alice griffith redevelopment project

376 Pages·2012·10.18 MB·English

ALICE GRIFFITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Statement

City and County of San Francisco September 2012
Mayor’s Office of Housing in
Cooperation with the Successor Agency
to the San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency

ALICE GRIFFITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Statement

City and County of San Francisco September 2012
Mayor’s Office of Housing in
Cooperation with the Successor Agency
to 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.
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Alice Griffith Public
Housing Redevelopment Project, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Mayor’s Office of Housing, City and County of San Francisco.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The City and County of San Francisco gives notice to the public that the Mayor’s
Office of Housing (MOH) as the Federal Responsible Entity acting under authority of section
104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(g)), section
288 of the HOME Investment Partnerships Act (42 U.S.C. 12838), section 26 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437x) and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 58, in
cooperation with the Successor Agency to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, has
prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for redevelopment of the Alice Griffith
Public Housing site as part of the HOPE SF development program. The Proposed Action is the
approval by HUD of funding and development agreements associated with redevelopment of the
Project Site with affordable housing. This notice is in accordance with regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 CFR parts 1500 – 1508. All interested parties including
Federal, State, tribal and local agencies, in addition to the public are invited to comment on the
FEIS. Agencies having jurisdiction by law, special expertise, or other special interest should
inform MOH of environmental information germane to their responsibilities.

Dates: In accordance with CEQ regulations, the Record of Decision (ROD) on the proposed
action will be issued no sooner than 30 days after the release of the FEIS. Thus, any comments
on the FEIS should be sent to the contact person listed below by October 22, 2012.

For Further Information:
Eugene T. Flannery, Environmental Compliance Manager
Mayor’s Office of Housing
1 South Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-701-5598; fax [phone]; [email protected]

The FEIS is available for viewing on the MOH website at:
http://sf-moh.org/index.aspx?page=155 . The FEIS is also available for viewing at the Mayor’s
Office of Housing at the address listed above.

Supplementary Information
The 34-acre Project Site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of San Francisco and
includes the existing Alice Griffith public housing site, owned by the San Francisco Housing
Authority, and three adjacent parcels owned by other entities. 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 existing Alice
Griffith public housing site contains 256 units, playground areas and an Opportunity Center. The
adjacent parcels contain paved and unpaved parking areas.
The FEIS responds to all comments received on the Draft EIS (see Appendix H of the FEIS for
additional detail regarding comments and responses). In addition, the FEIS analyzes the
Proposed Action, two development alternatives, and a No Action alternative. The two
development alternatives are variations of the project density. Alternative sites for the project
were explored early in the process and it was determined that no other more viable site was
available. Repair and maintenance of the existing structures was determined to be financially
infeasible.

Proposed Action (Alternative A): The Proposed Action would include development of a 1,210-
unit residential neighborhood and associated infrastructure on the Project Site. 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 redevelopment is
consistent with requirements for a mixed-use, mixed-income housing project. The Proposed
Action would be constructed in phases, developing vacant portions of the site first to avoid any
displacement of existing residents. The Proposed Action includes an early learning child
development center, a community center, and a new 1.4-acre Alice Griffith Neighborhood Park.
Space would be provided on the ground floor of residential buildings for community-serving
retail and service facilities. Maximum buildings height would be up to 65 feet. The Proposed
Action would provide 450 on-street parking spaces and 1,210 residential structured parking
spaces.

Housing Replacement (Alternative B): Alternative B would include replacement of the 256
existing public housing units on a one-to-one basis, with no mixed-income housing. Construction
would proceed in phases so as not to displace existing residents, with the first phases occurring
in vacant portions of the Project Site. The existing Opportunity Center may be relocated or
demolished, depending upon construction phasing needs. If the Opportunity Center were demolished, it
will be replaced with a new, on-site community center. Ground floor community-serving retail and
service facilities would not be located on-site given the low density development under this
alternative. This alternative includes a 1.4-acre park, and similar infrastructure improvements to
Alternative A. Up to 450 on-street parking spaces would be provided.

Reduced Development (Alternative C): Alternative C proposes up to 875 dwelling units
including one-for-one replacement of the 256 public housing units and 619 new market-rate and
below-market-rate units. Construction would proceed in phases so as not to displace existing
residents, with the first phases occurring in vacant portions of the Project Site. The existing
Opportunity Center may be relocated or demolished, depending upon construction phasing needs. If the
Opportunity Center were demolished, it will be replaced with a new, on-site community center. Space
would be provided on the ground floor of residential buildings for community-serving retail and
service facilities. This alternative includes a 1.4-acre park, and similar infrastructure
improvements to Alternative A. Alternative C would provide 450 on-street parking spaces and at
least 875 residential structured parking spaces.
No Action (Alternative D): Under the No Action Alternative, existing conditions at the Project
Site would remain unchanged.
Questions may be directed to the individual named in this notice under the heading For Further
Information.

Dated:
September 17, 2012.

Brian Cheu
Director of Community Development Division, Mayor’s Office of Housing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project
Final 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 1-8
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
2.7 Alternative Considered but not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis 2-15

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
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project i ESA / 211653
Final EIS September 2012
Table of Contents

Page
4.4 Land Use and Land Use Planning 4.4-1
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

8.0 References 8-1

Appendices included in the Draft EIS (on enclosed CD)
A. Scoping Report
B. Design for Development Document
C. Traffic Analysis
D. Cultural and Historic Resource Documentation
E. Biological Database Searches
F. Noise Calculations

New and Revised Appendices (following Chapter 8.0)
G. Site-Specific Programmatic Agreement
H. Response to Comments

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 3.8-7
3.8-2 Schools, Libraries, and Parks in the Project Site Vicinity 3.8-10
3.9-1 Project Site and Context Photograph Locations 3.9-4
Alice Griffith Redevelopment Project ii ESA / 211653
Final EIS September 2012