environmental impact report ucsf mount zion garage · elements to promote sustainability, including...
Post on 11-May-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
D R A F T
Campus Planning
Environmental Impact ReportUCSF Mount Zion GarageState Clearinghouse No. 2010112056
Financial and Administrative Services
Impact Sciences, Inc. i UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1.0-1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................2.0-1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................3.0-1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................4.0-1
4.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................4.2-1
4.3 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................4.3-1
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.....................................................................................................4.4-1
4.5 Land Use and Planning ...........................................................................................................4.5-1
4.6 Noise ..........................................................................................................................................4.6-1
4.7 Transportation and Traffic......................................................................................................4.7-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................5.0-1
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................6.0-1
7.0 REPORT PREPARATION .....................................................................................................................7.0-1
Appendices
1.0 Notice of Preparation and Initial Study
4.2 Air Emissions Calculations
URBEMIS Construction Emissions
URBEMIS Operational Emissions
Dispersion Modeling Results
4.3 Northwest Information Center Results for Project Site
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations
4.5 City and County of San Francisco Transit First Policy
4.6 Noise Model Calculations
4.7 Traffic Study
Impact Sciences, Inc. ii UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.0-1 Regional Location...................................................................................................................................3.0-3
3.0-2 Project Vicinity........................................................................................................................................3.0-4
3.0-3 Aerial View..............................................................................................................................................3.0-5
3.0-4 Mount Zion Campus Site Plan .............................................................................................................3.0-6
3.0-5 Ground Floor Plan................................................................................................................................3.0-10
3.0-6 Basement Plan.......................................................................................................................................3.0-11
3.0-7 Typical Level Plan ................................................................................................................................3.0-14
3.0-8 South Elevation.....................................................................................................................................3.0-12
3.0-9 East Elevation........................................................................................................................................3.0-13
3.0-10 North Elevation ....................................................................................................................................3.0-14
3.0-11 West Elevation ......................................................................................................................................3.0-15
3.0-12 Building Section....................................................................................................................................3.0-16
4.1-1 Neighborhood Context ..........................................................................................................................4.1-3
4.1-2 Adjacent Buildings .................................................................................................................................4.1-4
4.1-3 Perspective View ....................................................................................................................................4.1-7
4.6-1 Common Noise Levels...........................................................................................................................4.6-3
4.6-2 Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration ..........................................................................................4.6-6
4.7-1 Local Roadway System..........................................................................................................................4.7-7
4.7-2 Baseline Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour ..........................................................4.7-8
4.7-3 Baseline Plus Project Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday .............................................................4.7-23
4.7-4 2030 Cumulative Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour.........................................4.7-30
Impact Sciences, Inc. iii UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.0-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................2.0-5
2.0-2 Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives.................................................................................2.0-12
4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ...........................................................................................................4.2-2
4.2-2 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site ..........................................4.2-5
4.2-3 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
(San Francisco City and County)..........................................................................................................4.2-8
4.2-4 California Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin .......4.2-9
4.2-5 BAAQMD Construction Emission Thresholds.................................................................................4.2-14
4.2-6 BAAQMD Operational Emission Thresholds ..................................................................................4.2-14
4.2-7 Estimated Construction Emissions ....................................................................................................4.2-18
4.2-8 Estimated Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations ..................................................................4.2-19
4.2-9 Estimated Construction Cancer Risks ...............................................................................................4.2-20
4.2-10 Estimated Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts......................................................4.2-20
4.2-11 Estimated Operational Emissions ......................................................................................................4.2-22
4.2-12 Estimated Cumulative Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations ............................................4.2-28
4.2-13 Estimated Cumulative Construction Cancer Risks..........................................................................4.2-28
4.2-14 Estimated Cumulative Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts ................................4.2-28
4.4-1 Top Five GHG Producer Countries and the European Union.........................................................4.4-4
4.4-2 GHG Emissions in California ...............................................................................................................4.4-5
4.4-3 AB 32 Scoping Plan Measures (SPMs)...............................................................................................4.4-12
4.4-4 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ..........................................................................................4.4-21
4.4-5 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions............................................................................................4.4-23
4.6-1 Measured and Calculated Noise Levels at Project Site .....................................................................4.6-5
4.6-2 Existing Roadway Modeled Noise Levels ..........................................................................................4.6-5
4.6-3 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................................................4.6-11
4.6-4 Operational Roadway Noise Levels ..................................................................................................4.6-12
4.6-5 Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels...................................................................................................4.6-15
4.7-1 Intersection Level of Service Baseline1 Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour...............................4.7-6
4.7-2 Summary of Existing Nearby Muni Service .....................................................................................4.7-10
4.7-3 Existing Muni Service Utilization Weekday PM Peak Hour..........................................................4.7-11
4.7-4 Existing Pedestrian Volumes on Sutter Street North Sidewalk Weekday Midday and PM
Peak Periods..........................................................................................................................................4.7-12
4.7-5 Existing Bicycle Volumes in the Vicinity of the Project Site Weekday Midday and PM
Peak Periods..........................................................................................................................................4.7-13
4.7-6 Osher Building Estimated Daily Vehicle Parking Demand Weekday ..........................................4.7-17
4.7-7 Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage by the
Osher Building Weekday Off-Street Demand Only ........................................................................4.7-18
4.7-8 Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage All Vehicles
– Weekday Parking Demand ..............................................................................................................4.7-20
4.7-9 Mount Zion Campus Site Trip Distribution Patterns......................................................................4.7-21
4.7-10 Intersection Level of Service Baseline and Baseline plus Project Conditions Weekday PM
Peak Hour..............................................................................................................................................4.7-22
4.7-11 Pedestrian-Vehicular Conflicts at 2420 Sutter Street Garage Driveway Weekday Midday
and PM Peak Hours .............................................................................................................................4.7-25
Impact Sciences, Inc. iv UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table Page
4.7-12 Average Number of Daily Construction Trucks and Workers ......................................................4.7-25
4.7-13 Intersection Level of Service 2030 Cumulative Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour ..............4.7-27
5.0-1 Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives.................................................................................5.0-14
Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to provide an assessment of the
potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (hereinafter-
proposed project). As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Draft EIR
(1) assesses the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including
cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future development; (2) identifies feasible means of avoiding or substantially lessening significant
adverse impacts; and (3) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including
the No Project alternative. The University of California (the University) is the “lead agency” for the
project evaluated in this Draft EIR. The Board of Regents of the University of California (The Regents) or
its delegated committee has the principal responsibility for approving this project.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS EIR
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) has prepared this EIR on the proposed project for the
following purposes:
To inform the general public; the local community; and public agencies of the nature of the proposed
project, its potentially significant environmental effects, feasible measures to mitigate those effects,
and its reasonable and feasible alternatives;
To enable the University to consider the environmental consequences of approving the proposed
project; and
To satisfy CEQA requirements.
As described in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are charged with the duty to avoid
or substantially lessen significant environmental effects, where feasible. In discharging this duty, a public
agency has an obligation to balance the proposed project’s significant effects on the environment with its
benefits, including economic, social, technological, legal, and other benefits. This EIR is an informational
document, the purpose of which is to: identify the potentially significant effects of the proposed project
on the environment; identify mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce those significant effects;
identify any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; and identify
reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would eliminate any significant adverse
environmental effects or reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
The lead agency is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other relevant
information, in making its decisions on the proposed project. Although the EIR does not determine the
1.0 Introduction
Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
ultimate decision that will be made regarding implementation of the project, CEQA requires the
University to consider the information in the EIR and make findings regarding each significant effect
identified in the EIR before it can approve the project. The Regents or its delegated committee would
certify the Final EIR prior to taking any action approving the proposed project.
1.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
UCSF proposes to construct and operate the Mount Zion Garage project on a 14,600-square-foot site
located adjacent to the Mount Zion campus site in the City and County of San Francisco, California. The
proposed project would consist of a 49-foot-tall parking structure (with a 60-foot-tall elevator penthouse),
with one below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The proposed parking structure
would provide approximately 228 parking spaces, with about 172 spaces reserved for the public (i.e.,
patients and visitors) and about 56 spaces reserved for UCSF essential healthcare providers. Each level
would contain between 23 and 38 parking spaces. The total floor area of the parking levels would be
about 88,810 gross square feet. The proposed project includes a number of specific design features and
elements to promote sustainability, including electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle parking,
motorcycle parking, use of natural ventilation where possible, energy efficient light fixtures, a storm
water purification system, use of fly-ash in concrete and material reuse. The project also includes a
transportation demand management office (600 gross square feet) on the ground floor, at which
information about alternative transportation (e.g., public transit, carpools, etc.) may be obtained and
transit passes would be sold.
The project site is currently not within the limits of the Mount Zion campus site. As part of the proposed
project, the University proposes a minor amendment to the UCSF 1996 LRDP (as amended) to include the
project site as part of the Mount Zion campus site.
The project is needed in order to offset UCSF’s existing and projected parking shortfall at the Mount Zion
campus site and alleviate pressure on neighborhood on-street parking. It is proposed at a location that is
as close as possible to the center of clinical activities, thereby maximizing accessibility and convenience to
patients and visitors.
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
UCSF has filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse indicating that this Draft EIR has been completed and is available for review and comment
by agencies and the public.
This Draft EIR has been made available for review by agencies, organizations, the public and interested
parties for a review period of 45 days, as mandated by California law. In reviewing the Draft EIR,
1.0 Introduction
Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
reviewers should focus on the document’s adequacy in identifying and analyzing significant effects on
the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.
To ensure inclusion in the Final EIR and full consideration by the lead agency, comments on the Draft EIR
must be received during the public review period at the following address:
UCSF Campus Planning
654 Minnesota Street
San Francisco, California 94143-0286
Contact: Diane Wong, Senior Planner
MZEIR@planning.ucsf.edu
UCSF will accept e-mail comments in lieu of traditional mailed comments; nevertheless, reviewers are
encouraged to follow up on any e-mail comments with letters. Following the close of the review period,
responses to comments on the Draft EIR will be prepared and published as a separate document. The
Draft EIR text and appendices, together with responses to comments and any text changes made to the
Draft EIR will constitute the Final EIR.
The Regents, the decision-making body for the University, or its delegated committee will review UCSF’s
Mount Zion Garage Project Final EIR for adequacy and consider it for certification pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines. If The Regents or its delegated committee
certifies the Final EIR, then The Regents or its delegated committee will consider the project separately for
approval or denial. If The Regents or its delegated committee choose to approve the project, findings on
the feasibility of reducing or avoiding significant environmental effects will be made and, if necessary, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared. If The Regents or its delegated committee
approves the project, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be prepared and will be filed with the State
Clearinghouse. The NOD will include a description of the project, the date of approval, an indication of
whether the Findings were prepared and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted, and the
address where the Final EIR and record of project approval are available for review.
1.3.1 Type of EIR
This is a project EIR prepared pursuant to Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Because the
proposed project is proposed by the University, relevant mitigation measures adopted by The Regents in
conjunction with the approval of the 1996 LRDP and 2005 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement
project are included in and a part of the proposed project. These mitigation measures are listed in each
resource subsection of Section 4.0. The analysis presented in Section 4.0 evaluates environmental impacts
that would result from project implementation following the application of these mitigation measures, as
part of the project as proposed. The mitigation measures that are included in the project would be
monitored pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan that will be adopted for the
proposed project.
1.0 Introduction
Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
1.4.2 Public and Agency Review
On November 22, 2010, a Notice of Preparation (NOP), including an Initial Study, was published for the
Mount Zion Garage Project EIR. The 30-day comment period ended on December 21, 2010. A copy of the
NOP and the Initial Study is included in Appendix 1.0. No written comments were received on the NOP.
An EIR scoping meeting was held at the Herbst Hall Auditorium at Mount Zion Hospital on December 8,
2010. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the public and interested agencies of the proposed
project, solicit comments, and identify areas of concern. No comments were received from the public at
the meeting.
Copies of this Draft EIR and relevant materials referenced therein are available for review online at
http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/or at the following locations:
UCSF Kalmanovitz Library, 530 Parnassus Avenue
Western Addition Branch Library, 1550 Scott Street
1.4.3 Intended Uses of this EIR
The Regents or its delegated committee will use this EIR to evaluate the environmental implications of
approving the proposed project. There are no responsible agencies with permitting authority over the
project, as the proposed project does not require any discretionary approvals from other agencies.
The proposed project may require a ministerial authorization from the City of San Francisco to create a
curb cut along Sutter Street and to shore the site during excavation activities.
1.5 SCOPE OF THIS EIR
UCSF completed a preliminary review of the project, as described in Section 15060 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, and determined that environmental review was required. UCSF prepared an Initial Study in
November 2010 and determined that an EIR would be prepared. Based on the Initial Study and the
comments received at the scoping meeting and in response to the NOP, it was determined that the EIR
would evaluate the following environmental topics in further detail:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Transportation and Traffic
1.0 Introduction
Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Draft EIR is organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0, Introduction, provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose and scope of
topics addressed in this EIR and the environmental review process.
Section 2.0, Executive Summary, summarizes environmental consequences that would result from the
proposed project, provides a summary table that denotes anticipated significant environmental impacts,
describes identified mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and
after mitigation.
Section 3.0, Project Description, describes the proposed project.
Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, describes the environmental
setting, including applicable plans and policies; provides an analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed project; and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant
impacts. It also includes an evaluation of the project’s cumulative impacts.
Section 5.0, Alternatives, summarizes alternatives to the project and the comparative environmental
consequences of each alternative. This section includes an analysis of the No Project Alternative, among
others, as required by CEQA.
Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, provides a discussion of the project’s significant and
unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes which would be caused if the project were to be
implemented, the potential for growth inducement from the project, and a brief description of the
environmental effects that were found not to be significant and, therefore, not evaluated in further detail.
Section 7.0, Report Preparation, provides a list of the individuals involved in the preparation of this EIR.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 PURPOSE
This Draft EIR evaluates the potential for significant environmental impacts from the construction and
operation of the Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project) proposed by the University of California,
San Francisco (UCSF). It is the intent of this Executive Summary to provide the decision makers and the
public with a clear, simple, and concise description of the proposed project and its potential significant
environmental impacts. Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
requires that the summary identify each significant effect, recommended mitigation measure(s), and
alternatives that would minimize or avoid potential significant impacts. The summary is also required to
identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the
public and issues to be resolved. These issues include the choice among alternatives and whether or how
to mitigate significant effects. This section focuses on the major areas of importance in the environmental
analysis for the proposed project and utilizes non-technical language to promote understanding.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site at 2420 Sutter Street is located in the Western Addition neighborhood of the City of San
Francisco, approximately 1.5 miles west of the San Francisco civic center. The project site is located on the
north side of Sutter Street, between Divisadero and Broderick Streets. The project site is approximately
14,600 square feet in size and is currently vacant. A building occupied by an institutional/educational use
and a parking lot were previously located on the project site, but were demolished in 2008 by the
property owner as part of an earlier project that did not go forward. The project site currently supports
remnant demolition debris and sparse ruderal vegetation.
2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
UCSF proposes to construct and operate the Mount Zion Garage project on a 14,600-square-foot site
located adjacent to UCSF’s medical office building at 1701 Divisadero Street on the Mount Zion campus
site in the City and County of San Francisco, California. The proposed project would consist of a
49-foot-tall parking structure as measured from Sutter Street (with a 60-foot above-grade elevator
penthouse), with one below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The proposed
parking structure would provide approximately 228 parking spaces, with about 172 spaces for the public
(i.e., patients and visitors) and about 56 spaces reserved for essential healthcare providers. Each level
would contain between 23 and 38 parking spaces. The total floor area of the parking levels would be
about 88,810 gross square feet. The proposed project includes a number of specific design features and
elements to promote sustainability, including electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle parking,
motorcycle parking, use of natural ventilation where possible, energy efficient light fixtures, a storm
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
water purification system, use of fly-ash in concrete and material reuse. The project also includes a
transportation demand management office (600 gross square feet) on the ground floor, at which
information about alternative transportation (e.g., public transit, carpools, etc.) may be obtained and
transit passes would be sold.
The project site is currently not within the limits of the Mount Zion campus site. As part of the proposed
project, the University proposes a minor amendment to the UCSF 1996 LRDP (as amended) to include the
project site as part of the Mount Zion campus site.
2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Key objectives of the proposed project are to:
To support UCSF’s mission of patient care by enhancing access to UCSF facilities through convenient,
affordable parking for those who often cannot utilize alternative forms of transportation
To offset UCSF’s existing and projected parking shortfall by providing parking for patients, visitors,
and essential healthcare providers
To provide limited parking for those essential healthcare providers for whom alternative forms of
transportation is infeasible due to atypical work hours and responsibilities at multiple campus sites
To provide parking at a location that is as close as possible to the center of clinical activities, thereby
maximizing accessibility and convenience to patients and visitors
To provide parking at a location that retains flexibility for future uses of UCSF land
To provide a parking structure that incorporates sustainability features to the greatest extent feasible
To alleviate pressure on neighborhood on-street parking
To construct the proposed project on a site that minimizes displacement and disruption of existing
UCSF uses.
2.5 TOPICS OF KNOWN CONCERN
To determine which environmental topics should be addressed in this EIR, UCSF prepared an Initial
Study and circulated it along with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) in order to receive input from interested
public agencies and private parties. Copies of the NOP and Initial Study are presented in Appendix 1.0 of
this EIR. Based on both the Initial Study and the NOP comments, this EIR addresses the following
environmental topics in depth:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Transportation and Traffic
2.6 IMPACT SUMMARY
A detailed discussion regarding potential impacts is provided in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting,
Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, a summary of the
project’s impacts is provided in Table 2.0-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, presented at
the end of this section. All project-level impacts of the proposed project would either be less than
significant or would be reduced to a less than significant level with the proposed project-level mitigation
measures. All cumulative impacts would also be less than significant.
2.7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The alternatives evaluated in this EIR focus on avoiding or further reducing potentially significant
cumulative impacts related to traffic. Project alternatives include the following:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. This alternative assumes the proposed project would not be
constructed at the proposed site, and that the site would remain vacant.
Alternative 2: Smaller Project Alternative. This alternative would involve removing the number of
spaces planned for essential healthcare providers (about 56), reducing the total number of proposed
spaces to 172, and reducing the size of the parking structure by 2 levels such that the garage under this
alternative would be a total of 4 levels above grade and one level below grade.
Alternative 3: Alternate Location on Main Hospital block. This alternative would involve the
construction of the parking structure on the Main Hospital block, instead of at the proposed project site.
The alternative would locate a new parking structure on the east end of the block, at Sutter/Scott. It
would involve demolition of two existing buildings.
Other alternatives including an enhanced transportation demand management (TDM) program and
another site at the Mount Zion campus site were considered but not carried forth for detailed evaluation
because they did not eliminate the need for the project or were determined to be infeasible.
Detailed descriptions of the three alternatives evaluated in detail and their comparative merits are
presented in Section 5.0 of this EIR. Table 2.0-2, Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives, which
follows Table 2.0-1, presents a comparison of the environmental impacts of each alternative to those that
are expected to result from the proposed project.
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Based on the analysis presented in the EIR, Alternative 2 was identified as the Environmentally Superior
Alternative (see Section 5.0 of this EIR).
2.8 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED/AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
This EIR addresses environmental issues associated with the proposed project that are known to the lead
agency or were raised by other public agencies or interested parties during the EIR scoping process. An
EIR scoping meeting was held at the Herbst Hall Auditorium at Mount Zion Hospital on December 8,
2010. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the public and interested agencies of the proposed
project, solicit comments, and identify areas of concern. Questions were raised at the EIR scoping meeting
regarding what alternatives would be analyzed and the duration of construction, but no other public
comments were made.
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 2.0-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental Topic and Impact
Level of Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact AES-1
The proposed project would alter the existing visual character
of the project site but would not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact AES-2
The proposed project would create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would not adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact AES-1
Cumulative development would alter the existing visual
character but would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact AES-2
Cumulative development would create new sources of light
or glare that would not adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-6 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Environmental Topic and Impact
Level of Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
4.2 Air Quality
Impact AQ-1
Construction of the proposed project would generate
short-term emissions of fugitive dust and criteria air
pollutants that could adversely affect local air quality in the
vicinity of the construction site and could exceed the
BAAQMD construction significance thresholds.
Less than significant MM AQ-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.
Less than significant
MM AQ-2: All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or
other loose material off-site shall be covered.
MM AQ-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.
MM AQ-4: All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall
be limited to 15 mph.
MM AQ-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.
MM AQ-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, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided
for construction workers at all access points.
MM AQ-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.
MM AQ-8: Post a publicly visible sign with the
telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.
The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible
to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-7 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Environmental Topic and Impact
Level of Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
4.2 Air Quality (continued)
Impact AQ-2
The proposed project would generate long-term operational
emissions of criteria pollutants from increases in traffic that
could adversely affect air quality.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact AQ-3
The proposed project would increase carbon monoxide
concentrations at busy intersections and along congested
roadways in the project vicinity that could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollution concentrations.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact AQ-4
The proposed project could expose the maximally exposed
individual to an increased cancer risk exceeding 10 in
1 million.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact AQ-5
The proposed project would generate ground level
concentrations of noncarcinogenic toxic air contaminants that
could result in a Hazard Index greater than 1.0 for the
maximally exposed individual.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact AQ-6
Development of the proposed project could result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under
the federal and state ambient air quality standard.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact AQ-1
Cumulative development could result in a significant
cumulative impact related to criteria pollutant and toxic air
contaminant emissions from project operations.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact AQ-2
Cumulative development could result in a significant
cumulative impact related to toxic air contaminant emissions
during project construction.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-8 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Environmental Topic and Impact
Level of Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
4.3 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1
The proposed project would not cause a substantial change in
the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5.
Potentially Significant CUL-1: UCSF shall retain a qualified archaeologist to
conduct an archaeological testing program at the
project site subsequent to removal of paving and
other surface cover, and before any construction
excavation is commenced. Testing will be conducted
in accordance with a systematic archaeological
testing plan prepared by the archaeologist. The plan
will determine the locations where testing will be
conducted and the methods that will be employed
for testing. These may include mechanical augering,
trenching, or other subsurface explorations.
In the event that archaeological resources are
encountered during testing, the significance of the
materials will be evaluated relative to the significance
criteria of the CRHR, and if determined to be
historical resources or unique archaeological
resources pursuant to CEQA, additional measures
shall be undertaken at the direction of the
archaeologist. These would include but not limited to
additional testing and/or an archaeological data
recovery program, whereby a sufficient sample of the
archaeological deposits shall be recovered to
preserve the significant data represented by the
deposit. All recovered material would be subjected to
appropriate analysis, reported, and curated in an
appropriate repository. Depending on the results of
testing, the archaeologist may recommend
construction monitoring.
Less than significant
Impact CUL-2
The proposed project would not disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-9 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Environmental Topic and Impact
Level of Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
4.3 Cultural Resources (continued)
Cumulative Impact CUL-1
Cumulative development would not cause a substantial
change in the significance of a historical resources or unique
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 or disturb
any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1
Project development would generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a
significant impact on the environment.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact GHG-2
The proposed project could conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
4.5 Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1
The proposed project would not conflict with the UCSF 1996
LRDP as amended.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact LU-1
Cumulative development would not adversely alter the land
uses in the project vicinity.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-10 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Environmental Topic and Impact
Level of Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
4.6 Noise
Impact NOISE-1
Construction activities associated with the proposed project
would temporarily elevate noise levels at the project site and
surrounding areas.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact NOISE-2
Project construction activities would not expose people to
excessive ground-borne vibration levels.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact NOISE-3
Vehicular traffic associated with the proposed project would
result in an incremental, but imperceptible, long-term increase
in ambient noise levels.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact NOISE-4
The operation of the proposed facility would not result in a
substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact NOISE-1
Construction of cumulative development would temporarily
elevate noise levels in the Mount Zion neighborhood
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact NOISE-2
Temporary vibration related to the construction of cumulative
development would not cause a cumulative impact.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact NOISE-3
Vehicular traffic associated with cumulative development
would result in an incremental, but imperceptible, long-term
increase in ambient noise levels.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact NOISE-4
The operation of cumulative development would not result in
a substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-11 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Environmental Topic and Impact
Level of Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
4.7 Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRANS-1
Operation of the proposed project would not cause an
increase in vehicle traffic that would exceed the capacity of
study area intersections.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact TRANS-2
Operation of the proposed project would not cause an
increase in vehicle traffic that would delay transit service.
Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Impact TRANS-3
The proposed project would not cause an increase in
pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.
No impact No project-level mitigation measure required. No impact
Impact TRANS-4
The construction of the proposed project would temporarily
and intermittently impact the existing transportation network.
No impact No project-level mitigation measure required. No impact
Cumulative Impact TRANS-1
Traffic associated with cumulative development would not
cause an increase in vehicle traffic that would exceed the
capacity of study area intersections.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact TRANS-2
Future operation of BRT service on Geary Boulevard would
not negatively affect traffic operations at the intersection of
Geary Boulevard and Divisadero Street under 2030
Cumulative Conditions.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact TRANS-3
Cumulative development would not cause an increase in
pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
Cumulative Impact TRANS-4
The construction of cumulative projects would temporarily
and intermittently impact the existing transportation network.
Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant
2.0 Executive Summary
Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-12 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 2.0-2
Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives
Mount Zion Garage Project Impact
Proposed Project
(Before Mitigation)
Alternative 1- No
Project Alternative
Alternative 2-Reduced
Project
Alternative 3-
Alternative Location on
Main Hospital Block
CUL-1 The project site is moderately
sensitive for subsurface
archaeological resources. Project
excavation and grading could
inadvertently destroy subsurface
archaeological resources.
Potentially Significant No impact
However, there would be a
similar potentially
significant impact from the
construction of another
building at the project site.
Potentially Significant
Similar to the proposed
project.
Potentially Significant
Similar to the proposed
project.
New Impact
(related to
Alternative 3)
Project construction could
generate short-term emissions of
fugitive dust and criteria air
pollutants that could adversely
affect local air quality in the
vicinity of the construction site
and could exceed the BAAQMD
construction significance
thresholds.
Less than significant No impact
However, there could be a
similar less than significant
impact from the
development of another
project at the proposed
site.
Less than significant
Similar to the proposed
project.
Potentially Significant
Demolition of existing
buildings would result in
an increase in fugitive dust
and emissions of criteria
pollutants.
New Impact
(related to
Alternative 3)
Project construction activities
could expose people or sensitive
equipment to excessive ground-
borne vibration levels.
Less than significant No impact
However, there could be
similar less than significant
impacts from the
development of another
project at the proposed
site.
Less than significant
Similar to the proposed
project.
Potentially Significant
Vibration from
construction could disturb
inpatients and affect
nearby medical uses,
which could contain
sensitive equipment.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The section presents the details of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project) in terms of
the need for the project and its objectives, the facility’s various components and design features, and
construction schedule and activities.
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is proposing to construct a 49-foot-tall parking
structure with one below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The proposed parking
structure would provide approximately 228 parking spaces, with about 172 spaces allocated for the
public (i.e., patients and visitors) and about 56 spaces reserved for essential healthcare providers.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING USES
As illustrated in Figure 3.0-1, Regional Location, the project site at 2420 Sutter Street is located in the
Western Addition neighborhood of the City of San Francisco, approximately 1.5 miles west of the San
Francisco civic center. As shown in Figure 3.0-2, Project Vicinity, the project site is located on the north
side of Sutter Street, between Divisadero and Broderick Streets. The project site is approximately
14,600 square feet in size. As illustrated in Figure 3.0-3, Aerial View, the project site is currently vacant. A
building occupied by an institutional/educational use and a parking lot were previously located on the
project site, but were demolished in 2008 by the property owner as part of an earlier project that did not
go forward. The project site currently supports remnant demolition debris and sparse ruderal vegetation.
The project site is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) and is located in a 65-A
Height and Bulk district.
The project site is bordered to the north by a vacant one- and two-story convalescent facility; to the east
by a five-story, 65-foot-tall UCSF medical office building located at 1701 Divisadero Street; to the south by
a five-level privately owned parking garage; and to the west by the approximately 45-foot-tall Russian
Center of San Francisco, a community facility. The UCSF Medical Center at Mount Zion, with various
buildings that range from two to eight stories, occupies the east side of Divisadero Street, generally from
Sutter to Post Streets, and includes facilities along Sutter, Post, and Bush Streets and on the west side of
Divisadero Street south of Post Street. Figure 3.0-4, Mount Zion Campus Site Plan, depicts the project
site in relation to the Mount Zion buildings. There are privately owned medical services buildings with
some commercial uses along Divisadero Street from Sutter Street to Geary Boulevard, including facilities
associated with UCSF. Residential uses are located along side streets, further from Divisadero Street, to
the east and west. The eight-story Kaiser Permanente Medical Center occupies the south side of Geary
Boulevard two blocks to the south.
3.0 Project Description
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the project description in an EIR include “a
statement of the objectives sought by the applicant,” which should include “the underlying purpose of
the project.” The objectives of the proposed project are to:
To support UCSF’s mission of patient care by enhancing access to UCSF facilities through convenient,
affordable parking for those who often cannot utilize alternative forms of transportation
To offset UCSF’s existing and projected parking shortfall by providing parking for patients, visitors,
and essential healthcare providers
To provide limited parking for those essential healthcare providers for whom alternative forms of
transportation is infeasible due to atypical work hours and responsibilities at multiple campus sites
To provide parking at a location that is as close as possible to the center of clinical activities, thereby
maximizing accessibility and convenience to patients and visitors
To provide parking at a location that retains flexibility for future uses of UCSF land
To provide a parking structure that incorporates sustainability features to the greatest extent feasible
To alleviate pressure on neighborhood on-street parking
To construct the proposed project on a site that minimizes displacement and disruption of existing
UCSF uses
3.4 PROJECT NEED
The primary purpose of the proposed parking structure is to accommodate parking demand by patients
and visitors. Approximately 75 percent of the proposed spaces would be public parking to serve the
needs of patients and visitors. The remaining parking (about 25 percent of the proposed spaces) would
serve essential healthcare providers. An essential health care provider is a clinical practitioner or provider
(typically a physician) who has direct patient care responsibilities; such responsibilities may require
response to life-safety emergencies on- or off-campus on a 24 hour-a-day basis.
Novato
SanRafael
MountainView
SanJose
Fremont
Hayward
SanRamon
WalnutCreek
Concord
Santa RosaNapa
Fairfield
AlamedaSan
Francisco
DalyCity
Berkeley
Vallejo
Vacaville
RedwoodCity
Woodside
SanMateo
Oakland
Richmond
Pa c i f i c O
c e an
S an
Fr a
nc i s c o
Ba
y
US
101
US
101
80INTERSTATE
680INTERSTATE
580INTERSTATE
880INTERSTATE
280INTERSTATE
280INTERSTATE
ProjectSite
Regional Location
FIGURE 3.0-1
1063-001•11/10
SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – November 2010
NOT TO SCALEn
Legend: Project Boundary
PINE ST
BUSH ST
POST ST
GEARY BLVD
SUTTER ST
SCO
TTST
CALIFORNIA ST
LYON
ST
STEINE
RST
SACRAMENTO STCLAY ST
BAKERST
OFARRELL ST
ELLIS ST
FILLMO
RE
ST
PRESID
IOAVE
PIERC
ESTBR
OD
ERIC
KST
MAS
ON
ICAVE
EDDY ST
WILMOT ST
DIVISA
DER
OST
TERRA VISTA AVE
EUCLID AVE
WALN
UT
ST
PERINE PL
GARDEN ST
ANZA ST
OR
BEN
PL
EME
RSO
NST
LUPIN
EAVE
LEONA TERER
KSON
CT
BOSW
OR
THW
AY
LYONST
OFARRELL ST
PIERC
EST
BRO
DER
ICK
ST
250
PINE ST
BUSH ST
POST ST
GEARY BLVD
SUTTER ST
SCO
TTST
CALIFORNIA ST
LYON
ST
STEINE
RST
SACRAMENTO STCLAY ST
BAKERST
OFARRELL ST
ELLIS ST
FILLMO
RE
ST
PRESID
IOAVE
PIERC
ESTBR
OD
ERIC
KST
MAS
ON
ICAVE
EDDY ST
WILMOT ST
DIVISA
DER
OST
TERRA VISTA AVE
EUCLID AVE
WALN
UT
ST
PERINE PL
GARDEN ST
ANZA ST
OR
BEN
PL
EME
RSO
NST
LUPIN
EAVE
LEONA TERER
KSON
CT
BOSW
OR
THW
AY
LYONST
OFARRELL ST
PIERC
EST
BRO
DER
ICK
ST
250
0 500 1,000 F
Project Vicinity
FIGURE 3.0-2
1063-001•11/10
SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – November 2010
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
500 250 0 500
n
0 500 1,000 F
ProjectSite
Aerial View
FIGURE 3.0-3
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: Google Earth – September 2010, Impact Sciences, Inc. – December 2010
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
225 112 0 225
n
ProjectSite
Bush St.Bush St.
Post St.
Sutter St.
Broderick St.
Sutter St.
Post St.
Broderick St.
Divisadero St.
Divisadero St.
Scott St.Scott St.B
aker St.B
aker St.
Mount Zion Campus Site Plan
FIGURE 3.0-4
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – September 2010
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
150 75 0 150
n
ProjectSite
Bro
deric
k. S
treet
3.0 Project Description
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-7 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
As a world-renowned academic medical center, UCSF attracts patients from within San Francisco, the
Bay Area, and beyond. Many of these patients are seriously ill and require highly specialized care. The
UCSF Mount Zion campus site is home to the UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center, the only
comprehensive cancer center in Northern California, designated by the National Cancer Institute, part of
the National Institutes of Health; the Women’s Health Center, the only nationally designated Center of
Excellence in Women’s Health in Northern California; a dialysis center; the Osher Center for Integrative
Medicine; the Pain Management Center, Sleep Disorders Center, and more. Outpatient visits at Mount
Zion number about 285,000 annually, or about 1,140 per day. There are about 90 inpatient beds, and over
1,300 employees at Mount Zion.
Parking supply at Mount Zion is highly constrained. Currently, UCSF controls a limited supply of about
218 parking spaces in the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site, consisting of the following: 150 spaces
at 1701 Divisadero Street, 21 spaces in a parking lot at the southwest corner of Bush and Scott Streets, and
47 spaces at 2325 Post Street. In addition, UCSF employees have access to about 137 parking spaces at the
1635 Divisadero Street garage, but UCSF does not own or manage those spaces. UCSF has no supply of
spaces for patients or visitors, although parking facilities operated by others serve the public.
Current UCSF demand for employee and visitor parking in the Mount Zion neighborhood is estimated at
over 700 spaces, which is much greater than UCSF’s existing supply of parking spaces (approximately
355 spaces, counting access to the 137 spaces at 1635 Divisadero Street). UCSF’s patients and visitors, as
well as employees who are not accommodated in UCSF parking facilities, park on the street and in
nearby parking facilities, which are at or near capacity during peak times and which serve other uses in
the vicinity such as private medical offices, Kaiser Medical Center, and nearby retail and restaurants.
Increases in parking demand are imminent. UCSF’s newly constructed Osher Building, which opened in
December 2010, is a 48,000-square-foot building that will not contain parking within the building yet will
increase parking demand at Mount Zion. The building houses clinics that relocated from the Parnassus
Heights campus site to the Mount Zion campus site, and contains a consolidated and expanded location
for the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, which relocated from other locations at Mount Zion. In
addition, over the next few years, other UCSF Medical Center departments will move from the Parnassus
Heights campus site to the Mount Zion campus site to make space at the Parnassus Heights campus site
to accommodate growing clinical programs there. In UCSF’s 2005 amendment of its Long Range
Development Plan, the Mount Zion campus site was identified as a future major outpatient hub following
the move of cancer inpatient beds from Mount Zion to the Medical Center at Mission Bay, scheduled to
open in 2014. The additional parking demand from increased patient and employee population at the
Mount Zion campus site resulting from these activities, coupled with the existing shortage of parking at
the Mount Zion campus site, results in the need for additional parking.
3.0 Project Description
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-8 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Patients and visitors need parking for several reasons. Approximately 68 percent of inpatients and
45 percent of outpatients at the Mount Zion campus site come from outside San Francisco. Many of them
have serious illnesses, and alternative transportation, such as public transit, bicycling, or walking, are not
always feasible for patients due to compromised health, mobility problems, and travel distance. In
addition, many patients are children who are brought in by their parents and public transit is not an
option for them. As such, many patients and visitors have few options but to drive.
The UCSF campus has had an active and growing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
since 1971, which consists of the UCSF shuttle system, vanpools, a commuter bus club, carpools, ride
sharing (Zimride), carshare, an emergency ride home program, bicycle parking, on-site transit pass sales,
and pretax transit program. At present, about 65 percent of Mount Zion-based employees take alternative
forms of transportation1 to work. Despite this program, essential healthcare providers at Mount Zion
need parking because many of them provide health care on a 24-hour/7-day basis, and many essential
care providers have responsibilities at multiple medical centers including at Parnassus Heights, the
Veterans Administration Hospital, and SF General Hospital. The 56 employee spaces in the proposed
garage will be assigned (via permit) only to individuals who are essential healthcare providers.
The project proposes to provide this parking in close proximity to the center of the Mount Zion clinical
facilities in order to maximize accessibility and convenience to patients, visitors and essential healthcare
providers, and alleviate pressure on neighborhood on-street parking.
3.5 PROJECT FEATURES AND OPERATIONS
The proposed project would consist of a 49-foot-tall parking structure (with a 60-foot above grade
elevator penthouse), with one below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The
proposed parking structure would provide approximately 228 parking spaces, with about 172 spaces
reserved for the public (i.e., patients and visitors) and about 56 spaces reserved for essential healthcare
providers. The distribution of parking spaces between those for the public and those for essential
healthcare providers is not expected to change but slight adjustments may be made by UCSF depending
on need. Each level would contain between 23 and 38 parking stalls. The total floor area of the parking
levels would be about 88,810 gross square feet. The proposed project would also include a transportation
demand management office (600 gross square feet) on the ground floor, where information about
alternative forms of transportation would be made available to patients, visitors and employees and
transit passes would be sold. Two to three employees would be located on the project site during
business hours.
1 Alternative forms of transportation are those that do not involve travel by a single-occupant vehicle.
3.0 Project Description
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-9 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Figure 3.0-5, Ground Floor Plan, provides the footprint of the proposed parking structure while Figure
3.0-6, Basement Plan and Figure 3.0-7, Typical Level Plan provides the layout of the basement level and
a typical parking level, respectively. Figures 3.0-8 through 3.0-11 provide elevations for each side of the
proposed project. Figure 3.0-12, Building Section, provides a section view of the entire structure.
The proposed garage would be naturally ventilated on levels 5 and 6 where these levels will largely be
open to the air. Both the north wall (facing the vacant one- and two-story convalescent facility on Bush
Street) and the west wall (facing the Russian Center) will have no openings. The east wall facing
1701 Divisadero Street Building will have perforated openings and the south wall facing Sutter Street will
be largely open with the openings screened by perforated metal panels. The below-grade parking level
and levels 1 through 4 will be mechanically ventilated. The ventilation system will include an air intake, a
fan and motor, ductwork, and an exhaust point and diffuser. The air intake will be located on the second
level of the Sutter Street aspect of the garage. The mechanical exhaust point and diffuser will be installed
at the fourth floor level in the northeast corner of the garage facing the 1701 Divisadero Street building.
The proposed project would provide landscaping in the form of a planter and street trees along the
sidewalk in front of the building that would conform to UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines. The project
also includes planter boxes on the north side of the building at the fifth level to allow vines to grow down
the north façade. In addition, the project includes lighting design that would ensure that the parking
garage lighting on the 5th and 6th levels does not point toward the courtyard that is planned as part of the
approved mixed-use project that would redevelop the convalescent facility site on Bush Street.
The primary entry/exit for the parking structure would be provided on Sutter Street via a two-way
20-foot-wide entrance located approximately 22 feet inside the eastern property line. With a 15-foot
sidewalk, there would be about 37 feet of available queue space on Sutter Street. In addition, the
proposed parking structure would connect underground to an existing underground parking garage at
1701 Divisadero Street, and vehicles could utilize the existing garage entry/exit, which is located on Sutter
Street, to access the proposed garage. The purpose of this underground connection is to allow both
garages to function as one, enabling the greatest amount of operational flexibility possible in directing
traffic flow into and out of the garage to avoid unnecessary queuing.
Public parking hours of operation would be from 6 AM to 10 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding
Medical Center holidays; there are no plans to open the garage to the public on weekends. Afterhours
access that would be necessary for essential healthcare providers would be provided through the
1701 Divisadero garage The proposed 228 parking spaces would be combined with the existing inventory
of 150 spaces in the existing adjacent garage at 1701 Divisadero Street to serve both patients/visitors and
employees (primarily physicians and patient care providers). The proposed garage would contain
3.0 Project Description
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-10 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
22 ADA accessible spaces; three of them van accessible, as required by the California Building Code
based on the number of spaces provided. Eighteen Class 1 bicycle parking spaces would be provided on
the ground level, near the vehicle entrance. Motorcycle parking (21 spaces) would also be provided.
Vehicular access control would include automatic gates, magnetic stripe ticket dispensers, card readers,
fee computers, steel cashier booths, and related items. Payment would be processed at the point of exit by
way of on-site cashiers.
Pedestrians would access the building, including the transportation demand management office, through
a pedestrian lobby entrance on Sutter Street, located approximately 80 feet west of the eastern property
line. An elevator and stairs would connect the underground parking to the ground and above levels.
A private party currently owns the site. Prior to construction of the parking structure, the University
proposes to lease the property pursuant to a 60-year lease. The project construction would be completed
by a third-party developer. Once completed, the entire parking structure would be leased to the
University pursuant to the 60-year lease. The project site is currently not within the limits of the Mount
Zion campus site as defined by the UCSF 1996 LRDP. As part of the proposed project, the University
proposes a minor amendment to the UCSF 1996 LRDP (as amended) to include the 14,600-square-foot
project site as part of the Mount Zion campus site.
LRDP EIR mitigation measures that were adopted by The Regents in conjunction with the approval of the
1996 LRDP and its subsequent amendments are applicable to and made part of the proposed project.
These measures will be incorporated into the development agreement with the developer and their
implementation will be monitored by the University. The full text of the pertinent LRDP mitigation
measures is provided in the resource sections in Chapter 4 of this EIR.
3.6 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FEATURES
The proposed project includes a number of specific design features and elements to promote
sustainability, including electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle parking, use of natural ventilation
where possible, energy efficient light fixtures, a stormwater purification system, use of fly-ash in concrete
and material reuse. As noted above, the project also includes a transportation demand management office
on the ground floor, where information about alternative transportation such as ride sharing and pretax
transit incentive programs would be provided and transit passes and UCSF bicycle permits would be
sold. The project includes preferential parking for carpools and electric vehicles. The public parking rates
would be market-based with a disincentive for all-day parking.
Ground Floor Plan
FIGURE 3.0-5
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010
NOT TO SCALEn
Legend: Project Boundary
Basement Plan
FIGURE 3.0-6
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010
NOT TO SCALEn
Legend: Project Boundary
Typical Level Plan
FIGURE 3.0-7
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010
NOT TO SCALEn
Legend: Project Boundary
South Elevation
FIGURE 3.0-8
NOT TO SCALE
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010
East Elevation
FIGURE 3.0-9
NOT TO SCALE
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010
North Elevation
FIGURE 3.0-10
NOT TO SCALE
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010
West Elevation
FIGURE 3.0-11
NOT TO SCALE
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010
Building Section
FIGURE 3.0-12
NOT TO SCALE
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010
3.0 Project Description
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-19 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
3.7 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND DETAILS
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in spring 2011 and continue for
approximately 12 months. There would be four primary construction phases, which would partially
overlap:
Shoring, Underpinning, and Excavation - One month
Below grade concrete foundation and structure - Two months
Above grade concrete structure - Three months
Exterior skin, mechanical, life safety systems and elevator – Six months
The proposed project would include site grading and excavation up to an average depth of 16 feet below
average grade (19 feet from average grade to the bottom of the elevator pit) for the construction of one
lower level. Grading would include the export of about 7,700 cubic yards of material. The structure
would be built on a mat foundation and pile driving to install piles will not be necessary. The edge of the
eastern side of the mat may require pier support. In that event, either the existing piers at the
1701 Divisadero Street temporary shoring wall would be used or new piers would be installed by drilling
and casting new piers. Piles will not be implemented and therefore will not be driven.
Construction related activities would typically occur Monday through Friday, between 7 AM and 6 PM
or later, with most activities completed by 5 PM. Some construction work, such as concrete pouring,
could occasionally take place on Saturdays with reduced work crews. Project construction is not
anticipated to occur on Sundays or major legal holidays. UCSF may alter these hours if feasible should
there be community concerns.
Construction staging would occur on the 15-foot-wide sidewalk adjacent to the south border of the
project site. The sidewalk would be moved into the parking lane with a covered and protected walkway.
An additional staging area would be located in the easement between the project site and the adjacent
building at 1701 Divisadero Street, where the construction trailer would also be located. Periodic closures
of the pedestrian walkway would take place during concrete pouring of the floor slabs and supporting
columns; pedestrians would then be rerouted at both ends of the block to the sidewalk on the south side
of Sutter Street. It is not anticipated that any travel lane closures would be required. Any temporary
sidewalk or traffic lane closures would be coordinated with the City in order to minimize the impacts on
pedestrian and traffic flow. In general, lane and sidewalk closures are subject to review and approval by
the San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW).
3.0 Project Description
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-20 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Construction workers would be incentivized to car pool. For those construction workers who drive, a
surface lot located at 2184 Geary Boulevard would be available for parking until the lower level of the
proposed parking structure is accessible. Construction traffic would access the site via Sutter Street. The
proposed project would involve the excavation of approximately 7,700 cubic yards of material, which
would require approximately 426 truck trips (at 18 cubic yards per truck) to haul off the site. Construction
truck traffic would primarily occur on Sutter and Divisadero Streets.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS,
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.0.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) presents potential environmental impacts of
the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project). The scope of the analysis and key attributes
of the analytical approach are presented below to assist readers in understanding the manner in which
the impact analysis has been conducted in this Draft EIR.
4.0.2 LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Draft EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the levels of significance of adverse impacts identified
during the course of the environmental analysis. The following are definitions of terms used in this Draft
EIR:
Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and
cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of
feasible mitigation measures.
Significant Impact. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that can be
eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of feasible
mitigation measures.
Potentially Significant Impact. Significant impacts that may ultimately be determined to be less than
significant; the level of significance may be reduced in the future through implementation of policies
or guidelines (that are not required by statute or ordinance), or through further definition of the
project detail in the future. Potentially Significant Impacts may also be impacts about which there is
not enough information to draw a firm conclusion; however, for the purpose of this Draft EIR, they
are considered significant. Such impacts are equivalent to Significant Impacts and require the
identification of feasible mitigation measures.
Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts that are adverse but that do not exceed the specified
standards of significance.
No Impact. The project would not create an impact.
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.0.3 APPROACH TO IMPACT ANALYSIS
The preparation of this Draft EIR was preceded by an Initial Study (included in Appendix 1.0), which
determined that the proposed project would not result in significant or potentially significant impacts
on certain resource areas. Therefore, this Draft EIR evaluates project impacts in seven of the
17 resource areas on the Appendix G California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist.
For each of the seven resource areas evaluated in the sections that follow, the Draft EIR describes the
existing environmental setting, the potential for the proposed project to significantly affect the
existing resources, and recommended mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid potentially
significant impacts. Each of the resource sections also clearly identifies those impacts that were
determined in the Initial Study to be less than significant, and thus, do not require detailed evaluation
in this Draft EIR.
For purposes of the analyses in this Draft EIR, the year 2010 is used to establish the baseline or
existing conditions. Impacts are evaluated in terms of environmental changes as a result of
implementation of the proposed project as compared to existing conditions in 2010.
Relevant mitigation measures adopted by The Regents in conjunction with the approval of the
1996 LRDP and 2004 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement project are included in and a part
of the proposed project. The analysis presented in the subsequent sections evaluates environmental
impacts that would result from project implementation after the application of these mitigation
measures.
4.0.4 APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
CEQA requires that EIRs discuss cumulative impacts, in addition to project-specific impacts. In
accordance with CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and
the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of
environmental impacts attributable to the project alone. According to Section 15355 of the State CEQA
Guidelines:
“Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate
projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Section 15130(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines further states that “a cumulative impact consists of an
impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with
other projects causing related impacts.”
Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines also requires that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a
project when the project's incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.”1 Where a Lead Agency is
examining a project with an incremental effect that is not cumulatively considerable, it need not consider
the effect significant but must briefly describe the basis for its conclusion. If the combined cumulative
impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant,
Section 15130(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a brief discussion in the EIR of why the
cumulative impact is not significant and why it is not discussed in further detail. Section 15130(a)(3) of
the State CEQA Guidelines requires supporting analysis in the EIR if a determination is made that a
project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is rendered less than cumulatively considerable
and, therefore, is not significant. CEQA recognizes that the analysis of cumulative impacts need not be as
detailed as the analysis of project-related impacts, but instead should “be guided by the standards of
practicality and reasonableness” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)). The discussion of cumulative
impacts in this draft EIR focuses on whether the impacts of the proposed Project are cumulatively
considerable.
The fact that a cumulative impact is significant does not necessarily mean that the project contribution to
the cumulative impact is significant as well. Instead, under CEQA, a project-related contribution to a
significant cumulative impact is only significant if the contribution is “cumulatively considerable.” To
support each significance conclusion, the Draft EIR provides a cumulative impact analysis; and where
project-specific impacts have been identified that, together with the effects of other related projects, could
result in cumulatively significant impacts, these potential impacts are documented.
Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines consideration of the following two elements as
necessary to provide an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: “(A) a list of past, present, and
reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects
outside the control of the Agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional
or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to
the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
In this Draft EIR, a combination of these two methods is used depending upon the specific environmental
issue area being analyzed. To evaluate traffic and traffic-related air quality and noise impacts, the
1 Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable” means that “the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
cumulative impacts were evaluated using the projected growth in traffic through 2030 based on City and
County of San Francisco projections. However, to evaluate other cumulative impacts such as construction
noise, the list-based approach was used, and one related project within the Mount Zion neighborhood
was considered in the Draft EIR which is the only project close enough to the project site to have the
potential to result in impacts that cumulate with the impacts of the proposed project. The related project
is an approved mixed use project located at 2655 Bush Street which was approved by the City in April
2009. The site of this project is immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed UCSF
Garage project site. The 2655 Bush Street project would demolish a vacant two-story 20 foot high,
approximately 48,000-square-foot convalescent facility and replace it with a 108,000 square foot
mixed-use building with 4,500 square feet of ground-level retail space and 83 dwelling units. The roof
line of the proposed buildings would range from 40 to 65 feet (four to six stories). According to the
mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City for this project, project construction was to
commence in spring 2010 and the project would be ready for occupancy by late 2011. Project construction
has not commenced at this time due to the economic downturn. However, to provide a conservative
analysis of potential cumulative impacts from concurrent construction, the analysis in this EIR assumes
that the Bush Street project would be under construction the same time as the proposed project.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the existing visual characteristics of the project site and the surrounding area and
evaluates the significance of the changes in visual character that would result from development of the
proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project) as viewed from the surrounding streets and
other public viewpoints.
4.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The UCSF Mount Zion campus site occupies approximately 7.3 acres plus leased space in San Francisco’s
Western Addition, an urban neighborhood that consists of commercial, medical, residential, and
neighborhood commercial uses. The main block containing the UCSF Mount Zion Hospital and Medical
Center is bounded by Sutter Street to the north, Post Street to the south, Scott Street to the east, and
Divisadero Street to the west (UCSF 2005).
The Mount Zion Hospital is an eight-story medical center housed in two buildings (Buildings A and B).
Building A is on the north side of Post Street, with a 275-foot frontage that creates an unbroken visual
plane for about three-quarters of the block. The hospital’s long, horizontal bands of inset picture
windows and its distinctive salmon-pink cladding lend to its visual prominence on the block. Building B
is perpendicular to Building A, with its narrow frontage located mid-block on Sutter Street, adjacent to
the hospital’s loading area (UCSF 2005).
Other medically related uses line the perimeter of the block in buildings up to five stories tall. These
include the five-story Hellman Building on the southeast corner of Post and Scott Streets; the four-story
Harold Brunn Institute located mid-block on Scott Street; the single-story Dialysis Center on the corner of
Sutter and Scott Streets; and the five-story outpatient Cancer Center on the corner of Divisadero and
Sutter Streets (UCSF 2005).
The UCSF Cancer Research Building and the Pavilion Tower, which houses outpatient women’s
programs in an eight-story contemporary building, are located across Sutter Street from Building B. To
the northeast and southwest of the main block are two UCSF outpatient medical office buildings of four
stories each, constructed in 1997. The new Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, a five-story
contemporary building, is located southwest of the main hospital block at 1545 Divisadero Street. The
south block (south of the hospital and bounded by Divisadero, Post, Scott, and Geary Streets) is
predominantly characterized by low-rise medical offices, portions of which are leased by UCSF, and
surface parking lots (UCSF 2005).
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
The Mount Zion campus site is visually intertwined with adjacent non-campus uses and the campus
buildings are not perceived as a single visual entity, as is the case at the Parnassus Heights campus site.
Figure 4.1-1, Neighborhood Context, provides a visual depiction of conditions throughout the Mount
Zion neighborhood. As shown in Figure 4.1-1, the neighborhood consists of several large buildings
ranging in height from three to seven stories. The streetscape consists of roadways and sidewalks along
with power lines and overhead electric cables.
The project site consists of a vacant lot between the 45-foot Russian Center and the 65-foot UCSF medical
office building located at 1701 Divisadero Street. Figure 4.1-2, Adjacent Buildings, provides photographs
of each of the adjacent buildings. The Russian Center is an older building that was constructed in 1911
while the UCSF medical office building at 1701 Divisadero Street is a modern building that was
constructed in 1996.
4.1.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines
New development at UCSF is guided by the Facilities Design Guidelines. The guidelines set forth design
objectives and special considerations for UCSF projects, with an emphasis on a project’s functional
requirements, overall economy, and technical guidelines.
The UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines also contain specific policies related to landscaping at UCSF
campuses sites. These policies include designing landscapes at entrances and exits to UCSF facilities (e.g.,
roadways, parking lots and pedestrian areas) in a manner that maximizes visibility and allows adequate
lighting. Vegetation should be compatible with the natural limitations presented by the Bay Area’s
climate and soil conditions, and also be appropriate for man-made environments (e.g., appropriate for
use as street trees). Additional policies related to landscaping include incorporating water and energy
conservation and utilizing low-maintenance materials (UCSF 1996).
Neighborhood Context
FIGURE 4.1-1
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – November 2010
0 500 1,000 F
Adjacent Buildings
FIGURE 4.1-2
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – November 2010
0 500 1,000 F
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
UCSF Physical Design Framework
Development at UCSF is also guided by the Physical Design Framework (PDF), which sets forth a vision
for the physical development of UCSF campus sites throughout the City and County of San Francisco. It
serves as the foundation for UCSF to plan and design future projects according to a clear and consistent
set of planning and design principles, guidelines and strategies. The PDF contains six planning principles
that are universally applicable to UCSF campus sites. They express key thematic concepts of Context,
Connectivity, Cohesiveness, Collegiality, Community, and Conservation:
Respond to Context while reinforcing identity
Welcome the Community
Ensure Connectivity to and within the campus
Improve campus Cohesiveness
Create spaces to promote Collegiality
Lead through Conservation and sustainability
Each of the above principles contains related specific guidelines, such as designing buildings to fit within
their urban context, considering massing, style, pattern, and color of buildings in the vicinity; relating
buildings to pedestrians and scale to human activity and visual interest; providing a positive campus
interface at campus edges; providing comfortable, activated campus open spaces; and incorporating
sustainability features in buildings (UCSF 2010).
4.1.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
The impact of the proposed project on aesthetics would be considered significant if it would exceed the
following standards of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the
UC CEQA Handbook:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway;
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings;
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area; or
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-6 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
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.
Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study for the proposed project found that implementation of the proposed project would have
no impact on scenic vistas as there are no existing scenic viewsheds in the vicinity of the project site. In
addition, the Initial Study for the proposed project found that implementation of the proposed project
would have no impact on scenic resources within a State scenic highway, as there are no scenic routes
located within the vicinity of the project site. Finally, the Initial Study for the proposed project found that
the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to creating shadows in
public places or increasing pedestrian-level wind speeds above the hazard level set forth in the San
Francisco Planning Code as the nearest public open space is three blocks to the southeast of the project
site and would not be affected by project shadows and the height of the proposed project (49 feet) does
not meet the minimum height (100 feet) to redirect wind speeds at the pedestrian level. These issues are
not discussed further in this section.
Project Characteristics
The proposed project consists of a 49-foot-tall parking structure that would include one parking level
below grade and six parking levels above grade. Figures 3.0-4 through 3.0-7 present floor level plans and
a building section drawing of the proposed parking garage. At its highest point (an elevator penthouse),
the structure would be approximately 60 feet high above sidewalk grade at Sutter Street. The exterior of
the building would be compatible with the surrounding buildings and appropriate for the intended uses
of the site. The proposed project would be constructed of concrete with stucco, glass, perforated metal
panels and concrete masonry infill at the exterior.
Figure 4.1-3, Perspective View provides a perspective illustrating the conceptual architectural design of
the proposed project. While the final architectural design has not been completed at this time, the
perspective illustrates the general massing of the building proposed and of the types of architectural
detail under consideration for the parking structures facade along Sutter Street. Note that because of the
infill nature of the project site, the parking garage would not be visible from any other public street
except Sutter Street.
Perspective View
FIGURE 4.1-3
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – November 2010
0 500 1,000 F
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-8 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Mitigation Measures included in the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measure was adopted by The Regents in connection with certification of the
1996 LRDP EIR and is included as part of the proposed project (UCSF 1997). The analysis presented
below evaluates environmental impacts that would result from project implementation following the
application of this mitigation measure.
LRDP EIR MM 4L-2 Minimize light and glare from LRDP development through orientation of
buildings, use of landscaping, and use of primary façade materials with
low-glare potential. Design standards and guidelines for minimizing light and
glare would be followed, including avoiding the use of mirrored glass as
primary building materials for façades, and configuring exterior light fixtures to
emphasize close spacing of low intensity light sources directed downward.
LRDP EIR MM 4L-3 Construction plans would include specifications for placing and directing any
construction area or flood lighting to minimize potential disturbances to adjacent
residents and businesses.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would alter the existing visual character of the project
site but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings. (Less than Significant)
The area surrounding the proposed project is densely developed. The project site is set within a block that
contains a mixture of institutional uses, such as medical office and research facilities, a vacant
convalescent home, and a mixture of one- to three-story commercial and residential buildings. The
proposed six-level, 49-foot-tall parking structure would be similar in height to other buildings in the area,
including the 45-foot-tall Russian Center to the west of the project site and the 65-foot-tall medical office
building at 1701 Divisadero to the east of the project site. In addition, a five-level public parking garage is
located across the street from the project site to the south.
As shown in Figure 4.1-1, the mass of the proposed garage would be similar to the two adjoining
structures and the façade of the proposed garage would be broken down to a smaller scale through the
use of façade articulation. The height of the proposed garage is even with the adjacent building to the
west (Russian Center) while the modern design of the building is consistent in style to the medical office
building to the east located at 1701 Divisadero Street. As a result, the proposed project simultaneously
respects aspects of both of its immediate neighbors. The modern design of the proposed project is also
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-9 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
consistent with the design of the parking garage that is located directly across the street on the south side
of Sutter Street. Thus, the proposed project would reflect the context of the surrounding neighborhood,
which is in line with the principles contained in the UCSF Physical Design Framework. In addition, the
use of articulation to better relate the façade of building to the pedestrian and human environment is also
in line with the principles contained in the UCSF Physical Design Framework. Finally, the proposed
project would provide landscaping in the form of a planter and street trees along the sidewalk in front of
the building that would conform to UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines. The project also includes planter
boxes on the north side of the building at the fifth level to allow vines to grow down the north façade. For
these reasons, development of the proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the proposed project site and its surroundings, and this impact is considered less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact AES-2: The proposed project would create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than
Significant)
Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials, such as reflective
glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on the intensity and
direction of sunlight. At night, artificial lighting can cause glare. The proposed project would be
constructed of concrete with stucco, glass, and concrete masonry infill at the exterior. These building
materials are generally not highly reflective. Furthermore, LRDP Mitigation Measure 4L-2, which is
included in the project, would require that design standards and guideline for minimizing light and glare
be followed. The project has been designed to be sensitive to adjacent land uses. The garage walls to the
west and the north would have no openings and therefore glare from garage lighting would not be
experienced by persons in the Russian Center or residents of the approved mixed-use development
project to the north of the garage site on Bush Street. In addition, the project includes lighting design that
would ensure that the parking garage lighting on the 5th and 6th levels does not point toward the court
yard that is planned as part of the mixed-use development project. Therefore, the impact would be less
than significant.
While nighttime construction of the proposed project is not proposed or planned, it is possible that it
could occur under exceptional circumstances. Nighttime construction could require the use of flood
lighting. However, LRDP Mitigation Measure 4L-3, which is included in the project, would require that
construction plans include specifications for placing and directing any construction area or flood lighting
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-10 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
to minimize potential disturbances to adjacent residents and businesses. As a result, the impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
4.1.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, one other project is proposed in the vicinity
of the proposed UCSF Mount Zion Garage project, that when combined with the proposed garage
project, could potentially result in cumulative impacts. The proposed mixed-use project would be located
at 2655 Bush Street adjacent to the project site to the north. The 2655 Bush Street project consists of a
108,000 square foot mixed use building with 4,500 square feet of ground-level retail space and 83
dwelling units. The roof line of the proposed building would range from 40 to 65 feet (four to six stories).
Cumulative Impact AES-1: Cumulative development would alter the existing visual character but
would not substantially degrade the existing visual character and
quality of the site and its surroundings. (Less than Significant)
The 2655 Bush Street project would demolish a vacant two story 20-foot-high, approximately
48,000-square-foot 116-bed convalescent facility and replace it with a 108,000-square-foot mixed-use
building that would range in height from 40 to 65 feet (four to six stories). The height of the 2655 Bush
Street project would be compatible with the heights of surrounding buildings along Divisadero Street and
the main Mount Zion Hospital Block. The design of the 2655 Bush Street project would be a
contemporary interpretation of the pre-war traditional residential architectural style found in the
neighborhood (San Francisco 2009). Views of the 2655 Bush Street project would only be available from
Bush Street while views of the proposed project would be available from Sutter Street. Both projects
would not be visible from any one viewpoint. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the two projects on the
visual character of the Mount Zion neighborhood would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impact AES-2: Cumulative development would create new sources of light or glare
that would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
(Less than Significant)
The proposed mixed-use project at 2655 Bush Street would add lighting typical of residential and
commercial development in the neighborhood. This includes directed lighting for architectural accents,
signage, and security focused onto surfaces to be lit, such as building details, landscape elements, signs,
4.1 Aesthetics
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-11 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
and pedestrian areas. Exterior lighting would be consistent with similar lighting on surrounding land
uses and the fixtures would be directed downward to minimize visible light on and off the project site. In
addition the 2655 Bush Street project would not include mirrored or reflective glass (San Francisco 2009).
As discussed above, the proposed project would also not be built with highly reflective material. In
addition, light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be minimized with the
implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4L-2 and 4L-3. Combined, light and glare generated by the
proposed project and the 2655 Bush Street project would not result in a substantial amount of light and
glare, and the cumulative impact of the two projects would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
4.1.6 REFERENCES
City and County of San Francisco. 2009. Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2655 Bush Street, Case No.
2005.1106E. (San Francisco 2009)
University of California, San Francisco. 1996. Facilities Design Guidelines. (UCSF 1996)
University of California, San Francisco. 1996 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report. SCH No. 1995123032. January 1997. (UCSF 1997)
University of California, San Francisco. LRDP Amendment No. 2 – Hospital Replacement Final
Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2004072067. March 2005. (UCSF 2005)
University of California, San Francisco. 2010. Physical Design Framework. (UCSF 2010)
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.2 AIR QUALITY
4.2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents existing air quality conditions in the area of the proposed Mount Zion Garage
project (proposed project) and analyzes the potential air quality impacts associated with implementation
of the proposed project. This section also provides a description of the regulatory framework for air
quality management on a federal, state, regional, and local level. In addition, this section evaluates the
types and quantities of air emissions that would be generated on a short-term basis during project
construction and over the long-term from the operation of the proposed project.
The analysis of air quality impacts is based on air quality regulations administered by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) with each agency responsible for different aspects of
the proposed project’s activities. The roles of these agencies are discussed in detail in the Regulatory
Considerations section. Air quality emission calculations conducted for the project are contained in
Appendix 4.2 of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Climate and Meteorology
The project area is centrally located in the City of San Francisco, which is situated on the northern tip of
the peninsula separating the San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean and within the boundaries of the
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Basin). The climate of the Bay Area is Mediterranean in
character, with mild, rainy winter weather from November through March and warm, dry weather from
June through October. At the northern end of the peninsula in San Francisco, pollutant emissions are
high, especially from motor vehicle congestion. Localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, can build
up in "urban canyons." Winds are generally fast enough to carry the pollutants away before they can
accumulate. The frequent storms and infrequent periods of sustained sunny weather in the winter are not
conducive to ozone formation.
The average annual temperature in the area is in the mid 50s with mean high temperatures in the low 80s
during the summer and in the low 60s in the winter. Annual and daily temperatures in the region have
small oscillations due to the moderating effects of the nearby ocean. In contrast to the steady temperature
regime, rainfall is highly variable and confined almost exclusively to the “rainy” period from November
through April. The area receives approximately 30 inches of rainfall annually, of which about 95 percent
occurs during November to April. Precipitation may vary widely from year to year as a shift in the
annual storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the difference between a very wet year and drought
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
conditions. The usual wind pattern in the project area consists of daytime winds originating offshore
from the west and northwest as air is funneled through the Golden Gate, and nighttime winds
originating from the east and southeast due to the cooling of land areas. Summer afternoon sea breezes
can often exceed 20 miles per hour. Peak annual winds occur during winter storms. South and southeast
winds typically also precede weather systems passing through the region.
Regional Air Quality
The determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is made by comparing
contaminant levels in ambient air samples to national and state standards. Health-based air quality
standards have been established by California and the federal government for the following criteria air
pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). These standards were established to protect sensitive receptors with a
margin of safety from adverse health impacts due to exposure to air pollution. California has also
established standards for sulfates, visibility reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The
state and national ambient air quality standards for each of the monitored pollutants and their effects on
health are summarized in Table 4.2-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Table 4.2-1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Pollutant
Concentration/Averaging Time
Most Relevant Health Effects
State Standard
(CAAQS)
Federal Primary
Standard (NAAQS)
Ozone 0.09 ppm, 1-hr. avg.
0.070 ppm, 8-hr avg.
0.075 ppm, 8-hr avg.
(3-year average of
annual 4th-highest daily
maximum)
(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized
lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to
public health implied by alterations in pulmonary
morphology and host defense in animals; (c)
Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health
implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and
altered pulmonary morphology in animals after
long-term exposures and pulmonary function
decrements in chronically exposed humans;
(e) Vegetation damage; and (f) Property damage
Nitrogen Dioxide1 0.18 ppm, 1-hr avg.
0.030 ppm, annual
arithmetic mean
0.100 ppm, 1-hr avg.
(3-year avg. of the 98th
percentile of the daily
maximum 1-hour avg.)
0.053 ppm, annual
arithmetic mean
(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease
and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b)
Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and
extrapulmonary biochemical and cellular changes
and pulmonary structural changes; and (c)
Contribution to atmospheric discoloration
Carbon Monoxide 20 ppm, 1-hr avg.
9.0 ppm, 8-hr avg.
35 ppm, 1-hr avg. (not to
be exceeded more than
once per year)
9 ppm, 8-hr avg. (not to
be exceeded more than
once per year)
(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects
of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise
tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease
and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous
system functions; and (d) Possible increased risk to
fetuses
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Air Pollutant
Concentration/Averaging Time
Most Relevant Health Effects
State Standard
(CAAQS)
Federal Primary
Standard (NAAQS)
Sulfur Dioxide2 0.25 ppm, 1-hr. avg.
0.04 ppm, 24-hr avg.
0.075 ppm, 1-hr avg. (3-
year avg. of the 99th
percentile)
Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms,
which may include wheezing, shortness of breath
and chest tightness, during exercise or physical
activity in persons with asthma
Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
50 µg/m3, 24-hr avg.
20 µg/m3, annual
arithmetic mean
150 µg/m3, 24-hr avg.
(not to be exceeded more
than once per year on
average over 3 years)
(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients
with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b)
Declines in pulmonary function growth in children;
and (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart
or lung diseases in the elderly
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
12 µg/m3, annual
arithmetic mean
35 µg/m3, 24-hr avg. (3-
year average of 98th
percentile)
15 µg/m3, annual
arithmetic mean
(3-year average)
(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients
with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b)
Declines in pulmonary function growth in children;
and (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart
or lung diseases in the elderly
Lead3 1.5 µg/m3, 30-day avg. 1.5 µg/m3, calendar
quarter
0.15 µg/m3, 3-month
rolling average
(a) Increased body burden; and (b) Impairment of
blood formation and nerve conduction
Visibility-
Reducing Particles
Reduction of visual
range to less than 10
miles at relative
humidity less than
70%, 8-hour avg.
(10 AM–6 PM)
None Visibility impairment on days when relative
humidity is less than 70%
Sulfates 25 µg/m3, 24-hr avg. None (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation
of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-
pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e)
Degradation of visibility; and (f) Property damage
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.03 ppm, 1-hr avg. None Odor annoyance
Vinyl Chloride3 0.01 ppm, 24-hr avg. None Known carcinogen
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan, (2007) Table 3.1-1, p. 3.1-3.
µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter.
ppm = parts per million by volume.1 On January 25, 2010, the U.S. EPA promulgated a new 1-hour NO2 standard. The new 1-hour standard is 0.100 parts per million (188
micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) and became effective on April 12, 2010.2 On June 3, 2010, the U.S. EPA issued a new 1-hour SO2 standard. The new 1-hour standard is 0.075 parts per million (196 µg/m3). The
U.S. EPA also revoked the existing 24-hour and annual standards citing a lack of evidence of specific health impacts from long-term exposures.
The new 1-hour standard becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.3 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects
determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these
pollutants.
Air quality of a region is considered to be in attainment of the NAAQS if the measured ambient air
pollutant levels are not exceeded more than once per year, except for O3, PM10, PM2.5 and those based on
annual averages or arithmetic mean. The NAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
calculations over one- to three-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The SFBAAB is currently
designated as a marginal nonattainment area with respect to the national standard for 8-hour O3, and
nonattainment for 24-hour PM2.5; and is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all other pollutants.
Additional details regarding the attainment status are provided later in this section.
Air quality of a region is considered to be in attainment of the state standards if the measured ambient air
pollutant levels for O3, CO, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles are
not exceeded, and all other standards are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive
three-year period. The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state
standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 and is designated as attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.
Additional details regarding the attainment status are provided later in this section.
The project site is located within the SFBAAB, which includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,
San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties as well as the southern half of Sonoma County and
the southwestern portion of Solano County. The Basin is affected by the pollutants generated within
dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, and industry. However, as mentioned above, coastal
sea breezes tend to transport pollutants generated within the SFBAAB to inland locations such as the
Central Valley.
The air pollutants within the Basin are generated by two categories of sources: stationary and mobile.
Stationary sources are known as “point sources,” which have one or more emission sources at a single
facility, or “area sources,” which are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Point sources
are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial uses and include sources such as refinery
boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or process heat. Examples of area sources
include residential water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and
consumer products, such as barbecue lighter fluid or hair spray. “Mobile sources” refer to operational
and evaporative emissions from on- and off-road motor vehicles.
Local Air Quality
To identify ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD operates more than 30 air
quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin. The nearest monitoring station to the project site is
located at Arkansas Street in San Francisco, approximately 4 miles southeast of the project site.
Table 4.2-2, Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site, lists the
concentrations registered and the exceedances of California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)
and the NAAQS that have occurred at this monitoring station from 2007 through 2009, the most recent
years for which data is available. During this period (i.e., 2007 through 2009), the station registered
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
exceedances for the state 24-hour PM10 standard in 2007 and the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2007
and 2009. No other exceedances of the state or federal standards for O3, NO2, CO, SO2, or Pb were
registered at this station between 2007 and 2009.
Table 4.2-2
Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site
Pollutant Standards 1
Year
2007 2008 2009
OZONE (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.060 0.082 0.072
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.053 0.066 0.057
Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.09 ppm 0 0 0
Number of days exceeding state 8-hour standard 0.070 ppm 0 0 0
Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard 0.075 ppm 0 0 0
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.069 0.062 0.059
Annual average concentration (ppm) 0.016 0.016 0.015
Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)2
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.5 5.7 4.3
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.60 2.29 2.86
Number of days exceeding state 8-hour standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0
Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard 9 ppm 0 0 0
SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2)3
Maximum 1-hour concentration in ppm 0.016 0.021 N/A
Maximum 24-hour concentration in ppm 0.006 0.004 N/A
Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.25 ppm 0 0 N/A
Number of days exceeding state 24-hour standard 0.04 ppm 0 0 N/A
PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)
Maximum 24-hour concentration, state (µg/m3)4 69.8 41.3 36.0
Maximum 24-hour concentration, federal (µg/m3)5 65.7 41.2 35.3
Annual arithmetic mean concentration (µg/m3)4 21.8 21.9 18.6
Number of samples exceeding state 24-hour standard 50 µg/m3 2 0 0
Number of samples exceeding federal 24-hour standard 150 µg/m3 0 0 0
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-6 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Pollutant Standards 1
Year
2007 2008 2009
PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3)5 45.2 29.4 35.5
Annual arithmetic mean concentration (µg/m3)6 8.7 9.8 9.7
Number of samples exceeding federal 24-hour standard 35 µg/m3 5 0 1
N/A = not available.
Source: California Air Resources Board, “iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. 2010.1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3) or annual arithmetic mean (aam).2 Carbon monoxide 1-hour monitoring data was obtained from the BAAQMD’s Bay Area Air Pollution Summary from 2007 through 2009
(http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx).3 Sulfur dioxide 1-hour monitoring data was obtained from the U.S. EPA’s AirData website (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html).4 Using state methods for sampling.5 Using federal methods for sampling.2 PM2.5 annual arithmetic mean data was obtained from the BAAQMD’s Bay Area Air Pollution Summary from 2007 through 2009
(http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx).
Surrounding Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project include residential neighborhoods and
hospitals. The nearest residences are approximately a half block west of the project site. The Mount Zion
hospital buildings are adjacent to the project site and the Kaiser Permanente hospital is located about two
blocks to the south. The nearest school is Benjamin Franklin Middle School and the nearest recreation
center is Hamilton Recreation Center, both located several blocks to the southeast of the project site.
Land uses such as schools and hospitals are considered relatively sensitive to poor air quality because
children and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air-quality-related health
problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to air pollution because
residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting
in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Recreational areas are also considered sensitive locations
due to vigorous exercise associated with these types of land uses (exercise causes an increased breathing
rate that will lead to greater exposure to ambient air pollutants).
Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Traffic congestion along roadways and at intersections has the potential to generate localized high levels
of CO. The BAAQMD monitoring stations have not recorded any exceedances of the state or federal CO
standards since 1991. However, because elevated CO concentrations are generally localized, heavy traffic
volumes and congestion at specific intersections or roadway segments can lead to high levels of CO, or
hotspots, while concentrations at the nearest air quality monitoring station may be below state and
federal standards.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-7 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.2.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Air quality within the SFBAAB is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional and
local government agencies. These agencies work jointly as well as individually to improve air quality
through legislation, regulations, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. With
respect to the proposed project, the BAAQMD would administer most of the air quality requirements
affecting the proposed project. The agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality within
the Basin are discussed below along with their individual responsibilities.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria Pollutants
The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the NAAQS. The NAAQS
identify levels of air quality for seven criteria pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of
ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the
public health and welfare. The seven criteria pollutants are O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The
federal ambient air quality standards and the relevant health effects of the criteria pollutants are
summarized above in Table 4.2-1.
The Basin is currently classified by the U.S. EPA as a nonattainment/marginal area for the 8-hour
standard for O3 and a nonattainment area for PM2.5. Additionally, it has been designated as an
attainment/unclassifiable1 area for the 1-hour and 8-hour standards for CO and the annual standard for
NO2, and as an attainment area for the quarterly lead standard and 24-hour and annual SO2 standards.
The Basin is currently designated as unclassifiable for the 24-hour PM10 standard. In response to its
enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state to prepare and submit a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) describing how the state will achieve the federal standards by specified dates,
depending on the severity of the air quality within the state or air basin. The BAAQMD has been
delegated the responsibility for implementing many of the CAA requirements for the region, which
includes the project site. The status of the SFBAAB with respect to attainment with the NAAQS is
summarized in Table 4.2-3, National Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations – San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin (San Francisco City and County).
1 Unclassifiable in terms of attainment status indicates that there is insufficient data available to support a
designation of either attainment or nonattainment.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-8 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 4.2-3
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (San Francisco City and County)
Pollutant Designation/Classification
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment/Marginal
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment/Maintenance
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment/Unclassifiable
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment/Unclassifiable
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment/Unclassifiable
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Region 9: Air Programs, Air Quality Maps,” http://www.epa.gov/region9/
air/maps/index.html. 2010.1 The U.S. EPA has promulgated a new 1-hour NAAQS for NO2. The new 1-hour standard is 0.100 parts per million (188 micrograms per
cubic meter) and became effective on April 12, 2010. The U.S. EPA will make nonattainment area designations for the 1-hour standard by
2012.
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Regulation of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under federal regulations is achieved through federal and
state controls on individual sources. Federal law defines HAPs as non-criteria air pollutants with
short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. The
1990 federal CAA Amendments offer a comprehensive plan for achieving significant reductions in both
mobile and stationary source emissions of HAPs. Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, a total of
189 chemicals or chemical families were designated HAPs because of their adverse human health effects.
Title III of the 1990 federal CAA Amendments amended Section 112 of the CAA to replace the former
program with an entirely new technology-based program. Under Title III, the U.S. EPA must establish
maximum achievable control technology emission standards for all new and existing “major” stationary
sources through promulgation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
Major stationary sources of HAPs are required to obtain an operating permit from the BAAQMD
pursuant to Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments. A major source is defined as one that emits at least
10 tons per year of any HAP or at least 25 tons per year of all HAPs.
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA), oversees air quality planning and control throughout California. It is primarily responsible for
ensuring implementation of the 1988 California Clean Air Act (CCAA), for responding to the federal
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-9 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
CAA requirements and for regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products within the
state. The CCAA and other California air quality statutes designate local air districts, such as the
BAAQMD, with the responsibility for regulating most stationary sources, and to a certain extent, area
sources.
Like the U.S. EPA, CARB has established ambient air quality standards for the state (i.e., CAAQS). These
standards apply to the same seven criteria pollutants as the federal CAA and also address sulfates (SO4),
visibility-reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). The CCAA standards
are more stringent than the federal standards and, in the case of PM10 and SO2, far more stringent. Based
on monitored pollutant levels, the CCAA divides O3 nonattainment areas into four categories – moderate,
serious, severe, and extreme – to which progressively more stringent planning and emission control
requirements apply.
The Basin is a nonattainment area for the California 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard. The Basin is
designated as nonattainment for the California 24-hour and annual PM10 standards, as well as the
California annual PM2.5 standard. The Basin is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all other
CAAQS. The ozone precursors, ROG and NOX, in addition to PM10, are the pollutants of concern for
projects located in the Basin. The status of the Basin with respect to attainment with the CAAQS is
summarized in Table 4.2-4, California Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations – San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin.
Table 4.2-4
California Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Pollutant Designation/Classification
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment1
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment
Sulfates (SO4) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified
Source: California Air Resources Board, “Area Designations Maps/State and National,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 2010.1 CARB has not issued area classifications based on the new state 8-hour standard. The previous classification for the 1-hour ozone standard
was Serious.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-10 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Toxic Air Contaminants
California law defines Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) as air pollutants having carcinogenic or other
health effects. A total of 245 substances have been designated TACs under California law; they include
the federal HAPs adopted as TACs in accordance with Assembly Bill 2728. The Air Toxics Hot Spots
Information and Assessment Act of 1987, Assembly Bill 2588 (AB 2588), seeks to identify and evaluate
risk from air toxics sources; AB 2588 does not regulate air toxics emissions directly. Under AB 2588,
sources emitting more than 10 tons per year of any criteria air pollutant must estimate and report their
toxic air emissions to the local air districts. Local air districts then prioritize facilities on the basis of
emissions, and high priority facilities are required to submit a health risk assessment and communicate
the results to the affected public. Depending on risk levels, emitting facilities are required to implement
varying levels of risk reduction measures. The BAAQMD is responsible for implementing AB 2588 in the
Basin.
The BAAQMD is currently working to control TAC impacts from local hot spots and from ambient
background concentrations. The control strategy involves reviewing new sources to ensure compliance
with required emission controls and limits, maintaining an inventory of existing sources to identify major
TAC emissions and developing measures to reduce TAC emissions. The BAAQMD publishes the results
of the various control programs in an annual report, which provides information on the current TAC
inventory, AB 2588 risk assessments, TAC monitoring programs, and TAC control measures and plans.
One of the TACs being controlled by the BAAQMD is particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines, also
known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Compared to other TACs, DPM emissions are estimated to be
responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient air toxics risk in the Basin. On a statewide basis, the
average potential cancer risk associated with these emissions is over 500 potential cancer cases per million
exposed people. In addition to these general risks, diesel exhaust particulate can also present elevated
localized or near-source exposures. Depending on the activity and nearness to receptors, these potential
risks can range from a low number to 1,500 cancer cases per million exposed people (CARB 2010).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Management of air quality in the Basin is the responsibility of the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is
responsible for bringing and/or maintaining air quality in the Basin within federal and state air quality
standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has responsibility for monitoring ambient air pollutant levels
throughout the Basin and developing and implementing attainment strategies to ensure that future
emissions will be within federal and state standards. The following plans have been developed by the
BAAQMD to achieve attainment of the federal and state ozone standards. The Clean Air Plan (CAP) and
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-11 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Ozone Strategy fulfill the planning requirements of the CCAA, while the Ozone Attainment Plan fulfills
the federal CAA requirements.
Clean Air Plans
The CCAA requires air districts within nonattainment areas to prepare a triennial assessments and
revisions to their Clean Air Plans (CAPs). The BAAQMD has prepared a series of CAPs, the most recent
and rigorous of which was drafted in March 2010 (BAAQMD 2010a). The 2010 Draft CAP continues the
air pollution reduction strategy established by the 1991 CAP and represents the fourth triennial update to
the 1991 CAP, following previous updates of 1994, 1997, and 2000. The 2010 CAP is designed to address
attainment of the state standard for ozone, particulate matter, air toxics and greenhouse gases. CAPs are
intended to focus on the near-term actions through amendments of existing regulations and
promulgation of new District regulations.
The Bay Area 2010 CAP provides a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect
public health. The 2010 CAP defines a control strategy that the District and its partners will implement to:
(1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutant; (2) safeguard public
health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that poses the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on
protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to protect the climate. The 2010 CAP is designed to update the most recent ozone plan, the
BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy, to comply with state air quality planning requirements as codified in the
California Health and Safety Code. State law required the CAP to include all feasible measures to reduce
emissions of ozone precursors and to reduce transport of ozone precursors to neighboring air basins.
The SFBAAB was recently designated as non-attainment for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and will
be required to prepare a PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to federal air quality guidelines
by December 2012. The 2010 CAP is not a SIP document and does not respond to federal requirements for
PM2.5 or ozone planning. However, in anticipation of future PM2.5 planning requirements, the CAP
control strategy also aims to reduce PM emissions and concentrations. In addition, U.S. EPA is currently
reevaluating national ozone standards, and is likely to tighten those standards in the near future. The
2010 CAP updates the BAAQMD’s most recent state ozone plan, the 2005 Ozone Strategy, by addressing
new emerging challenges and opportunities. The 2010 CAP control strategy includes revised, updated,
and new measures in the three traditional control measure categories: Stationary Source Measures,
Mobile Source Measures, and Transportation Control Measures. In addition, the CAP identifies two new
categories of control measures: Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures
(BAAQMD 2010a). The control measures in the CAP will also help in the Basin’s continuing effort to
attain national ozone standards.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-12 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
2001 Ozone Attainment Plan
The BAAQMD developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan as a guideline to achieve the then federal
1-hour ozone standard (BAAQMD 2001). The 2001 Attainment Plan was approved by CARB in 2001 and
by the U.S. EPA in 2003. In April 2004, the U.S. EPA determined the SFBAAB had attained the federal
1-hour ozone standard. Due to the attainment status of the Basin, the 1-hour ozone requirements set forth
in the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan were not required anymore. A year later, in 2005, the federal 1-hour
ozone standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA for a new and more health-protective 8-hour standard. The
Basin was designated as marginal nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. Although
designated as nonattainment, areas designated as marginal nonattainment or less were not required to
submit new attainment plans. Nonetheless, the control measures and strategies described in the
2001 Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-hour standard will also help achieve attainment with the 8-hour
standard.
BAAQMD Rules and Regulations
Specific rules and regulations have been adopted by the BAAQMD that limit emissions that can be
generated by various uses and/or activities. These rules regulate not only the emissions of the state and
federal criteria pollutants, but also the emissions of TACs. The rules are also subject to ongoing
refinement by the BAAQMD.
In general, all stationary sources with air emissions are subject to BAAQMD’s rules governing their
operational emissions. Some emissions sources are further subject to regulation through the BAAQMD’s
permitting process. Through this permitting process, the BAAQMD also monitors the amount of
stationary emissions being generated and uses this information in developing the CAP. The proposed
project does not include any stationary sources such as emergency generators or boilers that would be
required to obtain a permit for operation. The only rules applicable to the project include the following:
Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings): This rule sets limits on the ROG content in
architectural coatings sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured within the BAAQMD’s
jurisdiction. The rule also includes time schedules that specify when more stringent ROG standards
are to be enforced. The rule applies during the construction phase of a project. In addition, any
periodic architectural coating maintenance operations are required to comply with this rule.
Regulation 8, Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts): This rule sets limits on the ROG content in
emulsified and liquid asphalt used for maintenance and paving operations. The rule includes specific
ROG content requirements for various types of asphalt (e.g., emulsified asphalt, rapid-cure liquid
asphalt, slow-cure liquid asphalt). This rule applies during the construction phase of a project. In
addition, any future asphalt maintenance of a project’s roads would be required to comply with the
ROG standards set in Rule 15.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-13 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
In April 1996, the BAAQMD prepared its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as a guidance document to provide
lead government agencies, consultants and project proponents with uniform procedures for assessing air
quality impacts and preparing the air quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to
CEQA. On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These guidelines
describe the criteria that the BAAQMD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of
environmental documents, such as this EIR. The updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
recommend thresholds for use in determining whether projects would have significant adverse
environmental impacts, identify methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identify
measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. This EIR section was prepared
following these recommendations.
4.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this EIR, air quality impacts would be considered significant if they would exceed the
following standards of significance, which are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, and the UC CEQA Handbook. According to these guidelines, a
project would normally have a significant impact on air quality if it would:
Conflict or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation;
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations;
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people;
Exceed the probability of 10 in 1 million of a maximally exposed individual contracting cancer due to
emissions of toxic air contaminants; or
Have ground level concentrations of non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that would result in a
hazard index greater than 1.0 for the maximally exposed individual.
The UC CEQA Handbook states that, where applicable, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air district may be used to make these determinations. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-14 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Guidelines recommend analytical methodologies and provide thresholds for determining the level of
significance of project impacts under the above-listed general criteria. The thresholds from the BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are presented below.
Construction Emissions
Impacts related to construction emissions associated with the proposed project would be considered
significant if the project emissions exceeded the thresholds listed in Table 4.2-5, BAAQMD Construction
Emission Thresholds.
Table 4.2-5
BAAQMD Construction Emission Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutants
Average Daily Emissions
(Pounds per Day)
ROG 54
NOX 54
PM10 (Exhaust) 82
PM2.5 (Exhaust) 54
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010b.
Operational Emissions
Impacts from direct and/or indirect operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be
considered significant if they exceeded the thresholds in Table 4.2-6, BAAQMD Operational Emission
Thresholds.
Table 4.2-6
BAAQMD Operational Emission Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutants
Average Daily Emissions
(Pounds per Day)
ROG 54
NOX 54
PM10 (Exhaust) 82
PM2.5 (Exhaust) 54
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010b.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-15 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Direct emissions are those that are emitted on a site and include stationary sources and on-site mobile
equipment, if applicable. Examples of land uses and activities that generate direct emissions are
industrial operations and sources subject to an operating permit by the BAAQMD. Indirect emissions
come from mobile sources that access the project site, but generally are emitted off site. For many types of
land development projects, the principal source of air pollutant emissions is the motor vehicle trips
generated by the project.
Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts
Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these
pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The proposed project would result in a
significant impact if its emissions of TACs or PM2.5 resulted in any of the following:
Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or,
An incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 10 in 1 million, or an increase in non-cancer risk
(i.e., chronic or acute) as measured by a hazard index greater than 1.0; and
An incremental increase in ambient PM2.5 of more than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)
annual average.
Cumulative Impacts
A project would have a significant cumulative impact if the aggregate total of TAC or PM2.5 emissions
from all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a
source, or from the location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, result the following:
Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or,
An incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 100 in 1 million or an increase in chronic
non-cancer risk (from all local sources) as measured by a hazard index greater than 10.0; and
An incremental increase in ambient PM2.5 of more than 0.8 µg/m3 annual average.
Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Indirect CO emissions are considered significant if they will contribute to a violation of the state
standards for CO (9.0 ppm averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm over 1 hour). The BAAQMD recommends
CO modeling for projects in which: (1) project vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 550 pounds per day;
(2) project traffic would affect intersections or roadway segments operating at level of service (LOS) E or
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-16 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
F, or would cause a decline to LOS E or F;2 or (3) project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby
roadways by 10 percent or more (unless the increase in traffic volume is less than 100 vehicles per hour).
Intersections are determined to operate at an LOS between A and F (LOS A being the best and LOS F
being the worst) according to congestion or delay time, demand/capacity ratio, and relative flow of traffic
at the intersection. Intersections that are determined to operate at LOS F or E have the potential to cause a
CO hotspot (i.e., exceedance of the CAAQS). If necessary, a simplified CO modeling analysis, described in
the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, may be used to determine localized CO concentrations. If
modeling demonstrates that the source would not cause a violation of the state standard at existing or
reasonably foreseeable receptors, the motor vehicle trips generated by the project would not have a
significant impact on local air quality.
Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study prepared for the project noted that while odors would be generated during project
construction, these odors would be short term and temporary and would not be pervasive enough to
affect a substantial number of people or to be objectionable. Concerning operation, the Initial Study noted
that odors are not typically associated with vehicular traffic that would utilize the proposed parking
structure. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not cause or be affected
by odors, and the impact would be less than significant. This issue is not discussed further in the analysis
below.
Impact Assessment Methodology
Air quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project fall into two categories:
short-term impacts due to construction activities and long-term impacts from the day-to-day operations
of the proposed project. Construction activities would impact air quality on a local level due to fugitive
dust PM10 and other criteria pollutant emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment
exhaust. The URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software, and information provided in the
Software User’s Guide [for] URBEMIS2007 for Windows was used to quantify construction emissions
resulting from the development of the proposed project (Rimpo and Associates 2008). The URBEMIS2007
model utilizes the EMPAC2007 emissions factor model for on-road motor vehicle sources and the
OFFROAD2007 emissions factor model for off-road equipment.
Following construction of the proposed project, operational criteria pollutant emissions would be
generated primarily by project-related motor vehicle trips. The project would not include any substantial
2 Levels of Service (LOS) range from A (least congested) with a condition of free flow with low volumes and high
speeds to F (most congested) with stop and go, low-speed conditions with little or poor maneuverability.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-17 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
area sources of emissions. Nonetheless, as a conservative measure, the URBEMIS2007 model was used to
quantify area source emissions based on the emission factors for a warehouse land-use type. The model
does not include a parking structure as a land-use type and the warehouse land-use type is typically used
as a surrogate. The emission calculations and daily emissions are described in further detail below.
Mitigation Measures Included in the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measure was adopted by The Regents in connection with certification of the
1996 LRDP EIR and is thus included as part of the proposed project (UCSF 1997). The analysis presented
below evaluates environmental impacts that would result from project implementation following the
application of this mitigation measure.
LRDP EIR MM 4D-1 UCSF would require in all construction contracts that the contractors reduce
major criteria air pollutant emissions by complying with the air pollution control
strategies developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD). UCSF would include appropriate dust control requirements in all
construction and demolition contracts.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact AQ-1: Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term emissions of
fugitive dust and criteria air pollutants that could adversely affect local air
quality in the vicinity of the construction site and could exceed the BAAQMD
construction significance thresholds. (Less than Significant)
Mass-Based Thresholds
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in spring 2011 and continue for
approximately 12 months. Construction activities would include grading/excavation, trenching, building
construction, and architectural coating. Site-specific or project-specific data were used in the
URBEMIS2007 model where available. UCSF provided a preliminary schedule for construction and
grading amounts. Grading would include the export of 7,700 cubic yards of material. The default
construction equipment and vehicle mixes generated by URBEMIS2007 were assumed for grading and
building construction. The number of vendor trips (e.g., transport of building materials) and worker trips
were based on default values in the URBEMIS2007 model. For all proposed projects, BAAQMD
recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BAAQMD 2010), whether
or not construction-related emissions exceed the construction thresholds of significance. Furthermore,
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-18 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4D-1 is part of the proposed project and would be implemented during
construction. Therefore, these mitigation measures were applied to the URBEMIS2007 model calculations.
Table 4.2-7, Estimated Construction Emissions, identifies the maximum daily emissions for each
pollutant during each phase of project construction. Construction emissions include all emissions
associated with the construction equipment, grading and trenching activities, worker trips, and on-road
diesel trucks.
Table 4.2-7
Estimated Construction Emissions
Emissions in Pounds per Day
Construction Year ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 exhaust PM2.5 exhaust
2011 Maximum Daily Emissions 33.44 43.25 32.50 0.01 2.52 2.31
2012 Maximum Daily Emissions 29.63 14.53 11.30 0.00 1.25 1.15
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 — — 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO — — NO NO
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed URBEMIS2007 emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.
Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.
As shown in Table 4.2-7, construction emissions would not exceed any BAAQMD thresholds of
significance; therefore, construction of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on air
quality. To ensure that the emissions remain below the thresholds, mitigation measures recommended by
the BAAQMD are included below and would be implemented during project construction.
Concentration-Based Thresholds
The BAAQMD has established a concentration-based threshold for exhaust emissions of PM2.5 during
construction. As shown above in Table 4.2-7, emissions of PM2.5 are well below the threshold. In view of
these very low emissions, the resulting PM2.5 concentrations would likely be well below the BAAQMD
significance thresholds, as well as the chronic health hazard index threshold. Additionally, because
construction would last for about one year, the resulting incremental increase in Lifetime Excess Cancer
Risk (LECR) would also be well below the BAAQMD significance threshold.
A dispersion modeling analysis was performed to confirm that the DPM emissions from construction
would not result in a significant health impact to the community. The modeling analysis accounted for
DPM emissions from heavy-duty off-road construction equipment and on-road haul trucks and delivery
trucks. The emissions from heavy-duty off-road equipment were modeled as volume sources located at
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-19 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
the construction site while the on-road trucks were modeled as line sources along the route that these
trucks would likely take to delivery material to and from the site. Consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, only exhaust PM2.5 emissions were considered in the analysis and the on-road trucks were
modeled out to 1,000 feet from the project site. The results of the dispersion model are presented in Table
4.2-8, Estimated Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations. As shown in Table 4.2-8, construction of
the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the potential adverse
effects to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) from DPM during construction would be less than
significant. A detailed discussion of the dispersion modeling analysis is provided in Appendix 4.2.
Table 4.2-8
Estimated Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations
Receptor
Modeled PM2.5 Concentration
Annual Average
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Significance Threshold
Annual Average
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Exceeds
Threshold?
Residential 0.06 0.3 No
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2.
On August 27, 1998, the CARB designated DPM emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC because
some of the exhaust constituents that make up DPM, such as arsenic, benzene, and nickel, are known to
cause cancer in humans. Exposure to DPM also can cause chronic non-cancer health effects, including
respiratory symptoms, changes in lung function, and cardiovascular disease. As noted above, the
BAAQMD thresholds state that an incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 10 in 1 million, or an
increase in non-cancer risk (i.e., chronic or acute) as measured by a hazard index greater than 1.0 would
be considered a significant impact. These thresholds are assessed using the methodologies described in
the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance
Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA Guidance 2003). For evaluating cancer risk, the
OEHHA Guidance recommends that a 70-year exposure duration be used for determining lifetime
residential cancer risks (7 days per week, 50 weeks per year). This ensures that a person residing in the
vicinity of a facility for a lifetime will be included in the evaluation of risk posed by that facility. For
evaluating non-cancer effects sensitive receptors should be evaluating based on the exposure pathways
(inhalation, ingestion, and/or dermal [skin absorption]) as well as the duration of exposure (short-term or
long-term). OEHHA has not identified acute (short-term) non-cancer health impact factors for DPM.
However, OEHHA has identified chronic (long-term) non-cancer health impact factors for DPM via the
inhalation pathway only. OEHHA has not identified non-cancer health impact factors for DPM from
exposure via the ingestion or dermal pathways. Therefore, the non-carcinogenic effects of DPM are
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-20 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
evaluated for chronic impacts via inhalation. Chronic non-cancer inhalation impacts are evaluated over
an annual exposure period.
The results of the modeling analysis for cancer risk are presented in Table 4.2-9, Estimated Construction
Cancer Risks. The results of the modeling analysis for chronic non-cancer impacts are presented in Table
4.2-10, Estimated Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts. As shown in Table 4.2-9 and Table
4.2-10, construction of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the
potential adverse health effects to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) from DPM during construction
would be less than significant. A detailed discussion of the dispersion modeling analysis and health risk
calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.
Table 4.2-9
Estimated Construction Cancer Risks
Receptor
Modeled DPM Concentration
70-Year Lifetime Average
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Cancer Risk
(in 1 million)
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Residential 0.06 2.7 10 in 1 million No
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2.
Table 4.2-10
Estimated Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts
Receptor
Modeled DPM Concentration
Annual Average
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Maximum
Chronic Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Residential 0.06 0.013 1.0 No
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2.
Mitigation Measures:
MM AQ-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.
MM AQ-2 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-21 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
MM AQ-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.
MM AQ-4 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
MM AQ-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.
MM AQ-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, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
MM AQ-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.
MM AQ-8 Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Impact AQ-2: The proposed project would generate long-term operational emissions of
criteria pollutants from increases in traffic that could adversely affect air
quality. (Less than Significant)
Mass-Based Thresholds
Operational emissions associated with the proposed project would result from increased vehicular trips
to and from the facility (i.e., mobile sources). The mobile source emissions associated with the proposed
project were estimated using URBEMIS2007, a land use and emissions estimation model. URBEMIS2007
estimates vehicle emissions based on the amount of development and trip generation rate of the
development. Parking structures do not generate vehicle trips; rather vehicles trips are generated by the
land uses that the parking structure serves. The proposed project would serve vehicle trips associated
with the Osher Building. According to the traffic study, about 239 vehicles per day associated with the
Osher Building would park in the proposed garage instead of on the streets near the center. In addition, it
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-22 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
is estimated that there could be approximately 39 vehicles per day that would travel to the project site
because parking would be available (this is described in the Traffic section as induced demand).
Conservatively, trips associated with these 278 vehicles (239 vehicles plus 39 vehicles) are considered new
trips and these 556 daily one-way trips (278 x 2) are analyzed for the criteria pollutant emissions they
would produce.
The URBEMIS2007 model incorporates trip distances and emission factors specific to counties, air basins,
and air district jurisdictions. For the proposed project, parameters specific to the City and County of San
Francisco were used to estimate mobile and area source emissions. Table 4.2-11, Estimated Operational
Emissions, identifies the maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during project operation.
Table 4.2-11
Estimated Operational Emissions
Emissions in Pounds per Day
Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summertime Emissions1
Area Sources 0.91 0.85 3.77 0.00 0.01 0.01
Operational (Mobile) Sources 3.85 3.87 38.88 0.04 7.07 1.34
Summertime Emission Totals 4.76 4.72 42.65 0.04 7.08 1.35
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 — — 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO — — NO NO
Wintertime Emissions2
Area Sources 0.66 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00
Operational (Mobile) Sources 3.63 5.75 42.24 0.03 7.07 1.34
Wintertime Emission Totals 4.29 6.56 42.92 0.03 7.07 1.34
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 — — 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO — — NO NO
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed URBEMIS2007 and stationary source emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.
Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.1 “Summertime Emissions” are representative of the conditions that may occur during the ozone season (May 1 to October 31).2 “Wintertime Emissions” are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30).
As shown in Table 4.2-11, emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project would not
exceed any of the operational thresholds of significance. Projects that generate emissions below the
regional thresholds of significance would not be considered to contribute a substantial amount of air
pollutants. Therefore, operational emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact,
and the project would not contribute substantially to the existing ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment
status for the Basin.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-23 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Concentration-Based Thresholds
The BAAQMD has established a concentration-based threshold for exhaust emissions of PM2.5 during
project operation. However, the proposed project has no significant sources of PM2.5 during operation
other than increased vehicle traffic. The most significant source of PM2.5 from vehicle traffic is
diesel-fueled vehicles, especially heavy trucks. The traffic associated with the proposed project would not
include significant numbers of heavy trucks during operation as trips would be made almost entirely by
gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles with relatively small emissions of PM2.5. Operational emissions of
PM2.5 are far below significance thresholds even when conservatively modeled; therefore, the resulting
incremental increase in PM2.5 concentrations would be below the BAAQMD significance threshold and no
significant impacts are expected.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact AQ-3: The proposed project would increase carbon monoxide concentrations at busy
intersections and along congested roadways in the project vicinity that could
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations. (Less than
Significant)
Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO decreased dramatically in the SFBAAB with the
introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have been
recorded at nearby monitoring stations since 1991. SFBAAB is currently designated as an attainment area
for the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO; however, localized CO concentrations can exceed CAAQS or
NAAQS. CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and is usually concentrated at or
near ground level under cool, stable (i.e., low or no wind) atmospheric conditions because it does not
readily disperse into the atmosphere. As a result, potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors are
assessed through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Congested intersections, roadways, and
parking structures where high ambient concentrations of CO accumulate are termed CO “hotspots.”
These hotspots have the potential to exceed the state ambient air quality of 1-hour CO standard of
20 ppm or the 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm. Note that the federal levels are based on 1- and 8-hour
standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition would occur based on the state
standards prior to exceedance of the federal standard. As such, exceedance of the state ambient air
quality 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm would constitute a significant air
quality impact.
The proposed project was evaluated to determine if it would cause a CO hotspot using the BAAQMD’s
preliminary screening procedure, which provides a conservative indication of whether the proposed
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-24 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
project would result in CO concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of the
thresholds of significance. This methodology states that the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact related to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:
The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation
plan, and local congestion management agency plans;
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than
44,000 vehicles per hour; and
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than
24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel,
parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable congestion management programs
established by the County congestion management agency. The proposed parking structure would
include secure bicycle parking, parking fees, electric vehicle charging stations, and a Transportation
Demand Management Center that will provide information on alternative transportation and sell transit
passes. Moreover, the traffic report prepared for the proposed project did not find any intersections
where the project would increase traffic volumes to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or where the
project trips would increase volumes to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or
horizontal mixing is substantially limited (Adavant Consulting 2010). According to the traffic report, the
project would increase peak traffic volumes to 464 vehicles per hour along Sutter Street during the
afternoon peak hour, which is substantially less than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The peak number of
vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure is 548 vehicles per day; therefore, the project would
not result in traffic inside the garage that exceeds 24,000 vehicles per hour. As a result, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact on air quality with respect to CO hotspots.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact AQ-4: The proposed project could expose the maximally exposed individual to an
increased cancer risk exceeding 10 in 1 million. (Less than Significant)
Sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the proposed project including residential and hospital
land uses. Typical sources of TACs and PM2.5 include stationary sources such as diesel engines,
emergency generators, gasoline filling stations, dry cleaners and spray booths. Mobile sources, especially
diesel-fueled vehicles such as trains or heavy-duty trucks, are also a source of TACs and PM2.5. The
proposed project has no stationary sources of TACs or PM2.5. Operation of the proposed parking structure
would result in 548 daily trips, according to the project traffic study (Adavant Consulting 2010). The
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-25 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
majority of these trips are already existing trips to nearby land-uses that the proposed parking structure
would serve; therefore, this analysis is conservative and likely double counts a portion of the motor
vehicle emissions that are already occurring without the project. Additionally, the majority of these trips
would be made by gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles with relatively small emissions of PM2.5.
Consequently, it is expected that the project would not result in an incremental increase in LECR that
exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact AQ-5: The proposed project would generate ground level concentrations of
noncarcinogenic toxic air contaminants that could result in a Hazard Index
greater than 1.0 for the maximally exposed individual. (Less than Significant)
The noncarcinogenic risk analysis follows similar reasoning as presented above for cancer risk. The
proposed project has no significant stationary or mobile sources of hazardous air pollutants.
Consequently, the project would not result in a health hazard index that exceeds the BAAQMD
significance threshold. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact AQ-6: Development of the proposed project could result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is nonattainment under the federal and state ambient air quality standard.
(Less than Significant)
The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and
particulate matter standards. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s
adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result
in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
states that a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air
quality impacts. According to the BAAQMD, if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds for
any criteria pollutant for which the air basin is in nonattainment, its emissions would be cumulatively
considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality
conditions. Because as shown in the analysis above, the proposed project would not exceed any of
BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under the
federal and state ambient air quality standards. The impact would be less than significant.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-26 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
4.2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, one other
project is proposed in the vicinity of the proposed UCSF Mount Zion Garage project, that when combined
with the proposed garage project, could potentially result in cumulative impacts. The proposed
mixed-use project would be located at 2655 Bush Street adjacent to the project site to the north. The
2655 Bush Street project consists of a 108,000 square foot mixed use building with 4,500 square feet of
ground-level retail space and 83 dwelling units.
Cumulative Impact AQ-1: Cumulative development could result in a significant cumulative
impact related to criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions
from project operations. (Less than Significant)
According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, project emissions that do not exceed the BAAQMD
emission thresholds would not have a significant cumulative impact. This is because the mass-based
significance thresholds published by the BAAQMD include impacts from projected growth in the
SFBAAB. As shown in Table 4.2-11, the proposed project’s operational emissions of criteria pollutants
would not exceed the operations-related emission thresholds. As a result, the project’s criteria pollutant
emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
The proposed project does not include any significant sources of PM2.5 or other TACs such as boilers and
generators, other than slightly increased vehicle traffic. The majority of the vehicle trips in the local area
would be made by gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles with relatively small emissions of PM2.5.
Operational emissions of PM2.5 are far below significance thresholds even when conservatively modeled;
therefore, the resulting incremental increase in PM2.5 concentrations, LECR, and health hazard index
would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, project operations would not
contribute to a cumulative impact associated with TACs.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-27 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Cumulative Impact AQ-2: Cumulative development could result in a significant cumulative
impact related to toxic air contaminant emissions during project
construction. (Less than Significant)
Mass-Based Thresholds
According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, project construction emissions that do not exceed the
BAAQMD emission thresholds would not have a significant cumulative impact. This is because the
mass-based significance thresholds published by the BAAQMD include impacts from projected growth in
the SFBAAB. As shown in Table 4.2-7 and Table 4.2-8, the proposed project’s construction emissions
would not exceed the construction-related emission thresholds. As a result, the project’s construction
emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.
Concentration-Based Thresholds
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, cumulative health impacts would be considered
significant if TAC emissions from the project’s construction activities and other sources within 1,000 feet
of the project site would result in an increase in cancer risk of 100 in a million or an annual PM2.5
concentration of 0.8 ug/m3. Immediately adjacent to the proposed project is a mixed-use development at
2655 Bush Street that has been approved for construction. Construction of that project could potentially
coincide with construction of the proposed project. Construction of the 2655 Bush Street project would
take place over a period of 20 months, and would incorporate air quality and dust control measures as
required by the BAAQMD. The 2655 Bush Street development would have less than significant air quality
impacts during construction, according to CEQA findings adopted in April 2009. No other sources of
construction TACs are within 1,000 feet of the project site.
Similar to the project-level construction analysis, a dispersion modeling analysis was performed for the
cumulative scenario. The modeling analysis accounted for DPM emissions from heavy-duty off-road
construction equipment and on-road haul trucks and delivery trucks from construction of both projects.
The emissions from heavy-duty off-road equipment were modeled as volume sources located at the
respective construction sites while the on-road trucks were modeled as line sources along the route that
these trucks would likely take to delivery material to and from the two project sites. Consistent with the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, only exhaust PM2.5 emissions were considered in the analysis and the
on-road trucks were modeled out to 1,000 feet from the proposed project site. The results of the
dispersion model are presented in Table 4.2-12, Estimated Cumulative Construction Exhaust PM2.5
Concentrations. As shown in Table 4.2-12, construction of both projects would not exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds. Therefore, the potential cumulative adverse effects to sensitive receptors (e.g.,
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-28 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
residences) from DPM during construction would be less than significant. A detailed discussion of the
dispersion modeling analysis is provided in Appendix 4.2.
Table 4.2-12
Estimated Cumulative Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations
Receptor
Modeled PM2.5 Concentration
Annual Average
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Significance Threshold
Annual Average
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Exceeds
Threshold?
Residential 0.18 0.8 No
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2.
The results of the modeling analysis for cancer risk are presented in Table 4.2-13, Estimated Cumulative
Construction Cancer Risks. The results of the modeling analysis for chronic non-cancer impacts are
presented in Table 4.2-14, Estimated Cumulative Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts. As
shown in Table 4.2-13 and Table 4.2-14, construction of both projects would not exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds. Therefore, the potential cumulative adverse health effects to sensitive receptors
(e.g., residences) from DPM during construction would be less than significant. A detailed discussion of
the dispersion modeling analysis and health risk calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.
Table 4.2-13
Estimated Cumulative Construction Cancer Risks
Receptor
Modeled DPM Concentration
70-Year Lifetime Average
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Cancer Risk
(in 1 million)
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Residential 0.18 7.3 100 in 1 million No
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2.
Table 4.2-14
Estimated Cumulative Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts
Receptor
Modeled DPM Concentration
Annual Average
(micrograms/cubic meter)
Maximum
Chronic Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Residential 0.18 0.036 10.0 No
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2.
4.2 Air Quality
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-29 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
4.2.6 REFERENCES
Adavant Consulting. 2010. 2420 Sutter Street Garage Transportation Study. December.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1997. 1997 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment. December.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2000. 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment. December.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2001. Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for
the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard. October.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. January.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a. Draft Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. March.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b. “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.”
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-
CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.
California Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2010.
“Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values.”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm.
City and County of San Francisco. 2009. Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2655 Bush Street, Case No.
2005.1106E.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. 2003. Guidance
Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August.
Rimpo and Associates. 2008. “URBEMIS2007 for Windows.” http://www.urbemis.com.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
(AP 42), Fifth Edition.” http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. “Class I Ozone Depleting Substances.”
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classone.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. The Accelerated Phase-Out of Class 1 Ozone-
Depleting Substances. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/accfact.html.
University of California, Office of the President. 2001. University of California CEQA Handbook. July.
University of California, San Francisco. 1996 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report. SCH No. 1995123032. January 1997. (UCSF 1997)
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates the potential impacts to cultural resources from the development of the proposed
Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project). Information and analysis presented in this section is based
on archival research conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS)
Northwest Information Center for the project site.
4.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Cultural Background
The prehistoric (2500 BC to 1500 AD) occupation and use of the San Francisco Bay Area are not well
known. The rapid development of the Bay Area during the California Gold Rush likely contributed to the
destruction of many archaeological sites that may have existed or rendered those sites inaccessible due to
surface cover. However, on the basis of archaeological data from Bay Area sites that have survived to the
present and from ethnographic sources, archaeologists know that prehistoric life-ways in the Bay Area
involved subsistence hunting and gathering. Seasonally, parties went out from villages to temporary
camps within their territory to hunt and gather mussels, shellfish, salmon, seals, land mammals, and
plant foods, typically acorns. The Costanoan California Indians occupied the Bay Area at the time of
initial European contact. The term Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word “costanos” meaning coast
people. The territory of the Costanoans extended from the confluence of the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Rivers, to the (present day) Golden Gate Bridge, along the entire southern arm of the San Francisco Bay
south to the Salinas and Carmel Rivers. Inland territorial limits are believed to have extended to the
Mount Diablo Range Mountains (UCSF 2005).
Historical Background
Mount Zion Hospital was founded in 1887 by the Mount Zion Association, comprised primarily of
members of San Francisco’s Jewish community. Their purpose was to establish a hospital in the San
Francisco area “…for the purpose of aiding the indigent sick without regard to race or creed, to be
supported by the Jewish community” (UCSF 2010). The first hospital began operation in January 1897 on
Sutter Street in downtown San Francisco, and moved to its current location in the Western Addition
neighborhood in 1912. Hospital expansion occurred regularly throughout the 20th century.
Community-based fundraising campaigns enabled the hospital to modernize and expand in the post-war
era and again in the 1960s. In the mid-1980s, Mount Zion and UCSF created a joint venture in the areas of
patient care, education, and research. In 1990, The Regents of the University of California approved the
4.3 Cultural Resources
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-2 Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
integration of Mount Zion Health Systems with UCSF and the Mount Zion Campus site became a UCSF
facility. The UCSF Mount Zion campus site is located in a dense urban neighborhood of San Francisco,
distributed across five adjoining blocks, within the area bounded by Broderick Street to the west, Scott
Street to the east, Bush Street to the north, and Geary Boulevard to the south (UCSF 2005).
The project site has supported urban land uses since the 1870s. According to Block Books of San Francisco
and other records, the project site was developed with residential uses in the 1870s. The 1949 Sanborn
map shows that the project site was developed with warehouse uses. In 1963, the previous uses were
demolished and a medical office building and associated parking lot was developed on the site (City of
San Francisco 2006). These uses were demolished in 2008 in conjunction with a proposal to develop an
assisted living facility and educational facility for the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis. That
project was not built and the site is currently vacant.
4.3.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
California Environmental Quality Act
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a “project that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)) This statutory standard involves a two-part inquiry.
The first involves a determination of whether the project involves a historical resource. If it does, the
second part involves determining whether the project may involve a “substantial adverse change in the
significance” of the historical resource. To address these issues, guidelines that implement the
1992 statutory amendments relating to historical resources were adopted in final form on October 26,
1998 with the addition of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The State CEQA Guidelines specify that
for purposes of CEQA compliance, the term “historical resources” includes the following:
A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the state Historical Resources Commission, for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.
A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the
Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the
requirements in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically
or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines
to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered
to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial
evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to
4.3 Cultural Resources
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-3 Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources.
The fact that a resource is not listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register
of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section
5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the
criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from
determining that the resource may be a historical resource, as defined in Public Resources Code
Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
4.3.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
The impact of the proposed project on cultural resources would be considered significant if it would
exceed the following standards of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines and the UC CEQA Handbook:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5;
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study for the proposed project found that implementation of the proposed project would have
a less than significant impact on historical buildings, as the construction of the proposed project would
not physically impact the adjacent Russian Center nor would it significantly change the context within
which the Russian Center is located as the original setting for the building has already been extensively
altered by surrounding development. In addition, the Initial Study for the proposed project found that
implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on paleontological
resources, as there are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the site and
because there is minimal potential that project excavation would encounter or result in damage to unique
geologic features or significant paleontological resources due to the long history of settlement in San
Francisco and the fact that the project does not involve excavations that extend more than about 19 feet
below existing grade. These issues will not be discussed further in this section.
4.3 Cultural Resources
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-4 Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Mitigation Measures included in the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measures were adopted by The Regents in connection with certification of the
2004 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement EIR and are thus included as part of the proposed
project (UCSF 2005). The analysis presented below evaluates environmental impacts that would result
from project implementation following the application of these mitigation measures.
LRDP EIR MM 4.3-1 Should an archaeological artifact be discovered on the project site during project
construction and excavation, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 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 would meet to determine the appropriate
avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation (per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 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 FR 44716)).
If the discovery includes human remains, State CEQA Guidelines Section 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 City and County of San Francisco shall be
contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is
required, and
4.3 Cultural Resources
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-5 Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
(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.
(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.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Potentially
Significant; Less than Significant)
The Northwest Information Center was contacted to conduct an archaeological records search for the
project site and surrounding area. The results of the records search are included in Appendix 4.3 of this
EIR. According to the Northwest Information Center, while there is low probability of encountering
subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources on the project site because any such resources are likely to
be very deeply buried because of the site’s depositional history, there is a moderate possibility of
encountering historic-period archaeological resources during site grading and excavation on the project
site as buildings were located on or immediately adjacent to the project site at the turn of the 20th century
(NWIC 2010). A research design and treatment plan developed for the project site for a previous project
determined that the project site is located in an archaeologically sensitive area in which deeply buried
prehistoric Native American cultural deposits/human remains and/or later 19th century residential refuse
4.3 Cultural Resources
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-6 Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
could be expected (San Francisco 2006). Although the proposed project would implement LRDP EIR
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, which outlines procedures to be followed in the event that previously
unidentified archaeological resources are discovered during construction, because of the moderate
potential for historic period resources to be present on the site according to the NWIC assessment, and for
both prehistoric and historic period resources to be present according to the previous assessment of the
site, the “emergency discovery” provisions set forth in the LRDP mitigation measure by itself would not
be adequate because construction activities may damage archaeological resources before they are
recognized. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on archaeological resources would be
potentially significant.
A mitigated negative declaration prepared by the City of San Francisco for a previous project on the
project site included an archaeological testing program as mitigation to reduce potential negative effects
to archaeological resources. A project-level mitigation measure, similar to the mitigation measure
included in the mitigated negative declaration is proposed. This would entail conducting
pre-construction testing at the project site, followed by pre-construction data recovery should a
significant archaeological deposit or feature be discovered, and construction monitoring if recommended
by the archaeologist based on the results of the testing program. Implementation of this measure would
reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
MM CUL-1 UCSF shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an archaeological
testing program at the project site subsequent to removal of paving and
other surface cover, and before any construction excavation is
commenced. Testing will be conducted in accordance with a systematic
archaeological testing plan prepared by the archaeologist. The plan will
determine the locations where testing will be conducted and the
methods that will be employed for testing. These may include
mechanical augering, trenching, or other subsurface explorations.
In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during
testing, the significance of the materials will be evaluated relative to the
significance criteria of the CRHR, and if determined to be historical
resources or unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA,
additional measures shall be undertaken at the direction of the
archaeologist. These would include but not limited to additional testing
and/or an archaeological data recovery program, whereby a sufficient
sample of the archaeological deposits shall be recovered to preserve the
significant data represented by the deposit. All recovered material would
4.3 Cultural Resources
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-7 Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
be subjected to appropriate analysis, reported, and curated in an
appropriate repository. Depending on the results of testing, the
archaeologist may recommend construction monitoring.
Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and LRDP EIR Mitigation
Measure 4.3-1 would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact CUL-2: The proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant)
There are no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, located
within the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site. However, given the moderate potential for prehistoric
deposits to be present, human remains could be present and could be disturbed by the project during
excavation and grading. However, the testing program implemented under Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would also help determine whether human remains are present on the site. If encountered during the
testing, these resources would be appropriately handled consistent with LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure
4.3-1, above, which outlines procedures to be followed in the event that previously unidentified human
remains are discovered. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on human remains would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
4.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, only one project
is proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project which would involve ground disturbing activities.
However, that project is also a redevelopment project which would demolish an existing building and
construct a mixed use project.
Cumulative Impact CUL-1: Cumulative development would not cause a substantial change in the
significance of a historical resources or unique archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5 or disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant)
Development in San Francisco and around the San Francisco bay has resulted in the destruction of
prehistoric deposits; many were destroyed without data recovery, during the first half of the 20th century.
This loss has been stemmed since the 1970s by the provisions of the state law and the environmental
review process. Future development in San Francisco, including the proposed project would minimize
4.3 Cultural Resources
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-8 Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
any further losses by complying with the state law. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, the
development of the proposed mixed-use development at 2655 Bush Street would also require grading
and excavation that could potentially affect undiscovered archaeological or human remains. If
archaeological deposits are present, the construction of that project could contribute to the loss of
subsurface cultural resources, if these resources were not protected upon discovery. CEQA requirements
for protecting archaeological resources or human remains are applicable to development in the City and
County of San Francisco. Because subsurface cultural resources are protected upon discovery as required
by law, impacts to those resources would be less than significant on a project level as well as on a
cumulative level. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1,
which would ensure that the important data contained in any significant archaeological resource
discovered on the site are recovered and preserved. Consequently, the project’s contribution to any
cumulative impacts associated with the loss of subsurface cultural resources would not be cumulatively
considerable. The impact would, therefore, be less than significant.
4.3.6 REFERENCES
City and County of San Francisco. 2006. Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2420 Sutter Street, Case No.
2004.0745E. (San Francisco 2006)
Northwest Information Center. 2010. Records search results for the proposed UCSF Mt. Zion Parking
Structure Project at 2440 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California. (NWIC 2010)
University of California, San Francisco. LRDP Amendment No. 2 – Hospital Replacement Final
Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2004072067. March 2005. (UCSF 2005)
University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center at Mount Zion, Mount Zion History; available
online at http://mountzion.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/history/; accessed 2010 (UCSF 2010)
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the existing global, national, and statewide conditions for greenhouse gases (GHG)
and global climate change and evaluates the potential impacts on global climate from the implementation
of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project). The section also provides discussion of
the applicable federal, state, regional, and local agencies that regulate, monitor, and control GHG
emissions. The impacts associated with the proposed project are compared with the thresholds of
significance adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Copies of the
modeling runs to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed project and supporting technical
data are found in Appendix 4.4.
4.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background
Global climate change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as temperature,
precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer) (U.S. EPA 2008b). Climate
change may result from:
Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the
sun;
Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in sunlight
from the addition of GHG and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and
Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and
the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification).
The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere1 is called the “greenhouse effect.”
The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: (1) short-wave
radiation in the form of visible light emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth as heat; (2) long-wave
radiation is re-emitted by the Earth; and (3) Certain gases termed greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the upper
atmosphere absorb or trap the long-wave radiation and re-emit it back towards the Earth and into space.
This third process is the focus of current climate change actions.
1 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to
12 kilometers).
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
While water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the most abundant GHGs, other trace GHGs have a
greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long-wave radiation. To gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists
have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and
re-emit long-wave radiation over a specific period. The GWP of a gas is determined using CO2 as the
reference gas, which has a GWP of 1 over 100 years (IPCC 1996). For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is
10 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. The use of GWP allows GHG emissions to be reported
using CO2 as a baseline. The sum of each GHG multiplied by its associated GWP is referred to as “carbon
dioxide equivalents” (CO2e). This essentially means that 1 metric ton of a GHG with a GWP of 10 has the
same climate change impacts as 10 metric tons of CO2.
Greenhouse Gases
State law defines GHGs to include the following six compounds:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide primarily is generated by fossil fuel combustion from
stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources over
the past 250 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent
(U.S. EPA 2008c). Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of
1) for determining the GWP of other GHGs. In 2004, 82.8 percent of California’s GHG emissions were
carbon dioxide (CEC 2007).
Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources (i.e., resulting from the activity of living
organisms), incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in
natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills, natural gas
systems, and enteric fermentation (U.S. EPA n.d.b.). Methane is the primary component of natural
gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The GWP
of methane is 21.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced by natural and human-related sources. Primary
human-related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage
treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid
production. The GWP of nitrous oxide is 310.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs typically are used as refrigerants in both stationary refrigeration
and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam-blowing is growing particularly
as the continued phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
gains momentum. The GWP of HFCs ranges from 140 for HFC-152a to 6,300 for HFC-236fa.
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Perfluorocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine. They
are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
Perfluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a GWP several thousand times that of carbon dioxide,
depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric
lifetime (up to 50,000 years) (EIA n.d.). The GWPs of PFCs range from 5,700 to 11,900.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It
is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that transmits and
distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the
Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) on Climate Change with a GWP of 23,900. However, its global
warming contribution is not as high as the GWP would indicate due to its low mixing ratio, as
compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million [ppm] of
CO2) (U.S. EPA n.d.a.).
The primary GHGs of concern relative to the proposed project are CO2, CH4, and N2O. These three GHGs
are generally emitted from combustion activities. The other GHGs listed above are related to specific
industrial uses and not anticipated to be emitted in measurable or substantial quantities by the project.
Contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Global
Worldwide anthropogenic (man-made) GHG emissions are tracked for industrialized nations and
developing nations. Man-made GHG emissions from industrialized and developing nations are available
through 2007 and 2005, respectively. The sum of these emissions totaled approximately 43,363 million
metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MMTCO2e).2 It should be noted that global emissions inventory data are
not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the emissions inventory data.
Emissions from the top five countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 59 percent of
the total global GHG emissions, according to the most recently available data. (See Table 4.4-1, Top Five
GHG Producer Countries and the European Union). The GHG emissions presented in Table 4.4-1 are
representative of currently available global inventory data.
2 The CO2 equivalent emissions commonly are expressed as “million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2E).” The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the
associated GWP, such that MMTCO2E = (million metric tons of a GHG) x (GWP of the GHG). For example, the
GWP for methane is 21. This means that the emission of one million metric tons of methane is equivalent to the
emission of 21 million metric tons of CO2.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 4.4-1
Top Five GHG Producer Countries and the European Union
Emitting Countries
GHG Emissions
(MMTCO2e)
China 7,265
United States 7,217
European Union (EU), 27 Member States 5,403
Russian Federation 2,202
India 1,877
Japan 1,412
Total 25,376
Source: World Resources Institute, “Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT),” http://cait.wri.org/. 2010.
Excludes emissions and removals from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).
Note: Emissions for Annex I nations are based on 2007 data. Emissions for Non-Annex I nations (e.g., China,
India) are based on 2005 data.
United States
As noted in Table 4.4-1, the United States was the number two producer of global GHG emissions as of
2005. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing
approximately 85 percent of total GHG emissions. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, the largest
source of U.S. GHG emissions, accounted for approximately 80 percent of GHG emissions (U.S. EPA
2010).
State of California
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based
upon the 2008 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2008
greenhouse gas emissions inventory, California emitted 474 MMTCO2e including emissions resulting
from imported electrical power in 2008. Based on the CARB inventory data and GHG inventories
compiled by the World Resources Institute, California’s total statewide GHG emissions rank second in
the United States (Texas is number one) with emissions of 417 MMTCO2e excluding emissions related to
imported power (CARB 2010a).
Table 4.4-2, GHG Emissions in California, provides a summary of GHG emissions reported in
California in 1990 and 2008 separated by categories defined by the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 4.4-2
GHG Emissions in California
Source Category
1990
(MMTCO2e)
Percent of
Total
2008
(MMTCO2e)
Percent of
Total
ENERGY 386.41 89.2% 413.80 86.6%
Energy Industries 157.33 36.3% 171.23 35.8%
Manufacturing Industries & Construction 24.24 5.6% 16.67 3.5%
Transport 150.02 34.6% 173.94 36.4%
Other (Residential/Commercial/Institutional) 48.19 11.1% 46.59 9.8%
Non-Specified 1.38 0.3% 0.00 0.0%
Fugitive Emissions from Oil & Natural Gas 2.94 0.7% 3.28 0.7%
Fugitive Emissions from Other Energy Production 2.31 0.5% 2.09 0.4%
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES & PRODUCT USE 18.34 4.2% 30.11 6.3%
Mineral Industry 4.85 1.1% 5.35 1.1%
Chemical Industry 2.34 0.5% 0.06 0.0%
Non-Energy Products from Fuels & Solvent Use 2.29 0.5% 1.97 0.4%
Electronics Industry 0.59 0.1% 0.80 0.2%
Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances 0.04 0.0% 13.89 2.9%
Other Product Manufacture and Use 3.18 0.7% 1.66 0.3%
Other 5.05 1.2% 6.39 1.3%
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, & OTHER LAND USE 19.11 4.4% 24.42 5.1%
Livestock 11.67 2.7% 16.28 3.4%
Land 0.19 0.0% 0.19 0.0%
Aggregate Sources & Non-CO2 Sources on Land 7.26 1.7% 7.95 1.7%
WASTE 9.42 2.2% 9.41 2.0%
Solid Waste Disposal 6.26 1.4% 6.71 1.4%
Wastewater Treatment & Discharge 3.17 0.7% 2.70 0.6%
EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Gross California Emissions 433.29 477.74
Sinks from Forests and Rangelands -6.69 -3.98
Net California Emissions 426.60 473.76
Sources:1 California Air Resources Board, “California Greenhouse Gas 1990–2004 Inventory by IPCC Category - Summary,”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ inventory/ archive/archive.htm. 2007.2 California Air Resources Board, “California Greenhouse Gas 2000–2008 Inventory by IPCC Category - Summary,”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 2010.
Between 1990 and 2008, the population of California grew by approximately 8.1 million (from 29.8 to 37.9
million), or 27.2 percent (California Department of Finance 2010a, U.S. Census Bureau 2010). In addition,
the California economy, measured as gross state product, grew from $788 billion in 1990 to $1.8 trillion in
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-6 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
2008 representing an increase of approximately 128 percent (California Department of Finance 2010b).
Despite the population and economic growth, California’s net GHG emissions only grew by
approximately 11 percent. The CEC attributes the slow rate of growth to the success of California’s
renewable energy programs and its commitment to clean air and clean energy (CEC 2006a).
Effects of Global Climate Change
The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric
temperature of 0.2° Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide
between 1990 and 2005 (IPCC 2007). Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates suggests that
further warming is likely to occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system
during the current century (IPCC 2007). Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems, and to the
proposed project site, could include:
Declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, thereby increasing sea levels and sea surface
evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s
ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures (IPCC 2007);
Changing weather patterns, including changes to precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns,
and more energetic aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves,
extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007);
Declining Sierra snowpack levels, which account for approximately half of the surface water storage
in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years (CalEPA 2006);
Increasing the demand for electricity by 1 to 3 percent by 2020 due to rising temperatures resulting in
hundreds of millions of dollars in extra expenditures (CalEPA 2006); and
Summer warming projections in the first 30 years of the 21st century ranging from about 0.5 to 2
degrees Celsius (°C) (0.9 to 3.6 °F) and by the last 30 years of the 21st century, from about 1.5 to 5.8 °C
(2.7 to 10.5 °F) (CalEPA 2006).
4.4.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)
established the IPCC in 1988. The goal of the IPCC is to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by
human activities. Rather than performing research or monitoring climate, the IPCC relies on
peer-reviewed and published scientific literature to make its assessment. The IPCC assesses information
(i.e., scientific literature) regarding human-induced climate change, impacts of human-induced climate
change, and options for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. The IPCC reports its evaluations in
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-7 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
special reports called “assessment reports,” the latest of which was published in 2007.3 In its 2007 report,
the IPCC stated that global temperature increases since the mid-20th century were “very likely”
attributable to man-made activities (greater than 90 percent certainty).
Federal
In Massachusetts vs. EPA, the Supreme Court held that United States Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) has the statutory authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHGs
from new motor vehicles. The court did not hold that the U.S. EPA was required to regulate GHG
emissions; however, it indicated that the agency must decide whether GHGs from motor vehicles cause
or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Upon
the final decision, the President signed Executive Order 13432 on May 14, 2007, directing the U.S. EPA,
along with the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture, to initiate a regulatory process
that responds to the Supreme Court’s decision.
On July 11, 2008, the U.S. EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on
regulating GHGs under the CAA. The ANPRM reviews the various CAA provisions that may be
applicable to the regulation of GHGs and presents potential regulatory approaches and technologies for
reducing GHG emissions. On April 10, 2009, the U.S. EPA published the Proposed Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in the Federal Register (U.S. EPA 2009). The rule was adopted on
September 22, 2009 and covers approximately 10,000 facilities nationwide, accounting for 85 percent of
U.S. GHG emissions.
On September 15, 2009, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a joint proposal to establish a national program consisting
of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce GHG emissions
and improve fuel economy. The proposed standards would be phased in and would require passenger
cars and light-duty trucks to comply with a declining emissions standard. In 2012, passenger cars and
light-duty trucks would have to meet an average standard of 295 grams of CO2 per mile and 30.1 miles
per gallon. By 2016, the vehicles would have to meet an average standard of 250 grams of CO2 per mile
and 35.5 miles per gallon.4 These standards were formally adopted by the U.S. EPA and DOT on April 1,
2010.
On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
3 The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/.
4 The CO2 emission standards and fuel economy standards stated are based on U.S. EPA formulas.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-8 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the
six key well-mixed GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations.
Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these
well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to
the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.
While these findings do not impose additional requirements on industry or other entities, this action was
a prerequisite to finalizing the U.S. EPA’s proposed GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles,
which were jointly proposed by the U.S. EPA and DOT.
State
Key state laws and regulations related to GHG emissions are described below.
Executive Order S-3-05 and the Climate Action Team
In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets in
Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be
reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The
Secretary of Cal EPA is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies in order to collectively and
efficiently reduce GHGs. Some of the agency representatives involved in the GHG reduction plan include
the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, the Secretary of the Department of
Food and Agriculture, the Secretary of the Resources Agency, the Chairperson of CARB, the Chairperson
of the CEC, and the President of the Public Utilities Commission.
Representatives from each of the aforementioned agencies comprise the Climate Action Team. The
Cal/EPA secretary is required to submit a biannual progress report from the Climate Action Team to the
governor and state legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG emission reduction targets. In
addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on
California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, coastline, and forests, and reporting possible
mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. The Climate Action Team has fulfilled both of
these report requirements through its March 2006 Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (2006 CAT Report) (Cal EPA 2006). Some strategies currently being
implemented by state agencies include CARB introducing vehicle climate change standards and diesel
anti-idling measures, the Energy Commission implementing building and appliance efficiency standards,
and the Cal/EPA implementing their green building initiative. The Climate Action Team also
recommends future emission reduction strategies, such as using only low-GWP refrigerants in new
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-9 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
vehicles, developing ethanol as an alternative fuel, reforestation, solar power initiatives for homes and
businesses, and investor-owned utility energy efficiency programs. According to the report,
implementation of current and future emission reduction strategies have the potential to achieve the
goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05.
Assembly Bill 32
In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S-3-05, the legislature enacted Assembly Bill 32
(AB 32, Nuñez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor
Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006. AB 32 represents the first enforceable statewide program
to limit GHG emissions from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. AB 32 requires the
State to undertake several actions – the major requirements are discussed below:
CARB Early Action Measures
CARB is responsible for carrying out and developing the programs and requirements necessary to
achieve the goal of AB 32—the reduction of California's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The first
action under AB 32 resulted in CARB’s adoption of a report listing three specific early action greenhouse
gas emission reduction measures on June 21, 2007. On October 25, 2007, CARB approved an additional
six early action GHG reduction measures under AB 32. CARB has adopted regulations for all early action
measures. The early action measures are divided into three categories:
Group 1 – GHG rules for immediate adoption and implementation
Group 2 – Several additional GHG measures under development
Group 3 – Air pollution controls with potential climate co-benefits
The original three adopted early action regulations meeting the narrow legal definition of “discrete early
action GHG reduction measures” include:
A low-carbon fuel standard to reduce the “carbon intensity” of California fuels;
Reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance to restrict the
sale of ”do-it-yourself” automotive refrigerants; and
Increased methane capture from landfills to require broader use of state-of-the-art methane capture
technologies.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-10 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
The additional six early action regulations adopted on October 25, 2007, also meeting the narrow legal
definition of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures,” include:
Reduction of aerodynamic drag, and thereby fuel consumption, from existing trucks and trailers
through retrofit technology;
Reduction of auxiliary engine emissions of docked ships by requiring port electrification;
Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry;
Reduction of propellants in consumer products (e.g., aerosols, tire inflators, and dust removal
products);
The requirement that all tune-up, smog check and oil change mechanics ensure proper tire inflation
as part of overall service in order to maintain fuel efficiency; and
Restriction on the use of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from non-electricity sectors if viable alternatives
are available.
State of California Greenhouse Gas Inventory and 2020 Limit
As required under AB 32, on December 6, 2007, CARB approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions
inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit was set at
427 MMTCO2e. CARB also projected the state’s 2020 GHG emissions under “business as usual” (BAU)
conditions—that is, emissions that would occur without any plans, policies, or regulations to reduce
GHG emissions. CARB used an average of the State’s GHG emissions from 2002 through 2004 and
projected the 2020 levels based on population and economic forecasts. The projected net emissions totaled
approximately 596 MMTCO2e. Therefore, the state must reduce its 2020 BAU emissions by approximately
29 percent in order to meet the 1990 target.
The inventory revealed that in 1990, transportation, with 35 percent of the state's total emissions, was the
largest single sector, followed by industrial emissions, 24 percent; imported electricity, 14 percent; in-state
electricity generation, 11 percent; residential use, 7 percent; agriculture, 5 percent; and commercial uses,
3 percent (these figures represent the 1990 values, compared to Table 4.2-2, which presents 2006 values).
AB 32 does not require individual sectors to meet their individual 1990 GHG emissions inventory; the
total statewide emissions are required to meet the 1990 threshold by 2020.
CARB Mandatory Reporting Requirements
In addition to the 1990 emissions inventory, CARB also adopted regulations requiring the mandatory
reporting of GHG emissions for large facilities on December 6, 2007. The mandatory reporting regulations
require annual reporting from the largest facilities in the state, which account for approximately
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-11 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
94 percent of point source greenhouse gas emissions from industrial and commercial stationary sources
in California. About 800 separate sources fall under the new reporting rules and include
electricity-generating facilities, electricity retail providers and power marketers, oil refineries, hydrogen
plants, cement plants, cogeneration facilities, and industrial sources that emit over 25,000 tons of carbon
dioxide each year from on-site stationary combustion sources. Transportation sources, which account for
38 percent of California’s total greenhouse gas emissions, are not covered by these regulations but will
continue to be tracked through existing means. Affected facilities will begin tracking their emissions in
2008, to be reported beginning in 2009, with a phase-in process to allow facilities to develop reporting
systems and train personnel in data collection. Emissions for 2008 may be based on best available
emission data. Beginning in 2010, however, emissions reporting requirements will be more rigorous and
will be subject to third-party verification. Verification will take place annually or every three years,
depending on the type of facility.
AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan
As indicated above, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a scoping plan indicating how reductions in
significant GHG sources will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions.
After receiving public input on their discussion draft of the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan released
in June 2008, CARB released the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in October 2008 that contains an
outline of the proposed state strategies to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emission limits. The CARB
Governing Board approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. Key elements of the
Scoping Plan include the following recommendations:
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance
standards;
Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent;
Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative
partner programs to create a regional market system;
Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout
California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including
California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and
Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming
potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment to
AB 32 implementation.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-12 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Under the Scoping Plan, approximately 85 percent of the state’s emissions are subject to a cap-and-trade
program where covered sectors are placed under a declining emissions cap. The emissions cap
incorporates a margin of safety whereas the 2020 emissions limit will still be achieved even in the event
that uncapped sectors do not fully meet their anticipated emission reductions. Emissions reductions will
be achieved through regulatory requirements and the option to reduce emissions further or purchase
allowances to cover compliance obligations. It is expected that emission reduction from this
cap-and-trade program will account for a large portion of the reductions required by AB 32.
Table 4.4-3, AB 32 Scoping Plan Measures (SPMs), lists CARB’s preliminary recommendations for
achieving greenhouse gas reductions under AB 32 along with a brief description of the requirements and
applicability.
Table 4.4-3
AB 32 Scoping Plan Measures (SPMs)
Scoping Plan Measure Description
SPM-1: California Cap-and-Trade Program
linked to Western Climate Initiative
Implement a broad-based cap-and-trade program that links with other
Western Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market
system. Ensure California’s program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements
for market-based mechanisms. Capped sectors include transportation,
electricity, natural gas, and industry. Projected 2020 business-as-usual
emissions are estimated at 512 MTCO2e; preliminary 2020 emissions limit
under cap-and-trade program are estimated at 365 MTCO2e (29 percent
reduction).
SPM-2: California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG
Standards
Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second phase of the
program. AB 32 states that if the Pavley standards (AB 1493) do not remain in
effect, CARB shall implement equivalent or greater alternative regulations to
control mobile sources.
SPM-3: Energy Efficiency Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue
additional efficiency efforts. The Scoping Plan considers green building
standards as a framework to achieve reductions in other sectors, such as
electricity.
SPM-4: Renewables Portfolio Standard Achieve 33 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard by both investor-owned
and publicly owned utilities.
SPM-5: Low Carbon Fuel Standard CARB identified the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a Discrete Early Action
item and the final regulation was adopted on April 23, 2009. In January 2007,
Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-1-07, which called for
the reduction of the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at
least 10 percent by 2020.
SPM-6: Regional Transportation-Related
Greenhouse Gas Targets
Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger
vehicles. SB 375 requires CARB to develop, in consultation with metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs), passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions
reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 by September 30, 2010. SB 375 requires
MPOs to prepare a sustainable communities strategy to reach the regional
target provided by CARB.
SPM-7: Vehicle Efficiency Measures Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. CARB is pursuing fuel-
efficient tire standards and measures to ensure properly inflated tires during
vehicle servicing.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-13 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Scoping Plan Measure Description
SPM-8: Goods Movement Implement adopted regulations for port drayage trucks and the use of shore
power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement operations.
SPM-9: Million Solar Roofs Program Install 3,000 MW of solar-electric capacity under California’s existing solar
programs.
SPM-10: Heavy/Medium-Duty Vehicles Adopt heavy- and medium-duty vehicle and engine measures targeting
aerodynamic efficiency, vehicle hybridization, and engine efficiency.
SPM-11: Industrial Emissions Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether
individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-benefits. Reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction
and gas transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive
methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries.
SPM-12: High Speed Rail Support implementation of a high-speed rail (HSR) system. This measure
supports implementation of plans to construct and operate a HSR system
between Northern and Southern California serving major metropolitan
centers.
SPM-13: Green Building Strategy Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of
California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.
SPM-14: High GWP Gases Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases. The Scoping
Plan contains 6 measures to reduce high-GWP gases from mobile sources,
consumer products, stationary sources, and semiconductor manufacturing.
SPM-15: Recycling and Waste Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting,
and commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste.
SPM-16: Sustainable Forests Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for
sustainable energy generation. The federal government and California’s
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection have the regulatory authority to
implement the Forest Practice Act to provide for sustainable management
practices. This measure is expected to play a greater role in the 2050 goals.
SPM-17: Water Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move water.
California will also establish a public goods charge for funding investments in
water efficiency that will lead to as yet undetermined reductions in
greenhouse gases.
SPM-18: Agriculture In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five-
year Scoping Plan update determine if the program should be made
mandatory by 2020. Increase efficiency and encourage use of agricultural
biomass for sustainable energy production. CARB has begun research on
nitrogen fertilizers and will explore opportunities for emission reductions.
Source: California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, (2008).
Senate Bill 97 (CEQA Guidelines)
In August 2007, the legislature enacted SB 97 (Dutton), which directed the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
A number of actions have taken place under SB 97, which are discussed below.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-14 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
OPR Climate Change Technical Advisory
On June 19, 2008, OPR issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG
emissions in CEQA documents (OPR 2008). The advisory indicated that a project’s GHG emissions,
including those associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities should be identified and
estimated. The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts
and impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant
level. The advisory did not recommend a specific threshold of significance. Instead, OPR requested that
CARB recommend a method for setting thresholds that lead agencies may adopt (OPR 2009).
CEQA Guideline Amendments
In its work to formulate CEQA Guideline Amendments for GHG emissions, OPR submitted the Proposed
Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to the Secretary for Natural Resources on
April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency conducted formal rulemaking procedures in 2009 and
adopted the CEQA Guideline Amendments on December 30, 2009. They became effective in March 2010.
Senate Bill 375
The California legislature passed SB 375 (Steinberg) on September 1, 2008. SB 375 requires CARB to set
regional greenhouse gas reduction targets after consultation with local governments. The target must
then be incorporated within that region’s regional transportation plan (RTP), which is used for long-term
transportation planning, in a Sustainable Communities Strategy. SB 375 also requires each region’s
regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) to be adjusted based on the Sustainable Communities
Strategy in its RTP. Additionally, SB 375 reforms the environmental review process to create incentives to
implement the strategy, especially transit priority projects. The governor signed SB 375 into law on
September 30, 2008.
On January 23, 2009, CARB appointed a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to provide
recommendations and methodologies to be used in the target setting process. The RTAC provided its
recommendations in a report to CARB on September 29, 2009. On August 9, 2010, CARB staff issued the
Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets For Automobiles And Light Trucks Pursuant To
Senate Bill 375 (CARB 2010b). CARB staff proposed draft reduction targets for the four largest MPOs (Bay
Area, Sacramento, Southern California, and San Diego) of 7 to 8 percent for 2020 and reduction targets
between 13 to 16 percent for 2035. For the Bay Area, CARB established a draft target of 7 percent for
2020 and 15 percent for 2035. These targets were recommended to CARB by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, which adopted the thresholds for its planning purposes on July 28, 2010. Of
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-15 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
note, the proposed reduction targets explicitly exclude emission reductions expected from the AB 1493
and low carbon fuel standard regulations. CARB adopted the final targets on September 23, 2010.
Title 24 Building Standards Code
The California Energy Commission first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to
reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas,
and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings
subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and
inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest revisions were adopted in 2008
and became effective on January 1, 2010.
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and
general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building
concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in
the following categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Energy efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and
conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) Environmental air quality”
(California Building Standards Commission 2009). Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly
constructed buildings in California are subject of the requirements of the CALGreen Code.
Regional
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These guidelines contain
greenhouse gas operational emissions significance thresholds and recommended methodologies and
models to be used for assessing the impacts of project-specific GHG emissions on global climate change
(BAAQMD 2010a). The updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain project-level screening criteria and
recommended significance thresholds for evaluation of operational GHG emissions from a proposed
project. The guidelines also contain recommended methodologies to use to estimate these emissions and
provide recommended measures for reducing GHG emissions from land use development projects and
stationary sources.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-16 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Local Plans and Policies
University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices
The University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices is a system-wide commitment to minimize
the University of California’s impact on the environment and reduce the University’s dependence on
non-renewable energy sources. The University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices promotes the
principles of energy efficiency and sustainability in the areas of Green Building Design; Clean Energy
Standard; Climate Protection Practices; Sustainable Transportation Practices; Sustainable Operations;
Recycling and Waste Management; Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Practices; and Food, all of
which help reduce GHG emissions from University operations.
The Policy notes “these guidelines currently recommend that University operations:
Incorporate the principles of energy efficiency and sustainability in all capital projects, renovation
projects, operations and maintenance within budgetary constraints and programmatic requirements.
Minimize the use of non-renewable energy sources on behalf of the University’s built environment by
creating a portfolio approach to energy use, including the use of local renewable energy and purchase
of green power from the grid as well as conservation measures that reduce energy consumption.
Incorporate alternative means of transportation to/from and within the campus to improve the
quality of life on campus and in the surrounding community. The campuses will continue their
strong commitment to provide affordable on-campus housing, in order to reduce the volume of
commutes to and from campus. These housing goals are detailed in the campuses’ Long Range
Development Plans.
Track, report and minimize greenhouse gas emissions on behalf of University operations.
Minimize the amount of University-generated waste sent to landfill.
Utilize the University’s purchasing power to meet its sustainability objectives.”
UCSF Climate Action Plan
UCSF published its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December of 2009 in order to comply with the UC
Policy on Sustainable Practices as well as meet the requirements of the American Colleges and University
Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), of which the UC system is a signatory. The UCSF CAP
includes the UCSF GHG emissions baseline and projected inventories, sustainability efforts to date, and
future reduction efforts. The CAP informs practices throughout the campus including procurement,
building operation and design, transportation, recycling and education. Through its participation in the
ACUPCC, UCSF is committed to reduce its GHG emissions from all of its operations to the 1990 level by
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-17 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
2020, with the eventual goal of achieving carbon neutrality for the campus. As part of this emissions
reduction effort, UCSF regularly reports to the ACUPCC its emissions, progress towards reduction goals,
and measures used or proposed to meet these goals.
4.4.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State
CEQA Guidelines on December 30, 2009, which include criteria for evaluating GHG emissions.5 According
to the amended Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the
environment if it would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
The amended State CEQA Guidelines include a new Section 15064.4, which states that, when making a
determination of the significance of GHG emissions, a lead agency shall have discretion to determine
whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a
project, and which model or methodology to use; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance
based standards.
Section 15064.4 also states that a lead agency should consider the following factors when assessing the
significance of GHG emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or
reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the
project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;
and (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement
a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
The first Appendix G criteria may be evaluated by performing a direct calculation of the GHG emissions
resulting from the proposed project and comparing the emissions with the available significance
thresholds. The BAAQMD has established project-level screening criteria and significance thresholds for
5 The adopted amendments may be viewed at the following website: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. 2009.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-18 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
operational GHG emissions in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance
for operational-related GHG emissions are as follows:
For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year (MTCO2e/yr); or 4.6 MT
CO2e/person/yr (residents plus employees). Land use development projects include residential,
commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 MTCO2e/yr. Stationary-source projects include
land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would
require an Air District permit to operate.
The BAAQMD guidelines do not contain a quantitative threshold of significance for the evaluation of
GHG emissions resulting from a project’s construction activities.
The second Appendix G criteria may be evaluated by demonstrating compliance with plans, policies, or
regulations adopted by local governments to curb GHG emissions. According to the Natural Resources
Agency:
Provided that such plans contain specific requirements with respect to resources that are within
the agency‘s jurisdiction to avoid or substantially lessen the agency‘s contributions to GHG
emissions, both from its own projects and from private projects it has approved or will approve,
such plans may be appropriately relied on in a cumulative impacts analysis (Natural Resources
Agency 2009).
Under CEQA, “the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment
calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on
scientific and factual data” (CEQA Section 15064). CEQA grants agencies with the general authority to
adopt criteria for determining whether a given impact is “significant” (California Public Resources Code
Section 21082). When no guidance exists under CEQA, the agency may look to and assess general
compliance with comparable regulatory schemes. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines represent
a comparable regulatory scheme.
Based on the above, the proposed project’s significance with respect to the GHG emissions and global
climate change will be assessed based on the BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance and on the
project features and GHG reduction measures that are consistent with the BAAQMD’s recommended
measures to reduce GHG emissions.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-19 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Methodology
OPR in its Technical Advisory has recommended that GHG emissions from project-related traffic, energy
consumption, water usage, and construction activities, should be identified and estimated, to the extent
that data is available to calculate such emissions. In addition, CARB staff has considered extensively the
value of indirect emissions in a mandatory reporting program. CARB believes that indirect energy usage
provides a more complete picture of the emissions footprint of a facility: “As facilities consider changes
that would affect their emissions – addition of a cogeneration unit to boost overall efficiency even as it
increases direct emissions, for example – the relative impact on total (direct plus indirect) emissions by
the facility should be monitored. Annually reported indirect energy usage also aids the conservation
awareness of the facility and provides information” to CARB to be considered for future strategies by the
industrial sector. For these reasons, CARB has proposed requiring the calculation of direct and indirect
GHG emissions as part of the AB 32 reporting requirements, and this analysis does so (CARB 2007).
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has stated that the information
needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction
materials (often referred to as lifecycle emissions) would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level
(CAPCOA 2008). Since accurate and reliable data does not exist for estimating lifecycle emissions for the
proposed project, the analysis does not assess such lifecycle GHG emissions.
The data sources and tools used to evaluate the GHG impacts associated with construction and operation
of the proposed project include the URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software, and
information provided in the Software User’s Guide [for] URBEMIS2007 for Windows (Rimpo and Associates
2008) and calculation algorithms supported by the sources listed above. The URBEMIS2007 model utilizes
the EMFAC2007 emissions factor model for on-road motor vehicle sources and the OFFROAD2007
emissions factor model for off-road equipment. Site-specific or project-specific data were used in the
URBEMIS2007 model where available. Where information was not available for the project, model
default values suggested by the BAAQMD were selected. The average daily trip (ADT) generation rate
for the proposed project was based on the project’s traffic study (Adavant Consulting 2010). The
BAAQMD has developed a greenhouse gas emissions modeling spreadsheet, called BGM, which uses
URBEMIS2007 files in conjunction with emission and resource consumption factors specific to the Bay
Area to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from projects within the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The BGM is
the BAAQMD’s preferred method for estimating operational GHG emissions. The BGM was used in
conjunction with URBEMIS2007.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-20 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Additional sources consulted for this analysis include data and guidance from the U.S. EPA, the U.S.
Energy Information Administration, CARB, the California Energy Commission, the California Climate
Action Registry’s General Reporting Protocol, and other GHG and global climate change data as referenced.
Emission calculations conducted for the proposed project are contained in Appendix 4.4.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact GHG-1: Project development would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. (Less
than significant)
Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would result in one-time emissions of greenhouse gases. The
primary greenhouse gases during construction are CO2, CH4, and N2O. These emissions are the result of
fuel combustion by construction equipment and motor vehicles. The other GHGs defined by state law
(hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are typically associated with specific
industrial sources and processes and would not be emitted during construction of the proposed project.
The URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software was used to estimate the construction-related
CO2 emissions. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in spring 2011 and
continue for approximately 12 months. Construction activities would include grading/excavation,
trenching, building construction, and architectural coating. UCSF provided a preliminary schedule for
construction and grading amounts. Grading would include the export of 7,700 cubic yards of material.
The default construction equipment and vehicle mixes generated by URBEMIS2007 were assumed for
grading and building construction. The number of vendor trips (e.g., transport of building materials) and
worker trips were based on default values in the URBEMIS2007 model. URBEMIS2007 only calculates
CO2 emissions and does not provide estimates of other GHGs associated with combustion (i.e., CH4 and
N2O). Therefore, in order to account for emissions of these compounds, the following adjustments were
made to the URBEMIS2007 emission calculations to convert CO2 emissions to a CO2e basis:
Construction Off-Road and On-Road Equipment. The CO2 emissions associated with off-road and
on-road equipment were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents
approximately 99.1 and 99.9 percent, respectively, of the CO2e emissions. These assumptions were
derived from the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR 2009) and the California Energy
Commission (CEC 2002).
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-21 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Motor Vehicles (Workers). The CO2 emissions associated with construction-related worker trips
were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95 percent of the CO2e
emissions associated with passenger vehicles, which account for most of the project-related trips (U.S.
EPA 2005). The 95 percent factor accounts for CH4, N2O and fugitive GHG emissions associated with
mobile source air conditioning equipment.
The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction-related GHG
emissions. However, the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to quantify and disclose
GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Table 4.4-4, Estimated Construction GHG
Emissions shows a summary of total estimated GHG emissions from the construction of the proposed
project. Given the low numbers, the fact that they are much lower than the threshold for operational
emissions, and the fact that these would be one-time emissions, the effect on global climate from the
proposed project’s construction would not be substantial.
Table 4.4-4
Estimated Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year
Emissions
(Metric Tons CO2e/year)
2011 311.32
2012 8.16
Total GHG Emissions 319.49
BAAQMD Threshold None
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.4.
Operational Impacts
Once operational, the proposed project would generate direct operational emissions of GHGs, primarily
CO2, CH4, and N2O, which would be the result of fuel combustion from the building’s lighting and
elevator systems, from fuel combustion by the motor vehicles using the garage, and from motor vehicle
air conditioning. Motor vehicle air conditioning systems may also use HFCs (and HCFCs and CFCs to the
extent that they have not been completely phased out at later dates); however, these emissions are not
quantified since they would only occur through accidental leaks and it is not possible to estimate the
frequency of accidental leaks without some level of speculation. It should be noted that CARB has
adopted a mobile air conditioning regulation that reduces emissions associated with the use of small
containers of automotive refrigerants. This regulation requires that refrigerant container be self-sealing
and went into effect on January 1, 2010. CARB has also proposed regulations that require the use of lower
GWP refrigerants in vehicle air conditioners.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-22 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Mobile Source Emissions
Emissions from motor vehicles were calculated using the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM),
which uses URBEMIS2007 files in conjunction with emission and consumption factors specific to the Bay
Area to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from projects within the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The BGM is
the BAAQMD’s preferred method for estimating operational GHG emissions. For the purposes of
estimating GHG emissions with BGM, the proposed project was assumed to have similar emissions
characteristics to a warehouse, as a parking garage is not included as a land use category in BGM. Mobile
emissions were based on traffic data provided by the traffic study for the proposed project (Adavant
Consulting 2010). Parking structures do not generate vehicle trips; rather vehicles trips are generated by
the land uses that the parking structure serves. The proposed project would serve vehicle trips associated
with the Osher Center building. According to the traffic study, about 239 vehicles per day associated with
the Osher Center would park in the proposed garage instead of on the streets near the center. In addition,
it is estimated that there could be approximately 39 vehicles per day that would travel to the project site
because parking would be available (this is described in the Traffic section as induced demand).
Conservatively, trips associated with these 278 vehicles (239 vehicles plus 39 vehicles) are considered new
trips and these 556 daily one-way trips (278 x 2) are analyzed for the GHG emissions they would
produce.
Non-Mobile Source Emissions
Non-mobile sources include area sources (landscaping, hearths and fireplaces), natural gas and electricity
consumption, water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. Emissions from these
sources were also calculated using the BGM. Neither the BGM nor the URBEMIS2007 model includes a
parking garage land-use type and so the warehouse land-use type is typically used as a surrogate.
Electricity and natural gas consumption, water and wastewater generation, and solid waste estimates
were based on a warehouse land-use type. It should be noted that emissions estimated from electricity
and natural gas consumption, water and wastewater generation, and solid waste estimates are highly
conservative as a warehouse would be expected to use significantly more electricity, natural gas, and
water, and generate more waste than a parking garage. The solid waste emissions take into account the
City and County of San Francisco’s waste diversion rate of 77 percent in 2010 (City and County of San
Francisco 2010).
Table 4.4-5, Estimated Operational GHG Emissions, shows a summary of total estimated GHG
emissions from operation of the proposed project and compares these to the BAAQMD significance
thresholds.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-23 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 4.4-5
Estimated Operational GHG Emissions
GHG Emissions Source
Emissions
(Metric Tons
CO2e/year)
Non-Stationary Sources
Transportation (Mobile Sources) 639.47
Area Sources 0.46
Electricity 291.52
Natural Gas 24.25
Water & Wastewater 3.31
Solid Waste 43.44
Total Operational GHG Emissions 1,002.45
BAAQMD Threshold 1,100
Exceeds Threshold? NO
Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.4.
As shown in Table 4.4-5, the proposed project’s operational emissions would not exceed the threshold of
1,100 MTCO2e for land use development projects. The project’s impact would therefore be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measure is required.
Impact GHG-2: The proposed project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases. (Less than Significant)
The primary GHG emissions regulation in California is AB 32, which is discussed above. The BAAQMD
GHG significance threshold was specifically designed to ensure compliance with AB 32 emissions
reductions requirements in the Bay Area. This was accomplished by the BAAQMD by inventorying
existing GHG emissions, estimating projected GHG emissions based on projected growth in the Bay Area,
determining the reductions needed to comply with AB 32 target for the Bay Area, determining the GHG
emissions allowable from new sources associated with the growth, and arriving at the 1,100 MTCO2e
threshold for a land development project as an emission level that would not set back the area from the
attainment of AB 32 goals. Therefore if a proposed project emits below the significance threshold it can be
assumed to comply with AB 32. As shown above, the proposed project would result in emissions that are
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-24 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
substantially lower than the significance threshold and therefore the project would not set back AB 32
efforts for the Bay Area air basin.
The BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan contains energy, transportation, and mobile source control measures
that would reduce operational GHG emissions and that would be potentially applicable to the project.
The following measures are taken from the 2010 CAP (BAAQMD 2010b).
MSM A-2: Zero Emission Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrids. Expand the use of Zero Emission (ZEV) and
Plug‐in Hybrid (PHEV) passenger vehicles and light‐duty trucks within the Bay Area, working in
partnership with the Bay Area Electric Vehicle Corridor coalition.
TCM E‐2: Parking Pricing and Management Strategies. Promote policies to implement market‐rate
pricing of parking facilities, reduce parking requirements for new development projects, parking
“cash‐out,” unbundling of parking in residential and commercial leases, shared parking at mixed‐use
facilities, etc.
TCM E-3: Implement Transportation Pricing Reform. Develop a regional transportation pricing
strategy that includes policy evaluation and implementation. Pricing policies to be evaluated include
gasoline taxes, bridge tolls, congestion pricing, parking pricing, HOT lanes, VMT or carbon fees,
pay‐as‐you‐drive insurance, etc.
The project includes project design features that are generally consistent with the above measures.
Furthermore, UCSF has incorporated into the proposed project substantial sustainability features,
including several GHG mitigation measures included in the BAAQMD CEQA guidelines. These features
include secure bicycle parking, parking fees, electric vehicle charging stations, and a Transportation
Demand Management Center that will provide information on alternative transport and sell transit
passes. Design features to minimize the use of energy and water would also be employed. These features
would reduce GHG emissions from the levels estimated, which assumed no such features would be
included, and ensure compliance with the BAAQMD GHG control plans.
The proposed project would also be consistent with the UCSF Climate Action Plan (UCSF 2009). The
Climate Action Plan contains the following transportation-related measures would reduce
transportation-related GHG emissions:
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program – UCSF’s TDM conforms with San Francisco’s
Transit First Policy to encourage the use of alternative transportation to single-occupancy vehicles.
UCSF has excellent transit ridership rates according to latest transportation survey. About 25.6% of
respondents (faculty, staff, and students) reported taking public transit (e.g., Muni or other bus
system) as their main transportation choice in the latest mobility choices survey.
Bicycling Accommodations - Bicycle racks have been expanded from 400 spaces in 2003 to 680 in
2008. There are now 53 shuttle mounted bike racks. Expenditures on new bike racks were $13,445 in
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-25 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
2008. UCSF bicyclists are eligible for a reduced price membership in the San Francisco Bicycle
Coalition.
Fuel Efficient Vehicles – The Campus supplies 2 electric vehicle charging stations. Fifteen percent
(42 of 273) of campus fleet vehicles are powered by alternative fuel or a hybrid electric and gas. The
Campus offers 103 motorcycle parking stalls.
Transit Pass sales –To further encourage transit use UCSF offers the Campus community 5
convenient locations to purchase city and regional transit passes. (MUNI Fast Pass and Bart
Commuter Ticket) Monthly sales are 600 passes in 2008.
Vanpools – The number of vanpools increased from 30 in 2003 to 46 in 2008 and the number of car
sharing from three to 17 during the same period. These efforts, led by UCSF Transportation Services,
earned UCSF a place on the inaugural 2006 national list of Best Workplaces for Commuters from
colleges and universities, awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vanpools
receive preferential parking spaces at UCSF.
The UCSF Climate Action Plan contains the following Strategic Energy Plan improvements that are
pertinent to the proposed project. These measures will be investigated for potential implementation by
the proposed project and would reduce energy demand and associated GHG emissions:
Lighting Projects UCSF will continue to convert existing T12 and 32 watt T8 fluorescent light fixtures
to 28 watt T8 lamps. Other possibilities include: broader use of occupancy sensor controls, daylight
harvesting, and new stairwell fixtures. The replacement of lighting in parking structures and interior
HID fixtures and with fluorescent will also be evaluated. New technologies such as LED lighting,
bi-level fixtures and induction lamps are anticipated to become readily available in the near future
and these technologies will be incorporated into energy efficiency retrofit projects where appropriate.
As noted above, the proposed project includes secure bicycle parking, parking fees, electric vehicle
charging stations, and a Transportation Demand Management Center that will provide information on
alternative transport and sell transit passes. The project could also provide preferential parking spaces for
carpools and vanpools, depending on need, consistent with UCSF guidelines. These measures would
reduce transportation-related GHG emissions consistent with the Climate Action Plan measures. The
project would also be designed to minimize the energy demand by using energy-efficient lighting
(fluorescent, LED lighting, or similar depending on cost effectiveness). Based on the inclusion of these
project design features, the project would be consistent with applicable plans that have been adopted to
reduce GHG emissions. The impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-26 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.4.5 References
Adavant Consulting. 2010. 2420 Sutter Street Garage Transportation Study. December.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a. “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.”
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-
CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b. “2010 Clean Air Plan.” http://www.baaqmd.gov/
Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and
Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
California Air Resources Board. 2007. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Regulation for
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32).
California Air Resources Board. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Version 1.0.
California Air Resources Board. 2009. “Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program.”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reftrack/reftrack.htm. This regulation is an early action measure under
AB 32.
California Air Resources Board. 2010a. “California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2008 Inventory by Scoping Plan
Category – Summary.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
California Air Resources Board. 2010b. Staff Report: Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Targets For Automobiles And Light Trucks Pursuant To Senate Bill 375.
California Building Standards Commission. 2009. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code.
California Building Standards Commission. 2010. “CALGreen.” http://www.bsc.ca.gov/CALGreen/
default.htm.
California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse as
Emissions Version 3.1.
California Climate Action Team. 2007. Updated Macroeconomic Analysis of Climate Strategies Presented in the
March 2006 Climate Action Team Report.
California Department of Finance. 2010a. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State, 2001-2008, with 2000 Benchmark.” http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/
reports/estimates/e-5/2009.
California Department of Finance. 2010b. “Financial & Economic Data: Gross Domestic Product,
California.” http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-27 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
California Energy Commission. 2002. Diesel Use in California. Remarks by Commissioner James D. Boyd.
California Energy Commission. 2006a. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to
2004, Figure 2.
California Energy Commission. 2006b. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California, PIER
Final Project Report (CEC-500-2006-118). Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc.
California Energy Commission. 2007. “Revisions to the 1990-2004 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Report, Published in December 2006.” http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-
2006-013/2007-01-23_GHG_INVENTORY_REVISIONS.PDF.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3, Section 15064(b).
California Natural Resources Agency, Climate Action Team. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation
Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008.
California Public Resources. nd. Code Section 21082.
California Office of the Attorney General. 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global
Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.
California Office of the Attorney General. 2010. “Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level,”
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf
City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor. 2010. “Press Release: Mayor Newsom Announces
San Francisco’s Waste Diversion Rate At 77 Percent, Shattering City Goal And National Recycling
Records.” http://sfmayor.org/press-room/press-releases/press-release-mayor-newsom-announces-
san-francisco%E2%80%99s-waste-diversion-rate-at-77-percent-shattering-city-goal-and-national-
recycling-records/.
Energy Information Administration. n.d. “Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and
Sulfut Hexafluoride.” http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/other_gases.html.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change –
Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,
Summary for Policymakers.” http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Plenary
Approved.pdf.
Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, December
19, 2007.
4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-28 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Natural Resources Agency. 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State
CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97.
Office of Planning and Research. 2008a. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.
Office of Planning and Research. 2008b. Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate
Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.
Office of Planning and Research. 2009. Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions.
Rimpo and Associates. 2008. “URBEMIS2007 for Windows.” http://www.urbemis.com.
United States Census Bureau. 2010. “Data Finders.” http://www.census.gov/.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-
42.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 1998b.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste (EPA-
530-R-98-013).
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2005.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F-05-004).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act.” http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/anpr.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. “Glossary of Climate Change Terms.”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks 1990-2008.” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.a. “High GWP Gases and Climate Change.”
http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html#sf6.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.b. “Methane: Sources and Emissions.”
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html.
University of California, San Francisco. 2009. Climate Action Plan. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/
sustainability/documents/ucsf_cap_09.pdf
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.5 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the consistency of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project)
with the UCSF 1996 Long Range Development Plan, as amended.
4.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Setting
The regional setting for the proposed project is the San Francisco Bay Area. The project is contained
within the City and County of San Francisco, a relatively dense urban environment that is built out in
most areas. Few large tracts of vacant or underused land are available for new development. San
Francisco consists of a number of neighborhoods, each with its unique physical characteristics and mix of
land uses (UCSF 2005).
Local Setting – Mount Zion
The UCSF Mount Zion campus site occupies approximately 7.3 acres plus leased space in San Francisco’s
Western Addition neighborhood. The campus site consists of a main block and includes the UCSF Mount
Zion Hospital and Medical Center, bounded by Sutter Street to the north, Post Street to the south, Scott
Street to the east, and Divisadero Street to the west. Although some inpatient facilities exist at Mount
Zion, the site functions primarily as an outpatient surgery and ambulatory care facility, with a focus on
cancer programs as part of UCSF’s designation as a National Institutes of Health comprehensive cancer
center for Northern California. Uses on the main block include the Medical Center (“main hospital” or
“Buildings A and B”); the Comprehensive Cancer Center (an outpatient cancer center); the Hellman
Building (Building C offices); the dialysis center; and other clinics and support services (UCSF 2005).
Additional Mount Zion facilities are located on and distributed across five adjoining blocks, within the
area bounded by Broderick Street to the west, Scott Street to the east, Bush Street to the north, and Geary
Boulevard to the south. Uses on these blocks include the Women’s Health Center (at 2356 Sutter Street) to
the north of the main block; medical offices (at 2230 Post Street and 1701 Divisadero Street); records
storage; a pharmacy; UCSF’s Fishbon Medical Library; and the new Osher Building (at 1545 Divisadero
Street) that will contain the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine and clinics of the Division of General
Internal Medicine in the Department of Medicine (UCSF 2005).
4.5 Land Use and Planning
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Campus Vicinity Land Uses and Zoning
The Mount Zion campus site is in the Western Addition neighborhood of San Francisco. The Western
Addition is a highly urbanized area with a diverse mix of land uses, including commercial, medical,
residential, and neighborhood commercial uses. The Kaiser Permanente Medical Center on Geary Street,
about two blocks southwest of the UCSF Mount Zion campus site, includes a hospital, medical office
buildings, clinics, and parking facilities. Other medical and treatment facilities in the vicinity include the
California Podiatry Hospital (Pacific Coast Hospital), located southeast of Kaiser Permanente and south
of the Mount Zion campus site on Scott Street between Eddy and Ellis Streets; and the University of the
Pacific School of Dentistry, located five blocks east of the Mount Zion campus site on Webster Street
between Sacramento and Clay Streets (UCSF 2005).
Retail and commercial development in the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site is primarily small-scale
and neighborhood-oriented and includes: cafes, delicatessens, local fast food outlets, small grocers, dry
cleaners, launderettes, florists, gift shops, hair stylists, thrift shops, banks, realtors, and health-related
businesses such as dispensing opticians, acupuncturists, and medical supply stores. Residential uses in
the Mount Zion campus site vicinity include older one-, two-, and three-story single-family units and
several multifamily units (UCSF 2005).
Zoning in the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site includes: RH-1, RH-2, and RH-3 Zoning Districts
(Residential House District, One-, Two-, and Three-Family, respectively) surrounding the main hospital
block, as well as NC-2 and NC-3 Zoning Districts (Small- and Moderate-Scale Neighborhood
Commercial, respectively) on Sutter, Pierce, Scott and Divisadero Streets and Geary Boulevard, which
include the main hospital block and the adjacent uses on the UCSF Mount Zion campus site (UCSF 2005).
The Mount Zion campus site is located within the City of San Francisco’s 40-X, 50-X, 65-A and 105-E
Height and Bulk Districts. Surrounding Height and Bulk Districts are relatively low, with 40-X Height
Districts to the north, west, and northeast. A 65-A Height District covers Divisadero Street between Bush
Street and Geary Boulevard. A 50-X Height District encompasses a portion of the block south of the main
hospital site and blocks between Divisadero and Scott Streets, south of Geary Boulevard (UCSF 2005).
4.5.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
UCSF Long Range Development Plan
Each campus within the University of California system is required to prepare a Long Range
Development Plan, which sets forth concepts, principles, and plans intended to guide future physical
growth and change of the campus. Current development at UCSF is guided by the 1996 LRDP, as
4.5 Land Use and Planning
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
amended, which includes specific policies related to future program development and space needs at the
Mount Zion campus site. Amendment #1 to the LRDP was adopted in 2002 to permit development of
campus housing at the UCSF Mission Bay campus site. Amendment #2 to the LRDP, which discussed
hospital replacement and clinical planning, was adopted in March 2005 and identified a preferred plan
that proposes two major integrated campus sites at Parnassus Heights and Mission Bay with clinical care
co-located with basic and translational research programs. As indicated in LRDP Amendment #2, the
Mount Zion campus site is to serve as an outpatient hub.
Local Plans and Policies
UCSF is constitutionally exempt from local jurisdiction regulations, including general plans and zoning,
whenever using property under its control for its educational purposes. However, UCSF seeks to
cooperate with the City and County of San Francisco to reduce any physical consequences of potential
land use conflicts to the extent feasible. San Francisco has a Transit First policy contained within Section
VIIIA.115 of the San Francisco Municipal Code that encourages the use of public transit as well as
bicycles as an alternative to automobile use. The text of the Transit First Policy is contained in Appendix
4.5 of this document.
4.5.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
The impact of the proposed project on land use would be considered significant if it would exceed the
following standards of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the
UC CEQA Handbook:
Physically divide an established community;
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;
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; or
Exceed an applicable 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.
4.5 Land Use and Planning
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study for the proposed project determined that implementation of the proposed project would
not physically divide an established community as the height, size, and character of the proposed project
would be in keeping with that of surrounding structures and therefore would not create a physical
division in the existing established uses around the site. In addition, the proposed project would be built
on an infill site and would not cut off any existing or proposed transportation route creating connectivity
within the Mount Zion neighborhood. The Initial Study also found that the proposed project would not
conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as no
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan is applicable to the project site. Finally,
the Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not exceed an applicable LRDP EIR
standard of significance by substantially conflicting with use, density, height and bulk restrictions of local
zoning as the proposed project would be consistent with the NC-3 zoning district in which it is located
and would meet the City’s 65-foot height limit for the project site. In addition, the proposed project
would meet the City’s maximum bulk requirements for levels higher than 40 feet in a NC-3 zone as the
proposed parking structure has a length of 110 feet and a diagonal dimension of 125 feet. These issues are
not discussed further in this section.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not conflict with the UCSF 1996 LRDP as
amended. (Less than Significant)
The project site is not currently owned or leased by UCSF, and therefore is not considered part of the
Mount Zion campus site at present. However, the LRDP includes a proposal to “Provide additional
parking at UCSF/Mount Zion . . . and study the development of a new parking garage in the
UCSF/Mount Zion vicinity.” The project site was envisioned in the 1996 LRDP as a potential location for
parking, and was identified as a “Parking Opportunity Site” (LRDP Figure 10, pg. 125), as it had been
discussed as a potential location for parking in the 1992 UCSF Mount Zion Program Revisions and
Associated Building Projects Subsequent EIR. Therefore, the proposed use of the project site for parking is
consistent with the UCSF’s development program for the Mount Zion campus site. In addition, as part of
the proposed project, UCSF proposes to amend the LRDP to include the 14,600-square-foot project site as
part of the Mount Zion campus site. No other changes to the LRDP are required to incorporate the
proposed project because parking structures are not included in the space profile (total square footage) of
the UCSF campus sites. The location of the project site in relation to the Mount Zion campus site is shown
in Figure 3.0-4, Mount Zion Campus Site Plan (see Section 3.0, Project Description)
4.5 Land Use and Planning
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
The LRDP also contains various goals and objectives on transportation, circulation, and parking that
apply to the UCSF campus as a whole. These goals and objectives include emphasizing transportation
alternatives to single-occupant vehicles; provision of adequate parking to serve patients, visitors, faculty,
staff, and students while promoting use of public transit and alternative forms of transportation; and
minimizing impacts on local traffic congestion and parking shortages in a manner consistent with local
government plans.
The proposed garage is but one component of UCSF’s overall strategy to meet a diversity of travel needs.
As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, despite UCSF’s extensive and growing Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program, there remain some patients, visitors, and essential healthcare
providers for whom alternative transportation is not feasible. The proposed project is intended to help
meet some of the parking need of this segment of UCSF’s population. UCSF would continue to promote
alternative transportation and would provide a TDM office within the project. Thus, the project would
not conflict with TDM strategies, and the project would be consistent with the LRDP goal to provide
adequate parking to serve patients, visitors, and in this case essential healthcare providers, while
promoting alternative forms of transportation.
The City of San Francisco’s Transit First Policy encourages the use of public transit as well as bicycles as
an alternative to automobile use. The Transit First Policy does not preclude parking, but does indicate
“Parking policies for areas well-served by public transit shall be designed to encourage travel by public
transit and alternative transportation.” As discussed above, UCSF in general and the proposed TDM
component of the project would continue to promote alternative transportation. The project would not
interfere with the City’s ability to encourage public transit use or bicycling, and therefore would not
conflict with the City’s Transit First Policy.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
4.5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative Impact LU-1: Cumulative development would not adversely alter the land uses in
the project vicinity. (Less than Significant)
As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, one other project is proposed in the vicinity
of the proposed UCSF Garage project, that when combined with the proposed project, could potentially
result in cumulative land use impacts in that both projects would alter existing land uses in the project
area. However, both land uses are consistent with the zoning and land use designations of their
respective sites. The heights and mass of both projects would be compatible with the heights of
4.5 Land Use and Planning
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-6 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
surrounding buildings along Sutter, Bush, and Divisadero Streets. Therefore, the cumulative impact of
the two projects on the land uses in the Mount Zion neighborhood would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measure is required.
4.5.6 REFERENCES
University of California, San Francisco. 1996 Long Range Development Plan.
University of California, San Francisco. LRDP Amendment No. 2 – Hospital Replacement Final
Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2004072067. March 2005. (UCSF 2005)
University of California, San Francisco, Mount Zion Program Revisions and Associated Building Projects
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 89060609
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.6 NOISE
4.6.1 INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the existing noise environment in the project vicinity, the regulatory framework for
regulation of noise, and analyzes the potential for the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed
project) to affect the existing ambient noise environment during project construction and operation.
4.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background Information on Noise
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound and can be an undesirable by-product of society’s normal
day-to-day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, causes actual
physical harm, or has an adverse effect on health. The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that
it has an adverse effect or causes a substantial annoyance to people and their environment.
Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness because the human ear does not respond
uniformly to sounds at all frequencies. For example, it is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than to
the medium frequencies that more closely correspond to human speech. In response to the human ear’s
sensitivity to different frequencies or lack thereof, the A-weighted noise level, referenced in units of
dB(A), was developed to better correspond with peoples’ subjective judgment of sound levels. In general,
changes in a community noise level of less than 3 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear (FHA
1980). Changes from 3 to 5 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to
changes in noise. An increase greater than 5 dB(A) is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a
10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound volume. A doubling of sound energy results in
a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound wave energy (e.g., doubling the volume
of traffic on a roadway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. Common noise levels
associated with certain activities are shown on Figure 4.6-1, Common Noise Levels.
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or individual motor
vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of mobile point sources (motor
vehicles). Sound generated by a stationary point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of
6 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites, and at a
rate of 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically “soft” sites (FHA 1980). For example, a 60 dB(A) noise level measured at
50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and
it would be 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at
a rate of 3 dB(A) and 4.6 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft
sites, respectively (FHA 1980).
Environmental noise fluctuates in intensity over time, and several descriptors of time-averaged noise
level are in use. The three most commonly used descriptors are Leq, Ldn, and CNEL. Leq, the energy
equivalent noise level, is a measure of the average energy content (intensity) of noise over any given
period of time. Ldn, the day-night average noise level, is the 24-hour average of the noise intensity, with a
10-dB(A) "penalty" added for nighttime noise (10 PM to 7 AM) to account for the greater sensitivity to
noise during this period. CNEL, the community equivalent noise level, is similar to Ldn, but adds a
5-dB(A) penalty to evening noise (7 PM to 10 PM).
Background Information on Vibration
Vibration is minute variation in pressure through structures and the earth, whereas noise is minute
variation in pressure through air. Thus, vibration is felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be
caused by noise; e.g., the rattling of windows from truck pass-bys. This phenomenon is related to the
coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material
being vibrated. Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration
increases.
Vibration can be measured as particle velocity in inches per second and referenced as vibration decibels
(VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A
vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly
perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within
buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors.
Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled
trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is
barely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is typical background
vibration velocity, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile
buildings.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
EXAMPLES DECIBELS (dB)‡ SUBJECTIVEEVALUATIONS
DEAFENING
VERY LOUD
LOUDRange of S
peech
continuous exposureabove here is likely
to degrade the hearingof most people
MODERATE
FAINT
VERY FAINT
NEAR JET ENGINE
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
THRESHOLD OF FEELING–HARD ROCK BAND
ACCELERATING MOTORCYCLE ATA FEW FEET AWAY*
LOUD AUTO HORN AT 10' AWAY
NOISY URBAN STREET
NOISY FACTORY
SCHOOL CAFETERIA WITHUNTREATED SURFACES
STENOGRAPHIC ROOM
NEAR FREEWAY AUTO TRAFFIC
AVERAGE OFFICE
SOFT RADIO MUSIC IN APARTMENT
AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUTSTEREO PLAYING
AVERAGE WHISPER
RUSTLE OF LEAVES IN WIND HUMAN BREATHING
THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY
‡NOTE: dB are “average” values as measured on the A–scale of a sound–level meter.
* NOTE: 50' from motorcycle equals noise at about 2000' from a four-engine jet aircraft.
Common Noise Levels
FIGURE 4.6-1
1063-001•11/10
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Figure 4.6-2, Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration, identifies the typical groundborne vibration
levels in VdB and human response to different levels of vibration.
Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is currently vacant. Land uses around the project site include a vacant convalescent
facility to the north; a UCSF medical office building located at 1701 Divisadero Street to the east; a
privately owned parking garage to the south; and the Russian Center community facility to the west. The
nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is the Russian Center community facility to the west and a
residential neighborhood located a half block (approximately 100 feet) to the west. A mixed-use
development project consisting of retail space and 83 dwelling units has been approved at the site of the
vacant convalescent facility immediately north of the project site. Other sensitive receptors in the vicinity
of the project site include the facilities in the Mount Zion hospital complex, located one block to the east,
and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, located two blocks to the south.
The project site and surrounding uses are located in a densely developed urban area of the City and
County of San Francisco and are exposed to noise sources typical of such a setting. No sources of noise
are currently located on the project site, although a medical office building and associated parking that
generated some amount of noise was present on the site up until 2008 at which time it was demolished.
Off-site noise sources in the area that are audible on the site include activities associated with commercial
uses surrounding the site, such as people talking, doors slamming and tires squealing, and truck
deliveries. Mobile sources of noise that are audible in the project vicinity are related to road traffic along
Sutter Street, Divisadero Street, and Broderick Street.
Existing Noise Levels at the Project Site
To characterize the existing noise environment at the site, one continuous long-term 24-hour
measurement on Sutter Street at the project site, supplemented by one short-term 15-minute
simultaneous noise measurement (at the northeast corner of the site) was conducted by Charles M Salter
and Associates between the dates of 10 and 12 August 2010. The purpose of the measurements was to
quantify the noise levels at the setbacks of the project. The measurements were also used to establish
existing property line “ambient” noise levels as defined by the City. The short-term measurement
measured noise levels simultaneously with the synchronized long-term measurement, and were used to
estimate the DNL at the north end of the project site. Table 4.6-1, Measured and Calculated Noise Levels
at the Project Site, reports the existing noise levels.
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 4.6-1
Measured and Calculated Noise Levels at Project Site
Location Measured or Calculated DNL
Lowest Measured Ambient Noise
Levels between 6:00AM and 10:00
PM2
Sutter Street 68 dB 51 dB
North Property Line 63 dB1 46 dB
Source: Charles M Salter and Associates, 2010
1 Calculated from synchronized 15-minute Leq offset of Sutter Street long-term monitor.
2 Quietest time period during the proposed hours of operation was the 6:00 AM hour.
Roadway Traffic Noise
The existing ambient noise levels were estimated for the roadways near the project site based on average
daily trips provided in the traffic study for this project. The traffic noise was modeled using the Federal
Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5. The results of the noise
modeling are presented in Table 4.6-2, Existing Roadway Modeled Noise Levels. As shown, roadway
noise levels range from a low of 52.6 on Broderick Street to a high of 70.7 dB(A) Ldn at 50 feet from
roadway centerline along Geary Boulevard. It is noted that noise levels along these roadways are likely
higher than these levels due to the contribution of noise from other sources. However, traffic is the
dominant noise source in the area.
Table 4.6-2
Existing Roadway Modeled Noise Levels
Roadway Segment/Intersection
Ldn in dB(A) at 50 Feet
from Roadway Centerline
Broderick Street, south of Bush 52.6
Divisadero Street, south of Pine 63.2
Divisadero Street, south of Bush 63.2
Divisadero Street, south of Sutter 63.6
Divisadero Street, south of Post 64.2
Scott Street, south of Sutter 57.2
Scott Street, south of Post 58.1
Bush Street, west of Divisadero 63.8
Sutter Street, east of Broderick 56.2
Sutter Street, east of Divisadero 55.8
Post Street, east of Divisadero 59.8
Geary Boulevard, east of Broderick 70.7
Geary Boulevard, east of Divisadero 70.6
Source: Impact Sciences. Model results are contained in Appendix 4.6.
HUMAN/STRUCTURALRESPONSE
VELOCITY LEVEL IN
VdBTYPICAL SOURCES
50 FEET FROM SOURCE
BUS OR TRUCK, TYPICAL
TYPICAL GROUND VIBRATION
THRESHOLD, MINOR COSMETIC DAMAGE TO FRAGILE BUILDINGS
DIFFICULTY WITH TASKS SUCH AS READING A VDT SCREEN
RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, INFREQUENT EVENTS(E.G., COMMUTER RAIL)
RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, FREQUENT EVENTS(E.G., RAPID TRANSIT)
LIMIT FOR VIBRATION-SENSITIVE EQUIPMENTAPPROXIMATE THRESHOLD FOR HUMAN PERCEPTION OF VIBRATION
AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUTSTEREO PLAYING
AVERAGE WHISPER
100
90
80
70
60
50
RAPID TRANSIT, TYPICAL BUS OR TRUCK OVER BUMP
COMMUTER RAIL, TYPICAL
RAPID TRANSIT, UPPER RANGE
COMMUTER RAIL, UPPER RANGE
BULLDOZER AND OTHER HEAVY-TRACKED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
BLASTING FROM CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration
FIGURE 4.6-2
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: United States Department of Transportation, "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment", Office of Planning and Environment Federal Transit Administration, May 2006
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-7 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.6.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
UCSF is constitutionally exempt from local jurisdiction regulations whenever using property under its
control in furtherance of its educational purposes. However, UCSF seeks to cooperate with the City and
County of San Francisco to reduce any physical consequences of potential land use conflicts to the extent
feasible. This section summarizes regulations contained in the City and County of San Francisco Noise
Ordinance relevant to noise impacts.
City and County of San Francisco Noise Ordinance
Sections 2907 and 2908 of Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code regulate noise generated by
construction equipment and construction work. Section 2907(b) states “it shall be unlawful for any
person, including the City and County of San Francisco, to operate any powered construction equipment,
regardless of age or date of acquisition, if the operation of such equipment emits noise at a level in excess
of 80 dB(A) when measured at a distance of 100 feet from such equipment, or an equivalent sound level at
some other convenient distance.” The Ordinance also requires that such equipment be equipped with
intake/exhaust mufflers and/or acoustically attenuating shields/shrouds recommended by the
manufacturers and approved by the Director of Public Works to best accomplish maximum noise
attenuation. Exemptions to the Ordinance include impact tools and equipment, pavement breakers, and
jackhammers.
In addition to the 80 dB(A) noise limit, Section 2908 states that “it shall be unlawful for any person,
between the hours of 8:00 PM of any day and 7:00 AM of the following day to erect, construct, demolish,
excavate for, alter, or repair any building or structure if the noise level created thereby is in excess of the
ambient noise level by 5 dB(A) at the nearest property plane, unless a special permit therefore has been
applied for and granted by the Director of Public Works.”
Section 2909 of Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code states that “no person shall produce or allow to
be produced by any machine or device, music or entertainment or any combination of same, on a
commercial or industrial property over which the person had ownership or control, a noise level more
than 8 dB(A) above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.”
4.6.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The impact of the proposed project related to noise would be considered significant if it would exceed the
following standards of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the
UC CEQA Handbook.
Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-8 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Expose people to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels;
Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project;
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project;
Result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels if the
project is located within an area covered by 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;
Result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels if the
project is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip; or
Exceed an applicable 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.
Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study for the proposed project noted that the project site is not located within the boundaries
of any airport land use plan and is more than 2 miles from the nearest public airport. The project site is
not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not be affected by operation of a public airport or by a private airstrip. These issues are not
discussed further in the analysis below.
Significance Thresholds
Noise
For office buildings and commercial uses, satisfactory noise levels are those below 70 dB(A) Ldn. For
residential uses, satisfactory noise levels are those below 60 dB(A) Ldn. Land uses immediately adjacent to
the project site include the UCSF medical office building at 1701 Divisadero Street, the Russian Center,
and the private parking structure. All of these are non-residential uses and therefore would be subject to
the 70 dB(A) Ldn noise standard. Existing residential uses located less than 100 feet to the west of the
project site and the approved mixed-use development immediately adjacent to the north side of the
garage project site would be subject to the 60 dB(A) Ldn noise standard.
For the purposes of this EIR, noise impacts from project-related long-term or permanent increases would
be considered significant if the project resulted in a 3 dB(A) Ldn increase in noise above existing
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-9 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
conditions or above future no project conditions. Long-term or permanent increases are associated with
project operations and project-related traffic.
UCSF does not have a numerical threshold for evaluation of construction noise. However, the Campus
does voluntarily adhere to the standards contained in the San Francisco Noise Ordinance for the control
of construction noise.
Vibration
UCSF does not have a numerical threshold for evaluation of vibration impacts. A numerical threshold to
identify the point at which a vibration impact is deemed perceptible is also not identified in the City’s
Municipal Code. In the absence of significance thresholds for vibration from construction, the Federal
Transit Administration identifies a maximum acceptable level threshold of 65 VdB for buildings where
low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (such as hospitals and recording studios), 72
VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, and 75 VdB for institutional land uses
with primary daytime use (such as churches, community centers, and schools).
Mitigation Measures included in the Proposed Project
The following mitigation measure was adopted by The Regents in connection with certification of the
1996 LRDP EIR and is included as part of the proposed project (UCSF 1997). The analysis presented
below evaluates environmental impacts that would result from project implementation following the
application of this mitigation measure.
LRDP EIR MM 4E1-1 UCSF would require construction contractors to minimize construction noise
impacts by the following strategies:
Limit construction hours to between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM, unless night
work is reviewed and authorized by UCSF.
Require use of construction equipment with noise reduction devices, such as
mufflers, which are in good condition.
Erect temporary noise walls and acoustical shielding that are designed by an
acoustical engineer when construction would occur adjacent to existing
residents.
Minimize the use of impact tools to the extent possible.
Locate stationary construction noise sources away from residential areas,
and require use of acoustic shielding with such equipment when feasible and
appropriate.
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-10 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact NOISE-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would
temporarily elevate noise levels at the project site and surrounding areas. (Less
than Significant)
Construction activities would occur over a period of approximately one year. Excavation and project
construction would temporarily increase noise near the project site. Construction noise would fluctuate
depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between noise source
and listener, and presence or absence of barriers. As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, no pile
driving would be required for the proposed project.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur less than 50 feet from existing
office and commercial uses. In addition, construction activities associated with the proposed project
would occur less than 100 feet from existing residential uses to the west of the project site. As a result,
there would be times when noise could interfere with indoor activities in these nearby uses. However,
noise impacts would be intermittent and temporary over the yearlong construction period. In addition,
LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4E1-1, which is a part of the project, would require construction
contractors to minimize construction noise impacts by implementing the following strategies: limiting
construction to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, requiring noise reduction devices, minimizing the use of
impact tools to the extent possible, locating stationary construction noise sources away from residential
areas, and requiring use of acoustic shielding with such equipment when feasible and appropriate. These
strategies included in LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4E1-1 are consistent with the standards contained in
the San Francisco Noise Ordinance for the control of construction noise. Therefore, the effects of
construction noise on surrounding lands uses would be minimized, and temporary noise impacts
associated with construction would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact NOISE-2: Project construction activities would not expose people to excessive
groundborne vibration levels. (Less than Significant)
The primary and most intensive vibration source associated with the development of the proposed
project would be the use of bulldozers during construction. This type of equipment can create intense
noise that is disturbing and can result in ground vibrations. The results from vibration can range from no
perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at
moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction
activities rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can achieve the audible and
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-11 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Table 4.6‐3, Vibration Levels for
Construction Equipment, lists vibration levels for construction equipment.
Table 4.6-3
Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate VdB
25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet
Large Bulldozer 87 81 77 75
Loaded trucks 86 80 76 74
Jackhammer 79 73 69 67
Small Bulldozer 58 52 48 46
Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2005.
As indicated in Table 4.6-3, large bulldozers are capable of producing approximately 87 VdB at 25 feet.
Land uses within 25 feet of the site consist of community and commercial uses, and do not contain
sensitive equipment and therefore would not be adversely affected by vibrations produced by large
bulldozers on the project site. However, residential uses are located less than 100 feet to the west of the
project site. As indicated in Table 4.6-3, large bulldozers are capable of producing approximately 75 VdB
at this distance, which would exceed the residential threshold of 72 VdB. The main concern related to the
effects of high vibrations on residential uses is disturbance of sleep. As discussed above, high
noise-producing (and vibration–producing) activities during construction will be scheduled to occur
between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM to minimize disturbance to sensitive uses. As a result,
vibration-producing activities would not occur during normal sleeping hours, and vibration impacts
associated with construction-phase vibration would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact NOISE-3: Vehicular traffic associated with the proposed project would result in an
incremental, but imperceptible, long-term increase in ambient noise levels.
(Less than Significant)
Changes in traffic volumes from project implementation along roadways leading to the project site could
result in changes in ambient noise levels. Vehicular noise levels were modeled for the roadways analyzed
in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic using traffic volumes1 analyzed in the traffic section. The
1 The traffic analysis in Section 4.7 is highly conservative as it analyzes the level of service impacts from all of the
vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, treating all the trips as “new” whereas at least 49 percent of
the 548 daily one-way trips are existing trips. The vehicular noise impacts are analyzed using the same numbers
as used in the traffic analysis; therefore, this vehicular noise analysis is also a highly conservative analysis.
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-12 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
results of the modeled weekday roadway noise levels are provided below in Table 4.6-4, Operational
Roadway Noise Levels. As shown, no significant changes in Ldn would result from the proposed project.
As discussed above, an increase in Ldn of 3 dB(A) represents the point at which only the most sensitive
individuals notice a change in noise levels. Since the project would not increase roadway noise levels by
3 dB(A) or greater during the weekday, land uses located along study area roadways, including the
residential area less than 100 feet west of the project site, would not be affected by traffic noise. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.6-4
Operational Roadway Noise Levels
Roadway Segment/Intersection
Existing Noise
Levels Without
Project
Existing Noise
Levels Plus
Project
Change in
Noise Levels
Significant
Project Impact
Broderick Street, south of Bush 52.6 52.9 0.3 No
Divisadero Street, south of Pine 63.2 63.2 0.0 No
Divisadero Street, south of Bush 63.2 63.2 0.0 No
Divisadero Street, south of Sutter 63.6 63.7 0.1 No
Divisadero Street, south of Post 64.2 64.3 0.1 No
Scott Street, south of Sutter 57.2 57.3 0.1 No
Scott Street, south of Post 58.1 58.1 0.0 No
Bush Street, west of Divisadero 63.8 63.8 0.0 No
Sutter Street, east of Broderick 56.2 56.8 0.6 No
Sutter Street, east of Divisadero 55.8 55.8 0.0 No
Post Street, east of Divisadero 59.8 59.8 0.0 No
Geary Boulevard, east of Broderick 70.7 70.7 0.0 No
Geary Boulevard, east of Divisadero 70.6 70.7 0.1 No
Source: Impact Sciences. Model results are contained in Appendix 4.6.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact NOISE-4: The operation of the proposed facility would not result in a substantial long-
term increase in ambient noise levels. (Less than Significant)
Over the long term, operation and use of proposed parking structure would result in an increase in noise
levels at the project site. Stationary equipment, such elevator equipment would increase noise in the
immediate area. In addition, parking structures can be a source of annoyance due to automobile engine
start-ups and acceleration, and the activation of car alarms. However, as noted in Section 3.0, Project
Description, public parking hours of operation of the proposed garage would be from 6 AM to 10 PM,
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-13 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Monday through Friday, excluding Medical Center holidays and the garage would not be open to the
public on weekends. Therefore, noise generated by vehicles within the garage would be limited to
working days and hours. Furthermore, the western wall of the parking structure would contain no
openings while the northern wall that would be towards the future mixed-use project on Bush Street
would be partially enclosed. Therefore, noise generated by vehicles within the garage would be
completely blocked to the west and minimized by project design to the north.
The proposed project includes a mechanical ventilation system that would include an air intake on the
second level of the Sutter Street aspect of the parking garage and a fan exhaust on the northeast corner of
the garage about 12 feet from the UCSF medical office building and about 15 feet from the approved
mixed-use development project on Bush Street. With respect to mechanical equipment noise, San
Francisco Noise Ordinance states that “No person shall produce or allow to be produced by any machine
or device, music or entertainment or any combination of same, on a commercial or industrial property
over which the person had ownership or control, a noise level more than 8 dB(A) above the local ambient
at any point outside of the property plane.” As noted earlier, noise measurements were conducted at the
project site and ambient noise levels on Sutter Street and the northern property line were estimated. The
increase in ambient noise levels from the air intake on Sutter was estimated to be less than 8 decibels and
therefore, that element of the mechanical ventilation system would not result in an exceedance of the
Noise Ordinance. Assuming the “worst case” operation of the exhaust system early morning at full fan
speed, at the north and east property lines, the fan exhaust noise is predicted to produce 75 dB(A) (or
19 dB over the allowable limit given the ambient noise level) and 80 dB(A) (or 21 dB over the allowable
limit given the ambient noise level). To reduce fan exhaust noise to meet Noise Ordinance requirements,
the proposed project includes a silencer, appropriate ductwork, an acoustical louver at the exterior
exhaust port, and a solid-state speed controller for the fan. With these design features included in the
project, mechanical noise levels would not cause an exceedance of the requirements of the Noise
Ordinance.
In summary, the operation of the proposed facility would not result in a substantial long-term increase in
ambient noise levels that could affect off-site receptors, and this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
4.6.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source
increases. Consequently, only projects and growth that would occur in the general area of the project site
would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. There is only one development project that is proposed in
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-14 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
the project vicinity which is a mixed-use project located at 2655 Bush Street, immediately to the north of
the project site. This project was considered in the evaluation of cumulative noise impacts, below.
Construction of the 2655 Bush Street project was scheduled to begin in spring 2010 and end by late 2011.
However, the start of construction has been delayed due to the economy. Conservatively for this EIR, it is
assumed that the construction of the 2655 Bush Street project would overlap with the construction of the
proposed project.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project and the 2655 Bush Street project is the Russian
Center and residential uses located to the west. Both the Russian Center and residential uses are located
immediately adjacent to the 2655 Bush Street project.
Cumulative Impact NOISE-1: Construction of cumulative development would temporarily elevate
noise levels in the Mount Zion neighborhood. (Less than Significant)
Noise impacts are localized in nature and decrease with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a
cumulative increase in noise, more than one source emitting high levels of noise would need to be located
in close proximity to the noise receptor. The proposed mixed-use project at 2655 Bush Street is located in
close enough proximity to the project site to result in cumulative noise impacts. Construction of the 2655
Bush Street project would temporarily increase noise in the area above existing levels. However, impacts
would be minimal, as construction would be required to comply with regulations set forth in the San
Francisco Noise Ordinance. In addition, while increased noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors due to
construction would be annoying, closed windows typically can reduce daytime interior noise levels to an
acceptable level (San Francisco 2009). As discussed above, noise impacts during construction of the
proposed project would be intermittent and temporary over the yearlong construction period. In
addition, the proposed project would implement LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4E1-1, which is
consistent with the standards set forth in the San Francisco Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the combined
noise effect of the proposed project and the 2655 Bush Street project during construction would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measure is required.
Cumulative Impact NOISE-2: Temporary vibration related to the construction of cumulative
development would not cause a cumulative impact. (Less than
Significant)
Vibration impacts are also localized in nature and decrease with distance. Consequently, in order to result
in a cumulative impact, more than one source emitting high levels of vibration would need to be in close
proximity to the sensitive receptor. The proposed mixed-use development project located at 2655 Bush
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-15 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Street is located in close enough proximity to the proposed project to have the potential to result in
cumulative vibration impacts at the nearest receptors. The 2655 Bush Street project by itself could
generate vibration levels between 65 VdB and 75 VdB at adjacent locations. The City’s code requires that
construction associated with the 2655 Bush Street be scheduled to occur between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 8:00 PM to minimize disruption on sensitive uses. Therefore, vibration-producing activities
associated with the 2655 Bush Street project would not occur during normal sleeping hours. In addition,
construction associated with the proposed project would be scheduled to occur between the hours of
7:00 AM and 8:00 PM to minimize disturbance to sensitive uses. As a result, vibration-producing
activities associated with the proposed project would not occur during normal sleeping hours. The
cumulative impact of both projects would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measure is required.
Cumulative Impact NOISE-3: Vehicular traffic associated with cumulative development would
result in an incremental, but imperceptible, long-term increase in
ambient noise levels. (Less than Significant)
Increase in vehicular traffic on study area streets due to cumulative growth would incrementally increase
ambient noise levels. However, based on the projected growth in traffic on the study area roadways
between existing conditions and 2030, including the traffic associated with the proposed project, traffic
noise levels would increase by less than 2 dB(A) Ldn, an imperceptible level. As shown in Table 4.6-5,
Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels, no increase above 1.6 dB(A) Ldn is anticipated. Consequently, there
would not be a significant cumulative impact with regard to roadway noise.
Table 4.6-5
Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels
Roadway Segment/Intersection
Existing Noise
Levels
Future 2030
Noise Levels
Cumulative
Change in
Noise Levels
Cumulative
Impact
Broderick Street, south of Bush 52.6 53.4 0.8 No
Divisadero Street, south of Pine 63.2 63.5 0.3 No
Divisadero Street, south of Bush 63.2 63.5 0.3 No
Divisadero Street, south of Sutter 63.6 63.9 0.3 No
Divisadero Street, south of Post 64.2 64.4 0.2 No
Scott Street, south of Sutter 57.2 57.7 0.5 No
Scott Street, south of Post 58.1 58.5 0.4 No
Bush Street, west of Divisadero 63.8 64.0 0.2 No
Sutter Street, east of Broderick 56.2 57.7 1.5 No
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-16 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Roadway Segment/Intersection
Existing Noise
Levels
Future 2030
Noise Levels
Cumulative
Change in
Noise Levels
Cumulative
Impact
Sutter Street, east of Divisadero 55.8 57.4 1.6 No
Post Street, east of Divisadero 59.8 60.7 0.9 No
Geary Boulevard, east of Broderick 70.7 70.8 0.1 No
Geary Boulevard, east of Divisadero 70.6 70.7 0.1 No
Source: Impact Sciences. Model results are contained in Appendix 4.6.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measure is required.
Cumulative Impact NOISE-4: The operation of cumulative development would not result in a
substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels. (Less than
Significant)
Most of the project vicinity is already developed with land uses. The only new land uses to be developed
in the area are the proposed project and the mixed-use development project at 2655 Bush Street. Both
projects are located in close proximity to each other to have the potential to result in cumulative
operational noise impacts. The 2655 Bush Street project by itself could generate noise from stationary
sources such as rooftop elevator and HVAC equipment. Combined, the proposed project and the
2655 Bush Street project would increase noise in the immediate area. However, as development of the
proposed project and the 2655 Bush Street project would be consistent with local zoning and with the
character of surrounding uses, noise levels generated by both projects would be similar to noise levels
generated by surrounding uses. In addition, both projects would control their mechanical equipment
noise in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. As a result, the cumulative impact of operational noise
from the two projects would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measure is required.
4.6.6 REFERENCES
City and County of San Francisco. 2010. City and County of San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 712 (San
Francisco 2010)
City and County of San Francisco. 2009. Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2655 Bush Street, Case No.
2005.1106E. (San Francisco 2009)
Charles M Salter and Associates. 2010. 2420 Sutter Street Garage – Review of DD-Phase Project Drawings
CSA Project No. 10-0294
4.6 Noise
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-17 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Cunniff, P.F. 1977. Environmental Noise Pollution.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 1971. Highway Noise: A Design Guide for
Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117.
University of California, San Francisco. 1996 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report. SCH No. 1995123032. January 1997. (UCSF 1997)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Building Operations,
Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 1971. (EPA 1971)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals.
Springfield, Virginia. September 1980. (FHA 1980)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. High-Speed Ground
Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.7 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.7.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the existing transportation setting in the project area and analyzes the potential
impacts of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project) on transportation and traffic.
The section is based on a traffic report prepared for the proposed project by Adavant Consulting,
November 3, 2010. A complete copy of the traffic has been included in Appendix 4.7 of this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.7.2 SCOPE OF TRAFFIC STUDY
Given the project location, and for consistency with other analyses conducted in its vicinity, the study
scope and approach follows, to the extent applicable, the San Francisco Planning Department’s
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Environmental Review, October 2002 (SF Guidelines).
For the analysis of the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project, the following three transportation
scenarios were evaluated:
Baseline;
Baseline plus Project; and
Future year 2030 Cumulative.
The Baseline scenario represents traffic conditions that include the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero
Street, recently completed in December 2010, plus a mixed use project consisting of 4,500 square feet of
ground-level retail space and 83 residential units located at 2655 Bush Street, which was proposed by a
private entity and approved by the City of San Francisco in 2009 but not yet constructed. The inclusion of
this project’s trips in the baseline conditions represents a highly conservative analysis.
The following 11 intersections in the vicinity of the project site were analyzed for intersection Level of
Service (LOS) during the weekday PM peak hour (the highest traffic hour between 4:00 and 6:00 PM).
1. Bush Street/Broderick Street (Traffic Signal)
2. Sutter Street/Broderick Street (All-Way STOP)
3. Geary Boulevard/Broderick Street (One-Way STOP)
4. Pine Street/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
5. Bush Street/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)
6. Sutter Street/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)
7. Post Street/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)
8. Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)
9. Sutter Street/Scott Street (All-Way STOP)
10. Post Street/Scott Street (Traffic Signal)
11. Geary Boulevard/Scott Street (Traffic Signal)
Intersections #2 through #11 were selected for consistency with the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine
Building FEIR (2005) (now the Osher Building) and its addendum (2007). The signalized intersection of
Bush and Broderick Streets (Intersection #1) was selected so that all four intersections surrounding the
block where the proposed project would be located could be evaluated. In addition, this intersection,
together with Pine/Divisadero (Intersection #4) and Bush/Divisadero (Intersection #5), was also analyzed
as part of the transportation study conducted for 2655 Bush Street project (2008). Analysis of these
11 intersections is considered sufficient to assess the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project.
Vehicle turning movement counts were collected once at the 11 study intersections on Wednesday,
March 10, 2010, Tuesday, March 16, 2010 and Wednesday, March 17, 2010 during the evening peak
commute period from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. A comparison of these traffic counts with those collected for
previous studies indicates that the PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes in 2010 are 2 to 15 percent
lower than those collected in 2002 and 2006.
4.7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A description of existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project is provided
below, including descriptions of the existing roadway traffic, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, emergency
vehicle access, and parking conditions.
Roadway Network
Regional Access
Travel to and from the project site involves the use of regional highway transportation facilities that link
San Francisco with other parts of the Bay Area, as well as Northern and Southern California. The project
site is accessible by local streets with connections to and from regional freeways and highways in the
state system.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Interstate 80 and U.S. Highway 101
Interstate 80 (I-80) and U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) provide the primary regional access to the project
area. U.S. 101 serves San Francisco and the Peninsula/South Bay, and extends north via the Golden Gate
Bridge to the North Bay. Van Ness Avenue serves as U.S. 101 between Market Street and Lombard Street.
I-80 connects San Francisco to the East Bay and points east via the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
U.S. 101 and I-80 merge south of the project site. The closest access to the U.S. 101 south freeway is via the
ramps at Market Street and Octavia Boulevard.
Interstate 280
Interstate 280 (I-280) provides regional access from the South of Market area to southern San Francisco,
the Peninsula, and the South Bay. I-280 has an interchange with U.S. 101 south of the project area. The
closest access to I-280 is provided via on- and off-ramps at the intersection of Sixth/Brannan Streets.
Local Access
A discussion of the existing local roadway system in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway
designation, number of travel lanes, and traffic flow directions, is provided below. Figure 4.7-1, Local
Roadway System, provides the location of each roadway in relation to the project site.
Broderick Street
Broderick Street is a north-south roadway that runs discontinuously between Marina Boulevard and
Waller Street. Broderick Street generally has one lane in each direction and parking on both sides of the
street.
Divisadero Street
Divisadero Street is the major north-south arterial that runs between Marina Boulevard and 14th Street.
Between Castro Street and California Street, Divisadero Street is a two-way roadway with two lanes in
each direction and parking on both sides of the street. In the General Plan, Divisadero Street is designated
as a Major Arterial between Pine and Lombard Streets, and as a Secondary Arterial between Castro and
California Streets. It is also designated as a Secondary Transit Street and a Neighborhood Commercial
Street between Haight Street and California Street. Divisadero Street is a Congestion Management Plan
(CMP) network street between Castro and Pine Streets, and a Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS)
network Street between Castro and Lombard Streets.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Scott Street
Scott Street is a north-south roadway that runs between Marina Boulevard and Duboce Avenue. Scott
Street generally has one lane in each direction and parking on both sides of the street. Between McAllister
and Haight Streets, Scott Street is part of Citywide Bicycle Route #45, and a bicycle lane is provided on
both sides of the street between McAllister and Fell Streets, and between Page and Haight Streets.
Pine Street
Pine Street is an east-west direction roadway that begins at Davis/Market Streets in the downtown area
and extends to just west of Presidio Avenue, where it meets Bush Street and becomes Masonic Avenue.
Pine Street is a one-way roadway, with two to three westbound lanes, and parking on both sides of the
street. Peak period parking prohibitions are enforced east of Gough Street during the PM peak periods to
provide additional travel lanes. Pine Street is designated as a Major Arterial, as well as a part of the
Neighborhood Pedestrian Street network between Market and Kearny Streets, and between Scott and
Divisadero Streets. It is also a Transit Preferential Street between Market and Kearny Streets.
Bush Street
Bush Street is an east-west direction roadway between Davis Street in the downtown area to just west of
Presidio Avenue. The street has two to three travel lanes in the eastbound direction, with on-street
parking spaces on both sides of the street. The General Plan identifies Bush Street as a Major Arterial, as
well as a Neighborhood Pedestrian Street network between Market and Kearny Streets, and between
Scott and Divisadero Streets. It is also a Transit Preferential Street between Market and Kearny Streets.
Sutter Street
Sutter Street is an east-west direction roadway that runs between Presidio Avenue in the west, and
Market Street in the east. It is one-way westbound between Market Street and Gough Street, and forms a
couplet with Post Street (which runs one-way eastbound east of Gough Street). The one-way segment of
Sutter Street has three travel lanes in the westbound direction. Sutter Street has one travel lane in each
direction directly in front of the project site. The General Plan identifies Sutter Street as a Transit Conflict
Street in the CMP Network, and as a Transit Preferential Street (secondary transit street). Sutter Street is
identified as a Neighborhood Pedestrian Street between Market and Fillmore Streets, and between Scott
and Divisadero Streets. Bicycle Route #16 runs westbound on Sutter Street east of Steiner Street. Adjacent
to the project site between Divisadero Street and Broderick Streets, Sutter is a two-lane street with one
travel lane in each direction and metered parking on both sides of the street.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Post Street
Post Street is an east-west direction roadway that runs between Presidio Avenue in the west, and Market
Street in the east. Between Presidio Avenue and Gough Street, Post Street has one to two travel lanes in
each direction, with parking on both sides of the street. East of Gough Street, Post Street is one-way
eastbound, with two mixed-flow travel lanes and a bus-only lane. The General Plan identifies Post Street
as a Transit Preferential Street (secondary transit street). Post Street is identified as a Neighborhood
Pedestrian Street between Market and Gough Streets, between Laguna and Fillmore Streets, and between
Pierce and Divisadero Streets. Bicycle Route #16 runs eastbound/westbound within bicycle lanes on either
side of the street between Presidio Avenue and Steiner Street, and westbound between Market and
Steiner Streets (as a signed route only).
Geary Boulevard
Geary Boulevard is an east-west direction major thoroughfare, linking downtown with the Richmond
district. Between 48th Avenue and Collins Street, this roadway is designated as Geary Boulevard and
generally has three travel lanes in each direction. Between Collins Street and Gough Street, this roadway
is designated as Geary Expressway and is generally an eight lane two-way roadway. East of Gough
Street, this roadway becomes Geary Street and is one way westbound, forming a couplet with O’Farrell
Street. The General Plan identifies Geary Street as a Major Arterial in the CMP Network, an MTS Street, a
Transit Preferential Street (transit important), and a Neighborhood Commercial Street. A Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) system is being planned for Geary Boulevard.
Intersection Operating Conditions
The operating characteristics of intersections are described by the concept of Level of Service (LOS). LOS
is a qualitative description of the performance of an intersection based on the average delay per vehicle.
Intersection levels of service ranges from LOS A, which indicates free flow or excellent conditions with
short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with extremely long delays.
LOS A through LOS D are considered excellent to satisfactory service levels, LOS E is undesirable, and
LOS F conditions are unacceptable.
Traffic conditions at the 11 study intersections were assessed for the Baseline scenario, which represents
traffic conditions after the opening of the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero Street, recently completed in
December 2010, plus a mixed use project consisting of 4,500 square feet of ground-level retail space and
83 residential units located at 2655 Bush Street, at the corner of Divisadero Street. The Baseline turning
movement volumes were calculated by adding the Osher Building generated traffic (obtained from its
EIR) and the 2655 Bush Street project traffic (obtained from its transportation study) to the existing
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-6 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
turning movement volumes collected in March 2010. Figure 4.7-2, Baseline Traffic Volumes and LOS
Weekday PM Peak Hour, shows the resulting weekday PM peak hour turning movement traffic volumes
at each study intersection for the Baseline scenario.
Traffic conditions at both signalized and unsignalized intersections were calculated using the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. For signalized intersections, this methodology determines
the capacity of each lane group approaching the intersection. The LOS is then based on average delay (in
seconds per vehicle) for the various movements within the intersection. A combined weighted average
delay and LOS are presented for the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, the average delay and
LOS operating conditions are calculated by approach (e.g., northbound) and movement (e.g., northbound
left-turn) for those movements that are subject to delay. Therefore, for unsignalized intersections, the LOS
summary tables present the operating conditions for the worst approach.
Table 4.7-1, Intersection Level of Service Baseline Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour, presents the
results of the intersection LOS analysis for the Baseline weekday PM peak hour conditions. During the
weekday PM peak hour, all 11 existing study intersections operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better),
with average delays per vehicle of less than 40 seconds.
Table 4.7-1
Intersection Level of Service Baseline1 Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
No. Intersection Traffic Control Device Delay2 Level of Service
1 Bush Street/Broderick Street Traffic Signal 11.8 B
2 Sutter Street/Broderick Street3 Four-way STOP 8.9 (WB) A (WB)
3 Geary Boulevard/Broderick Street3 Southbound STOP 19.8 (SB) C (SB)
4 Pine Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 33.7 C
5 Bush Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 16.6 B
6 Sutter Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 12.7 B
7 Post Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 22.9 C
8 Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 39.7 D
9 Sutter Street/Scott Street3 Four-way STOP 12.3 (SB) B (SB)
10 Post Street/Scott Street Traffic Signal 18.8 B
11 Geary Boulevard/Scott Street Traffic Signal 22.1 C
Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 Represents traffic conditions after the opening of the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero St plus the approved mixed-use
development located at 2655 Bush St, at the corner of Divisadero St.2 Intersection delay presented in seconds per vehicle.3 For unsignalized intersections, delay is presented for the worst stop-controlled approach.
Pine St
Bush St
Sutter St
Post St
Bro
deric
k S
t
Div
isad
ero
St
Sco
tt S
tGeary Blvd
UCSFMt. Zion
Source: Adavant Consulting
LOMBARD
COLUMBUS
SANSO
ME
BATTERY
BAY
BROADWAY
PACIFIC
CALIFORNIA
GEARY
FELL
MASO
NIC
DIVISAD
ERO FILLM
OR
E
GO
UG
HOC
TAVIA
VAN N
ESSPO
LK
HAIGHT
DUBOCE
16TH ST
14TH ST 15TH ST
17TH ST18TH ST
PINE
SIXTHST.
THIRD ST.
NINTH ST.
TENTH ST.
MARKET
MISSION
FOLSOM
BRANNAN
TOWNSEND
THEEMBARCADER
SITE
Local Roadway System
FIGURE 4.7-1
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: Adavant Colsulting – November 2010
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
200 100 0 200
n
PROJECT SITE
ONE-WAY STREET
Legend
NORTH
FEET
2000
Pine St
Bush St
Sutter St
Post St
Div
isad
ero
St
Sco
tt S
t
Geary Blvd
Bro
deric
k S
t
UCSFMt. Zion
24*1160
26
6655
32*
83
317784
47473*51
47119*4441 54
713
207563
2915826
291102457 21
622
43*218112
8148839
40854622 60
7*46
4749
26587
591352223 21 14
15*259
71
101182*32
161063233 24
030
147033
5616646
821869*145 22
1*45
135486
5651970
831841*
118
659*
48
1371892
62
85*1123
83
94448
518*
76
474*59
1031515*10272 49
2
Baseline Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour
FIGURE 4.7-2
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: Adavant Colsulting – November 2010
*
NORTH
FEET
2000
PROJECT SITELOS Signalized UnsignalizedA or B
C
D
E
F
ONE-WAY STREET
CRITICAL MOVEMENT
Legend
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
200 100 0 200
n
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-9 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Transit Network
The project site is well-served by public transit. Direct regional transit service is provided by the Golden
Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, while local service is provided by the San Francisco
Municipal Railway (Muni) bus lines. In addition, UCSF provides shuttle bus service between the Mount
Zion campus site and other UCSF campus sites.
Regional Transit Service
Golden Gate Transit (GGT), one of the three operating divisions of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway &
Transportation District, provides bus and ferry service to/from Marin/Sonoma Counties, with most bus
routes running in either the Van Ness Avenue corridor or the Financial District. One GGT line (Route 92)
operates during the AM and PM peak commute periods on weekdays between Marin City (Marin
County) and downtown San Francisco traveling along Geary Boulevard both ways. Route 92 has the
nearest stop at Divisadero Street; it also stops at the Golden Gate Bridge Plaza for passenger transfer to or
from other GGT lines. Route 92 serves Geary Boulevard and Divisadero Street approximately six times a
day each way (three times each peak commute period), stopping once every hour from approximately
7:00 AM to 9:30 AM, and from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM. GGT also provides ferry service to and from the North
Bay to the Ferry Building.
Regional transit service to and from the East Bay is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) along
Market and Mission Streets, and by AC Transit buses terminating at the Transbay Transit Terminal (on
Main Street at Folsom Street). BART also provides transit services to the northern portions of the
Peninsula. Commuter rail service to and from the Peninsula and South Bay is provided by Caltrain to its
Depot located at Fourth and Townsend Streets, while bus service is provided by the San Mateo County
Transit District (SamTrans) terminating at the Transbay Transit Terminal.
Connecting service from these regional transit providers to UCSF requires a transfer to the San Francisco
Municipal Railway (Muni) lines or the UCSF shuttle bus service. The Embarcadero BART station is
located approximately 2.5 miles east of the site (accessed via the 1-California and 1BX-California Express),
while the Montgomery Street BART station is located about 2 miles east of the site (accessed via the
2-Clement, 4-Sutter, 38-Geary, and 38L-Geary Limited). The Caltrain Depot is located approximately
3 miles southeast of the project site (accessed via the 38-Geary and 30-Union), and the temporary
Transbay Transit Terminal is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project site (accessed via
the 1-California or the 38-Geary).
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-10 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
San Francisco Municipal Railway Service
Table 4.7-2, Summary of Existing Nearby Muni Service, presents the service frequencies and nearest
stop location for the Muni lines that operate in the vicinity of the proposed project.
The 2-Clement line travels directly in front of the project site; however, there are no transit bus stops for
the line at or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest transit bus stop for the 2-Clement
line is across Divisadero Street on the north and south sides of Sutter Street. Although the 2-Clement line
is a motor-coach line, trolley poles and wires are installed on Sutter Street in front of the project site to
provide trolley bus access between Divisadero Street and Muni’s Presidio Division yard and maintenance
shops at Sutter Street and Presidio Avenue.
Table 4.7-2
Summary of Existing Nearby Muni Service
Route
Scheduled Service Headways (minutes)
Nearest Stop LocationAM Mid-day PM Evening
1-California 7.5 6 5.5 15 California/Divisadero
1BX-California Express 5.5 -- 10 -- California/Divisadero
2-Clement 8.5 20 10 -- Sutter/Divisadero
24-Divisadero 8.5 10 10 20 Sutter/Divisadero
38-Geary 7.5 7.5 6 10 Geary/Divisadero
38L-Geary Limited 6.5 7 7 -- Geary/Divisadero
Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 The 1AX-California Express, 31AX/31BX-Balboa Express, and the 38AX/BX-Geary Express travel on Pine and Bush streets in the vicinity
of the project site, but do not stop.2 The scheduled headways shown in this table reflect service prior to December 2009 when the TEP Monitoring Data was collected. Existing
headways are generally 2 to 5 minutes higher (less buses per hour) with the exception of the 38L-Geary Limited which operates with a
scheduled headway of 6 minutes until 9:00 PM.
For the purposes of this study, the six Muni bus lines serving the proposed project (within approximately
0.25 mile of the project site) were grouped into two corridors and the capacity utilization was determined
by corridor. Capacity utilization relates the number of passengers per transit vehicle to the design
capacity of the vehicle. The capacity per vehicle includes both seated and standing capacity, where
standing capacity is somewhere between 30 to 80 percent of seated capacity (depending upon the specific
transit vehicle configuration). Capacity utilization is calculated at the Maximum Load Point (MLP), the
transit stop with the greatest demand. Muni’s capacity utilization standard is 85 percent of total capacity.
Table 4.7-3, Existing Muni Service Utilization – Weekday PM Peak Hour, presents the ridership and
capacity utilization at the maximum load point for the nearby north/south and east/west Muni lines
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-11 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
during the weekday PM peak hour. The 1- California, 1BX-California Express, 2-Clement, 38-Geary, and
38L-Geary Limited comprise the east/west corridor, while the 24-Divisadero comprises the north/south
corridor. For the east/west lines, the most congested MLPs (outbound) are located to the east of the
project site, at or near downtown. For the north/south 24-Divisadero line, the most congested MLP
(southbound) is to the south of the project site, near Market and Castro Streets. Both the east/west and the
north/south corridors currently operate below the capacity utilization standard of 85 percent at the MLP,
signifying that bus lines have available capacity to accommodate additional passengers.
Table 4.7-3
Existing Muni Service Utilization
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Corridor/Direction of Travel Hourly Ridership1 Hourly Capacity1 Capacity Utilization
North/South Line2
Northbound 144 378 38%
Southbound 223 378 59%
East/West Lines3
Eastbound 1,625 3,551 46%
Westbound 2,872 3,710 77%
Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 Number of passengers2 24-Divisadero3 1-California, 1BX-California Express, 2-Clement, 38-Geary, 38L-Geary Limited
UCSF Shuttle Bus Service
UCSF has had an active and growing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program since 1971,
and at present, about 65 percent of Mount Zion-based employees take alternative forms of transportation
to work. Among other TDM programs at the Mount Zion Medical Center, UCSF provides shuttle bus
services to transport faculty, staff, students, and patients between campus sites with two routes, the
Blue/Gold and the Black/Tan, each route providing service to and from Mount Zion campus site every 20
minutes. The Blue/Gold route operates from about 6:00 AM to 9:30 PM and connects directly with the
Parnassus Heights and Mission Bay campus sites, while the Black/Tan route operates from about 7:00 AM
to 9:00 PM and connects directly with the Parnassus Heights and Laurel Heights campus sites.
There is a combined weekday average of 1,074 daily boardings at Mount Zion for both routes.
Wednesday is the peak day with an average of 1,130 daily boardings. The daily peak demand periods are
from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, which combined account for approximately
45 percent of the daily demand.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-12 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project
In 2007, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) Authority Board approved the final
report of the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study. The SFCTA is now conducting an
Environmental Impact Statement and Report (EIS/EIR) in partnership with the San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA) looking at possible configurations of the Geary BRT and analyzing
potential impacts of the project. The Geary BRT EIS/EIR is assessing the effects of a new dedicated transit
lane each way in the center or at the curb of Geary Boulevard between Van Ness/Gough and 33rd Avenue.
The SFCTA expects to complete the Draft EIS/EIR document in Spring 2011 and initiate the project design
shortly thereafter. Construction could start in 2014, with a potential start of service before 2020.
Pedestrian Conditions
An evaluation of existing pedestrian conditions was conducted during field visits to the project site.
Adjacent to the project site, the Sutter Street sidewalk is 15 feet wide. Striped crosswalks are provided at
the adjacent unsignalized intersections of Sutter/Broderick Streets. Striped crosswalks and handicapped
curb ramps at all four corners are also provided at the adjacent signalized intersection of
Sutter/Divisadero Streets; there are no pedestrian signal heads installed at this intersection.
Pedestrian counts were conducted at 5-minute intervals in front of the proposed project on Tuesday,
March 16, 2010, between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM (period of highest vehicle arrivals and highest pedestrian
activity), and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM (peak commute period for the transportation network). The
results are summarized in Table 4.7-4, Existing Pedestrian Volumes on Sutter Street North Sidewalk –
Weekday Midday and PM Peak Periods.
Table 4.7-4
Existing Pedestrian Volumes on Sutter Street North Sidewalk
Weekday Midday and PM Peak Periods
Period Peak Hour Period Peak Hour Pedestrians
Average Number of
Pedestrians per Minute
11 AM to 1 PM 11:10–2:10 68 1.1
4 PM to 6 PM 5-6 56 0.9
Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010
As shown in Table 4.7-4, pedestrian volumes are relatively moderate during the midday and the evening
commute periods. Overall, the sidewalks and crosswalks in the area were observed to be operating under
satisfactory conditions, with pedestrians moving at normal walking speeds and with freedom to bypass
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-13 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
other pedestrians. Field observations adjacent to the project site did not indicate any pedestrian-vehicle
conflicts at the existing driveways to the 1701 Divisadero Street medical office building garage or the 1635
Divisadero Street public garage.
Bicycle Conditions
Bicycle Route #16 on Post Street is a designated Class II bicycle facility – bicycle lanes – both ways,
between Presidio Avenue and Steiner Street in the vicinity of the proposed project. Bicycle Route #16
becomes a Class II facility – signed route where bicyclists and vehicles share the travel lane – to the east of
Steiner Street.
Bicycle counts were conducted at 15-minute intervals on the approaches to the intersections of
Sutter/Divisadero and Post/Divisadero on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM,
which are summarized in Table 4.7-5, Existing Bicycle Volumes in the Vicinity of the Project Site –
Weekday Midday and PM Peak Periods. In addition, Table 4.7-5 presents the midday bicycle count
conducted at the intersection of Sutter/Divisadero Streets.
Table 4.7-5
Existing Bicycle Volumes in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Weekday Midday and PM Peak Periods
Location
Midday Peak Period PM Peak Period
Peak Hour
Bicyclists1
Peak Hour
Period Peak Hour Bicyclists
Peak Hour
Period
Divisadero Street, between
Sutter Street and Post Street -- -- 11 5-6
Sutter Street, west of
Divisadero Street (Project Site) 4 11:15-12:15 9 5-6
Post Street, west of
Divisadero Street (Route #16) -- -- 25 5-6
Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010
1 Total both ways
No substantial safety conflicts between bicyclist and pedestrians or vehicles, or right-of-way issues were
observed during field visits.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-14 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.7.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
The impact of the proposed project on traffic and transportation would be considered significant if it
would exceed the following standards of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines and the UC CEQA Handbook:
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;
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;
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;
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
Result in inadequate emergency access;
Result in inadequate parking capacity;
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities;
Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by causing substantial conflict among autos,
bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit vehicles; and
Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by generating transit demand that transit
systems or projected transit service would not be able to accommodate.
The following thresholds were used to evaluate the project’s traffic impacts:
The operational impact on signalized intersections is considered significant when project-related
traffic causes the intersection level of service to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or
from LOS E to LOS F. The operational impacts on unsignalized intersections are considered
potentially significant if project-related traffic causes the level of service at the worst approach to
deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F and Caltrans signal warrants would be met, or would
cause Caltrans signal warrants to be met when the worst approach is already operating at LOS E or F.
The project may result in significant adverse impacts at intersections that operate at LOS E or F under
existing conditions depending upon the magnitude of the project’s contribution to the worsening of
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-15 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
the average delay per vehicle. The project would have a significant adverse effect at intersections if it
would contribute considerably to the LOS E or F conditions under cumulative (with project)
conditions. The project’s contribution would be considerable if the project contribution to cumulative
growth (the increase in traffic volumes between existing and cumulative 2030 conditions) would be 5
percent or greater, and if the project contribution to total 2030 volume(s) on critical movements
operating at LOS E or F would be 5 percent or greater. In addition, the project would have a
significant adverse impact if it would cause major traffic hazards or contribute considerably to
cumulative traffic increases that would cause deterioration in levels of service to unacceptable levels.
The project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would cause a substantial increase
in transit demand that could not be accommodated by adjacent transit capacity, resulting in
unacceptable levels of transit service; or cause a substantial increase in delays or operating costs such
that significant adverse impacts in transit service levels could result. With the Muni and regional
transit screenlines analyses, the project would have a significant effect on the transit provider if
project-related transit trips would cause the capacity utilization standard to be exceeded during the
weekday peak hour.
The project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in substantial
overcrowding on public sidewalks, create potentially hazardous conditions for pedestrians, or
otherwise interfere with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining areas.
The project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would create potentially
hazardous conditions for bicyclists or otherwise substantially interfere with bicycle accessibility to
the site and adjoining areas.
Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not affect the air traffic patterns at any of
the regional airports. The project does not include activities or structures that could hinder aviation
activity. The Initial Study also determined that the proposed project would not result in inadequate
emergency access as the proposed access points are consistent with current standards for parking
structure design. In addition, the Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not result in
an inadequate parking supply but would actually be beneficial as it would reduce the existing parking
deficit in the neighborhood. The Initial Study also determined that the proposed project would result in a
less than significant impact with regard to conflicting with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding alternative transportation as the parking provided by the proposed project would not
undermine UCSF’s existing TDM program. Finally, the Initial Study determined that the proposed project
would result in a less than significant impact with regard to transit demand as the increased transit
demand resulting from two or three employees associated with the project would not overly burden
existing transit systems. These issues are not discussed further in this section.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-16 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Travel Demand Characteristics
Travel demand refers to the new vehicle, transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the proposed
project. The following discussion provides an estimate of the trips that would be generated by the new
228 parking space garage, with 172 spaces allocated as public (75 percent) and 56 spaces reserved for
UCSF employees (25 percent).
The time period chosen for analysis of potential transportation impacts was the peak hour within the
2-hour 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM weekday afternoon commute period. This time of day traditionally comprises
a larger (more concentrated) portion of the total daily trips in San Francisco, and consequently reflects the
worst-case scenario on a typical weekday. While parking occupancy at the garage would peak at midday,
and arrivals and departures would also occur earlier and later in the day, the weekday PM peak hour
would still represent the worst-case scenario as traffic in San Francisco is heaviest during this period.
The following sections describe the methodology used to develop the vehicle parking demand for the
proposed project, as well as its distribution and assignment to the local street network.
Parking Garage Demand
A vehicle demand was estimated for the 228 parking spaces to be provided on site, based on the parking
utilization data collected at nearby facilities.
A parking garage does not directly generate trips. Rather the trips are generated by the uses located in its
vicinity. As such, the number of vehicles trips associated with the proposed garage can be grouped into
three categories:
Parking Garage Demand of Nearby Uses (Osher Center) – Vehicles associated with existing nearby
uses that currently park at nearby garages or parking lots, who will find it more convenient to park at
the proposed garage. It also includes the parking demand associated with future development
projects in the area, including the 48,000-gsf Osher Building now under construction at 1545
Divisadero Street.
Latent Parking Garage Demand – Vehicle demand associated with those who would typically park
on the street, but who would park at a garage if on-street parking became very difficult, or if cheaper
off-street parking became available. UCSF anticipates various department moves from the Parnassus
Heights campus site to the Mount Zion campus site over the next several years. Additional parking
demand resulting from these moves also would be considered latent parking demand for the parking
garage for the purposes of this analysis.
Induced Parking Garage Demand – Additional vehicle demand representing those who would not
typically travel to the area or who would travel by other means, such as public transportation, walk
or bicycle, but who would switch to the automobile with increased availability of parking.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-17 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Parking Demand of Nearby Uses (Osher Center)
Table 4.7-6, Osher Building Estimated Daily Vehicle Parking Demand – Weekday, presents the
estimated daily number of vehicles from the Osher Building that would park in the Mount Zion campus
site vicinity. The vehicle demand was obtained from the Osher Center EIR Addendum, while the
expected parking location is based on recent UCSF survey data. The parking demand figures presented
here might be higher than actual values, as they are based on prior environmental analyses that contained
population figures that were somewhat overestimated, which would be appropriate for the purpose of
assessing potential traffic impacts in the area.
As shown in Table 4.7-6, over half of the Osher Center faculty, staff, patient and visitor vehicles (270
vehicles) would be expected to park at a parking facility in the area. Table 4.7-6 also shows that
approximately 239 vehicles could be expected to park on the adjacent streets, assuming, of course, that a
sufficient number of on-street parking spaces could be found by these vehicles.
Table 4.7-6
Osher Building Estimated Daily Vehicle Parking Demand1
Weekday
Parking Location2 Osher Center (48,000 gsf)3
At a parking facility 270 53%
On the street/Other4 239 47%
Total 509 100%
Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010
1 Drive alone, carpool and vanpool; excludes drop offs, bicycles and motorcycles
2 Based on UCSF Transportation Sustainability Survey, March-April 2009
3 Memorandum – Osher Center EIR Updated Analysis, Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2007
4 Assuming that a sufficient number of on-street parking spaces could be found by these vehicles; on-street parking
utilization is currently over 90 percent between 10 AM and 4 PM
Table 4.7-7, Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage by the Osher
Building – Weekday Off-Street Demand Only, presents the hourly distribution of vehicle arrivals and
departures for the 270 vehicles from the Osher Building who would be expected to park at the proposed
garage facility at 2420 Sutter Street as a matter of first preference. The arrival and departure patterns have
been estimated from the data gathered from the 1635 Divisadero Street garage (for hourly public parking)
and the 1701 Divisadero Street medical office building garage (for UCSF permit parking).
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-18 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
As shown in Table 4.7-7, the proposed garage at 2420 Sutter Street would be almost 50 percent occupied
during the midday period, if only the Osher Building off-street vehicle parking demands were to be
considered.
Table 4.7-7
Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage
by the Osher Building
Weekday Off-Street Demand Only1
End Time
Vehicle
Arrivals1
Vehicle
Departures1
Percent of Parking
Spaces Occupied2
6:00 AM 3 2 3%
7:00 AM 12 1 7%
8:00 AM 21 4 15%
9:00 AM 44 6 32%
10:00 AM 39 15 42%
11:00 AM 32 23 46%
Noon 21 28 43%
1:00 PM 23 24 43%
2:00 PM 23 21 43%
3:00 PM 21 27 41%
4:00 PM 15 29 35%
5:00 PM 6 28 25%
6:00 PM 2 26 14%
7:00 PM 5 16 10%
8:00 PM 1 9 6%
9:00 PM 0 7 3%
10:00 PM 0 2 2%
11:00 PM 0 1 2%
Midnight 0 2 1%
Total3 270 270
Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010
1 Osher Building vehicles identified in Table 4.7-6 as parking off-street in a garage or at a parking
lot facility. Arrival and departure patterns estimated from the data gathered from the 1635
Divisadero St. and 1701 Divisadero St. garages.
2 Percentage of capacity; highest values are shown in bold.
3 Columns may not always add up due to rounding.
Induced and Latent Demand
Determining the magnitude of the latent and induced parking demands is a difficult task without first
conducting detailed travel behavior surveys of faculty, employees, patients, and visitors at the Mount
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-19 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Zion campus site. On the other hand, given the existing high on-street parking occupancies, it is unlikely
that the 239 future vehicles from the Osher Building who would try to park on the street as a matter of
first preference would actually be able to do so. In addition, UCSF anticipates various department moves
from the Parnassus Heights campus site to the Mount Zion campus site over the next several years, which
would generate additional parking demand. All of these vehicles would be considered as latent parking
demand for the parking garage for the purposes of this analysis.
In addition, it is likely that some individuals might consider driving to the area after the 2420 Sutter Street
garage becomes operational, until the parking occupancy at the new garage reaches a level similar to
those currently experienced by the nearby garages. These motorists who might be in the area to work, to
visit, or for other purposes not necessarily related to UCSF activities would be considered as induced
parking demand. The induced parking demand at the 2420 Sutter Street garage was estimated as the
additional number of vehicles that would increase the overall occupancy to current levels, about 90 to 95
percent.
As shown in Table 4.7-8, Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage
All Vehicles – Weekday Parking Demand, 39 daily vehicles would be necessary, in addition to the 509
vehicles identified in Table 4.7-7, to reach a midday occupancy level of 92 percent at the 2420 Sutter Street
garage, which is the average garage occupancy for the area. The 39 vehicles would represent the induced
parking demand of the project (about 7 percent of the total demand).
Of the 548 vehicles expected to park at the proposed garage, about 509 would be generated by the Osher
Building. Of the 509 vehicles, 239 vehicles (47 percent) would be attributed to the latent parking demand
of the Osher project or the vehicles that would park on the street if parking was available, 270 vehicles
would be those that would otherwise parking in other garages nearby, and 39 vehicles would be those
that would travel to the garage because space was available. The 548 vehicles would generate
approximately 630 walk trips each way to and from the parked cars, about 40 of these during the PM
peak hour.
The 39 induced trips represent new trips that would be directly attributed to the proposed garage and the
509 vehicles represent trips that are attributable to the Osher Center. Although the traffic impacts
associated with the Osher Building were analyzed in its own environmental review, the traffic analysis in
this EIR conservatively analyzes the impacts from the combined total of 548 daily vehicles (or 1,096 daily
one-way vehicle-trips).
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-20 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 4.7-8
Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage
All Vehicles – Weekday Parking Demand
End Time Osher Center1 Induced Demand All Vehicles
Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures
Occupied
Spaces2
6:00 AM 5 4 0 0 5 4 10 4%
7:00 AM 23 1 1 0 24 1 33 14%
8:00 AM 40 8 2 0 42 8 67 29%
9:00 AM 82 11 5 1 87 12 142 62%
10:00 AM 73 28 6 3 79 31 190 83%
11:00 AM 60 43 6 4 66 47 209 92%
Noon 40 53 4 5 44 58 195 86%
1:00 PM 43 45 3 4 46 49 192 84%
2:00 PM 44 40 4 4 48 44 196 86%
3:00 PM 40 51 4 4 44 55 185 81%
4:00 PM 29 54 2 5 31 59 157 69%
5:00 PM 11 52 1 4 12 56 113 50%
6:00 PM 4 50 0 3 4 53 64 28%
7:00 PM 10 29 0 1 10 30 44 19%
8:00 PM 2 17 0 1 2 18 28 12%
9:00 PM 0 13 0 1 0 14 14 6%
10:00 PM 0 4 0 0 0 4 10 4%
11:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 2 8 4%
Midnight 0 2 0 0 0 2 6 3%
Total3 509 509 39 39 548 548
Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010
1 Represents all vehicles generated by the Osher Building, including those who would have first tried to park on the street (latent
demand), as identified in Table 4.7-7.
2 Highest occupancy and percentage of capacity values are shown in bold.
3 Columns may not always add up due to rounding.
Trip Distribution/Assignment
As indicated in Table 4.7-8, 68 vehicles (12 inbound and 56 outbound) would access the garage between
4:00 PM and 5:00 PM (the PM peak hour). These vehicles were then distributed as originating from or
being destined to San Francisco or for the East Bay, South Bay, and North Bay. San Francisco is divided
into four quadrants (Superdistrict 1 through Superdistrict 4), while the East Bay includes Alameda,
Contra Costa, Napa and Solano Counties, the North Bay includes Marin and Sonoma Counties, and the
South Bay is defined as San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Table 4.7-9, Mount Zion Campus Site Trip
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-21 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Distribution Patterns, shows the geographical percentage distribution of trips assumed for the proposed
project based on data from surveys conducted at Mount Zion in 2009.
Table 4.7-9
Mount Zion Campus Site Trip Distribution Patterns
Location Percentage of Trips1
San Francisco2 60%
Superdistrict 1 11%
Superdistrict 2 27%
Superdistrict 3 13%
Superdistrict 4 9%
East Bay 15%
North Bay 11%
South Bay 13%
Other 1%
Total 100%
Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010
1 Combination of trips by patients, visitors, faculty and staff.
2 Superdistrict percentages within San Francisco were obtained from “Osher Center EIR Updated
Analysis,” Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2007.
As shown in Table 4.7-9, the vast majority of the combined trips to the Mount Zion campus site
(60 percent) come from within San Francisco, with smaller and almost equal percentages to and from the
North, East and South Bay areas. The trip distribution presented in Table 4.7-9 was used as the basis for
assigning the project-generated trips to the local streets in the study area.
It is noteworthy that the traffic analysis in this EIR is highly conservative because parking structures do
not in themselves generate trips (it is the land uses served by the garage that generate the trips).
However, the garage has been evaluated in this EIR as a trip generating land use. Secondly, for purposes
of the analysis, it is assumed that all trips associated with the garage would be new even though many of
the trips are existing trips. The Osher Building trips are both in the baseline, and then they are counted
again as new trips associated with the garage. The analysis also overestimates trips because it assumes
that the garage will be over 90 percent occupied.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-22 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact TRANS-1: Operation of the proposed project would not cause an increase in vehicle
traffic that would exceed the capacity of study area intersections. (Less than
Significant)
To determine the potential impact of the proposed project on each study area intersection, proposed
project traffic volumes were added to baseline traffic conditions. The resulting Baseline plus Project
traffic volumes for the weekday PM peak hour at the 11 study intersections are presented in Figure 4.7-3,
Baseline Plus Project Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday. Table 4.7-10, Intersection Level of Service
Baseline and Baseline plus Project Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour, presents a comparison of the
Baseline and Existing plus Project intersection delay and LOS for the weekday PM peak hour.
Table 4.7-10
Intersection Level of Service
Baseline and Baseline plus Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
No. Intersection
Traffic Control
Device
Baseline1
Baseline
Plus Project
Delay2
Level of
Service Delay2
Level of
Service
1 Bush Street/Broderick Street Traffic Signal 11.8 B 11.8 B
2 Sutter Street/Broderick Street3 Four-way STOP 8.9(WB) A(WB) 9.4(WB A(WB)
3 Geary Boulevard/Broderick Street3 Southbound STOP 19.8(SB) C(SB) 21.3(SB) C(SB)
4 Pine Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 33.7 C 33.8 C
5 Bush Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 16.6 B 16.6 B
6 Sutter Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 12.7 B 13.1 B
7 Post Street/Divisadero Street4 Traffic Signal 22.9 C 22.8 C
8 Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 39.7 D 42.3 D
9 Sutter Street/Scott Street3 Four-way STOP 12.3(SB) B(SB) 12.3(SB) B(SB)
10 Post Street/Scott Street Traffic Signal 18.8 B 18.9 B
11 Geary Boulevard/Scott Street Traffic Signal 22.1 C 22.2 C
Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 Represents traffic conditions after the opening of the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero St plus the approved mixed-use development
located at 2655 Bush St, at the corner of Divisadero St.2 Intersection delay presented in seconds per vehicle.3 For unsignalized intersections, delay is presented for the worst stop-controlled approach.4 Intersection delay at a signalized intersection might decrease slightly with the addition of the proposed project traffic since it is calculated
as an average of the delays on all approaches.
Pine St
Bush St
Sutter St
Post St
Div
isad
ero
St
Sco
tt S
t
Geary Blvd
Bro
deric
k S
t
UCSFMt. Zion
24*1161
28
6663
34*
83
34*8397
47473*55
471194444 54
713
207668
2915826
291102457 21
622
43*218112
8149939
40854622 62
0*46
4769
26587
671414223 21 18
15*259
71
101182*32
161063233 24
530
147533
5616646
821871*145 22
1*50
135486
56521*70
851841*
118
667
53
1371892
82
85*1123
84
96449
520*
76
475*59
1031515*10372 49
3
Baseline Plus Project Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday
FIGURE 4.7-3
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: Adavant Colsulting – November 2010
NORTH
FEET
2000
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
200 100 0 200
n
A or B
C
D
E
F
LOS
* CRITICAL MOVEMENT
PROJECT SITESignalized Unsignalized
ONE-WAY STREET
Legend
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-24 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
The addition of project-generated traffic to the Baseline scenario would result in minor increases in the
average delay per vehicle at almost all the study intersections; all study intersections would continue to
operate at the same LOS as under Baseline conditions during the weekday PM peak hour, LOS D or
better. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on intersection operations would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact TRANS-2: Operation of the proposed project would not cause an increase in vehicle
traffic that would delay transit service. (Less than Significant)
The 2-Clement Muni line travels along Sutter Street, but its nearest bus stops are across Divisadero Street
on the north and south sides of Sutter Street. As described above in Impact TRA-1, the addition of project-
generated vehicle-trips would result in minor increases in the average delay per vehicle, which would not
substantially modify traffic conditions in the area, and would, therefore, not noticeably affect transit
service. Thus, the proposed project’s impact on transit operations would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project would not cause an increase in pedestrian and vehicular
conflicts. (Less than Significant)
Conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles could occur at the garage driveway, which could cause
inbound vehicles to queue onto Sutter Street. The proposed inbound automatic gate and ticker-spitter
would be located about 22 feet from the Sutter Street property line, allowing one vehicle to queue within
the building. The sidewalk of about 15 feet would allow for 37 feet of queuing space, minimizing vehicle
queuing on Sutter Street. Outbound vehicles would queue inside the garage and would not affect street
traffic. Conflicts between outbound vehicles and pedestrians could still occur but their effect on
pedestrians would be reduced because pedestrians on the sidewalk have the right-of-way.
Table 4.7-11, Pedestrian-Vehicular Conflicts at 2420 Sutter Street Garage Driveway – Weekday Midday
and PM Peak Hours, presents a comparison of potential vehicular and pedestrian conflicts during the
weekday midday and PM peak hours at the garage driveway. The vehicle and pedestrian flow values
shown in the table are relatively small (about one vehicle and three pedestrians every minute on
average), and it is therefore not anticipated that the proposed project would cause any major conflict or
interfere with pedestrian movements in the area, and this impact is considered less than significant.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-25 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 4.7-11
Pedestrian-Vehicular Conflicts at 2420 Sutter Street Garage Driveway
Weekday Midday and PM Peak Hours
Time Period
Average Number of Inbound Vehicles
per Minute
Average Number of Pedestrians on
Sidewalk per Minute
Midday Peak Hour 1.1 3.3
PM Peak Hour 0.2 2.2
Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010
1 Includes existing pedestrian volumes shown in Table 4.7-4
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
Impact TRANS-4 The construction of the proposed project would temporarily and intermittently
impact the existing transportation network. (Less than Significant)
Table 4.7-12, Average Number of Daily Construction Trucks and Workers, presents the estimated
number of construction trucks and construction workers traveling to the site on a daily basis during the
various construction phases. Throughout the construction period, there would be a flow of construction-
related trucks into and out of the site. The impact of construction truck traffic would be a temporary
lessening of the capacities of local streets due to the slower movement and larger turning radii of trucks,
which may affect traffic operations.
Table 4.7-12
Average Number of Daily Construction Trucks and Workers
Construction Phase
Average Daily
Construction Trucks
Average Daily Construction
Workers
Underpinning 5 10
Excavation 35 15
Concrete Foundation and Above Grade Superstructure 15 30
MEP/Exterior Skin 10 30
Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010
It is anticipated that there would be an average of between five and 35 construction truck trips (two-way
trips) per day traveling to the project site, with the greatest number during the excavation. While the
exact routes that construction trucks would use would depend on their origin, it is expected that Octavia
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-26 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Boulevard, Fell and Oak Streets, Divisadero Street, and Sutter Street would be the primary access routes
to connect with U.S. 101 for South Bay and East Bay destinations.
There would be an average of between five and 30 construction workers per day at the project site, with
the greatest number during the Foundation and Above Grade Concrete Structure and the MEP/Exterior
Skin phases (30 workers). The trip distribution and mode split of construction workers are not known. In
San Francisco, most construction workers use transit or carpool to the site to reduce traffic and parking
problems during construction and, additionally, the University has indicated that workers would be
incentivized to carpool to the project site. The time-limited metered parking and residential parking
restrictions in the vicinity of the project site limit legal all-day parking by construction personnel.
Construction workers who drive would be allowed to park at the 2186 Geary Boulevard parking lot until
the lower level of the proposed 2420 Sutter Street garage is completed and becomes accessible through
the 1701 Divisadero Street garage, at which time they would be allowed to park at the newly constructed
lower level.
The addition of the worker-related vehicle- or transit-trips would not substantially affect transportation
conditions, as any impacts on local intersections or the transit network would be similar to, or less than,
those associated with the proposed project. Construction workers who drive to the site would cause a
temporary parking demand. Thus, any potential impacts that would occur would not be considered
significant due to their temporary and limited duration. Therefore, construction impacts associated with
the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.
4.7.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s (SFCTA) travel demand model is used to develop
traffic and transit forecasts for cumulative development and growth within San Francisco and in the nine-
county Bay Area. The increase in traffic volumes at the study intersections between existing (2010) and
future (2030) cumulative conditions was based on average annual growth rates calculated from SFCTA
travel demand model output for the northbound, southbound, eastbound and westbound approaches of
each study intersection. These growth rates were then applied to the existing turning movement volumes
at the study intersections to yield 2030 Cumulative traffic volumes.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-27 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Cumulative Impact TRANS-1: Traffic associated with cumulative development would not cause an
increase in vehicle traffic that would exceed the capacity of study area
intersections. (Less than Significant)
The resulting 2030 cumulative volumes and LOS for the weekday PM peak hour at the 11 study
intersections are presented in Figure 4.7-4, 2030 Cumulative Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM
Peak Hour. Table 4.7-13, Intersection Level of Service – 2030 Cumulative Conditions – Weekday PM
Peak Hour, presents the 2030 Cumulative intersection operating conditions (delay and LOS) for the
weekday PM peak hour.
Table 4.7-13
Intersection Level of Service
2030 Cumulative Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
No. Intersection
Traffic Control
Device
Baseline1
Baseline
Plus Project
2030 Cumulative
Delay2
Level of
Service Delay2
Level of
Service Delay2
Level of
Service
1 Bush Street/Broderick Street Traffic Signal 11.8 B 11.8 B 12.2 B
2 Sutter Street/Broderick Street3 Four-way STOP 8.9(WB) A(WB) 9.4(WB A(WB) 10.9(WB) B(WB)
3 Geary Boulevard/Broderick Street3 Southbound STOP 19.8(SB) C(SB) 21.3(SB) C(SB) 22.2(SB) C(SB)
4 Pine Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 33.7 C 33.8 C 35.4 D
5 Bush Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 16.6 B 16.6 B 17.7 B
6 Sutter Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 12.7 B 13.1 B 16.4 B
7 Post Street/Divisadero Street4 Traffic Signal 22.9 C 22.8 C 35.4 D
8 Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 39.7 D 42.3 D 49.0 D
9 Sutter Street/Scott Street3 Four-way STOP 12.3(SB) B(SB) 12.3(SB) B(SB) 16.3(SB) C(SB)
10 Post Street/Scott Street Traffic Signal 18.8 B 18.9 B 21.8 C
11 Geary Boulevard/Scott Street Traffic Signal 22.1 C 22.2 C 22.8 C
Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 Represents traffic conditions after the opening of the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero St plus the approved mixed-use development located at 2655
Bush St, at the corner of Divisadero St.2 Intersection delay presented in seconds per vehicle.3 For unsignalized intersections, delay is presented for the worst stop-controlled approach.4 Intersection delay at a signalized intersection might decrease slightly with the addition of the proposed project traffic since it is calculated as an
average of the delays on all approaches.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-28 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Under 2030 Cumulative conditions, vehicle delays would increase at all the study intersections over
Baseline plus Project conditions, although all of them would operate acceptably at LOS D or better. Six of
the 11 study intersections would continue to operate at the same LOS in 2030 as in Baseline plus Project,
one intersection would change from LOS A to B, two intersections would change from LOS B to C and
two intersections would change from LOS C to D. Therefore, the impact of 2030 Cumulative
development, including the traffic from the proposed project, on intersection operations would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impact TRANS-2 Future operation of BRT service on Geary Boulevard would not
negatively affect traffic operations at the intersection of Geary
Boulevard and Divisadero Street under 2030 Cumulative Conditions.
(Less than Significant)
BRT service on Geary Boulevard could potentially start before 2020. The BRT project would provide
enhanced transit service in the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site with buses operating on dedicated
side-aligned or center lanes along Geary Boulevard. As a result, the BRT Project would modify the
existing configuration of Geary Boulevard, eliminating one general traffic lane each way.
A preliminary traffic operations analysis conducted at the intersection of Geary Boulevard and
Divisadero Street indicates that vehicle delays would increase at this location under 2030 Cumulative
conditions as a result of the reduction in general traffic lanes from three to two, and that the overall
intersection LOS would degrade from D (49 seconds per vehicle) to E (64.1 seconds per vehicle).
The proposed project would add two vehicle trips each to the northbound and westbound critical
movements that would operate at LOS E and F, respectively. The project contribution to these
movements would be minimal (the maximum contribution to cumulative growth would be 4.7 percent
and the maximum contribution to total 2030 volumes would be 0.3 percent), and therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a significant impact to this intersection in 2030 with implementation of the
Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-29 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Cumulative Impact TRANS-3: Cumulative development would not cause an increase in pedestrian
and vehicular conflicts. (No Impact)
As discussed above, the proposed project would not cause any major conflict or interfere with pedestrian
movements in the area. Although the proposed mixed-use project at 2655 Bush Street would add new
residents to the project vicinity, due to its location on Bush Street, that project would not increase
pedestrian activity on Sutter Street near the entrance to the proposed garage. Therefore, cumulative
development would not cause an increase in pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. There would be no
cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
Cumulative Impact TRANS-4 The construction of cumulative projects would temporarily and
intermittently impact the existing transportation network. (Less than
Significant)
While construction of the proposed mixed-use project at 2655 Bush Street project would occur over a
period of 20 months, the degree to which the construction of the 2655 Bush Street project would overlap
with the proposed project is uncertain. Construction of the 2655 Bush Street project would require the
delivery of construction materials and the hauling of material from the site. It is anticipated that there
would be an average of six to 15 construction truck trips per day varying by phase of construction, with
peak trips varying from 10 to 20 trips. There would also be an average of about 15 construction workers
at the 2655 Bush Street project site (San Francisco 2009). The impact of construction traffic would be a
temporary lessening of the capacities of local streets due to the slower movement of and larger turning
radii of trucks, which may affect traffic operations. Construction worker trips would also add trips to the
local street system. However, given the small number of truck and construction worker trips,
construction of the 2655 Bush Street project is not expected to substantially affect transportation
conditions in the area. As discussed above, truck and construction worker trips associated with the
proposed project would also not substantially affect transportation conditions in the area. Therefore,
cumulative impact of the construction of both projects, should their construction overlap, on the existing
transportation network would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
Pine St
Bush St
Sutter St
Post St
Div
isad
ero
St
Sco
tt S
t
Geary Blvd
Bro
deric
k S
t
UCSFMt. Zion
26*1203
32
7066
40*
86
35109106
6748558
82166*5553 56
126
2512284
3416134
361692974 23
029
46*270113
8850940
541175822 64
8*52
410110
32629
702094429 23 25
16*314
78
108193*36
191523942 26
635
151436
5717847
841881*147 24
8*52
139999
60542*77
871861*
121
669
55
1481910
88
88*1185
85
98493
555*
84
521*60
1111518*10774 53
0
2030 Cumulative Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour
FIGURE 4.7-4
1063-001•12/10
SOURCE: Adavant Colsulting – November 2010
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
200 100 0 200
n
A or B
C
D
E
F
LOS
* CRITICAL MOVEMENT
NORTH
FEET
2000
PROJECT SITESignalized Unsignalized
ONE-WAY STREET
Legend
Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7-31 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
4.7.6 REFERENCES
Adavant Consulting. 2010. 2440 Sutter Street Garage Transportation Study. November 12.
City and County of San Francisco. 2009. Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2655 Bush Street, Case No.
2005.1106E. (San Francisco 2009)
University of California San Francisco Osher Center for Integrative Medicine Final Environmental Impact
Report Addendum, SCH No. 2005052029. October 2007.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
contain an analysis describing a range of reasonable alternatives to a project that could feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant
impacts of the proposed project. The analysis must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). Alternatives that avoid or substantially reduce significant
impacts should be considered, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of
project objectives or would be more costly to the project proponent (State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(b)). The alternatives do not need to consider less than significant impacts identified for the
proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, but rather, it must
consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making
and public participation (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)).
The analysis in this section is intended to inform the public and decision makers of alternatives to the
project and to provide a meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison of these alternatives with the
proposed project. As required by CEQA, this section also includes an analysis of the No Project
alternative.
5.1.1 Project Objectives
As noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, the project is needed in order to offset UCSF’s existing and
projected parking shortfall at the Mount Zion campus site and alleviate pressure on neighborhood
on-street parking. It is proposed at a location that is as close as possible to the center of clinical activities
at UCSF in order to maximize accessibility and convenience to patients and visitors.
Key objectives of the proposed project are to:
To support UCSF’s mission of patient care by enhancing access to UCSF facilities through convenient,
affordable parking for those who cannot often utilize alternative forms of transportation
To offset UCSF’s existing and projected parking shortfall by providing parking for patients, visitors,
and essential healthcare providers
To provide limited parking for those essential healthcare providers for whom alternative forms of
transportation is infeasible due to atypical work hours and responsibilities at multiple campus sites
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
To provide parking at a location that is as close as possible to the center of clinical activities, thereby
maximizing accessibility and convenience to patients and visitors
To provide parking at a location that retains flexibility for future uses of UCSF land
To provide a parking structure that incorporates sustainability features to the greatest extent feasible
To alleviate pressure on neighborhood on-street parking
To construct the proposed project on a site that minimizes displacement and disruption of existing
UCSF uses
5.1.2 Impacts of the Proposed Project
To develop project alternatives, UCSF considered the project objectives and reviewed the significant
impacts of the proposed project, identified those impacts that could substantially be avoided or reduced
through an alternative, and determined the appropriate range of alternatives to be analyzed. Section 4.0,
Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR evaluates the potential for the
proposed project to result in significant impacts to the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality,
cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, and transportation and
traffic. The analysis in Section 4.0 revealed that with the implementation of the 1996 Long Range
Development Plan (LRDP) EIR (as amended by 2004 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement EIR)
mitigation measures that are already included in the proposed project, the proposed project would not
result in any potentially significant or significant project-specific impacts in all of the resource areas listed
above except cultural resources. With respect to cultural resources, the analysis concluded that given the
long history of previous development, the project site was moderately sensitive for subsurface
archaeological resources. Therefore, there was a potential for project construction to result in a significant
impact on subsurface archaeological resources. The analysis concluded that with the implementation of
project-level Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which includes archaeological testing at the site prior to
commencement of construction, the potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level. The analysis in Section 4.0 also revealed that the proposed project would not contribute
to potentially significant or significant cumulative impacts. In all other resource areas, as shown by the
analysis in the Initial Study, the project’s impacts would be less than significant.
Alternatives that would meet most of the project objectives and would avoid or reduce the project’s one
potentially impact were identified and analyzed in detail. Table 5.0-1, Summary Comparison of Project
Alternatives, presented at the end of this section, compares the alternatives to the proposed project
focusing on whether or not the alternative would avoid or reduce the project’s potentially significant
impact. The table also identifies significant impacts that would result from some of the proposed
alternatives but would not result from project implementation.
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
5.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
5.2.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated in Detail
This section discusses alternatives that were considered for the project but were not evaluated in detail
because they did not meet project objectives or were found to be infeasible for technical, environmental,
or social reasons.
Alternate Location on Post Street
This alternate site is located at 2375 Post Street, one block south of the project site on Post Street between
Divisadero and Broderick Streets. It is owned by the University and contains a building used for medical
records storage. By itself, the site is not large enough to accommodate a parking structure with about 200
spaces. However, it is adjacent to a privately owned parking lot which, if combined with the building site,
would provide a site that is large enough to accommodate a 228-space, four-story parking structure.
However, the owner of the adjacent site has been contacted by UCSF in the past and the owner has not
been willing to sell the site to the University.
As indicated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), “among factors that may be used to eliminate
alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the project objectives,
(ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.” As discussed above, the
development of the project at this alternate site would not be feasible because of the need to purchase the
adjacent parking lot from an unwilling seller. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from
detailed consideration in this EIR.
Enhanced TDM Program
This alternative would seek to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the UCSF essential
healthcare providers as well as visitors and patients through the application of the UCSF Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program such that the need for the proposed additional parking would be
eliminated. About 75 percent of the spaces in the proposed garage are planned for patients and visitors
and about 25 percent of the spaces would be reserved for UCSF essential healthcare providers. The UCSF
campus site has had an active and growing TDM program since 1971, which consists of the UCSF shuttle
system, vanpools, a commuter bus club, carpools, ride sharing (Zimride), carshare, an emergency ride
home program, bicycle parking, on-site transit pass sales, and pretax transit program. At present, about
65 percent of Mount Zion-based UCSF employees take alternative forms of transportation to work.
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Because UCSF already has an extensive TDM program, determining what more can be done to reduce
single-occupant vehicle trips is a challenge. Nonetheless, UCSF continues to pursue additional TDM
measures on an ongoing basis. For example, UCSF adds bicycle racks to its facilities where feasible and
extends shuttle service to major building sites. UCSF is currently seeking to participate in a bike-share
pilot program proposed by the City of San Francisco by having UCSF pilot locations at its Mission Bay
and Parnassus Heights campus sites. The City’s $7 million program would involve 100 bicycle kiosks
throughout San Francisco holding 10 bicycles each.
An increase in the price of UCSF employee parking permits is another option to consider to reduce
parking demand. UCSF plans to continue its annual parking fee increase of 7 percent to 8 percent for the
foreseeable future as a component of the campus’ overall sustainability efforts and in support of the
City’s transit first policy.
Despite UCSF’s extensive TDM program, further enhancements to the TDM program would not be
sufficiently effective in reducing vehicle trips such that the need for the proposed parking structure is
eliminated. As described in Section 3.0, many patients and their attendants cannot use alternate
transportation due to mobility and health reasons, as well as the travel distances involved. Furthermore,
other than provide alternate transportation information to this population which the University does at
the present time and will continue to do, the University cannot control or alter the travel behavior of this
population.
Although the University has a greater ability to influence and guide the travel behavior of its employees,
many of the essential care providers at Mount Zion provide health care on a 24-hour/7-day basis, and
many essential care providers have responsibilities at multiple medical centers including the Veterans
Administration Hospital and SF General Hospital. Due to the nature of their work and the hours of work,
all of the essential healthcare providers cannot be expected to use public transit. Therefore, while UCSF
intends to continue expanding TDM efforts, further enhancements to the UCSF TDM program would not
eliminate the need for parking. Consequently, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed
consideration in this EIR.
5.2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail
As noted earlier in this section, with the implementation of LRDP mitigation measures, which are
included in the proposed project, all of the project’s impacts, except the impact of project construction on
unknown archaeological resources, would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed project
would not contribute to potentially significant or significant cumulative impacts for the same reasons.
Therefore, the focus of this alternatives analysis is to determine whether the alternatives would eliminate
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-5 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
the project’s single potentially significant impact or further reduce less than significant impacts of the
proposed project and also to determine whether the alternative would result in a significant impact on a
resource area where the project would not result in a significant impact.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
CEQA requires that a “No Project” alternative be considered. “No Project” is required to describe the
consequences of not approving the proposed project. With this alternative, the proposed project would
not be constructed at the project site. It should be noted that adoption of the No Project Alternative would
not necessarily preclude ultimate development of the project site with another use. The project site is
zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) by the City and County of San Francisco. This
land use designation provides for neighborhood commercial uses such as office, commercial and retail.
The project site is also within a 65-A height and bulk district (65-foot height limit; maximum bulk above a
height of 40 feet limited to 110 feet in length and 125 feet diagonal dimension). Given the size of the
project site, a comparable sized building or somewhat taller (up to 65 feet in height) building could be
built on the site.
Relationship to Project Objectives
Alternative 1 would not achieve any of the project objectives.
Comparative Analysis of Impacts
Aesthetics
There would be no impact related to aesthetics because the project would not be built on the site.
However, some development could occur on the project site. Depending on the size of the building that is
developed, there could be impacts similar to those of the proposed project associated with visual
character and light and glare or potentially greater visual impacts from the construction of a taller
building.
Air Quality
There would be no impact to air quality because the project would not be built on the site. However,
some development could occur on the project site, and there could be air quality impacts similar to those
of the proposed project from the construction and operation of that project or potentially greater air
quality impacts from the construction of a taller building.
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-6 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Cultural Resources
There would be no impacts related to cultural resources because the project would not be built on the site.
However, some development could occur on the project site. As with the proposed project, there would
be a potentially significant impact to unknown archaeological resources and the same mitigation measure
would be required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
There would be no contribution to greenhouse gas emissions under this alternative because the project
would not be built on the site. However, some development could occur on the project site, and there
would likely be similar or greater greenhouse gas emission impacts from construction and operation of
that project.
Land Use and Planning
There would be no need to amend the UCSF 1996 LRDP under this alternative because the project would
not be built on the site. However, some development could occur on the project site. Development on the
project site would be expected to adhere to zoning standards for the site, and no land use conflicts are
expected.
Noise
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be built. Therefore, there would be no
impacts related to noise. However, the project site could be developed with other uses and construction
and operational noise impacts similar to or greater than those described for the proposed project could
occur from the construction of a similar or taller building.
Transportation and Traffic
There would be no impact related to transportation and traffic because the project would not be built on
the site. However, development similar to or greater than the proposed project could occur on the project
site and similar or potentially greater impacts, including cumulative impacts, could occur.
Summary
The No Project alternative would avoid all of the impacts of the proposed project. However, it is unlikely
that the site would remain undeveloped. Future development of the site that is consistent with the site
zoning would result in a similar sized or taller building at the project site and therefore all the impacts of
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-7 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
the proposed project, including the one potentially significant impact, would likely eventually occur
under this alternative.
Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative
This alternative would involve the development of a smaller parking garage at the proposed site. Under
this alternative, the number of spaces planned for UCSF essential healthcare providers (about 56) would
not be built, reducing the total number of proposed spaces to 172. With the reduction in the number of
spaces, the size of the parking structure would be reduced by 2 levels. The garage under this alternative
would be a total of about 41 feet in height with no below-grade parking and five above-grade parking
levels (Note that this alternative could also be configured as a five level structure, with one below-grade
level and four above-grade parking levels).
Relationship to Project Objectives
This alternative would achieve the project objectives with the exception of the following:
To offset UCSF’s existing and projected parking shortfall by providing parking for patients, visitors,
and essential healthcare providers
To provide limited parking for those essential healthcare providers for whom alternative forms of
transportation is infeasible due to atypical work hours and responsibilities at multiple campus sites
Comparative Analysis of Impacts
Aesthetics
The height of the proposed project would be reduced from six levels above ground to five levels above
ground under Alternative 2. With a height of 41 feet, the garage under this alternative would be a shorter
structure compared to the Russian Center and the UCSF medical office building that are adjacent to the
project site. All of the less than significant visual impacts of the proposed project would be further
reduced under this alternative.
Air Quality
All construction-related emissions under this alternative would be incrementally reduced as the amount
of construction activity on the project site and the length of construction would be reduced. The
operational emissions of this alternative would also be reduced as fewer vehicle trips would be associated
with this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would further reduce less than significant air quality
impacts of the proposed project.
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-8 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Cultural Resources
The proposed project’s potentially significant impact on cultural resources would not be avoided under
this alternative. Absent a below-grade parking level, the extent of site excavation would be reduced;
however, excavation for the construction of the foundation and elevator shaft would still be required. As
with the proposed project, there would be a potentially significant impact to unknown archaeological
resources and the same mitigation measure would be required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG emissions from project construction under the Reduced Project Alternative would be reduced as the
amount of construction activity on the project site and the length of construction would be reduced.
GHG emissions from during project operation would also be reduced as fewer vehicle trips would be
associated with this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would further reduce less than significant
greenhouse gas emission impacts of the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning
Land use impacts under this alternative would be the same as under the proposed project. This
alternative would include the same proposed amendment to the 1996 LRDP to include the project site in
the Mount Zion campus site. Therefore, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts to
land use and planning, similar to the proposed project.
Noise
All construction-related noise and vibration under this alternative would be incrementally reduced as the
amount of construction activity on the project site and the length of construction would be reduced. The
operational emissions of this alternative would also be reduced as fewer vehicle trips would be associated
with this alternative. However, stationary noise due to the operation of the elevator and noise generated
by cars in the garage would remain substantially the same as the proposed project. Therefore, this
alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts, similar to the proposed project.
Transportation and Traffic
All construction-related traffic impacts under the Reduced Project Alternative would be incrementally
reduced as the amount of construction activity on the project site and the length of construction would be
reduced thus resulting in fewer truck and construction worker trips. Operational related traffic impacts
would also be reduced as fewer vehicle trips would be associated with this alternative. Therefore, this
alternative would further reduce the less than significant traffic impacts of the proposed project.
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-9 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Summary
The Reduced Project alternative would further reduce all of the less than significant impacts of the
proposed project. However, it would not avoid the project’s one potentially significant impact on
unknown archaeological resources and the same mitigation measure would be required.
Alternative 3: Alternative Location on Main Hospital Block
This alternative would involve the construction of the parking structure on the Main Hospital block,
instead of at the project site. The new parking structure would be similar to the proposed project with one
below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The site would be on the east end of the
block at the corner of Scott and Sutter Streets, and would include the current site of the dialysis center
and Harold Brunn Institute. These buildings currently hold clinical, office, and support uses.
Land uses surrounding the east end of the Main Hospital block consist of medical and office uses
associated with the UCSF Mount Zion Medical Center, and private offices and residential uses. The
Hamilton Recreation center, a city-owned recreational facility, is located less than a block away on the
southeast corner of Post Street and Scott Street.
Relationship to Project Objectives
This alternative would achieve the project objectives with the exception of the following:
To provide parking at a location that retains flexibility for future uses of UCSF land
To construct the proposed project on a site that minimizes displacement and disruption of existing
UCSF uses
Comparative Analysis of Impacts
Aesthetics
The area surrounding the east end of the Main Hospital block is densely developed with buildings
associated with the UCSF Mount Zion hospital. Buildings in the area range from three to eight stories.
The proposed six-level, 49-foot-tall parking structure would be similar in character and height to other
buildings in the Main Hospital block. Concerning light and glare impacts, the proposed garage under this
alternative would still be constructed with materials that are generally not highly reflective. In addition,
the proposed garage under this alternative would also implement LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4L-2,
which would require that design standards and guidelines for minimizing light and glare be followed,
and LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4L-3, which would require that construction plans include
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-10 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
specifications for placing and directing any construction area or flood lighting to minimize potential
disturbances to adjacent residents and businesses. Although the garage under this alternative would be
about one-half block northwest of the Hamilton Recreation Center, the garage would be only 49 feet high
and would not cast shadows that would extend to any part of the recreation center, including the playing
fields that are to the east of the recreation center building. Furthermore, any shadows cast by the garage
at this site towards the southeast would be intercepted by intervening buildings including the Hellman
Building and other non-UCSF buildings on Scott Street across from the Hellman Building. Therefore,
similar to the proposed project visual impacts under this alternative would be less than significant.
Air Quality
Emissions from construction traffic and construction equipment resulting from this alternative would be
greater than the proposed project as demolition of existing buildings on the east end of the Main Hospital
block would be required. In addition, more truck trips would be required to haul material off the
alternative site. As a result it is possible that construction-related emissions could exceed BAAQMD
significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, unlike the proposed project, this alternative
could result in a potentially significant impact during construction.
Operation of the proposed garage at the east end of the Main Hospital Block would involve the same air
emission sources as the same equipment would be required to operate the garage, and the same number
of vehicle trips would be associated with this alternative. Therefore, operational emissions of criteria
pollutants under this alternative would be similar to those estimated and reported in Section 4.2 for the
proposed project. Impacts from toxic air contaminants would also be similar and less than significant.
Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant air quality
impacts during operation.
Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those under the proposed project
as there is a moderate possibility of encountering historic-period archaeological resources at all
redevelopment sites in the Mount Zion neighborhood and excavation of the below-grade parking level
would still be required. As with the proposed project, there would be a potentially significant impact to
unknown archaeological resources and the same mitigation measure would be required.
This alternative would require the demolition of two existing buildings. However, neither building was
determined to be a historic resource. Therefore, this alternative would not result in a significant impact on
historic resources.
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-11 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG emissions from project construction at the east end of the Main Hospital Block would be greater
than the proposed project as demolition of existing buildings on the east end of the Main Hospital block
would be required. However as with the proposed project, these emissions would be short term and
considered less than significant.
Operation of the proposed garage at the east end of the Main Hospital Block would involve the same
GHG sources as the same equipment would be required to operate the garage and the same number of
vehicle trips to the garage would be associated with this alternative. Therefore, the new GHG emissions
from the garage at this site would be comparable to those under the proposed project. However, if the
existing emissions associated with the two existing buildings on this alternate site are deducted (as these
emissions would be displaced), the net emissions under this alternative would be much lower than that
under the proposed project. The alternative would therefore further reduce the proposed project’s less
than significant GHG impact from operations.
Land Use and Planning
This alternative would not include an amendment to the 1996 LRDP as this alternative site is located on
the Main Hospital Block which is covered by the 1996 LRDP. Additionally, there is no adopted functional
zone map for Mount Zion that would suggest a land use conflict with planned uses. Like the proposed
project, this alternative would not result in significant impact with regard to land use and planning.
Noise
Construction of the proposed project under this alternative would generate noise and vibration at the east
end of the Main Hospital Block. Construction noise would be temporary and intermittent. In addition,
development of the garage would be subject to LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4E1-1, which would
require construction contractors to minimize construction noise impacts. Vibration from construction
activities could disturb inpatients and affect nearby medical facilities, which could contain sensitive
equipment. Therefore, construction of the proposed project under this alternative could result in a
potentially significant impact related to construction-phase vibration and a project-level mitigation
measure would be required.
Operation of the proposed project under this alternative would generate noise at the east end of the Main
Hospital Block. The operational noise generated by this alternative would be the same as reported in
Section 4.6 for the proposed project as the number of vehicle trips would remain the same. In addition,
stationary noise due to the operation of the elevator and noise generated by cars in the garage would
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-12 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
remain the same as the proposed project. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative
would result in less than significant operational noise impacts.
Transportation and Traffic
Construction-related traffic impacts under the Main Hospital Block Alternative would be greater than the
proposed project as the amount of construction activity on the project site would increase and the length
of construction would lengthen due to the demolition of existing buildings on the east end of the Main
Hospital block.
Operational traffic impacts would be the same as the same number of vehicle trips would be associated
with the garage regardless of the project site. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative
would result in less than significant traffic impacts.
Summary
For most resource areas, this alternative would result in substantially the same impacts as the proposed
project. It would not avoid the project’s one potentially significant impact on unknown archaeological
resources and the same mitigation measure would be required. Due to its proximity to the main hospital
facilities, this alternative would result in a potentially significant vibration impact during construction
and a potentially significant impact during construction due to demolition emissions. All of these impacts
would not occur under the proposed project. All of these additional impacts would require
implementation of additional mitigation measures.
5.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Table 5.0-1 presents a summary comparison of the alternatives with the proposed project with the
purpose of highlighting whether the alternatives would result in similar, greater, or lesser environmental
impacts than the proposed project.
The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project. This alternative would therefore be the environmentally superior alternative. It would, however,
not meet any of the proposed project’s objectives.
If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126(d) (2) requires that an EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative from amongst
the other alternatives evaluated in the EIR.
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-13 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Of the other alternatives evaluated in this EIR, the Reduced Project alternative (Alternative 2) would be
considered the environmentally superior alternative as it would further reduce the less than significant
impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic. Impacts with regard to
cultural resources and land use and planning would remain the same, and in the case of cultural
resources, would require the same mitigation measures. It would, however, only meet some of the project
objectives.
5.0 Alternatives
Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-14 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Table 5.0-1
Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives
Mount Zion Garage Project Impact
Proposed Project
(Before Mitigation)
Alternative 1- No Project
Alternative
Alternative 2-Reduced
Project
Alternative 3-Alternative
Location on Main Hospital
Block
CUL-1 The project site is moderately sensitive for
subsurface archaeological resources. Project
excavation and grading could inadvertently
destroy subsurface archaeological resources.
Potentially Significant No impact
However, there would be a similar
potentially significant impact from
the construction of another building
at the project site.
Potentially Significant
Similar to the proposed project.
Potentially Significant
Similar to the proposed project.
New Impact (related
to Alternative 3)
Project construction could generate short-term
emissions of fugitive dust and criteria air
pollutants that could adversely affect local air
quality in the vicinity of the construction site and
could exceed the BAAQMD construction
significance thresholds.
Less than significant No impact
However, there could be a similar
less than significant impact from the
development of another project at the
proposed site.
Less than significant
Similar to the proposed project.
Potentially Significant
Demolition of existing buildings
would result in an increase in
fugitive dust and emissions of
criteria pollutants.
New Impact (related
to Alternative 3)
Project construction activities could expose people
or sensitive equipment to excessive ground-borne
vibration levels.
Less than significant No impact
However, there could be similar less
than significant impacts from the
development of another project at the
proposed site.
Less than significant
Similar to the proposed project.
Potentially Significant
Vibration from construction
could affect nearby medical uses,
which could contain sensitive
equipment.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) must include a discussion of the following topics:
Significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented
Significant Irreversible Changes which would be caused by the proposed project should it be
implemented
Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project
In addition, Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a brief statement of the reasons that
various possible effects of a project have been determined not to be significant and therefore, are not
evaluated in the EIR.
The following sections address each of these types of impacts based on the analyses included in Section
4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
6.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS
As detailed in Section 4.0, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts
that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the extent to which a proposed
project would commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would be unable to
reverse. The State CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of irreversible changes that should be
considered.
Changes in Land Use which Commit Future Generations
The proposed project would not have irreversible impacts because as with the previous development at
the site, the proposed project could be removed in the future and the site redeveloped with other uses.
Furthermore, the project would not result in the conversion of any land that has not already been
disturbed and developed.
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Consumption of Natural, Nonrenewable Resources
Analysis of the degree to which a proposed project would consume nonrenewable resources includes
assessments of increased energy consumption, consumption of agricultural lands and loss of access to
mining reserves. Completion of the proposed project would irretrievably commit nonrenewable
resources to proposed garage construction and operation. Building materials and energy consumed as
part of the project would include, but would not be limited to, nonrenewable and limited resources such
as oil, gasoline, lumber, aggregate, water, and steel. Increased energy demands would result from
construction, lighting, heating and cooling from the transportation demand management office, and
transportation of people to and from the site.
As explained in the Initial Study, the proposed project site contains no areas used for agricultural
purposes or designated as agricultural land, nor does it contain any significant mineral deposits. As such,
the proposed project would not result in irreversible changes related to the consumption of those types of
resources.
Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
As detailed in the Initial Study, the proposed project does not involve any on-site long term use of
hazardous materials. Although gasoline and motor oil, both hazardous materials, would be present in the
vehicles parked at the garage, the potential for a large release of these materials to the environment is
low.
6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
This section evaluates the potential for growth inducement as a result of the proposed project
implementation. Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion
of the potential for a proposed project to foster economic or population growth, or the construction of
additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
The State CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement and state
that it must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment. Growth inducement is generally not quantified, but is instead evaluated
as either occurring, or not occurring, with implementation of a project. The identification of
growth-inducing impacts is generally informational, and mitigation of growth inducement is not
required by CEQA. It must be emphasized that the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR to “discuss
the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the characteristics of some projects that
may encourage…activities that could significantly affect the environment.” However, the State CEQA
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0-3 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Guidelines do not require that an EIR predict or speculate specifically where such growth would occur, in
what form it would occur, or when it would occur.
For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would be considered growth inducing if it meets
either of the following criteria:
The project removes an obstacle to population growth (for example, through the expansion of public
services or utilities into an area that does not presently receive these services), or through the
provision of new access to an area, or a change in a restrictive zoning or General Plan land use
designation.
The project causes economic expansion and population growth through employment expansion,
and/or the construction of new housing.
Generally, growth-inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped
areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways,
or are projects that encourage premature or unplanned growth. An evaluation of the proposed project
and how it is related to these growth-inducing criteria is provided below.
Removal of an Obstacle to Population Growth
The proposed project is not expected to remove any obstacle to growth at the Mount Zion campus site.
The proposed project site is located adjacent to the Mount Zion campus site. The project site is already
fully served by infrastructure, including utilities, public services and pedestrian and vehicular access. As
described in the Initial Study prepared for this EIR, implementation of the project would not require an
expansion of wastewater treatment or conveyance facilities, water supply, solid waste, or other
infrastructure facilities that would provide capacity for future projects surrounding the project site. The
proposed utilities and infrastructure upgrades would be minimal and would serve only the project.
Therefore, the utility improvements included in the proposed project would enable a minor increase in
the Mount Zion campus site population (approximately two to three people), but would not induce
growth beyond that planned under the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the project would
not directly remove an obstacle to population growth.
Direct and Indirect Population and Employment Growth
The Population and Housing analysis included in the Initial Study concludes that the project would
increase the number of people working within the Mount Zion campus site by two or three persons but
would not induce substantial population growth in the City and County of San Francisco or elsewhere in
the region, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would generate incidental, short-term
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0-4 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
construction employment that would be filled by the labor force available in the greater Bay Area. In
summary, the proposed project would not result in growth inducing impacts.
6.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to briefly describe any potential environmental
effects that were determined not to be significant during the Initial Study and EIR scoping process and
were, therefore, not discussed in detail in the EIR. A discussion of these less than significant effects of the
proposed project on agricultural resources, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, public
services, recreation and utilities and service systems is presented in the Initial Study which is included in
Appendix 1.0. Other impacts found to be less than significant in the EIR are discussed in detail in Section
4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and summarized in Section 2.0,
Executive Summary.
Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
7.0 REPORT PREPARATION
7.1 LEAD AGENCY
The Regents of the University of California
Susan Desmond-Hellmann, MD, MPH
Chancellor
Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Distinguished Professor
Authors
University of California, San Francisco
John Plotts, Senior Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administration
Lori Yamauchi, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Campus Planning
Kevin Beauchamp, Director, Physical Planning
Diane Wong, Senior Planner
University of California, Office of the President
Mary O’Keefe, Senior Planner
University of California, Office of the General Counsel
Elisabeth Gunther, Senior Counsel
Legal Counsel
Charles Olson, Esq. Sanger & Olson
7.2 EIR CONSULTANTS
Impact Sciences
555 12th Street, Suite 1650
Oakland, California 94607
Shabnam Barati, Managing Principal
Paul Stephenson, AICP, Project Manager
Alan Sako, Air Quality Manager
7.0 Report Preparation
Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-2 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR
1063.001 January 2011
Eric Bell, Air Quality Analyst
Ian Hillway, Publications Manager
Lisa Cuoco, Publications Coordinator
Brittanny O’Hanlon, Publications Editor
7.3 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Adavant Consulting, José I. Farrán, P.E.
top related