Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

330 Pages·2011·9.34 MB·English

ALICE GRIFFITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

City and County of San Francisco December 2011
Mayor’s Office of Housing
in cooperation with the
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

ALICE GRIFFITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

City and County of San Francisco December 2011
Mayor’s Office of Housing
in cooperation with the
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

2600 Capitol Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
916.564.4500
www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Olympia
Petaluma
Portland
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa

Woodland Hills
211653
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of
public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and
emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered
assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader,
and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate
member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on
Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision
and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our
operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Page

Executive Summary ES-1

1.0 Purpose and Need 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Project Site and Vicinity 1-1
1.3 Background 1-4
1.4 Purpose and Need 1-6
1.5 Overview of the NEPA Process 1-8

2.0 Alternatives 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Alternative A: Proposed Action 2-2
2.3 Alternative B: Housing Replacement Alternative 2-8
2.4 Alternative C: Reduced Development Alternative 2-11
2.5 Alternative D: No Action Alternative 2-14
2.6 Permits and Approvals 2-14

3.0 Affected Environment 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3.1-1
3.2 Air Quality 3.2-1
3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.3-1
3.4 Land Use and Land Use Planning 3.4-1
3.5 Noise 3.5-1
3.6 Socioeconomics 3.6-1
3.7 Environmental Justice 3.7-1
3.8 Public Services and Utilities 3.8-1
3.9 Visual Character/Aesthetics 3.9-1
3.10 Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality 3.10-1
3.11 Traffic and Transportation 3.11-1
3.12 Geology and Soils 3.12-1
3.13 Cultural and Historic Resources 3.13-1
3.14 Biological Resources 3.14-1

4.0 Environmental Consequences 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality 4.2-1
4.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.3-1
4.4 Land Use and Land Use Planning 4.4-1
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project i ESA / 211653
Draft EIS December 2011
Table of Contents

Page
4.5 Noise 4.5-1
4.6 Socioeconomics 4.6-1
4.7 Environmental Justice 4.7-1
4.8 Public Services and Utilities 4.8-1
4.9 Visual Character/Aesthetics 4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality 4.10-1
4.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.11-1
4.12 Geology and Soils 4.12-1
4.13 Cultural and Historic Resources 4.13-1
4.14 Biological Resources 4.14-1

5.0 Cumulative Impacts 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Cumulative Analysis 5-2

6.0 Coordination and List of Preparers 6-1
6.1 Agencies 6-1
6.2 Consultants 6-1

7.0 Abbreviations and Acronyms 7-1

Appendices
A. Scoping Report
B. Design for Development Document
C. Traffic Analysis
D. Cultural and Historic Resource Documentation
E. Biological Database Searches
F. Noise Calculations
G. Draft Site-Specific Programmatic Agreement

List of Figures
1-1 Regional Location 1-2
1-2 Project Site 1-3
2-1 Alternative A – Proposed Action 2-4
2-2 Alternative B – Housing Replacement Alternative 2-10
2-3 Alternative C – Reduced Intensity Alternative 2-12
3.5-1 Noise Measurement Locations 3.5-3
3.7-1 Environmental Justice Study Areas 3.7-2
3.8-1 Police and Fire Stations in the Project Site Vicinity 3.8-6
3.8-2 Schools, Libraries, and Parks in the Project Site Vicinity 3.8-9
3.9-1 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-4
3.9-2 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-5
3.9-3 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-6
3.9-4 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-7
3.9-5 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-8
3.9-6 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-9
3.9-7 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-10
3.9-8 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-11
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project ii ESA / 211653
Draft EIS December 2011
Table of Contents

Page
3.10-1 Topography 3.10-2
3.11-1 Traffic Study Area 3.11-2
3.11-2 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations 3.11-6
3.12-1 Geology of Site Vicinity 3.12-2
3.12-2 Regional Faults 3.12-4
3.12-3 Liquefaction Hazard 3.12-7
3.13-1 Area of Potential Effect 3.13-3
3.14-1 Special Status Species 3.14-6
4.9-1 Urban Design Elements 4.9-5
4.9-2 Illustrative Viewpoint Locations 4.9-6
4.9-3 Illustrative View (A) from East End of Alice Griffith Community Park 4.9-7
4.9-4 Illustrative View (B) of Typical Stacked Flat 4.9-8
4.9-5 Illustrative View (C) from CPSRA 4.9-9
4.9-6 Illustrative Aerial View (D) Looking South Toward Project Site 4.9-10
4.11-1 Near-Term Project Trip Assignment 4.11-6
4.11-2 Existing Plus Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane
Configurations 4.11-7
5-1 Cumulative Project Trip Assignment 5-22
5-2 Cumulative No Project Conditions Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and
Lane Configurations 5-23
5-3 Cumulative Conditions Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane
Configurations 5-24

List of Tables
2-1 Residential Land Uses for Alternative A 2-3
2-2 Residential Land Uses for Alternative B 2-9
2-3 Residential Land Uses for Alternative C 2-13
3.2-1 San Francisco Station Air Quality Monitoring Data 3.2-2
3.3-1 EDR Database Summary 3.3-5
3.5-1 Example Sound Levels 3.5-1
3.5-2 Example Sound Levels 3.5-2
3.5-3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels 3.5-4
3.5-4 Calculated Project Site Traffic Noise Levels 3.5-5
3.6-1 Population Estimates and Projections for San Francisco 3.6-1
3.7-1 Study Area Ethnic Profile 3.7-3
3.7-2 Study Area Poverty Statistics 3.7-3
3.8-1 Fire Stations in the Project Site Vicinity 3.8-7
3.8-2 School Enrollment and Capacity 3.8-8
3.11-1 LOS Definitions for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 3.11-5
3.11-2 Intersection Operations – Proposed Action 3.11-8
3.11-3 LOS Definitions for Freeway Ramp Junction 3.11-8
3.11-4 Ramp Junction Operations – Proposed Action 3.11-9
3.11-5 Existing MUNI Transit Service to Study Area 3.11-10
3.14-1 Sensitive Plant or Wildlife Species in or Potentially in the San Francisco South
and Hunter’s Point USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangles 3.14-3
4.2-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards 4.2-2
4.2-2 General Conformity Rule Thresholds 4.2-2
4.2-3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Quality Thresholds 4.2-4
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project iii ESA / 211653
Draft EIS December 2011
Table of Contents

Page
4.2-4 Conformity Analysis (Tons per Year) 4.2-5
4.2-5 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Average Daily Emissions in Pounds per Day) 4.2-6
4.2-6 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations, Operation (PPM) 4.2-8
4.2-7 Health Risk Assessment Results 4.2-8
4.2-8 PM Concentrations 4.2-10
2.5
4.5-1 Calculated Project Site Traffic Noise Levels 4.5-4
4.5-2 Combined Project Site Area Noise Levels 4.5-5
4.5-3 Noise Levels of Controlled Rock Fragmentation 4.5-6
4.5-4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities and Construction Equipment 4.5-6
4.5-5 Noise Levels During Demolition and Construction 4.5-7
4.8-1 Water Demands for Alternative A 4.8-4
4.8-2 Electricity Demands for Alternative A 4.8-8
4.8-3 Natural Gas Demands for Alternative A 4.8-9
4.8-4 School Enrollment and Capacity 4.8-11
4.8-5 Water Demands for Alternatives B and C 4.8-12
4.11-1 Vehicle Trip Generation Rates 4.11-4
4.11-2 Proposed Action Vehicle Trip Generation 4.11-4
4.11-3 Proposed Action Transit Trip Generation 4.11-5
4.11-4 Intersection Operations – Proposed Action 4.11-8
4.11-5 Ramp Junction Operations – Proposed Action 4.11-8
4.11-6 Alternative B Vehicle Trip Generation 4.11-9
4.11-7 Intersection Operations – Alternative B 4.11-10
4.11-8 Ramp Junction Operations – Alternative B 4.11-11
4.11-9 Alternative C Vehicle Trip Generation 4.11-12
4.11-10 Intersection Operations – Alternative C 4.11-12
4.11-11 Ramp Junction Operations – Alternative C 4.11-13
4.11-12 Alternative C Transit Trip Generation 4.11-13
5-1 Cumulative Health Risk Assessment Results 5-5
5-3 Calculated Project Site Traffic Noise Levels 5-9
5-3 Cumulative Vehicle Trip Generation - Proposed Action 5-20
5-4 Cumulative Intersection Operations – Proposed Action 5-21
5-5 Cumulative Ramp Junction Operations – Proposed Action 5-26
5-6 Cumulative Vehicle Trip Generation - Alternative B 5-27
5-7 Cumulative Intersection Operations – Alternative B 5-28
5-8 Cumulative Ramp Junction Operations – Alternative B 5-29
5-9 Cumulative Vehicle Trip Generation - Alternative C 5-29
5-10 Cumulative Intersection Operations – Alternative C 5-30
5-11 Cumulative Ramp Junction Operations – Alternative C 5-31

Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project iv ESA / 211653
Draft EIS December 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project EIS
ES.1 Introduction
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. This Draft EIS has been prepared by the City and County of San Francisco’s
Mayor’s Office of Housing in cooperation with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA)
to describe the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action, which is the approval of
funding and development agreements by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for the redevelopment of the 34-acre “Project Site” in the City of San Francisco, California.
The Project Site includes the Alice Griffith public housing site (Alice Griffith) owned by the San
Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) and three adjacent parcels owned by other entities. The Proposed
Action would include the redevelopment of Project Site with up to 1,200 new dwelling units, space
for potential neighborhood serving retail development, open space and associated infrastructure.
The City and County of San Francisco’s Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH) has been designated
as the Responsible Entity by HUD for assumption of its NEPA authority and NEPA lead agency
responsibility.
This Draft EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA (42 USC §4321 et seq.), the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508) and HUD regulations for Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD
Environmental Responsibilities (24 CFR Part 58).
The Project Site is located in the Bayview Hunters Point (BVHP) neighborhood of the City of
San Francisco. The Project Site is generally bounded by Gilman Avenue on the south, Hawes
Street on the west, Carroll Avenue on the north, and Arelious Walker Drive on the east, with a
rectangular extension to the south along Giants Drive that includes a portion of the Candlestick
Park stadium parking area. The Project Site includes: (1) the property containing Alice Griffith
owned by SFHA (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 4884-26); (2) an adjacent property to the east
controlled by the State through the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks)
and State Lands Commission (APN 4884-25); (3) an adjacent property to the east owned by
SFRA (APN 4884-27); and (4) an adjacent property to the south owned by the City through the
San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (APN 5000-01).1

1 The San Francisco Recreation and Parks property is a portion of a larger parcel.
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project ES-1 ESA / 211653
Draft EIS December 2011
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project

The SFHA property contains the Alice Griffith public housing development which includes 256
dwelling units, playground areas, and the Alice Griffith Opportunity Center. Candlestick Park
Stadium parking and overflow parking areas are located on the three non-SFHA properties.
ES.2 Purpose and Need
The City has identified the need for redevelopment of the BVHP neighborhood, and more
specifically, the Alice Griffith public housing development, as an area in need of improvements
to address physical decay and isolation from the surrounding community. For these needs, the
City is seeking HUD funding for the primary purpose of redevelopment of the Project Site.
The Alice Griffith public housing development is distressed and deteriorated, with residences in
various stages of physical decay. The existing Alice Griffith development also is physically
isolated from the surrounding community. The development includes several internal looped
roadways; however, there is only one access point to the off-site street network. There are few
neighborhood-serving retail and quality recreational uses near the Project Site. These conditions
of distress and disconnectedness frustrate community efforts to create a secure and healthy
environment.
ES.3 Alternatives
This document analyzes the potential environmental consequences associated with the Proposed
Action, two development alternatives, and the No Action Alternative. The alternatives are described
in detail in Chapter 2.0 and are summarized below.
Alternative A – Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would include development of a residential neighborhood and associated
infrastructure on the Project Site. Properties within the Project Site would undergo land transfer
prior to development, which would result in land retained by SFHA for reconfigured affordable
housing and by the developer for the remainder. The residential development would include one-
for-one replacement of the existing 256 public housing units, plus 954 market-rate and below
market-rate sale and rental units. The Proposed Action would be constructed in phases to avoid
displacement of existing residents. The initial phases would develop currently vacant portions of
the site, and existing residents would then occupy those new units before structures were
demolished in later phases.
Space would be provided on the ground floor for community-serving retail and service facilities
in the housing complex. The Proposed Action also would include an early learning child development
center and a new 1.4-acre Alice Griffith Neighborhood Park, consisting of community gardens,
sports facilities, picnic areas and other recreational amenities. The existing Opportunity Center,
which is a modular unit that serves as a community center, may remain or be relocated onsite
depending upon construction phasing needs.
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project ES-2 ESA / 211653
Draft EIS December 2011