Page 1 of 10

ADDENDUM

November 2019

Final Environmental Impact Report UCSF Research Building and City Parking Garage Expansion

at the Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center Campus

State Clearinghouse Number 2015102010

This Addendum discusses the proposed revisions to the design of the proposed University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Research Building at the Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center Campus (ZSFG), relative to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed UCSF Research Building project, now referred to as the Research and Academic Building (RAB), was analyzed at a project level in the UCSF Research Building and City Parking Garage Expansion at the ZSFG Campus Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), certified by the University of California Board of Regents (Regents) on November 16, 2016. Since certification of the Final EIR, the design of the RAB has been refined. This Addendum reaffirms the conclusions of the Final EIR relative to the revised project.

Background

The Final EIR evaluated the proposed development of the RAB on the ZSFG campus, on the site of a surface parking lot along 23rd Street known as the B/C Lot (Figure 1). The proposed RAB would house existing UCSF research and academic functions that need to be vacated from seismically compromised City-owned buildings on the ZSFG campus that do not meet UC’s Seismic Safety Policy. As discussed in the Final EIR, the proposed RAB was to be about 175,000 gross square feet (gsf), five stories, and about 80 feet in height, plus a mechanical penthouse. Although an assumed massing was presented, no façade design was available, nor were specifications of exterior materials. It was estimated that the building population would be approximately 800, comprised of about 680 people relocating to the new building from elsewhere within the ZSFG campus, and approximately 120 people relocating to the new building from off-site. The proposed project included an on-campus roadway between the proposed RAB and the existing Building 5, the former hospital. The proposed roadway would connect the existing loop road on the west to Vermont Street on the east, and would include parking spaces and passenger loading.

The Final EIR also evaluated an expansion of the existing City-owned parking structure located to the south of the B/C parking lot, across 23rd Street. Since certification of the Final EIR, the City and County of San Francisco Parking Authority, which owns the parking structure, decided not to proceed with the expansion of the parking structure.

Page 2 of 10

Figure 1: Location Map

Page 3 of 10

Proposed Revisions to the Project

Since certification of the Final EIR, the RAB project has been refined and façade treatments have been identified. The revised RAB project remains the same size at approximately 175,000 gross square feet (gsf) and five stories. The height would increase slightly from the proposed 80 feet in height to a revised 85 feet in height, an increase of 5 feet requested by the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to maintain consistency with the heights of nearby historic brick buildings on campus.

The massing of the building has been revised in response to the HPC request that design guidelines applicable to the project include a provision that the vertical orientation of the building be emphasized. The proposed project included a top floor setback that extended the full length of the building, visually emphasizing the horizontality of the building. The revised project eliminates the setback and incorporates a façade design that emphasizes verticality, including vertically-oriented terra cotta panels, complemented by clear sections of frontage with metal frames, and vertical metal fins to provide solar shading (Figures 2, 3, and 4).

The revised project would reduce the population at the RAB compared to the prior estimate of 800 people. The revised project estimates that the population would be approximately 700 people, or about a 13 % reduction of the prior estimate.

Figure 2: South Elevation

Page 4 of 10

Figure 3: North Elevation

Figure 4: View from 23rd Street

Page 5 of 10

Relationship to the UCSF Long Range Development Plan

Each campus of the University of California is required to periodically prepare a Long Range Development Plan (“LRDP”) to guide campus growth and future development. In November 2014, the Board of Regents of the University of California (“the Regents”) adopted the UCSF 2014 LRDP, a comprehensive physical land use plan and policy document to guide the physical development of the campus to accommodate 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.

The ZSFG campus is discussed in LRDP Chapter 7, San Francisco General Hospital, and the proposed RAB is identified as a potential project. As the project was anticipated in the LRDP, no revision of the LRDP is necessary.

Addendum to the Final EIR

This Addendum was prepared to discuss any changes to the project or changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken that may affect the prior environmental analysis prepared for the RAB project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calls for the preparation of a subsequent 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 EIR or Negative Declaration need not be prepared because:

Page 6 of 10

1. The revised project consists of minor refinements to the design of the proposed building. The revised project remains at the same site, would be of the same size at 175,000 gsf, and would include fewer people at the site. Although the revised project would be about 5 feet taller than the proposed project, no new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur for the reasons discussed in the analysis below.

2. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the revised project is undertaken. The Final EIR accounted for other existing and planned projects in the vicinity, including the completion and opening of the new Main Hospital, and the Potrero Avenue Roadway Improvement project, both of which have been completed; and the renovation and backfill of Building 5 (former Main Hospital), which is ongoing.

3. No new information of substantial importance related to the revised project exists and the project would not require new mitigation measures or result in mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR adopted by the Regents in November 2016.

The revised project would not alter any of the conclusions of the Final EIR analyses under any analysis topic area. Below are the environmental topic areas that warrant discussion: Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Transportation.

1. Aesthetics

The Final EIR concluded that the impacts of the proposed project with regard to scenic resources and visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, would be less-than-significant. The Initial Study for the proposed project identified mitigation measures to ensure that potential impacts of light and glare would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, both during operations and during construction activities.

The revised project would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR regarding aesthetics. Existing buildings at the ZSFG campus are varied in terms of height, massing, and façade designs, and the revised project would fall within the range of existing building treatments. The revised project façade design, incorporating vertical terra cotta elements, glazing, metal frames, and metal solar fins, would be consistent with the visual quality of the site and its surroundings. Metal components would not be reflective and would not be a substantial source of glare. The revised project’s change in massing and additional building height of 5 feet are a direct result of discussions with the HPC, which requested these changes to ensure that the building would be more in keeping with the San Francisco General Hospital Historic District (see Cultural Resources discussion below). The massing and height of the revised project would be in keeping with the ZSFG campus and would have a less-than-significant effect on visual character or quality, as with the proposed project.

For the reasons stated, aesthetic impacts with the revised project would not be significant and would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR.

2. Cultural Resources

As discussed in the Final EIR, the ZSFG campus comprises a historic district, referred to as the San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) Historic District, which is eligible for listing in the National Register

Page 7 of 10

of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The SFGH District is recommended eligible under Criterion A/1 for its association with the development of San Francisco’s public health system, as well as for its contributions to national public health trends, medical research, and education in the 20th century. The SFGH District is also recommended eligible under Criterion C/3 as a distinctively planned architectural complex dedicated to the administration and delivery of health care in the early 20th century, and as the work of a master architect.1

The Final EIR determined that proposed project impacts on the SFGH Historic District would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CP-1: Design Guidelines for Research Building. Specific design guidelines identified in Mitigation Measure CP-1, which incorporated feedback from the HPC, include guidelines on siting, height, scale, massing, materials, cladding, windows, street frontage and site features.

The Final EIR found that proposed project impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CP-2: Archaeological Research Design, Testing and Evaluation Plan, Archaeological Monitoring Program and/or Archaeological Discovery Program; and CP-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources. Impacts related to disturbance of human remains and tribal cultural resources were determined to be less than significant.

The revised project would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR regarding cultural resources. Revised project impacts on archaeological resources, paleontological resources, disturbance of human remains, and tribal cultural resources would be the same as with the proposed project, as the foundations and degree of ground disturbance would remain the same as with the proposed project.

With regard to historical resources, as mentioned above, during the HPC’s initial review of the proposed project, the HPC requested that the design guidelines provide for an additional 5 feet of building height for an allowed height of about 85 feet, and include a discussion regarding vertical design emphasis, to ensure that the building would be more in keeping with the SFGH Historic District. The recommendations by the HPC were incorporated into the design guidelines, which comprised Final EIR Mitigation Measure CP-1: Design Guidelines for Research Building. In accordance with the mitigation measure, the revised project would be 85 feet tall and incorporate vertical design elements. The revised project also responds to other aspects of the design guidelines regarding scale, massing, materials, cladding, windows, and site features.

The revised project design was reviewed by Architectural Resources Group (ARG), the preservation firm that helped to author the design guidelines. ARG determined that the revised project is consistent with the design guidelines, with the one exception that it is technically not consistent with the design guideline that the south façade incorporate at least one prominent pedestrian entry.2 For security reasons, the building’s main entry would be located on the northwest corner nearest the main entry to the existing main hospital.

1 The original SFGH campus, completed in 1915, was designed by Newton J. Tharp, City Architect of San Francisco following the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. 2 Architectural Resources Group, UCSF Research and Academic Building Assessment memorandum dated September 3, 2019.

Page 8 of 10

The revised project and ARG assessment were presented to the HPC on September 18, 2019 to demonstrate adherence to the design guidelines. The HPC concurred that the revised project is, on balance, consistent with the design guidelines.

For the above stated reasons, the revised project’s impacts on cultural resources would not be significant and would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR.

3. Transportation

The Final EIR analyzed proposed project impacts on traffic, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle safety, loading, parking and emergency access. Construction-period impacts were also analyzed. The Final EIR determined impacts of the proposed project on public transit, pedestrian and bicycle safety, loading, parking and emergency access to be less than significant. Proposed project construction-period impacts were also determined to be less than significant.

Regarding traffic, the Final EIR analyzed intersection level-of-service (LOS) impacts, which at the time of EIR preparation was the standard metric for assessing the significance of traffic impacts. The Final EIR also presented for informational purposes the performance of the proposed project relative to the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) metric.

The Final EIR found that the proposed project-generated additional vehicle trips would have a significant impact in the p.m. peak hour on LOS at the intersection of 24th Street and Potrero Avenue, from the existing condition of LOS D (acceptable) to a proposed condition of LOS F (unacceptable). To address this impact, the following mitigation measures were identified:

• Mitigation Measure TR-1: Restripe 24th Street at Potrero Avenue to Provide a Westbound Left-Turn Pocket

• Mitigation Measure TR-2: Open 23rd Street Exit of 23rd Street Garage during the PM Peak Period

• Mitigation Measure TR-3: Implement Additional TDM Strategies to Reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips

Because the University does not have the authority to implement Mitigation Measures TR-1 and TR-2 without the approval and assistance of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), the traffic impact at 24th Street / Potrero Avenue was determined to be Significant and Unavoidable.

With regard to VMT, the Final EIR determined the proposed project to have a less than significant impact.

The revised project would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR regarding impacts on transportation. The revised project would contain fewer people – a population of approximately 700 compared to the proposed project population of about 800 – and therefore would generate fewer vehicle trips, less traffic, and less parking and loading demand compared to the proposed project. The layout of the site would be largely the same, except that the campus roadway to the north of the RAB would be somewhat narrower under the revised project and would contain fewer parking spaces. Impacts on parking supply are not environmental impacts under CEQA, and so the

Page 9 of 10

parking changes under the revised project would be less than significant and would not alter the conclusions of the Final EIR.

Additionally, the proposed project was estimated to generate a demand for about an additional 5 feet of passenger loading (i.e. less than one passenger loading space), which the Final EIR assumed would be met in planned passenger loading spaces within the campus roadway to the north of the RAB. Under the revised project, the narrower roadway would preclude passenger loading. As the revised project includes a lesser population, reducing or negating the demand for the additional 5 feet of passenger loading, and as there are passenger loading areas nearby the project site such as the hospital loop roadway, this change would result in a less than significant impact and would not alter the conclusions of the Final EIR.

Since the certification of the Final EIR, the following have occurred with regard to the transportation-related mitigation measures:

• The University began discussions with the SFMTA about implementing Mitigation Measure TR-1: Restripe 24th Street at Potrero Avenue to Provide a Westbound Left-Turn Pocket. Upon evaluation of the proposed mitigation measure, the SFMTA concluded that the restriping would leave insufficient space for safe turning movement by single-unit trucks from northbound Potrero Avenue onto eastbound 24th Street. Consequently, SFMTA determined the mitigation measure to be infeasible.3 As the Final EIR found the impact to be significant and unavoidable because it was uncertain whether SFMTA would or could implement it, the decision to not implement the mitigation measure would not result in impacts greater than already identified in the Final EIR. No additional analysis is required.

• The SFMTA began implementing Mitigation Measure TR-2: Open 23rd Street Exit of 23rd Street Garage during the PM Peak Period by upgrading the gate/access equipment within the parking structure and allowing entry/exit as needed during the day and after 6 p.m. in the evening. Some of the pedestrian safety improvements at this location identified as part of this mitigation measure have been implemented, such as repainting the crosswalk in the continental style and improved signage. The situation will continue to be monitored as the RAB is developed and occupied, and adjustments will be made to parking structure operations and pedestrian improvements as needed.

• Regarding Mitigation Measure TR-3: Implement Additional TDM Strategies to Reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips, as the RAB develops and becomes operational, the University will continue its efforts to further reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel by applying TDM strategies such as those identified in the Final EIR.

For the reasons stated, transportation impacts with the revised project would not be significant and would not change the conclusions of the Final EIR.

All other analysis topics, including Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services,

3 Letter dated March 19, 2019 from SFMTA to the San Francisco Planning Department, Feasibility of Mitigation Measure TR-1 of the UCSF Research Building and City Parking Garage Expansion Project.

Page 10 of 10

Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems, would experience slightly reduced impacts because of the reduced population in the revised project or would be unaffected by the revised project.

The revised project does not entail substantial changes that would require revisions to the existing Final EIR, nor would new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur. Since adoption of the Final EIR, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the proposed project would be undertaken, and no new information has emerged that would materially change any of the analyses or conclusions of the existing Final EIR. Therefore, no basis exists for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR and no additional environmental review is necessary.