See Figures 2, 3 and 4, Proposed Oak Street Elevation, Proposed 
Building Section, and Massing Diagram) 

There would be no off-street parking associated with the project; none is required in the C-3 
District. Loading would be on street at a loading-designated entrance on Hickory Street; no 
loading dock is required under San Francisco Planning Code Section 161(h). and none is 
proposed. The main entrance would be at 50 Oak Street, and two exit doors would face Hickory 
Street. Sub-sidewalk vaults for storage and a transformer are proposed within the Oak and 
Hickory Streets rights-of-way, outside both the northern and southern property lines. Existing 



2001.0862E 



Page 4 



50 Oak Street 



vaults are located within these rights-of-way and the project calls for either the retention of these 
areas within the existing footprints (at the site of 50 Oak Street) or the removal of the vault 
parallel to Oak Street to construct a utility vault approximately l/5th the size of the existing vault 
(at the site of 70 Oak Street). To construct the vaults, a revocable sidewalk encroachment permit 
would be requested from the Department of Public Works. Street trees would be planted and 
street lamps installed within the sidewalk parallel to Oak Street. 

The proposed development of approximately 125,000 gsf would include about 19,200 gsf of 
performance space (a concert hall, recital hall, and salon (small recital hall)); 17,000 gsf of 
performing support space (backstage and warm up areas); 26,500 gsf of educational studios and 
spaces (approximately 1 1 classrooms, 37 rehearsal and practice rooms, and 50 teaching studios 
and offices); 7,500 gsf of administrative offices; 7,000 gsf of library space; 21,600 gsf of 
corridor and circulation space; and 26,200 gsf of service and storage space. 5 The net increase in 
floor area on the site would be approximately 34,000 gsf; the existing buildings at 50 and 70 Oak 
Street contain about 61,000 gsf and 30,000 gsf, respectively (125,000 gsf proposed - 91,000 gsf 
existing space = 34,000 gsf). 

n. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

A. EFFECTS FOUND TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT 

This Initial Study examines the 50 Oak Street project in order to identify potential effects on the 
environment. On the basis of this study, project-specific effects that have been determined to be 
potentially significant include transportation; and cultural resources, specifically historic 
architectural resources. These issues will be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report 
(EIR). Topics noted "TO BE DETERMINED" mean that discussion in the EIR will determine 
whether or not there would be a significant impact. 

B. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT 

The following effects of the 50 Oak Street project have been determined to be either 
insignificant or to be mitigated through measures included in the project: land use, visual and 
urban design, population and housing, noise, air quality, shadow, wind, utilities/public services, 
biology, geology/topography, water, energy/natural resources, hazards, and archaeology. These 
issues are discussed below and require no further environmental analysis in the EIR, except as 
noted, for informational purposes. 



5 In accordance with Section 102.9 of the San Francisco Planning Code, as interpreted by Lawrence 
Badiner, San Francisco Zoning Administrator, in a letter to Harry O'Brien dated September 20, 2001, the floor area 
attributed to the floor area ratio (FAR) for the project would be about 98,500 gross sq. ft. This includes about 6,900 
sq. ft. of performance spaces, 10,100 sq.ft. of performance support space, 26,500 sq. ft. of educational space, 7,500 
sq. ft. of office space, 7,000 sq. ft. of library space, 21,600 sq. ft. of corridor and circulation space, and 18,900 sq. ft. 
of service and storage space. 



2001.0862E 



Page 5 



50 Oak Street 




50 0£K STREET 



2001.0862E 



FIGURE 2: 

Page 6 



PROPOSED OAK STREET ELEVATION fSOUTHl 



HIGHEST POINT 
EXISTING PARAPET 



80' HEIGHT LIMIT 



6TH LEVEL 



5TH LEVEL 



4TH LEVEL 



3RD LEVEL 



2ND LEVEL 




20 



FEET 



SOURCE: SMWM Architecture and Turnstone Consulting 



50 OflK STKCET 



2001 0862E 



FIGURE 3: PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION 



Page 7 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION 



A. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS 



Not Applicable Discussed 

1. Discuss any variances, special authorizations, 
or changes proposed to the City Planning Code 

or Zoning Map, if applicable. X 

Not Applicable Discussed 

2. Discuss any conflicts with any adopted 
environmental plans and goals of the City or 

Region, if applicable. _X_ 



The City Planning Code, which incorporates by reference the City's Zoning Maps, governs 
permitted uses, densities, and the configuration of buildings within San Francisco. Permits to 
construct new buildings or to alter or demolish existing ones may not be issued unless either the 
proposed project conforms to the Code, an allowable exception is granted pursuant to provisions 
of the Code, or amendments to the Code are included as part of a project. 

The project site is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Plan (part of the General 
Plan), and situated slightly south of the Civic Center, on two separate lots within the C-3-G 
(Downtown General Commercial) Use district. All new buildings and substantial additions 
proposed within this C-3 district require Planning Commission review, pursuant to Planning 
Code Section 309. The C-3-G district permits a variety of uses. The project, as a post-secondary 
educational institution for the purposes of academic, professional, fine-arts education, is a 
principal permitted use in this district, and therefore, does not required a Conditional Use 
authorization. The two lots would be merged. The allowable floor area ratio (FAR) is 6:1; at 
approximately 98,500 sq. ft., the project would comply with FAR requirements. 

The project site is within an 80-E Height and Bulk district, and all new project construction is 
proposed at, or below, the 80-foot height limit. The existing nonconforming portion of the 50 
Oak Street building above 80 feet would be retained. An exception to Planning Code bulk 
requirements, specifically the maximum length and diagonal dimensions of buildings above a 
certain height, is requested from Section 272, pursuant to Planning Code Section 309. For the 
subject site, the maximum allowable building length is 1 10 feet and the maximum allowable 
diagonal dimension is 140 feet. Both limitations apply to any portion of the building above 65 
feet in height. For this project, the length of the building is proposed to be 155 feet and the 
maximum diagonal dimension would be approximately 190 feet, measuring from the southeast to 
the northwest corner of the proposed structure. The bulk exception requested to exceed the 
maximum dimensions is needed for the top 15 feet of the building. 

Under section 260(b)(F), enclosed mechanical penthouse areas are exempt from the height limit, 
provided they not exceed 1 6 feet above the top of roof. The 1 6-foot-tall mechanical penthouse 



2001.0862E 



Page 9 



50 Oak Street 



proposed above part of the new construction on the site of the demolished 70 Oak Street building 
would extend the overall building height to about 96 feet, and would comply with the Code. 

Because the existing 50 Oak Street building is a Category II. Significant building for 
architectural merit under Article 1 1 of the San Francisco Planning Code, the proposed project 
requires approval of a Permit to Alter from the San Francisco Planning Commission, following 
review by the Landmarks Preservation Advisor." Board. The existing "0 Oak Street building is 
not rated in Article 1 1 : it is listed in the Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage 
Downtown Survey as an Inventory Group C++, which indicates that the building is of 
unexceptional architectural quality individually, and that it has contextual value.* 

Existing sub-sidewalk vaults within the Oak and Hickory Streets rights-of-way would be 
retained. As part of the project, the vaults would either be reconstructed (at the site of 50 Oak 
Street) or reduced in size (at the site of 70 Oak Street). Reconstruction and reconfiguring the 
vaults require a revocable sidewalk encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works. 

In summary, the following approvals are sought for the project: 

Permit to Alter a Category II. Significant Building, which requires Landmarks 
Preservation Advisory Board review and Planning Commission approval : 

• Section 309 review from the Planning Commission, including allowable exceptions to 
bulk limits: 

A lot line adjustment approval from the Planning Director to merge the existing lots: and 

• A revocable sidewalk encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works for 
construction and use of sub-sidewalk vault areas within Cits' rights-of-way. 

If the project, on balance, were to have substantial conflicts with General Plan Objectives and 
policies, it could not be approved. In general, potential conflicts with the General Plan are 
considered by decision-makers (normally the Planning Commission) independent of the 
environmental review process, as part of the decision to approve, modify or disapprove a 
proposed project. Any potential conflict not identified here could be considered in that context, 
and would not alter the physical environmental effects of the proposed project. Applicable 
elements and area plans of the General Plan include the Downtown and Civic Center Plans, and 
various elements such as the Urban Design and Transportation Elements. The relationship of the 
proposed project to objectives and policies of the General Plan will be discussed in the EIR. 

On November 4. 19S6. the voters of San Francisco passed Proposition M. the Accountable 
Planning Initiative, which established eight Priority Planning Policies. These policies, contained 



"According to the Page ft Tumbull. Historic Resources Study p. 15. the 70 Oak Street building a listed on the 
City's UMB survey and in the San Francisco Architectural Heritage Downtown Survey as an Inventory Group C— building. 
The San Francisco .Architectural Heritage files for 70 Oak Street can be viewed at 200" Franklin Street. San Francisco. CA 
94109. 



2001 .OS 62 E 



Page 1 0 



50 Oak Strrtt 



in Section 101.1 of the City Planning Code, are: preservation and enhancement of neighborhood- 
serving retail uses; protection of neighborhood character; preservation and enhancement of 
affordable housing; discouragement of commuter automobiles; protection of industrial and 
service land uses from commercial offices development and enhancement of resident 
employment and business ownership; earthquake preparedness; landmark and historic building 
preservation; and protection of open space. Prior to issuing a permit for any project which 
requires an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or adopting 
any zoning ordinance or development agreement, the City is required to find that the proposed 
project or legislation is consistent with Priority Policies. The motion by the Planning 
Commission approving or disapproving the project will contain the analysis determining whether 
the project is in conformance with the Priority Polices. Plans and Policies will be discussed in 
the EIR. 

Environmental plans and policies, are those like the Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District's 1997 Clean Air Plan, which directly address physical environmental issues and/or 
contain standards or targets that must be met in order to preserve or improve specific 
components of the City's physical environment. The proposed project would not obviously or 
substantially conflict with any such adopted environmental plan or policy. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Except for the categories of transportation and historic architectural resources as noted above, all 
items on the Initial Study Checklist herein have been checked "No" indicating that, upon 
evaluation, staff has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant adverse 
environmental effect. For items marked "To be Determined", the analysis will be conducted in 
the EIR. Several checklist items have also been checked "Discussed" indicating that the Initial 
Study text includes discussion of that particular issue. For all of the items checked "No" without 
discussion, the conclusions regarding potential significant adverse environmental effects are 
based upon field observation, staff experience on similar projects, and/or standard reference 
material available within the Planning Department, such as the Department's Transportation 
Guidelines for Environmental Review, or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for 
Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. For each checklist item, the 
evaluation has considered the impacts of the project both individually and cumulatively. 

1. Land Use - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

a. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 

an established community? _ _X_ X_ 

b. Have any substantial impact upon the existing 

character of the vicinity? _ X_ JX^ 

The project site is situated at the southern edge of the Civic Center, in the half block bounded by 
Oak, Franklin, and Hickory Streets, and Van Ness Avenue. Land use in the immediate vicinity 
consists of institutional, educational, residential, commercial, office, and parking uses. Across 



2001.0862E 



Page 1 1 



50 Oak Street 



Oak Street to the south are a two-story restaurant-office building, three-story office building, 
one-story auto repair building, and two parking lots. Directly west of the project site is a surface 
parking lot; across Franklin Street west of the site are the French-American and Chinese- 
American International Schools, and a three-story restaurant-retail building. Across Hickory 
Street are a four-story apartment building, two-story office building, two-story office-retail 
building, five-story apartment building, auto repair garage, and a parking lot. An eight-story, 
1 00-foot-tall, 50-unit residential building with office and retail space was approved in January 
2002 for the parking lot located across Hickory Street at 41/77 Van Ness Avenue. Directly 
adjacent to the project site on the east is 25 Van Ness Avenue, a seven-story Category I, 
Significant building; it is used for City office space as well as the New Conservatory Theater. 

The Civic Center district contains predominantly governmental and cultural uses; it is the City's 
performance arts center. Many of the City's primary cultural institutions, such as the San 
Francisco Opera, San Francisco Ballet, and San Francisco Symphony, are located within the 
district, in performance spaces such as the War Memorial Opera House, Davies Symphony Hall, 
and the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. 

The proposed San Francisco Conservatory of Music use would be similar to existing 
cultural/institutional uses in the Civic Center and educational/institutional uses in the immediate 
vicinity. The Conservatory of Music would be an educational/institutional use dedicated to 
preparing musicians for a professional career in music. More than two dozen members of the 
Conservatory faculty are members of the San Francisco Symphony, San Francisco Opera, or San 
Francisco Ballet orchestras. Introducing the Conservatory at the edge of the Civic Center and 
performing arts neighborhood would add a consistent cultural/institutional land use to the area. 

The project's proposed institutional use as a post-secondary educational facility would be 
generally consistent and compatible with uses in the immediate project vicinity south, east, and 
west of the site. In particular, the 50 Oak Street project would be an educational use like the 
French-American and Chinese-American International Schools located on a campus one block 
west at 150 Oak Street, and compatible with the educational use associated with the San 
Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) offices located one block north of the site at 135 
Van Ness Avenue. 

Buildings in the immediate vicinity range from one to seven stories. The project proposes a six- 
story building that would be roughly the same height as the existing buildings on the site and 
compatible with building heights in the surrounding area, including the approximately 125-foot- 
tall, seven-story 25 Van Ness Avenue building, and the approximately 1 00-foot-tall, eight-story 
residential/office building approved for 41/77 Van Ness Avenue. 

Because the project's use and scale of development would be compatible and consistent with the 
surrounding area, and because the project would not disrupt or divide an established community, 
or have a substantial impact on the existing character of the vicinity, land use requires no further 
analysis. However, land use will be discussed briefly in the EIR, to provide context and for 
informational purposes. 



2001.0862E 



Page 1 2 



50 Oak Street 



2. Visual Quality - Could the project: 



Yes 



No 



Discussed 



a. Have a substantial, demonstrable 
negative aesthetic effect? 



X 



X 



b. Substantially degrade or obstruct 
any scenic view or vista now 
observed from public areas? 



X 



X 



c. Generate obtrusive light or 
glare substantially impacting 
other properties? 



X 



X 



The project site is currently occupied by an approximately four-to five-story, 75- to 87-foot-tall 
(97 feet at the top of the parapet) building at 50 Oak Street and a three- to four-story, 53- to 77- 
foot-tall building at 70 Oak Street. The main entrances for both buildings are on Oak Street. 

As noted, the existing 50 Oak Street building is a Category II, Significant building, under Article 
1 1 of the San Francisco Planning Code. The project would seismically retrofit and alter this 
building. The project's exterior modifications would include: removal of existing stairs and 
doors and redesign of the main entryway for street-level access; infill of about four existing 
doors and eight existing windows and construction of about two new doors and six new windows 
along the Hickory Street elevation; installation of new wood window sash with laminated 
glazing in wood windows along the Oak Street elevation; and removal of non-original metal fire 
escape railings. A sixth floor would be added along Hickory Street; construction of the sixth 
floor would not substantially change the building's height and bulk on Hickory Street. There 
would not be a change to the building's exterior materials or colors; repair and replacement in- 
kind of ornamental detailing is proposed, as necessary. Architectural features of the existing 50 
Oak Street building are discussed further in the Cultural Section of the Initial Study, and will be 
included and analyzed in the EIR. 

The three- to four-story, 53- to 77-foot-tall building at 70 Oak Street would be demolished and 
replaced with a six-story, 80-foot-tall structure (plus a 16-foot-tall mechanical penthouse at the 
rear). The new construction would be integrated into the newly retrofitted and altered 50 Oak 
Street building. Along Hickory Street and for approximately 90 feet along the western facade, 
the height would be increased from the existing height of about 50 feet to 80 feet in height, 
changing the scale at the rear of the site (See Figure 4, which shows the proposed changes). The 
new construction would be contemporary in style rather than an imitation of the adjacent Beaux 
Arts building at 50 Oak Street. The exterior materials and colors for the facade of the newly 
constructed portion proposed along Oak Street would include gray and beige limestone veneer 
walls with clear and translucent glass walls and windows. The side (western) and rear (northern) 
elevations are proposed to have symmetrical window configurations and walls would have 
exposed, architectural-grade concrete. The proposed materials and colors are intended to 
complement the granite, limestone, concrete, and terra cotta facade materials of the existing 50 
Oak Street building. 



200 1 .0862E Page 13 50 Oak Street 



One building adjoins the project site, the seven-story, approximately 125-foot-tall building at 25 
Van Ness Avenue, directly east of 50 Oak Street. Buildings south, west, and north of the site are 
varied in scale and height, and include a three-story office building to the south across Oak 
Street, a five- to six-story school complex to the west across Franklin Street, a four-story 
apartment building, and a five-story apartment with retail building to the north across Hickory 
Street. An eight-story, 100-foot-tall, residential-office building has been approved for 
development on the parking lot to the northeast across Hickory Street. The proposed project 
would be approximately 45 feet shorter than the adjacent 25 Van Ness Avenue building and 20 
feet shorter than the approved development at 41/77 Van Ness Avenue. It would be taller than 
three- to six- story existing buildings in the near vicinity, as described above. The height and 
bulk of the project would fall within the range of development in the vicinity. 

The project would not have substantial adverse effect on scenic views or vistas from public open 
space or other public locations; it would not block existing public views of City Hall. 

The proposed project would include outdoor lighting fixtures; it would not include mirrored 
glass. No unusual amount of light or glare would be created by the project. 

Given that the proposed project would not be a substantial change from the existing buildings' 
scale and massing, would not degrade or obstruct views or vistas, and would not generate 
obtrusive lighting or glare upon the surrounding properties, there would be no significant visual 
impacts generated by the project, and therefore no further discussion is required in the EIR. 

3. Population - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

a. Induce substantial growth or 

concentration of population? _ _X_ X 

b. Displace a large number of 
people (involving either 

housing or employment)? _ _X_ X 

c. Create a substantial demand 
for additional housing in 

San Francisco, or substantially 

reduce the housing supply? _ _X_ X 

The San Francisco Conservatory of Music, currently located at 1201 Ortega Street in San 
Francisco, employs 237 full- and part-time people there. Some part-time Conservatory 
employees have other jobs in the Civic Center area, particularly with the San Francisco 
Symphony, and San Francisco Ballet or San Francisco Opera orchestras. All existing 
Conservatory employees are expected to work at the new location. 



2001.0862E 



Page 14 



50 Oak Street 



There is about 91,000 gsf of existing space at the project site, in 50 and 70 Oak Street. Complete 
information is not available regarding when the buildings were last fully occupied. The 
Conservatory took possession of the building in March 2000; both buildings were not fully 
occupied. Due to high rents for commercial space in San Francisco in 2000 and 2001, tenants at 
that time generally remained in the building until the end of 2001. As of November 2001, 
approximately 19,000 sq. ft. of the total 91,000 gsf were rented to 15 tenants for offices, dance or 
fitness related activities; the large areas containing the gymnasium, pool, and weight rooms were 
vacant. The proposed development would displace those 1 5 tenants, which employ about 65 
employees. 7 In anticipation of the project, the project sponsor has encouraged tenants to find 
other space; gradually, the past year (2002), tenants have vacated, or are vacating, their spaces 
within both buildings. The tenant with the largest number of employees is Lines Contemporary 
Ballet, a dance studio employing approximately 15 people. The dance studio has leased space 
elsewhere in the C-3 district and will relocate. Given the recent downturn in the economy and 
the increase in vacancy rates in San Francisco, the other displaced businesses would be expected 
to be able to relocate within San Francisco, or elsewhere in the Bay Area more easily now than 
in recent years. 

The Conservatory expects to enroll 320 collegiate (full-time) and 500 preparatory (part-time) 
students (820 total students), and employ 38 full-time faculty, 150 part-time faculty, and 70 
support staff employees, a total of 258 employees at the proposed 50 Oak Street project. An 
approximately 25% increase in students (200 students, 50 of whom would be at collegiate level) 
and 8% increase in employees (21 people) are expected for the Conservatory as a result of 
moving from the Ortega Street to the Oak Street site. 8 Full-time staff is expected to increase by 
approximately 15.5% (six people), part-time staff is expected to increase by approximately 6.5% 
(10 people), and staff members are expected to increase by approximately 7% (five people). The 
increase in the number of collegiate students and full-time employees, in turn, could increase 
demand for local housing. 

Of the existing 270 collegiate level students at the Conservatory, approximately 78%) live within 
the City and County of San Francisco. 9 Approximately 39 students, 78% of the 50 additional 
collegiate level students, could, therefore, be expected to seek housing within San Francisco. 
Regarding preparatory students, these are high school age and younger and are assumed to live 
with parents or guardians, and therefore would not increase the demand for housing. The 
number of new housing units that would need to be constructed in San Francisco to 



7 j 

Information from Oppenheim Lewis, the project sponsor's representative, on behalf of the sponsor, dated 
November 1 , 200 1 : a total of 1 5 tenants rented space in the 50 and 70 Oak Street buildings; the estimated number of 
employees as of November 2001, the most recent information available, was about 65. 

8 • • 

Information from Oppenheim Lewis, the project sponsor's representative, dated January 16, 2002: There 
are about 270 existing collegiate students, 350 preparatory students, 32 full-time faculty, 140 part-time faculty, and 
65 staff members at 1201 Ortega Street; about 320 collegiate students, 500 preparatory students, 38 full-time faculty, 
150 part-time faculty, and 70 staff members anticipated at the 50 Oak Street site. 

Oppenheim Lewis, representative for the project sponsor, memo dated November 7, 2001 . The memo is 
on file with the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, and is available for review as part of the 
project file. 



2001.0862E 



Page ] 5 



50 Oak Street 



accommodate the new collegiate students cannot be reliably quantified; students may continue to 
live with their parents, or may share rooms and live in households that exceed the 2.3 persons 
per household typical in San Francisco. 10 The project site is close to BART and MUNI transit 
lines, and proximity to major transit lines could provide students some increased flexibility in 
housing location. 

After relocating from the Ortega Street to the Oak Street site, the school expects to have about 2 1 
new faculty and staff positions, 1 1 of which would be full-time faculty and staff members. Some 
of the full-time employees would be expected to require housing in San Francisco. The increase 
in employment would be about 0.003% of total employment of 73 1 ,660 employees in the City 
projected for the year 2020, and it would be an increase of about 0.02% of employment growth 
of 102,800 jobs projected from 2000-2020. 11 This potential increase in employment would be 
small in the context of total employment in San Francisco. 

San Francisco is the central city (and most urban place) in an attractive region, and consistently 
ranks as one of the most expensive housing markets in the United States. The San Francisco Bay 
Area is known for its agreeable climate, open space, recreational opportunities, cultural 
amenities, a strong and diverse economy, and prominent educational institutions. As a regional 
employment center, San Francisco attracts people who want to live close to where they work. 
These factors continue to support a strong demand for housing in San Francisco. Providing new 
housing to meet this strong demand is particularly difficult because the amount of land available 
is limited and land and development costs are relatively high. 

During the period of 1990-2000, the number of new housing units completed citywide ranged 
from a low of about 380 units (1993) to a high of about 2,065 units (1990) per year. The 
citywide annual average over that 1 1-year period was about 1,130 units. 12 In March 2001, the 
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projected regional needs in the Regional 
Housing Needs Determination (RHND) 1999-2006 allocation. The projected need of the City 
for 2006 is for 20,372 dwelling units or an average yearly need of 2,7 1 6 net new dwelling 
units. 13 

The increase in student population and employees would not substantially increase the existing 
area-wide population. Given that the project site is conveniently located near major public transit 
hubs, there could be some increased flexibility as to where people would choose to live in. and 



Data from Association of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco City and County- Census 2002. March 
2001, located at http://www.abag.ca.gov/census/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm 

"Data from Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2002, located at 
http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/overview/pub/2002 

12 

""San Francisco Planning Department, Data and Needs Analysis - Part I of the 2001 Housing Element 
Revision, June 1, 2002, p.23. 

13 Data from Association of Bay Area Governments, Regional Housing Needs Determination (RFTND) 
1996-2006 allocation, located at http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rhnd_allocation.pl 



2001.0862E 



Page 1 6 



50 Oak Street 



around, San Francisco. The population change expected would not cause a significant physical 
environmental effect. Therefore, this topic requires not further analysis in the EIR. 

4. Transportation/Circulation - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

a. Cause an increase in traffic which 
is substantial in relation to the 
existing traffic load and capacity 

of the street system? To be determined 

b. Interfere with existing transportation 
systems, causing substantial alterations 
to circulation patterns or major traffic 

hazards? To be determined 



c. Cause a substantial increase in transit 
demand which cannot be accommodated by 

existing or proposed transit capacity? To be determined 

d. Cause a substantial increase in parking 
demand which cannot be accommodated by 

existing parking facilities? To be determined 

The proposed project would generate a demand on the local transportation system, including 
increased traffic and transit demand. The EIR will discuss project effects related to 
transportation and circulation, including intersection operations; transit demand; and impacts on 
parking, bicycles, and freight loading; as well as construction impacts. 

5. Noise - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 



a. Increase substantially the ambient 

noise levels for adjoining areas? X_ _X 

b. Violate Title 24 Noise Insulation 

Standards, if applicable? _X_ _X 

c. Be substantially impacted by existing 

noise levels? X X 



Outdoor noise in the vicinity of the project area includes numerous potential sources of noise. 
The most significant existing source throughout most of San Francisco is traffic. This is 
especially true of the project area because of the proximity to US Highway 101 (Van Ness 
Avenue) and Market Street. Non-traffic noise sources in the area could include temporary 
construction noise due to other projects in the vicinity, such as noise during construction of the 
approved development at 41/77 Van Ness Avenue. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project 
site are residential uses within one block of the site to the north, south, and west, and schools, 



2001.0862E 



Page 17 



50 Oak Street 



such as the French-American and Chinese-American International Schools at 1 50 Oak Street, in 
the block west of the site across Franklin Street. 

Effects on Ambient Noise Levels 

Construction Noise. Construction is expected to take approximately 26 to 28 months. 
Demolition, excavation, and building construction would temporarily increase noise in the 
project vicinity. Construction noise is generally intermittent, and by definition temporary. 
During most of the construction period, noise levels would be above existing levels in the project 
area. Construction noise would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type 
and duration of use, distance between noise source and listener, and presence or absence of 
barriers. As noted, impacts would be temporary and intermittent and would be limited to the 
period of foundation and exterior work. Interior construction noise would be substantially 
reduced by exterior walls. The foundations would include spread footings (at the portion of the 
site occupied by 50 Oak Street) and concrete mat foundations (at the 70 Oak Street part of the 
site). 14 There would be no pile driving; shoring is anticipated. 

There would be times when construction noise generated by the project would interfere with 
indoor activities in nearby educational institutions, offices, commercial areas and other spaces 
adjacent to the project site. Construction noise impacts would be temporary in nature and 
limited to the period of construction. Construction of other nearby projects, such as the 
approved building at 41/77 Van Ness Avenue, that might coincide with construction of the 
proposed development, could also temporarily increase the overall noise levels in the immediate 
vicinity, as noise intensity would be greater with a larger number of noise sources. There could 
be increased intensity of impacts with overlapping construction, or impacts could extend over a 
longer period of time, if construction were in sequence. Noise from overlapping construction or 
construction in sequence would remain temporary and intermittent. 

Construction noise is regulated by the San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 29 of the Police 
Code). The ordinance requires that noise levels from individual pieces of construction 
equipment, other than impact tools, not exceed 80 dBA at a distance of 100 ft. from the source. 
Impact tools, such as jack hammers and impact wrenches, must have both intake and exhaust 
muffled to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Section 2908 of the Ordinance 
prohibits construction work between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., if noise would exceed ambient 
noise by 5 dBA at the project property line, unless a special permit is authorized by the Director 
of Public Works. Project demolition and construction operations would comply with the Noise 
Ordinance requirements. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance is required by law and would 
reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level. 

Based on the above analysis, construction noise would not be significant and requires no further 
analysis in th EIR. 



Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation San Francisco Conservatory- of Music. March 29. 2002. 
(Hereinafter "Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation") This report is on file with the San Francisco Planning 
Department, 1660 Mission Street, and is available for review as part of the project file. 



2001.0862E 



Page 18 



50 Oak Street 



Operations Noise. The project design incorporates acoustical measures to control sound levels 
within the interior of the building. Sound proofing insulation would be installed in all studios, 
classrooms, practice rooms, and performance spaces such that music could be made in any two 
adjacent rooms without disturbance. Sound proofing in the building would thus minimize the 
penetration of noise levels from the neighborhood to the project and from the project into the 
neighborhood. 

The proposed project would include mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units and 
chillers, which could produce operational noise. These operations would be subject to the San 
Francisco Noise Ordinance, Article 29, Section 2909, Fixed Source Levels, which limits noise 
from building operations. The Department of Building Inspection would review the final 
building plans to insure that the building wall and floor/ceiling assemblies meet state standards 
regarding sound transmission. Substantial increases in the ambient noise level due to building 
equipment noise would not be anticipated. At the project location, operational noise would not 
be expected to be noticeable, given background noise levels in this area. No further analysis is 
necessary and the EIR will not discuss building equipment noise further. 

In light of the above, noise created by the project would therefore be primarily due to additional 
automobile traffic and truck deliveries. An approximate doubling of traffic volumes in the area 
would be necessary to produce an increase in ambient noise levels noticeable to most people. 
The project would not cause a doubling in traffic volumes, and therefore would not cause a 
noticeable increase in the ambient noise level in the project vicinity. 

6. Air Quality/Climate - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

a. Violate any ambient air quality standard 
or contribute substantially to an existing 

or projected air quality violation? _ _X_ _X_ 

b. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 

pollutant concentrations? _ X_ 

c. Permeate its vicinity with objectionable 



odors? 



X 



X 



d. Alter wind, moisture or temperature 
(including sun shading effects) so as 
to substantially affect public areas, or 
change the climate either in the community 
or region? 



X 



X 



200I.0862E 



Page 19 



50 Oak Street 



Effects on Ambient Air Quality 



The project would generate dust and other emissions during construction. During project 
operation, traffic from the project would generate air emissions. 

Construction Emissions. Demolition, excavation, grading, and other ground disturbing 
construction activity would temporarily affect localized air quality for up to about three months, 
causing a temporary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Excavation and movement 
of heavy equipment could create fugitive dust and, as a result of diesel fuel combustion, emit 
nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (S0 2 ), reactive organic gases, or 
hydrocarbons (ROG or HC), and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns 
(PM 10 ), which are criteria pollutants or their precursors. 

Dust emission during demolition and excavation would increase particulate concentrations near 
the site. Dust fall can be expected at times on surfaces within 200 to 800 feet. Under high winds 
exceeding 12 miles per hour, localized effects including human discomfort might occur 
downwind from blowing dust. Construction dust is composed primarily of particularly large 
particles that settle out of the atmosphere more rapidly with increasing distance from the source 
and are easily filtered by human breathing passages. In general, construction dust would result 
in more of a nuisance than a health hazard in the vicinity of construction activities. About one- 
third of the dust generated by construction activities consists of smaller size particles in the range 
that can be handled by humans (i.e., particles 10 microns or smaller in diameter known as PM, 0 ), 
although those particles are generally inert. More of a nuisance than a hazard for most people, 
this dust could affect persons with respiratory diseases immediately downwind of the site, as 
well as sensitive electronics or communications equipment. Since the French-American and 
Chinese- American International Schools are located in the block west and upwind of the project 
site, project-related construction dust would not be expected to have a substantial effect on the 
students. 

While construction emissions would occur in short term, and temporary phases, they could cause 
adverse effects on local air quality. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
(BAAQMD), in its CEQA Guidelines, has developed an analytical approach that obviates the 
need to quantitatively estimate these emissions. To this end, the BAAQMD has identified a set 
of feasible PM 10 control measures for construction activities. The project would include these 
measures to reduce the effects of construction activities to an insignificant level. They would 
include wetting down the site twice daily; covering soil, sand, and other material; and daily street 
sweeping around the demolition and construction sites (see Mitigation Measure on p. 43 below). 
San Francisco Ordinance 175-91, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1 99 1 . requires 
that non-potable water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, contractors would obtain 
reclaimed water from the San Francisco Clean Water Program. Because the project would 
include these mitigation measures and those required by ordinance, it would not cause significant 
construction-related air quality effects. Therefore, the EIR will not address these effects further. 

Traffic Emissions. Air quality impacts from the proposed project would occur due to increased 
traffic in the region. The BAAQMD has established thresholds for projects requiring 
quantitative analysis for potential air quality impacts. These thresholds are based on the 



2001.0862E 



Page 20 



50 Oak Street 



minimum size projects which the District considers capable of producing air quality problems 
due to vehicular emissions. One threshold is generation of over 2000 vehicle trips per day. The 
project would not exceed this threshold; 15 therefore, significant air quality impacts due to 
vehicular emissions would not be generated by the proposed project. 

Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions/Objectionable Odors 

The proposed project design would be a new educational institutional use. This use could 
require operation of natural-gas-fired boilers or chillers that could emit trace quantities of toxic 
air contaminants, but they are not expected to have the potential to generate toxic air 
contaminants in substantial amounts or create any objectionable odors. Therefore, the EIR will 
not discuss this issue further. 

In view of the above, the topic of Air Quality requires no further analysis and will not be 
included in the EIR. 

Wind 

In order to provide a comfortable wind environment for people in San Francisco, the City 
established specific comfort criteria to be used in the evaluation of proposed buildings in certain 
areas of the City. The City Planning Code sets forth wind criteria for certain areas in the City in 
and near Downtown, including the subject site, which is in a C-3 District. Planning Code 
Section 148(a) establishes comfort criteria of 1 1 miles per hour (mph) equivalent wind speed for 
pedestrian areas and 7 mph for seating areas, not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time year- 
round, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Section 148(a) also establishes that no building or 
addition would be permitted in a C-3 District that would cause equivalent wind speeds to exceed 
the hazard level of 26 miles per hour for more than a single full hour per year. No exception 
may be granted to this latter criterion. 

A wind analysis was conducted for the project. 16 Ground-level wind accelerations near buildings 
are controlled by exposure, massing and orientation. Exposure is a measure of the extent that the 
building extends above surrounding structures into the wind stream. A building that is 
surrounded by taller structures is not likely to cause adverse wind accelerations at ground level, 
while even a small building can cause wind problems if it is freestanding and exposed. The site 
is somewhat sheltered from prevailing winds by existing structures, although there is a vacant lot 
just west of the 70 Oak Street parcel. The existing structures on the site are sheltered by adjacent 
and nearby structures. For the portion of the project on the parcel occupied by 50 Oak Street, the 
only new building element that could affect wind would be a partial one-story addition along the 
Hickory Street frontage. For the new construction on the parcel occupied by 70 Oak Street, the 
project would increase the area of the western and northern facades, potentially changing wind 



15 CHS Consulting Group, June 20, 2002 dated memo to Bill Wycko. A copy is available for review with 
the San Francisco Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, as part of the project file. 

16 Donald Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Wind Opinion Letter to Julie Tilley, Turnstone 
Consulting, dated March 28, 2002. A copy is available for review with the San Francisco Planning Department, 
1660 Mission Street, as part of the project file. 



2001.0862E 



Page 21 



50 Oak Street 



currents and strengths. The tallest elements of the portion of the project on the 70 Oak Street 
part of the site would be the rooftop mechanical louvered screen wall which, not being solid, 
would have little wind effect. The western facade would be slightly taller than that of the 
existing structures but would include a setback at the upper levels that would cancel out the 
effect of this additional maximum height. Both the northern and western building faces are 
partially exposed to prevailing winds, so some increase in wind at ground level is likely. The 
effect would likely be greater along Hickory Street, where most of the added building bulk 
would be located. However, due to the limited height of the proposed structure and the shelter 
provided by existing structures across Hickory Street, any such accelerations would be minor. 

The project site is somewhat sheltered from prevailing westerly winds by adjacent and nearby 
structures. The approved 41/77 Van Ness Avenue project at the east end of the halt-block just 
north of the project site would replace a parking lot with a 1 00-foot-tall mixed-use structure. As 
that development will be north and east of the project site, it is in a down-wind direction under 
prevailing wind conditions. Its location suggests it would not affect winds at or near the 
Conservatory of Music site, and the relatively small massing changes associated with the 50 Oak 
Street project would be unlikely to substantially affect winds at 41/77 Van Ness Avenue site. 

In the opinion of the wind consultant, as described above, the project does not have the potential 
to cause significant changes to the wind environment in pedestrian areas adjacent to or near the 
site. Any new wind accelerations would, therefore, be minimal. Therefore, this topic requires 
no further analysis and will not be discussed further in the EIR. 

Shadow 

Section 295 of the City Planning Code was adopted in response to Proposition K (passed 
November 1984) in order to protect certain public open spaces from shadowing by new 
structures during the period between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset, year 
round. Section 295 restricts new shadow upon public spaces under the jurisdiction of the 
Recreation and Park Department by any structure exceeding 40 feet in height, unless the City 
Planning Commission finds the impact to be insignificant. In the project vicinity, two public 
spaces are subject to Section 295: Civic Center Plaza about three blocks to the northeast, and the 
War Memorial Plaza, the area between the War Memorial Opera House and the Veterans 
Building, about three blocks north of the project site. To determine whether this project would 
conform with Section 295, a shadow fan analysis was prepared by the Planning Department.' 
This analysis determined that the project shadow would not shade public areas subject to Section 
295. Because of the proposed building height and the configuration of existing buildings in the 
vicinity, the net new shading that would result from the project's construction would be limited 
in scope, and would not increase the total amount of shading above levels which are common 
and generally accepted in urban areas. Results of the shadow study also show that the proposed 
project would not cast new shadow on any public sidewalks designated in Planning Code Section 
146, or in any public plazas or publicly accessible spaces in a C-3 district delineated in Planning 
Code Section 147. 



1 7 

Michael Li, San Francisco Planning Department, Letter to Scott Lewis, dated January 9. 2002. A copy is 
available for review with the San Francisco Planning Department. 1660 Mission Street, as part of the project file. 



2001.0862E 



Page 22 



50 Oak Street 



The French-American and Chinese-American International Schools share a single campus 
located in the block west of the project site. The campus contains four playgrounds and an L- 
shaped fenced and landscaped common area fronting Oak and Franklin Streets; these spaces, for 
use by both schools, are not publicly accessible. A shadow study was conducted to determine 
whether the project would add new shadow to shadows already cast on campus open space by 
existing structures. The proposed additional building heights at the rear of the 50 Oak Street 
project would not cast new shadow on of the school playgrounds or the private common area. 18 

Because the proposed project would not cast new shadow on any properties protected under 
Section 295, and would not substantially shade designated sidewalks, nearby public open spaces, 
or playgrounds, shadow requires no further analysis and will not be discussed further in the EIR. 

7. Utilities/Public Services - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

a. Breach published national, state or local 
standards relating to solid waste or litter 

control? _ X_ JL 

b. Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity 

to serve new development? _X_ _X_ 

c. Substantially increase demand for 

recreation or other public facilities? _X_ _X_ 

d. Require major expansion of power, water, 

or communications facilities? X. JL 

The proposed project is on a site that is currently served by fire, police, solid waste collection, 
recreational facilities, water, gas, and electricity providers. The project proposes to increase the 
intensity of use at the site. The project would increase demand for and use of public services and 
utilities on the site, and would increase water and energy consumption, but not in excess of 
amounts expected and provided for in the project area. Thus, the project would not be expected 
to have a measurable impact on public services or utilities. The proposed building would be 
designed to incorporate water-conserving measures, such as installing low-flush toilets and 
urinals, as required by California State Building Code Section 402.0(c). The project would be 
undertaken in a fully built-out area of San Francisco, where utilities and services are currently 
provided; no need for expansion of public utilities or public service facilities is anticipated. 
Therefore, effects would not be significant. This topic requires no further analysis and will not 
be included in the EIR. 



Turnstone Consulting, Shadow Study, French-American and Chinese-American International Schools, 50 
Oak Street Project, 2001.0862E, June 21, 2002. A copy is available for review with the San Francisco Planning 
Department, 1 660 Mission Street, as part of the project file. 



2001.0862E 



Page 23 



50 Oak Street 



Power and Communications Facilities 



The project site is currently served by power and communication facilities. The new building 
would require typical utility connections and could tap into existing power and communications 
grids. Therefore, no additional power or communications facilities would be necessary as a result 
of project implementation. 

The proposed project would increase demand for and use of public services and utilities on the 
site, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in this area. San Francisco 
consumers have recently experienced rising energy costs and uncertainties regarding the supply 
of electricity. The root causes of these conditions are under investigation and are the subject of 
much debate. Part of the problem may be that the State does not generate sufficient energy to 
meet its demand and must import energy from outside sources. Another part of the problem may 
be the lack of cost controls as a result of deregulation. The California Energy Commission 
(CEC) is currently considering applications for the development of new power-generating 
facilities in San Francisco, the Bay Area, and elsewhere in the State. These facilities could 
supply additional energy to the power supply "grid" within the next few years. These efforts, 
together with conservation, will be part of the statewide effort to achieve energy sufficiency. 
The Conservatory of Music facility would not be built and occupied until about 2004; therefore, 
additional generating facilities may have been completed by the time the project is in operation. 
The project-generated demand for electricity would be negligible in the context of the overall 
demand with San Francisco and the State, and would not in and of itself require a major 
expansion of power facilities. Therefore, the energy demand associated with the proposed 
project would not result in a significant physical environmental effect. 

8. Biolog y - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

a. Substantially affect a rare or endangered 
species of animal or plant, or the habitat 

of the species? _X_ _X_ 

b. Substantially diminish habitat for fish, 
wildlife or plants, or interfere substantially 
with the movement of any resident or migratory 

fish or wildlife species? _ _X_ _X_ 

c. Require removal of substantial numbers 

of mature, scenic trees? _ _X_ _X_ 

No known rare, threatened or endangered species are known to exist in the vicinity. The project 
site is in a developed urban area and does not support or provide habitats for any rare or 
endangered wildlife species. No other important biological resources exist on the site, which is 
completely covered by existing buildings. Development of the site, therefore, would not affect, 
or substantially diminish, plant or animal habitats. The project would not interfere with any 
resident or migratory species. Therefore, this topic requires no further analysis and will not be 
discussed in the EIR. 



2001.0862E 



Page 24 



50 Oak Street 



9. Geology/Topography - Could the project: 



Yes No Discussed 



a. Expose people or structures to major 
geologic hazards (slides, subsidence, 

erosion and liquefaction)? _ _X_ _X_ 

b. Change substantially the topography 
or any unique geologic or physical 

features of the site? _ _X_ X 

Geological Hazards 

The Community Safety Element of the San Francisco General Plan contains maps that show 
areas of the City subject to geologic hazards. The project site is located in an area subject to 
"non-structural" damage (Modified Mercalli Intensity VII) from seismic ground shaking 
originated by a characteristic earthquake (Moment Magnitude 7.1) along the San Andreas fault 
approximately six miles southwest of San Francisco, and the Northern Hayward fault 
approximately 12 miles northeast of San Francisco (Maps 2 and 3 in the Community Safety 
Element). During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong to very 
strong shaking is expected to occur at the project site. The project site is not in an area subject to 
landslide, seiche or tsunami run-up, or reservoir inundation hazards (Maps 5, 6, and 7 in the 
Community Safety Element). 12 The project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault 
Zone. 13 

The project site is located in an area of liquefaction potential, a Seismic Hazards Study Zone 
(SHSZ) designated by the California Division of Mines and Geology shown on Map 4 of the 
Community Safety Element of the San Francisco General Plan. For any development proposal 
in an area of liquefaction potential, the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) will, in its 
review of the building permit application, require the project sponsor to prepare a final 
geotechnical report pursuant to the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report would 
assess the nature and severity of the hazard on the site and recommend project design and 
construction features that would reduce the hazard. The project sponsor has provided a 
geotechnical investigation report prepared by a California-licensed geotechnical engineer that is 
on file with the Department of City Planning and available for public review as part of the 
project file. 14 The report is summarized below. It contains recommendations which the project 
sponsor has agreed to follow. 



City and County of San Francisco, Community Safety Element San Francisco General Plan, April 1997 

13 California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Hazards Zone in California,Alquist-Priolo 
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps, Special Publication 42, revised 1997, 
Figure 4B. 

4 Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation San Francisco Conservatory of Music, March 29, 2002. 
(Hereinafter "Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation".) This report is on file with the San Francisco 
Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, and is available for review as part of the project file. 



2001.0862E 



Page 25 



50 Oak Street 



The project site is generally flat and the site elevation is approximately 45 to 48 feet above mean 
sea level. The preliminary geotechnical report indicates that the subsurface conditions at the site 
generally consist of fill, Dune sand, marsh deposit, and Colma formation deposits. 15 

The geotechnical report indicates subsurface conditions on and adjacent to the site consist of up 
to 12 to 18 feet of loose to medium dense fill with varying amounts of brick fragments. 16 The fill 
is underlain by native medium dense to dense clean sand (geologically referred to as Dune sand). 
Dune sand is fairly thin, ranging from 4 to 5Yz feet thick, where explored, and extending to 
depths from approximately 15 to 2VA feet below the existing ground surface. A compressible 
marsh deposit, consisting of soft to hard silty clay with sand, and loose to medium dense clayey 
sand, underlies the Dune sand. Where explored, the marsh deposit is approximately 6V2 to lO'/a 
feet thick; it extends to a depth of 24 to 28 feet below the ground surface. Sand layers of the 
Colma formation were encountered below the marsh deposit to a maximum depth of 61 l A feet. 
This formation is dense to very dense and contains varying amounts of silt and clay. 17 

Groundwater level at the project site varies a few feet seasonally; high groundwater level is 
anticipated at about 17 feet below the ground surface. 18 

To construct the second-level basement under the 70 Oak Street site, excavation to a depth of 
about 25 feet below street grade, about 15 feet below the existing basement level, is proposed. 
Excavation would remove about 5,000 cubic yards of soil; excavation for the new foundation 
under the existing 50 Oak Street building would remove about 1,200 cubic yards of soil. 19 Fill, 
medium to dense Dune sand and marsh deposits below the sand, encountered in the upper 27 
feet 20 would be removed during this excavation. 

Analyses of subsurface information indicate the saturated, loose to medium-dense clayey and 
silty sand encountered below the proposed excavation is susceptible to seismic densification. 



Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 7-8 

16 Two soil borings were taken immediately adjacent to the west boundary of the project site in the adjoining 
parking lot. Six test pits were hand-excavated in the basements of the existing buildings to confirm foundation 
types. These test pits also provided information on subsurface soils immediately below the buildings on the project 
site. Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 5-9. 

1 7 

Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 7-8 

18 

Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, p. 8. The drilling procedure used in sampling subsurface 
soils obscured the natural groundwater level and prevented accurate groundwater le\el measurement during drilling. 
However, during excavation of test pits in the 50 Oak Street building, groundwater was measured at approximately 
20 54 feet below the exterior sidewalk grade, corresponding to Elevation +26 Vi feet. The groundwater level at the 
project site is anticipated to vary a few feet seasonally. Anticipated high groundwater level within the site \ icinity is 
near Elevation ±30 feet. 

19 

SCA Environmental Inc., April 25, 2002 letter to Mr. Scott Lewis. Oppenheim Lewis. Inc. The letter is 
on file with the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, and is available for review as part of the 
project file. 

20 

Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 7-8 



2001.0862E 



Page 26 



50 Oak Street 



According to the geotechnical report, sands below the groundwater level (at about 1 7 feet below 
the existing ground surface) are dense and have sufficient cohesion to resist liquefaction during a 
moderate to large earthquake on one of the nearby faults. The loose to medium-dense sand 
above the groundwater level is susceptible to seismic densification, and it is estimated that about 
1 to 1 V2 inches of settlement could occur beneath sidewalks from earthquake vibrations; seismic 
densification should not affect the proposed 50 Oak Street project because the basement levels 
would be excavated below the loose to medium dense sand. 21 On the basis of the results of the 
available subsurface information, laboratory test results and relatively flat topography, the report 
concludes that the potential for lateral spreading is low. 22 

Dewatering. The entire project site is currently covered with two existing buildings and the 
proposed project would not change the existing footprint. Excavation of a second-level 
basement is planned under the 70 Oak Street site. Excavation for the additional basement level 
would be approximately 27 feet below the existing ground level, about nine to ten feet below the 
anticipated high groundwater level of approximately 1 7 feet below the ground surface. A sump 
and pump are installed in the existing lower level basement of 50 Oak Street. 23 This pump 
cycles automatically, lowering the groundwater below the 50 Oak Street building floor slab. 24 
The adjacent property at 25 Van Ness Avenue also pumps water from sumps that may influence 
the groundwater table in the area. 25 

Dewatering would be required for the project. The geotechnical report recommends that the 
groundwater level at the project site be lowered to a depth of at least three feet below the bottom 
of the planned maximum excavation depth, and maintained at this level until the structure is able 
to resist the hydrostatic uplift pressure on the bottom of the structure. The dewatering wells 
should extend into the Colma foundation to lower the water level below the marsh deposit and 
prevent heaving of the marsh deposit. 26 

Excessive dewatering could result in subsidence of the immediate area. Groundwater should be 
lowered below the depth of the maximum excavation and maintained at this level until sufficient 
building weight or uplift capacity are available to resist the hydrostatic uplift pressure once 
groundwater is allowed to rise to its normal elevation. 27 Groundwater pumped from the site 



21 

Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 12-13 

22 

Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, p. 13. 

23 

Green Environment, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment, (hereinafter "Green Environment, ESA") for 50 
& 70 Oak Street, San Francisco, California, July 6, 2001, p. 17. This report is on file with the San Francisco 
Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, and is available for review as part of the project file. 

24 Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, p.8 

25 

Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, p.8 

26 

Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, p. 19 
27 Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 19, 26 



2001.0862E 



Page 27 



50 Oak Street 



during construction would be subject to the San Francisco Industrial Waste Ordinance 
(Ordinance Number 199-77), requiring that groundwater meet specified water quality standards 
before it may be discharged into the sewer system. The Bureau of Environmental Regulation 
and Management of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission must be notified of projects 
necessitating dewatering, and may require water analysis before discharge. 

Because dewatering is necessary, the soils report addresses the potential settlement and 
subsidence impacts of this dewatering. Based on this discussion, the preliminary report 
recommends a lateral movement and settlement survey. Adjacent site improvements, including 
the building at 25 Van Ness Avenue, would be monitored for vertical movement caused by 
dewatering. The geotechnical report indicates that the 25 Van Ness Avenue building is 
estimated to settle less than Vn inch during the twelve month dewatering period if footings for 25 
Van Ness Avenue bear in the Marsh deposit. 28 However, existing building plans indicate that the 
footings for the 25 Van Ness building may extend through the marsh deposit and bear on the 
Colma formation; if this is the case, settlement due to dewatering is expected to be minor. 
Groundwater observation wells and piezometers would be installed outside the project 
excavation to monitor potential settlement and subsidence while dewatering is in progress. 29 The 
Department of Public Works would require that a Special Inspector, as defined in Article 3 of the 
Building Code, be retained by the project sponsor to perform this monitoring. If, in the judgment 
of the Special Inspector, unacceptable movement were to occur during dewatering, groundwater 
recharge would be used to halt this settlement. Costs for the survey and any necessary repairs to 
service lines under the street would be borne by the project sponsor. 

Foundations. The consultant recommends that the proposed new construction on the site of the 
former 70 Oak Street building and the retrofitted and altered 50 Oak Street structure be 
supported on a reinforced concrete mat foundation bearing on the dense sand of the Colma 
formation, below the marsh deposit. 30 Building loads are expected to be increased with the 
proposed alterations of the 50 Oak Street building. These loads would cause excessive 
settlement of the structure, and the report concludes that existing foundations are not suitable. 
The geotechnical report recommends a reinforced concrete mat foundation for the 50 Oak Street 
building in the dense sand of the Colma foundation below the marsh deposit. 31 

Plans show the finished floor of the basement levels of 50 and 70 Oak Street would be about 
seven feet below the design groundwater table. The geotechnical report recommends that 
basement walls and the floor be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures from groundwater and 
waterproofed. Tiedown anchors may be needed to resist uplift pressures. 32 



28. 



Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, 



p.20 



29. 



Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, 



p.26 



3a 



Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, 



pp. 28-29 



31 



Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, 



pp. 13-14 



32 Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, 



pp. 14,21 



2001.0862E 



Page 28 



50 Oak Street 



Temporary Support During Construction. Construction of basement levels and foundations for 
70 Oak Street would require excavation extending 25 to 30 feet below the existing ground 
surface. Excavations deeper than five feet entered by workers are required to be shored or 
sloped for safety in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
standards (29 CFR Part 1926). According to the consultant, as there would be insufficient space 
to slope the sides of the excavated area, shoring would be required. The geotechnical report 
recommends soil-cement or concrete-diaphragm walls and soldier pile and lagging shoring 
system restrained with internal braces or tiebacks. 33 

Excavation for the new foundation system of 50 Oak Street would extend one to four feet below 
the bottom of the foundation supporting the adjacent 25 Van Ness Avenue building. Therefore, 
underpinning would be required. The geotechnical report recommends that underpinning be 
performed prior to excavating below the existing basement level of 25 Van Ness Avenue. The 
consultant recommends hand-excavated, end-bearing piers as the most suitable underpinning 
method and that piers be designed to resist vertical building loads and lateral earth pressures. 34 

The report also addresses, and makes recommendations regarding excavation, subgrade 
preparation, and backfill. 

The geotechnical report found the site suitable for development, providing that the 
recommendations included in the report are incorporated into the design and construction of the 
proposed development. The project sponsor has agreed to follow the report's recommendations. 
To ensure compliance with all San Francisco Building Code provisions regarding structural 
safety, when DBI reviews the geotechnical report and building plans for a proposed project, it 
will determine necessary engineering and design features for the project to reduce potential 
damage to structures from groundshaking and liquefaction. Therefore, potential damage to 
structures from geologic hazards on the project site would be mitigated through the DBI 
requirement for a geotechnical report and review of the building permit application pursuant to 
its implementation of the Building Code. 

Topography/Unique Geological Features 

The proposed project would not alter the topography of the site, or otherwise affect any unique 
geologic or physical features of the site. 

Based on the above information, no significant geologic or seismic impacts would occur due to 
the project and no further analysis will be necessary in the EIR. 



Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, pp. 16-18 
^Treadwell & Rollo, Geotechnical Investigation, p. 20 



2001.0862E 



Page 29 



50 Oak Street 



10. 



Water - Could the project: 



Yes No 



Discussed 



a. Substantially degrade water quality, 
or contaminate a public water supply? 



X 



X 



b. Substantially degrade or deplete ground 
water resources, or interfere substantially 
with ground water recharge? 



X 



X 



c. Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? 



X 



X 



The project would not substantially degrade water quality or contaminate a public water supply. 
All sanitary wastewater from the proposed buildings and storm water runoff from the project site 
would continue to flow to the City's combined sewer system, to be treated at the Southeast 
Water Pollution Control Plant prior to discharge in San Francisco Bay. Treatment would be 
provided pursuant to the effluent discharge limitations set by the Plant's National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

As discussed under the 'Geology/Topography' section of the Initial Study, it is likely that 
dewatering would be required to excavate for the additional basement level under the 70 Oak 
Street site. Groundwater is not used as a drinking water supply in the City and County of San 
Francisco. Therefore, dewatering during construction would not affect a public water supply or 
water resource. 

The site is presently completely covered with buildings; therefore, there would be no change to 
impervious surface coverage on the site. Soil would be exposed during site preparation, but 
because the project site is relatively flat, the potential for substantial flooding, erosion, or 
siltation would be low. During construction, requirements to reduce erosion would be 
implemented pursuant to California Building Code Chapter 33, Excavation and Grading. Any 
groundwater encountered during construction would be subject to the requirements of the City's 
Industrial Waste Ordinance (Ordinance No. 199-77), requiring that groundwater meet specified 
standards before it may be discharged into the sewer system. Any groundwater pumped from the 
site shall be retained in a holding tank to allow suspended particles to settle, if this is found 
necessary by the Bureau of Environmental Regulation and Management (BERM) of the Public 
Utilities Commission, to reduce the amount of sediment entering the storm drain/sewer lines. 
The BERM must be notified of projects requiring dewatering. During operations, the project 
would comply with local wastewater discharge requirements, and would not affect water 
supplies or groundwater. 

Based on the above, there would not be a significant impact from the project and no further 
analysis of hydrology and water quality issues is required in the EIR. 



200 1 .0862E Page 30 50 Oak Street 



1 1 . Energy/Natural Resources - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 



a. Encourage activities which result in 

the use of large amounts of fuel, water, 

or energy, or use these in a wasteful manner? 



X 



X 



b. Have a substantial effect on the potential 
use, extraction, or depletion of a natural 
resource? 



X 



Energy Use 



The proposed project would include educational institutional and performance uses. 
Development of these uses would not result in use of large amounts of fuel, water or energy. 
The project would meet, or exceed, current state and local standards regarding energy 
consumption, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations enforced by DBI. For this 
reason, the project would not cause a wasteful use of energy, and would have a less-than- 
significant impact on energy and natural resources. No substantial environmental effects are 
expected from the proposed project and energy will not be discussed further in the EIR. 

Natural Resource Use 

The project would use natural gas and coal fuel to generate electricity for the project. The project 
would not use substantial quantities of other non-renewable natural resources. It would not use 
fuel or water in an atypical or wasteful manner. Therefore, the project would not have a 
significant effect on the use, extraction, or depletion of a natural resource no further analysis is 
required in the EIR. 

12. Hazards - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

a. Create a potential public health 
hazard or involve the use, production 
or disposal of materials which pose a 
hazard to people or animal or plant 

populations in the area affected? _X_ _X_ 

b. Interfere with emergency response plans 

or emergency evacuation plans? _X_ _X_ 

c. Create a potentially substantial fire 



Public Health Hazards 

Hazardous Materials Use 

The proposed project would be an educational institutional use requiring relatively small 
quantities of hazardous materials for routine business purposes. During operation, the 



hazard? 



X 



X 



2001.0862E 



Page 31 



50 Oak Street 



development would likely handle common types of hazardous materials, such as paints, cleaners, 
toners, solvents, and disinfectants. These commercial products are labeled to inform users of 
potential risks and to instruct them in appropriate handling and disposal procedures. Most of 
these materials are consumed through use, resulting in relatively little waste. Businesses are 
required by law to ensure employee safety by identifying hazardous materials in the workplace, 
providing safety information to workers that handle hazardous materials, and training workers 
adequately. For these reasons, hazardous materials used would not pose substantial public health 
or safety hazards related to hazardous materials and therefore will not be discussed further in the 
EIR. 

Site Reconnaissance 

On January 14, 2000 and April 14, 2000, a reconnaissance of the project site was conducted by 
an independent consultant. 35 The purpose of the reconnaissance was to look for visual evidence 
of past or present use or storage of petroleum products and hazardous materials that could 
potentially affect the soil and/or groundwater quality at the site. The 50 and 70 Oak Street 
buildings contain basement and sub-basement levels and are both partially occupied by various 
tenants. At the time of site reconnaissance in the sub-basement of 50 Oak were found small 
amounts of hydrochloric acid; liquid chlorine; paint; oils; solvents in containers of one gallon or 
less; rusted and deteriorated metal cans, one to two gallons in size (some labeled as evaporated 
milk); glass bottles; bricks; piping; and lumber strewn on bare soil in the northwest corner. No 
spillage of the chemicals, however, was observed. Pooled water, a sump pump, and sump pump 
piping were observed in the northwest corner of the sub-basement. According to the former 
property owner, the source of the pooled water was an underground spring that had breached the 
surface. Water in the sub-basement is pumped continuously into the City's sanitary sewer 
system. 

Though a formal asbestos survey was not made, due to the age of the buildings, asbestos- 
containing material is assumed to exist. Based on the site reconnaissance, assumed asbestos- 
containing materials observed include pipe and furnace insulation, transite vent caps, vinyl floor 
tile and linoleum. 

A soil sample collected by the independent consultant in the northwest portion of the sub- 
basement did not contain detectable volatile organic compounds or fuel-type petroleum 
hydrocarbons. The sample did contain a low concentration of motor oil and an elevated 
concentration of arsenic; the arsenic concentration detected was within typical background 
concentrations found in soil in California. 

Soil and Groundwater 

As noted, an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site. This study 
lists current and past operations, reviews environmental agency databases and records, reports 
site reconnaissance observations (discussed above), and summarizes potential contamination 



35 Green Environment, ESA. 



2001 .0862E Page 32 SO Oak Street 



issues that warrant further investigation. The information available in the ESA is summarized 
below: 

Past Uses of Hazardous Materials. Historical site use information was obtained from nine 
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps and aerial surveys viewed at Pacific Aerial Surveys in Oakland. 
These sources indicate that the project site supported residential and stable uses from 1886 until 
the early 1900's. Adjacent property uses included an unidentified factory across Hickory Street. 
The 1913 Sanborn Map shows the property at 50 Oak Street as undeveloped and vacant; 70 Oak 
Street is shown developed with a two-story building covering the entire property that was 
occupied by Atlas Taxicab & Auto Service Company (including a garage and auto painting). 
Fifty Oak Street was constructed in 1914 and 70 Oak Street in 1923 to serve as recreational 
space for the Young Men's Institute (Y.M.I.) and the Young Ladies Institute (Y.L.I), 
respectively. 36 The use of the site remained unchanged until the late 1950s, when portions of the 
buildings were rented to organizations such as the USO Club, Foreign Students Center, Artists 
Embassy, and International Center. In 1995, the property was sold and the Y.M.I, and Y.L.I 
relocated. The buildings are now rented by a variety of small organizations for performance 
uses, dance and physical fitness uses, offices, and studios. The project sponsor purchased the 
site in 2000. 

A government records report for the project site was prepared by the independent consultant. 37 
This report contains the results of a search of several government database sources and includes 
a compilation of sites in the project vicinity that are listed as having documented use, storage, or 
releases of hazardous materials or petroleum products. Historically, occupancy of 50 and 70 
Oak Street suggests minimal use of chemicals, limited to the chemical treatment of swimming 
pool water at 50 Oak Street, which included storage and use of hydrochloric acid and chlorine. 
Maintenance coatings, paints and solvents were also used and stored in the sub-basement at 50 
Oak Street. The historic occupancy of 70 Oak Street suggests that chemicals would have been 
used in the early 1900s when the property was occupied by a taxi cab service and auto painting 
company. That business most likely used gasoline, motor and transmission oils, greases, 
degreasing solvents, solvent-based auto paints and paint thinners. No records were found for 50 
and 70 Oak Street at the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) or the Regional 
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The independent consultant was able to obtain files for 
the subject property at the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD), which revealed no potential 
environmental issues in the file documents dated between May 1971 and January 2000. Records 
found at the SFDPH indicate that a 1,500-gallon fuel oil tank was located in a concrete vault in 
the sub-basement floor of 50 Oak Street when it was constructed in 1913. In March 2000, the 
tank was uncovered and removed. The SFDPH issued a closure letter for the tank removal on 
June 30, 2000. 

Regulatory Database Search. The independent consultant's search also included surrounding 
properties on the regulatory agency lists with suspected contamination or other hazardous 



'Page &Turnbull, Historic Resources Study, pp. 2, 3 
Green Environment, ESA, pp. 1 7-18 



2001.0862E 



Page 33 



50 Oak Street 



material issues. 38 According to the report, files found at the SFDPH show two properties with 
reported chemical releases that, in the opinion of the independent consultant, pose the greatest 
potential risk to the subject properties. These include a former Chevron Service Station located 
at 102 Franklin Street, which is the parking lot property to the west, and the California State 
Automobile Association at 150 Hayes Street, located approximately 600 feet northeast of the 
site. 

In November 1987, three gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) and one waste oil UST 
were removed from the former Chevron gas station. During the tank removal activities, holes in 
the tanks and evidence of potential tank overfilling were observed. Three subsurface 
investigations were performed in the vicinity. Initially, petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in 
soil samples, including 1600 parts per million (ppm) gasoline, 0.99 ppm benzene, 1 .5 ppm 
toluene, 50 ppm xylenes and 760 ppm oil and grease. Groundwater is found at about 1 7 feet 
below ground surface and was found to flow alternately southeast (toward the project site and 
southwest (away from the site). 39 Groundwater sampling and analyses in the late 1 980's 
indicated groundwater contained as high as 2,300 parts per billion (ppb) gasoline, 3.2 ppb 
benzene, 5 ppb toluene, 120 ppb xylenes, and 5 ppb ethylbenzene. 40 Groundwater sampling and 
analyses performed about ten years later, in 1998, indicated the groundwater samples did not 
contain detectable petroleum, hydrocarbons, including methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Soils 
and groundwater were apparently not analyzed for halogenated volatile organic compounds that 
may have been used on the site as degreasing agents. The SFDPH issued a letter granting 
closure for the site on April 21, 1999. 41 

The Environmental Site Assessment also identifies the California State Automobile Association 
(CSAA) site, located at 150 Hayes Street, approximately 600 feet from the project site 
hydraulically up and cross gradient, as a location with leaking USTs. In 1988, two gasoline and 
one waste oil USTs were removed. A soil sample collected from beneath the former waste oil 
UST did not contain detectable extractable petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, halogenated 
volatile organic compounds, or volatile petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil samples collected from 
beneath the former gasoline USTs did not contain detectable volatile petroleum hydrocarbons. 
The SFDPH issued a letter granting closure for the three tanks in March 1994. In 1990, a 4,000- 
gallon UST was removed; soil samples did not contain detectable volatile petroleum 
hydrocarbons. That UST was replaced with a new 4,000-gallon gasoline UST. The SFDPH 
issued a letter granting closure for the tank in November 1990. In 1998, upgrades were made to 
the two existing 4,000-gallon USTs on the site. During this time, it was discovered that a 550- 
gallon waste oil UST is also located on the site. Inspections during the upgrades noted that the 
USTs included badly corroded metal overfill containers. In February 1 999, a groundwater 
sample analysis found gasoline present in the water at 270 parts per billion (ppb) and benzene at 
1 ppb, ethylbenzene at 4 ppb, toluene at 0.9 ppb, and xylenes at 7 ppb. The groundwater sample 



Green Environment, ESA, pp.15, 16 
Green Environment, ESA, p. 2 
'Green Environment, ESA. p. 15 
Green Environment, ESA, pp.15, 16 



2001.0862E 



Page 34 



50 Oak Street 



did not contain detectable MTBE. A draft closure letter was prepared by the SFDPH dated 
November 9, 1 999 indicating that the existing groundwater well should be decommissioned. 
There is no documentation indicating that the well was decommissioned, or that the site received 
closure. 

According to the independent consultant, based on SFDPH files there is a moderate potential for 
soils and groundwater beneath the project site to be impacted by the fuel and oil releases from 
the adjacent, former gas station property to the west. 42 Project plans call for the excavation and 
removal of about 6,200 cubic yards of soil from the project site and for dewatering during 
construction. The ESA includes recommendations to test soils and groundwater on both sites, if 
persons may come in contact with them, to ensure worker safety, to test any soil proposed to be 
hauled off-site for disposal to determine appropriate disposal options, and to test any spring 
water that may collect in the basement of 50 Oak Street to determine water discharge 
requirements, as well as a recommendation to perform asbestos and lead paint surveys. A Health 
and Safety Plan would be required to be prepared pursuant to California Division of 
Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) requirements, to protect worker safety if soil or 
groundwater on the project site would pose significant human health or safety hazards. 43 

Based on recommendations in the ESA, the project sponsor has committed to carry out 
groundwater and soil testing prior to excavation or worker contact under the 70 Oak Street and 
50 Oak Street buildings. Results of soil testing would establish the appropriate landfill required 
for disposal of any soil containing hazardous levels of chemicals. Results of groundwater testing 
would establish whether treatment of groundwater would be required prior to disposal into City 
sewers during dewatering activities. The City's Industrial Waste Ordinance requires consultation 
with the Bureau of Environmental Regulation and Management of the Public Utilities 
Commission regarding treatment of pumped groundwater prior to discharge into the sewer 
system. Mitigation Measure 3, pp. 44-46, has been included to address potential hazards. A 
Health and Safety Plan would be prepared if required based on the results of soil and 
groundwater testing. 

Building Materials 

The existing buildings at the project site were constructed prior to 1923. Later remodeling 
included installation of fluorescent lights in some rooms. In the past, asbestos, PCBs, and lead 
were commonly installed in building materials such as fire proofing, fluorescent light ballasts, 
and paint. Mercury is common in electrical switches and fluorescent light bulbs. Therefore, one 
or both of the buildings on the site may contain hazardous materials. Should hazardous materials 
be discovered in one or both of the buildings, they could pose hazards to workers, neighbors, or 
the natural environment during demolition of 70 Oak Street and during alteration and foundation 
work at the site of 50 Oak Street. The project sponsor has agreed to conduct a lead-based paint 
survey and an asbestos survey, and implement any required abatement procedures, prior to any 
building demolition or alteration work. 



Green Environment, ESA, pp.2, 3 

' California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5192. 



2001.0862E 



Page 35 



50 Oak Street 



Based on the ESA, asbestos-containing materials are assumed to be in the existing structure at 70 
Oak Street (which is proposed to be demolished), and in 50 Oak Street (which is proposed to be 
altered), in pipe and furnace insulation, vinyl floor tiles, and linoleum. Section 19827.5 of the 
California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991, requires that local agencies not 
issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with 
notification requirements under applicable Federal regulations regarding hazardous air 
pollutants, including asbestos. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is 
vested by the California legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants, including 
asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance 
of any proposed demolition or abatement work. 

Notification includes the names and addresses of operations and persons responsible; description 
and location of the structure to be demolished/altered including size, age and prior use, and the 
approximate amount of friable asbestos; scheduled starting and completion dates of demolition 
or abatement; nature of planned work and methods to be employed; procedures to be employed 
to meet BAAQMD requirements; and the name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. 
The District randomly inspects asbestos removal operations. In addition, the District will inspect 
any removal operation concerning which a complaint has been received. 

The local office of the State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) must be 
notified of asbestos abatement to be carried out. Asbestos abatement contractors must follow 
state regulations contained in 8 CCR 1529 and 8 CCR 341.6 through 341.14 where there is 
asbestos-related work involving 100 sq. ft. or more of asbestos-containing material. Asbestos 
removal contractors must be certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the State of 
California. The owner of the property where abatement is to occur must have a Hazardous 
Waste Generator Number assigned by and registered with the Office of the California 
Department of Health Services in Sacramento. The contractor and hauler of the material are 
required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which details the hauling of the material from the 
site and the disposal of it. Pursuant to California law, the Department of Building Inspection 
(DBI) would not issue the required permit until the applicant has complied with the notice 
requirements described above. 

These regulations and procedures, already established as a part of the permit review process, 
would insure that any potential impacts due to asbestos would be reduced to a level of 
insignificance. 

Based on the opinion of the independent consultant, lead paint is assumed to be present in the 
existing buildings, constructed in 1914 and 1923. One of the buildings is proposed for 
demolition, and the other for substantial alteration, as part of the project. The ESA has 
recommended, and the project sponsor has agreed to carry out, a lead-based paint survey. In San 
Francisco, demolition must comply with Chapter 36 of the San Francisco Building Code. Work 
Practices for Exterior Lead-Based Paint. Where there is any work that may disturb or remove 
lead paint on the exterior of any building built prior to December 31,1 978, Chapter 36 requires 
specific notification and work standards, and identifies prohibited work methods and penalties 



2001.0862E 



Page 36 



50 Oak Street 



Chapter 36 applies to buildings or steel structures on which original construction was completed 
prior to 1979 (which are assumed to have lead-based paint on their surfaces), where more than 
ten total square feet of lead-based paint would be disturbed or removed. The ordinance contains 
performance standards, including establishment of containment barriers, at least as effective at 
protecting human health and the environment as those in the HUD Guidelines (the most recent 
Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards) and identifies prohibited 
practices that may not be used in disturbance or removal of lead-based paint. Any person 
performing work subject to the ordinance shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent migration 
of lead paint contaminants beyond containment barriers during the course of the work, and any 
person performing regulated work shall make all reasonable efforts to remove all visible lead 
paint contaminants from all regulated areas of the property prior to completion of the work. 

The ordinance also includes notification requirements, contents of notice, and requirements for 
signs. Notification includes notifying bidders for the work of any paint-inspection reports 
verifying the presence or absence of lead-based paint in the regulated area of the proposed 
project. Prior to commencement of work, the responsible party must provide written notice to 
the Director of DBI, of the location of the project; the nature and approximate square footage of 
the painted surface being disturbed and/or removed; anticipated job start and completion dates 
for the work; whether the responsible party has reason to know or presume that lead-based paint 
is present; whether the building is residential or nonresidential, owner-occupied or rental 
property, approximate number of dwelling units, if any; the dates by which the responsible party 
has or will fulfill any tenant or adjacent property notification requirements; and the name, 
address, telephone number, and pager number of the party who will perform the work. (Further 
notice requirements include Sign When Containment is Required, Notice by Landlord, Required 
Notice to Tenants, Availability of Pamphlet related to protection from lead in the home, Notice 
by Contractor, Early Commencement of Work [by Owner, Requested by Tenant], and Notice of 
Lead Contaminated Dust or Soil, if applicable.) The ordinance contains provisions regarding 
inspection and sampling for compliance by DBI, and enforcement, and describes penalties for 
non compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. 

These regulations and procedures in the San Francisco Building Code would ensure that 
potential impacts of demolition, due to lead-based paint, would be reduced to a level of 
insignificance. 

Conclusions 

According to the Environmental Site Assessment or Phase I report, historic occupancy of 70 Oak 
Street suggests that the only significant use of chemicals at 70 Oak Street would have been in the 
early 1 900's when the property was occupied by a taxi cab service company that included 
painting autos. The business most likely involved the use of gasoline, motor and transmission 
oils, greases, degreasing solvents, solvent-based auto paints, and paint thinners. Historic 
occupancy of 50 Oak Street suggests that the only significant use of chemicals at 50 Oak Street 
is associated with the chemical treatment of swimming pool water, which included the storage 
and use of hydrochloric acid and chlorine. Maintenance coatings, paints and solvents were also 



2001.0862E 



Page 37 



50 Oak Street 



used and stored at 50 Oak Street in the sub-basement. No records were discovered to indicate 
that a chemical release has occurred on or from the subject properties. 44 

Based on the historical and other information reviewed, the Environmental Site Assessment and 
the Department of Public Health recommend testing and other actions described above, and in 
Mitigation Measure 3 (pp. 44-46). The project sponsor has agreed to this Mitigation Measure to 
address potential hazardous materials in soil and groundwater, and must comply with laws and 
regulations related to disposal of soil, groundwater, and building materials that contain 
hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts from hazards would be mitigated to a less- 
than-significant level, and no further review is required in the EIR. 

Emergency Response and Fire Safety Plans 

The project proposes a building approximately 80 to 87 feet in height. Occupants of the 
proposed building would contribute to congestion if an emergency evacuation of the downtown 
area were required. Section 12.202(e)(1) of the San Francisco Fire Code requires that all owners 
of high-rise buildings (over 75 feet) "shall establish or cause to be established procedures to be 
followed in case of fire or other emergencies. All such procedures shall be reviewed and 
approved by the chief of division." Additionally, project construction would have to conform to 
the provisions of the Building and Fire Codes which require additional life-safety protections for 
high-rise buildings. 

San Francisco ensures fire safety primarily through provisions of the Building Code and the Fire 
Code. Existing buildings are required to meet standards contained in these codes. The proposed 
project would conform to these standards, which (depending on building type) may also include 
development of an emergency procedure manual and an exit drill plan. In this way, potential fire 
hazards (including those associated with hydrant water pressure and emergency access) would be 
mitigated during the permit review process. In view of the above. Emergency Response and Fire 
Safety Plans require no further analysis and will not be included in the EIR. 

13. Cultural - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

a. Disrupt or adversely affect a 
prehistoric archaeological site or a property 
of historic or cultural significance to a 
community, ethnic or social group; or a 
paleontological site except as a part of a 

scientific study? X_ _X_ 

b. Conflict with established recreational, 
educational, religious or scientific uses 

of the area? X 



Green Environment, ESA, p. 2. 



2001.0862E 



Page 38 



50 Oak Street 



Could the project: 



Yes 



No 



Discussed 



c. Conflict with the preservation of buildings 
subject to the provisions of Article 10 or 
Article 1 1 of the City Planning Code? 



X 



X 



Archaeological Resources 

An archival cultural resources evaluation was prepared for the project site by an independent 
consultant. 45 The archival cultural resources evaluation is a systematic review of available 
archival record to assess the potential for the existence of subsurface cultural resources from the 
Prehistoric/Protohistoric period (c. 4000 B.C. - 1775 A.D.), the Spanish, Mexican and Early 
American periods (1775 -1848), the California Gold Rush period (1849 - 1857), and the Later 
Nineteenth Century (1858 - 1906), and the Twentieth Century Period (1906 - Present). 

According to the cultural resources evaluation, a review of the archival record has not identified 
prehistoric or protohistoric cultural resources within or adjacent to the project site. However, the 
potential exists that such resources are present at the project site, based on informed judgment 
and comparative data. 46 The cultural resources evaluation cites recorded archaeological sites in 
the South of Market area ranging from shellmounds to a deeply buried village complex and notes 
that only a fraction of prehistoric/protohistoric sites in San Francisco have ever been 
systematically recorded. 47 Excavation for the Civic Center BART station encountered Native 
American remains at depths of about 75 feet. Environmental conditions in the vicinity of the 
project site, prior to the start of the historic era, would have been favorable to Native American 
settlement. 48 

The cultural resources evaluation's review of the archival record uncovers no data to suggest that 
cultural resources from the Spanish, Mexican and Early American periods are present at the 
project site and notes that virtually no archeological remains from this period have been 
unearthed and investigated in San Francisco's city center. 49 

The possibility exists for the presence of cultural resources from the California Gold Rush era at 
the project site. 50 An 1852 U.S. Coast Survey map indicates a structure within the confines of 



Archeo-Tec Inc., Cultural Resources Evaluation of the San Francisco Conservatory of Music at 50 & 70 
Oak Street, March 2002, (Hereinafter "Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation "). 



Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation, p.37. 
Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation, pp. 10-14. 
Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation, p.34. 
Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation, pp.2 1-23. 
Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation, p.35. 



2001.0862E 



Page 39 



50 Oak Street 



the present project site. Mid-Nineteenth Century buildings were often associated with features 
such as privies, trash-pits, cellars and wells. Such features have been found to contain rich 
quantities of artifacts. 51 The cultural resources evaluation further notes that filling activity in the 
1860's, would have preserved any artifacts or features, if deposited before that time, under a 
protective layer of fill. 52 

Archival sources suggest the probability that archaeological resources from the Later Nineteenth 
Century and the Twentieth Century periods are present at the project site, as these are commonly 
encountered throughout San Francisco in the course of construction projects. It is unlikely, 
however, that such materials would warrant a determination of significance under National 
Register criteria for significance. 53 

The project includes construction of a second-level basement under the existing basement at 70 
Oak Street. Construction of this new level would require excavation of approximately 6,200 
cubic yards of material, 14 feet below the finish floor of the existing basement. 

Due to the possibility that potentially significant archaeological resources from the 
Prehistoric/Protohistoric and Gold Rush eras, could be encountered on the project site during 
excavation, the project sponsor has agreed to implement Mitigation Measure 2 - Archaeological 
Resources (pp.43, 44). Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potentially 
significant damage or loss of archaeological resources to insignificant levels. Therefore, 
archaeology will not be discussed further in the EIR. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

The project site is occupied by two buildings constructed in 1914 (50 Oak Street) and 1923 (70 
Oak Street). The buildings have been evaluated for their historic significance in a historic 
resources study, prepared by the project sponsor's preservation architect and peer-reviewed by 
an independent consultant. 54 The historic resources study also evaluates the impact of the 
proposed demolition, new construction, and alteration in relation to historic resources. 

According to the historic resources study, the five- to six-story 50 Oak Street building was 
designed by noted San Francisco architect William D. Shea for the social and charitable 
activities of the Young Men's Institute (Y.M.I.). The building is constructed in the Beaux Arts 



Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation, p. 35. 

52 

Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation, p.36. 

53 

Archeo-Tec Inc. Cultural Resources Evaluation, p.36. 

54 Page &Tumbull, Historic Resources Study for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music 50 and ~0 Oak 
Street San Francisco California, (Hereinafter "Page & Turnbull, Historic Resources Study ") February 25. 2002. 
revised June 6, 2002. At the request of the Planning Department, an independent preservation consultant. McGrev. 
Architects, conducted a peer review of the Page & Turnbull historic resources study. McGrew Architects. Peer 
Review Letter and Annotated Text of the Historic Resources Study, March 1 8, 2002. The peer review and Page & 
Turnbull study are on file with the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, and available for 
public review as part of the project file. 



2001.0862E 



Page 40 



50 Oak Street 



style from reinforced concrete. The exterior materials include gray granite, stucco, terra cotta 
blocks, and a tar-and-gravel roof. It is a structurally flexible building in reasonably good 
condition. 55 

The 50 Oak Street building is not listed on the National Register and is not a designated City 
Landmark, nor is it within a historic district under Article 10 of the Planning Code. The building 
is designated a Category II, Significant building under Article 1 1 of the Planning Code. Based 
on the buildings's designation under Article 1 1, 50 Oak Street is eligible for listing on the 
California Register of Historic Resources, under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(2), being 
a "resource included in a local register of historical resources." Additionally, although the 
building is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the historic resources 
evaluation concludes that it appears eligible for National Register listing. 56 The building is also 
rated "4" in the 1976 Citywide Survey, with "5 " being the highest rating. Under the San 
Francisco Heritage Downtown Inventory the building is listed as an Inventory Group A, placing 
it in the top 1% of San Francisco's surveyed structures. 57 

The three- and four-story 70 Oak Street building was constructed in 1923, also by architect 
William Shea, to provide for additional meeting and athletic space. The building is constructed 
of reinforced concrete with concrete stucco and brick exterior finishes and a tar-and-gravel roof. 
The building design is less elaborate than 50 Oak Street, but is sympathetic to the original design 
of that structure. The cement plaster, especially on the southern facade, is in very poor condition 
and has been spalling off. According to the historic resources study, even though both buildings 
have been poorly maintained over the years, there have been very few major alterations to both 
50 and 70 Oak Street. Both buildings maintain most of their original historic fabric. 58 

The 70 Oak Street building is not designated under Article 10 or Article 1 1 of the San Francisco 
Planning Code. The building is not included in the 1976 Citywide Survey. In the San Francisco 
Architectural Heritage Downtown Survey, the structure is listed as an Inventory Group C++ for 
contextual importance. The building is not listed on the National Register or California Register. 
According to the historic resources study, it appears unlikely that 70 Oak Street would be 
eligible for listing on the National Register or the California Register, given that it was 



Page & Turnbull, Historic Resources Study, p.3-6. 

56 According to the Historic Resources Study, "the Y.M.I and Y.L.I, are part of the early 20 th Century 
growth of sport and fellowship organizations in the United States. 50 Oak Street is the most significant surviving 
facility of this important organization, making it eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under 
Criterion A (Patterns of Events). Architecturally, 50 Oak Street is a significant example of an early 20 th Century 
building built for a social organization. As the national offices of the Y.M.I and Y.L.I, 50 Oak Street is 
distinguished and well preserved, both on the exterior and interior As an example of an historic social organization 
building type, 50 Oak Street appears eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C 
(Architecture)." Page & Tumbull, Historic Resources Study, pp. 14- 15. 

57 Page & Tumbull, Historic Resources Study, p. 15. 

58 

Page & Tumbull, Historic Resources Study, p. 13 



2001.0862E 



Page 41 



50 Oak Street 



constructed later in the history of the Y.M.I., and that it is architecturally more economic in scale 
and finishes on both the exterior and interior than is the 50 Oak Street building. 59 

The proposed project consists of seismic retrofit and alteration of 50 Oak Street and demolition 
and new construction at 70 Oak Street. The 50 Oak Street building facade would be repaired as 
part of the project. Proposed alterations to its front and rear facades include the removal of the 
main entry staircase and entry doors and replacement with a new grade-level main entrance to 
the building at the same location on the facade, removal of some metal fire escape ladders, 
alteration of metal balconies, and relocation of some window and door openings. The existing 
interior of the building and all of its floors would be demolished and reconfigured; preservation 
and rehabilitation of some character-defining elements within the ballroom are proposed. There 
are no plans to preserve any elements of the 70 Oak Street building, which, as noted, would be 
demolished. 

The proposed major alterations to 50 Oak Street would require approval of a Permit to Alter a 
Category II building under Article 1 1 of the Planning Code. Major alterations are defined as 
those which would substantially change exterior, character-defining features or affect any 
substantial part of a building's structural elements. A Permit to Alter would be approved by the 
City Planning Commission if the Commission determines that the project is a "compatible 
rehabilitation." The standards for review of applications for Permits to Alter are contained in 
Planning Code Section 1 120. These standards include, but are not limited to, a finding that the 
proposed alterations are consistent with the architectural character of the building, including 
distinctive architectural features and examples of skilled craftsmanship. Conformity with these 
standards is reviewed by Department staff, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and the 
Planning Commission. 

The proposed demolition, alteration, and construction at the project site could potentially create 
adverse impacts to historic resources. This topic, including the eligibility of the buildings for 
listing on the California and National Registers, impacts of the proposed project on historic 
resources, and a preservation alternative, will be included in the EIR. 

OTHER - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

Require approval and/or permits from City 
Departments other than the Planning Depart- 
ment or the Department of Building Inspection, 

or from regional, state, or federal agencies? _X_ _ _X_ 

A list of approvals and permits necessary for the project is presented in the Compatibility with 
Existing Zoning and Plans discussion above on pp.9-1 1 . 



Page & Tumbull, Historic Resources Study, p. 16 
2001.0862E Page 42 



50 Oak Street 



MITIGATION MEASURES 



Yes 



No 



N/A 



Discussed 



1. 



Could the project have significant 
effects if mitigation measures are 
not included in the project? 



X 



X 



2. 



Are all mitigation measures necessary 
to eliminate significant effects 
included in the project? 



X 



Mitigation Measure 1: Construction Air Quality 

To reduce particulate emissions, the project sponsor would 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, and other 
material; cover trucks hauling debris, soils, sand or other such material; and sweep surrounding 
streets during demolition, excavation, and construction at least once per day. Ordinance 175-91, 
passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, requires that non-potable water be used for 
dust control activities. Therefore, the project sponsor would require that contractor(s) obtain 
reclaimed water from the Clean Water Program for this purpose. The project sponsor would 
require the project contractor(s) to maintain and operate construction equipment so as to 
minimize 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 
implementation of specific maintenance programs to reduce emissions for equipment that would 
be in frequent use for much of the construction period. 

Mitigation Measure 2: Archaeological Resources 

Given the location and depth of excavation proposed, and the likelihood that archaeological 
resources would be encountered on the project site, the sponsor has agreed to retain the services 
of an archaeologist. The archaeologist would carry out a pre-excavation testing program to 
better determine the probability of finding cultural and historical remains. The testing program 
would use a series of mechanical, exploratory borings or trenches and/or other testing methods 
determined by the archaeologist to be appropriate. 

If, after testing, the archaeologist determines that no further investigations or precautions are 
necessary to safeguard potentially significant archaeological resources, the archaeologist would 
submit a written report to the Environmental Review Officer (ERO), with a copy to the project 
sponsor. If the archaeologist determines that further investigations or precautions are necessary, 
he/she shall consult with the ERO and they shall jointly determine what additional procedures 
are necessary to minimize potential effects on archaeological resources. 

These additional mitigation measures would be implemented by the project sponsor and might 
include a program of on-site monitoring of all site excavation, during which the archaeologist 
would record observations in a permanent log. The monitoring program, whether or not there 
are finds of significance, would result in a written report to be submitted first and directly to the 
ERO, with a copy to the project sponsor. During the monitoring program, the project sponsor 



2001 .0862E Page 43 50 Oak Street 



would designate one individual on site as his/her representative. This representative would have 
the authority to suspend work at the site to give the archaeologist time to investigate and 
evaluate archaeological resources should they be encountered. 

Should evidence of cultural resources of potential significance be found during the monitoring 
program, the archaeologist would immediately notify the Environmental Review Officer (ERO), 
and the project sponsor would halt any activities which the archaeologist and the ERO jointly 
determine could damage such cultural resources. Ground disturbing activities which might 
damage cultural resources would be suspended for a total maximum of four weeks over the 
course of construction. 

After notifying the ERO, the archaeologist would prepare a written report to be submitted first 
and directly to the ERO, with a copy to the project sponsor, which would contain an assessment 
of the potential significance of the find and recommendations for what measures should be 
implemented to minimize potential effects on archaeological resources. Based on this report, the 
ERO would recommend specific additional mitigation measures to be implemented by the 
project sponsor. These additional mitigation measures might include a site security program, 
additional on-site investigations by the archaeologist, and/or documentation, preservation, and 
recovery of cultural material. 

Finally, the archaeologist would prepare a report documenting the cultural resources that were 
discovered, an evaluation as to their significance, and a description as to how any archaeological 
testing, exploration and/or recovery program was conducted. 

Copies of all draft reports prepared according to this mitigation measure would be sent first and 
directly to the ERO for review. Following approval by the ERO, copies of the final report(s) 
would be sent by the archaeologist directly to the President of the Landmarks Preserv ation 
Advisory Board and the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest 
Information Center and to any other repositories deemed appropriate by the Environmental 
Review Officer. Three copies of the final archaeology report(s) shall be submitted to the Office 
of Environmental Review, accompanied by copies of the transmittals documenting its 
distribution to the President of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and the California 
Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center. 

Mitigation Measure 3: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 

a. Prior to any demolition or excavation at the project site, the project sponsor shall conduct 
surveys to identify any asbestos-containing materials and any lead-based paint in existing 
structures proposed for demolition or alteration. If sampling identifies the presence of such 
materials, they shall be removed and disposed of at an approved site in accordance with 
applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 

b. Soil and groundwater samples shall be collected in such areas as directed by the project 
sponsor's site assessment consultant and based on conclusions and recommendations in the 
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Sampling would extend at least to depths proposed for 



2001.0862E 



Page 44 



50 Oak Street 



excavation. The samples shall be collected in accessible areas prior to any site development 
activities, and in areas that are not currently accessible during proposed demolition activities. 

c. Soil and groundwater samples shall be characterized (analyzed) for metals, petroleum 
hydrocarbons and gasoline/diesel components, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, 
and other constituents, as requested by the Department of Public Health (DPH). In addition, 
groundwater characterization shall be carried out for total suspended solids, total settleable 
solids, pH, total dissolved solids, and turbidity. Samples shall be analyzed by state-accredited 
laboratories. Based on the results of soil and groundwater characterization, a Site Mitigation 
Plan shall be prepared by a qualified individual, in coordination with DPH and any other 
applicable regulatory agencies. The sampling and studies shall be completed by a Registered 
Environmental Assessor or a similarly qualified individual. Excavated soils shall be disposed of 
in an appropriate landfill, as governed by applicable laws and regulations, or other appropriate 
actions shall be taken in coordination with DPH. 

d. Prior to initiating any earth-moving or dewatering activities at the site, a Worker Health and 
Safety Plan, as required by Cal-OSHA, shall be prepared to ensure worker safety. The Worker 
Health and Safety Plan shall identify protocols for managing soils during construction to 
minimize worker and public exposure to soils with hazardous levels of chemicals. The protocols 
shall include at a minimum: 

• Characterization of excavated native soils proposed for use on site prior to placement, to 
confirm that the soil meets appropriate standards. 

• The dust controls specified in Mitigation Measure 1 : Air Quality. 

• Protocols for managing stockpiled and excavated soils. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall identify site access controls to be implemented from 
the time of surface disruption through the completion of earthwork construction. The protocols 
shall include at a minimum: 

• Appropriate site security to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry, such as 
fencing or other barrier, or sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent entry, and 
based on the degree of control required. 

• Posting of "no trespassing" signs. 

• Providing on-site meetings with construction workers to inform them about security 
measures and reporting/contingency procedures. 

If hazardous levels of chemicals are found in groundwater, the Worker Health and Safety Plan 
shall identify protocols for managing groundwater during construction to minimize worker and 
public exposure. The protocols shall include procedures to prevent unacceptable migration of 
chemicals from defined plumes during dewatering. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall include a requirement that construction personnel be 
trained to recognize potential hazards associated with underground features that could contain 
hazardous substances, previously unidentified contamination, or buried hazardous debris. 

The Worker Health and Safety Plan shall include procedures for implementing a contingency 
plan, including appropriate notification and control procedures, in the event unanticipated 



2001.0862E 



Page 45 



50 Oak Street 



subsurface hazards are discovered during construction. Control procedures could include, but 
would not be limited to, further investigation and removal of underground storage tanks or other 
hazards. 

e. All reports and plans prepared in accordance with this measure shall be submitted to DPI I 
and any other appropriate agencies identified by DPH, pursuant to procedures in the Final 
Voluntary Cleanup plan. The Worker Health and Safety Plan and Site Mitigation Plan shall be 
submitted at least two weeks prior to initiating excavation or dewatering. When all hazardous 
materials have been removed from existing buildings, and soil and groundwater analysis and 
other activities have been completed, as appropriate, the project sponsor shall submit to the San 
Francisco Planning Department and DPH (and any other agencies identified by DPH) a report 
stating that the applicable mitigation measure(s) have been implemented. The report shall 
describe the steps taken to comply with the mitigation measure(s) and include all verifying 
documentation. The report shall be certified by a Registered Environmental Assessor or 
similarly qualified individual who states that all necessary mitigation measures have been 
implemented, and specifying those mitigation measures that have been implemented. 

ALTERNATIVES 

The EIR will discuss several alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or eliminate 
significant environmental effects. The alternatives will include the following: 

1. No Project. The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA. Under this alternative, existing 
conditions would continue at the site. Fifty Oak Street would not be adaptively reused. Seventy 
Oak Street would not be demolished and replaced with new construction. 

2. Alternative Requiring no Exception to the Planning Code. This alternative would comply 
with the bulk requirements of the Planning Code without exceptions under Section 309 from 
Section 272 for maximum length and maximum diagonal dimensions. 

3. Preservation Alternative. This alternative would not make the proposed changes to interior 
spaces that help the 50 Oak Street building meet the criteria for the California Register of 
Historic Resources, and would not make changes to exterior features that contribute to the 
building's Category II designation. The alternative will be developed further as the impacts 
analysis for the EIR proceeds. 



2001.0862E 



Page 46 



50 Oak Street 



MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Yes No Discussed 



1 . Does the project have the potential to degrade the 

quality of the environment, substantially reduce 
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause 
a fish or wildlife population to drop below 
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate 
a plant or animal community, reduce the number 
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered 
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples 
of the major periods of California history or 

pre-history? To be determined 

2. Does the project have the potential to achieve 
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, 

environmental goals? _X_ 



3. Does the project have possible environmental 
effects which are individually limited, but 
cumulatively considerable? (Analyze in the 
light of past projects, other current projects, 

and probable future projects.) X _X 



Would the project cause substantial adverse 
effects on human beings, either directly or 

indirectly? _ _X_ 



The project could have a potential significant impact on historic architectural resources and 
could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts in the Bay Area. These topics will be 
analyzed in the EIR. 



2001.0862E 



Page 47 



50 Oak Street 



ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY 



_ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a 
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 

there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures in the 
discussion have been included as part of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 
will be prepared. 

X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 



DATE: 





Paul E. Maltzer 
Environmental Review Officer 
for 

Gerald G. Green 
Director of Planning 



2001.0862E 



Page 48 



50 Oak Street 



PC 

PC 

p 

PC 

PC 

IPC 



APPENDIX B: ARCHITECTURAL SURVEYS 



I 

i 
i 

i 
i 
i 

p 
I 

F 
c 
I 
I 
I 
: 

E 
I 
I 
i 

e 

5 



Appendix B: Architectural Surveys 



ARCHITECTURAL SURVEYS 



In 1976 the San Francisco Planning Department conducted a citywide survey of architectural!) 
significant buildings. Approximately 10% of the City's entire building stock was awarded a 
rating, ranging from a low of '0' to a high of '5'. The total number of buildings, which were 
rated from '3' to '5', represent less than 2% of the City's building stock. 

The Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage (Heritage) survey was published in 
1979. Its scope was the greater downtown area. Summary ratings were assigned: "A" 
representing buildings of Highest Importance ("A"-rated buildings, as indicated in Splendid 
Survivors, are individually the most important buildings in downtown San Francisco, 
distinguished by outstanding qualities of architectural, historical values, and relationship to the 
environment); "B" for buildings of Major Importance; "C" for buildings of Contextual 
Importance; and "D" for buildings of Minor or No Importance. 

These surveys inform Planning Department review of applications for alterations to structures 
identified and described therein, when neither Article 10 nor 1 1 are applicable. 



B.l 



p 

F 

c 

IE 

i 

PE 

PC 



P 

m 



APPENDIX C: THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN RELATION TO 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S 
STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 



F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
IF 
F 
F 
F 
IF 
IF 
IF 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 



Appendix C: The Proposed Project in Relation to the 
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE SECRETARY OF 
THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 

For informational purposes, each standard is set out below and applied to the project. 

1 . A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires 
minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its environment. 

The project would not conform to this standard. The proposed use of the property, as the San 
Francisco Conserv atory' of Music, would require major changes to the defining characteristics of 
the building on both the interior and exterior. 

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of 
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize the property 
shall be avoided. 

The project would not conform to this standard. The project would remove original historic 
materials, features and spaces that characterize the property. On the exterior, these would consist 
of the original entrance including stairs, doors, walls, ceiling and finishes. On the interior the 
project would demolish most of the building's structural system, walls, floors and finishes. 
Although the Ballroom space and finishes would be largely retained in situ and reused as the 
audience chamber of a concert hall, a portion of the Ballroom's interior (the floor and west wall ) 
would be demolished. The new audience chamber floor would be lower than the existing floor 
and inclined to accommodate seating, altering the proportions of the Ballroom. 

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. 
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural 
features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 

The project would conform to this standard. Work to the entrance, interiors and the proposed 
new construction would be clearly contemporary in character and would not convey a false sense 
of history. 

4. Most properties change over time: those changes that have acquired historic significance 
in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 



C.l 



Appendix C: The Proposed Project in Relation to the 
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 

This standard does not apply to the proposed project. The 50 Oak Street building is largely intact 
and has not undergone changes since its original construction that have acquired historic 
significance in their own right. 

5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship 
that characterize the property shall be preserved. 

The project would not conform to this standard. The project would remove original historic 
materials, features and spaces that characterize the property. On the exterior, these would consist 
of the original entrance including stairs, doors, walls, ceiling and finishes. On the interior, the 
project would demolish most of the building's structural system, walls, floors and finishes. 

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity 
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match 
the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing 
features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 

The project would conform to this standard. Original wood windows are deteriorated and require 
replacement. Existing original window frames would be retained and repaired and new wood 
window sashes would be installed within the original frames. The new sash would match the 
original in design, texture and materials but would accommodate thicker acoustical glazing. In 
addition, where original terra cotta tiles are severely deteriorated and cannot be retained, the 
replacement feature would be replicated to match the originals. 

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic 
material shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be 
undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 

The project would conform to this standard. All cleaning would be undertaken to preserve 
existing material. 

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and 
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 

The project would conform to this standard. No archeological resources have been identified at 
the site. This EIR includes a mitigation measure for monitoring and treatment of such resources 
should these be encountered in the course of construction. 



C.2 



Appendix C: The Proposed Project in Relation to the 
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic 
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall he differentiated from the 
old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to 
protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 

The project would conform to this standard. The new construction at 70 Oak Street is designed to 
be compatible with the existing 50 Oak Street building yet its design is clearly differentiated from 
50 Oak Street. The overall visual effect of the new construction is intended to be that of a new . 
contextual infill building. 

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a 
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic 
property and its environment would be unimpaired. 

The project would not conform to this standard. The proposed new entrance to 50 Oak Street, 
new interior work, and structural integration with the new construction at 70 Oak Street would 
entail a significant and irreversible loss of historic integrity. 



C.3 



p 

F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 
F 



A 



PLACE 
POSTAGE 
HERE 



San Francisco Planning Department 
Office of Environmental Review 
1660 Mission Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, California 94103 

Attn: Carol Roos 

2001.0862E - 50 Oak Street Project 

> 

PLEASE CUT ALONG DOTTED LINE 



RETURN REQUEST REQUIRED FOR FINAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 



REQUEST FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW 

TO: San Francisco Planning Department 
Office of Environmental Review 

Please send me a copy of the Final EIR 

Signed: 

Print Your Name and Address Below