ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR FOR CITY COLLEGE OF SAN … greenhouse addendum.pdfGreenhouse Site Short-term use/construction mitigation project Addendum City College of San Francisco 2 October

Greenhouse Site Short-term use/construction mitigation project AddendumCity College of San Francisco 1 October 2004

ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR FOR CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCSICO MASTER PLAN:GREENHOUSE SITE SHORT-TERM USE/CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROJECT

1. Project Title

Greenhouse Site Short-Term Use/Construction Mitigation Project

2. Lead Agency

City College of San FranciscoAdministrative Offices33 Gough StreetSan Francisco, CA 94103Attn: Peter Goldstein

3. Preparers of the Addendum

Impact Sciences2101 Webster Street, Suite 1825Oakland, CA 94612Attn: Arlyn Purcell

4. Project Location and Setting

The project site is located in the south-central area of the City of San Francisco, just outsidethe northeastern edge of the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Main (Ocean Avenue)Campus. The site is on the northeast corner of the intersection of Havelock Street and thenorthern extension of West Road, an internal CCSF road that provides access to the CCSFstadium and gymnasiums (refer to Figure 1, Project Location).

The project site covers 37,050 square feet and is developed with greenhouses and associatedstructures. The greenhouses are oriented east-west and are constructed with plywood sidesand either corrugated tin or fiberglass roofs. The associated structures are in thesoutheastern corner of the site and consist of two one-story buildings and a larger two-storyhome. The only other features on the site are a fence on the southeastern edge and a line ofsmall shrubs along the western boundary of the site. There are no trees on the site. The siteis flat, although West Road slopes up from south to north along the site’s western edge,creating a difference in grade between the road and the site.

The Generalized Residential Land Use Plan Map in the Residence Element of the SanFrancisco General Plan (adopted 1990) designates the site as residential land use (Source 1).The site is zoned for RH-1 District (Residential, House Districts, One-Family), and theother uses within the District are almost entirely single-family houses (Sources 2 and 3).

The site is north of (across Havelock Street from) tennis courts (owned by the San FranciscoRecreation and Park Department and maintained by CCSF) and the North Gym, and is eastof (across West Road from) classroom bungalows, a parking lot, and the campus’ childcarecenter. These areas are all in the P (Public Use) zoning district. The backyards of single-family homes directly abut the project site to the north and east. These homes and the areasof small-scale, single-family homes further to the north and east are all in the RH-1 zoningdistrict.


5. Project Description

This project would involve acquisition of the project site and the temporary re-use of the siteas part of the construction plan adopted as mitigation for the CCSF Master Plan (describedbelow). The existing structures on the site would be dismantled and removed as part of theproposed project. The shrubs along the western boundary of the site and the fencing alongthe southeast edge would be removed. Preparing the site for use would require minor gradingand some excavation for the installation of an underground electrical line. In addition, CCSFwould remediate soil contamination on the site in accordance with all applicable federal,state, and local regulations, by either removing the contaminated soil and disposing of it a tan accepted landfill, or capping the contaminated area. Once the site has been cleared andgraded, the site would be covered with six inches of crushed rock from a local quarry. Accessto the site would be provided from Havelock Street only. Total demolition and sitepreparation activities would take no more than 15 to 17 days, over a span of approximatelyone month.

A specific long-term use for the site has not been determined, and the approved CCSF MasterPlan (described below) does not include long-term planning for the site. Potential near-term,temporary uses on the site include (1) one or more one-story portableclassroom/administration buildings, (2) an unpaved parking lot to offset constructionparking, and/or (3) storage of landscaping materials. It is possible that all three uses wouldoccur simultaneously. Regardless of use, the site would be lit for security purposes; low-profile lighting would be used with cut-off features to minimize spillover.

Use of the lot as parking would serve to offset parking lost in D Lot and the maintenanceshop parking lot, as these lots would be used for construction parking for the Master Plannear-term projects. In this manner, the project implements the Master Plan by providing atemporary offset or overflow area during construction. Parking on site would serve as part ofthe construction traffic and parking program discussed in the Master Plan EIR. Parking onthe site would require a permit and the lot would be closed after construction workers haveleft each day. Once construction of the near-term projects on the Main Campus is complete(expected by the end of 2006), no parking or other uses would be allowed on the site. Anylong-term uses on the site would require a separate approval and the associatedenvironmental review.

Several features have been incorporated into the proposed project to minimize potentialenvironmental impacts. These features are listed as measures at the back of this Addendum,and include:

• Construction dust controls;• Construction archaeological monitoring provisions;• Construction erosion controls;• Remediation of site contamination;• Construction noise controls; and• Construction/transportation plan.

Except for the construction/transportation plan, all of these project features are based on(and are consistent with) mitigation measures identified in the Master Plan EIR andadopted by CCSF. The construction/transportation plan was proposed by CCSF as part ofthe Master Plan, and is noted on p. 4.3-32 of the Master Plan EIR. CCSF has committed toimplementing all of these features as part of the proposed greenhouse project. (Source: 4)


[Figure 1- Project Location]


This page left blank intentionally.


6. CEQA Review

On June 10, 2004, the CCSF Board of Trustees certified the Final EIR for the CCSF MasterPlan. The EIR analyzed the environmental impacts related to approval andimplementation of a Master Plan for the long-term development of the CCSF campuses. TheEIR focused on the Main Campus and included construction of a Community Wellness Centerand related near-term projects, construction of other projects identified in the College's 2001bond measure, and possible implementation of other projects identified in a 2015 buildingprogram for Main Campus facilities.

The CCSF Master Plan approvals provided for implementation of a construction plan toaddress construction-related traffic and to minimize the loss of parking spaces associatedwith construction of the Master Plan near term projects (Master Plan DEIR 4.3-22). ThisGreenhouse project is part of Master Plan implementation but was not specifically analyzedin the Master Plan.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) recognizes that after an EIR for a projectis certified changes or additions to the project may be proposed. A supplemental orsubsequent EIR should be prepared if such changes require major revision of the existing EIRdue to the involvement of new or substantially increased significant environmental effects,or the possibility that impacts of the project could be lessened by new or previouslyinfeasible mitigation measures that the project proponent refuses to adopt. (14 CaliforniaCode of Regulations § 15162 (CEQA Guidelines)). However, if post-certification changes donot result in new or more severe significant impacts, an Addendum to the existing EIR may beprepared instead, stating these conclusions. CEQA Guidelines § 15164.

This Addendum, organized in the same format as the CEQA Guidelines initial studychecklist, evaluates the Greenhouse project and concludes that nothing triggers the need fora supplemental or subsequent EIR. Based on the professional traffic studies and substantialanalysis of potential impacts described below, it is determined that the Greenhouse SiteShort-Term Use/Construction Mitigation Project would not create any new or significantenvironmental impacts that were not already evaluated in the certified EIR, nor would i tmake previously identified significant impacts more severe. Likewise, no new informationhas been presented suggesting new mitigation measures that would substantially reduce theproject’s significant impacts that the project proponent has been unwilling to adopt. As aresult, preparation of this Addendum to the Master Plan EIR is appropriate and satisfiesthe District’s obligations under CEQA as the lead agency.

The approach to this type of document is based on a comparison to the approved Master Planand the Master Plan EIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. For each potentialenvironmental impact, the Addendum will consider the following questions from CEQAGuidelines Section 15162:

• Would this project change the Master Plan in such a way that would result in a newsignificant impact, or a substantial increase in a significant impact identified in theMaster Plan EIR?

• Have there been changes in circumstances since the preparation of the Master PlanEIR that would result in a new significant impact, or a substantial increase in asignificant impact identified in the Master Plan EIR?

• Has new information come to light since the preparation of the Master Plan EIRthat would result in a new significant impact, or a substantial increase in asignificant impact identified in the Master Plan EIR?


This document uses the CEQA Guidelines Checklist to address the potential environmentalimpacts of the proposed project. To the extent that criteria of the City and County of SanFrancisco (the City’s Initial Study Checklist) differ from Appendix G, those criteria will bereferenced.

7. Approvals required:

ß Board of Trustees Approval – The City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees mustdecide whether to approve the acquisition and short-term use of the greenhouse site.The Board of Trustees must consider the Master Plan EIR and this Addendum, along withany comments received, prior to approving the proposed project.

ß City and County of San Francisco, Conditional Use Permit - In residential areas,temporary uses, such as temporary structures and uses incidental to the construction of agroup of buildings on the same or adjacent premises, may be authorized for no more thantwo years (San Francisco Planning Code, Section 205.2). Such uses require the approvalof the San Francisco Planning Commission and are subject to all the requirements forconditional uses as outlined in the San Francisco Planning Code, Section 303. Therefore,development of any of the uses on the site as temporary uses would require a conditionaluse permit.

DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

New or Increased Impact Potentially Significant (Potentially Significant):

A significant environmental impact that was not previously identified or is greater than the impactidentified in the Program EIR.

New or Increased Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (LTS with Mitigation):

A significant environmental impact that was not previously identified or is greater than the impactidentified in the Program EIR and can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, through adoption ofmitigation measures.

Less Than Significant New or Increased Impact (LTS):

An environmental impact that was not previously identified or is greater than the impact identified in theProgram EIR but is less than significant.

No New or Increased Impact (No Impact):

An environmental impact that was either not previously identified in the Program EIR but simply does notapply to the project, or is an environmental impact that was previously identified in the Program EIR but wasfound to: 1) not apply to the project; 2) be less than significant; or 3) be less than significant with mitigationthat would be applied to the project.


1. AESTHETICS - Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

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

M a s t e r P l a n E I R

According to the Master Plan EIR, development of the Master Plan would not result in significant impacts onscenic views.

P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t

Given the project site’s location and the fact that no structure on the project site would be more than one-storytall, development of the site with any of the proposed uses would not result in the alteration of any scenicviews. Thus, as was concluded in the Master Plan EIR, project impacts related to substantial adverse effects ona scenic vista would be less than significant. The project would not result in any new or increased impactsrelated to this issue.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but notlimited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildingswithin a state scenic highway?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, the potential impacts to mature trees as a scenic resource from developmentof the Master Plan would be significant. The Master Plan EIR included mitigation measures aimed a tminimizing impacts to mature trees found on the Main Campus. Implementation of these mitigation measureswould reduce the potential impacts to trees as a scenic resource to a less-than-significant level. Other visualfeatures on the campus would not be negatively affected by Master Plan buildout.

Proposed Project

No trees or other scenic resource are located on the project site. In addition the project site is not near a statescenic highway. The project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue.

Source: 5.

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

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR concluded that the general effect of Master Plan buildout would be to extend the massand scale of campus buildings to the west of Phelan Avenue. The resulting visual character could also beperceived as less open, more built-up, and larger scale. Despite implementation of mitigation measures aimedat reducing the perceived scale of Master Plan structures, the potential impact to visual character wouldremain significant.

Proposed Project

The project site is completely developed with six greenhouses and three buildings. In addition, portablebuildings and a parking lot are located across West Road to the west and a parking lot (N-Lot) is locatedacross Havelock Street to the south. If the site were used for one or more one-story portableclassroom/administrative buildings, these structures would be of similar scale to the existing structures, butthe reduction in the number of structures would allow for more open area on the site. Using the site as anunpaved parking lot or as a landscaping storage area would further reduce both the scale and built-up natureof the site uses. Although it is possible that some residents would not consider a gravel lot, parked cars,landscaping storage, and portable structures an improvement over the visual character of the area, these useswould be similar in scale and type to present uses found to the west and south of the site. As a result,conversion of the site would not represent a substantial degradation of the visual character of the projectvicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant new or increased impacts relatedto visual character.


of the site uses. Although it is possible that some residents would not consider a gravel lot, parked cars,landscaping storage, and portable structures an improvement over the visual character of the area, these useswould be similar in scale and type to present uses found to the west and south of the site. As a result,conversion of the site would not represent a substantial degradation of the visual character of the projectvicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant new or increased impacts relatedto visual character.

Source: 5

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

Master Plan EIR

The area of the campus is urban and already has numerous lighting sources. As such, the Master Plan EIRconcluded that the visual impacts associated with the introduction of and increase in light sources wereconsidered less than significant.

Proposed Project

All of the proposed uses of the site would create new sources of light and glare. Specifically, all uses wouldrequire lighting of the site for security purposes. Use as a parking lot could introduce light and glare issuesassociated with car headlights. As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the visual impacts associated with theintroduction of and increase in light sources are considered less than significant as a result of the urban natureof the campus, the existing sources of light and glare, and the variation in topography of the area (the housesto the north of the site are at a higher elevation than the site). In addition, these impacts would beminimized through the proposed installation of low-profile lighting with cut-off features meant to reducelighting spillover onto adjacent properties. As such, the impacts related to light and glare would be less thansignificant and consistent with the impacts identified in the Master Plan EIR.

2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES – In determiningwhether impacts to agricultural resources are significantenvironmental effects, lead agencies may refer to theCalifornia Agricultural Land Evaluation and SiteAssessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessingimpacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:

PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlandof Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the mapsprepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping andMonitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, tonon-agricultural use?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR concluded that the CCSF Main Campus is completely developed and is surrounded byurban uses. There would be no impacts to farmlands due to the proposed project.

Proposed Project

The greenhouses are currently being rented for the growing of various species of orchids. Although thisactivity is agricultural in nature, it is being carried out indoors. In addition, the site is zoned RH-1(Residential, House Districts, One-Family) and is surrounded by urban uses. Therefore, as was concluded inthe Master Plan EIR, there would be no impacts to farmlands due to the proposed project.


the Master Plan EIR, there would be no impacts to farmlands due to the proposed project.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aWilliamson Act contract?

See response to 2a. The project site is zoned RH-1 (Residential, House Districts, One-Family).

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

See response to 2a.

3. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significancecriteria established by the applicable air qualitymanagement or air pollution control district may be reliedupon to make the following determinations. Would t h eproject:


LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of theapplicable air quality plan?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, during the construction phase of development of individual Main CampusMaster Plan projects, emissions would be generated by on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty constructionvehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use. In addition, fugitive dust would be generated duringgrading and construction activities. Although much of this airborne dust would settle out on, or near, theindividual project sites, smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing existing particulatelevels within the surrounding area. Although the project’s construction-related emissions would be temporaryin duration, in the absence of control measures, they could be substantial. The Master Plan EIR includes theBay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) dust control mitigation measures. The Master PlanEIR concludes that implementation of these measures would reduce construction-related air quality impacts toa less-than-significant level.

With Master Plan buildout, the project operational emissions would exceed the BAAQMD-recommendedthresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG) and particulate matter (PM10). CCSF is committed toimplementation of a transportation demand management (TDM) program. Nevertheless, sinceimplementation of all of the TDM measures is not guaranteed and the exact effectiveness is not known at thistime, the air quality impacts from operational emissions are considered significant after mitigation.

Proposed Project

As with Master Plan development, the construction phase of the project would generate emissions from on-sitestationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use. Fugitivedust associated with the project would be expected to be minimal as the proposed project would require gradingonly as needed to prepare the site for the gravel layer, and earthwork would be needed only to installunderground electric lines and remediate the site soil contamination. However, the project would result inconstruction-phase emissions similar to those discussed in, but not specifically accounted for in the Master PlanEIR. To minimize emissions related to construction activities, CCSF would incorporate into the Greenhouseproject the dust control measures adopted as part of the Master Plan in accordance to the BAAQMD CEQAGuidelines (these measures are listed at the end of this document). Implementation of these measures wouldensure that air quality impacts during construction would be less than significant.


Operational emissions are composed of direct emissions (i.e., on-site stationary sources such as emergencygenerators or boilers) and indirect emissions (i.e., mobile sources that access the site but generally emit off-site). None of the proposed uses of the site would include any on-site stationary sources of emissions. Instead,the primary sources of operational emissions would be from motor vehicles. The traffic that would begenerated by development of the site as a parking lot has been accounted for in the EIR analysis for the MasterPlan, as this parking lot would be used to offset the parking lost in Lot D and the maintenance shop parkinglot during construction. Given the limited size and proposed temporary uses of the site, any traffic that maybe associated with use of the site for portable building(s) or landscaping storage would be minimal (e.g., oneset of trips each to deliver or pick up plant materials during the entire period of site use). The emissionsassociated with this small amount of traffic would not exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds for either operationalemissions or localized carbon monoxide concentrations, and would not add substantially to the emissionsresulting from the Master Plan. Therefore, operation-related air quality impacts associated withdevelopment of the project site would be less than significant. The proposed project would not result in anynew or increased impacts related to this issue.

b) Violate any air quality standard or contributesubstantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation?

See response to 3a.

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

Master Plan EIR

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant a irquality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. As noted in theMaster Plan EIR, the Master Plan would exceed the BAAQMD-recommended operational emissionsthresholds for individual projects, and thus the cumulative air quality impacts would be consideredsignificant.

Proposed Project

As noted previously, the emissions related to the proposed project have already been addressed by the MasterPlan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of anycriteria pollutant, relative to what was studied in the Master Plan EIR. The proposed project would not resultin any new or increased impacts related to this issue.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan, in the vicinity of the Main Campus, sensitive air quality receptors includeresidential areas to the west of the Balboa Reservoir and across Judson Avenue, Havelock Street, and OceanAvenue; Balboa Park across I-280; and two private high schools adjacent to the campus.

Proposed Project

Sensitive receptors in the project site area include the residential areas to the north and east of the projectsite. As noted in the response to 3a, the emissions related to the proposed project have already been addressedby the Master Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial increase inpollutant concentrations, relative to what was studied in the Master Plan EIR. The proposed project would notresult in any new or increased impacts related to this issue.


result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial numberof people?Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the uses proposed as part of the Maser Plan would not be substantial sourcesof odor.

Proposed Project

The uses proposed for the site are not uses identified by the BAAQMD as uses that typically result insignificant odor impacts.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS Noimpact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough habitat modifications, on any species identified asa candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local orregional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and WildlifeService?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR found that depending on the number and extent of nests on the campus that may bedisturbed or removed and the rarity of the species affected, the loss of active nests from tree removal relatedto the Master Plan could be a significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures to avoid impacts toexisting bird nests would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Proposed Project

The project site is almost completely covered with buildings and pavement. A small, disturbed area of shrubsand open ground bounds the western end of the site. This area does not have the characteristics to support anycandidate, sensitive, or special status species. Furthermore, there are no trees on the project site.

Source: 5

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparianhabitat or other sensitive natural community identified inlocal or regional plans, policies, or regulations by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish andWildlife Service?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, the Main Campus is completely developed, does not contain any riparianhabitat, and is not identified in any adopted plans as having sensitive natural communities.

Proposed Project

The project site is completely developed and does not contain any riparian habitat, and is not identified inany adopted plans as having sensitive natural communities.

Source: 5


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

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, the Main Campus is completely developed and there are no wetlands on thecampus.

Proposed Project

The project site is completely developed and does not contain any wetlands.

Source: 5

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

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR noted that the campus does not provide any wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites.

Proposed Project

The project site is completely developed and is within a highly urban area, and thus is not part of a wildlifecorridor. No further discussion is necessary.

Source: 5

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protectingbiological resources, such as a tree preservation policy orordinance?

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan, because of the urbanized nature of the campus and surrounding area, there are noimpacts with respect to biological resources protected by local policies except for the trees that would beremoved for construction reasons. Implementation of mitigation measures to minimize tree removal andreplace trees that are removed (noted under Aesthetics, above) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Proposed Project

There are no trees or significant biological resources on the project site. .

Source: 5

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, or state habitatconservation plan?Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR noted that there are no adopted habitat conservation plans that apply to the MainCampus.


Campus.

Proposed Project

The project site is completely developed and there are no adopted habitat conservation plans that apply tothe area.

Source: 5

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in §15064.5?Master Plan EIR

None of the identified historic resources on the campus would be affected by proposed building demolition.Although the Master Plan EIR concluded that the Creative and Visual Arts Complex buildings were notconsidered “historic resources” (at the time the EIR was written), they could be considered historic resourcesby they time they are renovated as part of the Master Plan. If the complex proves to be an historic resourceupon the time of renovation, implementation of mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the Secretaryof Interior’s Standards would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Proposed Project

A review of aerial photographs and Sanborn maps conducted for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessmentfound that greenhouses have occupied the majority of the project site since about 1915. Although the Phase Idid not determine the age of any structures on the site, the current owner of the property indicated in aninterview conducted for the Phase I that all of the structures were on the property when he purchased the sitein 1971 and that the two-story dwelling was reportedly built in 1901. However, observations of the exteriorand interior of the two-story building indicate that the building has been altered and that it does not appearto have any outstanding architectural features. Based on the research conducted for the Master Plan EIR,there is no other evidence to indicate that any of these structures would be considered significant historicresources.

Source: 6

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofan archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?


The Master Plan EIR found that the general area of the campus has a moderate sensitivity to prehistoricresources. Unknown archaeological deposits could be discovered during construction activities and parts of thecampus could contain historic archaeological features and artifacts associated with the early history of CCSFor earlier structures on the site. Depending on the nature of the resource, disturbance of unknown deposits couldbe a significant impact. Mitigation measures to avoid any potentially significant adverse effects from MasterPlan development on buried or submerged cultural resources include – (1) Archaeological Testing Program, (2)Archaeological Monitoring Program, (3) Archaeological Data Recovery Program, (4) Human Remains andAssociated or Unassociated Funerary Objects, and (5) Final Archaeological Resources Report. Implementationof these measures would reduce the potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significantlevel.

Proposed Project

The project would involve minor land disturbance on a small parcel immediately adjacent to the campus.Proposed excavation includes only trenching to install electrical lines and soil removal or capping to addresssite contamination. Although the amount of disturbance would be small, there would still be a possibility offinding buried resources, given that the general area of the campus has a moderate sensitivity to prehistoricresources. The project therefore incorporates the same measures to avoid any potentially significant adverseeffects on buried or submerged cultural resources adopted as part of the Master Plan. (These measures arelisted at the end of the document.) Incorporation of these measures will ensure that the potential impact toarchaeological resources is less than significant.


Proposed excavation includes only trenching to install electrical lines and soil removal or capping to addresssite contamination. Although the amount of disturbance would be small, there would still be a possibility offinding buried resources, given that the general area of the campus has a moderate sensitivity to prehistoricresources. The project therefore incorporates the same measures to avoid any potentially significant adverseeffects on buried or submerged cultural resources adopted as part of the Master Plan. (These measures arelisted at the end of the document.) Incorporation of these measures will ensure that the potential impact toarchaeological resources is less than significant.

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

Master Plan EIR

As explained in the Master Plan EIR, a records search indicated that no paleontological finds have been madein the geologic units that underlie the campus (within or near the project area); therefore, impacts to uniquepaleontological resources were not analyzed further.

Proposed Project

As noted in the Master Plan, no paleontological finds have been made in the geologic units underlying thecampus. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, given the proximity of the project site to the campus, thereare no unique paleontological resources underlying the project site.

Source: 6

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interredoutside of formal cemeteries?

See response to 5b.

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS- Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantialadverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving:i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated onthe most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ZoningMap issued by the State Geologist for the area or based onother substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer toDivision of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Master Plan EIR

As stated in the Master Plan EIR, no active faults cross the Main Campus and the campus is not within anEarthquake Fault Zone; therefore, the potential for ground rupture is low.

Proposed Project

There are no active faults across the project site and it is not within a fault zone.

Source: 7


ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, given compliance with all State requirements, including adherence to theCalifornia Building Code, Master Plan buildout would not expose people or structures to substantial adverseeffects involving seismic ground shaking.

Proposed Project

According to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the project site is underlain by the Colma Formation(similar to parts of the CCSF Main Campus). Similar to the campus, the project site would be exposed toground shaking during an earthquake. Conversion of the site to a parking lot or storage would not involve thepresence of structures or extended use of the site by people. If one or more portable buildings were installed onthe site, the buildings would be existing portables that would be moved to the site from nearby locations onthe CCSF campus. Thus, any exposure to ground shaking would be transferred from the current location(s) ofthe portable buildings to the proposed project site, and the hazard would be similar. In addition, theportables would be used on the site for a short time. The proposed project would facilitate the replacement ofexisting buildings (including the portables) with new structures that would be constructed in conformance withthe latest seismic requirements. Therefore, as with development of the Master Plan, conversion of the projectsite would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR noted that geotechnical studies indicate the potential for liquefaction at the site of theCommunity Health & Wellness Center and in the one remaining area of the embankments of the reservoir –the external embankment on the west side. In the absence of specific design information for development onthe reservoir and without conclusive information regarding hazard potential, the potential effects involvingliquefaction are considered to be significant. The Master Plan EIR indicates that CCSF will conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation of each building project prior to construction and will implement a l lfeasible measures identified in the geotechnical investigation to avoid or minimize liquefaction potential.Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the potential impacts resulting from liquefaction to a less-than-significant level.

Proposed Project

A Phase II environmental site assessment conducted for the site included soil borings to examine the subsurfacesoil conditions on the site. According to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the project site isunderlain by the Colma Formation (similar to parts of the CCSF Main Campus). Soil borings conducted for thePhase II found loose fine silty sand, medium-dense fine sand, and medium dense clayey sand, consistent withthe Colma Formation characteristics. (Test pits found occasional glass shards and brick fragments, but theseitems were within the first 6 inches to 1 foot below the surface.) Groundwater was not encountered in the soilborings. For those reasons, the potential for liquefaction at the site would be low.

Source: 6

iv) Landslides?

Master Plan EIR

Geotechnical studies completed for the Main Campus indicate that the campus is not mapped within an areasusceptible to seismically-induced landsliding. As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the non-engineered conditionof the fill slopes south of the Lath House suggests that they may be susceptible to failure. Failure could alsobe induced by improper grading. For these reasons, Master Plan development could expose people or structuresto substantial adverse hazards related to slope failure; the potential impacts are significant for the site as awhole. The Master Plan EIR indicates that CCSF will conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation ofeach building project prior to construction and will implement all feasible measures identified in thegeotechnical investigation to avoid or minimize slope failure potential. Implementation of this mitigationwould reduce potential slope failure impacts to a less- than-significant level.


whole. The Master Plan EIR indicates that CCSF will conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation ofeach building project prior to construction and will implement all feasible measures identified in thegeotechnical investigation to avoid or minimize slope failure potential. Implementation of this mitigationwould reduce potential slope failure impacts to a less- than-significant level.

Proposed Project

The project site is flat. Although there is a minor grade difference between the project site and West Road aswell as a hill north of the site that is developed with houses, development of the project would requireminimal grading and would not include disturbance of any slopes. In addition, any potential threat oflandslides to people or structures would be minimized by the fact that any portable structure(s) that would beplaced on the site would be temporary and that none of the other proposed uses of the site would involveoccupancy by people. Therefore, the impact from landslides would be less than significant.

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

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, during the construction phase of individual Main Campus projects,construction activities would disturb or remove existing vegetation, thereby increasing potential erosion fromcertain parts of the campus. Under current site conditions, the potential for ongoing erosion is high. Thepotential impacts related to erosion, including construction erosion and ongoing erosion, would be significant.Mitigation identified includes development of an erosion control plan and the dust control measures identifiedto control construction emissions. Implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce theidentified significant impact to a less-than-significant level.

Proposed Project

The proposed project includes minimal grading to prepare the site for laying gravel, earthwork only to installelectrical lines and remediate site soil contamination, and removal of a strip of vegetation along the site’swestern boundary. Similar to what was described in the Master Plan EIR, construction activities on the sitecould expose soils to erosion and loss of topsoil. However, the proposed project incorporates measures adoptedas part of the Master Plan (as described above and included in the end of this document) that would ensurethat impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil are less than significant.

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

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan, the geotechnical investigation of the campus found no issues related to unstablegeologic units or soils beyond those impacts discussed in other sections. For a discussion of landslide impacts,see response to 6aiv. For a discussion of liquefaction impacts, see response to 6aiii. The Master Plan EIR didnot identify any other impacts related to unstable soils.

Proposed Project

Investigation of the site reveals that the soil site conditions are similar to those within the Main Campus.Therefore, the proposed project will not result in additional or a substantial increase in significant impacts.

Source: 7


d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-Bof the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantialrisks to life or property?Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, given the presence of expansive soils (including clayey soil withincolluvium, Colma Formation sediments and fill at the Main Campus) and bedrock that may be locallyexpansive, the potential impact from expansive soils would be significant.

Proposed Project

The project site conditions are similar to those within the Main Campus; therefore, expansive soils could bepresent. However, the project would not create substantial risks to life or property. People using the site forparking and landscaping storage would occupy the site for short periods of time. Portable buildings installedon the site would be transferred from their existing locations on the campus and the use of the buildings wouldbe similar to their current use on the campus. For those reasons, the potential impacts related to expansivesoils would be less than significant.

Source: 8

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ofseptic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systemswhere sewers are not available for the disposal ofwastewater?

Master Plan EIR

As discussed in the Master Plan EIR, the Main Campus is already connected to the City wastewater systemand additional development on the campus would connect to the system; therefore, there would be no impactsrelated to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Proposed Project

The proposed project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Wouldthe project:


LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through the routine transport, use, or disposalof hazardous materials?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would result in the use, transport, anddisposal of hazardous materials similar to what is already in existence and which are already governed byestablished programs and procedures. Therefore, the Master Plan would not create a significant hazard to thepublic or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Proposed Project

The project would involve temporary use of the site for parking, storage of landscaping materials, and one ormore portable classrooms. These uses typically do not involve hazardous materials. Any type oftransportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with the proposed project would be of asimilar nature to those already used during activities that currently exist on the campus and would begoverned by the same established programs and procedures. Therefore, the proposed project would not resultin any new or increased impacts related to this issue.


governed by the same established programs and procedures. Therefore, the proposed project would not resultin any new or increased impacts related to this issue.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through reasonably foreseeable upset andaccident conditions involving the release of hazardousmaterials into the environment?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan concluded that given the nature, volume, and use of the materials associated withdevelopment of the Master Plan, the project would not raise significant issues with respect to upset conditionsor the handling of acutely hazardous materials.

Proposed Project

The project would involve temporary use of the site for parking, storage of landscaping materials, and one ormore portable classrooms. These uses typically do not involve hazardous materials. If there were hazardousmaterials involved, the nature, volume, and use of the materials associated with the proposed project wouldbe of a similar nature to those already used during activities that currently exist on the campus. The proposedproject would not raise significant issues with respect to upset conditions or the handling of acutely hazardousmaterials. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to thisissue.

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

See response to 7b.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ofhazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GovernmentCode Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create asignificant hazard to the public or the environment?


According to the Master Plan, implementation of the proposed Master Plan could result in the exposure ofconstruction workers, students, faculty, staff, and visitors to sources of contamination, including exposure tohazardous building materials (such as asbestos, lead-based paint) and to soil and groundwater contamination.Implementation of mitigation measures aimed at identifying, remediating, and removing hazardousmaterials would reduce impacts associated with soil and groundwater contamination to a less-than-significant level.

P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t

The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government CodeSection 65962.5. However, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment revealed evidence of elevated levels ofthe heavy metals arsenic, lead, and chromium as well as the pesticide Dieldrin in the soil inside thegreenhouses. No groundwater was encountered during the Phase II investigation. CCSF conducted additionaltesting to determine the appropriate course of action.

In order to protect construction workers who could encounter contaminated soils, (primarily during excavationof the trench for the electrical line) and future users of the site including students, faculty, staff, and visitorsfrom potential exposure to soil contamination, the proposed project includes remediation in accordance withthe standards, regulations, and determinations of local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Specifically,CCSF would either remove the upper one foot of topsoil and dispose of it in an appropriate Class I or Class I Ilandfill, or would cap the contaminated soil on site with a clean soil barrier. These proposed actions, whichreflect the adopted Measures Hazards-2a and –2b from the Master Plan EIR, are incorporated into theproposed project and included at the back of this document. Incorporation of these measures would ensure tha timpacts from soil contamination and hazardous materials are less than significant.


landfill, or would cap the contaminated soil on site with a clean soil barrier. These proposed actions, whichreflect the adopted Measures Hazards-2a and –2b from the Master Plan EIR, are incorporated into theproposed project and included at the back of this document. Incorporation of these measures would ensure tha timpacts from soil contamination and hazardous materials are less than significant.

Source: 8, 9, 10

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

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan noted that the Main Campus is not within an airport land use plan area or near a privateairstrip.

Proposed Project

The project site is not within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of an airport or airstrip.

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

See response to 7e.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere withan adopted emergency response plan or emergencyevacuation plan?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, as part of implementation of the Master Plan, CCSF would update itsadopted emergency response and evacuation plans to reflect the proposed uses.

Proposed Project

This project would be part of Master Plan implementation and CCSF’s update of its emergency response andevacuation plans would include the proposed project.

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


As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the Main Campus is in a completely urbanized area and is not on or adjacentto wildlands.

Proposed Project

The project site is in a completely urbanized area and is not on or adjacent to wildlands. Therefore, there areno hazards related to wildland fires.


8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Would theproject:


LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischargerequirements?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan, the uses anticipated within the campus would be similar to existing uses andwould not create effluent discharges from a point source. CCSF would comply with all state and federalregulations related to non-point discharges. Therefore, the project would not violate any waste dischargerequirements.

Proposed Project

The proposed project would involve temporary use of the site for parking, storage of landscaping materials,and one or more portable classrooms. These uses would be similar to existing uses on the campus and would notcreate effluent discharges from a point source. As with implementation of the Master Plan, the project wouldcomply with all state and federal regulations related to non-point discharges and would not violate anywaste discharge requirements. The proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts relatedto water quality.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interferesubstantially with groundwater recharge such that therewould be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of thelocal groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level whichwould not support existing land uses or planned uses forwhich permits have been granted)?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, the Main Campus is already developed, and the proposed land uses wouldbe similar to existing uses. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to groundwater recharge. Water issupplied to the campus by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) through the Citydistribution system. Therefore, campus water consumption would have no effect on local groundwater supplies.

Proposed Project

Development of the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge as the site is already completelydeveloped with impervious surfaces (e.g., greenhouse roof). In addition, the proposed project would notrequire any water consumption and therefore would not affect local groundwater supplies. The proposedproject would not result in any new or increased impacts related to groundwater.

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

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the Main Campus is developed, and runoff from the campus drains to theCity combined wastewater/storm drainage system; there are no natural surface watercourses on campus. Thedevelopment built as part of the Master Plan would result in similar uses to those now present and mostproposed uses would be constructed in areas that are already paved or developed with structures. Therefore,implementation of the Master Plan would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns.


implementation of the Master Plan would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns.

Proposed Project

Like the Main Campus, the project site is currently developed with impervious surfaces, and runoff from i tenters the City combined system. The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage patterns. Theproposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to drainage patterns.

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

See response to 8c.

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed thecapacity of existing or planned stormwater drainagesystems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the proposed drainage system would connect to the City combinedwastewater/storm drainage system, which carries wastewater and stormwater flows to the Oceanside WaterPollution Control Plant for treatment. Most proposed uses would be constructed in areas that are alreadypaved or developed with structures; the existing practice field would be relocated (to a currently developedarea) and would remain on campus. The Master Plan would also result in the creation of additional greenspaces. For these reasons, little or no net increase in impervious surfaces is expected. Therefore, there wouldnot be a substantial increase in stormwater runoff from the project.

Proposed Project

Like the Main Campus, the project site is currently developed and development of the proposed uses on thesite would result in little to no net increase in impervious surfaces. As such, the proposed project would notresult in any new or increased impacts related to runoff.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

See responses to 8a, 8d, and 8e.

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area asmapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FloodInsurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineationmap?

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, according to the San Francisco General Plan there are no areas prone tosurface flooding in San Francisco. In addition, the project does not propose construction of any housing.Therefore, there would be no flood-related impacts.

Proposed Project

According to the San Francisco General Plan there are no areas prone to surface flooding in San Francisco.Therefore, the proposed project would not result in flood-related impacts. No further discussion is necessary.


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

Master Plan EIR


Proposed Project

According to the San Francisco General Plan there are no areas prone to surface flooding in San Francisco. Inaddition, the project does not propose construction of any housing. Therefore, there would be no flood-relatedimpacts.

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

Master Plan EIR


Proposed Project

According to the San Francisco General Plan there are no areas prone to surface flooding in San Francisco.Furthermore, there are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the project site.

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the distance between the Main Campus and any body of water means tha tthe area is not threatened by seiches or tsunamis. In addition, the San Francisco General Plan did not identifymudflows as a hazard in San Francisco. Based on this information, there would be no significant impacts as aresult of seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows.

Proposed Proje ct

Given the proximity of the project site to the Main Campus and the distance of the proposed project to anybody of water, there would be no significant impacts as a result of seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows.

9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Physically divide an established community?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR noted that the Master Plan would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of anestablished community because all Master Plan projects would occur within the existing Main Campus or onthe Balboa Reservoir.


Proposed Project

The project site is currently developed with greenhouses and related structures. The project would replacethose uses temporarily with uses related to the CCSF Main Campus. These changes would have the effect ofphysically extending the campus into the neighborhood to the east. However, the greenhouses are notcurrently part of the community, and the campus is already present to the south of the site. Therefore, theproject would not result in any impacts with regard to physical division of an established community. (Seethe discussion of Checklist Item 9b for a discussion of community compatibility impacts.)

b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, orregulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to, the general plan, specificplan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adoptedfor the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmentaleffect?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR identified several potential conflicts with General Plan policies, specifically withthose policies regarding intrusion into residential neighborhoods. Physical impacts related to potentialintrusion and corresponding mitigation measures were addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning of theMaster Plan EIR. The discussion of Planning Code conformance identifies potential conflicts with the heightand bulk requirements; the physical impacts related to these conflicts and corresponding mitigation measureswere addressed in Section 4.2, Visual Quality of the Master Plan EIR.

Proposed Project

General Plan

The San Francisco General Plan contains objectives and policies related to physical environmental issues tha tare applicable to this project. Some of the key General Plan objectives and policies pertinent to the project arelisted below; each is followed by a discussion of potential conflicts with the project.

Residence ElementObjective 12 : To provide a quality living environment.Policy 3: Minimize the disruption caused by expansion of institutions into residential areas.

• Although the project site is zoned for residential uses, it is currently not used for residences. Therefore,the short-term use of the site would not constitute an expansion into residential areas. See thefollowing discussion regarding disruption to adjacent residential areas.

Commerce and Industry ElementObjective 7: Enhance San Francisco’s position as a national and regional center for governmental, health andeducational services.Policy 2: Encourage the extension of needed health and educational services, but manage expansion to avoid orminimize disruption of adjacent residential areas.Policy 3: Promote the provision of adequate health and educational services to all geographical districts andcultural groups in the city.

• The disruption to adjacent residential areas would be minimized as a result of the minimized scaleand temporary nature of uses on the site. The project would help accommodate projected futureenrollment (as part of Master Plan implementation) and thus would serve a variety of geographicaldistricts and cultural groups. Therefore, the project would not conflict with these policies.


Transportation ElementObjective 1 : Meet the needs of all residents and visitors for safe, convenient and inexpensive travel withinSan Francisco and between the City and other parts of the region while maintaining the high quality livingenvironment of the Bay Area.Policy 1.2: Ensure the safety and comfort of pedestrians throughout the city.Policy 1.3: Give priority to public transit and other alternatives to the private automobile as the means ofmeeting San Francisco's transportation needs, particularly those of commuters.

• As discussed in Section 15, Transportation/Circulation, if the project site were converted to classroomuse, there would not be a substantial change in pedestrian traffic in the area. In addition, CCSF hasalready committed to working with the City to improve conditions on Havelock Street. Therefore,the proposed project does not conflict with Policy 1.2. The proposed project is part of Master Planimplementation. As noted in the Master Plan EIR, development of the Master Plan includesimplementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce vehicle trips andto emphasize alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the project would not conflict withPolicy 1.3.

Objective 2 : Use the transportation system as a means for guiding development and improving theenvironment.Policy 2.2: Reduce pollution, noise and energy consumption.Policy 2.3: Design and locate facilities to preserve the historic city fabric and the natural landscape, and toprotect views.Policy 2.5: Provide incentives for the use of transit, carpools, vanpools, walking and bicycling and reduce theneed for new or expanded automobile and automobile parking facilities.

• As noted above, the proposed project is part of Master Plan implementation. Since development of theMaster Plan includes implementation of a TDM program to reduce vehicle trips and to emphasizealternative modes of transportation, the project would not conflict with Policies 2.2 and 2.5. Theproject also would not result in significant new air quality or noise impacts. Since no historicsignificant architectural resources or scenic views would be affected by the project, the project wouldnot conflict with Policy 2.3.

Objective 11 : Maintain public transit as the primary mode of transportation in San Francisco and as a meansthrough which to guide future development and improve regional mobility and air quality.Policy 11.3: Encourage development that efficiently coordinates land use with transit service, requiring tha tdevelopers address transit concerns as well as mitigate traffic problems.

• As noted above, the proposed project is part of Master Plan implementation. Since development of theMaster Plan includes implementation of a TDM program to reduce vehicle trips and to emphasizealternative modes of transportation, the project would not conflict with Policy 11.3.

Objective 12 : Develop and implement programs in the public and private sectors, which will supportcongestion management and air quality objectives, maintain mobility and enhance business vitality a tminimum cost.Policy 12.1: Develop and implement strategies which provide incentives for individuals to use public transit,ridesharing, bicycling and walking to the best advantage, thereby reducing the number of single occupant autotrips.Policy 12.4: Encourage private and public sector cooperation in the promotion of alternative work programsdesigned to reduce congestion and the number of automobile trips.

• As noted above, the proposed project is part of Master Plan implementation. Since development of theMaster Plan includes implementation of a TDM program to reduce vehicle trips and to emphasizealternative modes of transportation, the project would not conflict with Policies 12.1 and 12.4.


Objective 16 : Develop and implement programs that will efficiently manage the supply of parking a temployment centers throughout the City so as to discourage single-occupant ridership and encourageridesharing, transit and other alternatives to the single-occupant automobile.Policy 16.1: Reduce parking demand through the provision of comprehensive information that encourages theuse of alternative modes of transportation.Policy 16.2: Reduce parking demand where parking is subsidized by employers with "cash-out" programs inwhich the equivalency of the cost of subsidized parking is offered to those employees who do not use parkingfacilities. Policy 16.3: Reduce parking demand through the provision of incentives for the use of carpools and vanpools a tnew and existing parking facilities throughout the City.Policy 16.4: Manage parking demand through appropriate pricing policies including the use of premium ratesnear employment centers well-served by transit, walking and bicycling, and progressive rate structures toencourage turnover and the efficient use of parking.Policy 16.5: Reduce parking demand through limiting the absolute amount of spaces and prioritizing thespaces for short-term and ride-share uses.Policy 16.6: Encourage alternatives to the private automobile by locating public transit access and ride-sharevehicle and bicycle parking at more close-in and convenient locations on-site, and by locating parkingfacilities for single-occupant vehicles more remotely.

• As noted above, the proposed project is part of Master Plan implementation. Since development of theMaster Plan includes implementation of a TDM program to reduce vehicle trips and to emphasizealternative modes of transportation, the project would not conflict with Policies 16.1 through 16.6. Inaddition, the project would not result in a net increase in parking spaces, but would provide onlyreplacement parking for spaces that would be lost during construction.

Objective 20 : Give first priority to improving transit service throughout the City, providing a convenient andefficient system as a preferable alternative to automobile use.Policy 20.2: Reduce, relocate or prohibit automobile facility features on transit preferential streets, such asdriveways and loading docks, to avoid traffic conflicts and automobile congestion.

• The project site is not located on a transit-preferential street, and therefore the project would notconflict with Policy 20.2.

Objective 21 : Develop transit as the primary mode of travel to and from Downtown and all major activitycenters within the region.Policy 21.9: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit facilities.

• The project site is not located on a street that provides access to transit facilities. Therefore, theproject would not conflict with Policy 21.9.

Objective 23 : Improve the City's pedestrian circulation system to provide for efficient, pleasant, and safemovement.Policy 23.2: Widen sidewalks where intensive commercial, recreational, or institutional activity is presentand where residential densities are high.Policy 23.6: Ensure convenient and safe pedestrian crossings by minimizing the distance pedestrians must walkto cross a street.

• The project site is directly adjacent to the northeastern part of the Main Campus. Use of portablebuildings on the site would require pedestrians to cross a road to access the rest of the campus;however, the additional travel distance would be short. As the project site is on a corner, the distancepedestrians would walk to cross the road would be minimized. In addition, conversion of the site totemporary classroom would not result in a substantial change in pedestrian traffic in the area, andCCSF has already committed to working with the City to improve conditions on Havelock Street.Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policies 23.2 and 23.6.


CCSF has already committed to working with the City to improve conditions on Havelock Street.Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policies 23.2 and 23.6.

Objective 28 : Provide secure and convenient parking facilities for bicycles.Policy 28.1: Provide secure bicycle parking in new governmental, commercial, and residential developments.

• As noted above, the proposed project is part of Master Plan implementation. Since development of theMaster Plan includes implementation of a TDM program (including provisions for bike parking) toreduce vehicle trips and to emphasize alternative modes of transportation, the project would notconflict with Policy 28.1.

Objective 30 : Ensure that the provision of new or enlarged parking facilities does not adversely affect thelivability and desirability of the City and its various neighborhoods.Policy 30.1: Assure that new or enlarged parking facilities meet need, locational and design criteria.

• As noted in Section 15, Transportation/Circulation, the project would provide limited and temporaryparking that would not require the construction of permanent parking facilities and would not result ina net increase in parking spaces. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the policy.

Objective 31 : Establish parking rates and off-street parking fare structures to reflect the full costs, monetaryand environmental, of parking in the City.Policy 31.1: Set rates to encourage short-term over long term automobile parkingPolicy 31.2: When off-street parking near institutions and in commercial areas outside of downtown is in shortsupply, set parking rates to encourage higher turnover and more efficient use of the parking supply.

• As noted in Section 15, Transportation/Circulation, the project would provide limited and temporaryparking that would not require the construction of permanent parking facilities and would not result ina net increase in parking spaces. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the policy.

Objective 33 : Contain and lessen the traffic and parking impact of institutions on surrounding residentialareas.Policy 33.1: Limit the provision of long-term parking facilities at institutions and encourage such institutionsto regulate existing facilities to assure use by short-term clients and visitors.Policy 33.2: Protect residential neighborhoods from the parking impacts of nearby traffic generators.

• As noted earlier, use of the lot as parking would serve to offset parking lost in D Lot and themaintenance shop parking lot, and thus would provide a temporary offset or overflow area duringconstruction. Parking on the project site would be temporary and would not result in a net increase inparking spaces. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policies 33.1 and 33.2.

Objective 40 : Enforce a parking and loading strategy for freight distribution to reduce congestion affectingother vehicular traffic and adverse impacts on pedestrian circulation.Policy 40.1: Provide off-street facilities for freight loading and service vehicles on the site of new buildingssufficient to meet the demands generated by the intended uses. Seek opportunities to create new off-streetloading facilities for existing buildings.Policy 40.2: Discourage access to off-street freight loading and service vehicle facilities from transitpreferential streets, or pedestrian-oriented streets and alleys by providing alternative access routes tofacilities.Policy 40.9: Where possible, mitigate the undesirable effects of noise, vibration and emission by limiting lateevening and early hour loading and unloading in retail, institutional, and industrial facilities abuttingresidential neighborhoods.

• The project would not involve freight distribution; loading would continue to occur at the same centrallocations on the Main Campus as it does currently. Loading and unloading would occur on the site onlyif the site were converted to storage use. Loading would occur off-street by way of the existingdriveway from Havelock Street. Although Havelock Street is not “pedestrian-oriented,” it is used bypedestrians to get to and from campus. However, loading and unloading would be limited to one set oftrips each to deliver and pick up materials, over the entire period of site use. As a result of theminimal loading/unloading activities, the project would not conflict with Policies 40.1, 40.2, and 40.9.


locations on the Main Campus as it does currently. Loading and unloading would occur on the site onlyif the site were converted to storage use. Loading would occur off-street by way of the existingdriveway from Havelock Street. Although Havelock Street is not “pedestrian-oriented,” it is used bypedestrians to get to and from campus. However, loading and unloading would be limited to one set oftrips each to deliver and pick up materials, over the entire period of site use. As a result of theminimal loading/unloading activities, the project would not conflict with Policies 40.1, 40.2, and 40.9.

Urban Design ElementObjective 1 : Emphasis of the characteristic pattern which gives to the city and its neighborhoods an image, asense of purpose, and a means of orientation.Policy 1.1: Recognize and protect major views in the city, with particular attention to those of open space andwater.

• As discussed in Section 1. Aesthetics, the project would not affect any scenic views and therefore wouldnot conflict with Policy 1.1.

Objective 2 : Conservation of resources which provide a sense of nature, continuity with the past, and freedomfrom overcrowding.Policy 2.4: Preserve notable landmarks and areas of historic, architectural or aesthetic value, and promotethe preservation of other buildings and features that provide community with past development.Policy 2.5: Use care in remodeling of older buildings, in order to enhance rather than weaken the originalcharacter of such buildings.Policy 2.6: Respect the character of older development nearby in the design of new buildings.

• The project does not include construction of permanent new buildings or renovation of any historicstructures. Any structures on the site would be similar to existing portable structures on the CCSFcampus and adjacent to the site to the west. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policies 2.4through 2.6.

Objective 3 : Moderation of major new development to complement the city pattern, the resources to beconserved, and the neighborhood environment.Policy 3.1: Promote harmony in the visual relationships and transitions between new and older buildings.Policy 3.2: Avoid extreme contrasts in color, shape and other characteristics which will cause new buildingsto stand out in excess of their public importance.Policy 3.4: Promote building forms that will respect and improve the integrity of open spaces and other publicareas.Policy 3.5: Relate the height of buildings to important attributes of the city pattern and to the height andcharacter of existing development.Policy 3.6: Relate the bulk of buildings to the prevailing scale of development to avoid an overwhelming ordominating appearance in new construction.Policy 3.7: Recognize the special urban design problems posed in development of large properties.Policy 3.8: Discourage accumulation and development of large properties, unless such development is carefullydesigned with respect to its impact upon the surrounding areas and upon the city.

• The project is of limited scale and does not include construction of permanent new buildings. Anybuildings placed on the site would be no more than one-story high and would be on the sitetemporarily. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policies 3.1 through 3.8.

Objective 4 : Improvement of the neighborhood environment to increase personal safety, comfort, pride andopportunity.Policy 4.1: Protect residential areas from the noise, pollution, and physical danger of excessive traffic.


Policy 4.15: Protect the livability and character of residential properties from the intrusion of incompatiblenew buildings.

• The project is of limited scale and does not include construction of permanent new buildings. Theadditional traffic would be temporary and would be well below the levels analyzed in the MasterPlan EIR. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policies 4.1 and 4.15.

Environmental Protection ElementObjective 4 : Assure that the ambient air of San Francisco and the Bay Region is clean, provides maximumvisibility, and meets air quality standards.Policy 4.1: Support and comply with objectives, policies, and air quality standards of the Bay Area AirQuality Management District.

• As discussed in Section 3. Air Quality, development of the project would result in less-than-significantair quality impacts and would not exceed any emissions thresholds set by the BAAQMD. Therefore,the project would comply with Policy 4.1.

Objective 5 : Assure a permanent and adequate supply of fresh water to meet the present and future needs ofSan Francisco.Policy 5.2: Exercise controls over development to correspond to the capabilities of the water supply anddistribution system.

• As discussed in Section 16. Utilities and Service Systems, the project would not cause any significantimpacts to the water supply and distribution system. Therefore, the project does not conflict withPolicy 5.2.

Objective 7 : Assure that the land resources in San Francisco are used in ways that both respect and preservethe natural values of the land and serve the best interest of all the city's citizens.Policy 7.5: Prohibit construction, as a general rule, on land subject to slide or erosion.

• As discussed in Section 6. Geology and Soils, the project site is not subject to slide or erosion. Therefore,the project does not conflict with Policy 7.5.

Objective 10 : Minimize the impact of noise on affected areas.Policy 10.1: Promote site planning, building orientation and design, and interior layout that will lessen noiseintrusion.

• As discussed in Section 11. Noise, the project would not result in significant permanent increases innoise levels. The project could involve placement of portable classrooms on the site, but site noiselevels would be similar to those found elsewhere on the CCSF campus. Therefore, the project wouldnot conflict with Policy 10.1.

Objective 11 : Promote land uses that are compatible with various transportation noise levels.Policy 11.1: Discourage new uses in areas in which the noise level exceeds the noise compatibility guidelinesfor that use.Policy 11.3: Locate new noise-generating development so that the noise impact is reduced.

• As discussed in Section 11. Noise, the project would not result in significant permanent increases innoise levels. The project could involve placement of portable classrooms on the site, but site noiselevels would be similar to those found elsewhere on the CCSF campus. Therefore, the project wouldnot conflict with Policies 11.1 and 11.3.

Community Facilities ElementObjective 8 : Assure that public school facilities are distributed and located in a manner that will enhancetheir efficient and effective use.


their efficient and effective use.Policy 8.1: Provide public school facilities for education in accordance with the need for such facilities asdefined by the Unified School District and Community College District. Locate such facilities according tothe Public School Facilities Plan and, whenever possible, make available for community use.

• The project is part of Master Plan implementation. The Master Plan is intended to accommodate theneed for facilities identified by CCSF, and the Main Campus is shown on the Institutional FacilitiesPlan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policy 8.1.

Objective 9 : Assure that institutional uses are located in a manner that will enhance their efficient andeffective use.Policy 9.1: Locate institutional uses according to the Institutional Facilities Plan. The areas that are shownon the Institutional Facilities Plan are those occupied by or reserved for large groups or buildings of a public orsemi-public nature. They include San Francisco State College, University of San Francisco, Laguna HondaHome, Youth Guidance Center, several large parochial schools and the University of California MedicalCenter and the Civic Center.

• The project is part of Master Plan implementation. The Master Plan is intended to accommodate theneed for facilities identified by CCSF, and the Main Campus is shown on the Institutional FacilitiesPlan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policy 9.1.

Community Safety ElementObjective 2 : Reduce structural and non-structural hazards to life safety, minimize property damage andresulting social, cultural and economic dislocations resulting from future disasters.Policy 2.1: Assure that new construction meets current structural and life safety standards.

• As discussed previously, if the site were developed with one or more portable buildings, existingportable buildings would be moved to the site from the CCSF campus. Therefore, conversion of the sitewould not require any new construction, and the project would not conflict with Policy 2.1.

Policy 2.3: Consider site soils conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to liquefaction or slopeinstability.

• A Phase II environmental site assessment conducted for the site included soil borings to examine thesubsurface soil conditions on the site. Based on the Phase II study and the geotechnical work done forthe Master Plan EIR, no significant hazards related to liquefaction or slope instability have beenidentified. Therefore, the project is in conformance with Policy 2.3.

Policy 2.9: Consider information about geologic hazards whenever City decisions that will influence land use,building density, building configurations or infrastructure are made.

• A Phase II environmental site assessment conducted for the site included soil borings to examine thesubsurface soil conditions on the site. Based on the Phase II study and the geotechnical work done forthe Master Plan EIR, no significant geologic hazards have been identified. Therefore, the project is inconformance with Policy 2.9.

Air Quality ElementObjective 2 : Reduce mobile source of air pollution through implementation of the transportation element ofthe General Plan.The General Plan includes cross-references to policies from the Transportation Element that strive to reduceautomobile trips and promote the use of alternative transportation modes.

• As noted above, the proposed project is part of Master Plan implementation. Since development of theMaster Plan includes implementation of a TDM program to reduce mobile sources of air pollution, theproject would not conflict with this objective.

Objective 3 : Decrease the air quality impacts of development by coordination of land use and transportationdecisions.


decisions.Policy 3.1: Take advantage of the high density development in San Francisco to improve the transitinfrastructure and also encourage high density and compact development where an extensive transportationinfrastructure exists.Policy 3.2: Encourage mixed use development near transit lines and provide retail and other types of servicesoriented uses within walking distance to minimize dependent development.

• As noted above, the proposed project is part of Master Plan implementation and the Master Plan isintended to take advantage of the extensive transportation structure in the area. Therefore, theproject would not conflict with Policy 3.1. The project is not a mixed-use development; therefore,Policy 3.2 does not apply to the project.

Objective 5 : Minimize particulate matter emissions from road and construction sites.Policy 5.1: Continue policies to minimize particulate matter emissions during road and building constructionand demolition.

• As noted in Section 3. Air Quality, CCSF would implement all applicable and feasible dust controlmeasures in accordance to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as part of the proposed project (thesemeasures are listed at the end of this document). Therefore, the project would not conflict with Policy5.1.

San Francisco City and County Planning Code Conformance

Zoning• As noted earlier, the project site is zoned for RH-1 District (Residential, House Districts, One-

Family), occupied almost entirely by single-family houses. Development of the project for temporaryuses as proposed would require a conditional use permit. Acquisition of this permit would serve tocomply with the zoning requirements of the site.

Height and Bulk• The project is in the 40-X height and bulk district, which restricts buildings to a height of 40 feet.

Since the only proposed structures on the site would be one-story portable structures, the project wouldnot conflict with this designation.

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

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the campus is not subject to any habitat conservation plans or naturalcommunity conservation plans.

Proposed Project

The project site is completely developed and there are no adopted habitat conservation plans that apply tothe area.


10. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS Noimpact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineralresource that would be of future value to the region and theresidents of the State?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR noted that the campus is fully developed and is not available as a mineral resource.

Proposed Project

The City of San Francisco General Plan indicates that minerals are not found in San Francisco to anyappreciable extent.

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

See response to 10a.

11. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS Noimpact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels inexcess of standards established in the local general plan ornoise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Master Plan EIR

As discussed in the Master Plan EIR, with development of the Master Plan, both on and off--campus noiseimpacts from traffic and other noise would be less than significant. Specifically, the increase in traffic noiseassociated with the increased enrollment at the Main Campus would not exceed the CEQA significancethreshold. Non-traffic noise would generally be masked by traffic noise.

Proposed Project

Given the location of the project site, any change to the noise levels as a result of the project would beconcentrated in the northeastern corner of the campus and off-campus areas in the vicinity. The existingambient noise environment in this area is dominated by vehicular noise, in particular vehicular noise fromInterstate 280. The Master Plan EIR reported that the measured noise level adjacent to the site was 63.7 dBA,which is considered “conditionally acceptable” under the San Francisco Noise Land Use CompatibilityGuidelines (that is, detailed study is required before new residential construction can be undertaken).1

Use of the site for parking or landscaping storage would not result in persons using the site for extendedperiods. Use of the site for one or more portable classrooms would place students and faculty on the site. Theexpected noise levels on the site would be within the acceptable noise level thresholds for school uses. 1 Environmental noise is measured in units of dBA. The dBA, or A-weighted decibel, refers to a scale

of noise measurement that approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds ofdifferent frequencies. On this scale, the normal range of human hearing extends from about 0 dBA toabout 140!dBA. A 10-dBA increase in the level of a continuous noise represents a perceived doublingof loudness; a 5-dBA increase is a readily noticeable change, and a 3-dBA increase is barelynoticeable to most people.


expected noise levels on the site would be within the acceptable noise level thresholds for school uses.

Existing residential and other noise-sensitive uses that are near the proposed development would experience aslight change in the ambient noise environment as a result of development of the project. These noises couldinclude people talking and doors closing in the case of the use of a portable building, auto alarms, and carstereos in the case of the use of a parking lot, and trucks (for two brief periods only) in the case of the use of thesite for storage. These noises would be brief and would occur intermittently throughout the day. Moreover,given the existing noise environment, these noises would largely be masked by existing traffic noise. Thus,project operation-related impacts would not result in a three-dBA or greater increase in ambient noise levels(the threshold used in the Master Plan EIR), and the impacts would be less than significant. The proposedproject would not result in any new or increased impacts related to noise.

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

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR concluded that groundborne vibrations related to construction activities would be abovethe significance threshold for impacts to people. Although implementation of mitigation measures tominimize vibration impacts would serve to lessen these impacts, given the overall length of construction andthe potential for nighttime construction, the impacts would remain significant.

Proposed Project

Development of the project site would require minimal grading and excavation that would require limited useof heavy construction equipment. The construction activities on the site would be of limited duration andwould be restricted to daytime hours. Thus, impacts related to this issue would be less than significant. Theproject would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue.

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

See response to 11a. In addition, the proposed uses are temporary, so any increase in ambient noise levelswould not be permanent.

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambientnoise levels in the project vicinity above levels existingwithout the project?

Master Plan EIR

As discussed in the Master Plan EIR, construction and grading activities and equipment would generate bothsteady and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the project site(s) and could primarily affectexisting uses on the campus, nearby residences, and two adjacent high schools. Although construction noisewould be periodic and temporary for each project and thus would occur intermittently over the Master Planperiod, the number of projects and length of time involved (11 years) would make the impact feel more“permanent” (and thus more annoying and disruptive). Typical construction activities would occur duringdaytime hours, but some activities might need to occur at night to meet the overall construction schedule. Eventhough most nearby residents would not be expected to be at home during the daytime, the residents tha twould be at home (at-home workers, retired persons, young children) could be affected temporarily byconstruction noise at various times during the building schedule. In addition, the campus would be in sessionduring the daytime, and construction could occur directly adjacent to classrooms, administrative offices, orother campus facilities. The impacts to on- and off-site receptors would be lessened through implementationof feasible standard construction noise controls. However, given the overall length of construction and thepotential for nighttime construction, the impacts would remain significant.


potential for nighttime construction, the impacts would remain significant.

Proposed Project

Conversion of the project site for short-term use would require removal of existing structures and vegetation,localized excavation to install an underground electrical line, earthwork to either remove contaminated soilor cap the site for remediation, and installation of a layer of crushed rock. If one or more structures were to belocated on the site, these structures would be portable buildings and would therefore not be constructed on thesite. Construction activities would require the use of handheld equipment (e.g., jackhammers, pneumatictools, saws, and hammers) to dismantle the existing structures and heavy equipment (e.g., trucks, tractors, andbackhoes) to grade and excavate the site and to haul material to and from the site. Construction on the sitewould be expected to generate noise levels ranging from approximately 68 dBA to 95!dBA when measured at 50feet. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site(s) at a rate ofapproximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Construction would occur during daytime hours with no work onweekends. Demolition of the existing structures would take approximately seven working days; excavationfor the electrical line would take one day; remediation activities would take one to two days; the laying ofgravel would take several days; and the installation of the portable classroom(s) would take one day. Truckscarrying gravel to the site would make 40 trips per day (20 inbound and 20 outbound) for the several daysgravel is laid on the site; trucks carrying soil to and/or from the site would make 80 trips per day (40 inboundand 40 outbound) for the one to two days of site remediation.

Noise levels generated during the construction phase of the project would primarily affect the residences tothe north and east of the site (some of which directly abut the site) and the child care center and classroombungalows to the west. Any residents that would be at home during the day (e.g., at-home workers, retiredpersons, young children) could be affected temporarily by construction. Likewise, the campus would be insession during the daytime, and construction would occur close to classroom bungalows and the childcare center.Given the limited duration of construction (no more than 15 to 17 working days, with the major activityoccurring for fewer than 5 to 7 days), and the intermittent nature of the impacts, construction noise impactswould not be significant. However, the project incorporates a measure to minimize the level of constructionnoise. (This measure, which was adopted as part of the Master Plan, is listed at the end of the document.)The proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to this issue that were notalready considered in the Master Plan EIR.

Source: 11

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two milesof a public airport or public use airport, would the projectexpose people residing or working in the project area toexcessive noise levels?Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the Main Campus is not within an airport land use plan area or near aprivate airstrip.

Proposed Project

The project site is not within an airport land use plan area or near a private airstrip.

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

See response to 11e.


12. POPULATION & HOUSING – Would the project: PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, eitherdirectly (for example, by proposing new homes andbusinesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension ofroads or other infrastructure)?

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, development of the Master Plan would not induce growth directly because i twould not include the development of housing. Likewise, any infrastructure improvements would occur withinthe Master Plan boundaries and would not led to additional water or wastewater lines within the City.Therefore, development of the Master Plan would not induce substantial population growth indirectly.

Proposed Project

The project does not involve any residential or commercial uses and would not directly induce populationgrowth in the area. The short-term use of the site is intended to help serve the projected student growthcovered by the Master Plan. The project would not involve the extension of any roads, and electricity would beextended to the site only to serve the portable classrooms. Electrical service is already available in theimmediate area, so the extension of a line to the site would not increase the potential for the site’s long-termredevelopment

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

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, as a community college, CCSF does not provide housing. Therefore, theproposed project would not result in the displacement of existing housing or a need to build replacementhousing.

Proposed Project

The two-story house on the project site is used as an office and/or storage and is not used as a residence.Therefore, conversion of the site would not displace any housing.

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

See response to 12b.


13. PUBLIC SERVICES PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physicalimpacts associated with the provision of new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, need for new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, the construction of whichcould cause significant environmental impacts, in order tomaintain acceptable service ratios, response times or otherperformance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR concluded that for the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) to provide the same levelof service with Master Plan buildout as it currently maintains, an increase in equipment and staff would berequired. A substantial demand for fire services in itself could be considered a significant impact. In thiscontext, the increase in demand caused by Master Plan buildout, and the associated need for new facilities,would be significant. Despite a mitigation measure that would require CCSF to coordinate with the SFFD todetermine any appropriate “fair share” contribution toward the cost of construction of a new fire station, thisimpact would remain significant.

Proposed Project

The proposed project would not contribute substantially to the demand for fire services. Conversion of the sitefor any of the proposed short-term uses would require a minimal amount of fire protection. In addition, if thesite were developed with one or more portable structures, existing portable buildings would be moved to thesite from the CCSF campus. Therefore, any need for fire protection would be transferred from the currentlocation of the portable buildings to the proposed project site. Moreover, the fire protection that would berequired by a parking lot has been accounted for in the analysis for the Master Plan, as this parking lot wouldbe used to offset the parking lost in Lot D and the maintenance shop parking lot with development of theMaster Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to fireprotection.

ii) Police protection?

Master Plan EIR

According to the Master Plan EIR, the growth in the student, faculty and employee populations, theadditional buildings and the expansion of the Main Campus west of Phelan Avenue called for by buildout ofthe Master Plan would require the addition of officers to the San Francisco Community College District PoliceDepartment (SFCCPD) force to serve the CCSF campuses effectively. However, the College would be able toprovide appropriate facilities to meet the needs of an expanded police department. Therefore, the impacts topolice services would be less than significant.

Proposed Project

The proposed project would not contribute substantially to the demand for police services. Conversion of thesite for any of the proposed short-term uses would require a minimal amount of police protection. Moreover,the police protection that would be required by a parking lot has been accounted for in the analysis for theMaster Plan, as this parking lot would be used to offset the parking lost in Lot D and the maintenance shopparking lot with development of the Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any newor increased impacts related to police protection.


iii) Schools?

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the Master Plan would not contribute directly to demand for elementary orhigh school facilities as it would not increase the number of residents in San Francisco.

Proposed Project

The proposed project does not involve any residential or commercial uses and would not directly inducepopulation growth in the area. Therefore, there would be no project impacts related to schools.

iv) Parks?

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, implementation of the Master Plan would not contribute directly to thedemand for park or other recreation facilities.

Proposed Project

The project does not involve any residential or commercial uses and would not directly induce populationgrowth in the area that would contribute directly to the demand for park or other recreation facilities.Therefore, there would be no project impacts related to parks and recreational facilities.

v) Other public facilities?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not result in substantialadverse physical impacts to other public facilities.

Proposed Project

The project does not involve any residential or commercial uses and would not directly induce populationgrowth in the area. Therefore, project impacts related to other public facilities are not significant.

14. RECREATION – PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Would the project increase the use of existingneighborhood and regional parks or other recreationalfacilities such that substantial physical deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR concluded that the Master Plan would not contribute directly to the demand for park orother recreational facilities.

Proposed Project

The project does not include involve any uses that would induce population growth in the area that wouldresult in the increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, no further discussion isnecessary.


b) Does the project include recreational facilities or requirethe construction or expansion of recreational facilitieswhich might have an adverse physical effect on theenvironment?

Proposed Project

See response 14a. In addition, the project does not include any recreational facilities

15. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - Would theproject:


LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial inrelation to the existing traffic load and capacity of thestreet system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in eitherthe number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio onroads, or congestion at intersections)?


The Master Plan EIR concluded that impacts from Master Plan development to local intersections andfreeways would be less than significant. At the same time, the Master Plan EIR found that an increase intraffic on Havelock Street could create localized congestion and annoyance to campus neighbors and could leadto hazardous conditions for vehicles and pedestrians. The EIR determined that some vehicles would useHavelock Street to access the parking garage in the eastern part of the campus, just south of Havelock Street.In addition, use of one access to the reservoir parking would lead to back-ups along Phelan Avenue. Inaddition, conflicts between the northbound left turn into the reservoir parking and the southbound left turnonto Cloud Circle would still occur. These impacts could interfere with the transportation system along thecampus frontage and could contribute to additional traffic and pedestrian hazards. CCSF has committed to anumber of mitigation measures, including implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)program, incorporation of design measures for the parking garage, and coordination with the City and Countyof San Francisco. However, due to the uncertainties related to specific design features and the implementationof many of the mitigation measures, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Proposed Project

The proposed project would not result in any new or increase in significant impacts that were not alreadyidentified and analyzed in the Master Plan EIR. As noted in the traffic report for the proposed project (seeAppendix A), conversion of the site to one or more portable structures would not have any new trips associatedwith it as trips that are already going to the CCSF campus would be accommodated in this facility. If thesite were used for landscaping storage, there would be trips only for one set of deliveries to the site and one setof pickups from the site. Therefore, there would be no additional traffic impacts from conversion of the site toinclude one or more portable structures or storage.

If the site were converted to a parking lot, traffic would be associated with use of the site during constructionas well as once the site is available for parking. In both cases, it is assumed that most of the vehicles tha twould access the site would travel along Havelock Street (from Circular Avenue). Construction impacts wouldbe from the trips associated with the five daily workers required on the site and the use of trucks to lay graveldown and carry soil to and/or from the site for site remediation. The traffic report estimated that therewould be a maximum of eight daily trips (four inbound and four outbound) from the construction workers, 40daily truck trips during gravel laying (20 inbound and 20 outbound), and 80 daily truck trips during the one totwo days of site remediation (40 inbound and 40 outbound). Under the worst-case scenario, if all workersarrived and left at the AM and PM peak hours and 10 percent of the truck trips occurred at these same times,construction of the project would result in 12 additional AM and PM peak-hour trips (one every five minutes).However, truck movements would generally not occur during the AM or PM peak hour. In addition, constructionworkers would generally leave the site prior to the PM peak hour.


However, truck movements would generally not occur during the AM or PM peak hour. In addition, constructionworkers would generally leave the site prior to the PM peak hour.

Once the site is in use as a parking lot, CCSF proposes that there would be a maximum of 35 parking spaces.Traffic accessing the site for parking would travel along Havelock Street. Because the eastern parking garageproposed as part of the Master Plan would not be constructed until after the completion of the proposed project,and the proposed project would generate substantially fewer trips than would use Havelock to access theeastern parking garage, the traffic impacts to Havelock and nearby residents during the temporaryGreenhouse Project would be substantially less than that analyzed in the Master Plan EIR. In addition, CCSFhas already agreed to develop a Transportation Demand Management program that would help to minimizeincreases in traffic along Havelock Street.

According to the City’s significance criteria, the construction traffic impacts would not be considered“significant” under CEQA. However, they could be considered a temporary nuisance and annoyance. Tominimize the potential inconvenience caused by the construction traffic, CCSF will require constructionemployee arrival and departure schedules to be staggered so that they do not coincide with adjacent streetpeak hours (7:00 AM to 9 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). CCSF will also require that all construction parking beaccommodated on the project site when feasible. These measures are consistent with the Master Plan EIR (p.4.3-32, which notes that CCSF plans to develop and implement a construction plan) and have beenincorporated into the proposed project.

Source: 4, 12

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ofservice standard established by the county congestionmanagement agency for designated roads or highways?

Master Plan EIR As noted in the Master Plan EIR, under cumulative-plus-project conditions, three intersections in the areawould experience degradation of LOS levels and increases in average delay times. Although the Master PlanEIR called for mitigation, including increasing the cycle length of a key intersection and re-striping of certainI-280 intersections, these measures are within the purview of the City and County of San Francisco andCaltrans. Because these measures are under the jurisdiction of another agency, the impact remains significantand unavoidable.

Proposed Project

See the response to 16a. If the site were used for parking, traffic impacts would be largely restricted toHavelock Street; no designated roads or highways would be affected significantly. In addition, any impactswould be temporary and the traffic levels would be substantially below what was analyzed in the MasterPlan EIR. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to designated roads or highways.

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including eitheran increase in traffic levels or a change in location tha tresults in substantial safety risks?

Proposed Project

Development of the proposed project would not involve activities that would affect air traffic.


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


The Master Plan EIR concluded that an increase in traffic on Havelock Street could lead to hazardousconditions for vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, conflicts between the northbound left turn into thereservoir parking and the southbound left turn onto Cloud Circle could contribute to additional traffic andpedestrian hazards. CCSF has committed to a number of mitigation measures, including implementation of aTDM program and coordination with the City of San Francisco to improve conditions on Havelock Street.However, due to the uncertainties related to such mitigation measures, these impacts would remain significantand unavoidable.

Proposed Project

As noted in the traffic report, conversion of the site to one or more portable structures would not changestudents’ access to and from the area, as the proposed classrooms would complement the existing classroomsnearby (and would represent, at most, a minor shift in the distribution of classroom locations on the campus).Use of the site for temporary parking would not result in a net increase in parking spaces on the campus, andthe number of spaces provided (35) would be well below the 800-space garage analyzed in the Master PlanEIR. As noted above, CCSF has already committed to work with the City to improve conditions on HavelockStreet. For these reasons, the project would not result in any new or increased impacts to pedestrians.

During construction activities on the greenhouse site, care would taken in the site vicinity so that pedestriansafety is not compromised (as with any construction project). The Master Plan EIR notes that CCSF plans todevelop and implement a construction plan (p. 4.3-32). For this project and other Master Plan projects, thisplan includes designated pedestrian and vehicle routing in the area to minimize pedestrian hazards. Thismeasure has been incorporated into the proposed project.

Source: 12

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Proposed Project

Conversion of the project site would not change access to the site, i.e., vehicle access would still be from theexisting driveway from Havelock Street. Therefore, there would be no impact to emergency access.

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

Master Plan EIR

As discussed in the Master Plan EIR, although parking demand would continue to exceed the off-street parkingsupply with development of the Master Plan, parking deficits are social effects that do not necessarilyconstitute impacts on the physical environment as defined by CEQA. Therefore, although a parking shortagemay represent an inconvenience to drivers (and a nuisance to College neighbors), a shortfall in parkingresulting from the project would not in itself be considered a significant environmental effect. (Other types ofimpacts related to the parking shortfall were identified as significant environmental impacts in the EIR; seeother subsections of this checklist.)

Proposed Project

During construction of the site, as many as five parking spots would be needed to accommodate constructionvehicles. These spaces would be provided on the project site when feasible, or elsewhere on the CCSF campus.Given the limited duration of the construction activities and the small demand for construction-relatedparking, parking conditions along neighborhood streets would not be affected.


Given the limited duration of the construction activities and the small demand for construction-relatedparking, parking conditions along neighborhood streets would not be affected.

Short-term use of the site would not be expected to substantially increase the demand for parking. Thepurpose of the site conversion is to serve as a short-term staging area during some of the Master Planconstruction period; the site uses would not cause any additional increases in enrollment or generate additionalparking demand. Moreover, if parking were developed on the site, this parking would serve to offset parkinglost in D Lot and the maintenance shop parking lot. At the same time, as noted in the Master Plan EIR,parking deficits are social effects that do not necessarily constitute impacts on the physical environment asdefined by CEQA. No further discussion is necessary.

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programssupporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?

Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR noted that bicycling is not a prevalent transportation mode to or from the Main Campus.There are relatively few facilities that serve bicyclists, either on campus or in the greater area. As a result ofthe existing and projected future limited use of bicycles as a mode of transportation to the campus, nosignificant bicycle impacts were anticipated.

Proposed Project

Development of the proposed project would not affect any policies, plans, or programs supporting alternativetransportation. As noted above, most uses of the site would not generate additional trips to the CCSF campus.Although conversion to a parking lot would result in more traffic along Havelock Street, these impacts werealready considered in the Master Plan EIR and would be temporary.

16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would theproject:


LTS withMitigation

LTS NoImpact

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

See response to 8a. The short-term uses proposed for the project would not generate wastewater.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water orwastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of which could cause significantenvironmental effects?

Master Plan EIR

As summarized in the Master Plan EIR, the City Distribution Staff of the SFPUC concluded that thedevelopment of the Master Plan would not have a significant effect on the water supply in the vicinity ofCCSF. Likewise, the San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW) indicated that there would be nosignificant impacts to wastewater treatment capacity with development of the Master Plan.

Proposed Project

The short-term uses proposed for the project would not consume water or generate wastewater. Therefore, theproposed project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to water or wastewater treatmentfacilities.


c) Require or result in the construction of new storm waterdrainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could cause significant environmentaleffects?Master Plan EIR

The Master Plan EIR concluded that the Master Plan development would contribute wastewater to nearbywastewater/stormwater lines inadequate to withstand a 5-year design storm. The needed mitigation for theimpact (upgrading of the undersized sewers around the Main Campus) is the responsibility of the SFDPW andtherefore is under the jurisdiction of another agency. As a result, the impact remains significant andunavoidable.

Proposed Project

The proposed project would not generate any wastewater. Given that the site is currently developed withimpervious surfaces, conversion of the site for the proposed short-term uses would only minimally affect thegeneration of stormwater runoff. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any new or increasedimpacts related to drainage facilities.

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

Master Plan EIR

As discussed in the Master Plan EIR, the determination by the SFPUC of the project’s impacts to water supply(described in 16b) is considered to be a water assessment. This assessment indicated that CCSF’s waterentitlement is adequate and that the project impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Project

The proposed project would not consume any water. No further discussion is necessary.

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatmentprovider which serves or may serve the project that it hasadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand inaddition to the provider’s existing commitments?

See response to 16b.

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permittedcapacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposalneeds?

Master Plan EIR

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, solid waste from San Francisco is disposed of in the Altamont Landfill,which was expanded in 1997 and has adequate capacity to accept additional refuse from the project.

Proposed Project

Conversion of the project site for the proposed short-term uses would generate construction and demolitionwaste. Materials would be recycled to the greatest extent possible through the salvage disposal process CCSFcommitted to for implementation of the Master Plan. The proposed short-term uses would generate smallquantities of solid waste (e.g., classroom materials). Any solid waste generated by the project would beadequately and appropriately accommodated by the Altamont Landfill.


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

See response to 16f.

17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE PotentiallySignificant

LTS withMitigation

LTS Noimpact

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade thequality of the environment, substantially reduce thehabitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish orwildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reducethe number or restrict the range of a rare or endangeredplant or animal or eliminate important examples of themajor periods of California history or pre-history?

As noted throughout this Addendum, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts orincrease in already identified significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant levelor were not already analyzed in the Master Plan EIR. Thus, the proposed project would not have the potentialto degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, causea fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animalcommunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminateimportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individuallylimited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulativelyconsiderable" means that the incremental effects of aproject are considerable when viewed in connection withthe effects of past projects, the effects of other currentprojects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

The proposed project would be developed as part of the implementation of the CCSF Master Plan. Thepotential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other projected development in the area havealready been analyzed in the Master Plan EIR. The project would involve short-term use of a site notaddressed in the Master Plan EIR, but the proposed uses would be temporary and would have minimal impact.Thus, the project would not result in any new or increased cumulative impacts.

c) Does the project have environmental effects which willcause substantial adverse effects on human beings, eitherdirectly or indirectly?

As noted throughout the Addendum, the proposed project would not have the potential to result in significantimpacts after mitigation and thus, would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects onhuman beings.


CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ISSUES NOT COVERED BY CCSF CEQA CHECKLIST

The San Francisco Planning Department uses a checklist that differs in some respects from the CEQAchecklist used by CCSF (that checklist comes from the current CEQA Guidelines). The additional topics inthe San Francisco checklist are discussed below.

A. Aesthetics and Shadow

1. Shadow analysis.

A shadow analysis was prepared for the Master Plan since some of the proposed buildings wouldexceed the 40-foot trigger. This analysis concluded that project shadow impacts would be less thansignificant and that development of the Master Plan would reduce the amount of shadow cast ontoproperty under the jurisdiction of the SFRPD. For the proposed project, the only use that wouldinvolve a new structure is the use of the site for one or more one-story portableclassroom/administrative building. These one-story structures would be below the 40-foot trigger forthe shadow analysis. Therefore, no shadow analysis is required. No further discussion is required.

B. Air Quality or Climate

1. Could the project alter wind, moisture or temperature (including sun shading effects) so as tosubstantially affect public areas, or change the climate either in the community or region?

The Master Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Master Plan does not have the potentialto cause significant changes to the wind environment in pedestrian corridors or public spaces adjacentto or near the campus. Likewise, given the low profile of the all of the potential uses of the projectsite (and the fact that the site is already developed with one- and two-story buildings), the windimpacts associated with the proposed short-term uses would be minimal. The project would notresult in any new or increased wind impacts.

C. Cultural Resources

1. Could the project conflict with established recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses ofthe area?

As noted in the Master Plan EIR, the project would represent a continuation of the educational uses onthe campus and thus would not conflict with established recreational, educational, religious orscientific uses of the area. The project site is used for greenhouses and does not involve arecreational, educational, religious, or scientific use. Could the project conflict with thepreservation of buildings subject to the provisions of Article 10 or Article 11 of the City PlanningCode?

As stated in the Master Plan EIR, the campus does not contain any historic or conservation districtsor any historic landmarks, as defined by Articles 10 and 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code.Likewise, the project site does not contain any such districts or landmarks.

D. Geology and Soils

1. Could the project change substantially the topography or any unique geologic or physical features ofthe site?

The proposed project would not alter the topography of the site and the site, which is developed,does not contain any unique geologic or physical features.


E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

1. Could the project create a potentially substantial fire hazard?

Conversion of the project site to the proposed short-term uses would not create a fire hazard as a l lexisting materials would be removed from the site and no flammable materials would be stored onthe site.

F. Land Use and Planning

1. Could the project have any substantial impact upon the existing character of the vicinity?

The Master Plan EIR concluded that development of the Master Plan could result in impacts on thevisual character of the vicinity, due to the more built-up character of the area west of PhelanAvenue. The project site is completely developed with six greenhouses and three buildings. Inaddition, portable buildings and a parking lot are located across West Road to the west and aparking lot is located across Havelock Street to the south. If the site were used for one or more one-story portable classroom/administrative buildings, these structures would be of similar scale to theexisting structures, but the reduction in the number of structures would allow for more open area onthe site. Using the site as an unpaved parking lot or as a landscaping storage area would furtherreduce both the scale and built-up nature of the site uses. Although it is possible that some residentswould not consider a gravel lot, parked cars, landscaping storage, and portable structures animprovement over the visual character of the area, these uses would be similar in scale and type topresent uses found to the west and south of the site. As a result, conversion of the site would notrepresent a substantial degradation of the visual character of the project vicinity.

G. Noise

1. Could the project violate Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards, if applicable?

Title 24 standards contain requirements for the construction of new structures and are intended tolimit the extent of noise transmitted to habitable spaces. The only structure that would be locatedon the site would be portable structures that would not need to conform to Title 24 standards (becausethey would be existing buildings relocated from the CCSF Main Campus). Therefore, the projectwould not violate Title 24. No further discussion is required.

H. Transportation and Circulation

1. Could the project cause a substantial increase in transit demand which cannot be accommodated byexisting or proposed transit capacity?

The Master Plan EIR concluded the additional transit trips generated by the Main Campus MasterPlan would not cause a significant impact to transit. Given the limited size and duration of theproject, and the fact that the project would generate few additional trips, it is reasonable to concludethat the proposed project would also have little effect on transit demand. Therefore, the projectwould not result in any new or increased transit impacts.


MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROECT

The measures listed below have been incorporated into the proposed project to ensure any potentiallysignificant impacts are less-than-significant or do not exceed the level of significance already identifiedand analyzed in the Master Plan EIR. Many of the measures were adopted by CCSF as part of its approvalof the Master Plan. Mitigation measures for the Master Plan were crafted to address impacts related to a l lprojected buildout in the entire Master Plan area and thus, are more comprehensive in design. The measuresincorporated into the proposed project have been modified to maintain the intent of the measure and addressproject-specific impacts.

AIR QUALITY

The following measure (taken from Impact Air Quality-1 in the Master Plan EIR) addresses constructionemissions:

1. The College District shall require all construction contractors working on the project to implement adust control plan. The dust control plan shall include the following measures from Table 2 of theBAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as applicable and feasible, and would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The program shall be applied to all construction activities involvinggrading, excavation, use of unpaved areas for staging, extensive hauling of materials, or buildingdemolition.

Basic Control Measures (for all construction sites)• If necessary, water all active construction areas at least twice daily (with recycled

water, if possible).• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials. • Apply water two times daily to all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging

areas at construction sites.• Sweep daily all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction

sites.• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

Optional Measures (to be implemented at the discretion of the District)• Wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site.• Install wind breaks, where necessary, at the windward side(s) of construction areas.• Suspend excavation and grading activity when sustained winds exceed 25 miles per hour.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The following measures (taken from Impact Cultural-1 in the Master Plan EIR) address impacts toarchaeological resources and are based on mitigation measures developed by the San Francisco PlanningDepartment.

1. Based on a reasonable presumption that archaeological resources may be present within the projectsite, the following measures shall be undertaken to avoid any potentially significant adverse effectfrom the proposed project on buried or submerged cultural resources. CCSF shall retain the services ofa qualified archaeological consultant having expertise in California prehistoric and urbanhistorical archaeology. The archaeological consultant shall undertake an archaeological testingprogram as specified herein. In addition, the consultant shall be available to conduct anarchaeological monitoring and/or data recovery program if required pursuant to this measure. Thearchaeological consultant’s work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the directionof CCSF. All plans and reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submittedfirst and directly to CCSF for review and comment, and shall be considered draft reports subject torevision until final approval by CCSF. Archaeological monitoring and/or data recovery programs


required by this measure could suspend construction of the project for up to a maximum of four weeks.At the direction of CCSF, the suspension of construction can be extended beyond four weeks only i fsuch a suspension is the only feasible means to reduce to a less-than-significant level potentialeffects on a significant archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(c).

Archaeological Testing Program. The archaeological consultant shall prepare and submit to CCSFfor review and approval an archaeological testing plan (ATP). The archaeological testing programshall be conducted in accordance with the approved ATP. The ATP shall identify the propertytypes of the expected archaeological resource(s) that potentially could be adversely affected by theproposed project, the testing method to be used, and the locations recommended for testing. Thepurpose of the archaeological testing program will be to determine to the extent possible thepresence or absence of archaeological resources and to identify and to evaluate whether anyarchaeological resource encountered on the site constitutes an historical resource under CEQA.

At the completion of the archaeological testing program, the archaeological consultant shall submita written report of the findings to CCSF. If based on the archaeological testing program thearchaeological consultant finds that significant archaeological resources may be present, CCSF inconsultation with the archaeological consultant shall determine if additional measures arewarranted. Additional measures that may be undertaken include additional archaeological testing,archaeological monitoring, and/or an archaeological data recovery program. If CCSF determinesthat a significant archaeological resource is present and that the resource could be adversely affectedby the proposed project, at the discretion of CCSF ei ther:

A. The proposed project shal l be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on thesignificant archaeological resource; or

B. A data recovery program shal l be implemented, unless CCSF determines that thearchaeological resource is of greater interpretive than research significance and thatinterpretive use of the resource is feasible.

Archaeological Monitoring Program. If CCSF in consultation with the archaeological consultantdetermines that an archaeological monitoring program shall be implemented the archaeologicalmonitoring program shall minimally include the following provisions:

o The archaeological consultant, project team representative and CCSF shall meet and consulton the scope of the AMP reasonably prior to any project-related soils disturbing activitiescommencing. CCSF in consultation with the archaeological consultant shall determine whatproject activities shall be archaeologically monitored. In most cases, any soils- disturbingactivities, such as demolition, foundation removal, excavation, grading, utilitiesinstallation, foundation work, driving of piles (foundation, shoring, etc.), site remediation,etc., shall require archaeological monitoring because of the risk these activities pose topotential archaeological resources and to their depositional context;

o The archaeological consultant shall advise all project contractors to be on the alert forevidence of the presence of the expected resource(s), of how to identify the evidence of theexpected resource(s), and of the appropriate protocol in the event of apparent discovery ofan archaeological resource;

o The archaeological monitor(s) shall be present on the project site according to a scheduleagreed upon by the archaeological consultant and CCSF until CCSF has, in consultation withthe project archaeological consultant, determined that project construction activities couldhave no effects on significant archaeological deposits;

o The archaeological monitor shall record and be authorized to collect soil samples andartifactual/ecofactual material as warranted for analysis;


o If an intact archaeological deposit is encountered, all soils-disturbing activities in thevicinity of the deposit shall cease. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered totemporarily redirect demolition/excavation/pile driving/construction activities andequipment until the deposit is evaluated. If in the case of pile driving activity (foundation,shoring, etc.), the archaeological monitor has cause to believe that the pile driving activitymay affect an archaeological resource, the pile driving activity shall be terminated until anappropriate evaluation of the resource has been made in consultation with CCSF. Thearchaeological consultant shall immediately notify CCSF of the encounteredarchaeological deposit. The archaeological consultant shall make a reasonable effort toassess the identity, integrity, and significance of the encountered archaeological deposit,and present the findings of this assessment to CCSF.Whether or not significant archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeologicalconsultant shall submit a written report of the findings of the monitoring program to CCSF.

Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The archaeological data recovery program shall beconducted in accord with an archaeological data recovery plan (ADRP). The archaeologicalconsultant, project team representative, and CCSF shall meet and consult on the scope of the ADRPprior to preparation of a draft ADRP. The archaeological consultant shall submit a draft ADRP toCCSF. The ADRP shall identify how the proposed data recovery program will preserve thesignificant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. That is, the ADRP willidentify what scientific/historical research questions are applicable to the expected resource, whatdata classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address theapplicable research questions. Data recovery, in general, should be limited to the portions of thehistorical property that could be adversely affected by the proposed project. Destructive datarecovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructivemethods are practical.

The scope of the ADRP shall include the following elements:

o Field Methods and Procedures. Descriptions of proposed field strategies, procedures, andoperations.

o Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of selected cataloguing system andartifact analysis procedures.

o Discard and Deaccession Policy. Description of and rationale for field and post-fielddiscard and deaccession policies.

o Interpretive Program. Consideration of an on-site/off-site public interpretive programduring the course of the archaeological data recovery program.

o Security Measures. Recommended security measures to protect the archaeological resourcefrom vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities.

o Final Report. Description of proposed report format and distribution of results.

o Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of anyrecovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate curationfacilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation facilities.

Human Remains and Associated or Unassociated Funerary Objects. The treatment of human remainsand of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soils disturbing activityshall comply with applicable State and Federal laws. This shall include immediate notification ofthe Coroner of the City and County of San Francisco and in the event of the Coroner’s determinationthat the human remains are Native American remains, notification of the California State NativeAmerican Heritage Commission (NAHC) who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (Pub.


Res. Code Sec. 5097.98). The archaeological consultant, CCSF project representative, and MLD shallmake all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment of, with appropriate dignity,human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines. Sec. 15064.5(d)).The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation,analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated orunassociated funerary objects.

Final Archaeological Resources Report. The archaeological consultant shall submit a Draft FinalArchaeological Resources Report (FARR) to CCSF that evaluates the historical significance of anydiscovered archaeological resource and describes the archaeological and historical researchmethods employed in the archaeological testing/monitoring/data recovery program(s) undertaken.Information that may put at risk any archaeological resource shall be provided in a separateremovable insert within the final report.

Once approved by CCSF, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as follows: CaliforniaArchaeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) shall receive one (1) copy andCCSF shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the FARR to the NWIC. The City and County of SanFrancisco, Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning Department shall receive onecopy of the FARR along with copies of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/ordocumentation for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places/California Register ofHistorical Resources. In instances of high public interest in or the high interpretive value of theresource, CCSF may require a different final report content, format, and distribution than thatpresented above.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The following measures (taken from Impact Geology-4 in the Master Plan EIR) address potential erosionimpacts during construction:

1. Prior to development of any of the proposed Main Campus Master Plan projects, CCSF shall developan erosion control plan. During each individual project, construction personnel shall implement a l lrelevant and feasible measures of the plan during earthmoving and other construction activities.The plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following measures:

a) To the extent feasible, restricting earth moving activities to the dry season and providingerosion protection measures for each project prior to the onset of winter rains;

b) Minimizing the amount of soil exposed at any one time (through scheduling, prompt completionof grading, and use of staged stabilization);

c) Removed (not applicable to this project)

d) Designating soil stockpile areas on the construction plans and covering and protecting soilstockpiles by a plastic membrane during the rainy season;

e) Removed (not applicable to this project)

f) Implementing the dust control measures identified above under mitigation measures for a irquality issues.

HAZARDS

The following measures (taken from Impact Hazards-2 in the Master Plan EIR) address potential erosionimpacts during construction:


1. The project site shall be remediated in accordance with the standards, regulations, anddeterminations of local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. The project sponsor shall coordinatewith the Department of Public Health and any other applicable regulatory agencies to adoptcontaminant-specific remediation target levels. The hazardous substances shall be removed anddisposed of at an approved site, or other appropriate actions such as in-situ remediation shall betaken.

NOISE

The following measure (taken from Impact Noise-1 in the Master Plan EIR) addresses potential noiseimpacts during construction:

1. Construction contractors shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures tha tinclude using noise-reducing mufflers and other noise abatement devices, changing the location ofstationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, and notifying adjacent residencesand businesses in advance of construction work. In addition, CCSF shall require the posting of signsprior to construction activities with a phone number for residents to call with noise complaints.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

The following measures (taken from the proposal to prepare a construction transportation plan, p. 4.3-32 ofthe Master Plan EIR) address potential transportation and circulation impacts during construction:

1. Construction employee arrival and departure schedules shall be staggered so they do not coincidewith adjacent street peak hours (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM, and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM).

2. All construction parking shall be accommodated on site once the greenhouses have been demolished.3. Pedestrian and vehicle routing shall be designated in the site area to minimize pedestrian hazards.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN PREPARING THE ADDENDUM

1. City and County of San Francisco, Master Plan (General Plan), adopted 1990.

2. City and County of San Francisco, Zoning Map, Sheet 12.

3. City and County of San Francisco, Planning Code Section 206.1, “RH (Residential House) Districts,” June1990.

4. Blomquist, James, Vice Chancellor, CCSF, personal communication with Impact Sciences, October 12,2004.

5. Site visit conducted by Impact Sciences’ staff Arlyn Purcell on July 9, 2004.

6. Trans Pacific Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Moggia Nursery,324 Havelock Street, San Francisco, California, July 7, 2004.

7. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, www.consrv.ca.gov.

8. Trans Pacific Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Moggia Nursery,324 Havelock Street, San Francisco, California, August 12, 2004.

9. Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List,www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese_List.cfm , July 14, 2004.


10. SCA Environmental Inc., “Regarding In Situ Soil Sampling and Analytical Results, Moggia Nursery, 324Havelock Street, San Francisco, California, SCA Project Number B-6833,” August 11, 2004.

11. U.S. EPA, “Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and HomeAppliances.” 1971.

12. DKS Associates, Traffic Analysis for the Greenhouse Site adjacent to the City College of San FranciscoMain Campus, October, 2004.

Documents

ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR FOR CITY COLLEGE OF SAN … greenhouse addendum.pdfGreenhouse Site Short-term use/construction mitigation project Addendum City College of San Francisco 2 October