addendum #2 to the ucsf long range development … · including the parnassus heights campus site,...

ADDENDUM #2 TO THEUCSF 2014 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

January 9, 2017

Lead AgencyThe University of California

Prepared byUCSF Campus Planning

654 Minnesota StreetSan Francisco, CA 94143-0286

University of CaliforniaSan Francisco

Real Estate, Planning, & Capital Programs

MISSION BAY EAST CAMPUS

PHASE 1 BUILDING ON BLOCK 33

I. Project Information 1. Project Title: UCSF Mission Bay East Campus Phase 1 Building on

Block 33

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: The Regents of the University of California 1111 Franklin Street Oakland, California 94607

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Diane Wong Principal Planner, Environmental Coordinator UCSF Campus Planning (415) 502-5952 [email protected]

4. Project Location: UCSF Mission Bay Campus Site, Block 33

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

See contact person listed above

6. Custodian of the Administrative Record for this Project:

Same as above

7. Identification of all applicable LRDP and Prior Environmental Documents:

UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR certified by the Regents on November 20, 2014 (State Clearinghouse Number 2013092047)

Introduction

Addendum #2 to UCSF LRDP EIR – Mission Bay Block 33 January 9, 2017 2

II. Introduction This Addendum #2 to the University of California San Francisco (UC San Francisco or UCSF) 2014 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2014 LRDP EIR) discusses the proposed Mission Bay East Campus Phase 1 Building on Block 33 (the “proposed project”) at the UCSF Mission Bay campus site, relative to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is a research, academic and clinical building as discussed in the 2014 LRDP and analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR. This Addendum reaffirms the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR relative to the proposed project.

Background

In November 2014, the UC Board of Regents (the “Regents”) approved the UCSF 2014 LRDP following certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR. The 2014 LRDP is a comprehensive land use plan and policy document that guides the physical development and future uses of the campus. The 2014 LRDP accommodates increases in enrollment and academic and research activities at UCSF to meet its projected educational, clinical, and research demand through the year 2035, the LRDP horizon. It contains functional zone maps for each of UCSF’s main campus sites that illustrate the general locations of proposed uses, and that guide future decisions regarding where to locate buildings and other facilities. The 2014 LRDP also includes LRDP proposals identifying the approach to fulfilling campus site-specific objectives described in the 2014 LRDP.

Some important features of the LRDP include plans to:

accommodate growth in clinical care, research programs and student enrollment,

address seismically compromised buildings,

optimize the use of existing campus sites and existing space,

increase on-campus housing,

consolidate leased sites,

continue to expand alternative transportation options,

continue to work with neighbors to address potential community concerns that may arise as a result of UCSF’s physical development,

improve usable open space on campus, as well as enhance the public realm (i.e. public streets/sidewalks) adjacent to campus, and

limit greenhouse gas emissions through a comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction strategy.

The 60.1-acre UCSF Mission Bay campus site is generally bound by Mission Bay Boulevard South to the north, Owens Street to the west, Mariposa Street to the south, and Illinois and Third Streets to the east. UCSF’s Mission Bay campus site consists of three distinct areas for planning purposes. The North Campus comprises the original 42.3 acres north of Sixteenth Street and includes research buildings, campus housing, and a campus community center; the South Campus comprises the 14 acres south of Sixteenth acquired for the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay; and the East Campus consists of 3.8 acres of vacant land east of Third Street.

Introduction


The 2014 LRDP EIR included analysis of proposed new buildings at the UCSF Mission Bay campus site intended to meet needs for additional research, office, housing and clinical space. A number of these building projects are now advancing through the design development stage, and will be reviewed for CEQA compliance relative to the 2014 LRDP EIR analysis at the appropriate time prior to being approved. These building projects include the proposed research/office building on Block 33 as well as other facilities which were analyzed at a program level under CEQA in the 2014 LRDP EIR.

Purpose of the Addendum

This Addendum is intended to serve two purposes. First, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, this document analyzes the potential environmental effects that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project to determine, under the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, whether any proposed changes to the projects could cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not previously examined in the 2014 LRDP EIR. If no new significant or substantially more severe impacts would occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required, CEQA Section 15162 provides that the proposed project can be approved by the Regents (or its designee) without preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.

Second, this document makes minor technical changes and additions to the 2014 LRDP EIR in order to analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project. The proposed project was analyzed at a program level in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Subsequent to the adoption and certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, additional project-level details were developed, but these additional project-level details do not require any major revisions to the 2014 LRDP EIR analysis. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR could be used by the lead agency if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. For the reasons set forth herein, the environmental analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project falls within the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the preparation of an addendum to the 2014 LRDP EIR.1

This Addendum determines that the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not examined in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Program level mitigation measures that were identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR and that have not yet been implemented would continue to apply to the proposed project. Those mitigation measures are identified beginning in Section VII of this document, and will be included in a project mitigation monitoring and reporting program that would be adopted as part of project approval.

1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 relies upon the criteria of Section 15162.

Introduction


Organization of Addendum

This document is organized into the following sections:

Section I – Project Information: provides summary data about the proposed project

Section II – Introduction: provides an overview of environmental documentation, 2014 LRDP background, the purpose of the Addendum, and the organization of the Addendum.

Section III – Project Location and Description: presents a description of the proposed project, discusses consistency with the 2014 LRDP, and describes approvals required

Section IV – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: identifies any environmental factors using the CEQA checklist.

Section V – Determination: indicates what, if any, additional environmental documentation is required for the proposed project.

Section VI - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: evaluates whether the proposed project would result in significant environmental impacts that are new or substantially more severe than those significant impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. This section briefly summarizes under each topic area the conclusion of the earlier environmental analysis, including references to applicable mitigation measures. If the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts, then an Addendum may be prepared pursuant to CEQA Sections 15162 and 15164.

Section VII – Mitigation Measures: summarizes 2014 LRDP EIR mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project.

Project Location and Description


III. Project Location and Description

Project Description

The Mission Bay East Campus is comprised of Blocks 33 and 34 at Mission Bay, two adjoining parcels which are currently vacant and paved (see Figure 1 Project Location, and Figure 2 Mission Bay Campus Site). The 2014 LRDP envisioned development of the East Campus with approximately 500,000 gross square feet (gsf) of office/research & development (R&D) space and about 500 parking spaces. The 2014 LRDP EIR also analyzed a LRDP Variant on the Block 33-34 site, which considered the potential for up to 250,000 gsf of clinical space on the site, with the remaining 250,000 gsf to be office/R&D.

The East Campus would be developed in two phases, with the initial Phase 1 to be developed on Block 33 with temporary surface parking on adjacent Block 34 (see Figure 2). A future Phase 2 would eliminate the temporary surface parking lot and include development of a building on Block 34 and a parking structure with approximately 500 parking spaces. Temporary surface parking and construction trailers have been approved for the southern portion of Block 34, but the construction trailers would be removed from the Block 34 site when the Block 33 building project becomes operational.

The proposed Phase 1 project would be located on Block 33 and would consist of the development of an approximately 343,000 gross square foot (gsf) building on the site and a temporary surface parking lot of about 200 spaces (see Figure 3 Neighborhood Context and Figure 4, Site/Landscaping Plan). This building would provide academic (including desktop research, dry core and computational labs) and administrative office space, clinical space, and other necessary support spaces for various campus dry research, clinic, and administrative units. These units and functions are currently distributed at multiple UCSF campus sites including the Parnassus Heights campus site, the Laurel Heights campus site, the Mission Bay campus site, the Mission Center Building, and leased spaces.

Three buildings at the Parnassus Heights campus site (UC Hall, Koret Vision Research Building and the Proctor Foundation Building) must be vacated in order to seismically retrofit UC Hall in order to comply with UC Seismic Policy, and to demolish or convert to housing the Koret Vision Research Building and Proctor Building, per the 2014 LRDP. Ophthalmology clinics, desktop research, and offices from these buildings and other buildings at the Parnassus Heights campus site would be housed at the proposed project. These moves to the Mission Bay campus site would maximize efficiencies by consolidating the programs in one building.

The consolidated programs would comprise a new Center for Vision Neuroscience that would include clinics, ophthalmology services, clinical and dry laboratory research, administrative, and teaching space. In turn, the remaining vacated space at Parnassus Heights would enable the growth of other existing research and clinical programs at that campus site.2 In total, the planned program consists of about 257,000 gsf of office, academic and research & development space; about 56,000 gsf of clinic space; and about 30,000 gsf of centralized meeting space, retail and support space.

2 Growth across all campus sites, including backfill of vacated space under the 2014 LRDP, was assumed and analyzed in the 2014

LRDP EIR.



Source: UCSF Figure 1Project Location

Project Site



Source: UCSF Figure 2Mission Bay Campus Site

Block 33

Block 34

Project Site



Source: Smith Group/Mark Roddy, December 2016 Figure 3Neighborhood Context

The design of the proposed project is intended to create a building that is aesthetically pleasing, fiscally and environmentally responsible, and connected with the site and campus. The proposed building design reflects the building’s functions through three key massing elements that express occupancy as follows (see Figures 5 through 7, Renderings):

Academic and administrative office space located in the 12-story tower (maximum 160 feet tall excluding rooftop mechanical equipment)

Center for Vision Neurosciences clinics and teaching labs located in the 5-story south wing (about 70 feet tall)

Centralized meeting space located in the three-story north wing (about 50 feet tall)

Block 34Block 33



Source: Smith Group/Mark Roddy, December 2016 Figure 4 Site/Landscaping Plan



Source: Smith Group/Mark Roddy, Dec. 2016 Figure 5

Rendering, as viewed from 16th/Third Streets looking south

Source: Smith Group/Mark Roddy, Dec. 2016 Figure 6

Rendering, as viewed from 16th/Third Streets looking east



Source: Smith Group/Mark Roddy, Dec. 2016 Figure 7Rendering, as viewed from Illinois Street looking northwest

Source: Smith Group/Mark Roddy, Nov. 2016 Figure 8Circulation and Access

N



The roof of the third floor of the centralized meeting space would include a roof terrace and “green space.” Balconies and roof gardens would be offered on most floors.

The building provides prominent entrances at the north and south ends of the block to accommodate the needs of patients and office users, and a distinctive entrance to the retail use (a café) is proposed to highlight that space. In addition, buffers (or setbacks) of 2 feet on 16th Street and 3 feet on Third Street are voluntarily proposed (see Figure 8 Circulation and Access):

The North Entrance. The north entrance, integrated with the 30-foot wide North Paseo, guides occupants and visitors to the office tower and the centralized meeting space, and creates a buffer from the Warriors Arena across 16th Street. The North Paseo is designed to accommodate heavy foot traffic. In addition, this paseo opens the site to the neighborhood and is intended to provide a pedestrian-friendly path toward the bay front to the east.

The South Entrance and Paseo. The south entrance, integrated with the South Paseo and drop-off for patients, is intended to provide a safe and separate entrance for clinical functions with easy access to parking and shuttle buses. The southeast plaza is designed to welcome patients and visitors’ vehicular arrival to the Center for Vision Neurosciences. The positioning of this clinical entry on the Paseo is intended to welcome arrivals from both Illinois and Third Streets.

The site is accessible by car, public transportation, and UCSF Shuttle. UCSF parking is available both on-site to the south of the building, as well as on UCSF’s North and South campuses. The 200-space parking lot included as part of the proposed project would be prioritized for patients and visitors. Parking for the proposed Block 33 project would be accommodated in this surface parking lot, and in other parking facilities (garages and surface lots) on the Mission Bay campus site. A UCSF shuttle bus stop is proposed on Illinois Street at the South Paseo away from the higher volume of traffic on Third Street. Off-street, concealed delivery spaces are proposed on Illinois Street, to the north, to avoid the activity of Third Street.

This project will comply with the University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices. As required by this policy, the project will adopt the principles of energy efficiency and sustainability to the fullest extent possible, consistent with budgetary constraints and regulatory and programmatic requirements, and achieve a minimum US Green Building Council LEED™ Silver rating (Version 4). The policy also includes goals to reach climate neutrality from scope 1 and 2 sources by 2025; and to reach climate neutrality from specific scope 3 sources by 2050 or sooner.3 The proposed project would not conflict with the ability of UCSF to achieve these targets. UCSF is currently in the process of updating its Climate Action Plan to reflect the measures it will implement to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025.

The proposed project includes a proposal to amend the LRDP (LRDP Amendment #2) to designate the functional zone for the Block 33 building as within the “Research” functional zone. Further details about the proposed LRDP Amendment #2 are discussed below.

3 As defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from owned or controlled sources. Scope 2

emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy. Scope 3 emissions are other indirect emissions such as emissions from employee commuting, business travel, and third-party distribution and production.



Pursuant to the University of California’s constitutional autonomy, development and uses on property owned or leased by the University that are in furtherance of the University’s educational purposes are not subject to local land use regulation. However, UCSF views local land use policies as planning guidelines for its proposed developments. In addition, when the University acquired Blocks 33/34, the University of California and the San Francisco Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding, among other things, the design of buildings on the project site. Pursuant to the MOU, the proposed development would follow the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Area Plan “Design for Development” regarding building height, bulk, setbacks, maximum tower floorplate and other design matters. On Block 33, a building with a base height of 90 feet (excluding rooftop mechanical equipment) and a tower of 160 feet in height (excluding rooftop mechanical equipment) with a maximum floorplate of 20,000 sq. ft. could be developed.

Clinical uses are a “secondary use” under the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan and would require a finding of consistency with the plan by the San Francisco Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure.

Construction of the proposed project is estimated to begin in June 2017 and be completed by July 2019.

Relationship to the UCSF 2014 LRDP

Consistency with the 2014 LRDP

At the time the 2014 LRDP was being prepared, the UCSF Mission Bay campus site consisted of about 3 million gsf, including Mission Hall on the North Campus and Phase 1 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay (excluding the cancer outpatient building, now known as the Precision Cancer Medicine Building) on the South Campus. As both buildings were under construction (though not yet occupied), they were considered part of existing (2015) conditions. The 2014 LRDP proposed about 2.1 million gsf of additional space above existing conditions at Mission Bay, over the course of the LRDP to horizon year 2035 not including Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay. However, the 2014 LRDP EIR included in its analysis Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay by year 2035. As such, the 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed about 2.9 million gsf of growth above existing conditions at the Mission Bay campus site (see Table 1). In November 2014, the 2014 LRDP was approved and the 2014 LRDP EIR was certified.

The proposed project is consistent with UCSF’s 2014 LRDP as the LRDP identified plans for about 500,000 gsf of research and possibly clinical activities on Block 33 and 34 along with about 500 parking spaces. The proposed project was analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, and the clinical component was analyzed as a variant. The proposed project is within the 500,000 gsf planned for Blocks 33/34, and well within the 2.9 million gsf of growth planned for the Mission Bay campus site (see Table 2).

The proposed project would consist of about 343,000 gsf, or 12% of the 2.9 million gsf projected growth analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR. With development of Block 33 under the proposed project, about 157,000 of development entitlement would remain on Blocks 33/34 and about 2.5 million development entitlement would remain on the Mission Bay campus site.



TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF GROWTH PLANNED UNDER 2014 LRDP EIR

FOR THE MISSION BAY CAMPUS SITE

Mission Bay Campus Site

Existing gsf1

LRDP EIR 2015

Planned Growth2

LRDP EIR

Total gsf LRDP EIR

2035 Horizon

North Campus 2,191,500 1,450,300 3,641,800

South Campus Phase 1 869,000 124,500 993,500

South Campus Phase 2 0 793,500 793,500

East Campus 0 500,000 500,000

Total gsf 3,060,500 2,868,300 5,928,800

Population 9,760 12,140 21,900

1 Existing gsf assumed in the 2014 LRDP EIR for 2015 includes Mission Hall on the North Campus, which was completed in

2014, and Phase 1 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay on the South Campus (excluding the Precision Cancer Medicine Building), which was completed in 2015.

2 Although the 2014 LRDP assumed Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay (i.e. the South Campus) would occur after the LRDP horizon year of 2035, the 2014 LRDP EIR assumed Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay would be developed by 2035 and therefore is included in this summary.

TABLE 2 STATUS OF GROWTH PLANNED UNDER 2014 LRDP EIR

FOR THE MISSION BAY CAMPUS SITE

Mission Bay Campus Site

Planned Growth Approved/Developed

gsf Under 2014 LRDP

Proposed Project

gsf Growth Remaining

North Campus 1,450,300 0 0 1,450,300

South Campus Phase 1 124,500 0 0 124,500

South Campus Phase 2 793,500 0 0 793,500

East Campus 500,000 0 343,000 157,000

Total gsf 2,868,300 0 343,000 2,525,300

Population 12,140 0 2,200 9,940

The existing UCSF population at the Mission Bay campus site in 2015 is estimated at 9,800 persons. The 2014 LRDP EIR projected that by the LRDP horizon year of 2035, the population at the Mission Bay campus site would be approximately 21,900 persons, resulting in an anticipated growth of about 12,100 between 2015 and 2035. Of this growth, the proposed project is estimated to result in about 2,200 persons, or about 18% of the projected population growth under the LRDP. The remaining population growth anticipated in the 2014 LRDP EIR would be about 9,900 persons (see Table 3).



TABLE 3 MISSION BAY EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION

Existing (2015)

Projected Population at LRDP Horizon

(2035) 1 Growth Proposed Project

Remaining Estimated Population

9,800 21,900 12,100 2,200 9,900 1 Includes population projected for Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay (i.e. South Campus).

LRDP Amendment

At the time that the 2014 LRDP was approved, Mission Bay Blocks 33-34 had been recently acquired, and while it was projected that the East Campus would be developed with research and parking uses, sufficient planning had not occurred to determine the exact footprints of those uses. Therefore, the LRDP’s functional zone map for the Mission Bay campus site shows the East Campus functionally zoned for “Research” and “Parking” use in a striped pattern, and notes that when the locations of specific uses on the parcel are identified, the functional zones for the East Campus will be updated accordingly.

Based on the proposed uses in the Block 33 building, the “Research” functional zone is the appropriate zone for the building. The 2014 LRDP defines research activities as the predominate use within the “Research” zone, and offices, clinics, instruction space, and support uses (including parking) are allowable secondary uses within the “Research” zone.

Now that the specific footprint of the Block 33 building is known, LRDP Amendment #2 is proposed to revise the functional zone map for the Mission Bay campus site by designating the functional zone for the Block 33 building as within the “Research” functional zone. (The functional zone map for the Mission Bay campus site was previously amended in LRDP Amendment #1 to add a “Support” zone overlay to Block 18C to facilitate a temporary child care project at that location.) The remainder of the East Campus would continue to be shown as functionally zoned for “Research” and “Parking” use until the specific footprints for the development of the balance of the parcel are known. The proposed revision to the functional zone map is shown in Figure 9.



Source: UCSF Figure 9Proposed Functional Zone for Block 33

Project Site

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected


Discretionary Approvals

Action by the Regents (including any Regents‐delegated committee or official):

Amend the LRDP functional zone map to designate Mission Bay Block 33 as Research and Parking functional zones

Approve design

Action by Other Agencies: None

IV. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the modified projects involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population and Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

As discussed in Section VI, none of the environmental factors that were analyzed for this modified project would have an impact that would be a “Potentially New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Therefore, none of the boxes above has been checked.

Determination


V. Determination This Addendum was prepared to discuss any new information, changes to the project or circumstances that may affect the prior environmental analysis prepared for the 2014 LRDP EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) discusses the use of a program EIR with later activities, and states that “if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calls for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration if certain conditions have been met. These conditions include:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise or reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;

b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

UCSF has evaluated the proposed project relative to these conditions, and has determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration need not be prepared because:

a) The project proposes the construction of a research and clinical building of about 343,000 gsf, which is within the 500,000 research and clinical facilities analyzed for Blocks 33 and 34 in the 2014 LRDP EIR. No new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects would occur.

Determination


b) Since the 2014 LRDP EIR was certified, additional projects have been proposed in the vicinity of the Mission Bay campus site by UCSF and by others. For example, since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, the following have occurred:

UCSF opened Phase 1 of its Medical Center at Mission Bay in February 2015, which was the subject of an EIR certified in September 2008.

UCSF acquisition of Blocks 33 and 34 in Mission Bay was completed in 2015; potential uses were analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR.

UCSF proposed a student housing development at 566, 590 and 600 Minnesota Street, which is being analyzed in a project-level EIR.

UCSF proposed the UCSF Child, Teen and Family Center and the UCSF Department of Psychiatry Building at 2130 Third Street, which is being analyzed in a project-level EIR.

The City of San Francisco approved the Golden State Warriors Mixed-Use and Event Center complex on Blocks 29-32 in Mission Bay, following certification of the Final EIR in November 2015.

The San Francisco Giants proposed a mixed-use development (“Mission Rock”) comprised of housing, office space, retail, open space, and parking on the site of its existing surface parking lot at Seawall Lot 337. The project is currently undergoing environmental review.

Other residential and mixed developments in the vicinity have been proposed, completed, or are under construction.

Each of the above projects received or will receive environmental review prior to approval. The 2014 LRDP EIR and Golden State Warriors EIR analyses covered any potential cumulative impacts that might occur as a result of the development of the projects along with cumulative growth in the area. The upcoming 566, 590 & 600 Minnesota Street EIR and 2130 Third Street EIR each will address cumulative impacts, as will the San Francisco Giants’ Mission Rock EIR. No substantial changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed project is undertaken have occurred that have not already been accounted for or will be accounted for in updated analyses for the Mission Bay campus site and for projects in the vicinity. As the proposed project is consistent with the proposal for Blocks 33 and 34 analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, the proposed project would not cause new cumulative significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts previously found to be cumulatively significant impacts in any of those environmental reviews. The additional projects listed above that have been proposed in the vicinity of the Mission Bay campus site by UCSF and by others do not change the significance of impacts as previously analyzed.

The proposed project would not require new mitigation measures or result in mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR and adopted by the Regents in November 2014.

Determination


Based on the above, none of the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR has been met. The proposed project would not cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not previously examined in the 2014 LRDP EIR, nor would the modified project require new mitigation measures, other than those previously identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the modified project would be undertaken that would require major revisions in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Thus, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provides that the modified project can be approved by the University without preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. No further environmental documentation is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and preparation of an addendum to the 2014 LRDP EIR is appropriate pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. Findings consistent with this determination will be prepared.

Evaluation of Environmental Effects


VI. Evaluation of Environmental Effects Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a suggested format to use when preparing an environmental document. Additionally, impact questions that relate to significance standards established in UCSF’s 2014 2014 LRDP EIR have been included. The checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the modified project to determine whether the proposed changes to the project would alter the conclusions contained in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The form identifies the following category: Potential New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impact. “Yes” applies where the modified project would result in a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact; and “No” applies where the proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact. As noted in Section V. Determination, no new or substantially more severe significant impact would result and all evaluation topics result in checking the “No” category. However, some additional analysis is provided to highlight the changes to the proposed project. As discussed in this document, some mitigation measures similar to those in the LRDP EIR and are included. Where appropriate, mitigation measures have been identified and summarized at the end of this document.



1. Aesthetics

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Additional Project-level Impact

Analysis Required

Project Impact Adequately

Addressed in Earlier Environmental

Document

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? --

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

-- --

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

--

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

--

e) Exceed the LRDP EIR significance standard by substantially reducing sunlight or significantly increasing shadows in public open space areas, or by increasing pedestrian-level wind speeds above the hazard level set forth in the San Francisco Planning Code?

--

2014 LRDP EIR Analysis

The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed aesthetics impacts associated with campus growth and development, including impacts related to shadow and wind, and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site: a) Effects on a scenic vista: Less than Significant; No Mitigation required. b) Damage to scenic resources: No impact; No Mitigation required (per Initial Study). c) Effects on visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings: Less than Significant; No

Mitigation required. d) During construction, new sources of substantial light or glare: Less than Significant with the

implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP-1 requiring a condition in construction contracts that flood or area lighting for construction activities be placed and directed so as to avoid potential disturbances to adjacent residences or other uses. During operations, new sources of substantial light or glare: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP-2 that would minimize light and glare resulting from new buildings through the orientation of the building, use of landscaping materials and choice of primary façade materials.

e) Street-level wind hazards to pedestrians: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation

Measure AES-LRDP -3, requiring building projects proposed to exceed 100 feet in height to be evaluated by qualified wind consultant, possibly leading to wind tunnel testing and implementing feasible means of eliminating or reducing wind hazards.



Shadows on public open space areas: Less than Significant.

Cumulative aesthetic affects: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

Discussion of Project Impacts

a,c) At a proposed 343,000 gsf, the project is consistent with the assumptions in the 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to building size, which assumed up to 500,000 gsf on the Block 33/34 site. The project is also consistent with the 2014 LRDP EIR assumptions related to building height and massing, which assumed a building base height of about 90 feet with a tower of up to 160 feet, excluding rooftop mechanical equipment. The three building masses of the proposed project would reach heights of about 50 feet, 70 feet, and 160 feet, well within 2014 LRDP EIR assumptions for building height. Therefore, impacts related to scenic vistas, visual character or quality, and shadows would continue to be less than significant.

b) The Initial Study for the 2014 LRDP EIR determined that there would be no impacts to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The proposed project would not change these conclusions.

d) The proposed project would comply with the 2014 LRDP EIR mitigation measures above regarding light and glare during construction and during project operations. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

e) As stated above, the proposed project would be consistent with 2014 LRDP EIR assumptions regarding height and buildings massing, and therefore project impacts related to shadows would continue to be less than significant. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP-3, a wind tunnel study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of the proposed design on pedestrian level wind speeds.4 The study concluded that with development on Block 33, wind speeds at the various test points at and around the project site could reach hazardous levels (i.e. wind speeds of 26 mph for a single hour of the year) at three locations: along Third Street at the South Paseo; and at two points on Illinois Street north of the South Paseo. The hazard criterion would be exceeded at these locations ranging from between 13 and 22 hours per year. The study recommended measures to reduce the hazardous wind speeds, such as the use of soft landscaping (densely planted trees or shrubbery) and hard landscaping measures such as architectural screens at areas with substantial amounts of outdoor furniture. Most of the tested locations exceed the hazard criterion due to the common westerly to northwesterly winds. Trees and shrubbery planted along Third Street and Illinois Street would reduce these wind speeds. The project model did not include simulated landscape vegetation since it is not used in standard wind testing. However, the proposed project landscaping plan includes shrubs and trees along both the Third Street and Illinois Street frontages that would help to minimize hazardous wind speeds. The wind study also evaluated wind speeds under cumulative conditions when other planned structures are ultimately developed, such as on the adjacent Block 34; the Precision Cancer Medicine Building on the South Campus; Blocks 23A and 25B on the North Campus; and the Golden State Warriors Event

4 Cermak, Peterka, Petersen (CPP), Pedestrian-Level Winds Report: Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP-3, Wind Tunnel Tests for UCSF Block 33,

November 14, 2016.



Center and Mixed-Use Development project on Blocks 29-32. Under cumulative conditions, no wind speeds at any of the test points exceed hazardous levels. Based on the above, wind speeds could exceed hazardous levels only during an interim period between the time Block 33 is developed and other planned buildings are developed. Because the hazardous wind speed exceedances would be temporary, would be minimized by proposed project landscaping, and would be eliminated once Block 34 and other planned buildings are developed, the impact is considered less than significant.

For the reasons stated, aesthetics impacts of the proposed project, including shadows and wind, would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

2. Agriculture and Forest Resources



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

-- --

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? -- --

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)?

-- --

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? -- --

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?

-- --


a-e) The Initial Study for the 2014 LRDP EIR determined that there would be no impacts to agriculture and forest resources.


a-e) The proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.



3. Air Quality



Analysis Required



Document

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? --

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (e.g., induce mobile source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions that would cause a violation of the CO ambient air quality standard)?

--

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

--

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? --

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? -- --

f) Exceed the LRDP EIR standard of significance by exposing receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions that (1) result in a cancer risk greater than 10 cancer cases per 1 million people exposed in a lifetime; or (2) for acute or chronic effects, result in concentrations of toxic air contaminant emissions with a Hazard Index of 1.0 or greater.

--


The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with campus growth and development, and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a) Conflict with applicable air quality plan: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

b,c) Criteria air pollutant emissions during construction activities: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-1, Best Management Practices for Controlling Particulate Emissions; Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-2, Architectural Coatings; and Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-3, Off-Road Equipment Control Measures.

Criteria air pollutant emissions during campus operations: Significant and Unavoidable, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-4, BAAQMD-Suggested Operational Measures.

d,f) Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction activities: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-MB-1 regarding Bay Air Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD) permitting requirements.

TAC emissions during campus operations: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-MB-4, Particulate Filtration Systems for Block 15 Housing and Child Care.



Cumulative TAC emissions during campus operations: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

e) Objectionable odors: No impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).


a-e) Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. As the proposed project would comprise approximately 12% of the 2.9 million gsf in growth assumed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, air quality emissions from the proposed project would be roughly 12% of the emissions identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would be fewer than assumed for Blocks 33/34 in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The above mitigation measures would continue to apply to the proposed project. For the reasons stated, air quality impacts with the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

f) As of July 2016, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) began applying revised guidelines for air toxics health risk assessments promulgated in 2015 by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Key revisions to the guidelines include greater cancer toxicity weighting for infants, children and teenagers; higher breathing rates per unit of body weight at younger ages; revised cancer risks for non-inhalation exposure; and a recommended shorter residential exposure period of 30 years versus the current practice of 70 years, representing a reduction factor. While the BAAQMD had not yet instituted the revised OEHHA guidelines in the BAAQMD guidelines at the time the 2014 LRDP EIR was prepared, the 2014 LRDP EIR analysis incorporated BAAQMD recommended conservative assumptions in the health risk assessment designed to address to the new OEHHA guidance.5 Therefore, no revised or updated analysis to comport with the OEHHA revised guidelines is necessary for the proposed project.

5 UCSF 2014 LRDP Final Environmental Impact Report, certified November 2014, Appendix E: Technical Analyses – Air Quality,

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk Assessment, and Energy, pp E-359 to E-360.



4. Biological Resources



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

--

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

--

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

--

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

--

e) Conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources? --

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan?

--

g) Exceed the LRDP EIR standard of significance by damaging or removing heritage or landmark trees or native oak trees of a diameter specified in a local ordinance?

--


a-g) The Initial Study for the 2014 LRDP EIR concluded that activities at the Mission Bay campus site would result in no impact or less-than-significant impacts regarding biological resources.


a-g) Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Therefore, biological resource impacts with the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.



5. Cultural Resources



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

--

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

--

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

--

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? --


The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed cultural resources impacts associated with campus growth and development and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a) Historical resources: the Initial Study concluded that no activities at the Mission Bay site would have

an effect on historical resources.

b) Archaeological resources: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-LRDP-3, requiring specific actions to take in the event of accidental discovery of archaeological artifacts during construction.

c) Paleontological resources: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-LRDP-4, requiring specific actions to take in the event of accidental discovery of paleontological resources during construction.

d) Human remains: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-LRDP-5, requiring specific actions to take in the event of accidental discovery of human remains during construction.


a-d) The proposed project site is currently vacant and paved. Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The above mitigation measures would continue to apply to the proposed project. Therefore, cultural resource impacts with the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.



6. Geology, Soils and Seismicity



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

--

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? --

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --

iv) Landslides? --

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

--

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) (California Building Code), creating substantial risks to life or property?

-- --

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

-- --

f) Exceed the LRDP EIR standard of significance by exposing people to structural hazards in an existing building rated Level V (Poor), or Level VI (Very Poor), under the University’s seismic performance rating system, or substantial nonstructural hazards?

--


The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed geology and soils impacts associated with campus growth and development and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site: a,c) Effects on people and structures resulting from geologic hazards: Less than Significant; No mitigation

required.

b) Substantial erosion or loss of topsoil: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

d,e) Expansive soils, support of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal: No impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).

f) Exposing people to structural or nonstructural hazards in existing buildings: No impact at Mission Bay campus site; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).




a-f) A geotechnical investigation was performed for the proposed project.6 The geotechnical investigation concluded that the site may be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations presented in the report pertaining to earthwork, foundations, lateral earth pressures, uplift, site settlement, concrete slabs, pavement design, seismic design, and corrosivity are incorporated into the final design and construction. Recommended foundation options include augercast piles, and hydraulically installed drilled displacement-type pipe piles. UCSF plans to incorporate the recommendations into the final design and construction.

Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project with regard to geology, soils and seismicity would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

--

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

--


The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed greenhouse gas impacts associated with campus growth and development and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a,b) Construction-related GHG emissions: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation

Measure GHG-LRDP-1, Construction-Related GHG Reduction Measures.

Operational GHG emissions: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

The analysis concluded that under the LRDP Variant, slightly more vehicle trips would be generated (about 2%) than the LRDP project, and consequently the Variant would result in slightly higher (about 2%) GHG emissions than the LRDP project. Nonetheless, GHG emission impacts of the LRDP Variant would continue to be less than significant.

6 Kleinfelder, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Phase 1 Building (Block 33), UCSF Mission Bay East Campus, April 6, 2016.



Cumulative impacts on global climate change and GHG emissions: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.


a,b) The proposed project would comply with the University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices. As required by this policy, the project will adopt the principles of energy efficiency and sustainability to the fullest extent possible, consistent with budgetary constraints and regulatory and programmatic requirements, and achieve a minimum US GBC LEED™ Silver rating (Version 4).

While the proposed project is expected to contribute to GHG emissions from campus development, the 2014 LRDP includes a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy aimed at reducing GHG emissions to meet 1990 levels by 2020. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy included in its campus emission assumptions GHG emissions from campus-wide growth projected in the 2014 LRDP, including from Block 33 development. Consequently, implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy would minimize GHG emissions campus-wide and help UCSF to meet GHG reduction targets. In addition, the GHG Reduction Strategy is in the process of being updated to address new UC goals to meet climate neutrality targets by 2025 and 2050 or sooner. The UC Policy on Sustainable Practices also includes goals to reach climate neutrality from scope 1 and 2 sources by 2025; and to reach climate neutrality from specific scope 3 sources by 2050 or sooner. The proposed project would not conflict with the ability of UCSF to achieve these targets. UCSF is currently in the process of updating its Climate Action Plan to reflect the measures it will implement to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025.

Specific sustainability measures to be incorporated into the proposed project are being developed. To improve energy efficiency of new buildings, UCSF relies on several available tools, programs and building codes. Title 24 of the California Energy Code enhances the energy efficiency requirements of all newly constructed buildings and major renovations. The 2013 Title 24 update, effective July 1, 2014, improves energy performance of new buildings by as much as 23 percent over the 2008 standard, depending on the type of building and its intended use. The proposed project intends to exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 20 percent. Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. As the proposed project would comprise approximately 12% of the 2.9 million gsf in growth assumed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, GHG emissions of the proposed project would be roughly 12% of the emissions identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The above mitigation measure GHG-LRDP-1 regarding construction-related GHG emissions would continue to apply to the proposed project. Therefore, GHG emission impacts from the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.



8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

--

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

--

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

--

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

--

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

-- --

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

--

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

--

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

--

2014 LRDP EIR Analysis The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with campus growth and development and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a,b) Creation of significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-LRDP-1 Excavation Management Plan to address the potential for disturbance and excavation of naturally-occurring asbestos.

c) Hazardous emissions of the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of existing or proposed schools: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

d) Inclusion of a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 could create a significant hazard to the public: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.



e) Result in safety hazards in vicinity of private airstrip: No impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).

f) Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

g) Emergency response plan impacts: Less than Significant Impact; No mitigation required.

h) Wildland fire impacts: No impact at the Mission Bay campus site; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).


a,b) In 1999, as part of the preparation for initial development of UCSF facilities at the Mission Bay campus site, an environmental Risk Management Plan (RMP) was developed under the direction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to provide a decision framework and protocols for managing contaminants in the subsurface soil and groundwater in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. As part of the RMP, soils analysis was prepared for the Block 33-34 site. The detected levels of chemicals in soil and ground water at Block 33 were within the range generally observed throughout the Mission Bay area, and the majority of detections were below Interim Target Levels (ITLs) or Site-Specific Target Levels (SSTLs). The only exceptions noted among metals, VOCs and hydrocarbon analyses were nickel concentrations detected in three soil samples collected from Illinois Street (maximum 2,000 mg/kg); and gasoline concentrations found in a soil sample (1,400 mg/kg) and ground water sample (35 mg/L) collected from adjacent Illinois Street.

Soils analysis for Block 34 indicated that the Block 34 project site had high levels of lead and barium. Lead levels were below target protective thresholds for adults, but in excess of target protective thresholds for children. Implementation measures outlined in the RMP and protective fencing around the project site during construction would mitigate against exposure hazards to construction workers.

Since preparation of the RMP, studies have shown some evidence of carcinogenicity of lead. Barium is still considered not likely to be carcinogenic to humans following oral exposure; and its carcinogenic potential cannot be determined following inhalation exposure.

A Phase II site investigation was conducted in 2005.7 This investigation detected no major sources of contamination or levels generally exceeding Mission Bay area-wide levels. The investigation concluded that existing site soils and groundwater can be managed under the various RMP requirements including construction worker protective measures, dust control, as well as soil handling and disposal requirements for all soil excavation/grading activities. An updated Phase 1 report was

7 ENVIRON, “Report of Site Characterization, Parcels 33 and 34, Mission Bay Development Area, San Francisco, California,”

December 8, 2005.



prepared in 2014.8 The Phase 1 report concluded that concentrations of contaminants were either not detected above laboratory reporting limits, or if detected, were found at concentrations consistent with conditions in the Mission Bay Redevelopment Area and generally below concentrations deemed acceptable by the RWQCB (i.e. Mission Bay RMP target levels).

There were historically six underground storage tanks (USTs) on the site, four of which were removed and received regulatory closure. The two remaining tanks were removed, but it is not clear whether regulatory closure was conducted. Soil sampling performed for one of the tanks indicated concentrations of contaminants were well below Mission Bay RMP target thresholds. Sampling results for the other tank were not available, but results for soil samples nearby indicated contaminant levels below laboratory reporting limits.

The proposed project would be subject to the RMP. Given that soil and ground water sampling results for the Property and adjacent properties are generally below ITLs and SSTLs defined in the Mission Bay RMP, and were consistent with the range of concentrations observed throughout the South of Channel Area, the contaminant levels found in historical on-site and off-site sampling activities are considered to be manageable by adherence to the provisions of the RMP. As the proposed project would implement RMP measures, impacts associated with hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant.

c-h) The proposed project impacts would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to these topics.

f) Following certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR in November 2014, the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay opened in February 2015 and the UCSF medical helipad became operational. Since that time, UCSF has become aware of the potential for construction cranes in the vicinity of the UCSF medical helipad to pose a hazard to helicopters using the helipad if nearby construction cranes enter into the airspace of the helipad approach and departure surfaces approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Aeronautics Division. UCSF has been working diligently to ensure that construction cranes from its own construction projects as well as other construction projects nearby would not encroach into the UCSF helipad airspace. A construction crane plan was developed for Block 33 that reflects no encroachment into the UCSF helipad airspace. However, because of the proximity of the construction cranes to the UCSF helipad, the construction cranes will be marked with both appropriate lighting and flags to ensure that the construction cranes are highly visible to pilots both during the day and night. In addition, a Crane Safety Plan was developed by the project contractors to outline operational procedures to improve safety, such as issuing a Notice to Airmen to advise pilots of construction cranes in the area and the duration the cranes will be in operation; and protocols for contact with crane operators. The Crane Safety Plan is included as part of the proposed project.

Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. No new information presents the specter of a new potentially significant

8 ENVIRON, “Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Mission Bay Development Parcels 33 and 34, San Francisco, California,”

May 13, 2014.



environmental impact. Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts from the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

9. Hydrology and Water Quality



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? --

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

-- --

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

--

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?

--

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

--

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? --

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

--

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

--

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

--

j) Inundate by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? --

2014 LRDP EIR Analysis The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed hydrology and water quality impacts associated with campus growth and development, and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a,f) Water quality during construction: Less than Significant with the implementation of

‐ Mitigation Measure HYD-MB-1a requiring participation in the City’s existing Water Pollution and Prevention Program (Mission Bay Subsequent EIR Mitigation Measure K.02);



‐ Mitigation Measure HYD-MB-1b requiring design and construction of sewer improvements to avoid annual overflow volumes (Mitigation Measure K.03); and

‐ Mitigation Measure HYD-MB-1c requiring the implementation of alternative technologies or other means to reduce settleable solids and floatable materials in stormwater discharges to China Basin Channel (modified from Mission Bay Subsequent EIR Mitigation Measure K.04)

b) Groundwater supplies/recharge impacts: No impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).

c-e) Drainage pattern and water runoff impacts: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

g) Housing within a 100-year flood hazard area: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

h,i) Expose people or structures to increased risk due to flooding from sea level rise: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

j) Expose people or structures to significant risk due to inundation by seiches or tsunamis: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

Cumulative impacts: Less than Significant; No mitigation required


a-j) The proposed project is within the scope and breadth of the project analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Therefore, construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The above identified mitigation measures would apply, and the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to hydrology and water quality would not change.



10. Land Use and Planning



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community? -- --

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

--

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

-- --

d) Exceed an LRDP EIR standard of significance by being substantially incompatible with existing land uses, or by substantially conflicting use, density, height and bulk restrictions of local zoning, although UCSF is exempt from such restrictions?

--

2014 LRDP EIR Analysis The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed land use impacts associated with campus growth and development, and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a) Physically divide established community: No impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).

b) Consistency with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

c) Conflict with applicable conservation plans: No impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).

d) Compatibility with adjacent existing land uses, density, and height and bulk restrictions: Less than Significant; No mitigation required



a-d) The proposed project land use is substantially the same as the Block 33/34 project analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed about 500,000 gsf of research/office on the Block 33/34 site, as well as about 500 parking spaces. The 2014 LRDP EIR also analyzed a Variant with about 250,000 gsf of clinic space with the remainder 250,000 gsf as research/office use.

Pursuant to the University of California’s constitutional autonomy, development and uses on property owned or leased by the University that are in furtherance of the University’s educational purposes are not subject to local land use regulation. However, UCSF views local land use policies as planning guidelines for its proposed developments. As stated in the Project Description in this Addendum,



when the University acquired Blocks 33/34, the University of California and the San Francisco Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding, among other things, the design of buildings on the project site. Pursuant to the MOU, the proposed development would follow the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Area Plan “Design for Development” regarding building height, bulk, setbacks, maximum tower floorplate and other design matters. As discussed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, the Block 33/34 land uses would be consistent with the City’s Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan. However, clinical uses are considered a “secondary use” under the Plan and would require a finding of consistency with the Plan by the San Francisco Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII). A Secondary Use Determination was approved by the Executive Director of OCII on December 23, 2016 approving about 250,000 of clinic space within the 500,000 gsf developable space on the Block 33/34 site as per the 2014 LRDP EIR.

The proposed project is a building of about 343,000 gsf primarily comprised of research/office with ancillary centralized meeting space and retail space and the Center for Vision Neurosciences clinics and teaching labs. These land uses fall within the land use parameters analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR.

As discussed under Project Description, LRDP Amendment #2 is proposed to revise the functional zone map for the Mission Bay campus site by designating the functional zone for the Block 33 building as within the “Research” functional zone. The remainder of the East Campus would continue to be shown as functionally zoned for “Research” and “Parking” use until the specific footprints for the development of the balance of the parcel are known. These conditions were described in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Land use conditions surrounding the proposed project are substantially the same as when the 2014 LRDP EIR was prepared. No new significant land use impacts would result with the proposed project, and the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR would not change.

11. Mineral Resources



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

-- --

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

-- --


a,b) The Initial Study for the LRDP EIR determined that there would be no impacts to mineral resources.




a,b) The proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.

12. Noise



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

--

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

--

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

--

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (including construction)?

--

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

-- --

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

--

g) Exceed an LRDP EIR standard of significance by contributing to an increase in average daily noise levels (Ldn) of 3 dB(A) or more at property lines, if ambient noise levels in areas adjacent to proposed development already exceed local noise levels set forth in local general plans or ordinances for such areas based on their use?

--

2014 LRDP EIR Analysis The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed noise and vibration impacts associated with campus growth and development, and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a,c,d, f, g)

Noise impacts during construction activities: Less than Significant with Mitigation Measure NOI-LRDP-1, Construction Noise Control Measures.

Noise impacts during pile driving activities: Significant and Unavoidable, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-LRDP-2, Pile Driving Noise-Reducing Techniques and Muffling Devices.

Noise impacts during project operations: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.



Noise impact exposure to persons (new residents) during project operations: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

b) Vibration impacts during construction activities: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

e) Exposure to excessive noise near airport: Less than significant impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).

Cumulative noise impacts due to construction of projects, potentially overlapping in time, would be significant and unavoidable.


a-g) Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project with regard to noise would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Mitigation measures that address construction noise would continue to apply to the proposed project. For these reasons, noise impacts associated with the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

13. Population and Housing



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

--

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

-- --

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

-- --

d) Exceed the LRDP EIR standard of significance by creating a demand for housing outside the market area where the facilities or site are located?

--

2014 LRDP EIR Analysis The 2014 LRDP EIR discussed population growth associated with the 2014 LRDP through increased employment and student enrollment, and concluded the following: a,d) Population growth inducement and creation of demand for housing outside the market area: Less than

Significant; No mitigation required

b,c) Displacement of housing/people: No impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study).



Cumulative population impacts: Less than Significant; No mitigation required


a-d) The proposed project is expected to have an average daily population of about 2,200 persons. This is within the analysis assumptions contained in the 2014 LRDP EIR for the Block 33/34 site, which assumed a population of about 3,500 persons on Blocks 33/34. Therefore, impacts regarding population and housing associated with the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

14. Public Services



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection? --

ii) Police protection? --

iii) Schools? --

iv) Parks? --

v) Other public facilities? --

2014 LRDP EIR Analysis The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed public services impacts associated with campus growth and development, and concluded the following relative the UCSF campus as a whole and the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a) Public services impacts, including fire protection facilities and services: Less than Significant; No mitigation required Cumulative public services impacts: Less than Significant; No mitigation required


a) The proposed project is expected to have an average daily population of about 2,200 persons. This is within the analysis assumptions contained in the 2014 LRDP EIR for the Block 33/34 site, which assumed a population of about 3,500 persons on Blocks 33/34. Therefore, public services impacts of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.



15. Recreation



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

--

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

--


The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed recreation impacts associated with campus growth and development, and concluded the following relative the UCSF campus as a whole and the UCSF Mission Bay campus site: a) Park and recreational facilities usage: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

b) Construction of new recreational facilities: Less than Significant; No mitigation required



a,b) As discussed above, the proposed project is expected to have an average daily population of about 2,200 persons. This is within the analysis assumptions contained in the 2014 LRDP EIR for the Block 33/34 site, which assumed a population of about 3,500 persons on Blocks 33/34. Therefore, recreation impacts of the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.



16. Transportation and Traffic



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

--

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

--

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

-- --

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

--

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? --

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

--

g) Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by causing substantial conflict among autos, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit vehicles?

--


The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed transportation impacts associated with campus growth and development, and concluded the following relative the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a,b,d,e,g) Traffic impacts during construction activities: Less than Significant with Mitigation Measure TRAF-LRDP-1, Construction Coordination and Monitoring Measures

Traffic impacts during campus operations: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

Transit impacts during campus operations: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

Conflict with pedestrian facilities: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

Conflict with bicycle facilities: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

Loading impacts: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

Parking impacts during campus operations: Less than Significant; No mitigation required

Cumulative traffic impacts: Significant and Unavoidable, at the following intersections:



Brannan Street / Seventh Street (PM peak hour)

16th Street / Fourth Street (AM peak hour)

16th Street / Owens Street (AM and PM peak hours)

16th Street / Seventh Street (AM and PM peak hours)

16th Street / Potrero Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)

Cumulative traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-MB-C-1, Implement the Moderate Alternative of the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) Sixteenth Street Proposal; Mitigation Measure TRAF-MB-C-2, Implement Additional TDM Strategies to Reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips; and Mitigation Measure TRAF-MB-C-3, Manage Parking Supply.

The 2014 LRDP EIR included a Variant for Mission Bay Blocks 33-34 in which clinical space was proposed for a portion of development on that block in lieu of research/office uses. Under the LRDP Variant, traffic conditions would be similar to those described above for the 2014 LRDP. All but two of the Mission Bay campus site study intersections would continue to operate at the same levels of service, and have the same impacts (significant or not), with two exceptions: the 16th Street / Seventh Street and Mariposa Street / Third Street intersections. The LRDP Variant would contribute considerably to the significant impacts in the AM peak hour to these two intersections. Mitigation Measure TRAF-MB-C-4, Implement Additional TDM Strategies to Reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips, would reduce impacts at these intersections to less than significant levels.

c) Air traffic patterns impacts: No impact; No mitigation required (per Initial Study). f) Conflict with adopted plans/policies related to transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities: Less than

Significant; No mitigation required.


a-g) Traffic

The proposed project would not alter the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR relating to traffic. The 2014 LRDP EIR assessed traffic impacts associated with proposed 2014 LRDP growth and development using the Level of Service (LOS) criterion to evaluate effects on traffic at nearby intersections. Proposed project a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trips were calculated and compared to the vehicle trip assumptions in the 2014 LRDP EIR for Blocks 33/34.9 The 2014 LRDP EIR estimated that in the a.m. peak hour, the LRDP Variant, which included clinical use, would generate about 510 vehicle trips. The proposed Phase 1 Block 33 project is estimated to generate about 322 vehicle trips in the a.m. peak hour, or about 63% of the a.m. peak hour vehicle trips estimated in the

9 Adavant Consulting, Phase 1 Block 33 Transportation Assessment Memorandum, November 23, 2016.



2014 LRDP EIR. The 2014 LRDP EIR estimated that in the p.m. peak hour, the LRDP Variant would generate about 440 vehicle trips. The proposed Phase 1 Block 33 project is estimated to generate about 269 vehicle trips in the p.m. peak hour, or about 61% of the p.m. peak hour vehicle trips estimated in the 2014 LRDP EIR. As the estimated number of vehicle trips are well within the vehicle trips assumed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, the proposed project would not result in traffic impacts more severe than those identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR.

On January 20, 2016, under Senate Bill (SB) 743 passed in 2013, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a revised proposal for changes to the CEQA Guidelines that will amend the way transportation impacts are analyzed (Public Resources Code Section 21099). Specifically, SB 743, codified as Public Resources Code Section 21099, requires OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS, which essentially reflects auto delay, for evaluating transportation impacts. Measurements of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Because the amended CEQA Guidelines are still under review, the UC Regents has not yet adopted VMT as a transportation impact criterion. The City and County of San Francisco is an early adopter of the VMT transportation impact criterion and is currently assessing transportation impacts of projects under its jurisdiction against this criterion.

As the UC Regents has not yet adopted VMT as a transportation impact criterion, the following discussion is presented for informational purposes. The VMT criterion presumes that certain office projects, including research and development, located within areas where the existing VMT per employee is 15 percent less than the existing regional VMT per employee, are presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. The proposed project meets that criterion. The new criterion identifies thresholds of significance and screening criteria used to determine if a land use project would result in significant impacts under the VMT metric. For development projects, a project would generate substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the regional VMT per capita or employee for the particular use (i.e., office, retail, or residential) less 15 percent. OPR’s proposed transportation impact guidelines state a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds both the existing City household VMT per capita minus 15 percent and existing regional household VMT per capita minus 15 percent. In San Francisco, the City’s average VMT per capita is lower (8.4) than the regional average (17.2). Therefore, the City average is irrelevant for the purposes of the analysis. This approach is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21099 and the thresholds of significance for other land uses recommended in OPR’s proposed transportation impact guidelines.

Given the project site is located in an area where existing VMT is more than 15 percent below the existing regional average, the proposed project would not result in substantial additional VMT and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the conclusions of the LRDP EIR related to traffic impacts.



Transit

The proposed project would not alter the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR. The 2014 LRDP EIR concluded that LRDP growth would not result in demand for public transit that would cause the need for development or expansion of mass transit facilities. The proposed project would generate roughly 60% of the transit trips estimated in the 2014 LRDP EIR for Blocks 33/34. Therefore, impacts on public transit would not be significant and would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

Parking

The 2014 LRDP EIR assumed about 500 parking spaces would be developed on Blocks 33/34. The proposed project would include the development of a temporary surface parking lot of about 200 parking spaces to accommodate parking demand associated with patients, visitors and employees. This would be an interim condition until the site is developed with a total of approximately 500 parking spaces as envisioned in the 2014 LRDP and as analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR.

The proposed project is estimated to generate a peak parking demand of about 470 parking spaces, comprised of a demand for about 80 parking spaces by patients and visitors, and about 390 parking spaces by employees. As 200 parking spaces are proposed, the project would result in a shortfall of about 270 parking spaces. UCSF would monitor parking supplies relative to demand and prioritize on-site parking for patients and visitors. Those who cannot park on-site would be expected to park at other nearby UCSF facilities where parking is available, such as the Third Street garage or the Medical Center at Mission Bay parking facilities.

As discussed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, parking demand that is not met by the project is not considered a significant environmental impact. Proposed project impacts relative to parking would not be significant and would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

Loading

The proposed project would provide three off-street loading spaces for commercial vehicles with frontage onto Illinois Street. The total expected commercial/service demand at Block 33 is estimated to be seven to nine trucks per day, resulting in a peak hour demand of two concurrent trucks. Thus, the Block 33 loading area would be able to accommodate the expected peak truck demand on-site. As such, the commercial and service vehicle supply and demand for Block 33 is consistent with the assumptions in the 2014 LRDP EIR, which did not identify any significant impacts related to commercial loading.

Site Circulation

The proposed project calls for a major entry pedestrian plaza at the corner of Third and 16th Streets that provides the main access to the research and office building. The main entrance to the clinical building is located at the mid-block pedestrian open space area at the south end. A patient drop-off plaza is also located at the south end, in front of the main entrance to the clinic, with vehicular access



from Illinois Street and into the temporary parking lot, where a secondary patient drop-off/pick-up area is also provided.

The configuration of the drop-off plaza and adjacent parking area allows for vehicles accessing the clinic to drop-off passengers, park the vehicle, and pick them up again, all while staying within the project site, without having to use the adjacent public streets except when arriving at and departing from the building. Two additional driveways on Illinois Street will provide access to the temporary parking lot. In order to minimize potential vehicle conflicts and facilitate access, the northernmost entrance to the parking lot is located directly across from the existing driveway that provides access to the basement garage and loading docks at 499 Illinois Street.

The transportation assessment performed as part of the 2014 LRDP EIR assumed that vehicular access to Blocks 33 and 34, and the parking garage, would occur at Illinois Street, a local collector street, which is consistent with the currently proposed Block 33 development.

The average flow of patient drop-off vehicles is roughly estimated at 16 autos per hour, with a maximum concentration of four autos at the same time. The current configuration of the drop-off plaza calls for a 70-foot long curb, with capacity for three vehicles; thus, it may be necessary to actively manage the drop-off activities at peak demand times, to ensure the continuous flow of vehicles through the area. The secondary drop-off and pick-up area located inside the temporary parking lot will also assist in decreasing the peak demand for drop-off spaces in front of the main entrance to the clinic.

The configuration of the pedestrian sidewalks adjacent to Block 33 is consistent with the requirements presented in the Mission Bay South Infrastructure Plan (1998), which calls for a 12-foot wide sidewalk along Third Street, a 10-foot wide sidewalk on 16th Street, and a 10.5-foot wide sidewalk on Illinois Street. In addition, the project will expand the pedestrian areas by providing walkable 3-foot and 2-foot building setbacks along Third and 16th Streets, respectively. Furthermore, a new mid-block pedestrian path (Paseo) is provided that connects Third and Illinois Street along the south side of the clinical building.

As such, the proposed site access and circulation conditions for Block 33 are consistent with the requirements presented in the Mission Bay South Infrastructure Plan and the assumptions used in the transportation analyses conducted as part of the 2014 LRDP EIR. Consistent with the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR, the proposed project would not result in substantial conflicts among pedestrians, autos, bicyclists and transit vehicles.



17. Utilities and Service Systems



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

--

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

--

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

--

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

--

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

--

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

--

g) Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

--

h) Result in the wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy (see CEQA Statutes Section 21100(b)(3))?

--

i) Exceed the LRDP EIR standard of significance by requiring or resulting in the construction of new electrical or natural gas facilities, which would cause significant environmental effects?

--

2014 LRDP EIR Analysis The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed impacts on utilities associated with campus growth and development, and concluded the following relative the UCSF Mission Bay campus site:

a,b,e) Wastewater infrastructure: Significant and Unavoidable at Mission Bay campus site, even with the implementation of the following mitigation measures: ‐ Mitigation Measure UTIL-MB-1, requiring monitoring of sanitary sewer flows to the P15 pump

station in congruence with ongoing monitoring conducted by the SFPUC. If the SFPUC determines that improvements are required to increase the capacity of the P15 pump station as a result of development within the pump station basin, including 2014 LRDP development at the Mission Bay campus site, UCSF will contribute its proportionate share to SFPUC for the potential required pump capacity improvements.

‐ Mitigation Measure UTIL-MB-2, requiring monitoring of sanitary sewer flows to the Mariposa pump station in congruence with ongoing monitoring conducted by the SFPUC. If the SFPUC determines that improvements are required to increase the capacity of the Mariposa pump station as a result of development within the pump station basin, including 2014 LRDP development at



the Mission Bay campus site, UCSF will contribute its proportionate share to SFPUC for the potential required pump capacity improvements.

c) Storm drainage infrastructure: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

d) Water supplies: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

f,g) Landfill capacity and solid waste impacts: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

h) Energy consumption: Less than Significant; No mitigation required.

i) New electrical or natural gas facilities impacts: Less than Significant; No mitigation required. If new central plant proposed in the future, additional environmental review will be necessary.

Cumulative impacts: Significant and Unavoidable regarding wastewater infrastructure.


a-i) The proposed project is within the scope and breadth of the project analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR on Block 33/34. As the proposed project would comprise approximately 12% of the 2.9 million gsf in growth assumed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, water consumption and wastewater flows from the proposed project would be roughly 12% of the volumes identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR.

With regard to water consumption, the proposed project would incorporate water-conservation features including drought-tolerant landscaping, efficient irrigation systems, and water-efficient fixtures and building equipment.

Regarding energy consumption, the proposed project intends to exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 20 percent.

With regard to solid waste, UCSF has consistently increased its landfill diversion rate, rising from 51% in 2009 to 64% in 2013 as it strives to meet the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices goal of zero waste by 2020. In addition, Mitigation Measure GHG-LRDP-1 would require that contractors recycle or reuse at least 50% of construction waste or demolition materials, thereby further reducing the amount of solid waste sent to area landfills.

Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR, and the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to utilities would not change.



18. Mandatory Findings of Significance



Analysis Required



Document

Would the project:

a) 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, substantially 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 prehistory?

--

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)?

--

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

--


a) The 2014 LRDP EIR determined that 2014 LRDP growth and development would result in less-than-significant impacts on biological resources, and that impacts on cultural resources would be less than significant with the implementation of identified mitigation measures.

b) The 2014 LRDP EIR found that 2014 LRDP growth and development could have cumulatively considerable impacts in the areas of air quality (construction and operations), noise (construction and operations), traffic (operations), and utilities (operations).

c) The 2014 LRDP EIR determined that 2014 LRDP growth and development would have significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of air quality (construction and operations), historical resources, noise (construction), and utilities. Significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of air quality (construction and operations) and noise (construction) may be considered substantial adverse effects on human beings.


a-c) Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project would be the same as or similar to those impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project related to effects on biological resources, cumulative impacts, and effects on human beings would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

Mitigation Measures


VII. Mitigation Measures Following are the 2014 LRDP EIR Summary Tables of the Mitigation Measures identified for the LRDP (Table 2-1) and for the Mission Bay campus site (Table 2-3). Mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project are highlighted in yellow.

Mitigation Measures


TABLE 2-1SUMMARY OF 2014 LRDP IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Environmental Impact Level of Significance

Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures10 Level of Significance

After Mitigation

Aesthetics AES-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Less than Significant None required Less than Significant

AES-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of UCSF campus sites and surrounding area.


AES-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in flood lighting during nighttime construction activities that would adversely affect nighttime views in the area.

Potentially Significant AES-LRDP-1: UCSF shall require a condition in construction contracts that flood or area lighting for construction activities be placed and directed so as to avoid potential disturbances to adjacent residences or other uses.

Less than Significant

AES-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could create new sources of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Potentially Significant AES-LRDP-2: Minimize light and glare resulting from new buildings through the orientation of the building, use of landscaping materials and choice of primary facade materials. Design standards and guidelines to minimize light and glare shall be adopted for the new buildings, including:

Reflective metal walls and mirrored glass walls shall not be used as primary building materials for facades.

Installation of illuminated building signage shall strive to be consistent with City Planning Code sign standards for illumination and/or UCSF design guidelines.

Exterior light fixtures shall be configured to emphasize close spacing and lower intensity light. Light fixtures shall use luminaries that do not direct the cone of light towards off-campus structures.


AES-LRDP-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could create street-level winds that could be hazardous to pedestrians in the area.

Potentially Significant AES-LRDP-3: Proposed buildings that would exceed 100 feet in height shall be evaluated by a qualified wind consultant to determine the potential of the design to cause a wind hazard as defined in City Planning Code Section 148. If a hazard cannot be judged unlikely, the design shall be wind tested to verify compliance with the hazardous wind criterion of City Planning Code Section 148. Wind tunnel testing would provide site- and design-specific information pertaining to potential wind effects. Feasible means of eliminating or reducing wind hazards include modulating facades through architectural devices (e.g., articulation, variation of planes and building heights, etc.); incorporating building setbacks/terraces into building designs; and, landscaping in appropriate locations (e.g., using plantings to create wind screens). If preliminary wind testing indicates that the building design would increase pedestrian-level wind hazards, UCSF shall modify the proposed building or develop other measures to eliminate increases in hazardous pedestrian-level wind effects.


10 Mitigation measures apply to each subsequent development project at each campus site.

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Aesthetics (cont.) AES-LRDP-6: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could substantially reduce sunlight or significantly increase shadows in public open space areas. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

Potentially Significant AES-LRDP-4: UCSF shall assure that final building designs would not increase shadow on Recreation and Park Department property between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset, in such a way that the use of the property would be adversely affected.


Air Quality AIR-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would be consistent with the primary goals of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) and would not fundamentally conflict with the CAP because the LRDP demonstrates reasonable efforts to implement control measures contained in the CAP.


AIR-LRDP-2: The 2014 LRDP would provide sufficient buffer distances between sensitive land uses and those land uses associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as freeways, high traffic roadways and stationary sources.


AIR-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP proposals would provide sufficient buffer distances between sensitive land uses and sources of odors.


AIR-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants during demolition and construction activities.

Potentially Significant AIR-LRDP-1: Best Management Practices for Controlling Particulate Emissions

The following BAAQMD Best Management Practices for particulate control will be required for all construction activities. These measures will reduce particulate emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

Significant and Unavoidable

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Air Quality (cont.) AIR-LRDP-4 (cont.) 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed

as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, § 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publically visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at UCSF regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s telephone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

AIR-LRDP-2: Architectural Coatings

ROG emissions from the use of architectural coatings shall be reduced by implementing either or both of the following measures if total emissions of ROG exceed 54 pounds per day on average over the construction period.

Architectural coatings shall be applied over the course of 4 months or longer, in order to reduce daily ROG emissions to below the significance threshold.

A minimum of 67% of exterior building materials shall be prefinished to reduce ROG emissions.

AIR-LRDP-3: Off-Road Equipment Control Measures for NOx

All off-road equipment greater than 25 hp and operating for more than 20 total hours over the duration of construction activities shall have engines that meet or exceed U.S. EPA Tier 3 off-road emission standards.meet the following requirements that will not be fully implemented via regulation until 2018 (i.e., the equipment is available for purchase or rental at present but its use not mandated throughout all fleets until 2018):

a. All off-road equipment shall have:

i. Engines that meet or exceed either U.S. EPA Tier 3 off-road emission standards, or

ii. Engines that are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS).

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Air Quality (cont.) AIR-LRDP-4 (cont.) Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-1: Best Management Practices for Controlling

Particulate Emissions will be required for all construction activities to reduce those impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-2: Architectural Coatings would reduce average daily construction emissions of ROG to less than 54 pounds per day of ROG. Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-3: Off-Road Equipment Control Measures for NOx would reduce average daily NOx emissions during building construction, but NOx would still exceed the 54 pound per day threshold. For that reason, the impact of increased emissions of criteria air pollutants during demolition and construction activities would be significant and unavoidable.

AIR-LRDP-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants during operation.

Potentially Significant AIR-LRDP-4: BAAQMD-Suggested Operational Measures

The following measures identified in the 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines shall be considered for implementation for site-specific development projects if not already in place:

Provide and maintain secure bike parking (at least one space per 20 vehicle spaces);

Provide and maintain showers and changing facilities for employees;

Provide information on transportation alternatives to employees;

Provide and maintain preferential carpool and vanpool parking for non-residential uses;

Increase building energy efficiency below Title 24 (reduces NOx related to natural gas combustion);

Require use of electrically powered landscape equipment, where feasible;

Use low VOC architectural coatings in maintaining buildings;

Meet California Green Building Code standards in new construction (reduces NOx related to natural gas combustion);

Adopt policies supporting infill development;

Create and enhance landscaped greenway, trail, and sidewalk connections between neighborhoods, commercial areas, activity centers, and parks; and

Ensure that proposed land uses are supported by a multi-modal transportation system and that the land uses themselves support the development of the transportation system.


Air Quality (cont.) AIR-LRDP-5 (cont.) Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-4 would not result in the 78% reduction

necessary (for ROG) or 41% (for NOx) to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. This amount of traffic reduction exceeds the best reduction estimates for TDM programs (BAAQMD, 2012b). Assuming a conservative

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

12% reduction in vehicle miles travelled associated with TDM measures, emissions of ROG and NOx would still exceed thresholds. Consequently, development under the 2014 LRDP with implementation of feasible mitigation measures would still result in significant environmental effects on air quality and contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation (ozone precursors and particulate matter). Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-4, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable for emissions of ROG and NOx.

AIR-LRDP-6: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in increased emissions of toxic air contaminants that could increase health risks for nearby residents during demolition and construction activities.


Biological Resources BIO-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


BIO-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


BIO-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

No Impact None required No Impact

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Biological Resources (cont.) BIO-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Potentially Significant BIO-LRDP-1: Bird-Safe Building Treatments.

Employ glazing options such as use of either fritted glass, Dichroic glass, etched glass, translucent glass, or glass that reflects ultraviolet light in appropriate portions of the façade.

Minimize light and glare resulting from new buildings through the orientation of the building, use of landscaping materials and choice of primary facade materials. Design standards and guidelines to minimize light and glare shall be adopted for the new buildings, including: reflective metal walls and mirrored glass walls shall not be used as primary building materials for facades.


BIO-LRDP-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources.


BIO-LRDP-6: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other applicable habitat conservation plan.


BIO-LRDP-7: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not exceed the LRDP EIR standard of significance by damaging or removing heritage or landmark trees or native oak trees of a diameter specified in a local ordinance.


Cultural Resources CUL-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LDP could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Potentially Significant CUL-LRDP-1: Before altering or otherwise affecting a building or structure 50 years old or older, the campus shall retain a qualified architectural historian to record it on a California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 form. Its significance shall be assessed by a qualified architectural historian, using the significance criteria set forth for historic resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. For historic buildings, structures or features that do not meet the CEQA criteria for historical resource, no further mitigation is required and the impact is less than significant.

For a building or structure that qualifies as a historic resource, the architectural historian and UCSF shall consider measures that would enable the project to avoid direct or indirect impacts to the building or structure. These could include project redesign or other measures that would avoid altering the building. All rehabilitation work of an historic building or structure shall be conducted in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Cultural Resources (cont.) CUL-LRDP-1 (cont.) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for

Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, to the extent feasible. Alterations to cultural landscapes shall be conducted in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitating Cultural Landscapes.

If it is not feasible to meet the Secretary’s Standards, the impact could be a significant and unavoidable impact.

CUL-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in demolition of historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Potentially Significant CUL-LRDP-2: If a significant historic building or structure is proposed for substantial alteration or demolition, UCSF shall ensure that a qualified architectural historian thoroughly documents the building and associated landscaping and setting. Documentation shall include still photography and a written documentary record of the building to the National Park Service’s standards of the Historic American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record, including accurate scaled mapping and architectural descriptions. If available, scaled architectural plans will also be included. Photos include large-format (4”X5”) black-and-white negatives and 8”X10” enlargements. Digital photography may be substituted for large-format negative photography if archived locally. The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site-specific history and appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate. A copy of the record shall be archived with the UCSF archives, the History Room of the San Francisco Public Library, the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, and the San Francisco Planning Department.

UCSF shall install interpretive materials at or near the site to enhance public awareness in the form of a historical marker, kiosk, or other display that contains historical photos and text about the building’s historical significance.


CUL-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in a substantial adverse change to archaeological resources.

Potentially Significant CUL-LRDP-3: Should an archaeological artifact be discovered during project construction and excavation, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction” shall be instituted. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and UCSF shall consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find (per Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 and/or Public Resource Code 21083.2 in the event of a unique archaeological find). If any find is determined to be significant and will be adversely affected by the project, representatives of UCSF and the qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist shall meet to


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Cultural Resources (cont.) CUL-LRDP-3 (cont.) determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate

mitigation (per CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (b) and Public Resource Code 21083.2). All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documented by the qualified archaeologist according to current professional standards (per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR44716)).

CUL-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in a substantial adverse change to paleontological resources.

Potentially Significant CUL-LRDP-4: If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate salvage measures in consultation with UCSF and in conformance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Guidelines (SVP, 1995; SVP, 1996).


CUL-LRDP-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in a substantial adverse change to human remains.

Potentially Significant CUL-LRDP-5: If the discovery includes human remains, CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (e)(1) shall be followed:

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:

(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

(A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and

(B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: (1) the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. (2) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. (3) The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or

(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Cultural Resources (cont.) CUL-LRDP-5 (cont.) (A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a

most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.

(B) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or

(C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity GEO-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in adverse effects to people and structures resulting from geologic hazards.


GEO-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.


Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in an increase in construction-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Potentially Significant GHG-LRDP-1: Construction-Related GHG Reduction Measures

The following BAAQMD-suggested measures shall be implemented during demolition and construction activities:

Use alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment where feasible;

Use locally sourced building materials for at least 10% of overall materials brought to site; and

Recycle or reuse at least 50% of construction waste or demolition materials.


GHG-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in an increase in operational greenhouse gas emissions.


GHG-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not conflict with the AB32 Scoping Plan, the UCSF Climate Action Plan or the UCSF GHG Reduction Strategy.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could create a significant hazard to the public or the

Potentially Significant HAZ-LRDP-1: An Excavation Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified consultant to include the California Air Resource Board (CARB)


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.

Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations to minimize naturally occurring asbestos through the application of best management practices for fugitive dust from construction, grading and excavation operations. Unless site specific testing by a certified laboratory can demonstrate the absence of encountering naturally occurring asbestos, construction specifications shall include implementation of this CARB ATCM.

HAZ-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of existing or proposed schools.


HAZ-LRDP-3: 2014 LRDP proposals are located on campus sites that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public.

Potentially Significant HAZ-LRDP-2: Prior to development on the Mission Center campus site, a Soil Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified environmental consulting firm to reflect current regulatory requirements and risk management protocols that are in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board oversight. The Plan shall include measures to address protocols for identifying, handling, and characterizing suspect contaminated soils. Notification and sampling requirements for adequate characterization shall be in accordance with the overseeing agency (RWQCB or SFDEH) and any additional removal or remediation work completed prior to occupancy of the new structure.


HAZ-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip.


HAZ-LRDP-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant)


HAZ-LRDP-6: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. (Less than Significant)


Hydrology and Water Quality HYD-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

HYD-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.


HYD-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not generate runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.


HYD-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, potentially impede flood flows and potentially expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death associated with flooding.


HYD-LRDP-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to tsunami, seiche or mudflow.


HYD-LRDP-6: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would expose people or structures to an increased risk of loss, injury or death due to flooding from sea level rise.


Land Use and Planning LU-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.


LU-LRDP-2: The 2014 LRDP would not be incompatible with the City of San Francisco land use regulations.


Noise NOI-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in increased ambient noise levels during demolition and construction activities.

Potentially Significant NOI-LRDP-1a: Construction Noise Control Measures

UCSF contractors shall employ site-specific noise attenuation measures during construction to reduce the generation of construction noise. These measures shall be included in a Noise Control Plan that shall be submitted


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

for review and approval by UCSF to ensure that construction noise is consistent with the standards set forth in the City’s Noise Ordinance. Measures specified in the Noise Control Plan and implemented during project construction shall include, at a minimum, the following noise control strategies:

Equipment and trucks used for construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds.

Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used where feasible.

Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or include other measures.

NOI-LRDP-1b: Construction Hours

Construction hours are restricted to the hours listed in the table below. In rare circumstances, work may need to occur outside of these work hour limits. In such cases, UCSF Community and Government Relations will receive advance notice from the project manager, at least one week in advance as feasible, and will engage the community to identify measures to minimize potential impacts.

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Noise (cont.) NOI-LRDP-1 (cont.) “Not Noisy” Work1 Noisy Work

Regular hours

Extended hours2

Regular hours

Extended hours

Monday - Friday

7:00 am to 5:00 pm

5:00 pm to 8:00 pm

8:00 am to 5:00 pm

Saturday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm

9:00 am to

4:00 pm

Sunday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm

1 “Not Noisy” work = 80 decibels or less at 100 feet; “Noisy” work = more than 80 decibels at 100 feet.

2 Extended hours to be considered by UCSF Community and Government Relations with advance notice from the project manager.

NOI-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in increased ambient noise levels during pile-driving activities.

Potentially Significant NOI-LRDP-2: Pile Driving Noise-Reducing Techniques and Muffling Devices

Noise-reducing pile-driving techniques shall be employed during project construction. These techniques shall include:

Installing cast in place concrete piles. Noise from auger drilling is 17 dBA less than an impact pile driver.

Vibrating piles into place, and installing shrouds around the pile-driving hammer where feasible.

Installing intake and exhaust mufflers on pile-driving equipment

Implement “quiet” pile-driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration).

Use cushion blocks to dampen impact noise. Cushion blocks are blocks of material that are used with impact hammer pile drivers. They consist of blocks of material placed atop a piling during installation to minimize noise generated when driving the pile. Materials typically used for cushion blocks include wood, nylon and micarta (a composite material).

At least 48 hours prior to pile-driving activities, UCSF shall notify building owners and occupants within 600 feet of the project site of the dates, hours, and expected duration of such activities.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Noise (cont.) NOI-LRDP-2 (cont.) Mitigation Measure NOI-LRDP-2 would reduce the severity of noise

generated by pile-driving activities and reduce the potential annoyance to nearby residents and others who could be disturbed by pile-driving to the extent feasible. If piles can be installed though drilling and cast in place measures then this mitigation measure would result in a less than significant impact.

However, if geotechnical conditions exist such that impact or vibratory pile-driving is required, then construction noise would be significant. Although pile-driving noise would be intermittent and would occur over a short duration, even after mitigation the noise level above the ambient noise level would likely exceed 20 dBA during pile-driving activities, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

NOI-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would generate ground-borne vibration during demolition and construction activities.


NOI-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could cause a long-term increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity.


NOI-LRDP-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in exposure of persons (new residents) to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of San Francisco General Plan.


Population and Housing POP-LRDP-1: The 2014 LRDP would induce population growth in the San Francisco Bay area, which could create demand for housing outside the market area.


Public Services PUB-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Public Services (cont.) PUB-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities, need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.


PUB-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public school facilities, need for new or physically altered public school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.


Recreation REC-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.


REC-LRDP-2: The 2014 LRDP includes new recreational facilities, the construction of which could have an adverse impact on the environment.


Transportation and Traffic TRAF-LRDP-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would be consistent with the primary goals of the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) with respect to transportation and would not fundamentally conflict with the CCSF’s Transit First Policy because the 2014 LRDP demonstrates reasonable efforts to continue transportation services (e.g., the UCSF Shuttles) that encourage alternatives to use of single-occupant automobiles.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Transportation and Traffic (cont.) TRAF-LRDP-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could cause substantial adverse impacts to traffic flow, circulation and access as well as to transit, pedestrian, and parking conditions during demolition and construction activities.

Potentially Significant TRAF-LRDP-1: Construction Coordination and Monitoring Measures.

Traffic Control Plan for Construction –In order to reduce potential conflicts between construction activities and pedestrians, transit and autos during construction activities at the four campus sites, UCSF shall require construction contractor(s) to prepare a traffic control plan for major phases of project construction (e.g. demolition, construction, or renovation of individual buildings). UCSF and its construction contractor(s) will meet with relevant City agencies to coordinate feasible measures to reduce traffic congestion, including temporary transit stop relocations (e.g. Parnassus Avenue (Parnassus Heights), Sutter Street (Mount Zion), etc.) and other measures to reduce potential traffic and transit disruption and pedestrian circulation effects during major phases of construction of the 2014 LRDP Projects. For any work within the public right-of-way, the contractor would be required to comply with the City of San Francisco’s Regulations for Working in San Francisco Streets (the Blue Book), which establish rules and permit requirements so that construction activities can be done safely and with the least possible interference with pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and vehicular traffic. 11 In addition to the regulations in the Blue Book, UCSF shall require the construction contractor(s) to comply with all state and federal codes, rules and regulations.

In the event that the construction timeframes of the major phases and other development projects adjacent to UCSF overlap, such as the adjacent proposed development at Mission Bay Blocks 29-32, UCSF shall coordinate with City Agencies through the Transportation Advisory Staff Committee (TASC) and the adjacent developers to minimize the severity of any disruption to adjacent land uses and transportation facilities from overlapping construction transportation impacts. UCSF, in conjunction with the adjacent developer, shall propose a construction traffic control plan that includes measures to reduce potential construction traffic conflicts, such as staggering start and end times, coordinated material drop offs, collective worker parking and transit to job site and other measures.

Reduce SOV Mode Share for Construction Workers – In order to minimize parking demand and vehicle trips associated with construction workers, UCSF shall require the construction contractor to include in the Traffic Control Plan for Construction methods to encourage walking, bicycling, carpooling and transit access to the campus sites by construction workers in the coordinated plan.


11 The SFMTA Blue Book, 8th Edition (2012), is available online through SFMTA (sfmta.com).

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Transportation and Traffic (cont.) TRAF-LRDP-2 (cont.) Project Construction Updates for Adjacent Residents and Businesses –

In order to minimize construction impacts on access for nearby residences, institutions and businesses, UCSF shall provide nearby residences and adjacent businesses with regularly-updated information regarding project construction, including construction activities, peak construction vehicle activities (e.g., concrete pours), travel lane closures, and lane closures via a newsletter and/or website.

TRAF-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would result in temporary increases in traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of each of the four campus sites during demolition and construction activities.

Potentially Significant Implement TRAF-LRDP-1 Less than Significant

TRAF-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would increase traffic (vehicles, transit ridership, pedestrian and bicycle volumes) on the roadway network that serves each of the four campus sites, as well as increase loading and parking demand.


Utilities and Service Systems UTIL-LRDP-1: There would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the 2014 LRDP from existing entitlements and resources and no new or expanded water treatment facilities would be required.


UTIL-LRDP-2: The wastewater treatment provider has adequate capacity to serve UCSF’s projected demand resulting from implementation of the 2014 LRDP and no new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities would be required.


UTIL-LRDP-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.


UTIL-LRDP-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Utilities and Service Systems (cont.) UTIL-LRDP-5: UCSF be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate solid waste needs resulting from implementation of the 2014 LRDP and would comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste.


UTIL-LRDP-6: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP would not result in the wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.


UTIL-LRDP-7: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP could result in the construction of new electrical or natural gas facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects.


Mitigation Measures


TABLE 2-3SUMMARY OF 2014 LRDP PROPOSALS – MISSION BAY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES



After Mitigation

Aesthetics AES-MB-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.


AES-MB-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.


AES-MB-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site could create new sources of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Potentially Significant Implement AES-LRDP-1 Less than Significant

AES-MB-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site could result in flood lighting during nighttime construction activities.


AES-MB-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site could create street-level winds that could be hazardous to pedestrians in the area.


AES-MB-6: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site could substantially reduce sunlight or significantly increase shadows in public open space areas or could shadow the potential school site on Block 14.


Air Quality AIR-MB-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction activities.

Potentially Significant Implement AIR-LRDP-1, AIR-LRDP-2, and AIR-LRDP-3 Less than Significant

AIR-MB-2: Construction activities at the Mission Bay campus site under the 2014 LRDP would increase emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and increase health risks for nearby residents.

Potentially Significant AIR-MB-1: Obtain written verification from BAAQMD that the facility has been issued a permit from BAAQMD, if required by law, or that permit requirements do not apply to the facility. (Modified from Mission Bay Subsequent EIR Mitigation Measure F.03)


AIR-MB-3: Operations at the Mission Bay campus site under the 2014 LRDP would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants.

Potentially Significant Implement AIR-LRDP-4

Mitigation Measure AIR-LRDP-4 would not result in the 59% reduction necessary (for ROG) or 27% (for NOx) to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. This amount of traffic reduction exceeds the best reduction estimates for TDM programs (BAAQMD, 2012b). Assuming a conservative 12% reduction in vehicle miles travelled


12 This table references the mitigation measures in Table 2-1, as well as additional mitigation measures that apply to the Mission Bay campus site.

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Air Quality (cont.) AIR-MB-3 (cont.) associated with TDM measures, operational emissions of ROG at the

Mission Bay campus site would be reduced to 126.8 pounds per day and emissions of NOx would be reduced to 62.68 pounds per day. Consequently, 2014 LRDP development at the campus site with implementation of feasible mitigations would still result in significant environmental effects on air quality and contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation (ozone precursors and particulate matter). Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-MB-4, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable for emissions of ROG, NOx and PM10.

AIR-MB-4: Operations at the Mission Bay campus site under the 2014 LRDP would expose persons (new receptors) to substantial levels of TACs, which may lead to adverse health effects.

Potentially Significant AIR-MB-4: Particulate Filtration Systems for Block 15 Housing and Child Care.

Air Filtration and Ventilation Requirements for Sensitive Land Uses. As part of the building design, UCSF shall include a ventilation plan for the proposed housing and day care building. The ventilation plan shall show that the building ventilation system removes at least 80% of the outdoor PM2.5 concentrations from habitable areas and be designed by an engineer certified by ASHRAE, who shall provide a written report documenting that the system meets the 80% performance standard and offers the best available technology to minimize outdoor to indoor transmission of PM2.5.

Maintenance Plan. UCSF shall prepare a plan that ensures ongoing maintenance for the ventilation and filtration systems.


AIR-MB-5: Operations at the Mission Bay campus site under the 2014 LRDP would cumulatively expose persons (existing and new receptors) to substantial levels of TACs, which may lead to adverse health effects.


Biological Resources None

Cultural Resources CUL-MB-1: Construction of 2014 LRDP proposals at the Mission Bay campus site could cause substantial adverse changes to archaeological resources.

Potentially Significant Implement CUL-LRDP-3 Less than Significant

CUL-MB-2: Construction of 2014 LRDP proposals at the Mission Bay campus site could cause substantial adverse changes to paleontological resources.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Cultural Resources (cont.) CUL-MB-3: Construction of 2014 LRDP proposals at the Mission Bay campus site could cause substantial adverse changes to human remains.


Geology, Soils and Seismicity Geology, soils and seismicity impacts at the Mission Bay campus site are included in evaluation of overall 2014 LRDP effects as discussed under Impact GEO-LRDP-1 and GEO-LRDP-2 (see Table 2-1).


Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-MB-1: Development at the Mission Bay campus site under the 2014 LRDP would result in an increase in construction-related GHG emissions.

Potentially Significant Implement GHG-LRDP-1 Less than Significant

GHG-MB-2: Development at the Mission Bay campus site under the 2014 LRDP would result in an increase in operational GHG emissions.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-MB-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.

Potentially Significant Implement HAZ-LRDP-1 Less than Significant

HAZ-MB-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay site could result in hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of existing or proposed schools.


HAZ-MB-3: 2014 LRDP proposals located at the Mission Bay campus sites that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public.


HAZ-MB-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Hydrology and Water Quality HYD-MB-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

Potentially Significant HYD-MB-1a: Participate in the City’s existing Water Pollution Prevention Program. UCSF shall facilitate implementation of the City’s Water Pollution Prevention Program by providing and installing wastewater sampling ports in any building anticipated to have a potentially significant discharge of pollutants to the sanitary sewer, as determined by the Water Pollution Prevention Program of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Bureau of Environmental Regulation and Management, and in locations as determined by the Water Pollution Prevention Program. (Mission Bay Subsequent EIR Mitigation Measure K.02).

HYD-MB-1b: UCSF shall design and construct sewer improvements such that potential flows to the City’s combined sewer system from the project do not contribute to an increase in the annual overflow volume as projected by the Bayside Planning Model by providing increased storage in oversized pipes, centralized storage facilities, smaller dispersed storage facilities, or detention basins, or through other means to reduce or delay stormwater discharges to the City system. (Mission Bay Subsequent EIR Mitigation Measure K.03).

HYD-MB-1c: Implement alternative technologies or use other means to reduce settleable solids and floatable materials in stormwater discharges to China Basin Channel to levels equivalent to, or better than, City-treated combined sewer overflows. Such alternatives technologies could include one or more of the following: biofilter system, vortex sediment system, catch basin filters, and/or additional source control measures to remove particulates from streets and parking lots. (Modified from Mission Bay Subsequent EIR Mitigation Measure K.04).


HYD-MB-2: Development of proposed housing on Block 15 at the Mission Bay campus site would place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on the preliminary (2013) FIRM map for San Francisco, potentially impede flood flows, and potentially expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death associated with flooding.


HYD-MB-3: Development of 2014 LRDP proposals on the Mission Bay campus site would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death due to inundation by seiches or tsunamis.


HYD-MB-4: Development of 2014 LRDP proposals on the Mission Bay campus site would expose people or structures to an increased risk of loss, injury or death due to flooding from sea level rise.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Land Use and Planning LU-MB-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site would be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.


LU-MB-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site would be compatible with existing land uses, density, and height and bulk restrictions.


Noise NOI-MB-1: Construction activities proposed under the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site would result in increases in ambient noise levels over the term of the exterior construction activities.

Potentially Significant Implement NOI-LRDP-1 Less than Significant

NOI-MB-2: Construction activities proposed under the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site would result in increases in ambient noise levels during pile-driving activities.

Potentially Significant Implement NOI-LRDP-2

Mitigation Measure NOI-LRDP-2 would reduce the severity of noise generated by pile-driving activities and reduce the potential annoyance to nearby residents and others who could be disturbed by pile-driving to the extent feasible. If piles can be installed though drilling and cast in place measures then this mitigation measure would result in a less than significant impact.

However, if geotechnical conditions exist such that impact or vibratory pile-driving is required, then construction noise would be significant. Although pile-driving noise would be intermittent and would occur over a short duration, even after mitigation the noise level would likely exceed 20 dBA during pile-driving activities, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.


NOI-MB-3: Construction activities proposed under the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site could generate ground-borne vibration.


NOI-MB-4: Operational noise generated by development under the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site could cause a long-term increase in ambient noise levels in the campus vicinity.


NOI-MB-5: Operations under the 2014 LRDP at the Mission Bay campus site would result in exposure of persons (new residents) to noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan.


Population and Housing No site-specific impacts

Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Public Services No site-specific impacts

Recreation No site-specific impacts

Transportation and Traffic TRAF-MB-1: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP on the Mission Bay campus site could cause substantial adverse impacts to traffic flow, circulation and access as well as to transit, pedestrian, and parking conditions during construction activities.

Potentially Significant Implement TRAF-LRDP-1 Less than Significant

TRAF-MB-2: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP on the Mission Bay campus site would increase traffic at intersections on the adjacent roadway network.


TRAF-MB-3: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP on the Mission Bay campus site would increase transit ridership demand.


TRAF-MB-4: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP on the Mission Bay campus site would not cause a substantial conflict with pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.


TRAF-MB-5: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP on the Mission Bay campus site would not would not cause a substantial conflict with bicycle facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.


TRAF-MB-6: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP on the Mission Bay campus site would increase loading demand.


TRAF-MB-7: Implementation of the 2014 LRDP on the Mission Bay campus site would increase parking demand.


Utilities and Service Systems The overall effects on utilities at the Mission Bay campus site are included in evaluation of 2014 LRDP effects as discussed under Impact UTIL-LRDP-1 through UTIL-LRDP-7 (see Table 2-1).


UTIL-MB-1: There would be sufficient water supply infrastructure to serve 2014 LRDP development at the Mission Bay campus site.


Mitigation Measures





After Mitigation

Utilities and Service Systems (cont.) UTIL-MB-2: There may be impacts related to wastewater infrastructure as a result of 2014 LRDP development at the Mission Bay campus site.

Potentially Significant UTIL-MB-1: UCSF will monitor sanitary sewer flows to the P15 pump station in congruence with on-going monitoring conducted by the SFPUC. If the SFPUC determines that improvements are required to increase the capacity of the P15 pump station as a result of development within the pump station basin, including 2014 UCSF LRDP development at the Mission Bay campus site, UCSF will contribute its fair proportionate share to SFPUC for the potential required pump capacity improvements.

UCSF will monitor sanitary sewer flows to the Mariposa Pump Station in congruence with on-going monitoring conducted by the SFPUC. If the SFPUC determines that improvements are required to increase the capacity of the Mariposa Pump Station as a result of development within the pump station basin, including 2014 UCSF LRDP development at the Mission Bay campus site, UCSF will contribute its fair proportionate share to SFPUC for the potential required improvements.

Because potential improvements are outside UCSF jurisdiction to implement, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable even with the incorporation of the above-noted mitigation measures.


UTIL-MB-3: There would be sufficient storm drainage infrastructure to serve 2014 LRDP development at the Mission Bay campus site.
