california environmental quality act findings in...

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH

CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AMENDMENT OF LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN,

AND APPROVAL OF DESIGN FOR INITIAL PHASE MEDICAL CENTER MISSION BAY CLINICAL FACILITIES,

SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS

I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

The University of California (“University”), as the lead agency, has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the Medical Center at Mission Bay project for the University of California, San Francisco (“UCSF” or “the San Francisco campus”). The Final EIR has been assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2008012075.

The current proposed action includes approval of the design and construction of a 289-bed integrated specialty hospital for children, women and cancer programs and associated outpatient and support space on a recently acquired 14.5 acre site immediately south of the UCSF Mission Bay research campus site by the end of the LRDP Phase (2015). A future phase of development on the site would include an additional 261 beds for a total of 550 beds, plus associated support space to be developed by 2025 (Future Phase). Both phases of development are evaluated in the Final EIR (the LRDP Phase at a project level and the Future Phase at a program level). However, only the LRDP Phase 289-bed project (the “Project”) is proposed for approval at this time.

Although analyzed as part of the Project in the Final EIR, the University has decided not to seek approval of helicopter operations from The Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”) as part of the Project approval. Construction of the helipad remains part of the Project. The activation and operation of the helipad will require local, city, and state Cal Trans approval and will undergo additional project level environmental review prior to University approval of medical helicopter flight operations in the future.

As part of the approval of the Project, The Regents will consider an amendment (Amendment #3) to the UCSF Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) to: expand the campus boundaries to include the 14.5-acre project site; revise the Mission Bay functional zone to incorporate the additional site and clinical facilities land uses; and modify Table 29A: Mission Bay Proposed Space Profile to expand the space program to include the Medical Center program, thus increasing the Mission Bay campus program to 4,437,000 gross square feet.

The Final EIR is an informational document intended to disclose to decision-makers and the public the environmental consequences of the Project. UCSF’s Hospital Replacement Project was evaluated at a program level in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2005 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement EIR (2005 EIR), which in turn incorporated the 1996 LRDP EIR (SCH# 95123032) and the 2002 LRDP Amendment #1 Supplemental EIR (SCH# 95123032). Finally, the Project site is within the Mission Bay South Plan of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency analyzed in the 1998 Mission Bay Subsequent EIR (SCH# 97092068). This action certifies the Final EIR.

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 2 Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15090, The Regents certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). The Regents further certifies that it has been presented with the Final EIR and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the following certifications and the findings in Section II, below, and the approvals set forth below in Section III, below. The Regents further certifies that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis. The conclusions presented in these Findings are based upon the Final EIR and other evidence in the administrative record.

Based upon the foregoing, The Regents finds and determines that as the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Project, the Final EIR provides the basis for approval of the Project, and the supporting findings set forth in Section II, below.

II. FINDINGS

The following Findings are hereby adopted by The Regents as required by Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, 21081.6, and 14 California Code of Regulations sections 15091, 15092, 15093, and 15152, in conjunction with the approval set forth in Section III below.

A. Environmental Review Process

1. Development of the Project

The Hospital Replacement Program was described in the March 2005 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement Program and was analyzed at a program level in the LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement Environmental Impact Report (2005 EIR). The 2005 EIR established two planning horizons for the Hospital Replacement Program. Proposed actions to be taken through the academic year 2011/12, the horizon year of the current LRDP, were described as the “LRDP Phase” of the Hospital Replacement Program. Proposed actions taken to meet seismic mandates by 2025/2030 were described as the “Future Phase”. The LRDP Amendment #2 envisioned that within the LRDP Phase, a small hospital of up to 400 beds would be established at one of four sites: Parnassus “East”, Parnassus “West”, the UCSF Mission Bay campus site (“North site”) and Mission Bay “South”. The “Mission Bay South” site scenario evaluated the development of up to 400 beds and associated support facilities during the LRDP Phase and up to 250 additional beds and associated support facilities during the Future Phase. As part of the analysis, the 2005 EIR evaluated a helipad for medical helicopter transports at the Mission Bay South site. The University subsequently identified the “Mission Bay South” site as the preferred site for the Medical Center at Mission Bay.

The Final EIR is “tiered” from the program level 2005 EIR. The Final EIR assesses the potential environmental effects of constructing and operating the Medical Center at Mission Bay, identifies means to eliminate or reduce potential significant adverse impacts, and evaluates a

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS

CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008

PAGE 3

range of reasonable alternatives to the project. It evaluates, at the project level, implementation of the Project and evaluates, at the program level, implementation of the Future Phase of the Medical Center at Mission Bay project. The 2005 EIR analysis provides the basis for this LRDP Phase project level analysis and Future Phase program analysis, and has been updated where appropriate.

The 2005 EIR defined the LRDP Phase as including up to 400 beds, with approximately 800,000 gross square feet (gsf) of hospital space, approximately 258,000 gsf in an ambulatory care center, approximately 400,000 gsf of clinical research and office space and a 52,000 gsf central utilities plant.

Preparation of the EIR

A Notice of Preparation and Initial Study was published on January 19, 2008, commencing a 30-day public scoping period. One public scoping meeting was held on January 24, 2008, to provide an opportunity for public comment on all project-related planning and environmental issues. Since 2000, the San Francisco campus has conducted more than 40 meetings related to the hospital replacement process. The Draft EIR circulation period initially extended from April 11, 2008, to May 27, 2008, a 45-day period of review and comment by the public, interested parties, agencies and organizations, but the period was subsequently extended to sixty days.

Late in March, the San Francisco Planning Department issued the results of a cultural resources survey which includes the evaluation of 1830 3rd Street, an existing one-story vacant building on the project site. The University then evaluated the potential historic status of 1990 3rd Street and 1830 3rd Street. A new Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR Chapter 4.8 was subsequently prepared, published, and circulated on May 19, 2008 to provide agencies and interested parties with new information about the two properties. The 60-day public comment period was extended to July 3, 2008, for an overall comment period of 80 days.

The University held a public hearing at the Genentech Hall Auditorium at the UCSF Mission Bay campus on April 22, 2008 to receive comments on the Draft EIR. Six people provided comments on the Draft EIR at the public hearing. In addition, written comments were received from two local agencies, two community groups, and two individuals during the public comment period. The Department of Fish and Game issued a “Determination of No Effect.” No other comments were received from State agencies.

The Final EIR contains all of the comments received during the extended public comment period, including a transcript of the public hearing, together with written responses to those comments which were prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the University’s procedures for implementing CEQA. The Regents certifies that it has reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and finds that the Final EIR provides adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments.

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 4

2. Absence of Significant New Information

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. New information includes: (i) changes to the project; (ii) changes in the environmental setting; or (iii) additional data or other information. Section 15088.5 further provides that “[n]ew information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR.

The impact of the Project on cultural resources was initially scoped out of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR based on the Initial Study (IS). Following publication of the Draft EIR on April 11, 2008, the San Francisco Planning Department issued the results of a cultural resources survey which included the evaluation of 1830 3rd Street, an existing one-story vacant building on the Project site. The University evaluated the historical status of 1830 3rd Street and determined that the structure located at that site did not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA and therefore its demolition was not a significant impact. Nonetheless, the University prepared a new chapter to the Draft EIR, Chapter 4.8, considering cultural resources and circulated that chapter for public review on May 19, 2008, even though recirculation was not required under CEQA. The new recirculated Chapter 4.8, Cultural Resources, concludes that the Project’s impact on architectural/ historical resources would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. No comments addressing cultural resources were received during the comment period.

The changes to the Draft EIR are discussed in Chapter 8 of the Final EIR.

Having reviewed the information contained in the Final EIR and in the administrative record, including the comments on the Draft EIR and the Responses to Comments, as well as the requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and interpretive judicial authority regarding recirculation of Draft EIRs, The Regents hereby finds that no new significant information was added to the EIR following public review and thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required by CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does not involve any new or more severe environmental impacts or indicate that the Draft EIR was in any way inadequate or conclusory.

B. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The following section summarizes the environmental impacts of the Project, and includes the Findings of The Regents as to those impacts, as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of The Regents regarding the



PAGE 5

environmental impacts of the Project, alternatives to the Project and Mitigation Measures proposed by the Final EIR and adopted by The Regents as conditions of approval.

These Findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about Project impacts before and after mitigation and do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these Findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable Mitigation Measures, if any, identified in the Final EIR and adopted by The Regents, and state The Regents’ Findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted Mitigation Measures. A full explanation of these environmental Findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these Findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding Mitigation Measures and the Project’s impacts. In making these Findings, The Regents ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR in these Findings, and ratifies, adopts and incorporates in these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to Mitigation Measures and environmental impacts, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings.

As set forth in Part III, below, The Regents adopts and incorporates as conditions of approval, the Mitigation Measures set forth in these Findings to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts. In adopting these Mitigation Measures, The Regents intends to adopt each of the Mitigation Measures proposed in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a Mitigation Measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from these Findings, said Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the Findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of the Mitigation Measures set forth below fail to accurately reflect the Mitigation Measures in the Final EIR, the language of the Mitigation Measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the Mitigation Measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these Findings.

The Regents are adopting all Mitigation Measures described in the Final EIR even though the Medical Center at Mission Bay project will be implemented in two phases: the LRDP Phase (through 2015) and the Future Phase (through 2025). Although the Mitigation Measures for the Future Phase could be modified or augmented in connection with environmental review of the San Francisco campus’ next LRDP or project-level review of the Future Phase, they are being adopted at this time for the identified program level impacts.

Other possible mitigation measures have been proposed by members of the public in comments on the Draft EIR. Unless otherwise adopted by The Regents in the Final EIR and these Findings, The Regents hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the Responses to Comments contained in the Final EIR as its grounds for finding these suggested mitigation measures to be infeasible, or as in the case of proposed mitigation for helicopter noise impacts, to require further study prior to their adoption or rejection.

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 6 Upon certification of the 2005 EIR in March 2005, The Regents adopted Findings making all mitigation measures a condition of LRDP Amendment #2 approvals. The Project is within the development envelope analyzed in the 2005 EIR and therefore, 2005 EIR mitigation measures also would apply to the Project, as described in the Final EIR. As noted above, the Medical Center at Mission Bay project analyzed in this EIR consists of the LRDP Phase (at a project-level analysis) and the Future Phase (at a program-level analysis).

1. Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Wind, and Light and Glare

a) Impact MCMB.1-1: The construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to increase light and glare, which could affect nighttime views at and in the vicinity of the Mission Bay project site.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project would not increase light and glare affecting nighttime views; therefore, no mitigation is required.

b) Impact MCMB.1-2: Construction of the proposed medical center at Mission Bay has the potential to result in flood lighting within the project vicinity, in the event that nighttime construction activities become necessary.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of the 2005 EIR mitigation measures through the orientation of buildings, use of landscaping materials, and choice of primary façade materials to avoid potential disturbance to adjacent uses would reduce this impact to a less than significant level; therefore, no additional mitigation is required.

c) Impact MCMB.1-3: Construction and operation of the proposed medical facilities at the project site could substantially degrade the visual quality of the Mission Bay campus site or its surroundings.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that construction and operation of the Project would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site or its surroundings; therefore, no mitigation is required.

d) Impact MCMB.1-6: The Medical Center at Mission Bay project could exceed an LRDP standard of significance by increasing pedestrian-level wind speeds above the wind hazard criterion set forth in the San Francisco Planning Code.

FINDINGS: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the project would not increase pedestrian-level wind speeds above the wind hazard criteria set forth in the Planning Code; therefore, no mitigation is required.

e) Impact MCMB.1-7: Implementation of the proposed project in the LRDP Phase would result in cumulative visual and aesthetic effects.



PAGE 7

FINDINGS: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project in the LRDP Phase would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to visual character and quality, therefore, no mitigation is required.

f) Impact MCMB.1-8: The Medical Center at Mission Bay project in the LRDP Phase could result in cumulative wind effects.

FINDINGS: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the proposed Project in the LRDP Phase would not contribute to cumulative wind effects; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2. Air Quality

a) Impact MCMB.2-1: Demolition and construction activities associated with the Medical Center at Mission Bay project would generate fugitive dust and criteria pollutant emissions that could adversely affect local air quality.

Mitigation Measure MCMB.2-1: To further mitigate less-than-significant project-level impacts, additional measures related to the 2007 CARB off-road diesel rule on equipment exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be required in UCSF construction contracts to comply with the following measures:

• Prohibit the use of conventional cutback asphalt for paving to restrict the maximum VOC content of asphalt emulsion. Diesel portable generators less than 50 horsepower shall not be allowed at the construction site, except for those used by welders.1

• All diesel-fueled engines used for on- and offsite construction activities shall be fueled only with ultralow sulfur diesel, which contains no more than 15 ppm sulfur.

• All construction diesel engines used for on- and offsite activities that have a rating of 100 hp or more shall meet, at a minimum, the Tier 2 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines as specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1) unless it is certified by the construction contractor that such engine is not available for a particular item of equipment. In the event a Tier 2 engine is not available for any off-road engine larger than 100 hp, that engine shall be a Tier 1 engine. In the event a Tier 1 or Tier 2 engine is not available for any offroad engine larger than 100 hp, that engine shall be equipped with a CARB Level 3-verified diesel emission control device (e.g., catalyzed diesel particulate filter), unless the engine manufacturer or the construction contractor certifies that the use of such devices is not practical for specific engine types. In the event that a CARB Level 3 verified diesel emission control device is not practical for the specific engine type, then the engine shall be equipped with

1 Welding trucks have self-contained units with generators less than 50 horsepower.


a CARB Level 1- or 2-verified control device (e.g., diesel oxidation catalyst), unless the engine manufacturer or the construction contractor certifies that such devices are not available for the engine in question. For purposes of this condition, the use of such devices is “not practical” if, among other reasons:

1. The construction equipment is intended to be onsite for ten (10) days or less.

2. The use of the diesel emission control device is excessively reducing normal availability of the construction equipment due to increased downtime for maintenance, and/or reduced power output due to an excessive increase in backpressure.

3. The diesel emission control device is causing or is reasonably expected to cause significant engine damage.

In the event that the use of a diesel emission control device is to be terminated, the construction contractor shall be required to inform the UCSF project manager within 10 days prior to such termination.

• Construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications.

• Best management construction practices shall be used to avoid (or limit) unnecessary emissions (e.g., trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn their engines off when not in use, and to the extent practical, all diesel heavy construction equipment shall not remain running at idle for more than five minutes).

• Use alternative fueled equipment when feasible (such as ULSD, CNG, biodiesel, water emulsion fuel, and electric). The construction contracts shall require each contractor and subcontractor to consider this measure and adopt it for their work unless they can demonstrate to UCSF the inapplicability or infeasibility of the measure to their specific work, or can provide mitigation measures with equivalent or better effectiveness. This information shall be reported as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting and Compliance Program.

• Use on-site power when feasible to reduce reliance on portable generators. The construction contracts shall require each contractor and subcontractor to consider this measure and adopt it for their work unless they can demonstrate to UCSF the inapplicability or infeasibility of the measure to their specific work, or can provide mitigation measures with equivalent or better effectiveness. This information shall be reported as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting and Compliance Program.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure MCMB.2-1 would ensure that impacts on local air quality from



PAGE 9

demolition and construction activities associated with the Project would be less than significant.

b) Impact MCMB.2-2: Activities associated with proposed project construction would generate short-term emissions of TACs, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions, during the term of construction.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure MCMB.2-1 would ensure that impacts from construction-related activities generating short-term emissions of TACs would be less than significant.

c) Impact MCMB.2-3a: Operation of the Medical Center facilities in the LRDP Phase would generate vehicular, stationary source, and helicopter-related criteria pollutant emissions that would contribute to regional air pollution.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the operation of the Project in the LRDP Phase would not generate criteria pollutant emissions that would contribute to regional air pollution; therefore, no mitigation is required.

d) Impact MCMB.2-4: Public exposure to toxic air contaminant emissions from the proposed project would result in a less than significant increase in health risks. The increases in health risks would result from exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances emitted during the operation of the proposed project. The cancer risk and non-cancer hazards fall below the significance thresholds.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the public exposure to toxic air contaminant emissions from the Project would result in a less than significant increase in health risks; therefore, no mitigation is required.

e) Impact MCMB.2-5: Combustion emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2) would result from operation of heavy equipment, construction machinery, portable auxiliary equipment and also from construction worker automobile trips during construction of the project. Operation of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gases that would contribute to global climate change.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that because the Project would meet the requirements of the University’s Policy for Sustainable Practices; would not pose any potential conflict with the 44 early action strategies identified by California Air Resources Board; and would not exceed the state greenhouse gas emission limit for major facilities (25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year), the Project’s generation of greenhouse gases that would contribute to global climate change would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 10 f) Impact MCMB.2-6: Criteria air pollutant emissions generated from the construction and operation of the proposed project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that criteria air pollutant emissions generated from the construction and operation of the Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Because there are no feasible mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce this impact, it would remain significant and unavoidable. However, The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section II.H of these Findings.

g) Impact MCMB.2-7: Public exposure to toxic air contaminant emissions from the proposed project would result in health risks from exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances emitted during the operation of the proposed project. The project cancer risk and non-cancer hazards fall below the significance thresholds. The health risks from the proposed project, together with the risks from other planned development, other UCSF sites, and San Francisco in general, could lead to a cumulative effect. The contribution of the project to cumulative risk would not be considerable.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project’s contribution to the cumulative effect of public exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic contaminant emissions would not be considerable; therefore, no mitigation is required.

h) Impact MCMB.2-8: Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in greenhouse gas emissions; however, its contribution to the significant cumulative impact associated with greenhouse gas emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, including implementation of the University’s Policy on Sustainable Practices, and the Project’s general consistency with the 44 early action strategies identified by the California Air Resources Board, The Regents finds that the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact associated with greenhouse gas emissions; therefore, no mitigation is required.

3. Land Use

a) Impact MCMB.4-1: Development of the Project at Mission Bay project would be consistent with the 1996 LRDP as amended.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the development



PAGE 11

of the Project at the Mission Bay campus site would be consistent with the 1996 LRDP, as amended, and therefore would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project; therefore, no mitigation is required.

b) Impact MCMB.4-2: The proposed project would not substantially conflict with City and Redevelopment Agency plans and policies, which are applicable to the proposed project site.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project would not substantially conflict with applicable local land use regulations and controls and would meet the adopted LRDP standards to avoid substantial conflicts with local zoning, and the Project would not be significantly incompatible with any existing land use at the periphery of the UCSF Mission Bay campus site; therefore, no mitigation is required.

c) Impact MCMB.4-3: The proposed project, when combined with cumulative growth in the vicinity of the Mission Bay area, could increase the intensity of land uses in the area.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that development within the Mission Bay South Plan together with Port development and Eastern Neighborhoods development would be completed within prescribed regulations, controls, and zoning restrictions that would not physically divide an established neighborhood, or be significantly incompatible with existing land uses and therefore would result in less than significant cumulative impacts; therefore no mitigation is required.

4. Noise

a) Impact MCMB.5-1: Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would elevate noise levels in and around the project site, and particularly at nearby sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measure MCMB.5-1: UCSF shall require construction contractors to minimize unavoidable construction noise impacts by use of proper equipment and work scheduling:

• Limit construction hours to the following schedule. Approve extended hours only with advanced notice from the UCSF project manager. Prohibit high impact noise on Saturdays and Sundays.


“Not Noisy” Work Noisy Work

Regular Hours Extended Hours Regular Hours

Monday- Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

• Designate a UCSF Community Contact to receive and resolve construction complaints.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the implementation of 2005 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 and Mitigation Measure MCMB.5-1 would reduce construction noise impacts from the Project, but not necessarily to a less than significant level and therefore a temporary but significant and unavoidable impact would result. However, The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section II.H of these Findings.

b) Impact MCMB.5-2: The Energy Center and other rooftop equipment of the Project buildings will operate 24 hours a day and may increase the level of noise in the vicinity.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project’s compliance with the noise standards contained in the San Francisco Police Code would reduce noise impacts from the Energy Center and other rooftop equipment of the Project’s buildings to a less than significant level, both individually and in conjunction with other on-site noise sources; therefore, no mitigation is required.

5. Transportation and Traffic

a) Impact MCMB.6-1: Building construction, including demolition, excavation, and grading associated with the Project (LRDP Phase and Future Phase) could cause substantial adverse impacts to traffic flow, circulation and access as well as to transit, pedestrian, and parking conditions.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of 2005 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-1, which limits the use of local roads as haul routes, prepares an offsite parking plan for construction employees and subcontractors, schedules heavy-truck deliveries in advance, and limits truck trips to off-peak hours would reduce the traffic impacts of Project construction to less than significant levels; therefore, no additional mitigation is required.



PAGE 13

b) Impact MCMB.6-2: Operation of the Medical Center at Mission Bay project would increase traffic at intersections on the adjacent roadway network in the LRDP Phase.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the operation of the Project would result in less than significant increases in traffic at intersections on the adjacent roadway network in the LRDP Phase; therefore, no mitigation is required.

c) Impact MCMB.6-4: Operation of the Medical Center at Mission Bay project would generate parking demand.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the parking impacts resulting from the operation of the Project would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.

6. Utility, Energy, and Service Systems

a) Impact MCMB.7-1: The proposed Medical Center at Mission Bay would increase UCSF water demand over existing conditions.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the overall increase in water demand resulting from the Project over existing conditions would be a less than significant impact; therefore, no mitigation is required.

b) Impact MCMB.7-2: The proposed project would result in an increase in wastewater generation.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the increase in wastewater generation resulting from the Project would be a less than significant impact; therefore, no mitigation is required.

c) Impact MCMB.7-3: The proposed project would result in the construction of new electrical or natural gas facilities, including chilled water and steam generation facilities.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project would not cause the development of new, unplanned offsite facilities that would result in physical impacts and that the impact of constructing new electrical or natural gas facilities at the Project site would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.

d) Impact MCMB.7-4: The proposed project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy by UCSF.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy, and impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 14 e) Impact MCMB.7-5: Demolition of buildings and construction of new hospital buildings in either the LRDP or Future Phases could result in soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation of stormwater runoff or an increase in stormwater pollutants associated with construction-related hazardous materials or contamination from dewatering activities.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that compliance with SWRCB General Permit requirements and development of a SWPPP, compliance with the 1999 RMP and with 2005 EIR mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to water quality resulting from demolition and construction activities would be less than significant; therefore, no additional mitigation is required.

f) Impact MCMB.7-6: Operation of hospital facilities in either the LRDP or Future Phases could adversely affect regional stormwater quality by increasing pollutant or sediment concentrations in stormwater runoff following the completion of construction activities.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that compliance with storm water runoff BMPs would ensure that impacts to regional storm water quality caused by the Project would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.

g) Impact MCMB.7-7: Construction of new medical center at the project site by the LRDP Phase or Future Phase could result in degradation of water quality at Mission Bay.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of measures identified in the 1998 Mission Bay SEIR would ensure that water quality impacts at Mission Bay resulting from the Project would be less than significant; therefore, no additional mitigation is required.

h) Impact MCMB.7-8: The proposed project, when combined with cumulative growth in the vicinity of the project site, could increase the demand for utilities and energy.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the increase in demand for utilities and energy when considered in the context of cumulative growth in the vicinity of the Project site; therefore, no mitigation is required.

i) Impact MCMB.7-9: The proposed project, when combined with other foreseeable development in the vicinity by the LRDP and Future Phases, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on water quality or hydrologic resources.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project, when combined with other foreseeable development in the vicinity, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on water quality or hydrological resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.



PAGE 15

7. Cultural Resources

a) Impact MCMB.8-1: The project would result in the demolition of 1830 3rd Street and 1900 3rd Street at the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay project site.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the demolition of 1830 3rd Street and 1900 3rd Street would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources because neither structure was found to meet the national, state, or local criteria for historical significance or to qualify as an historical resource under CEQA; therefore, no mitigation is necessary.

8. Effects Not Found To Be Significant

Certain environmental effects were determined to be “effects not found to be significant” based upon the analysis provided in the 2005 EIR, and in the Initial Study (IS) for the Project. These impacts are summarized in the IS and Draft EIR: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources (subsequently modified by publication and circulation of Chapter 4.8 of the Draft EIR), geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials (with the exception of hazards associated with helicopter operations), hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, and public services and recreation.

The Regents hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the IS and Draft EIR as its grounds for concluding that these environmental effects would be less-than-significant and that further analysis of these impacts in the Draft EIR is not necessary or appropriate.

C. Helicopter Operation Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The following potential impacts would occur as a result of helicopter operations; helipad operation is not part of the Project being approved by The Regents at this time and further approval will be required prior to the commencement of operations. The applicable mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce these impacts will be imposed if helicopter operations are approved in the future.


a) Impact MCMB.1-5: Operation of the Medical Center at Mission Bay project would include a helicopter landing site (“helipad”), which would introduce lighting that would be noticeable after dark.

Mitigation Measure MCMB.1-5: UCSF shall develop a helipad design plan to minimize light and glare including:

• Lighting:


— Perimeter Lights: Perimeter lights shall be flush mounted along the edge of the landing pad and shall have green lenses. A minimum of eight lights shall be spaced evenly around a square pad, or around the perimeter of a circular pad. Care shall be exercised in the design to ensure that perimeter lights do not impede movement of gurneys to and from the access ramp. The lighting layout shall be planned so that lights are to the sides of, rather than at the entrance to, the ramp.

— Windcone: A windcone (windsock) shall be installed and lighted for nighttime

operations. The windcone can also be located atop an elevator penthouse. Lighted windcones are normally equipped with four 150-watt flood lights mounted at the ends of crossbars, and are usually equipped with red obstruction lights at the top of their masts. The floods shine down on the orange cone so that it remains illuminated in all quadrants. The downward-directed lights do not normally cause glare to nearby land uses. As an alternate, an internally lighted windcone shall be used. This system employs two floodlights inside the windcone that rotate with it rather than the four external lights.

• Lighting Activation:

Activation of perimeter lights would occur only when a helicopter is on approach. Two remote activations are feasible: — Manually switched from inside the hospital: This would minimize energy usage

and lamp replacement costs but would require that staff be available to activate lighting when an aircraft is inbound.

— Pilot-controlled lighting: This system requires a radio receiver/lighting controller

at the hospital. Pilots would tune the helicopter’s communications radio to the receiver’s frequency and key the microphone to activate the lighting. This would allow the pilot to activate the lighting when inbound, eliminating reliance on hospital staff. The weatherproof receiver/controller enclosure has a short whip antenna and can be located outside of the hospital in a secure location.

Lighting deactivation can be set to a timer so that perimeter lighting would not remain on for a significant period following departure of the helicopter.

FINDINGS: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of 2005 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 and Mitigation Measure MCMB. 1-5 would ensure that impacts of nighttime lighting for the helipad would be reduced to a less than significant level.

2. Aeromedical Helicopter Flight Operations and Public Safety



PAGE 17

a) Impact MCMB.3-1: The proposed project would result in a negligible risk to human safety from aeromedical helicopter operations in the vicinity of the proposed helicopter landing site (“helipad”).

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project would result in only a negligible risk to human safety from aeromedical helicopter operations in the vicinity of the proposed helicopter landing (helipad) site; therefore, no mitigation is required.

b) Impact MCMB.3-2: The potential construction of another helipad at the San Francisco General Hospital site (approximately 1.5 miles from the UCSF site) may result in an increased risk related to operation of two helipads in the same general area.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the potential construction of another helipad at the San Francisco General Hospital site approximately 1.5 miles from the Project site would result in an insubstantial increase in the risk related to the operation of two helipads in the same general area; therefore, no mitigation is required.

3. Noise

a) Impact MCMB.5-3: [Single-event noise] Operation of the helicopter landing site (“helipad”) proposed as part of the project would lead to increased noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. Based on the proposed flight operations, the overall noise level increases in residential areas attributable to the project would be less than 1 dB-CNEL.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that operation of the helipad proposed as part of the Project would lead to a less than significant increase in noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a CNEL standard; therefore, no mitigation is required.

b) Impact MCMB.5-4: [Single-event noise] Operation of the helicopter landing site (“helipad”) proposed as part of the project would lead to increased noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. Operations at any time of day could cause speech interference. Nighttime helicopter operations could cause increased awakening of residents in the immediate vicinity of the helipad at the site.

Mitigation Measure MCMB.5-4: Prior to helicopter operations, UCSF shall implement the following:

• The University shall continue to work with the community to develop a Residential Sound Reduction Program and to evaluate feasible noise mitigation measures related to UCSF helicopter operations. Once developed, this program shall undergo additional project-level environmental review prior to the start of helicopter operations at the site. Specific sound reduction measures identified in the program would be implemented after


UCSF helicopter operations begin and the actual sound environment at that time is known.

The Residential Sound Reduction Program following mitigation measures shall be implemented to the extent feasible to minimize significant disruption to receptors, and shall include the following elements:

• Limit types of landings at the site to the most critically ill patients where time is of the essence, when helicopter transport is approved by a physician

• Limit activity to incoming interfacility transfers

• Prepare a Helicopter Operations Plan that shall specify the following:

1. All helicopter operations shall use the flight paths described in the EIR, unless safety precautions require a diversion from any of the flight paths.

2. The primary approach and departure path is the least disruptive flight path (arrive from east and depart to east) and should be utilized as much as feasible. The alternate and secondary flight paths should be utilized only if the primary approach and departure path is not desirable due to wind conditions or safety considerations.

3. UCSF service contracts with air medical companies shall require that all pilots be routinely trained to ensure that optimum arrival and departure flight paths procedures are followed for each helicopter type that serves UCSF. Pilots would be instructed in the use of the primary east approach and departure path.

4. A log of helicopter activity shall be maintained which shall include a detailed record of the type of reason for the trip, and date and time of arrival and departure. If a diversion from prescribed flight paths occurred as discussed above, the reason for diversion shall be recorded in the log.

• Respond to noise complaints about helicopter over flight. UCSF shall investigate noise complaints and shall work to address the complaint if it is determined that the cause was from helicopter operations at UCSF. The investigation may include consultation with a noise engineer, a site assessment, noise monitoring of the affected property, and other actions as may be necessary. Contact information for registering complains shall be made publicly available.

• Establish a UCSF community working group that meets periodically to provide a forum for UCSF and the community to discuss helicopter noise issues.

• Include additional mitigation developed as part of the community process.



PAGE 19

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure MCMB 5.4 would reduce the noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors resulting from operation of the helipad, but that additional evaluation of feasible noise mitigation measures will be conducted prior to approval of helicopter operations.

c) Impact MCMB.5-5: Operation of the helicopter landing site (“helipad”) proposed as part of the project could lead to increased vibration effects on nearby properties.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that operation of the helipad would cause less than significant vibration effects on nearby properties; therefore, no mitigation is required.

d) Impact MCMB.5-6: Operation of the helicopter landing site (“helipad”) proposed as part of the project could expose persons to increased helicopter noise levels which may lead to adverse health effects.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that operation of the helipad would result in less than significant adverse health effects on persons exposed to increased helicopter noise levels; therefore, no mitigation is required.

e) Impact MCMB.5-7: Operations proposed as part of the proposed project, including the helicopter flights and all other sources of noise, considered together with proposed operations of aeromedical helicopter flights associated with San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), might occasionally lead to increased noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the UCSF helipad site.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that operation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to increased noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the Project helipad site when considered with all other sources of noise; therefore, no mitigation is required.

D. Future Phase Impacts and Mitigation Measures

These potential impacts and applicable mitigation measures are based upon the program-level environmental review of the Future Phase of the Medical Center at Mission Bay. Accordingly, the proposed mitigation measures are adopted for the identified program level impacts and could be modified in connection with the future project-level review of the Future Phase.


a) Impact MCMB.1-4: In the Future Phase, installation of pedestrian bridges across 4th Street to connect the east and west block structures of the proposed medical center could have an adverse effect on public views within and surrounding the project site.

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 20 FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that installation of pedestrian bridges across 4th Street in the Future Phase would not have an adverse effect on public views within and surrounding the Project Site; therefore, no mitigation is required.

b) Impact MCMB.1-7: Implementation of the proposed project in the Future Phase would result in cumulative visual and aesthetic effects.

FINDINGS: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project in the Future Phase would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to visual character and quality, therefore, no mitigation is required.

c) Impact MCMB.1-8: The Medical Center at Mission Bay project in the Future Phase could result in cumulative wind effects.

FINDINGS: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the proposed Medical Center at Mission Bay in the Future Phase would not contribute to cumulative wind effects; therefore, no mitigation is required.

2. Air Quality

a) Impact MCMB.2-3b: Operation of the Project facilities in the Future Phase would generate vehicular, stationary source and helicopter-related criteria pollutant emissions that would contribute to regional air pollution.

Mitigation Measure MCMB.2-3b: UCSF shall implement previously adopted measures and new measures identified in this EIR. The 2005 EIR air quality mitigations include promoting shuttle services, ride-sharing, and bicycle programs to reduce the number of trips to campus sites. The 2005 EIR also proposes implementation of BAAQMD’s dust control procedures. In addition, prior to approval of the Future Phase project, UCSF shall conduct further CEQA review and would consider any new recommendations and methodologies for mitigating criteria pollutants available at the time of Future Phase project approvals. FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure MCMB.2-3b would reduce the impacts associated with operation of Project facilities in the Future Phase that generates vehicular, stationary source and helicopter-related criteria pollutant emissions that would contribute to regional air pollution, but not to less-than-significant levels and therefore these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. However, The Regents finds these remaining significant impacts to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh these and the other unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section II.H of these Findings.

3. Transportation and Traffic



PAGE 21

a) Impact MCMB.6-3: Operation of the Medical Center at Mission Bay project would increase traffic at intersections on the adjacent roadway network in the Future Phase.

Mitigation Measure MCMB.6-3: Regarding Owens Street at the Center Garage Access, UCSF shall conduct project-level CEQA review at the time the Future Phase development is considered for approval. In addition, UCSF shall coordinate with the City of San Francisco in the periodic update of the Mission Bay traffic triggers survey and would monitor on-site parking access and circulation in order to determine the need for LOS improvements on Owens Street between 16th and Mariposa Streets. UCSF would coordinate with the Municipal Transportation Agency (which includes the Department of Parking and Traffic) and the Planning Department to confirm the feasibility and effectiveness of mitigation measures resulting from future analysis or consider equivalent recommendations made by these agencies, and UCSF will pay its fair share of the cost of implementing the selected mitigation.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the implementation of the re-striping of southbound Owens Street at 16th Street would reduce this Future Phase impact to a less than significant level. In addition, because the implementation of Mitigation Measure MCMB.6-3 requires project-level CEQA review regarding the Owens Street at the Center Garage Access LOS at the time the Future Phase development is considered for approval, the need for LOS improvements on Owens Street at the Center Garage Access remains speculative pending a project-level design of parking requirements and project-level traffic circulation and impacts in the Future Phase.

E. Other CEQA Considerations

1. Growth-Inducing Impacts

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires consideration of the potential growth inducing impact of proposed projects, including the ways in which “the proposed project could foster economic and population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment…and the characteristic of some projects which may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.” Projects are considered growth-inducing if they foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly. Typically, growth inducement occurs when a project extends urban services or transportation infrastructure to previously un-served or under-served areas, or removes major barriers to development.

The Project would not result in a change to the growth inducement analysis discussed in the 2005 EIR. Specifically, as described in the 2005 EIR, the Project would not extend utilities or transportation infrastructure to previously undeveloped areas, as the Project would be an in-fill development implemented in an already-built environment of one of the Bay Area’s central cities. Moreover, the Project would not increase employment such that it would result in significant increases in regional population or housing demand that could not be accommodated by planned and potential housing supply within the regional market area.

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 22 As discussed in Section 4.9 of the 2005 EIR and again in the IS, some of the increase in employment and economic activity at UCSF would be expected to result in other employment growth and population growth in the region, as well as in the vicinity of the Project site, particularly employment and economic activity associated with biotechnical and related research and development (R&D) and commercial activities. The plan for such development, however, is already anticipated in plans for the Mission Bay area and for adjacent areas, as indicated in the 1998 Mission Bay Subsequent EIR, and in other long-term projects and plans, including those prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). No additional growth-inducing impacts would result from the Project that were not already considered in the 2005 EIR and determined to be not growth-inducing.

The economic stimuli and the population, employment and housing effects of the Project are discussed in 2005 EIR Section 4.9 as well as in the IS. Other specific identifiable secondary environmental effects of projected future development in the vicinity of the Project site are analyzed in the appropriate topical sections of Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the Draft EIR, and cumulative impacts are discussed in those topical sections of Chapter 4.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the 2005 EIR and the Final EIR, The Regents finds that other than the specific economic effects previously identified in the 2005 EIR, there are no other growth-inducing effects of the Project.

2. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires consideration and discussion of impacts that are significant and unavoidable, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The potentially significant and unavoidable impacts from the implementation of the Project and the Future Phase of the Medical Center at Mission Bay are: vehicular, stationary source, and helicopter-related criteria pollutant emissions resulting from the Medical Center at Mission Bay in the Future Phase would contribute to regional air pollution; criteria air pollutant emissions generated from the construction and operation of the Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality; and demolition and construction activities associated with the Project would elevate noise levels in and around the Project site, and particularly at nearby sensitive receptors: Sections 4.1-4.8 of the Draft EIR provide a comprehensive identification of potentially significant adverse environmental effects, any feasible mitigation measures and the level of significance both before and after mitigation.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the following potentially significant and unavoidable impacts remain: vehicular, stationary source, and helicopter-related criteria pollutant emissions resulting from the Medical Center at Mission Bay in the Future Phase would cause significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality which would contribute to regional air pollution; criteria air pollutant emissions generated from the construction and



PAGE 23

operation of the Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality; and demolition and construction activities associated with the Project would elevate noise levels in and around the Project site, and particularly at nearby sensitive receptors. However, the Regents finds these remaining significant impacts to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh these unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section II.H of these Findings.

3. Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects

The Project would intensely develop the Project site, consistent with the LRDP and the Mission Bay Redevelopment Plan. The Project would commit future generations to the same land uses on the Project site for at least the life of the Project, which is anticipated to be long after the end of the Future Phase. Although the Project would incorporate energy-saving features into the project design, it would nevertheless result in an irreversible commitment of energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline or diesel fuel for construction equipment and automobiles during demolition, construction and ongoing use of the proposed sites. Because the Project includes energy conservation performance that would outperform California Energy Code Title 24 by at least 20%, it would not use energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. The consumption or destruction of other non- renewable or slowly renewable resources would also result during construction, occupancy, and use of the Project site. These resources include, but are not limited too, lumber, concrete, sand, gravel, asphalt, masonry, and metals.

FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that implementation of the Project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy or other resources.

F. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d) require the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by The Regents requires the University to monitor the Mitigation Measures designed to reduce or eliminate significant impacts, as well as those Mitigation Measures designed to reduce environmental impacts which are less than significant. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes all of the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and has been designed to ensure compliance with such Mitigation Measures during implementation of the Project. The Regents hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and incorporated herein.

The Regents finds that the impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 24 Reporting Program. The Regents adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project that accompanies the Final EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation for impacts and conditions within the jurisdiction of the University. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures specified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be accomplished through administrative controls over Project planning and implementation, and monitoring and enforcement of these measures will be accomplished through inspection and documentation by appropriate University personnel. The University reserves the right to make amendments and/or substitutions of Mitigation Measures if, in the exercise of the discretion of the University, it is determined that the amended or substituted Mitigation Measure will mitigate the identified potential environmental impact to at least the same degree as the original Mitigation Measure, or would attain an adopted performance standard for mitigation, and where the amendment or substitution would not result in a new significant impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated.

G. Alternatives

The Draft EIR evaluated a range of reasonable potential alternatives to the Project, both on-site and off-site. In compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the alternatives analysis also included an analysis of a No Project Alternative and discussed the environmentally superior alternative. The analysis examined the feasibility of each alternative, the environmental impacts of each alternative, and the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives identified in Section 3.2.3 and Table 3-1 of the Draft EIR.

The Regents certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR and the administrative record, and finds that all the alternatives are infeasible in comparison to the Project for the reasons set forth below.

1. Project Objectives

The Regents finds that the project objectives for the Project are as described in Section 3.2.3 and Table 3-1 of the Draft EIR:

• Meet the seismic requirements of Senate Bill 1953 and successive legislation.

• Sufficiently accommodate the core Hospital Replacement Program needs. (Core program needs include hospital, outpatient clinics, central plant, and office/research space for clinical science departments.)

o Provide replacement and expansion capacity to allow the decommissioning of the hospital facilities at UCSF Mount Zion by January 1, 2015.



PAGE 25

• Locate where UCSF’s medical facilities can efficiently serve as teaching facilities for the UCSF programs, including the professional schools and students, with which they are linked.

o Provide proximity to, and/or capacity for, existing and new clinical research and faculty.

o Create a sustainable UCSF community uniting the basic, clinical and social sciences.

• Provide flexibility to operating existing inpatient facilities most effectively.

o Construct an up to 550-bed hospital at Mission Bay on the blocks south of 16th Street (Blocks 36–39, X3), while maintaining existing facilities at Mount Zion in the LRDP Phase.

o Develop the Project site plan to maximize flexibility of operations of the Project during the LRDP Phase and the future phase build out.

o Explore a scenario for connectivity between structures on the east and west blocks.

• Design the Project to be compatible with its physical surroundings in use, scale, and density.

o Ensure consistency with LRDP space programs growth by staying within a total gross square footage of 1,787,000 of development at the Project site (consistent with SFRA’s 1,020,000 rentable floor area entitlement).

o Ensure that development is compatible with and responsive to building scale and character in the surrounding areas.

o Avoid or reduce potential negative environmental impacts associated with UCSF development through appropriate mitigation measures

o Accommodate attractive site features such as open space and other amenities for students, staff, and community members.

o Plan facilities to optimize proximity to housing for UCSF personnel, service by regional highways, and access to public transit.

• Make the capital investments necessary to develop the Medical Center at Mission Bay.

o Invest in new infrastructure to support proposed development.


• Continue to strengthen UCSF’s position as a leading patient care and health science center.

o Develop a patient-friendly hospital (convenient location, availability of parking, efficient patient/emergency access, proximity of related patient services, etc.).

o Develop a staff-friendly hospital (availability of parking, proximity to amenities, loading/delivery access, etc.).

o Accommodate helicopter access directly to the facility to accept hospital-to-hospital patient transfer.

o Accommodate patient-family housing onsite or nearby.

o Seek beneficial patient health through environmentally sustainable and energy-efficient site and building design.

• Contribute to the equitable citywide distribution of health care and emergency/trauma facilities, both routinely and during citywide emergencies and disasters. (Trauma care would remain at San Francisco General Hospital.)

o Design facilities to incorporate the most advanced techniques available for diagnosis and treatment of patients.

o Design facilities to incorporate an on-site helipad to facilitate inter-hospital transfers of pregnant women, newborns, infants, and children. The following are UCSF ‘s objectives for siting the helipad:

to lessen significant impacts on the surrounding community;

to locate the helipad so as to avoid transfers of patients from one mode of travel to another (i.e. helicopter to ambulance);

to locate the helipad to meet the functional needs of the children’s hospital and emergency department and women’s hospital;

to comply with all applicable regulatory and life safety requirements for helipads and helicopter travel, including but not limited to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for flight path obstruction clearance;

to locate the helipad on a site where access is controlled, to ensure public safety during helicopter landings and take-offs;

to construct a visually unobtrusive helipad, integrated into the design of the building;



PAGE 27

to construct a helipad in the most cost-effective manner possible.

2. Alternatives to the Project

The 2005 EIR discussed and analyzed, at an equal level of detail, a number of hospital replacement scenarios at Mission Bay and Parnassus Heights that, for purposes of CEQA, were alternatives to one another. These “projects scenarios” included a 250-bed and 400-bed scenario at the Mission Bay North and South sites, a 650-bed scenario at the Mission Bay South site, and 200 and 400-bed scenarios at the Parnassus East and West sites. Furthermore, that EIR evaluated three additional alternatives: No Project / No Action Alternative, No Project / Action Alternative, and Off-Site Alternative - Hospital at Mount Zion South Block.

a) No Project / No Action Alternative

The No Project / No Action Alternative assumed continued development as approved under the 1996 LRDP, with the exception of a new hospital at Mount Zion. Under this alternative, the existing hospital facilities at Moffitt (at Parnassus Heights) and Mount Zion would not be renovated or re-built to meet SB 1953 requirements and instead would be demolished or reprogrammed for other uses. No hospital facilities would be constructed at Mission Bay.

b) No Project / Action Alternative

This alternative would implement all actions approved under the LRDP, including the approved hospital replacement at Mount Zion. This alternative proposed a smaller 250-bed hospital at Mount Zion on the main block (bounded by Sutter Street to the north, Scott Street to the east, Post Street to the south, and Divisadero Street to the west), rather than the 408-bed Mount Zion hospital recommended and analyzed under the 1996 LRDP EIR. Under this alternative, Moffitt Hospital would not be renovated or re-built to meet SB 1953 requirements and instead would be demolished or reprogrammed for other uses. No hospital facilities would be constructed at Mission Bay.

c) Off-Site Alternative – Hospital at Mount Zion South Block

This alternative proposed the construction of a 250-bed hospital outside of University-owned property on the block south of the Mount Zion main block. The south block is bounded by Post Street to the north, Geary Boulevard to the south, Scott Street to the east and Divisadero Street to the west. Under this alternative, Mount Zion hospital on the main block would not be renovated to meet SB1953 requirements, nor would Moffitt Hospital. Ultimately these facilities would be decommissioned from inpatient use and either demolished or reprogrammed for other uses. No hospital facilities would be constructed at Mission Bay.

The various scenarios and alternatives, including the No Project/ No Action and No Project/ Action alternatives, analyzed in the 2005 EIR continue to be alternatives to the Project. For this Project EIR, additional alternatives were analyzed, as follows: Off-Site Helipad Alternatives; No

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 28 Helipad Alternative; and 4th Street Closed To Through Traffic (No 4th Street) Alternative

d) Off-Site Helipad Alternative

Under this alternative, the Project would be developed as proposed except that the helipad would be developed off-site. Two off-site locations in close proximity to the Project site are included in this analysis: Block 25 on the UCSF Mission Bay Research Campus; and on the Western end of 16th Street, either on land, or hypothetically, on a newly-constructed pier.

Block 25 is located on the 43-acre UCSF Mission Bay research campus, owned by the University. The site is directly across 16th Street from the project site, between 3rd and 4th Streets. The site currently contains surface parking and temporary offices of the UCSF Police Department. The LRDP, as amended, identifies Block 25 as future research space, although at this time there is no specific building proposal for this block. The South Plan Area site on the east side of 3rd Street (not part of the UCSF Mission Bay campus) is approved for a building of up to 160 feet in height. In order to meet FAA obstruction clearance requirements, a helipad on Block 25 would need to be constructed on the roof of a building on the site, at a height of approximately 140 feet, as in the Project. Patients would be transported by ambulance from Block 25 to the hospital.

The eastern end of 16th Street is intersected by Terry Francois Boulevard, and adjacent to the intersection is a swath of vacant land, owned by the Port of San Francisco, at the edge of the Bay where the condemned Pier 64 previously existed. There is no pier there currently, but the Port’s Waterfront Land Use Plan identifies the site as a future public open space. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a helipad on Port property at the end of 16th Street would be constructed on land at ground level or on a newly constructed pier. Patients would be transported by ambulance from the helipad to the hospital.

The Project would result in less than significant aesthetic and visual quality (light and glare) impacts in the LRDP Phase. The development of an off-site helipad would not substantially alter these conclusions. Development of a rooftop helipad, proposed on the northern portion of the Project site closest to the UCSF Mission Bay research site, would represent a small component of the Project and would have little effect on the overall visual quality and wind impacts of the Project. Thus, its absence from the Project site would have little consequence. On the other hand, development of a rooftop helipad on Block 25 instead of at the Project site would result in a greater visual quality impact in that it would result in a much taller building on Block 25 than currently planned.

Development of an off-site helipad at the end of 16th Street would require displacement of planned open space or the development of a pier to support the helipad. Developed open space does not exist there currently. Under this alternative, there would be no (or a minimal) structure other than a flat paved pad, lights, windcone, and potentially a new pier. While these features would have a somewhat negative effect on visual quality, they would be a small part of the overall visual landscape and would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site or its



PAGE 29

surroundings, have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, or adversely affect wind conditions.

The Project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts regarding criteria air pollutants. Similarly, development of a project with an off-site helipad also would result in significant unavoidable impacts on local air quality. This alternative, compared to the Project, would create equivalent air emissions from helicopter operations.

Like for the Project, development of an off-site helipad on Block 25 would similarly have a less than significant impact on land use and planning. Block 25 is part of the UCSF Mission Bay research campus, owned by the University. The UCSF Mission Bay Campus Master Plan and Design Guidelines call for an 85-foot-tall building on Block 25.

Any off-site helipad designed for routine use by a medical center must meet FAA criteria for obstruction clearance, and required permits must be obtained. Thus, as with the Project, it is anticipated that an off-site helipad location at Block 25 or at the end of 16th Street would have a similarly small risk to the public and that flight risk impacts would continue to be less than significant. In addition, an off-site helipad at the end of 16th Street would be slightly farther from existing research and office buildings and from residential uses south of the medical center site. The off-site alternative at the end of 16th Street would require low-level helicopter operations over the water, and aircraft performing these operations should have emergency flotation systems installed.

Development of an off-site helipad at the end of 16th Street on Port property would result in greater land use and planning impacts than the proposed on-site helipad. Use of property under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco is guided by the Waterfront Land Use Plan, which was adopted in 1997 by the Port Commission. The Port staff has indicated that a hospital helipad is not a Port-related use.

Development of an off-site helipad on the roof of a building on Block 25 would have similar noise impacts as for the proposed Medical Center at Mission Bay project. This alternative would result in significant and unavoidable construction noise, and operational noise would be, as with the Project, less than significant.

An off-site helipad at the end of 16th Street would be located about 500 yards east of the proposed helipad site, and thus would be slightly farther from existing residential uses south of the Project site. Under this alternative, construction of the medical center would continue to have significant unavoidable construction noise impacts.

Development of an off-site helipad would have no effect on transportation impacts. While an off-site helipad would result in more ambulance trips, the increased number of ambulance transports would be negligible.

Development of an off-site helipad at the end of 16th Street would require utility connections to

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 30 provide for lighting and any other necessary support facilities. Provision of such connections is not likely to result in a significant impact with regard to utilities.

UCSF believes that the off-site helipad alternatives are unacceptable because of additional risks to the patients being transported, compared to an on-site helipad. An off-site helipad would require a secondary transfer of patients from the helicopter to a ground ambulance and from the ground ambulance to the hospital, which adds time to the transport and delays potentially life-saving treatment. In addition, during such transfers, patients must be unhooked and rehooked to emergency medical devices, and there is the potential during maneuvers to dislodge medical tubes.

An off-site helipad alternative would not meet the Project Objectives to: continue to strengthen UCSF’s position as a leading patient care and health science center; accommodate helicopter access directly to the facility to accept hospital-to-hospital patient transfer; design facilities to incorporate an on-site helipad to facilitate inter-hospital transfers of pregnant women, newborns, infants, and children; locate the helipad so as to avoid transfers of patients from one mode of travel to another (i.e. helicopter to ambulance); and locate the helipad to meet the functional needs of the children’s hospital and emergency department and women’s hospital. Thus, an off-site helipad alternative is not feasible.

e) No Helipad Alternative

Under this alternative, the Project would be developed as proposed except that the helipad would not be constructed. A building height of 140 feet at the northernmost portion of the Outpatient Building to accommodate the helipad would not be necessary. Instead, the building height at this location would be 105 feet, the same as the rest of the Project.

The Project would result in less than significant aesthetic and visual quality (including light and glare) impacts in the LRDP Phase. In the Future Phase, the development of up to two pedestrian bridges spanning 4th Street to connect the eastern portion of the site to the western portion of the site would result in a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. The proposed curved alignment of this segment of 4th would terminate the view corridor; nonetheless, the introduction of bridges would alter views for a small segment of 4th Street, a designated view corridor under the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan. Regarding wind impacts, the Project would result in less than significant impacts on pedestrian-level wind speeds. The No Helipad Alternative would not affect this analysis.

The Project would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts regarding criteria air pollutants. Under this alternative, with no helicopter activity at the Project site, criteria air pollutant emissions would be incrementally less than with the Project, but still would be anticipated to be significant and unavoidable.

Under this alternative, helicopter/aeromedical flight safety risks resulting from the Project would be zero and would be less than significant, as with the Project.



PAGE 31

The Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with land use and planning. Under this alternative, land use and planning impacts would be less than significant, as with the Project.

The Project would result in significant noise impacts with regard to demolition and construction activities. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Noise impacts associated with helicopter operations were less than significant using the 24-hour CNEL metric. However, noise impacts associated with nighttime helicopter operations were significant using the SENEL metric for single-event noise. This determination is conservative for several reasons: (1) there are no Federal or State regulatory standards that establish significance criteria utilizing the SENEL metric; (2) only a few residential buildings located south of the Project site fall within the 95dB noise contour; and (3) the analysis does not account for the Project buildings that may shield noise from residential buildings south of the Project site. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure MCMB 5.4, the University intends to develop a Residential Sound Reduction Program that will undergo additional environmental project-level review prior to University approval of helicopter operations at the site.

This alternative would not involve construction of a helipad. Therefore, there would be no noise impacts from nighttime helicopter operations.

The No Helipad Alternative would have no effect on environmental impacts related to transportation.

Project impacts associated with utilities, energy, and service systems would be less than significant. This alternative would have no effect on this environmental topic.

UCSF believes the No Helipad Alternative to be unacceptable. Effectively, this alternative represents the status quo, in which UCSF uses the off-site helipad at San Francisco International Airport. As discussed in the Off-Site Helipad Alternatives, the off-site helipads are unacceptable because of additional risks to the patient being transported compared to an on-site helipad. An off-site helipad would require a secondary transfer of the patient from the helicopter to a ground ambulance and from the ground ambulance to the hospital, which adds time to the transport and delays potentially life-saving treatment. In addition, during such transfers, patients must be unhooked and rehooked to emergency medical devices, and there is the potential during maneuvers to dislodge medical tubes.

The No Helipad Alternative is not feasible because it will not advance the Project Objectives to: accommodate the core Hospital Replacement Program needs; strengthen UCSF’s position as a leading patient care and health science center; accommodate helicopter access directly to the facility to accept hospital-to-hospital patient transfer; design facilities to incorporate an on-site helipad to facilitate inter-hospital transfers of pregnant women, newborns, infants, and children; locate the helipad so as to avoid transfers of patients from one mode of travel to another (i.e. helicopter to ambulance); and locate the helipad to meet the functional needs of the children’s

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 32 hospital and emergency department and women’s hospital.

f) 4th Street Closed to Through Traffic

Under this alternative, the Medical Center at Mission Bay would be developed without building 4th Street through the site. Instead of carrying through traffic, the street right of way would be developed with two separate permanent loading/dropoff cul-de-sacs which would not connect to each other or to through traffic. Patient access would be provided from Mariposa Street, via the 4th Street right of way, to the Children’s, Women’s and Cancer hospitals and from 16th Street, via the 4th Street right of way, to the outpatient buildings. In the Future Phase under this alternative, the two pedestrian bridges would not be constructed. Instead, the medical center facilities on the east and west blocks would be connected with a connector building that would span two levels above ground across 4th Street (at levels 2 and 3), while maintaining north/south foot traffic and bicycle traffic at grade.

The Project would result in less than significant aesthetics and visual quality impacts in the LRDP Phase. In the Future Phase, the Medical Center at Mission Bay would result in less than significant impacts, including the obstruction of the 4th Street view corridor at the second and third-floor levels with two pedestrian bridges south of 16th Street spanning east to west across 4th Street. The Medical Center at Mission Bay would result in less than significant impacts on pedestrian-level wind speeds.

Under the No 4th Street Alternative, the aesthetics at the pedestrian level could be enhanced over the Medical Center at Mission Bay conditions because through traffic would not be accommodated and the street right of way could be developed with additional landscaping and plazas that would not be feasible with 4th Street open to through traffic. The No 4th Street Alternative will introduce a building that could block ground-level views, so this alternative may result in some visual impacts. This connector building that would terminate views south of 16th Street in a manner similar to the proposed project bridges. However, the 4th Street view corridor is already compromised by the existing configuration and the existing buildings in the neighborhood.

The Medical Center at Mission Bay would result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The No 4th Street Alternative would result in the same impacts as with the Medical Center at Mission Bay because there would be no substantial change in the physical facilities as compared to the Medical Center at Mission Bay and, therefore, the emissions from Project operations would be the same. Furthermore, there would be no changes to traffic volumes; therefore, traffic-related emissions would also be the same as with the Medical Center at Mission Bay.

The Medical Center at Mission Bay would result in a less than significant impact for flight safety risk. The No 4th Street Alternative would result in the same impacts as compared with the Medical Center at Mission Bay because there would be no difference in helicopter flight safety as compared to the Medical Center at Mission Bay.



PAGE 33

The Medical Center at Mission Bay would result in less than significant land use impacts. As described for the Medical Center at Mission Bay, the MOU between UCSF and the SFRA includes a scenario where, in the Future Phase, direct pedestrian access and/or utility system connections between structures on Blocks 36 and X3 to the east and structures on Blocks 38 and 39 to the west could be established. In the MOU, the parties agreed that UCSF may propose a dedicated means of connecting buildings under, on and/or over 4th Street, subject to approval by the required governmental agencies. However, in the case of the No 4th Street Alternative, the University would need to acquire the 4th Street right of way from the City and County of San Francisco, and obtain a variety of approvals from the SFRA, including an amendment of the Redevelopment Plan to remove 4th Street between 16th and Mariposa Street from the street grid.

The Medical Center at Mission Bay would result in significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts and significant operational noise impacts that would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. Helicopter noise would be less than significant using the CNEL noise metric, but significant using the SENEL noise metric. The No 4th Street Alternative would result in the same or similar impacts as compared with the Medical Center at Mission Bay because there would be no difference in helicopter operations as compared to the Medical Center at Mission Bay.

The No 4th Street Alternative would meet the Medical Center at Mission Bay’s primary objectives and is feasible. However, this alternative requires further negotiations with the City and SFRA. Additional details such as the exact street configurations and additional environmental mitigations would need to be determined. If negotiations with the City and SFRA result in an acceptable proposal, additional environmental analysis for the No 4th Street Alternative will also be necessary prior to Future Phase approval.

g) Environmentally Superior Alternative

The 2005 EIR analyzed, among other scenarios, a 400-bed hospital complex on the Mission Bay South site, the current project site. The 400-bed scenario was identified in the EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. The 400-bed scenario is similar to the Project which proposes a 289-bed facility in the LRDP Phase and a 251-bed facility in the Future Phase for a total of 550 beds (it can be concluded, as a result of the analysis in the EIR, the 550-bed facility would not result in more significant impacts compared to the 400-bed facility). This analysis remains valid.

Among the additional alternatives evaluated in the FEIR, compared to the Project, the No Helipad Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

H. Statement of Overriding Considerations

1. Impacts that Remain Significant

As discussed above, The Regents has found that the following impacts of the Project and the

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 34 Future Phase of the Medical Center at Mission Bay remain significant, either in whole or in part, following adoption and implementation of the Mitigation Measures described in the Final EIR:

Number Impact

MCMB.2-3b Operation of the Project facilities in the Future Phase would generate vehicular, stationary source and helicopter-related criteria pollutant emissions that would contribute to regional air pollution.

MCMB.2-6 Criteria air pollutant emissions generated from the construction and operation of the Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality.

MCMB.5-1 Demolition and construction activities associated with the Project would elevate noise levels in and around the project site, and particularly at nearby sensitive receptors. *

* This significant and unavoidable impact is temporary.

2. Overriding Considerations

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, The Regents has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, social, technological and other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are not mitigated to less-than-significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. This statement of overriding considerations is based on The Regents’ review of the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.

A. The Project proposes substantial environmental benefits by meeting the seismic requirements of Senate Bill 1953 and successive legislation to address exiting seismic safety concerns.

B. The Project, including the Future Phase, will provide replacement and expansion capacity to allow the decommissioning of Moffit Hospital by 2030.

C. The Project, including the Future Phase, will help meet the current and future space needs of the San Francisco campus for maintenance and growth by providing space to decommission seismically and functionally obsolescent facilities at the Mount Zion and Parnassus Heights sites, and by providing new space for existing meritorious programs and new programs.



PAGE 35

D. The Project will support the academic objectives of the San Francisco campus. UCSF is a nationally renowned academic medical center, and its continued success is dependent on the development of additional state-of-the-art facilities for supporting academic and research programs.

E. The Project will economically benefit San Francisco and nearby communities, as well as communities surrounding Mission Bay. The UCSF campus is a major source of employment for San Francisco and the Project will result in significantly increased employment opportunities.

F. The San Francisco campus is committed to excellence in the education of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals who will meet society's future health care needs. The campus has initiated many clinical programs and services through which the results of advanced biomedical research conducted by its faculty and researchers have found direct applications. The Project will introduce new standards of care, advanced technology, innovative programs, and clinical services for a wide spectrum of the population to San Francisco and surrounding communities.

G. The Project will respond to current inefficiencies resulting from operation of San Francisco campus facilities at several distant locations. By providing consolidated space at Mission Bay, the Project will achieve the greatest level of efficiency and safety for the campus, will allow the San Francisco campus to reduce the amount of space that it leases and thereby conserve scarce and dwindling University resources, and will allow the campus to fully and productively occupy existing University-owned facilities.

H. The Project will be the first step in accommodating the core Hospital Replacement Program needs of UCSF, including replacement and expansion capacity to allow the decommissioning of the hospital facilities at the Mount Zion site by 2013.

I. The design of the Project will be compatible with its physical surroundings in use, scale, and density.

J. The Project will contribute to the equitable citywide distribution of health care and emergency/trauma facilities, both routinely and during citywide emergencies and disasters.

K. The Project will create thousands of new jobs in the new Mission Bay neighborhood and provide new employment opportunities for the City’s residents.

L. The Project will meet the demands of emergency health care through its state-of-the art facilities.

3. Incorporation by Reference

MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY SAN FRANCISCO CAMPUS CEQA FINDINGS SEPTEMBER 2008 PAGE 36 The text of the LRDP, the LRDP FEIR, the LRDP Amendment #2, the 2005 EIR, the Mission Bay Subsequent EIR and the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the LRDP and the LRDP Amendment #2 are hereby incorporated into these Findings in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of associated significant unavoidable adverse impacts.

4. Record of Proceedings

Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which The Regents bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Most documents related to the Project are located in the UCSF Campus Planning Office, which is located at 3333 California Street, Suite 11 or Box 0286, San Francisco CA 94143-0286

5. Impacts on Wildlife, Filing Fee

The Regents hereby finds, upon consideration of the record as a whole, that the Project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources beyond those addressed in the LRDP Amendment #2, SCH #2004072067, certified by The Regents in March, 2005. As described in Section II, above, the Project would not alter the conclusions of the LRDP Amendment #2 concerning biological resources. The Department of Fish and Game issued a “Determination of No Effect.” The Project has been proposed in accordance with the LRDP Amendment #2, which describes the scope and nature of development proposed to meet the goals of UCSF through the academic year 2011/2012, as well as land use principles and policies to guide the location, scale and design of individual capital projects. The environmental impacts of the LRDP Amendment #2 were assessed in the 2005 EIR, which was certified by The Regents in the LRDP Amendment #2 Findings in March 2005.

6. Summary

A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the administrative record, The Regents has made one of more of the following Findings with respect to the significant environmental effects of the Projects:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations that are wholly or partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other public agency.



PAGE 37

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the Project.

B. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is hereby determined that:

1. All significant effects on the environment due to approval of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.

2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section II.F, above.

III. APPROVALS

The Regents hereby takes the following actions:

A. The Regents hereby certifies the Final EIR for the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay, as described in Section I, above.

B. The Regents hereby adopts the Findings in their entirety as set forth in Section II, above, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

C. The Regents hereby adopts as conditions of approval of the Project all Mitigation Measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the University set forth in Section II.B of the Findings, above.

D. The Regents hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project accompanying the Final EIR and discussed in Section II.D of the Findings, above.

E. Having certified the Final EIR, independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR, incorporated Mitigation Measures into the Project, and adopted the foregoing Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, The Regents hereby approves the design of the Project.

F. The Regents hereby amends the 1996 Long Range Development Plan, Mission Bay: Functional Zones, Figure 16, to expand the boundary of the Mission Bay campus site to include the 14.52-acre Mission Bay south site, thus increasing the Mission Bay campus site from 42.35 acres to 56.87 acres as shown in Attachment 2.


G. The Regents hereby amends the 1996 Long Range Development Plan, Mission Bay: Functional Zones, Figure 16, to adopt changes to the functional zone map for the Mission Bay site, as shown in Attachment 2.

H. The Regents hereby amends the 1996 Long Range Development Plan Table 29A: Mission Bay Proposed Space Profile to expand the space program profile to include the Medical Center program, thus increasing the Mission Bay campus program to 4,437,000 gross square feet as shown in Attachment 3.

I. The Regents hereby amends the 1996 Long Range Development Plan to update Chapter 6, Major New Site at Mission Bay, to describe the expansion of the existing Mission Bay campus site and the designated use of the expanded site for clinical care.

california environmental quality act findings in...

Documents