Final SEIR April 25, 2011 - UCSF€¦ · UCSF MCMB EIR, and includes additional alternatives. Chapter 7, Report Preparation: Lists report authors, in this case UCSF Campus Planning

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY—

PHASE 1 GARAGE

State Clearinghouse Number 2008012075

University of California, San Francisco

Certified by the UCSF Chancellor: June 21, 2011

Draft SEIR Publication Date: February 25, 2011

Draft SEIR Public Review Period: February 25, 2011 through April 11, 2011

Draft SEIR Public Hearing Date: March 28, 2011

Final SEIR Date: April 25, 2011

Notice of Determination Date: June 23, 2011

Lead Agency: The University of California

Prepared by: UCSF Campus Planning

654 Minnesota Street

San Francisco, CA 94143‐0286

Contact: Environmental Coordinator

(415) 476‐2911

University of California San Francisco Campus Planning

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR

Phase 1 Garage

[This page intentionally left blank.]

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY –

PHASE 1 GARAGE Page

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of this Document .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Organization of the Document ............................................................................................ 3

2. SUMMARY

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Summary of Project Impacts ................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Summary of Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................... 12 2.5 Areas of Controversy .......................................................................................................... 14

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................ 21 3.4 Mitigation Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 22 3.5 Required Approvals ............................................................................................................ 22

4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

4.0 Scope of Analyses ............................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 24 4.2 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 56

5. CEQA STATUTORY SECTIONS

5.1 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ........................................................... 60 5.2 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................ 60 5.3 Growth‐Inducing Impacts .................................................................................................. 60 5.4 Effects Found Not to Be Significant .................................................................................. 60 5.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................ 60

6. ALTERNATIVES

6.1 Alternatives Analysis .......................................................................................................... 62


Phase 1 Garage

ii

7. REPORT PREPARATION

7.1 Report Authors .................................................................................................................... 65

8. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

8.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 66 8.2 Public Hearing Transcript .................................................................................................. 66

9. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...................................... 73

LIST OF FIGURES

3‐1 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 16 3‐2 Project Site ............................................................................................................................ 17 3‐3 Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 18 3‐4 Project Site Plan/First Floor Plan ....................................................................................... 19 3‐5 Approach from Owens Street ............................................................................................ 20

APPENDICES

A. Initial Study B. Air Emissions Estimates C. Energy Efficiency Projects

Note: A solid dot (●) indicates new chapter or section compared to the Draft SEIR.

Page 1 of 74

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) is an informational document

prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code

Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”). It is intended to provide to decision‐makers and the public

supplemental environmental information concerning the proposed construction and operation of

a parking garage at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center at Mission

Bay. The proposed parking garage is part of the phased development of an integrated hospital

complex to serve children, women and cancer patients at its existing 57‐acre campus site at

Mission Bay.

The University of California (University) is the Lead Agency and The Regents of the University

of California (The Regents), or its delegated committee or administrative official, is the decision‐

making body for the project. On September 17, 2008, The Regents certified the EIR for the UCSF

Medical Center at Mission Bay (MCMB) and approved components of Phase I consisting of the

hospital, energy center, outpatient building, medical helipad, and surface parking. Approval of

the cancer outpatient building and Phase I garage was deferred pending funding and design of

those facilities. Construction of the approved components of the Medical Center project has now

commenced, beginning with site development and construction of the hospital and outpatient

building.

The proposed Phase I parking garage was fully analyzed in the UCSF Medical Center at Mission

Bay EIR (UCSF MCMB EIR). This SEIR has been prepared to update the UCSF MCMB EIR in

order to analyze three minor changes to the proposed Phase I garage. In addition, this SEIR

updates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis for the proposed Phase I garage in light of

new GHG significance criteria recently adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management

District (BAAQMD). This SEIR focuses on two topics that are affected by the proposed revisions

to the project: greenhouse gas emissions and transportation. All other environmental topics

were adequately analyzed in the UCSF MCMB EIR and require no further analysis, as

determined in the Initial Study for this project (see Appendix A). Pursuant to Section 15163(b),

this supplement to the EIR contains only the information necessary to make the previous EIR

adequate for the project as revised.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required only when, among other

criteria, “substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of

the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant


Phase 1 Garage

Page 2 of 74

environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant

effects.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 allows the lead agency to choose to prepare a

supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if “only minor additions or changes would be

necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.”

The changes proposed to the project consist of the increase in the number of parking spaces

within the garage by 26 spaces (for a total of about 626 spaces), the increase in height by 15 feet

(to a total of about 105 feet), and relocation of the Phase I garage to a portion of the hospital site

north of the originally proposed site. Only minor additions to the UCSF MCMB EIR are

necessary for the EIR to adequately address the proposed project. Because of the modest nature

of these project changes, a supplement to the UCSF MCMB EIR has been prepared.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 3 of 74

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT

This document is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction: Describes the purpose of this SEIR.

Chapter 2, Summary: Summarizes the supplemental environmental impact analysis.

Chapter 3, Project Description: Provides a description of the modified project, project objectives, project consistency with the LRDP, mitigation monitoring, and required approvals by other agencies.

Chapter 4, Environmental Settings, Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Describes the scope of this SEIR, focusing on impact topics of relevance to the modified project.

Chapter 5, CEQA Statutory Sections: Discusses various CEQA mandated considerations including unavoidable environmental impacts, cumulative impacts, and growth inducing impacts.

Chapter 6, Alternatives: Discusses the alternatives to the project already analyzed in the UCSF MCMB EIR, and includes additional alternatives.

Chapter 7, Report Preparation: Lists report authors, in this case UCSF Campus Planning staff, and other consulting staff that assisted with the preparation and review of the SEIR. Identifies persons, agencies and organizations that were consulted.

Page 4 of 74

CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY

2.1 BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2008, The Regents certified the EIR for the UCSF Medical Center at Mission

Bay (MCMB) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008012075) and approved components of Phase I

consisting of the 289‐bed hospital, energy center, outpatient building, medical helipad, and

surface parking.1 Approval of the cancer outpatient building and Phase I garage was deferred

pending funding and design of those facilities. Construction of the approved components of the

Medical Center project has now commenced, beginning with site development and construction

of the hospital and outpatient building. The complex is scheduled to open in 2014. With

approved funding of the Phase I garage, the University is now prepared to seek approval of its

design and construction.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Medical Center project site is bordered by 16th Street to the north, 3rd Street to the east, and

Mariposa Street to the south. In the future, a new segment of Owens Street will define the western

boundary of the project site. The parking structure analyzed in the MCMB EIR consisted of a 600‐

space garage of approximately 90 feet in height, located along the western edge of the site on

Owens Street between the South Connector Road and the Center Garage Access (now Parking

Structure Road). The medical center program envisioned in Phase II the expansion of the garage

to the north between the Center Garage Access and the North Connector Road. The garage is

now proposed to be approximately 626 spaces and an additional story at about 105 feet in height.

In addition, the Phase I garage is now proposed to the north, between the North Connector Road

and Parking Structure Road, the originally proposed location of the Phase II garage (see Figure 3‐

3). Phase II of the garage would expand the structure to the south from Parking Structure Road

to South Connector Road.

The number of surface parking spaces proposed on the remainder of Blocks 38 and 39 in Phase I

has been reduced from 475 spaces to approximately 429 spaces, with an additional 13 spaces east

of the future extension of 4th Street, in what is known as the east lot. The total surface parking

spaces would be approximately 442 compared to the 475 spaces analyzed in the 2008 EIR.

Therefore, the total number of parking spaces provided in Phase I (626 spaces in the parking

1 The UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR is available online at

http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/physical/RFEIRHospital.php.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 5 of 74

structure and 442 surface parking spaces) would decrease by approximately seven spaces and

would total approximately 1,068‐parking spaces from 1,075 spaces (see Figure 3‐4).

2.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS

2.3.1 GREENHOUSE GAS

Global climate change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as

temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer) (U.S.

EPA 2008b). To gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming

Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re‐emit long‐wave radiation

over a specific period. The GWP of a gas is determined using CO2 as the reference gas, which has

a GWP of 1 over 100 years (IPCC 1996). The sum of each GHG multiplied by its associated GWP

is referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO2e).

Significance Criteria

In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to

the State CEQA Guidelines on December 30, 2009 (effective March 2010), which include criteria for

evaluating GHG emissions.2 According to the amended Appendix G of the State CEQA

Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environment; or

Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of

reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established project‐level

screening criteria and significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions in its CEQA Air

Quality Guidelines. The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for operational‐related GHG

emissions are as follows:

For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG

Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year

(MTCO2e/yr); or 4.6 MT CO2e/person/yr (residents plus employees). Land use

development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses

and facilities.

For stationary‐source projects, the threshold is 10,000 MTCO2e/yr. Stationary‐source

projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit

GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate.

2 http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/


Phase 1 Garage

Page 6 of 74

The BAAQMD guidelines do not contain a quantitative threshold of significance for the

evaluation of GHG emissions resulting from a project’s construction activities.

Based on the above, the proposed project’s significance with respect to the GHG emissions and

global climate change will be assessed based on the BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance

and on the project features and GHG reduction measures that are consistent with the BAAQMD’s

recommended measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact GHG‐1: Project development would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly

or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. (Significant; Less than

significant with mitigation)

Operational Impacts

Once operational, the proposed project would generate direct operational emissions of GHGs,

primarily CO2, CH4, and N2O, which would be the result of fuel combustion from the building’s

lighting and elevator systems, from fuel combustion by the motor vehicles using the garage, and

from motor vehicle air conditioning.

Estimated emissions from mobile sources (transportation) would be 3,168 metric tons of CO2e,

and emissions from non‐mobile sources would be 627 metric tons of CO2e, resulting in a total of

about 3,795 metric tons of CO2e.

These emissions present a worst case scenario. Transportation emissions will decline in the

future as new motor vehicles with lower tailpipe emissions required by existing State (Pavley)

and Federal regulations are adopted into the vehicle fleet. As shown in Table 4.1‐3, the proposed

project’s operational emissions would exceed the project level threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e for

land use development projects. The project’s impact would therefore be significant.

Phase I Garage Mitigation: The Regents have committed the University system to reduce its

GHG emissions from all of its operations to the 1990 level by 2020. In furtherance of the goal to

meet these goals, the University is currently implementing the 2010‐12 Statewide Energy

Partnership Program (through the UC Strategic Energy Plan), an ambitious three year program

to help meet its goal. This 3 year program, in its second year of implementation, is expected to

reduce energy consumption by 11%, natural gas consumption by 8%, and greenhouse gas

emissions by 9% system‐wide.

As identified in the UCSF Climate Action Plan, UCSF is undertaking many of these energy

efficiency projects to retrofit existing facilities in order to assist the campus to meet its

greenhouse gas goals. These energy efficiency projects at UCSF provide more than 2,700

MtCO2e ongoing new reductions per year. Detail on campus specific reduction projects are


Phase 1 Garage

Page 7 of 74

described in the UC system wide Strategic Energy Plan.3

The Regents has approved funding for the 2010 Statewide Energy Partnership Program / UC

Strategic Energy Plan. UCSF would mitigate at least 2,700 MtCO2e ongoing reductions per year,

e.g. the additional significant GHG emissions associated with the proposed garage project, with

the appropriate number of energy efficiency projects identified on the list in Supplemental EIR

Appendix C. Projects identified in Appendix C are those projects that are included in the

funded, UC Strategic Energy Plan and that are planned to be implemented by 2012, around the

time garage operations would begin.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant

Construction Impacts

Construction of the proposed project, which would include activities such as grading/excavation,

trenching, building construction, and architectural coating, would result in one‐time emissions of

greenhouse gases. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in Summer

2011 and continue for approximately 12 months.

The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction‐related

GHG emissions. However, the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to quantify

and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Table 4.1‐4, Estimated

Construction GHG Emissions shows a summary of total estimated GHG emissions from the

construction of the proposed project, about 500.5 metric tons of CO2e over the course of the two

year construction period (2011 and 2012). Given the low numbers, the fact that they are much

lower than the threshold for operational emissions, and the fact that these would be one‐time

emissions, the effect on global climate from the proposed project’s construction would not be

substantial.

Impact GHG‐2: The proposed project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than

Significant)

The primary GHG emissions regulation in California is AB 32, which is discussed above. The

BAAQMD GHG significance threshold was specifically designed to ensure compliance with AB

32 emissions reductions requirements in the Bay Area. The project would not set back AB 32

efforts for the Bay Area air basin.

The BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan contains energy, transportation, and mobile source control

measures that would reduce operational GHG emissions and that would be potentially

applicable to the project. The project includes project design features that are generally consistent

with potentially applicable measures. Furthermore, UCSF has incorporated into the proposed

3 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/documents/ucsep_sw.pdf page 14/21


Phase 1 Garage

Page 8 of 74

project substantial sustainability features, including several GHG mitigation measures included

in the BAAQMD CEQA guidelines.

With implementation of the reduction projects identified in Impact GHG‐1, emissions would be

mitigated to less than 1,100 MMTCO2e /year. The proposed project would not conflict with an

applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of

greenhouse gases.

The Regents has committed the UC system to meet the State of California’s AB32 goal to reduce

GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 through the policies identified in the University of

California Policy on Sustainable Practices.4 UCSF is in compliance with the University of

California’s Policy on Sustainable Practices by completing all four implementation procedures

identified in the Policy.

The proposed project would also be consistent with the UCSF Climate Action Plan (UCSF 2009).

The Climate Action Plan contains the following transportation‐related measures would reduce

transportation‐related GHG emissions:

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program – UCSF’s TDM conforms with San

Francisco’s Transit First Policy to encourage the use of alternative transportation to single‐

occupancy vehicles. UCSF has excellent transit ridership rates according to latest transportation

survey. About 25.6% of respondents (faculty, staff, and students) reported taking public transit

(e.g., Muni or other bus system) as their main transportation choice in the latest mobility

choices survey.

Bicycling Accommodations ‐Bicycle racks have been expanded from 400 spaces in 2003

to 680 in 2008. There are now 53 shuttle mounted bike racks. Expenditures on new bike

racks were $13,445 in 2008. UCSF bicyclists are eligible for a reduced price membership

in the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

Fuel Efficient Vehicles – The Campus supplies 2 electric vehicle charging stations. Fifteen

percent (42 of 273) of campus fleet vehicles are powered by alternative fuel or a hybrid

electric and gas. The Campus offers 103 motorcycle parking stalls.

Transit Pass sales –To further encourage transit use UCSF offers the Campus community

5 convenient locations to purchase city and regional transit passes. MUNI Fast Pass and

Bart Commuter Ticket Monthly sales are 600 passes in 2008.

Vanpools – The number of vanpools increased from 30 in 2003 to 46 in 2008 and the

number of car sharing from three to 17 during the same period. These efforts, led by

UCSF Transportation Services, earned UCSF a place on the inaugural 2006 national list of

Best Workplaces for Commuters from colleges and universities, awarded by the US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vanpools receive preferential parking spaces at

4 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/documents/policy_sustain_prac.pdf


Phase 1 Garage

Page 9 of 74

UCSF.

The UCSF Climate Action Plan contains the following Strategic Energy Plan improvements that

are pertinent to the proposed project. These measures will be investigated for potential

implementation by the proposed project and would reduce energy demand and associated GHG

emissions:

Lighting Projects UCSF will continue to convert existing T12 and 32 watt T8 fluorescent

light fixtures to 28 watt T8 lamps. Other possibilities include: broader use of occupancy

sensor controls, daylight harvesting, and new stairwell fixtures. The replacement of

lighting in parking structures and interior HID fixtures and with fluorescent will also be

evaluated. New technologies such as LED lighting, bi‐level fixtures and induction lamps

are anticipated to become readily available in the near future and these technologies will

be incorporated into energy efficiency retrofit projects where appropriate.

The proposed project includes secure bicycle parking, parking fees, and electric vehicle charging

stations. In addition, garage attendants would be available to provide information on alternative

transportation and sell transit passes. The project could also provide preferential parking spaces

for carpools and vanpools, depending on need, consistent with UCSF guidelines. These measures

would reduce transportation‐related GHG emissions consistent with the Climate Action Plan

measures. The project would also be designed to minimize the energy demand by using energy‐

efficient lighting (fluorescent, LED lighting, or similar depending on cost effectiveness). Based on

the inclusion of these project design features, the project would be consistent with applicable

plans that have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The impact would be less than

significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required.

2.3.2 TRANSPORTATION

This section evaluates potential changes to the transportation analysis of the MCMB EIR as a

result of the minor modifications to the proposed Phase I garage project. The MCMB EIR

concluded that the construction and operation of the Medical Center at Mission Bay, including

the proposed Phase I garage, would not cause a substantial adverse impact to transit, pedestrian,

bicycle, or parking conditions, nor result in inadequate emergency access. The modifications to

the proposed project would not change the effects anticipated in these topic areas. Therefore, this

analysis focuses on any potential changes to operational traffic impacts.


The significance criteria and analysis methodology of the MCMB EIR remain unchanged with

regard to transportation and traffic. Traffic impacts were analyzed using the concept of Level of


Phase 1 Garage

Page 10 of 74

Service (LOS), which describes the level of the performance of an intersection based on the

average delay per vehicle. Intersection LOS ranges from LOS A, which indicates free‐flow

conditions with little or no delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions

with extremely long delays. LOS D, which indicates increasingly unacceptable, yet tolerable,

delays, is considered to be the minimum acceptable level of service.

As discussed in the Project Description, although the number of parking spaces within the

proposed garage has been increased from 600 spaces to 626 spaces with the modified project, the

number of parking spaces within the surface parking lot, which has been approved, has

decreased. The total number of parking spaces in Phase I (626 spaces in the parking structure

and 442 surface parking spaces) has decreased by approximately seven spaces and would total

approximately 1,068‐parking spaces, down from the previously analyzed 1,075 spaces. As

discussed in the Project Description, the Phase I garage is now proposed to the north, between

North Connector Road and Parking Structure Road. Roadways internal to the site and

connections to surrounding public streets, including Owens Street, would remain unchanged.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

A Transportation Study was prepared for the MCMB EIR.5 The Transportation Study evaluated

both the Phase I and future buildout of the Phase II development. In addition, the traffic study

evaluated two potential alternatives for the operation of 4th Street through the Medical Center

site. Both alternatives would convert the proposed 4th Street right‐of‐way to University of

California property.

Based on the analysis contained with the Transportation Study, traffic impacts resulting from

Phase I of the Medical Center at Mission Bay would be less than significant, as all study

intersections would continue to operate at level‐of‐service D or better. The impacts analysis

below updates the impacts analysis of the MCMB EIR.


Impact MCMB.6‐1 of the MCMB EIR (analysis updated with this SEIR): The MCMB EIR

concluded that construction of the MCMB Phase I project, including the Phase I garage,

would not result in significant construction‐period impacts. (Less than Significant)

The MCMB EIR concluded that MCMB Phase I construction activities would temporarily

increase traffic on area roadways (due to construction employee auto trips and construction

truck traffic), as well as demand for parking in the area. In addition, the staging of vehicles and

construction materials would require temporary closure of on‐street parking near the

construction site. The MCMB EIR concluded that the LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital

Replacement EIR mitigation measure 4.11‐1, which includes limiting the use of local roads as

haul routes, and/or limiting truck trips to off‐peak hours, and/or developing a parking plan for

5 Adavant Consulting and Wilbur Smith Associates, UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Transportation Study, March 2008.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 11 of 74

construction employees, would ensure transportation‐related construction impacts would be

reduced to less than significant levels. In furtherance of this mitigation measure, the proposed

Phase I garage, once completed, on a temporary basis would provide some construction

employee parking until construction of the hospital and surface parking lot is complete.

Mitigation: None required.

Operational Impacts


concluded that operation of the MCMB project, including the Phase I garage, would not result

in a significant impact on the adjacent roadway network. (Less than Significant)

As discussed in the Project Description, while the number of parking spaces in the parking

structure (from 600 to 626) would increase as a result of the changes to the proposed project,, the

total number of parking spaces would decrease by about 7 spaces as a result of the proposed

decrease in surface parking. Although the location of the Phase I garage is now proposed in the

location of the proposed Phase II garage, to the north of the previously proposed Phase I garage

site, effects on traffic would continue to be less than significant in Phase I. Overall site circulation

and access to the parking garage would remain substantially the same. Multiple access points

to/from the parking facility (including the adjoining surface lot) would continue to be from North

Connector Road, South Connector Road, West Connector Road, and Parking Structure Road

(formerly Center Garage Access), all campus streets on the Medical Center site. Effects on traffic

at surrounding study intersections would remain largely unchanged. As a result of the

relocation of the Phase I garage to north, Parking Structure Road/ Owens Street could experience

incrementally more traffic in Phase I than previously anticipated, but not to the degree that the

level of service would deteriorate to unacceptable levels. Multiple roadway access would

continue to be available to the garage, as previously analyzed, and assumptions regarding the

distribution of traffic at nearby intersections would not substantially change.


Impact MCMB.6‐3 of the MCMB EIR (analysis updated with this SEIR): Operation of the

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay project would increase traffic at intersections on the

adjacent roadway network in the Future Phase (Phase II). (Significant)

The MCMB EIR traffic analysis of the full project (Phase I and Phase II) would not change

substantially with the modified project. With the modified project, the construction of the Phase

II garage would occur to the south of the Phase I garage, at the original location of the Phase I

garage. The significant traffic impact at 16th/Owens in Phase II would continue to be significant

with the modified project. The potential impact at Owens/Center Garage Access would remain

speculative pending project‐level analysis of the traffic and circulation analyses for Phase II.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 12 of 74

Mitigation: The mitigation measures identified in the MCMB EIR to address significant traffic

impacts in Phase II would remain unchanged, as follows:

16th/Owens: Mitigation Measure 4.11‐2a from the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR identifies

modifications to the Owen Street lane configurations (i.e. restriping) to mitigate the

impact at this intersection: one southbound shared through‐left turn lane, one

southbound through lane, and one southbound exclusive right turn lane, would remain

the same.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Implementation of the re‐striping at

this location would improve the operating conditions at this intersection to an acceptable

LOS D. The City of San Francisco has found the mitigation measure to be feasible, and

has committed to working with UCSF to ensure its implementation.6

Owens Street at Center Garage Access: Mitigation Measure MCMB.6‐3 from the

Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would require that UCSF conduct a project‐level

CEQA review at the time the Phase II development is considered for approval. In

addition, in order to determine the need for LOS improvements on Owens Street,

between 16th and Mariposa Streets at Center Garage Access (now Parking Structure

Road), such as a traffic signal, UCSF would coordinate with the City of San Francisco in

the periodic update of the Mission Bay traffic triggers survey and would monitor on‐site

parking access and circulation in order to determine the need for LOS improvements.

Significance after Mitigation: The need for LOS improvements on Owens Street at the

Center Garage Access in Phase II remains speculative pending a project‐level design of

parking requirements and project‐level traffic and circulation evaluation.

2.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

2.4.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

CEQA requires that a “No Project” alternative be considered. Under this alternative, the UCSF

Medical Center at Mission Bay would be developed as proposed except that the garage would

not be constructed. The 442‐parking space surface lots, which have been approved, would be

constructed as planned.

This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

With the proposed project, impacts on greenhouse gas emissions would be significant, but would

be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. While the No Project Alternative would

6 Comment letter dated July 3, 2008 from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, on the UCSF

Medical Center at Mission Bay Draft EIR.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 13 of 74

mean no parking structure would be provided, it is still anticipated that a substantial number of

patients, visitors, and employees would need to drive to the site. It is likely that the amount of

greenhouse gas emissions would be significant, as with the modified project, but those emissions

could be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels with the implementation of the energy efficiency

projects identified as mitigation for the modified project.

Transportation

The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on traffic, as would the No

Project Alternative. Without a garage on the Medical Center at Mission Bay site, more drivers

may search for parking in the vicinity, thus more traffic may occur in the surrounding

neighborhood than with the proposed project. However, traffic impacts under the No Project

Alternative would be less than significant.

2.4.2 REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the number of parking spaces would be reduced to

approximately one‐half the number of spaces, or about 300 spaces. The number of parking

spaces within the surface parking lots, which have been approved, would remain the same at 442

spaces.

This alternative would meet the project objectives to (1) ensure that development is compatible

with and responsive to building scale and character in the surrounding areas; and (2) provide a

parking structure that incorporates sustainability features to the greatest extent feasible.

This alternative would only satisfy a portion of the expected parking demand by patients,

visitors, and staff, and therefore would only partially meet the project objectives to (1) develop a

patient‐friendly hospital (convenient location, availability of parking, efficient patient/emergency

access, proximity of related patient service, etc.); (2) develop a staff‐friendly hospital (availability

of parking, proximity to amenities, loading/delivery access, etc.); (3) support UCSF’s mission of

patient care by enhancing access to UCSF facilities through convenient, affordable parking for

those who often cannot utilize alternative forms of transportation; (4) provide parking for those

essential healthcare providers for whom alternative forms of transportation is infeasible due to

atypical work hours and responsibilities at multiple campus sites; and (5) avoid pressure on

neighborhood on‐street parking.



be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. The Reduced Project Alternative would

likely result in significant greenhouse gas emissions that could be reduced to less than significant

levels with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 14 of 74

Transportation

The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on traffic, as would the

Reduced Project Alternative. With fewer parking spaces on the Medical Center at Mission Bay

site, more drivers may search for parking in the vicinity, thus more traffic may occur in the

surrounding neighborhood than with the proposed project. However, traffic impacts under the

Reduced Project Alternative would be less than significant.

2.4.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative—that is, the alternative

having the fewest significant environmental impacts—from among the alternatives evaluated.

The environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated within this SEIR is the No

Project Alternative. Other than the No Project Alternative, the remaining alternative, the

Reduced Project Alternative, is the environmentally superior alternative.

2.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

No concerns have been expressed regarding the proposed garage, and there are no known areas

of controversy about this project.

Page 15 of 74

CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2008, The Regents certified the EIR for the UCSF Medical Center at Mission

Bay (MCMB) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008012075) and approved components of Phase I

consisting of the 289‐bed hospital, energy center, outpatient building, medical helipad, and

surface parking.7 Approval of the cancer outpatient building and Phase I garage was deferred

pending funding and design of those facilities. Construction of the approved components of the

Medical Center project has now commenced, beginning with site development and construction

of the hospital and outpatient building. The complex is scheduled to open in 2014. With

approved funding of the Phase I garage, the University is now prepared to seek approval of its

design and construction.

3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The location of the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay is as described in the UCSF Medical Center

at Mission Bay EIR. The 14.5‐acre site is located in the eastern portion of the City of San Francisco,

approximately one and one half miles south of downtown, and increases the UCSF Mission Bay

campus from 43 acres to 57 acres (see Figure 3‐1).8 The site lies within the 303‐acre Mission Bay

Redevelopment Plan Area, under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, and

consists of Mission Bay South Plan Parcels 36, 37, 38, 39, and X3.

7 The UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR is available online at

http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/physical/RFEIRHospital.php. 8 The 14.5‐acre Medical Center project site was added to the 43‐acre UCSF Mission Bay campus site (a total

of 57 acres) in September 2008.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 16 of 74

Source: Environmental Science Associates, April 2008 Figure 3‐1

Location of UCSF Medical Center at

Mission Bay

Page 17 of 74

Source: UCSF, April 2008 Figure 3‐2

Project Site

Proposed Project

Page 18 of 74

Source: WRNS Studio Figure 3‐3

Project Site Plan

Page 19 of 74

Source: WRNS Studio Figure 3‐4

Project Site Plan/First Floor Plan


Phase 1 Garage

Page 20 of 74

Source: Rudolph and Sletten and WRNS Studios LLP Figure 3‐5

Approach from Owens Street


Phase 1 Garage

Page 21 of 74

The Medical Center project site is bordered by 16th Street to the north, 3rd Street to the east, and

Mariposa Street to the south. In the future, a new segment of Owens Street will define the western

boundary of the project site (see Figure 3‐2).

Structures that have not yet been approved under Phase I include the garage and the cancer

outpatient building. Minor changes to the garage in Phase I are proposed. The parking structure

analyzed in the MCMB EIR consisted of a 600‐space garage of approximately 90 feet in height,

located along the western edge of the site on Owens Street between the South Connector Road

and the Center Garage Access (now Parking Structure Road). The medical center program

envisioned in Phase II the expansion of the garage to the north between the Center Garage Access

and the North Connector Road. The garage is now proposed to be approximately 626 spaces and

an additional story at about 105 feet in height. In addition, the Phase I garage is now proposed to

the north, between the North Connector Road and Parking Structure Road, the original location

of the proposed Phase II garage (see Figure 3‐3). Phase II of the garage would expand the

structure to the south from Parking Structure Road to South Connector Road.

The number of surface parking spaces proposed on the remainder of Blocks 38 and 39 in Phase I

(see Figure 3‐3) has been reduced from 475 spaces to approximately 429 spaces, with an

additional 13 spaces east of the future extension of 4th Street, in what is known as the east lot.

The total surface parking spaces would be approximately 442 compared to the 475 spaces

analyzed in the 2008 EIR. Therefore, the total number of parking spaces provided in Phase I (626

spaces in the parking structure and 442 surface parking spaces) would decrease by

approximately seven spaces and would total approximately 1,068‐parking spaces from 1,075

spaces (see Figure 3‐4).

3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

3.3.1 OBJECTIVES IN THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY

EIR

The Project Objectives described in the UCSF MCMB EIR remain unchanged. As a support

function to the hospital complex, all project objectives are applicable to the proposed garage, and

in particular the following Project Objectives to:

Ensure that development is compatible with and responsive to building scale and

character in the surrounding areas

Develop a patient‐friendly hospital (convenient location, availability of parking, efficient

patient/emergency access, proximity of related patient service, etc.)

Develop a staff‐friendly hospital (availability of parking, proximity to amenities,

loading/delivery access, etc.)


Phase 1 Garage

Page 22 of 74

In addition, this SEIR identifies the following Project Objectives for the proposed garage:

To support UCSF’s mission of patient care by enhancing access to UCSF facilities

through convenient, affordable parking for those who often cannot utilize alternative

forms of transportation

To provide parking for those essential healthcare providers for whom alternative forms

of transportation is infeasible due to atypical work hours and responsibilities at multiple

campus sites

To provide a parking structure that incorporates sustainability features to the greatest

extent feasible

To avoid pressure on neighborhood on‐street parking

3.4 MITIGATION MONITORING

CEQA requires that when a public agency makes findings of significance based on an EIR, the

public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure that action is completed

on those mitigation measures which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in

order to mitigate or avoid the project’s significant effects on the environment (Public Resources

Code Section 21081.6). A mitigation monitoring program for the Medical Center project was

adopted in September 2008 upon certification of the UCSF MCMB EIR and approval of the

Medical Center project. Upon certification of this SEIR and approval of the Phase I garage, the

revised mitigation monitoring program, updated to include mitigation measures identified in

this SEIR, would be adopted.

3.5 REQUIRED APPROVALS

The University of California is the CEQA lead agency in the review of the project. The Regents

of the University of California, or their delegated committee or administrative official, will

consider certification of this SEIR and approval of the Phase I garage.

_________________________

Page 23 of 74

CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

MEASURES

4.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSES

This SEIR updates the UCSF MCMB EIR by analyzing proposed minor changes to the Phase I

garage project. There are no changes proposed to the cancer outpatient building, the other

remaining building in Phase I that has not yet been approved. In addition, this SEIR updates the

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis in light of new GHG significance criteria recently

adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As such, this SEIR

focuses on two topics that are affected by the modified project: greenhouse gas emissions and

transportation. All other environmental topics were adequately analyzed and require no further

analysis, as determined in the Initial Study for this project (see Appendix A).


Phase 1 Garage

Page 24 of 74

4.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.1.1 INTRODUCTION

This section discusses the existing global, national, and statewide conditions for greenhouse

gases (GHG) and global climate change and evaluates the potential impacts on global climate

from the implementation of the proposed Medical Center at Mission Bay Garage project

(proposed project). The section also provides discussion of the applicable federal, state, regional,

and local agencies that regulate, monitor, and control GHG emissions. The impacts associated

with the proposed project are compared with the thresholds of significance adopted by the Bay

Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Copies of the modeling runs to estimate

GHG emissions associated with the proposed project and supporting technical data are found in

Appendix B.

The 2008 MCMB FEIR, certified by The Regents September 17, 20089, included an analysis of

greenhouse gas emissions. This analysis was done for the entire Medical Center at Mission Bay

project envelope including of the proposed Medical Center at Mission Bay Garage project.10 The

analysis was done using the URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.4 software. Subsequent to the

certification of that EIR, additional guidance for the analysis of greenhouse gases has been

adopted.

The Natural Resources Agency adopted GHG CEQA Guideline Amendments on December 30,

2009. They became effective in March 2010.

The BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines on June 2, 2010. These guidelines

contain greenhouse gas operational emissions significance thresholds and recommended

methodologies and models to be used for assessing the impacts of project‐specific GHG

emissions on global climate change. The updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain project‐

level screening criteria and recommended significance thresholds for evaluation of operational

GHG emissions from a proposed project. The guidelines also contain recommended

methodologies to use to estimate these emissions and provide recommended measures for

reducing GHG emissions from land use development projects and stationary sources. The

recommended methodology is the URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.4 software with an additional Bay

Area specific spreadsheet module that takes into account Assembly Bill 1493 limitations on motor

vehicles.

9 State Clearinghouse No. 2008012075 10 http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/pdf/RFEIR/UCSFMissionBayMedCtrRFEIRAppendices.pdf Table GHG-1


Phase 1 Garage

Page 25 of 74

4.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Background

Global climate change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as

temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer) (U.S.

EPA 2008b). Climate change may result from:

Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s

orbit around the sun (Milankovitch cycles);

Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation,

changes in planetary albedo from the addition of gases to the atmosphere from

volcanic eruptions); and

Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning

fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization,

desertification).

The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere11 is called the “greenhouse

effect.” The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as

follows: (1) short‐wave radiation in the form of visible light emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the

Earth as heat; (2) long‐wave radiation is re‐emitted by the Earth; and (3) certain gases termed

greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere absorb a portion of the long‐wave radiation that

would otherwise have been emitted into space, warming the earth’s surface. This third process is

the focus of current climate change actions.

While water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the most abundant GHGs, other GHGs found in

trace amounts have a greater ability to absorb and re‐radiate long‐wave radiation. To gauge the

potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG

based on its ability to absorb and re‐emit long‐wave radiation over a specific period. The GWP of

a gas is determined using CO2 as the reference gas, which has a GWP of 1 over 100 years (IPCC

1996). For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is 10 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. The

use of GWP allows GHG emissions to be reported using CO2 as a baseline. The sum of each GHG

multiplied by its associated GWP is referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO2e). This

essentially means that 1 metric ton of a GHG with a GWP of 10 has the same climate change

impacts as 10 metric tons of CO2. The IPCC makes minor adjustments to the GWP values of the

various GHG’s as the scientific understanding of climate change advances.

Greenhouse Gases

11 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to

10 to 12 kilometers).


Phase 1 Garage

Page 26 of 74

State law defines GHGs to include the following six compounds:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide primarily is generated by fossil fuel

combustion from stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial

facilities and mobile sources over the past 250 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide

in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent. (U.S. EPA 2008c). Carbon dioxide is the

most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining the GWP

of other GHGs. In 2004, 82.8 percent of California’s GHG emissions were carbon dioxide

(CEC 2007).

Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources (i.e., resulting from the

activity of living organisms), incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure

management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three

sources of methane are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation (U.S.

EPA). Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which is used for space and

water heating, steam production, and power generation. The GWP of methane is 21.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced by natural and human‐related sources.

Primary human‐related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure

management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic

acid production, and nitric acid production. The GWP of nitrous oxide is 310.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs typically are used as refrigerants in both stationary

refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam‐blowing

is growing particularly as the continued phase‐out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The GWP of HFCs ranges from

140 for HFC‐152a to 6,300 for HFC‐236fa.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Perfluorocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and

fluorine. They are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and

semiconductor manufacturing. Perfluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a GWP several

thousand times that of carbon dioxide, depending on the specific PFC. Another area of

concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000 years) (EIA n.d.).

The GWPs of PFCs range from 5,700 to 11,900.

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic,

nonflammable gas. It is mainly used in such purposes as magnesium casting operations,

semiconductor manufacture, and as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment

that transmits and distributes electricity. Minor uses include certain medical and

laboratory uses. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by

the Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) on Climate Change with a GWP of 23,900. However,

its global warming contribution is not as high as the GWP would indicate due to its low

mixing ratio, as compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365

parts per million [ppm] of CO2) (U.S. EPA).

The primary GHGs of concern relative to the proposed project are CO2, CH4, and N2O. These


Phase 1 Garage

Page 27 of 74

three GHGs are generally emitted from combustion activities. The other GHGs listed above are

related to specific industrial uses and not anticipated to be emitted in measurable or substantial

quantities by the project.

Contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Global

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environmental Program

(UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The goal of

the IPCC is to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activities. The IPCC assesses

information (i.e., scientific literature) regarding human‐induced climate change, impacts of

human‐induced climate change, and options for adaptation and mitigation of climate change.

The IPCC reports its evaluations in special reports called “assessment reports,” the latest of

which, AR4, was published in 2007.12

Worldwide anthropogenic (man‐made) GHG emissions are tracked for industrialized nations

and developing nations. The IPCC estimates worldwide emissions in 1990 were 39,400 million

metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e).13 The most recent anthropogenic GHG emissions

from industrialized and developing nations are available through 2007 and 2005, respectively.

The IPCC estimates sum of these emissions totaled approximately 43,363 MMTCO2e. This

translates into approximately 6.8 MTCO2e per capita. The IPCC projects a significant rise in

worldwide GHG emissions as world population continues to grow and underdeveloped

countries industrialize to raise living standards.

It should be noted that global emissions inventory data are not all from the same year and may

vary considerably depending on the quality and source of the emissions inventory data. While

the majority of global CO2 emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels, roughly a quarter of the

carbon entering the atmosphere is from land‐use changes, which are harder to track. The IPCC is

currently working to produce their Fifth Assessment Report with updated emissions estimates

and analysis. Table 4.1‐1 shows the most recently available comparative GHG emissions for

various relevant reporting entities.

United States

The most recent United States Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of national GHG emissions was

prepared by the EPA in 2010. This inventory covers the period from 1990 to 2008. The EPA

estimates that the United States emitted 6,127 MMTCO2e in 1990. In 2008, total U.S. greenhouse

12 The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/. 13 The CO2 equivalent emissions commonly are expressed as “million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

(MMTCO2E).” The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP, such that MMTCO2E = (million metric tons of a GHG) x (GWP of the GHG). For example, the GWP for methane is 21. This means that the emission of one million metric tons of methane is equivalent to the emission of 21 million metric tons of CO2.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 28 of 74

gas emissions were 6,956 MMTCO2e, or approximately 20 MTCO2e per capita. Overall, total

U.S. emissions of GHG’s have risen by approximately 14 percent from 1990 to 2008. Emissions

declined from 2007 to 2008, decreasing by 2.9 percent. This decrease is primarily a result of a

decrease in demand for transportation fuels associated with the high costs of these fuels that

occurred in 2008. Additionally, electricity demand declined in 2008 in part due to a significant

increase in the cost of fuels used to generate electricity. Preliminary numbers for 2009 show

national emissions decreasing by an additional 3.4 percent.

The primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States is CO2,

representing approximately 85.1 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. The largest source of

CO2, and of overall greenhouse gas emissions, is fossil fuel combustion, primarily for

transportation and electricity generation.

Table 4.1‐1 Comparative GHG Emissions

GHG Emissions

(MMTCO2e)

~ Per Capita

(MTCO2e)

World 43,363 6.8

United States 6,956 20

California 474 14

Bay Area Region 97.4 15

San Francisco 8.5 11

State of California

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California.

Based upon the 2008 GHG inventory data, the latest year for which data are available, California

emitted 427 MMTCO2e in 1990 and 474 MMTCO2e in 2008. 14 This translates into approximately

14 MTCO2e per capita in 2008.

Between 1990 and 2008, the population of California grew by approximately 8.1 million (from

29.8 to 37.9 million), or 27.2 percent.15 In addition, the California economy, measured as gross

state product, grew from $788 billion in 1990 to $1.8 trillion in 2008 representing an increase of

approximately 128 percent.16 Despite the population and economic growth, California’s net GHG

emissions grew by only 11 percent. The California Energy Commission attributes the

proportionally slower rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions in part to the success of

California’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

14 Including emissions resulting from imported electrical power in 2008 15 California Department of Finance 2010a, U.S. Census Bureau 2010 16 California Department of Finance 2010


Phase 1 Garage

Page 29 of 74

Table 4.1‐2, GHG Emissions in California, provides a summary of GHG emissions reported in

California in 1990 and 2008 separated by categories defined by the United Nations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


Phase 1 Garage

Page 30 of 74

Table 4.1‐2 GHG Emission Detail in California

Source Category

1990

(MMTCO2e)

Percent

of Total

2008

(MMTCO2e)

Percent

of Total

ENERGY 386.41 89.2% 413.80 86.6%

Energy Industries 157.33 36.3% 171.23 35.8%

Manufacturing Industries & Construction 24.24 5.6% 16.67 3.5%

Transport 150.02 34.6% 173.94 36.4%

Other (Resident/Commercial/Institutional) 48.19 11.1% 46.59 9.8%

Non‐Specified 1.38 0.3% 0.00 0.0%

Fugitive Emissions ‐ Oil & Natural Gas 2.94 0.7% 3.28 0.7%

Fugitive Emissions Other Energy Prod. 2.31 0.5% 2.09 0.4%

INDUSTRIAL PROCESS & PRODUCT USE 18.34 4.2% 30.11 6.3%

Mineral Industry 4.85 1.1% 5.35 1.1%

Chemical Industry 2.34 0.5% 0.06 0.0%

Non‐Energy Products Fuels & Solvent Use 2.29 0.5% 1.97 0.4%

Electronics Industry 0.59 0.1% 0.80 0.2%

Substitutes ‐ Ozone Depleting Substances 0.04 0.0% 13.89 2.9%

Other Product Manufacture and Use 3.18 0.7% 1.66 0.3%

Other 5.05 1.2% 6.39 1.3%

AGRI., FORESTRY, & OTHER LAND USE 19.11 4.4% 24.42 5.1%

Livestock 11.67 2.7% 16.28 3.4%

Land 0.19 0.0% 0.19 0.0%

Aggr. Sources & Non‐CO2 Sources on Land 7.26 1.7% 7.95 1.7%

WASTE

Solid Waste Disposal

Wastewater Treatment & Discharge

9.42

6.26

3.17

2.2%

1.4%

0.7%

9.41

6.71

2.70

2.0%

1.4%

0.6%

EMISSIONS SUMMARY

Gross California Emissions

Sinks from Forests and Rangelands

Net California Emissions

433.29

‐6.69

426.60

477.74

‐3.98

473.76

Source:

California Air Resources Board. “California Greenhouse Gas 1990‐2004 Inventory by IPCC Category – Summary.”

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm 2007

California Air Resources Board. “California Greenhouse Gas 2000‐2008 Inventory by IPCC Category – Summary.”

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm 2010


Phase 1 Garage

Page 31 of 74

Regional The Bay Area Air Quality Management (BAAQMD) has compiled several GHG inventories for

the nine county Bay Area region, the most recent of which was updated in February 2010.17

Based upon that GHG inventory, the entire region emitted 87.7 MMTCO2e in 1990, and, 97.4

MMTCO2e, or 11% more, in 2008.18 This translates into approximately 15 MTCO2e per capita.

Carbon Dioxide accounts for 91.6% of Bay Area emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions are mainly

associated with combustion of carbon‐bearing fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and natural

gas used in mobile sources and energy‐generation‐related activities such as commercial power

plants.

San Francisco

The San Francisco Department of the Environment tracks the City’s greenhouse gas emissions.19

In 2002 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution that called for the City to

develop plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2012.

In 2004 the Department of the Environment and the PUC, issued “The Climate Action Plan for

San Francisco” which included an accounting of greenhouse gas activities. In 1990, San

Francisco’s total greenhouse gas emissions were approximately 9.1 MMTCO2e. 20 San Franciscoʹs

Climate Action Plan found that 49% of the Cityʹs greenhouse gas emissions came from buildings,

and 51% from transportation.

In 2008 the City estimated that its greenhouse gas emissions had decreased to 8.5 MMTCO2e,

about 7 percent below the 1990 emissions levels. In May 2008 the Board of Supervisors updated

the City goals: that by 2017, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below 1990 levels; by 2025,

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas

emissions by 80% below 1990 levels.

Effects of Global Climate Change

The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric

temperature of 0.2° Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements

worldwide between 1990 and 2005 (IPCC 2007). Climate change modeling using 2000 emission

rates suggests that further warming is likely to occur, which would induce further changes in the

global climate system during the current century (IPCC 2007). Changes to the global climate

system and ecosystems, and to the proposed project site, could include:

Changing weather patterns, including changes to precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind

patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy

17http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory200

7_2_10.ashx 18 http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/documents/regionalinventory2007_003_000_000.pdf 19 http://www.livablecity.org/campaigns/documents/SF%20climate%20ordinance%202008.pdf 20 http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/library/climateactionplan.pdf


Phase 1 Garage

Page 32 of 74

precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC

2007);

Declining sea ice, thereby increasing sea levels and sea surface evaporation rates with a

corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s ability to

hold more water vapor at higher temperatures (IPCC 2007);

Summer warming projections in the first 30 years of the 21st century ranging from about

0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius (°C) (0.9 to 3.6 °F) and by the last 30 years of the 21st century,

from about 1.5 to 5.8 °C (2.7 to 10.5 °F) (CalEPA 2006).

4.1.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

Federal

In Massachusetts vs. EPA, the Supreme Court held that United States Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S. EPA) has the statutory authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to

regulate GHGs from new motor vehicles. The court did not hold that the U.S. EPA was required

to regulate GHG emissions; however, it indicated that the agency must decide whether GHGs

from motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to

endanger public health or welfare. Upon the final decision, the President signed Executive Order

13432 on May 14, 2007, directing the U.S. EPA, along with the Departments of Transportation,

Energy, and Agriculture, to initiate a regulatory process that responds to the Supreme Court’s

decision.

On July 11, 2008, the U.S. EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

on regulating GHGs under the CAA. The ANPRM reviews the various CAA provisions that may

be applicable to the regulation of GHGs and presents potential regulatory approaches and

technologies for reducing GHG emissions. On April 10, 2009, the U.S. EPA published the

Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in the Federal Register (U.S. EPA 2009). The

rule was adopted on September 22, 2009 and covers approximately 10,000 facilities nationwide,

accounting for 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions.

On September 15, 2009, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a joint proposal to establish a national

program consisting of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light‐duty vehicles that

will reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. The proposed standards would be

phased in and would require passenger cars and light‐duty trucks to comply with a declining

emissions standard. In 2012, passenger cars and light‐duty trucks would have to meet an average

standard of 295 grams of CO2 per mile and 30.1 miles per gallon. By 2016, the vehicles would

have to meet an average standard of 250 grams of CO2 per mile and 35.5 miles per gallon.21

These standards were formally adopted by the U.S. EPA and DOT on April 1, 2010.

21 The CO2 emission standards and fuel economy standards stated are based on U.S. EPA formulas


Phase 1 Garage

Page 33 of 74

On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs

under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected

concentrations of the six key well‐mixed GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere

threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of

these well‐mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle

engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and

welfare.

While these findings do not impose additional requirements on industry or other entities, this

action was a prerequisite to finalizing the U.S. EPA’s proposed GHG emissions standards for

light‐duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the U.S. EPA and DOT.

California

Key state laws and regulations related to GHG emissions are described below.

Executive Order S‐3‐05 and the Climate Action Team

In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California’s GHG emissions reduction

targets in Executive Order S‐3‐05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG

emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below

1990 levels by 2050. The Secretary of Cal EPA is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies

in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. Some of the agency representatives involved

in the GHG reduction plan include the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing

Agency, the Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Secretary of the Resources

Agency, the Chairperson of CARB, the Chairperson of the CEC, and the President of the Public

Utilities Commission.

Representatives from each of the aforementioned agencies comprise the Climate Action Team.

The Cal/EPA secretary is required to submit a biannual progress report from the Climate Action

Team to the governor and state legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG emission

reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts

of global warming on California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, coastline, and forests,

and reporting possible mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. Strategies

currently being implemented by state agencies include CARB introducing vehicle climate change

standards and diesel anti‐idling measures, the Energy Commission implementing building and

appliance efficiency standards, and the Cal/EPA implementing their green building initiative.

The Climate Action Team also recommends future emission reduction strategies, such as using

only low‐GWP refrigerants in new vehicles, developing ethanol as an alternative fuel,


Phase 1 Garage

Page 34 of 74

reforestation, solar power initiatives for homes and businesses, and investor‐owned utility

energy efficiency programs. According to the report, implementation of current and future

emission reduction strategies have the potential to achieve the goals set forth in Executive Order

S‐3‐05.

Assembly Bill 32

In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S‐3‐05, the legislature enacted

Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor

Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006. AB 32 represents the first enforceable statewide

program to limit GHG emissions from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. AB

32 requires the State to undertake several actions – the major requirements are discussed

State of California Greenhouse Gas Inventory and 2020 Limit

As required under AB 32, on December 6, 2007, CARB approved the 1990 greenhouse gas

emissions inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit

was set at 427 MMTCO2e. CARB also projected the state’s 2020 GHG emissions under “business

as usual” (BAU) conditions—that is, emissions that would occur without any plans, policies, or

regulations to reduce GHG emissions. CARB used an average of the State’s GHG emissions from

2002 through 2004 and projected the 2020 levels based on population and economic forecasts.

The projected net emissions totaled approximately 596 MMTCO2e. Therefore, the state must

reduce its 2020 BAU emissions by approximately 29 percent in order to meet the 1990 target.

The inventory revealed that for transportation, the sector with the greatest amount of emissions,

in 1990 totaled about 150 million metric tons of CO2e (about 35 percent of the stateʹs total

emissions) (see Table 4.1‐2). By 2008, transportation‐related emissions rose to about 174 million

metric tons (about 36 percent of the state’s total emissions). AB 32 does not require individual

sectors to meet their individual 1990 GHG emissions inventory; the total statewide emissions are

required to meet the 1990 threshold by 2020.

CARB Mandatory Reporting Requirements

In addition to the 1990 emissions inventory, CARB also adopted regulations requiring the

mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for large facilities on December 6, 2007. The mandatory

reporting regulations require annual reporting from the largest facilities in the state, which

account for approximately 94 percent of point source greenhouse gas emissions from industrial

and commercial stationary sources in California. About 800 separate sources fall under the new

reporting rules and include electricity‐generating facilities, electricity retail providers and power

marketers, oil refineries, hydrogen plants, cement plants, cogeneration facilities, and industrial

sources that emit over 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year from on‐site stationary

combustion sources. Transportation sources, which account for 38 percent of California’s total

greenhouse gas emissions, are not covered by these regulations but will continue to be tracked

through existing means. Affected facilities will begin tracking their emissions in 2008, to be


Phase 1 Garage

Page 35 of 74

reported beginning in 2009, with a phase‐in process to allow facilities to develop reporting

systems and train personnel in data collection. Emissions for 2008 may be based on best available

emission data. Beginning in 2010, however, emissions reporting requirements will be more

rigorous and will be subject to third‐party verification. Verification will take place annually or

every three years, depending on the type of facility. UCSF’s campus power plant falls under the

CARB mandatory reporting regulations, and has had its emission levels certified by third‐party

verification.

AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan

As indicated above, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a scoping plan indicating how reductions in

significant GHG sources will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other

actions. After receiving public input on their discussion draft of the Climate Change Proposed

Scoping Plan released in June 2008, CARB released the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in

October 2008 that contains an outline of the proposed state strategies to achieve the 2020

greenhouse gas emission limits. The CARB Governing Board approved the Climate Change

Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include the following

recommendations:

Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building

and appliance standards;

Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent;

Developing a California cap‐and‐trade program that links with other Western Climate

Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system;

Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global

warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long‐

term commitment to AB 32 implementation.

Establishing targets for transportation‐related greenhouse gas emissions for regions

throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; and Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies,

including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low

Carbon Fuel Standard.

Under the Scoping Plan, approximately 85 percent of the state’s stationary emissions are subject

to a cap‐and‐trade program where covered sectors are placed under a declining emissions cap.

The emissions cap incorporates a margin of safety whereas the 2020 emissions limit will still be

achieved even in the event that uncapped sectors do not fully meet their anticipated emission

reductions. Emissions reductions will be achieved through regulatory requirements and the

option to reduce emissions further or purchase allowances to cover compliance obligations. It is

expected that emission reduction from this cap‐and‐trade program will account for a large

portion of the reductions required by AB 32.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 36 of 74

On December 16th, 2010 CARB adopted cap‐and‐trade regulations designed to cut greenhouse

gases in the State 15 percent by 2020.22 These regulations were scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1,

2012.

On January 21, 2011 in Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. California Air Resources Board, the

San Francisco Superior Court partially granted a peremptory writ of mandate to petitioners, e.g.

environmental justice groups, which had alleged CARB failed to comply with the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Case No. CPF‐09‐509562). 23 Specifically, the petitioners

alleged that CARB failed to adequately analyze all potential alternatives and prematurely

adopted the Plan prior to fully responding to public comment. Under this tentative ruling,

CARB is ordered to delay implementation of the cap and trade program until CARB is in

ʺcomplete compliance with its obligations under its certified regulatory program and CEQA.ʺ

The cap‐and‐trade regulations are written to primarily affect stationary sources such as electricity

generation. Mobile source GHG emission reductions such as from automobiles are regulated by

other CARB programs.

Assembly Bill 1493 (Vehicular Emissions)

The Clean Air Act (CAA) gives California special authority to enact stricter air pollution

standards for motor vehicles than the federal government’s. The U.S. EPA must approve a

waiver, however, before California’s rules may go into effect. The California Air Resources

Board requested a waiver to the CAA in December 2005. On June 30, 2009, U.S. EPA granted of

Clean Air Act preemption to California for its greenhouse gas emission standards for motor

vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year24. On September 24, 2009, the ARB adopted

amendments to the Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley) (2002) regulations that reduce greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. It is expected that the

Pavley regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 22

percent in 2012 and about 30 percent in 2016. These reductions, along with others approved

actions such as the low carbon fuel standard, are projected to reduce California transportation

associated emissions 35%, or by 67.8 MMTCO2e, by 2020.

Senate Bill 97 (CEQA Guidelines)

In August 2007, the legislature enacted SB 97 (Dutton), which directed the Governor’s Office of

Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of

greenhouse gas emissions. A number of actions have taken place under SB 97, which are

discussed below.

22 http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2010/ma121610.htm 23 http://cdn.law.ucla.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environmental%20Law/AIR%20v%20ARB%20Tentative%20Ruli

ng.pdf 24 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/ca-waiver.htm


Phase 1 Garage

Page 37 of 74

OPR Climate Change Technical Advisory

On June 19, 2008, OPR issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of

GHG emissions in CEQA documents (OPR 2008). The advisory indicated that a project’s GHG

emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities should be

identified and estimated. The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine

significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG

emissions to a less than significant level. The advisory did not recommend a specific threshold of

significance. Instead, OPR requested that CARB recommend a method for setting thresholds that

lead agencies may adopt (OPR 2009).

CEQA Guideline Amendments

In its work to formulate CEQA Guideline Amendments for GHG emissions, OPR submitted the

Proposed Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to the Secretary for

Natural Resources on April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency conducted formal

rulemaking procedures in 2009 and adopted the CEQA Guideline Amendments on December 30,

2009. They became effective in March 2010.

Senate Bill 375

The California legislature passed SB 375 (Steinberg) on September 1, 2008. SB 375 requires CARB

to set regional greenhouse gas reduction targets after consultation with local governments. The

target must then be incorporated within that region’s regional transportation plan (RTP), which

is used for long‐term transportation planning, in a Sustainable Communities Strategy. SB 375

also requires each region’s regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) to be adjusted based on

the Sustainable Communities Strategy in its RTP. Additionally, SB 375 reforms the

environmental review process to create incentives to implement the strategy, especially transit

priority projects. The governor signed SB 375 into law on September 30, 2008.

On January 23, 2009, CARB appointed a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to

provide recommendations and methodologies to be used in the target setting process. The RTAC

provided its recommendations in a report to CARB on September 29, 2009. On August 9, 2010,

CARB staff issued the Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets For Automobiles

And Light Trucks Pursuant To Senate Bill 375 (CARB 2010b). CARB staff proposed draft reduction

targets for the four largest MPOs (Bay Area, Sacramento, Southern California, and San Diego) of

7 to 8 percent for 2020 and reduction targets between 13 to 16 percent for 2035. For the Bay Area,

CARB established a draft target of 7 percent for 2020 and 15 percent for 2035. These targets were

recommended to CARB by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which adopted the

thresholds for its planning purposes on July 28, 2010. Of note, the proposed reduction targets

explicitly exclude emission reductions expected from the AB 1493 and low carbon fuel standard

regulations. CARB adopted the final targets on September 23, 2010.

Title 24 Building Standards Code


Phase 1 Garage

Page 38 of 74

The California Energy Commission first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and

Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to

a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally

intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of

electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential

and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to

allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The latest revisions were adopted in 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2010.

Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building

Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public

health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through

the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging

sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Energy

efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource

efficiency; and (5) Environmental air quality” (California Building Standards Commission 2009).

Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California are

subject to the requirements of the CALGreen Code.

Regional

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

On June 2, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These guidelines

contain greenhouse gas operational emissions significance thresholds and recommended

methodologies and models to be used for assessing the impacts of project‐specific GHG

emissions on global climate change (BAAQMD 2010a). The updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines

contain project‐level screening criteria and recommended significance thresholds for evaluation

of operational GHG emissions from a proposed project. The guidelines also contain

recommended methodologies to use to estimate these emissions and provide recommended

measures for reducing GHG emissions from land use development projects and stationary

sources.

Local Plans and Policies

University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices

The Regents have delegated authority to the President for promulgating policy promoting

sustainable new capital projects, existing University facilities, and campus transportation

resources. The University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices is a system‐wide

commitment to minimize the University of California’s impact on the environment and reduce

the University’s dependence on non‐renewable energy sources.25 The University of California



Phase 1 Garage

Page 39 of 74

Policy on Sustainable Practices promotes the principles of energy efficiency and sustainability in

the areas of Green Building Design; Clean Energy Standard; Climate Protection Practices;

Sustainable Transportation Practices; Sustainable Operations; Recycling and Waste Management;

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Practices; and Food, all of which help reduce GHG

emissions from University operations, and meet the State goals of reducing GHG emissions to

1990 levels by 2020..

The Policy guidelines currently recommend that University operations:

Incorporate the principles of energy efficiency and sustainability in all capital projects,

renovation projects, operations and maintenance within budgetary constraints and

programmatic requirements.

Minimize the use of non‐renewable energy sources on behalf of the University’s built

environment by creating a portfolio approach to energy use, including the use of local

renewable energy and purchase of green power from the grid as well as conservation

measures that reduce energy consumption.

Incorporate alternative means of transportation to/from and within the campus to

improve the quality of life on campus and in the surrounding community. The campuses

will continue their strong commitment to provide affordable on‐campus housing, in

order to reduce the volume of commutes to and from campus. These housing goals are

detailed in the campuses’ Long Range Development Plans.

Track, report and minimize greenhouse gas emissions on behalf of University operations.

Minimize the amount of University‐generated waste sent to landfill.

Utilize the University’s purchasing power to meet its sustainability objectives.

UCSF Climate Action Plan

UCSF published its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December of 2009 in order to comply with the

UC Policy on Sustainable Practices as well as meet the requirements of the American Colleges

and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), of which the UC system is a

signatory. The UCSF CAP includes the UCSF 1990 GHG emissions baseline, current (2008)

emissions, projected 2020 emissions, sustainability efforts to date, and outlines future reduction

measures UCSF will undertake in order to meet the emissions reduction goal. UCSF’s 1990 GHG

emissions levels were estimated to be 81,950 MTCO2e and its 2008 GHG emission levels to be

162,713 MTCO2e year. UCSF has committed to reduce its GHG emissions from all of its

operations to the 1990 level by 2020, with the eventual goal of achieving carbon neutrality for the

campus. As part of the system‐wide emissions reduction effort, UCSF regularly reports to The

Regents its emissions, progress towards reduction goals, and measures used or proposed to meet


Phase 1 Garage

Page 40 of 74

the Policy on Sustainable Practices goals.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 41 of 74

4.1.4 SIGNIFICANCE STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY


In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to

the State CEQA Guidelines on December 30, 2009 (effective March 2010), which include criteria for

evaluating GHG emissions.26 According to the amended Appendix G of the State CEQA

Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a

significant impact on the environment; or

Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of

reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The amended State CEQA Guidelines include a new Section 15064.4, which states that, when

making a determination of the significance of GHG emissions, a lead agency shall have

discretion to determine whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas

emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; and/or (2) Rely on a

qualitative analysis or performance based standards.

Section 15064.4 also states that a lead agency should consider the following factors when

assessing the significance of GHG emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the

project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing

environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that

the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) The extent to which the project

complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local

plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The first Appendix G criteria may be evaluated by performing a direct calculation of the GHG

emissions resulting from the proposed project and comparing the emissions with the available

significance thresholds. The BAAQMD has established project‐level screening criteria and

significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The

BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for operational‐related GHG emissions are as follows:

For land use development projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG

Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year

(MTCO2e/yr); or 4.6 MT CO2e/person/yr (residents plus employees). Land use

development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses

and facilities.

For stationary‐source projects, the threshold is 10,000 MTCO2e/yr. Stationary‐source

projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit

26 http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/


Phase 1 Garage

Page 42 of 74

GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate.

The BAAQMD guidelines do not contain a quantitative threshold of significance for the

evaluation of GHG emissions resulting from a project’s construction activities.

The second Appendix G criteria may be evaluated by demonstrating compliance with plans,

policies, or regulations adopted by local governments to curb GHG emissions. According to the

Natural Resources Agency:

Provided that such plans contain specific requirements with respect to resources that are

within the agency‘s jurisdiction to avoid or substantially lessen the agency‘s

contributions to GHG emissions, both from its own projects and from private projects it

has approved or will approve, such plans may be appropriately relied on in a cumulative

impacts analysis (Natural Resources Agency 2009).

Under CEQA, “the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the

environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the

extent possible on scientific and factual data” (CEQA Section 15064). CEQA grants agencies with

the general authority to adopt criteria for determining whether a given impact is “significant”

(California Public Resources Code Section 21082). When no guidance exists under CEQA, the

agency may look to and assess general compliance with comparable regulatory schemes. The

BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines represent a comparable regulatory scheme.

Based on the above, the proposed project’s significance with respect to the GHG emissions and

global climate change will be assessed based on the BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance

and on the project features and GHG reduction measures that are consistent with the BAAQMD’s

recommended measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Methodology

OPR in its Technical Advisory has recommended that GHG emissions from project‐related

traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities, should be identified and

estimated, to the extent that data are available to calculate such emissions. In addition, CARB

staff has considered extensively the value of indirect emissions in a mandatory reporting

program. CARB believes that indirect energy usage provides a more complete picture of the

emissions footprint of a facility: “As facilities consider changes that would affect their emissions

– addition of a cogeneration unit to boost overall efficiency even as it increases direct emissions,

for example – the relative impact on total (direct plus indirect) emissions by the facility should be

monitored. Annually reported indirect energy usage also aids the conservation awareness of the

facility and provides information” to CARB to be considered for future strategies by the

industrial sector. For these reasons, CARB has proposed requiring the calculation of direct and

indirect GHG emissions as part of the AB 32 reporting requirements, and this analysis does so

(CARB 2007).


Phase 1 Garage

Page 43 of 74

The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has stated that the

information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end‐of‐life

of construction materials (often referred to as lifecycle emissions) would be speculative at the

CEQA analysis level (CAPCOA 2008). Since accurate and reliable data does not exist for

estimating lifecycle emissions for the proposed project, the analysis does not assess such lifecycle

GHG emissions.

The data sources and tools used to evaluate the GHG impacts associated with construction and

operation of the proposed project include the URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management

Software, and information provided in the Software User’s Guide [for] URBEMIS2007 for Windows

(Rimpo and Associates 2008) and calculation algorithms supported by the sources listed above.

The URBEMIS2007 model utilizes the EMFAC2007 emissions factor model for on‐road motor

vehicle sources and the OFFROAD2007 emissions factor model for off‐road equipment. Site‐

specific or project‐specific data were used in the URBEMIS2007 model where available. Where

information was not available for the project, model default values suggested by the BAAQMD

were selected. The average daily trip (ADT) generation rate for the proposed project was based

on the project’s traffic study. The BAAQMD has developed a greenhouse gas emissions modeling

spreadsheet, called BGM, which uses URBEMIS2007 files in conjunction with emission and

resource consumption factors specific to the Bay Area to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from

projects within the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The BGM is the BAAQMD’s preferred method for

estimating operational GHG emissions. The BGM was used in conjunction with URBEMIS2007.

Additional sources consulted for this analysis include data and guidance from the U.S. EPA, the

U.S. Energy Information Administration, CARB, the California Energy Commission, the

California Climate Action Registry’s General Reporting Protocol, and other GHG and global

climate change data as referenced. Emission calculations conducted for the proposed project are

contained in Appendix B.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 44 of 74

4.1.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact GHG‐1: Project development would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly

or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. (Significant; Less than

significant with mitigation)

Operational Impacts

Once operational, the proposed project would generate direct operational emissions of GHGs,

primarily CO2, CH4, and N2O, which would be the result of fuel combustion from the building’s

lighting and elevator systems, from fuel combustion by the motor vehicles using the garage, and

from motor vehicle air conditioning. Motor vehicle air conditioning systems may also use HFCs

(and HCFCs and CFCs to the extent that they have not been completely phased out at later

dates); however, these emissions are not quantified since they would only occur through

accidental leaks and it is not possible to estimate the frequency of accidental leaks without some

level of speculation. It should be noted that CARB has adopted a mobile air conditioning

regulation that reduces emissions associated with the use of small containers of automotive

refrigerants. This regulation requires that refrigerant container be self‐sealing and went into

effect on January 1, 2010. CARB has also proposed regulations that require the use of lower GWP

refrigerants in vehicle air conditioners.

Mobile Source Emissions

Emissions from motor vehicles were calculated using the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model

(BGM), which uses URBEMIS2007 files in conjunction with emission and consumption factors

specific to the Bay Area to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from projects within the

BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The BGM is the BAAQMD’s preferred method for estimating

operational GHG emissions and takes into account the California specific emissions reductions

required for motor vehicles. For the purposes of estimating GHG emissions with BGM, the

proposed project was assumed to have similar non‐mobile source emissions characteristics to a

warehouse, as a parking garage is not included as a land use category in BGM. Mobile emissions

were based on traffic data provided by the traffic study for the proposed project. It should be

noted that parking structures do not generate vehicle trips; rather vehicle trips are generated by

the land uses that the parking structure serves. The proposed project would serve vehicle trips

associated with the Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I buildings, which have commenced

construction. Nonetheless, for a conservative GHG analysis of the proposed garage, a portion of

the vehicle trips that would be generated by the Medical Center uses will be attributed to the

garage, even though such trips would be generated by already approved Medical Center uses.

The Medical Center at Mission Bay 2008 FEIR projected 4,465 vehicle trips per day associated

with Phase I of the MCMB project. Of these, about 2,616 vehicles per day (58.6%) associated with


Phase 1 Garage

Page 45 of 74

the Medical Center at Mission Bay buildings could be attributed to the proposed garage.27 This

portion of the project is what is analyzed for the greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed

garage.

Non‐Mobile Source Emissions

Non‐mobile sources include area sources (landscaping, hearths and fireplaces), natural gas and

electricity consumption, water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal.

Emissions from these sources were also calculated using the BGM. Neither the BGM nor the

URBEMIS2007 model includes a parking garage land‐use type and so the warehouse land‐use

type is typically used as a surrogate. Electricity and natural gas consumption, water and

wastewater generation, and solid waste estimates were based on a warehouse land‐use type. It

should be noted that emissions estimated from electricity and natural gas consumption, water

and wastewater generation, and solid waste estimates are highly conservative as a warehouse

would be expected to use significantly more electricity, natural gas, and water, and generate

more waste than a parking garage. The solid waste emissions take into account UCSF waste

diversion rate of 60 percent in 2010. The project would not be a major stationary source.28

Total Operational Emissions

Table 4.1‐5, Estimated Operational GHG Emissions, shows a summary of total estimated GHG

emissions from operation of the proposed project and compares these to the BAAQMD

significance thresholds.

These emissions present a worst case scenario. Transportation emissions will decline in the

future as new motor vehicles with lower tailpipe emissions required by existing State (Pavley)

and Federal regulations are adopted into the vehicle fleet.

The BAAQMD CEQA guideline prescribe a definition for calculating Service Population (SP =

residents + employees). The proportionate SP for the proposed project would be 786.

As shown in Table 4.1‐3, the proposed project’s operational emissions would exceed the project

level threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e for land use development projects. The project’s impact would

therefore be significant.

27 The total project parking, surface lot + garage, is 1,068 spaces. The proposed garage is 626 spaces, or

58.6% of the total spaces.

28 Parking garages are typically open to the air, and do not have large heating or air conditioning systems,

e.g. ‘permitted or major stationary sources’. The proposed project does not have a large heating or air

conditioning system.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 46 of 74

Table 4.1‐3 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions

Source Emissions

(MTCO2e)

Transportation 3,167.59

Electricity 451.16

Natural Gas 36.81

Water & Wastewater 6.05

Solid Waste 133.66

Total Operational GHG Emissions 3,795.27 MTCO2e /year

or

4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year

BAAQMD Threshold 1,100 MTCO2e /year

or

Compliance with a qualified

GHG Reduction Strategy

or

4.6 MTCO2e/SP/year

Exceeds Threshold Yes

Phase I Garage Mitigation: The Regents have committed the system to reduce its GHG

emissions from all of its operations to the 1990 level by 2020. In furtherance of the goal to meet

these goals, the University is currently implementing the 2010‐12 Statewide Energy Partnership

Program (through the UC Strategic Energy Plan), an ambitious three year program to help meet

its goal. In March 2009, The Regents approved $247 million of funding for the program.29 In

September 2010, The Regents approved an augmentation to the 2010‐12 Statewide Energy

Partnership Program, authorizing $15.7 million for additional projects at two campuses.30 This 3

year program, in its second year of implementation, is expected to reduce energy consumption

by 11%, natural gas consumption by 8%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 9% system‐wide.

As identified in the UCSF Climate Action Plan, UCSF is undertaking many of these energy

efficiency projects to retrofit existing facilities in order to assist the campus to meet its

greenhouse gas goals. These energy efficiency projects at UCSF provide more than 2,700

29 With external financing providing $178 million and utility incentive payments and other individual

Campus funds providing the balance.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 47 of 74

MtCO2e ongoing new reductions per year. Detail on campus specific reduction projects are

described in the UC system wide Strategic Energy Plan.31

As discussed above, The Regents has approved funding for the 2010 Statewide Energy

Partnership Program / UC Strategic Energy Plan. UCSF would mitigate at least 2,700 MtCO2e

ongoing reductions per year, e.g. the additional significant GHG emissions associated with the

proposed garage project, with the appropriate number of energy efficiency projects identified on

the list in the Phase I Garage Supplemental EIR Appendix C. Projects identified in Appendix C

are those projects that are included in the funded, UC Strategic Energy Plan and that are planned

to be implemented by 2012, around the time garage operations would begin.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant


Construction of the proposed project would result in one‐time emissions of greenhouse gases.

The primary greenhouse gases during construction are CO2, CH4, and N2O. These emissions are

the result of fuel combustion by construction equipment and motor vehicles. The other GHGs

defined by state law (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are

typically associated with specific industrial sources and processes and would not be emitted

during construction of the proposed project. The URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management

Software was used to estimate the construction‐related CO2 emissions. Construction of the

proposed project is anticipated to commence in Summer 2011 and continue for approximately 12

months. Construction activities would include grading/excavation, trenching, building

construction, and architectural coating. UCSF provided a preliminary schedule for construction

and grading amounts. The default construction equipment and vehicle mixes generated by

URBEMIS2007 were assumed for grading and building construction. The number of vendor trips

(e.g., transport of building materials) and worker trips were based on default values in the

URBEMIS2007 model. URBEMIS2007 only calculates CO2 emissions and does not provide

estimates of other GHGs associated with combustion (i.e., CH4 and N2O). Therefore, in order to

account for emissions of these compounds, the following adjustments were made to the

URBEMIS2007 emission calculations to convert CO2 emissions to a CO2e basis:

Construction Off‐Road and On‐Road Equipment. The CO2 emissions associated with

off‐road and on‐road equipment were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption

that CO2 represents approximately 99.1 and 99.9 percent, respectively, of the CO2e

emissions. These assumptions were derived from the California Climate Action Registry

(CCAR 2009) and the California Energy Commission (CEC 2002).

Motor Vehicles (Workers). The CO2 emissions associated with construction‐related

worker trips were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95

30 Including $2.4 million additional for the UCSF campus.

31 http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/documents/ucsep_sw.pdf page 14/21


Phase 1 Garage

Page 48 of 74

percent of the CO2e emissions associated with passenger vehicles, which account for

most of the project‐related trips (U.S. EPA 2005). The 95 percent factor accounts for CH4,

N2O and fugitive GHG emissions associated with mobile source air conditioning

equipment.

The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for construction‐related

GHG emissions. However, the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to quantify

and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Table 4.1‐4, Estimated

Construction GHG Emissions shows a summary of total estimated GHG emissions from the

construction of the proposed project. Given the low numbers, the fact that they are much lower

than the threshold for operational emissions, and the fact that these would be one‐time

emissions, the effect on global climate from the proposed project’s construction would not be

substantial.

Table 4.1‐4 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions

Construction Year Emissions

(MTCO2e)

2011 250.25

2012 250.25

Total 500.5

BAAQMD Threshold None

Impact GHG‐2: The proposed project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than

Significant)

The primary GHG emissions regulation in California is AB 32, which is discussed above. The

BAAQMD GHG significance threshold was specifically designed to ensure compliance with AB

32 emissions reductions requirements in the Bay Area. This was accomplished by the BAAQMD

by inventorying existing GHG emissions, estimating projected GHG emissions based on

projected growth in the Bay Area, determining the reductions needed to comply with AB 32

target for the Bay Area, determining the GHG emissions allowable from new sources associated

with the growth, and arriving at the 1,100 MTCO2e threshold for a land development project as

an emission level that would not set back the area from the attainment of AB 32 goals. The

project would not set back AB 32 efforts for the Bay Area air basin.

The BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan contains energy, transportation, and mobile source control

measures that would reduce operational GHG emissions and that would be potentially

applicable to the project. The following measures are taken from the 2010 CAP (BAAQMD


Phase 1 Garage

Page 49 of 74

2010b).

MSM A‐2: Zero Emission Vehicles and Plug‐In Hybrids. Expand the use of Zero

Emission (ZEV) and Plug‐in Hybrid (PHEV) passenger vehicles and light‐duty trucks

within the Bay Area, working in partnership with the Bay Area Electric Vehicle Corridor

coalition.

TCM E‐2: Parking Pricing and Management Strategies. Promote policies to implement

market‐rate pricing of parking facilities, reduce parking requirements for new

development projects, parking “cash‐out,” unbundling of parking in residential and

commercial leases, shared parking at mixed‐use facilities, etc.

TCM E‐3: Implement Transportation Pricing Reform. Develop a regional transportation

pricing strategy that includes policy evaluation and implementation. Pricing policies to

be evaluated include gasoline taxes, bridge tolls, congestion pricing, parking pricing,

HOT lanes, VMT or carbon fees, pay‐as‐you‐drive insurance, etc.

The project includes project design features that are generally consistent with the above

measures. Furthermore, UCSF has incorporated into the proposed project substantial

sustainability features, including several GHG mitigation measures included in the BAAQMD

CEQA guidelines. These features include secure bicycle parking, parking fees, and electric

vehicle charging stations. In addition, garage attendants would be available to provide

information on alternative transportation and sell transit passes. Design features to minimize the

use of energy and water would also be employed. These features would reduce GHG emissions

from the levels estimated, which assumed no such features would be included, and ensure

compliance with the BAAQMD GHG control plans. In terms of pricing policies to discourage

single‐occupant vehicle commuters, UCSF plans to continue its annual parking fee increase on

employee parking permits – an annual increase of 7 percent to 8 percent or more for the

foreseeable future as a component of the campus’ overall sustainability efforts and in support of

the City’s transit first policy.

With implementation of the reduction projects identified in Impact GHG‐1, emissions would be

mitigated to less than 1,100 MMTCO2e /year. The proposed project would not conflict with an

applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of

greenhouse gases.

The Regents has committed the UC system to meet the State of California’s AB32 goal to reduce

GHG emissions to 1990 levels 2020 through the policies identified in the University of California

Policy on Sustainable Practices.32 The policy spells out four implementation procedures the

campuses will complete to ensure that the 2020 emission reduction goals are met.

Each UC campus will pursue individual membership with either the California Climate Action

Registry (CCAR) or The Climate Registry (TCR). The Senior Vice President, Business and



Phase 1 Garage

Page 50 of 74

Finance, in coordination with campus administration, faculty, students and other stakeholders,

will form a Climate Change Working Group that will develop a protocol to allow for growth

adjustment and normalization of data and accurate reporting procedures. The Climate Change

Working Group will monitor progress toward reaching the stated goals for GHG reduction,

and will evaluate suggestions for programs to reach these goals.

By September 15, 2008, each UC campus will complete a greenhouse gas emissions inventory. To

comply with CCAR (or TCR) and ACUPCC requirements, inventories should contain emissions

from the six Kyoto greenhouse gasses, including: direct and indirect emissions outlined in the

ACUPCC implementation guide and CCAR or TCR general reporting protocol; air travel paid

for by or through the institution; and commuting to and from campus on a day to day basis by

students, faculty, and staff. As ACUPCC member institutions, all UC campuses will report their

updated emissions inventories through the ACUPCC on‐line reporting tool at least once every

other year.

By December 2008, the University will develop an action plan for becoming climate neutral

which will include: a feasibility study for meeting the 2014 and 2020 goals stated in the Policy

Guidelines, a target date for achieving climate neutrality as soon as possible while maintaining

the University’s overall mission, and a needs assessment of the resources required to

successfully achieve these goals. Climate neutrality means that the University will have a net

zero impact on the Earth’s climate, and will be achieved by minimizing GHG emissions as

much as possible and using carbon offsets or other measures to mitigate the remaining GHG

emissions.

By September 15, 2009, each UC campus will implement two of the seven tangible actions to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are outlined in the ACUPCC.

UCSF has completed all four implementation procedures identified above and is in compliance

with the University of California’s Policy on Sustainable Practices.

The proposed project would also be consistent with the UCSF Climate Action Plan (UCSF 2009).

The Climate Action Plan contains the following transportation‐related measures would reduce

transportation‐related GHG emissions:

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program – UCSF’s TDM conforms with San

Francisco’s Transit First Policy to encourage the use of alternative transportation to single‐

occupancy vehicles. UCSF has excellent transit ridership rates according to latest transportation

survey. About 25.6% of respondents (faculty, staff, and students) reported taking public transit

(e.g., Muni or other bus system) as their main transportation choice in the latest mobility

choices survey.

Bicycling Accommodations ‐Bicycle racks have been expanded from 400 spaces in 2003

to 680 in 2008. There are now 53 shuttle mounted bike racks. Expenditures on new bike


Phase 1 Garage

Page 51 of 74

racks were $13,445 in 2008. UCSF bicyclists are eligible for a reduced price membership

in the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

Fuel Efficient Vehicles – The Campus supplies 2 electric vehicle charging stations. Fifteen

percent (42 of 273) of campus fleet vehicles are powered by alternative fuel or a hybrid

electric and gas. The Campus offers 103 motorcycle parking stalls.

Transit Pass sales –To further encourage transit use UCSF offers the Campus community

5 convenient locations to purchase city and regional transit passes. MUNI Fast Pass and

Bart Commuter Ticket Monthly sales are 600 passes in 2008.

Vanpools – The number of vanpools increased from 30 in 2003 to 46 in 2008 and the

number of car sharing from three to 17 during the same period. These efforts, led by

UCSF Transportation Services, earned UCSF a place on the inaugural 2006 national list of

Best Workplaces for Commuters from colleges and universities, awarded by the US

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vanpools receive preferential parking spaces at

UCSF.

The UCSF Climate Action Plan contains the following Strategic Energy Plan improvements that

are pertinent to the proposed project. These measures will be investigated for potential

implementation by the proposed project and would reduce energy demand and associated GHG

emissions:

Lighting Projects UCSF will continue to convert existing T12 and 32 watt T8 fluorescent

light fixtures to 28 watt T8 lamps. Other possibilities include: broader use of occupancy

sensor controls, daylight harvesting, and new stairwell fixtures. The replacement of

lighting in parking structures and interior HID fixtures and with fluorescent will also be

evaluated. New technologies such as LED lighting, bi‐level fixtures and induction lamps

are anticipated to become readily available in the near future and these technologies will

be incorporated into energy efficiency retrofit projects where appropriate.

As noted above, the proposed project includes secure bicycle parking, parking fees, and electric

vehicle charging stations. In addition, garage attendants would be available to provide

information on alternative transportation and sell transit passes. The project could also provide

preferential parking spaces for carpools and vanpools, depending on need, consistent with UCSF

guidelines. These measures would reduce transportation‐related GHG emissions consistent with

the Climate Action Plan measures. The project would also be designed to minimize the energy

demand by using energy‐efficient lighting (fluorescent, LED lighting, or similar depending on

cost effectiveness). Based on the inclusion of these project design features, the project would be

consistent with applicable plans that have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The impact

would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 52 of 74

4.1.5 References

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a. “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.”

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/CEQA‐

GUIDELINES/UpdatedCEQA‐Guidelines.aspx.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b. “2010 Clean Air Plan.”

http://www.baaqmd.gov/ Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/Plans/Clean‐Air‐Plans.aspx.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas

Emissions.

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inve

ntory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating

and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California

Environmental Quality Act.

California Air Resources Board. 2007. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed

Regulation for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to the California

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32).

California Air Resources Board. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification

and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Version 1.0.

California Air Resources Board. 2009. “Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management

Program.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reftrack/reftrack.htm. This regulation is an early

action measure under AB 32.

California Air Resources Board. 2010a. “California Greenhouse Gas 2000‐2008 Inventory by

Scoping Plan Category – Summary.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.

California Air Resources Board. 2010b. Staff Report: Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission

Reduction Targets For Automobiles And Light Trucks Pursuant To Senate Bill 375.

California Building Standards Commission. 2009. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code.

California Building Standards Commission. 2010. “CALGreen.”

http://www.bsc.ca.gov/CALGreen/ default.htm.

California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity‐Wide

Greenhouse as Emissions Version 3.1.

California Climate Action Team. 2007. Updated Macroeconomic Analysis of Climate Strategies

Presented in the March 2006 Climate Action Team Report.

California Department of Finance. 2010a. “E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,

Counties, and the State, 2001‐2008, with 2000 Benchmark.”


Phase 1 Garage

Page 53 of 74

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/ reports/estimates/e‐5/2009.

California Department of Finance. 2010b. “Financial & Economic Data: Gross Domestic Product,

California.” http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm.

California Energy Commission. 2002. Diesel Use in California. Remarks by Commissioner James D.

Boyd.

California Energy Commission. 2006a. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks

1990 to 2004, Figure 2.

California Energy Commission. 2006b. Refining Estimates of Water‐Related Energy Use in California,

PIER Final Project Report (CEC‐500‐2006‐118). Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc.

California Energy Commission. 2007. “Revisions to the 1990‐2004 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Inventory Report, Published in December 2006.”

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC‐6002006‐013/2007‐01‐

23_GHG_INVENTORY_REVISIONS.PDF.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team

Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. California Code of Regulations, Title 14,

Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064(b).

California Natural Resources Agency, Climate Action Team. 2009. 2009 California Climate

Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive

Order S‐13‐2008. California Public Resources. nd. Code Section 21082.

California Office of the Attorney General. 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act:

Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.

California Office of the Attorney General. 2010. “Addressing Climate Change at the Project

Level,” http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf

City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor. 2010. “Press Release: Mayor Newsom

Announces San Francisco’s Waste Diversion Rate At 77 Percent, Shattering City Goal

And National Recycling Records.” http://sfmayor.org/press‐room/press‐releases/press‐

release‐mayor‐newsom‐announcessan‐francisco%E2%80%99s‐waste‐diversion‐rate‐at‐

77‐percent‐shattering‐city‐goal‐and‐nationalrecycling‐records/.

Energy Information Administration. n.d. “Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons,

and Sulfut Hexafluoride.” http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/other_gases.html.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate

Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science


Phase 1 Garage

Page 54 of 74

Basis, Summary for Policymakers.”

http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Plenary Approved.pdf.

Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson,

December 19, 2007.

Natural Resources Agency. 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to

the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Pursuant to SB97.

Office of Planning and Research. 2008a. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change

Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.

Office of Planning and Research. 2008b. Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing

Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.

Office of Planning and Research. 2009. Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Rimpo and Associates. 2008. “URBEMIS2007 for Windows.” http://www.urbemis.com.

United States Census Bureau. 2010. “Data Finders.” http://www.census.gov/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors, AP

42.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

1998b.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid

Waste (EPA530‐R‐98‐013).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2005.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420‐F‐05‐004).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. “Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking:

Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act.” http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/anpr.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. “Glossary of Climate Change Terms.”

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas

Emissions and Sinks 1990‐2008.”

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.a. “High GWP Gases and Climate Change.”

http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html#sf6.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 55 of 74

United States Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.b. “Methane: Sources and Emissions.”

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html.

University of California, San Francisco. 2008. Medical Center at Mission Bay FEIR.

http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/physical/RFEIRHospital.php

University of California, San Francisco. 2009. Climate Action Plan.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/ sustainability/documents/ucsf_cap_09.pdf


Phase 1 Garage

Page 56 of 74

4.2 TRANSPORTATION

4.2.1 INTRODUCTION

This section evaluates potential changes to the transportation analysis of the MCMB EIR as a

result of the minor modifications to the proposed Phase I garage project. The MCMB EIR

concluded that the construction and operation of the Medical Center at Mission Bay, including

the proposed Phase I garage, would not cause a substantial adverse impact to transit, pedestrian,

bicycle, or parking conditions, nor result in inadequate emergency access. The modifications to

the proposed project would not change the effects anticipated in these topic areas. Therefore, this

analysis focuses on any potential changes to operational traffic impacts.

4.2.2 SETTING

The setting information is substantially the same as discussed in the UCSF Medical Center at

Mission Bay EIR (pp. 4.5‐1 through 4.5‐8), which is hereby incorporated by reference. However,

the current conditions of the project site have changed in that all existing structures and paving

on the site have been demolished and site work and construction of the hospital complex has

commenced.

4.2.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The significance criteria and analysis methodology of the MCMB EIR remain unchanged with

regard to transportation and traffic. Traffic impacts were analyzed using the concept of Level of

Service (LOS), which describes the level of the performance of an intersection based on the

average delay per vehicle. Intersection LOS ranges from LOS A, which indicates free‐flow

conditions with little or no delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions

with extremely long delays. LOS D, which indicates increasingly unacceptable, yet tolerable,

delays, is considered to be the minimum acceptable level of service.

As discussed in the Project Description, although the number of parking spaces within the

proposed garage has been increased from 600 spaces to 626 spaces with the modified project, the

number of parking spaces within the surface parking lot, which has been approved, has

decreased. The total number of parking spaces in Phase I (626 spaces in the parking structure

and 442 surface parking spaces) has decreased by approximately seven spaces and would total

approximately 1,068‐parking spaces, down from the previously analyzed 1,075 spaces. As

discussed in the Project Description, the Phase I garage is now proposed to be located to the

north of its originally proposed site, between North Connector Road and Parking Structure Road.

Roadways internal to the site and connections to surrounding public streets, including Owens

Street, would remain unchanged.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 57 of 74

4.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR Analysis A Transportation Study was prepared for the MCMB EIR.33 The Transportation Study evaluated

both the Phase I and future buildout of the Phase II development. In addition, the traffic study

evaluated two potential alternatives for the operation of 4th Street through the Medical Center

site. Both alternatives would convert the proposed 4th Street right‐of‐way to University of


Based on the analysis contained with the Transportation Study, traffic impacts resulting from

Phase I of the Medical Center at Mission Bay would be less than significant, as all study

intersections would continue to operate at level‐of‐service D or better.

Effects of Modified Project

The impacts analysis below updates the impacts analysis of the MCMB EIR.



concluded that construction of the MCMB Phase I project, including the Phase I garage,

would not result in significant construction‐period impacts. (Less than Significant)

The MCMB EIR concluded that MCMB Phase I construction activities would temporarily

increase traffic on area roadways (due to construction employee auto trips and construction

truck traffic), as well as demand for parking in the area. In addition, the staging of vehicles and

construction materials would require temporary closure of on‐street parking near the

construction site. The MCMB EIR concluded that the LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital

Replacement EIR mitigation measure 4.11‐1, which includes limiting the use of local roads as

haul routes, and/or limiting truck trips to off‐peak hours, and/or developing a parking plan for

construction employees, would ensure transportation‐related construction impacts would be

reduced to less than significant levels. In furtherance of this mitigation measure, the proposed

Phase I garage, once completed, on a temporary basis would provide some construction

employee parking until construction of the hospital and surface parking lot is complete.




Phase 1 Garage

Page 58 of 74

Operational Impacts


concluded that operation of the MCMB Phase I project, including the Phase I garage, would

not result in a significant impact on the adjacent roadway network. (Less than Significant)

As discussed in the Project Description, while the number of parking spaces in the parking

structure (from 600 to 626) would increase as a result of the changes to the proposed project,, the

total number of parking spaces would decrease by about 7 spaces as a result of the proposed

decrease in surface parking. Although the location of the Phase I garage is now proposed in the

location of the Phase II garage, to the north of the previously proposed Phase I garage site, effects

on traffic would continue to be less than significant in Phase I. Overall site circulation and access

to the parking garage would remain substantially the same. Multiple access points to/from the

parking facility (including the adjoining surface lot) would continue to be from North Connector

Road, South Connector Road, West Connector Road, and Parking Structure Road (formerly

Center Garage Access), all campus streets on the Medical Center site. Effects on traffic at

surrounding study intersections would remain largely unchanged. As a result of the relocation

of the Phase I garage to north, Parking Structure Road/ Owens Street could experience

incrementally more traffic in Phase I than previously anticipated, but not to the degree that the

level of service would deteriorate to unacceptable levels. Multiple roadway access would

continue to be available to the garage, as previously analyzed, and assumptions regarding the

distribution of traffic at nearby intersections would not substantially change.



concluded that operation of the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay project would increase

traffic at intersections on the adjacent roadway network in the Future Phase (Phase II).

(Significant)

The MCMB EIR traffic analysis of the full project (Phase I and Phase II) would not change

substantially with the modified project. With the modified project, the construction of the Phase

II garage would occur to the south of the Phase I garage, at the originally proposed location of

the Phase I garage. The significant traffic impact at 16th/Owens in Phase II, which would be

mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level with the mitigation measure described below, would not

change with the modified project. The potential impact at Owens/Center Garage Access would

remain speculative pending project‐level analysis of the traffic and circulation analyses for Phase

II.

Mitigation: The mitigation measures identified in the MCMB EIR to address significant traffic

impacts in Phase II would remain unchanged, as follows:


Phase 1 Garage

Page 59 of 74

16th/Owens: Mitigation Measure 4.11‐2a from the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR identifies

modifications to the Owen Street lane configurations (i.e. restriping) to mitigate the

impact at this intersection: one southbound shared through‐left turn lane, one

southbound through lane, and one southbound exclusive right turn lane, would remain

the same.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Implementation of the re‐striping at

this location would improve the operating conditions at this intersection to an acceptable

LOS D. The City of San Francisco has found the mitigation measure to be feasible, and

has committed to working with UCSF to ensure its implementation.34

Owens Street at Center Garage Access: Mitigation Measure MCMB.6‐3 from the

Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would require that UCSF conduct a project‐level

CEQA review at the time the Phase II development is considered for approval. In

addition, in order to determine the need for LOS improvements on Owens Street,

between 16th and Mariposa Streets at Center Garage Access (now Parking Structure

Road), such as a traffic signal, UCSF would coordinate with the City of San Francisco in

the periodic update of the Mission Bay traffic triggers survey and would monitor on‐site

parking access and circulation in order to determine the need for LOS improvements.

Significance after Mitigation: The need for LOS improvements on Owens Street at the

Center Garage Access in Phase II remains speculative pending a project‐level design of

parking requirements and project‐level traffic and circulation evaluation.

34 Comment letter dated July 3, 2008 from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, on the

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Draft EIR.

Page 60 of 74

CHAPTER 5 CEQA STATUTORY SECTIONS

5.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

Information regarding significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the

project is the same as discussed in the MCMB EIR (p. 5‐1). That information is hereby

incorporated by reference. The proposed garage would not affect the conclusions of the MCMB

EIR with regarding to significant unavoidable impacts.

5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Information regarding cumulative impacts is the same as discussed in the UCSF Medical Center

at Mission Bay EIR (p. 5‐2), which is hereby incorporated by reference. The modified project

does not affect this analysis.

5.3 GROWTH‐INDUCING IMPACTS

Information regarding growth‐inducing impacts is the same as discussed in the UCSF Medical

Center at Mission Bay EIR (pp. 5‐3 to 5‐4), which is hereby incorporated by reference. The

modified project does not affect the analysis.

5.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

Much of the information regarding effects found not to be significant is the same as discussed in

the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR (pp. 5‐4 to 5‐5), which is hereby incorporated by

reference. The exception is that greenhouse gas emissions were determined in the MCMB EIR to

be less than significant. This SEIR found that greenhouse gas emissions of the modified project

would result in a significant impact, but the impact would be mitigated to a less than significant

level with the implementation of specified mitigation measures.

5.5 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Information regarding significant irreversible environmental changes caused by the Medical

Center project is the same as discussed in the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR (pp. 5‐4


Phase 1 Garage

Page 61 of 74

to 5‐5), which is hereby incorporated by reference. The modified project does not affect the

analysis.

Page 62 of 74

CHAPTER 6 ALTERNATIVES

6.1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an evaluation of the comparative

effects of a range of reasonable alternatives that would attain most of the basic objectives of the

proposed project and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant adverse effects

of the proposed project, including alternatives that are more costly or could otherwise impede to

some degree the attainment of the project’s objectives.

The LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement EIR, evaluated at an equal level of detail a

number of hospital replacement scenarios at Mission Bay and Parnassus Heights that, for

purposes of CEQA, were alternatives to one another. These project scenarios include a 250‐bed

and 400‐bed scenario at the Mission Bay campus site (Mission Bay North and South sites); a 650‐

bed scenario at the Mission Bay campus site (Mission Bay South site); and a 250‐bed and 400‐bed

scenario at the Parnassus Heights campus site (Parnassus East and West sites). In addition, the

LRDP Amendment #2 EIR evaluated two No Project alternatives, and an Off‐Site Alternative at

the Mount Zion South Block. The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR added an Off‐Site Helipad

alternative, a No Helipad alternative, and a 4th Street Closed to Through Traffic (No 4th Street)

alternative. The modified project would not affect the conclusions of the alternatives analyses,

including the 4th Street Closed to Through Traffic (No 4th Street) Alternative. However, in light of

the new greenhouse gas emissions significance standards and the significant impact of the

modified project, this SEIR considers two additional alternatives:

No Project Alternative

Reduced Project Alternative

6.1.2 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

CEQA requires that a “No Project” alternative be considered. Under this alternative, the UCSF

Medical Center at Mission Bay would be developed as proposed except that the garage would

not be constructed. The 442‐parking space surface lots, which have been approved, would be

constructed as planned.

This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.


Phase 1 Garage

Page 63 of 74



be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. While the No Project Alternative would

mean no parking structure would be provided, it is still anticipated that a substantial number of

patients, visitors, and employees would need to drive to the site. These persons would search for

on‐street parking or off‐street parking in nearby parking facilities, if available. Because this

alternative eliminates the proposed garage but not necessarily those who would continue to

drive, some amount of greenhouse gas emissions would still be expected under this alternative.

It is likely that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions would be significant, as with the

modified project, but those emissions could be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels with the

implementation of the energy efficiency projects identified as mitigation for the modified project.

Transportation

The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on traffic, as would the No

Project Alternative. Without a garage on the Medical Center at Mission Bay site, more drivers

may search for parking in the vicinity, thus more traffic may occur in the surrounding

neighborhood than with the proposed project. However, traffic impacts under the No Project

Alternative would be less than significant.

Summary

The No Project alternative would avoid most of the impacts of the proposed project, but would

not meet any of the project objectives. Some amount of greenhouse gas emissions would

continue as some patients, visitors and employees would continue to drive to the site and search

for parking in the vicinity. However, greenhouse gas emissions could be mitigated to less than

significant levels, as with the project.

6.1.3 REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the number of parking spaces would be reduced to

approximately one‐half the number of spaces, or about 300 spaces. The number of parking

spaces within the surface parking lots, which have been approved, would remain the same at 442

spaces.

This alternative would meet the project objectives to (1) ensure that development is compatible

with and responsive to building scale and character in the surrounding areas; and (2) provide a

parking structure that incorporates sustainability features to the greatest extent feasible.

This alternative would only satisfy a portion of the expected parking demand by patients,

visitors, and staff, and therefore would only partially meet the project objectives to (1) develop a

patient‐friendly hospital (convenient location, availability of parking, efficient patient/emergency

access, proximity of related patient service, etc.); (2) develop a staff‐friendly hospital (availability

of parking, proximity to amenities, loading/delivery access, etc.); (3) support UCSF’s mission of


Phase 1 Garage

Page 64 of 74

patient care by enhancing access to UCSF facilities through convenient, affordable parking for

those who often cannot utilize alternative forms of transportation; (4) provide parking for those

essential healthcare providers for whom alternative forms of transportation is infeasible due to

atypical work hours and responsibilities at multiple campus sites; and (5) avoid pressure on

neighborhood on‐street parking.



be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. The Reduced Project Alternative would

likely result in significant greenhouse gas emissions that could be reduced to less than significant

levels with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

Transportation

The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on traffic, as would the

Reduced Project Alternative. With fewer parking spaces on the Medical Center at Mission Bay

site, more drivers may search for parking in the vicinity, thus more traffic may occur in the

surrounding neighborhood than with the proposed project. However, traffic impacts under the

Reduced Project Alternative would be less than significant.

Summary

The Reduced Project alternative would avoid most of the impacts of the proposed project, but

would meet only two of the seven project objectives. Some amount of greenhouse gas emissions

would continue as some patients, visitors and employees would continue to drive to the site and

search for parking in the vicinity. However, greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced to less

than significant levels with mitigation, as with the project.

6.1.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative—that is, the alternative

having the fewest significant environmental impacts—from among the alternatives evaluated.

The environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated within this SEIR is the No

Project Alternative. Other than the No Project Alternative, the remaining alternative, the

Reduced Project Alternative, is the environmentally superior alternative.

Page 65 of 74

CHAPTER 7 REPORT PREPARATION

7.1 REPORT AUTHORS

LEAD AGENCY

The University of California

Susan Desmond‐Hellmann, MD, MPH, Chancellor Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Distinguished Professor University of California, San Francisco

AUTHORS


John Plotts, Senior Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administration Lori Yamauchi, Assistant Vice Chancellor Kevin Beauchamp, Director, Physical Planning Diane Wong, Senior Planner Tammy Chan, Senior Planner Paul Franke, Assistant Planner

University of California, Office of the President

Charlotte Strem, Director, Physical & Environmental Planning

Mary O’Keefe, Senior Planner

University of California, Office of General Counsel Elisabeth Gunther, University Counsel Legal Counsel Charles Olson, Esq., Sanger & Olson

CONSULTANTS

Transportation José Farrán, P.E., Principal Transportation Engineer, Adavant Consulting

Wind Charles Bennett, Environmental Science Associates

Page 66 of 74

CHAPTER 8 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

8.1 OVERVIEW

This chapter documents public comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR prepared for the proposed

project, and the responses to comments. The public comment period was from February 25, 2011 to

April 11, 2011. In addition, a public hearing was held on the UCSF Mission Bay campus site on March

28, 2011, at which the public was given the opportunity to provide oral testimony. No public

comments were submitted by the close of the public comment period, and there was no oral testimony

at the public hearing.

8.2 PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT

A copy of the transcript of the March 28, 2011 public hearing on the Draft EIR follows.

CALIFORNIA REPORTING LLC 52 Longwood Drive, San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 457-4417

University of California, San Francisco Mission Bay Campus 600 16th Street

Genentech Hall Auditorium San Francisco, CA

Public Meeting Re:

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

for the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage

Monday, March 28, 2011

7:00 P.M.

Reported by Tahsha Sanbrailo


2

APPEARANCES

Present:

Lori Yamauchi Assistant Vice Chancellor, Campus Planning

1


3

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

MARCH 28, 2011 7:05 P.M. 2

Item 1 Welcome and Meeting Purpose. 3

MS. YAMAUCHI: Good evening. My name is Lori 4

Yamauchi, I am the Assistant Vice Chancellor, Campus 5

Planning, for the University of California, San Francisco. 6

I will be the Hearing Officer for tonight’s public hearing 7

on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, or 8

Draft SEIR for the UCSF Medical Center Mission Bay Phase 1 9

Garage. 10

The primary purpose of this hearing is to receive 11

public testimony and evidence regarding the adequacy of the 12

Environmental Review for the proposed project. This is not 13

a hearing on the proposed project, itself. We have held 14

several community meetings regarding the project where we 15

received comments about the garage, the design, and about 16

parking, in general. 17

Tonight’s hearing is being conducted pursuant to 18

the University of California’s procedures for implementation 19

of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. 20

Public Notice regarding this hearing and the availability of 21

the Draft EIR included advertisements in the San Francisco 22

Examiner, postcard mailing to adjacent property owners, two 23

email notifications to a Listserv of about 500 people and 24

organizations, and posting on the Campus Planning Website, 25


4

Community Relations Website, and UCSF Events Calendar. 1

This hearing will be transcribed by a Reporter. A 2

complete transcript of this proceeding, as well as all 3

written comments received during the SEIR’s public review 4

period, will be included in and responded to in the Final 5

SEIR. All comments will be presented to the UCSF Chancellor 6

for review before considering the certification of the Final 7

SEIR. 8

If you do not wish to speak tonight, you may 9

submit written comments, which are given equal weight, with 10

oral remarks. Written comment sheets are available on the 11

table if you would like to use them outside in the back. 12

You may also supplement any oral testimony given tonight 13

with additional written material. 14

I would like to note that all comments must be 15

received by the close of the public review period on Monday, 16

April 11th, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. in order to be considered as 17

part of the record. Correspondence should be sent to Diane 18

Wong, Campus Planning, 654 Minnesota Street, San Francisco, 19

California 94143-0286. 20

Regarding the hearing tonight, if you would like 21

to speak and have not already signed up, please fill out a 22

speaker card now and return it to the staff. In order for 23

your testimony to be accurately recorded, and so that we may 24

respond accurately in the Final SEIR, please come forward 25


5

when called and use the microphone. As you begin your 1

remarks, please spell your name for the Reporter and 2

indicate the name of any organization you represent. 3

Because the purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony 4

and evidence for the Chancellor to consider, UCSF staff will 5

not attempt to respond to the testimony this evening, nor 6

engage in a dialogue with the public; however, I will be 7

happy to answer any procedural questions about the hearing. 8

Are there any questions that have not been 9

addressed by my comments? If not, is there anyone here who 10

wishes to speak on the SEIR? If not, then I will close the 11

public hearing and thank everyone for coming. 12

-oOo- 13

[Public Hearing Adjourned.] 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 73 of 74

CHAPTER 9 MITIGATION MONITORING and REPORTING PROGRAM

9.1 OVERVIEW

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency establish a

program to monitor and report on mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental

review process to avoid or reduce the severity and magnitude of potentially significant

environmental impacts associated with project implementation. CEQA (Public Resources Code

Section 21081.6 (a)(1)) requires that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be

adopted at the time that the agency determines to carry out a project for which an EIR has been

prepared, to ensure that mitigation measures identified in the EIR are fully implemented.

The MMRP for the Medical Center at Mission Bay ‐‐ Phase 1 Garage project is presented in the

following table, which includes the full text of project‐specific mitigation measures identified in

the Final EIR. The MMRP includes the mitigation measures adopted as part of the UCSF Medical

Center at Mission Bay project that are included as part of the Phase 1 Garage project, as well as

the LRDP Amendment #2 mitigation measures that are applicable to the project. The MMRP

describes implementation and monitoring procedures, responsibilities, and timing for each

mitigation measure identified in the EIR, including:

Significant Impact: Identifies the Impact Number and statement from the Final EIR.

MitigationMeasure: Provides full text of the mitigation measure as provided in the Final EIR.

Implementation: Summarizes the steps to be taken to implement the measure.

Responsible Unit: Designates responsibility for implementation of the mitigation measure.

Report Mechanism: Specifies procedures for documenting and reporting mitigation

implementation.

Consistent with UC policy, UCSF may modify the means by which a mitigation measure will be

implemented, as long as the alternative means ensure compliance during project

implementation. The responsibilities of mitigation implementation, monitoring and reporting

extend to several UCSF departments and offices. The manager or department lead of the

identified unit or department will be directly responsible for ensuring the responsible party

complies with the mitigation. The UCSF Campus Planning Department is responsible for the

overall administration of the program and for assisting relevant departments and project


Phase 1 Garage

Page 74 of 74

managers in their oversight and reporting responsibilities. The Department is also responsible for

ensuring the relevant parties understand their charge and complete the required procedures

accurately and on schedule.

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay – Phase 1 Garage SEIR 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY – PHASE 1 GARAGE

Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

MITIGATION MEASURES NEWLY IDENTIFIED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE

4.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ‐ OPERATIONS

GHG‐1: Project development

would generate greenhouse gas

emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that could have a

significant impact on the

environment.

The Regents has approved funding

for the 2010 Statewide Energy

Partnership Program / UC Strategic

Energy Plan. UCSF would mitigate

at least 2,700 MtCO2e ongoing

reductions per year, e.g. the

additional significant GHG emissions

associated with the proposed garage

project, with the appropriate number

of energy efficiency projects

identified on the list in Supplemental

EIR Appendix C. Projects identified

in Appendix C are those projects that

are included in the funded, UC

Strategic Energy Plan and that are

planned to be implemented by 2012,

around the time garage operations

would begin.

Complete appropriate number of

energy efficiency projects included in

the 2010 Statewide Energy

Partnership Program / UC Strategic

Energy Plan to mitigate at least 2,700

MtCO2e ongoing reductions per

year.

UCSF Facilities

Management and/or

UCSF Medical Center

UCSF Campus Planning to monitor

implementation of energy efficiency

projects and document completion to

verify mitigation of impact.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued)


UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay – Phase I Garage SEIR 2


MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY EIR THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PHASE 1 GARAGE

PROJECT

4.2 AIR QUALITY

MCMB.2‐1: Demolition and

construction activities

associated with the Medical

Center at Mission Bay project

would generate fugitive dust

and criteria pollutant emissions

that could adversely affect local

air quality.

To further mitigate less‐than‐

significant project‐level impacts,

additional measures related to the

2007 CARB off‐road diesel rule on

equipment exhaust emissions from

construction equipment shall be

required in UCSF construction

contracts to comply with the

following measures:

Prohibit the use of conventional cutback asphalt for paving to

restrict the maximum VOC content

of asphalt emulsion. Diesel

portable generators less than 50

horsepower shall not be allowed at

the construction site, except for

those used by welders.

All diesel‐fueled engines used for on‐ and offsite construction

activities shall be fueled only with

ultralow sulfur diesel, which

contains no more than 15 ppm

sulfur.

All construction diesel engines used for on‐ and offsite activities

that have a rating of 100 hp or

more shall meet, at a minimum,

the Tier 2 California Emission

Standards for Off‐Road

Compression‐Ignition Engines as

Issue instructions in each bid

package of each construction project

for contractors to incorporate the

mitigation. The successful contractor

will prepare a construction air

pollution control strategy to report

on the implementation of the

mitigation measure.

Project Manager,

Medical Center Design

and Construction Team,

or Capital Programs

Facilities Management,

as appropriate.

Provide written verification in report

form to the Monitor within 10

working days of each contract bid on

each phase to certify that selected bid

includes provision for construction air

pollution control. Provide a report on

construction air pollution control

strategies and implementation and

report to Monitor upon request; but

no less than quarterly after beginning

each construction phase.





specified in California Code of

Regulations, Title 13, section

2423(b)(1) unless it is certified by

the construction contractor that

such engine is not available for a

particular item of equipment. In

the event a Tier 2 engine is not

available for any off‐road engine

larger than 100 hp, that engine

shall be a Tier 1 engine. In the

event a Tier 1 or Tier 2 engine is

not available for any offroad

engine larger than 100 hp, that

engine shall be equipped with a

CARB Level 3‐verified diesel

emission control device (e.g.,

catalyzed diesel particulate filter),

unless the engine manufacturer or

the construction contractor

certifies that the use of such

devices is not practical for specific

engine types. In the event that a

CARB Level 3 verified diesel

emission control device is not

practical for the specific engine

type, then the engine shall be

equipped with a CARB Level 1‐ or

2‐verified control device (e.g.,

diesel oxidation catalyst), unless

the engine manufacturer or the

construction contractor certifies

that such devices are not available

for the engine in question. For

purposes of this condition, the use

of such devices is “not practical”

if, among other reasons:





1. The construction equipment is

intended to be onsite for ten

(10) days or less.

2. The use of the diesel emission

control device is excessively

reducing normal availability of

the construction equipment

due to increased downtime for

maintenance, and/or reduced

power output due to an

excessive increase in

backpressure.

3. The diesel emission control

device is causing or is

reasonably expected to cause

significant engine damage.

In the event that the use of a diesel

emission control device is to be

terminated, the construction

contractor shall be required to

inform the UCSF project manager

within 10 days prior to such

termination.

Construction equipment shall be

properly tuned and maintained in

accordance with manufacturers’

specifications.

Best management construction

practices shall be used to avoid (or

limit) unnecessary emissions (e.g.,

trucks and vehicles in loading and

unloading queues would turn their

engines off when not in use, and to





the extent practical, all diesel

heavy construction equipment

shall not remain running at idle for

more than five minutes)

Use alternative fueled equipment

when feasible (such as ULSD,

CNG, biodiesel, water emulsion

fuel, and electric). The

construction contracts shall require

each contractor and subcontractor

to consider this measure and adopt

it for their work unless they can

demonstrate to UCSF the

inapplicability or infeasibility of

the measure to their specific work,

or can provide mitigation

measures with equivalent or better

effectiveness. This information

shall be reported as part of the

Mitigation Monitoring Reporting

and Compliance Program.

Use on‐site power when feasible to

reduce reliance on portable

generators. The construction

contracts shall require each

contractor and subcontractor to

consider this measure and adopt it

for their work unless they can

demonstrate to UCSF the

inapplicability or infeasibility of

the measure to their specific work,

or can provide mitigation

measures with equivalent or better

effectiveness. This information

shall be reported as part of the





Mitigation Monitoring Reporting

and Compliance Program.

4.5 NOISE

MCMB.5‐1: Demolition and


associated with the proposed

project would elevate noise

levels in and around the project

site, and particularly at nearby

sensitive receptors.

UCSF shall require construction

contractors to minimize unavoidable

construction noise impacts by use of

proper equipment and work

scheduling:

Limit construction hours to the

following schedule. [Monday

through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. for

“Not Noisy” work; and Monday

through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. for

Noisy work] Approve extended

hours [Monday through Friday, 5

p.m. to 8 p.m.; Saturday 7 a.m. to 8

p.m.; and Sunday 8 a.m. to 4:30

p.m.] only with advanced notice

from the UCSF project manager.

Prohibit high impact noise on

Saturdays and Sundays.





will prepare a construction noise

impact abatement plan to report on

the implementation of the mitigation

measure.

Project Manager,



or Capital Programs

Facilities Management,

as appropriate





includes provisions for construction

noise abatement (including limitations

on construction hours). Provide a

report on construction noise

abatement to Monitor upon request;

but no less than quarterly after

beginning each construction activity.

Designate a UCSF Community

Contact to receive and resolve

construction complaints.

Designate a UCSF Community

Contact to receive and resolve

construction noise complaints.

UCSF Community

Relations

Provide written verification to the

Monitor within 10 working days of the

first contract bid identifying the UCSF

Community Contact and contact

information.

4.6 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

MCMB.6‐3: Operation of the

Medical Center at Mission Bay

project would increase traffic at

intersections on the adjacent

roadway network in the Future

Phase.

Regarding Owens Street at the

Center Garage Access, UCSF would

conduct project‐level CEQA review

at the time the Future Phase

development is considered for

approval. In addition, UCSF would

Conduct project‐level CEQA review

for Future Phase development.

Coordinate with the City of San

Francisco in the periodic update of

the Mission Bay traffic triggers

survey. Monitor on‐site parking

UCSF Campus Planning Prepare memo to Monitor within 10

days of preparation of Project

Planning Guide (PPG) for Future

Phase development that project‐level

CEQA review for Future Phase

development will be prepared.





coordinate with the City of San

Francisco in the periodic update of

the Mission Bay traffic triggers

survey and would monitor on‐site

parking access and circulation in

order to determine the need for LOS

improvements on Owens Street

between 16th and Mariposa Streets.

UCSF would coordinate with the

Municipal Transportation Agency

(which includes the Department of

Parking and Traffic) and the

Planning Department to confirm the

feasibility and effectiveness of

mitigation measures resulting from

future analysis or consider

equivalent recommendations made

by these agencies, and UCSF will pay

its fair share of the cost of

implementing the selected

mitigation.

access and circulation in order to

determine the need for LOS


between 16th and Mariposa Streets.

Coordinate with the Municipal

Transportation Agency (including

the Department of Parking and

Traffic) and the Planning Department

to confirm the feasibility and

effectiveness of mitigation measures

resulting from future analysis or

consider equivalent

recommendations made by these

agencies. Pay for fair share of the

cost of implementing selected

mitigation.

Following project‐level CEQA review

for Future Phase development,

prepare additional memo to Monitor

describing status of LOS


between 16th and Mariposa,

coordination efforts with the City to

confirm the feasibility, acceptability

and effectiveness of mitigation

measures, and status of fair share

payments for cost of implementing

selected mitigation.

MITIGATION MEASURES CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE UCSF LRDP AMENDMENT #2 – HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT EIR

4.1. AESTHETICS

4.1‐1: New hospital

development at any of the sites

could increase light and glare

which could affect nighttime

views at the selected site and in

its vicinity.

Minimize light and glare from new

hospital development through the

orientation of buildings, use of

landscaping materials, and choice of

primary facade materials. Design

standards and guidelines to minimize

light and glare would be adopted for

the new hospital development,

including:

Reflective metal walls and mirrored

Issue instruction in each bid package

of each architectural services contract

for architects and design

professionals to incorporate the

mitigation as design criteria.

Working with the project and

construction managers, require

architects and design professionals to

document how siting and design

measures are addressed and



Project Manager.


form to Monitor within 10 working

days of each contract bid on each

phase. Report will certify that selected

bids utilize design elements which

maximize compliance with design

criteria.

(Status: facade materials and

landscaping incorporated into the

MCMB Phase I Garage project design





glass walls shall not be used as

primary building materials for

facades.

Installation of illuminated building

signage shall strive to be consistent

with City Planning Code sign

requirements and/or Mission Bay

design guidelines.

Exterior light fixtures shall be

configured to emphasize close spacing

and lower intensity light. Light

fixtures shall use luminaries that

direct the cone of light downward.

(Modified from LRDP FEIR Mitigation

Measure 12LI‐3 for the LRDP and

Future Phases)

incorporated. Review design plans

for each new proposed structure to

ensure that such features have been

incorporated in the design to address

light/glare impacts.

minimize light and glare impacts.

Exterior light fixtures have been

designed to be directed downward.)

4.1‐2: Construction of a new

hospital could result in flood

lighting at any of the sites

during nighttime construction

activities.

UCSF would require a condition in

construction contracts that flood or

area lighting for construction

activities be placed and directed so

as to avoid potential disturbances to

adjacent residences or other uses.

(Modified from LRDP Mitigation

Measure 12L1‐4 for the LRDP and

Future Phases)


package of each architectural services

contract for architects and design

professionals to incorporate the

mitigation as design criteria.

Working with the project and

construction managers, require

contractors to document how siting

and construction lighting measures

are incorporated. Review

construction documentation to

ensure that mitigation is included to

address lighting effects.



Project Manager.


form to Monitor within 10 working

days of each contract bid on each

phase. Report will certify that selected

bids utilize design elements which

maximize compliance with design

criteria.





4.1‐4: Construction and

operation of a hospital at the

Mission Bay South site could

substantially degrade the visual

quality of the Mission Bay

campus site or its

surroundings.

Extend to the CMPDG to the Mission

Bay South site or develop Mission

Bay South site land use designations

and design guidelines that apply

1996 LRDP goals and objectives for

visual quality, protection of view

corridors, creation of open space, and

compatibility with the surrounding

area. Implementation of this

measure would avoid a substantial

degradation of the visual quality due

to the Mission Bay South site

development. (Identified in the

LRDP Amendment #2 EIR for the

LRDP and Future Phases)

Prior to or as part of project‐specific

planning and design, develop design

guidelines for the Mission Bay South

site and adjacent blocks, as

applicable.

UCSF Campus Planning

and Medical Center

Design and Construction

Team

Issue new design guidelines with

specific prescriptions for the Mission

Bay South site and incorporate the site

as appropriate into the revised

CMPDG.

(Status: The Medical Center at

Mission Bay, including the Phase 1

Garage, is consistent with applicable

guidelines of the CMPDG. In

addition, specific design standards for

the Medical Center at Mission Bay

were developed and identified in the

Memorandum of Understanding

between the University and the San

Francisco Redevelopment Agency.)

4.2 AIR QUALITY

4.2‐1: Construction and

operation of replacement

hospital facilities would

generate vehicular, stationary

source, and helicopter‐related

emissions (depending on

scenario) that would contribute

to regional air pollution.

UCSF shall continue its existing

Transportation Demand

Management programs to promote

shuttle services, ride‐sharing, and

bicycle programs to reduce the

number of trips at its campus sites.

These transit options divert trips

from single occupancy vehicles and

would thus reduce impacts of

vehicular trips generated by the

project. (Modified from LRDP FEIR

Mitigation Measures 12D4‐2 for the

LRDP and Future Phase)

Extend UCSF shuttle service to the

project site; work to promote other

TDM programs at the project site,

such as pre‐tax transit passes and

ride‐sharing; consider in parking

plans allocations for vanpool,

motorcycle, and bicycle parking.

UCSF Parking &

Transportation Services

in conjunction with

UCSF Medical Center

and Campus Planning

Provide written verification to

Monitor regarding TDM programs

considered and implemented.

4.2‐2: Demolition and


associated with the hospital

construction would generate

fugitive dust and criteria

During construction, UCSF shall

require the construction contractor to

implement the appropriate level of

BAAQMD’s dust control procedures

for all construction sites. UCSF shall





will prepare a construction air

Project Manager,


and Construction Team.










pollutant emissions that could

adversely affect local air

quality.

include this requirement in all

construction contracts. This mitigates

this impact to less than significant.

(Modified from LRDP FEIR

Mitigation Measure 12D1‐1 for the


pollution control strategy to report

on the implementation of the

mitigation measure.

air pollution control. Provide a report

on construction air pollution control

strategies and report to Monitor upon

request; but no less than quarterly

after beginning each construction

activity.

4.2‐5: Vehicular traffic

generated by construction and

operation of a 400‐bed or 650‐

bed hospital and associated

facilities, in conjunction with

traffic generated from

concurrent LRDP projects at

each campus site, plus non‐

UCSF projects, would result in

criteria pollutant emissions that

would have a significant

cumulative impact on the

ambient air quality.

Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2‐1.

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3‐1: Building construction,

including excavation and

grading associated with the

proposed project, could cause

substantial adverse changes to

archaeological resources at the

project sites.

If the discovery includes human

remains, CEQA Guidelines 15064.5

(e)(1) shall be followed:

In the event of the accidental

discovery or recognition of any

human remains in any location other

than a dedicated cemetery, the

following steps should be taken:

(1) There shall be no further

excavation or disturbance of the site

or any nearby area reasonably

suspected to overlie adjacent human

remains until:





will demonstrate knowledge of

procedures and requirements when

cultural resources are discovered

during construction activities.

UCSF Capital Projects

Facilities Management

Project Manager.





includes provisions for mitigation if

cultural resources are discovered

during construction activities.

Provide construction status report to

Monitor upon request.





(A) The coroner of the county in

which the remains are discovered

must be contacted to determine that

no investigation of the cause of death

is required, and

(B) If the coroner determines the

remains to be Native American:

(1) The coroner shall contact the

Native American Heritage

Commission within 24 hours. (2) The

Native American Heritage

Commission shall identify the person

or persons it believes to be the most

likely descended from the deceased

Native American. (3) The most likely

descendent may make

recommendations to the landowner

or the person responsible for the

excavation work, for means of

treating or disposing of, with

appropriate dignity, the human

remains and any associated grave

goods as provided in Public

Resources Code Section 5097.98, or

(2) Where the following conditions

occur, the landowner or his

authorized representative shall

rebury the Native American human

remains and associated grave goods

with appropriate dignity on the

property in a location not subject to

further subsurface disturbance.

(A) The Native American Heritage

Commission is unable to identify a





most likely descendent or the most

likely descendent failed to make a

recommendation within 24 hours

after being notified by the

commission.

(B) The descendant identified fails to

make a recommendation; or

(C) The landowner or his authorized

representative rejects the

recommendation of the descendant,

and the mediation by the Native

American Heritage Commission fails

to provide measures acceptable to

the landowner. (Identified in the



4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.4‐4: In the event of a major

earthquake in the region,

seismic ground shaking could

expose people and property to

liquefaction and earthquake‐

induced settlement at Mission

Bay.

A site‐specific, design‐level

geotechnical investigation shall be

completed based on the proposed

project design and shall provide

engineering recommendations for

mitigation of liquefiable soils, in

accordance with the California

Geological Survey’s Geology

Guidelines for Evaluating and

Mitigating Seismic Hazards (CGS

Special Publication 117, 1997). These

geotechnical recommendations shall

be incorporated into the final design

of the project. (Identified in the


LRDP Phase)

Prepare a geotechnical survey and

incorporate the results of the

investigation into the project design

to address impacts.

UCSF Campus Planning,

and Medical Center

Design and Construction

Team.

Provide Medical Center Design and

Construction Team final geotechnical

investigation that reports feasible

measures and incorporates them into

project design.





4.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.5‐4: Operation of the new

hospital facilities would

generate hazardous waste that

could place an additional load

on hazardous waste

management facilities.

UCSF shall implement hazardous

waste handling, minimization, and

disposal procedures at any chosen

site for hospital replacement

consistent with safety requirements

and applicable laws and regulations.

UCSF shall extend its existing

hazardous waste minimization plan

to include any chosen site for

hospital replacement.

UCSF shall implement the

operational controls required to

comply with laws and regulations,

including, but not limited to,

monthly safety and compliance

audits and training of staff at any

chosen site for hospital replacement.

This would 1) allow efficient

processing of wastes for shipment to

treatment facilities or disposal,

reducing the time that hazardous

wastes are at a chosen hospital

replacement site, and 2) ensure that

safety controls such as OSHA

training, correct practices and safety

equipment are in place.

At the new hospital facilities, UCSF

will extend its program for

hazardous waste handling,

minimization and disposal, including

implementation of all the measures

identified in the mitigation measure.

In addition, in conjunction with bi‐

annual inspections of UCSF by the

City and County of San Francisco

Department of Public Health, and the

Department of Health Services,

Radiologic Health Branch, initiate a

review by the Chemical Safety

Officer and the Radiation Safety

Officer (in consultation with the

Chemical Safety Committee and the

Radiation Safety Committee as

required) of existing source reduction

and management plans for

additional measures that are feasible

to implement at UCSF to minimize

hazardous waste and dry long‐lived

radioactive waste.

Environmental Health &

Safety, Chemical Safety

Officer and Radiation

Safety Officer.

Notify Monitor when hazardous

waste handling, minimization and

disposal measures are extended to the

new hospital facilities. In addition,

provide hazardous chemical waste

and radioactive waste source

reduction and management review to

Monitor every other year as part of the

bi‐annual Business Plan inspection

and RHB inspection. Report feasible

measures to be implemented and

timetable for such additional

measures.

UCSF shall implement procedures to

minimize increases in the long‐lived

radioactive waste generation.

According to the California

Department of Health Services

Radiologic Health Branch, California,

radiologic licenses should:





1) minimize the amount of low‐level

radioactive waste in possession

and avoid accumulating waste

that cannot be disposed

promptly;

2) segregate for disposing radioactive wastes that are not

subject to Southwestern Low‐

Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

Compact regulations;

3) segregate waste that can be

disposed of or reduced in volume

by approved treatment methods;

4) segregate short‐lived radioactive waste for decay;

5) consider recycling radioactive materials;

6) consider extended on‐site storage of any remaining low‐level

radioactive waste; and

7) consider non‐radioactive substitutes. (Modified Measure

from LRDP FEIR Mitigation

Measure 12F1‐3)

4.5‐6: Soil and groundwater

contamination at the Mission

Bay North and South sites

could expose construction

workers, the public, and the

environment to hazards

associated with soil and

groundwater contamination.

UCSF shall develop a RMP for Parcel

X‐3 if it is acquired or extend the

1999 RMP to Parcel X‐3, if feasible.

The UCSF Office of Environmental

Health & Safety will coordinate with

the current land owner to prepare or

contract for preparation of a

complete site assessment and

implementation of the identified

mitigation measures. Alternatively,

UCSF could conduct the assessment

Environmental Health &

Safety, Asbestos /

Hazardous Materials

Removal Officer

Provide copies of the assessment and

remediation plans to Monitor for each

project and phase. Provide evidence

from the Regulatory Agency of

satisfactory completion of

remediation.





and remediation itself in accordance

with federal and state requirements.

4.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.6‐3: Construction of new

hospital buildings at the

Mission Bay North or South

sites by the LRDP Phase or

Future Phases could result in

hydrology and water quality

impacts at Mission Bay.

UCSF shall adopt Mitigation

Measures K.2, K.3 and K.4 of the

Mission Bay Subsequent EIR as

follows:

K.2 Participate in the City’s existing

Water Pollution Prevention Program.

Facilitate implementation of the

City’s Water Pollution Prevention

Program by providing and installing

wastewater sampling ports in any

building anticipated to have a

potentially significant discharge of

pollutants to the sanitary sewer, as

determined by the Water Pollution

Prevention Program of the San

Francisco Public Utilities

Commission’s Bureau of

Environmental Regulation and

Management, and in locations as

determined by the Water Pollution

Prevention Program.

This mitigation measure could be

implemented by including the Water

Pollution Prevention Program in the

review process, as each individual

construction is proposed. The Water

Pollution Prevention Program would

review each project, determine if one

or more sampling ports should be

installed in a particular building, and

specify the location of the sampling



for contractor to incorporate the

mitigation measures.


and Construction Team





includes provisions for mitigation

measures. Provide construction status

report to Monitor upon request.





port(s).

K.3 Design and construct sewer

improvements such that potential

flows to the City’s combined sewer

system from the project do not

contribute to an increase in the

annual overflow volume as projected

by the Bayside Planning Model by

providing increased storage in

oversized pipes, centralized storage

facilities, smaller dispersed storage

facilities, or detention basins, or

through other means to reduce or

delay stormwater discharges to the

City system.

K.4 Implement alternative

technologies or use other means to

reduce settleable solids and floatable

materials in stormwater discharges to

China Basin Channel to levels

equivalent to, or better than, City‐

treated combined sewer overflows.

Such alternatives technologies could

include one or more of the following:

biofilter system, vortex sediment

system, catch basin filters, and/or

additional source control measures to

remove particulates from streets and

parking lots. (Identified in the LRDP

Amendment #2 EIR for the LRDP

and Future Phase)

4.8 NOISE

4.8‐1: The proposed Hospital Mitigation Measure 4.8‐1: UCSF Issue instructions in each bid Capital Projects Facilities Provide written verification in report





Replacement Program would

result in noise associated with

demolition and construction

activities.

shall require construction contractors

to minimize unavoidable

construction noise impacts by use of

proper equipment and work

scheduling:

Limit construction hours to between

7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays

and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on

weekends. Approve extended hours

only with advanced notice from

UCSF project manager. Prohibit high

impact noise on Sundays.

[Superceded by Mitigation Measure

MCMB.5‐1]

Require use of construction

equipment with noise reduction

devices (i.e., mufflers in good

working order).

Erect temporary noise walls to

protect adjacent noise‐sensitive areas.

Use of impact tools would be

minimized to the extent feasible.

Implement “quiet” pile‐driving

technology (such as pre‐drilling of

piles, and/or the use of more than

one pile driver to shorten the total

pile‐driving duration), where

feasible, in consideration of

geotechnical and structural

requirements and conditions.

Locate stationary noise sources away

from residential or other sensitive‐

receptor areas, and require use of

acoustic shielding with such




will prepare a construction noise

impact abatement plan to report on

the implementation of the mitigation

measure.

Management or Medical

Center Design and

Construction Team, as

appropriate





noise abatement. Provide a report on

noise abatement to Monitor upon

request; but no less than quarterly

after beginning each construction

activity.





equipment when feasible and

appropriate.

(Modified measure from LRDP FEIR

Mitigation Measure 12E1‐1)

4.8‐2: Operational activities

and mechanical equipment

would increase noise levels at

sensitive receptors.

UCSF shall incorporate standard

industrial noise control measures for

stationary equipment at any site

chosen for hospital replacement.

UCSF shall also adopt noise

performance standards to ensure that

operational noise from UCSF sources

would not exceed noise guidelines

set forth in local General Plans or

ordinances for adjacent areas based

on use standards. If ambient noise

levels in areas adjacent to the site(s)’

proposed for hospital replacement

already exceed local noise standards,

UCSF shall not increase average

daily noise levels (Ldn) from

operational noise sources by 3 or

more dBA at the property line. USCF

shall use standard design features

including installation of relatively

quiet models, orientation or

shielding to protect sensitive uses,

and installation within enclosures

when necessary to reduce noise.

(Modified measure from LRDP FEIR

Mitigation Measure 12E1‐2)

All contractors and design

professionals responsible for

selecting mechanical equipment will

be required to perform noise

calculations based on mechanical

equipment specifications of the

vendor or measure equipment noise

levels at the nearest property line to

ensure the selected equipment meets

the criteria. If the projected

equipment noise levels exceed Noise

Ordinance specifications, the

contractor or design professional will

be required to implement additional

measures, to ensure that the

standards are met, and re‐monitor.



Project Manager.

Provide written verification to the

Monitor of the inclusion of the

performance standards and conduct

final monitoring as required.

4.8‐7: Site‐specific construction

and demolition activities at

each campus site would have a

local, significant cumulative

impact on the local noise

Implement Mitigation Measure 4.8‐1.





environment.

4.11 TRANSPORTATION

4.11‐1: Building construction,

including demolition,

excavation, and grading

associated with the proposed

LRDP Amendment could cause

substantial adverse impacts to

traffic flow, circulation and

access as well as to transit,

pedestrian, and parking

conditions.

Mitigation 4.11‐1: To assure that

construction and/or demolition

activities minimize parking demand

and circulation obstruction, UCSF

shall require construction and/or

demolition contractors to develop

and implement construction traffic

and parking management plans

during demolition and/or

construction activities at all campus

sites. The plans would be expected

to include measures such as the

following:

Develop a traffic management plan

in consultation with the San

Francisco DPT and Muni to minimize

disruption due to lane closures. The

plan should be consistent with the

Regulations for Working in San

Francisco Streets and Chapter 6 of

the California Supplement to the

Manual of Uniform Traffic Control

Devices.

Prepare an offsite parking plan for

construction employees and

subcontractor employees. An

alternative plan would provide

shuttle service to/from designated

remote parking lots and/or public

transportation transfer nodes. This

plan would be incorporated into the

construction contract between UCSF




mitigation. Require the successful

contractor to prepare a construction

traffic and circulation plan for each

new proposed construction project to

report on the implementation of the

mitigation measure.



Capital Projects Facilities

Management, as

appropriate.





includes provisions for a construction

traffic and circulation plan. Provide a

construction traffic and circulation

plan implementation report to

Monitor upon request; but no less

than quarterly after beginning each

construction activity.





and the contractor.

Schedule heavy‐truck deliveries with

the construction project manager at

least one day in advance.

Whenever possible, make deliveries

using trucks of 40 feet maximum

bumper‐to‐bumper length.

Whenever possible schedule heavy

trucks deliveries to arrive at off‐peak

hours, outside of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00

a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Note any deliveries that cannot

comply with the above requirements

for heavy trucks on the schedule, and

notify the UCSF construction project

manager at least 48 hours in advance.

The contractor may provide flagmen

to direct traffic in those cases.

(Identified in the LRDP Amendment

#2 EIR for the LRDP and Future

Phases)

4.11‐2: Operation of a hospital

at the Mission Bay North or

South sites would increase

traffic at intersections on the

adjacent roadway network.

See below.

4.11‐2a: Operation of a hospital

at the Mission Bay South site

would increase average delay

per vehicle during the p.m.

peak hour at the intersection of

16th Street / Owens Street.

UCSF shall coordinate with the City

of San Francisco to provide the

following lane configuration for the

southbound approach on Owens

Street at the intersection of 16th

Street / Owens Street: one

southbound shared through‐left‐turn

Work with appropriate City

Departments on lane configuration at

this intersection to achieve acceptable

level of service, or develop other

mitigation measures that are equally

effective and acceptable to the City.

Vice Chancellor ‐

University Advancement

& Planning, Campus

Planning, Government

Relations.

Report coordination efforts to Monitor

and provide documentation

confirming lane configuration has

been approved by City and

implemented.





lane, one southbound through‐lane,

and one southbound exclusive right‐

turn lane. (Identified in the LRDP

Amendment #2 EIR for the Future

Phase)

4.11‐2b: Operation of a hospital

at the Mission Bay South site

would increase average delay

per vehicle during the p.m.

peak hour at the intersection of

Mariposa Street / 3rd Street.

UCSF shall coordinate with the City

and County of San Francisco to

provide an additional southbound

exclusive right‐turn lane of a

minimum 50‐foot length on 3rd

Street at the intersection of Mariposa

Street / 3rd Street. (Identified in the

LRDP Amendment #2 EIR for Future

Phase)

Work with appropriate City

Departments to get Board of

Supervisor approval for the

dedication of land that would be

required for the lane, or develop

other mitigation measures that are

equally effective and acceptable to

the City.

Vice Chancellor ‐

University Advancement

& Planning, Campus

Planning, Government

Relations.

Report coordination efforts to

Monitor. If UCSF cannot dedicate to

City, this measure would remain a

significant unavoidable impact.

APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY

INITIAL STUDY

University of California San Francisco

Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage

Lead Agency: The University of California

Prepared by: UCSF Campus Planning

654 Minnesota Street

San Francisco, CA 94143‐0286

February 25, 2011

University of California

San Francisco Campus Planning University Advancement and Planning

Organization of the Initial Study

This Initial Study is organized into the following sections:

Section I – Project Information: provides information about the proposed project, including project

location, lead agency, and contact information.

Section II –Project Description: describes the proposed project, the elements included in the project, and

the project approvals.

Section III –Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: identifies which environmental factors, if any,

would be affected by the project, including those that involve at least one significant or potentially

significant impact that cannot be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.

Section IV – Determination: indicates whether impacts associated with the proposed project are

significant, and what, if any, additional environmental documentation is required.

Section V – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: contains the Environmental Checklist form for each

resource area. The checklist is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the

proposed project and whether those impacts were adequately analyzed in the UCSF Medical Center at

Mission Bay EIR. This section also presents an explanation of all checklist answers.

Section VI – Supporting Information Sources: lists the references used in the preparation of this

document.

Section VII – Initial Study Preparers

‐ 1‐

I. PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project title:

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage

2. Lead agency name and address:

The Regents of the University of California

1111 Franklin Street

Oakland, California 94607

3. Contact person and phone number:


Tammy Chan, Senior Planner

(415) 476‐9627

4. Project location:

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay

Portions of Blocks 38 and 39

San Francisco, California 94143

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

Same as above.

6. Custodian of the administrative record for this project:

Same as above.

7. Identification of previous EIRs relied upon for tiering purposes (including all applicable

LRDP and project EIRs) and address where a copy is available for inspection.)

Document for which this Initial Study and SEIR is prepared:

Final EIR for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay, certified by The Regents on September 17,

2008 (State Clearinghouse No. 2008012075

Related UCSF documents that are referenced:

Final EIR on the 1996 LRDP certified by The Regents on January 17, 1997 (State

Clearinghouse No. 1995123032)

Final LRDP SEIR on LRDP Amendment #1, Mission Bay Housing Program, certified by The

Regents on January 17, 2002 (State Clearinghouse No. 1995123032)

Final LRDP FEIR on LRDP Amendment #2, Hospital Replacement Program, certified by The

Regents on March 17, 2005 (State Clearinghouse Number 2004072067)

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay FSEIR ‐ Residential Sound Reduction Program for

Helicopter Operations, certified by The Regents on April 20, 2009, (State Clearinghouse

Number No. 2008012075)

Copies of all relevant CEQA documents, including the 1996 LRDP and subsequent LRDP Amendments

are available at UCSF Campus Planning.

Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Parking Garage

‐ 2 ‐

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. INTRODUCTION

This initial study evaluates revisions to the proposed parking structure previously analyzed in the 2008

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR to determine whether the minor revisions to the parking garage

would cause new or substantially more significant environmental effects that were not previously

examined in the 2008 EIR. If the revisions to the project could cause new or substantially more significant

environmental effects that were not previously examined in the 2008 EIR, pursuant to Section 15163 of the

CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a

subsequent EIR if “only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR

adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.” This initial study would support the

preparation of the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) and Pursuant to Section 15163(b), “The supplement to the

EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as

revised.”

B. BACKGROUND

Each campus of the University of California is required to prepare a Long Range Development Plan

(“LRDP”) that sets forth concepts, principles, and plans to guide future growth of that campus. The

Board of Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”) adopted the 1996 LRDP, which outlines

development proposals for the University of California, San Francisco (“UCSF”) through the academic

year 2011/12. The LRDP has since been amended several times, and an EIR was prepared for each

amendment. The 1996 LRDP FEIR, together with the various EIRs prepared for LRDP amendments, are

collectively the “LRDP EIR.”

LRDP Amendment #2, approved in March 2005, described the planning process that considered potential

hospital replacement sites at Parnassus Heights, Mount Zion, and Mission Bay. A preferred plan to

develop three integrated specialty hospitals at Mission Bay on the Mission Bay South site located south of

16th Street was identified, but other sites remained in consideration. The Hospital Replacement Program

was analyzed at a program level in the LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR (2005 EIR).

Subsequently, once the Mission Bay South site option was selected, the UCSF Medical Center at Mission

Bay EIR was prepared in September 2008. The 2008 EIR, which was tiered from the program‐level 2005

EIR, focused on the project‐level environmental effects of the Medical Center at Mission Bay.

The project proposed in the 2008 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR was analyzed in two major

phases, the LRDP Phase (Phase I) and Future Phase (Phase II). Phase I included a 289‐bed hospital, an

Outpatient building and the Cancer Outpatient building, consisting of 336,500 gross square feet (GSF), a

36,000 GSF Energy Center, and a 600‐space parking structure with 475‐surface parking spaces, totaling

1,075‐parking spaces. In September 2008, The Regents approved the hospital, the Energy Center, the

Outpatient building, and the surface parking. Groundbreaking for the approved components of Phase I

began in October 2010, with the hospital complex scheduled to open in 2014. Approval of the other

components of Phase I, including the parking structure and the Cancer Outpatient building, would occur

at a future date. Phase II would include a 261‐bed hospital and approximately 225 to 925 parking spaces.

Upon completion of both phases, the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay would provide a 550‐bed

hospital, two outpatient facilities, and associated support space and parking. Phase II is assumed to start

following the completion of the Phase I, and would require subsequent project‐level environment review

once specific project design is available.

Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage

‐ 3 ‐

The UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR was certified by The Regents on September 17, 2008. The

purpose of this initial study is to evaluate the proposed revisions to the parking structure in Phase I of the

UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay. All other aspects of the Phase I project would remain the same.

Therefore, the focus of this initial study is on the revisions to the parking structure, no further discussion

is required for other components of the Phase I UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay.

C. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Mission Bay campus site is one of three major UCSF campus sites in San Francisco. As shown in

Figure 1, UCSF Campus Locations, the Mission Bay Campus is located approximately one and one‐half

miles south of downtown. The 2008 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR analyzed a project site

consisting of 14.5 acres just south of the existing UCSF Mission Bay research campus. The site is within

the Mission Bay Redevelopment Plan and consists of the Mission Bay South Plan Parcels 36‐39, and X3.

The project site is bordered by 16th Street to the north, 3rd Street to the east, and Mariposa Street to the

south. In the future, a new segment of Owens Street would extend south of 16th Street to create the

western boundary of the project site. (See Figure 2, Project Location Map)

As analyzed in the 2008 EIR, the Medical Center at Mission Bay complex would be constructed on the

eastern portion of the site on Blocks 36, 37 and X3. A 600‐space parking structure at about 90 feet tall

would also be constructed as part of Phase I. The parking structure would be located along the

southwestern portion of the site. Surface parking for approximately 475 vehicles would be provided on

the remainder of Blocks 38 and 39. Therefore, at the completion of Phase I, approximately 1,075 parking

spaces for staff, patients, and visitors would be provided.

As currently proposed, the Phase I parking structure would be 105‐feet‐tall and would include 626

spaces. The location of the proposed garage has also shifted to the north so that it is closer to 16th Street.

(See Figure 3, Project Site Plan) The location of the proposed parking structure in relation to the Medical

Center at Mission Bay complex that is currently under construction is illustrated in Figure 4, Aerial Site

View. The number of surface parking spaces proposed in Phase I on the remainder of Blocks 38 and 39

has been reduced to approximately 429 spaces, with an additional 13 spaces east of the future extension

of 4th Street, in what is known as the east lot. The total surface parking spaces would be approximately

442 compared to the 475 spaces analyzed in the 2008 EIR. Therefore, the total number of parking spaces

provided in Phase I (626 spaces in the parking structure and 442 surface parking spaces) would decrease

by approximately seven spaces and would total approximately 1,068‐parking spaces from 1,075 spaces.

Figure 5, Ground Floor Plan, provides the footprint of the proposed parking structure while Figure 6,

North‐South Building Section, provides the section of the parking levels.

Subsequent to the publication of the 2008 EIR, the access roads from Owens and 4th Street, leading to the

proposed parking structure has been renamed from North and South Access Roads to North and South

Connector Roads, and the Center Garage Access is now referred to as Parking Structure Road. Similar to

the original proposed project, access and circulation to the site and the associated parking would be from

Owens or 4th Streets via the North and South Connector Roads, with Owens Street accommodating the

majority of the vehicular traffic.

A total of 114 bicycle spaces would be constructed, which is in excess of the one bike space per 20 vehicle

parking ratio required in the Design for Development of the Mission Bay South Plan Area. Of the 114

bicycle spaces provided, 72 secured spaces would be provided in a cage inside the garage and 42 spaces


‐ 4 ‐

would be outside the garage. In addition, 66 motorcycle stalls would be provided in the parking garage

and 16 motorcycle stalls would be provided in the surface parking lot.

Vertical metal louvers with an anodized finish are proposed on the exterior of the parking structure. This

would provide light and varying views into the garage from different viewpoints, while also allowing for

proper ventilation. The louvers would be finished in warm earth tones in color and would also act as

shades to reduce the effects of direct headlights from vehicles. Figure 7, Approach from Owens Street,

shows the visual aesthetics of the structure along Owens Street. To reduce the potential for light

pollution, roof top light fixtures are designed with cut off features that ensure no direct artificial light

spills over the uppermost parking level.

As noted above, Phase II was also analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR which would

include a 261‐bed hospital and approximately 225 to 925 additional parking spaces. No revisions are

being proposed for Phase II. However, subsequent project‐level environment review would be required

once specific project design is available. All adopted mitigation and improvement measures outlined in

the 2008 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would continue to be applicable.

D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The project objectives outlined in the 2008 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR include the goals and

objectives developed for the 1996 LRDP and subsequent Amendments. The proposed parking structure

would support the Medical Center Project, analyzed in the 2008 Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR.

E. SURROUNDING LAND USES

The project site borders 16th Street to the north, 3rd Street to the east, and Mariposa Street to the south.

The western boundary of UCSF’s Mission Bay campus is along Owens Street, which currently ends at

16th Street. Just outside UCSF’s campus boundary, west of Owens and north of 16th Street, are the

Alexandria Life Science and Gladstone Institutes research and lab buildings. The project site is just south

of the existing UCSF Mission Bay research campus. The five story Genentech Hall and Byers Hall are

located directly north across 16th Street. The MUNI KT‐Third Street light rail is to the east, and runs

along Third Street. Upon the completion of Phase I, 4th Street would be extended through the site

providing access from 16th Street to the Potrero Hill and Dogpatch neighborhoods to the south.

Immediately south of parking proposed in Phase I is the site for a future City park, Mariposa Park. To the

west of the proposed parking structure, across from the future extension of Owens Street is a vacant

parcel, and the elevated I‐280 freeway.

F. DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS

Action by The Regents (including any Regents‐delegated committee or official): Anticipated project

actions and approvals include, but are not limited to approval of the design by the Chancellor for the

proposed Phase I Parking Structure at UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay.

Action by Other Agencies: There are no responsible or trustee agencies that have approval authority over

the proposed project.


‐ 5 ‐

G. CONSISTENCY WITH THE LRDP

Current development at UCSF is guided by the 1996 LRDP, as amended, which includes specific policies

related to future development and space needs at the various UCSF campuses. Amendment #1 amended

the LRDP to provide for on‐site student housing at Mission Bay. Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement

Program was analyzed at a program level in the LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR (2005

EIR). Analyzed as part of the 2008 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR, Amendment #3 added the

14.5‐acre UCSF Medical Center project to expand the UCSF Mission Bay campus to 57 acres, incorporated

the Mission Bay Planning Principles, and updated the functional zone maps at Mission Bay.

The 2008 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR analyzed two major phases, LRDP Phase (Phase I) and

the Future Phase (Phase II). Phase I would include a 289‐bed hospital, two outpatient facilities, an Energy

Center, and associated parking. The original parking structure associated with Phase I would include 600

parking spaces with approximately 475‐surface parking spaces. No changes are currently proposed for

Phase II.

The revised project would include a 626‐space parking structure with approximately 442 total surface

parking spaces. All over, this would be a reduction of seven parking spaces. The revised project would be

generally consistent with the original program. One of the Mission Bay Planning Principle includes

community consultation during the life of a project regarding exterior design and landscape elements.

The project team for the proposed parking structure has been meeting with the San Francisco

Redevelopment Agency, the Mission Bay Citizens Advisory Committee, and a subgroup of the UCSF

Mission Bay Community Advisory Group ‐‐ the Mission Bay Community Action Team (CAT) ‐‐ on the

proposed exterior design. The proposed parking structure and the associated surface parking lot would

be consistent with the LRDP and the Mission Bay Planning Principles adopted as part of LRDP

Amendment #3.


‐ 6 ‐

Figure 1: UCSF Campus Sites

Project Site is located within the Mission Bay Campus

Project Site


‐ 7 ‐

Figure 2: Mission Bay Campus Area

Proposed Project


‐ 8 ‐

Figure 3: Project Site Plan


‐ 9 ‐

Figure 4: Aerial View of the Proposed Project

Proposed Parking Garage


‐ 10 ‐

Figure 5: Proposed Ground Floor Plan

UCSF MEDICAL CENTER

AT MISSION BAY PARKING STRUCTURE Source: Rudolph and Sletten and WRNS Studios LLP


‐ 11 ‐

Figure 6: Proposed North‐South Building Section

UCSF MEDICAL CENTER

AT MISSION BAY PARKING STRUCTURE Source: Rudolph and Sletten and WRNS Studios LLP


‐ 12 ‐

Figure 7: Approach from Owens Street

UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PARKING STRUCTURE Source: Rudolph and Sletten and WRNS Studios LLP


‐ 13 ‐

III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least

one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forestry

Resources □ Air Quality

□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology/Soils

■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous

Materials □

Hydrology/Water

Quality

□ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise

□ Population/Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation

■ Transportation/Traffic □ Utilities/Service Systems ■ Mandatory Findings of

Significance

IV. DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of the initial evaluation that follows:

■ I find that the proposed project could have a ʺpotentially significant impactʺ or ʺpotentially significant

unless mitigatedʺ impact on the environment, and that these effects have not been adequately analyzed by

an earlier EIR. A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared.

□

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all

potentially significant effects (1) have been addressed adequately in an earlier environmental document

pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) either no changes or no substantial changes to the project are

proposed, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified. An ADDENDUM and/or

FINDINGS will be prepared.

Diane Wong, Environmental Coordinator


Date

V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The University has defined the column headings in the Initial Study checklist as follows:

A) “Additional Project‐level Impact Analysis Required” applies where the project may result in an

environmental impact that was not considered in an earlier document, or not considered in sufficient

detail, and/or substantial project changes, changed circumstances, or new information of substantial

importance triggering CEQA Section 15162 has occurred since certification of the earlier document.

B) “Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Earlier Environmental Document” applies where the

potential impacts of the proposed project were adequately addressed in an earlier environmental

document and either no changes or no substantial changes to the project are proposed, and no new

information of substantial importance has been identified.


‐ 14 ‐

Impact Questions and Responses

The impact questions identified in this Section are the same as those in Appendix G of the CEQA

Guidelines. Additionally, in several impact topics there are impact questions that relate to significance

standards established in UCSF’s LRDP Final EIR, where they are not otherwise covered by Appendix G.

The impact questions consist of two types: those that require a qualitative evaluation, and those that

require a quantitative analysis. In general, the impact questions themselves constitute the standards of

significance, and where applicable, additional explanation and/or quantitative thresholds are provided

under the appropriate environmental topic.

Issues

Additional

Project‐level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

1. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

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

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,

but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and

historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

□ ■

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character

or quality of the site and its surroundings? □ ■

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare

which would adversely affect day or nighttime views

in the area?

□ ■

e) Exceed the LRDP EIR significance standard by

substantially reducing sunlight or significantly

increasing shadows in public open space areas, or by

increasing pedestrian‐level wind speeds above the

hazard level set forth in the San Francisco Planning

Code?

□ ■

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Discussion of Checklist Questions

Relevant elements of project:

The construction of the Phase I Medical Center at Mission Bay is currently underway. A 600‐space

parking structure at 90‐feet‐tall with 475 surface parking spaces was analyzed in the EIR at the southwest


‐ 15 ‐

portion of the site as part of Phase I. The modified project would increase the height of the parking

structure to 105 feet tall, reduce the total number of parking spaces in Phase I by seven spaces, and shift

the location of the parking structure to the north, closer towards 16th Street, along the future Owens

Street extension. Due to the shift in the garage location, the intersection at Owens and Parking Structure

Road that would be constructed as part of Phase II in the original EIR analysis would be constructed as

part of Phase I. Therefore, under the revised project, three access points from Owens Street would be

created as part of Phase I, the North and South Connector Roads and the new intersection at Parking

Structure Road. All other aspects of the Phase I and Phase II project that was analyzed in the EIR would

remain the same.

Describe how the project is analyzed under this CEQA checklist topic:

The 2008 Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR analyzed a 90‐foot‐tall, 600‐space parking structure located

on the southwestern portion of Block 38 as part of the Phase I Medical Center at Mission Bay project. The

general massing of Phase II of the parking garage was analyzed at a programmatic level. In Phase II,

approximately 225 to 925 additional parking spaces would be provided on the western portions of Blocks

38 and 39. The evaluation of visual quality in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR considered the

potential effects on visual character, views, light and glare, and wind.

1a) and b): As noted in the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP/IS) for the Medical Center at Mission

Bay, a scenic vista is defined as a public view from existing parks, plazas, roadways or other public areas,

and gateway or panoramic views from areas generally available to the general public. Views from private

residences and non‐public areas are not considered to be scenic views because they are not available to

the general public. The NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay concluded that

implementation of the project would not create impacts not previously considered in the Initial Study

prepared for the LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR and would not have a substantial

adverse effect on a scenic vista. While the proposed parking structure has increased from 90 to 105 feet in

height, it would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and the conclusion reached in the

NOP/IS under 1a) and b) would remain valid.

1c): The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project

would result in visual changes at the site with the demolition of the existing structures and development

and construction of a medical center. The adopted Mission Bay South Plan of the San Francisco

Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) calls for a densely built urban environment with building heights

ranging from 90 to 160 feet. The medical center would be developed to be visually consistent with the

surrounding development patterns in the Mission Bay mixed‐use neighborhood. In general, most

structures for the medical center project would be approximately 105 feet in height, with an additional 20

feet to the top of the mechanical components. The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR concluded that

Phase I would be consistent with the development standards set forth in the SFRA MOU and compliance

with the SFRA MOU, as already required of UCSF, would ensure that the existing visual character or

quality of the site and its surroundings are not substantially degraded.

The modified parking garage would continue to be consistent with the development standards set forth

in the SFRA MOU, where the plan calls for a densely built urban environment with building heights

ranging from 90 to 160 feet and visual impacts would be less than significant.

The location of the Phase I parking structure has shifted further to the north, where it was previously the

area planned for the surface parking lot in Phase I. However, it should be noted that under full buildout


‐ 16 ‐

in Phase II, the entire site would be planned for a parking structure. Therefore, it would be consistent

with the use designated for this portion of Blocks 38 and 39 and consistent with the prior environmental

analysis. Access and circulation to the site and the proposed parking structure has been revised due to the

creation of the intersection at Owens and Parking Structure Road, during Phase I instead of Phase II. The

future Owens Street extension is still anticipated to accommodate the majority of the vehicular traffic.

Potential changes to the traffic analysis as a result of the modified project will be discussed in the SEIR.

The slight shift in the parking structure location would not substantially degrade or change the visual

quality of the site and impacts would be less than significant.

1d): The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR analyzed the potential for the construction and operation of

the proposed development to increase the amount of light and glare in the area. The proposed medical

center would include cladding materials such as glass, precast concrete and metal panels. The EIR

concluded that any impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.

Similar to what was analyzed in the 2008 EIR, the revised parking garage would include metal panels

(louvers) on the exterior façade and would be generally consistent with the massing, materials, patterns,

and colors used for the Medical Center design. This would not change the analysis on this topic. To

mitigate any potential light spillover from the garage, the roof top light fixtures on the garage would

provide a cut off feature to ensure that no direct artificial light spillover from the uppermost parking

levels. Second, the metal louvered façade proposed for the parking structure would function as shades,

allowing for natural ventilation but reducing and refracting the artificial light from within the parking

structure. Therefore, the project design would further reduce any impacts associated with light and glare

and the conclusions reached in the EIR would remain valid and would be less than significant.

1e): A wind study was conducted in 2008 as part of the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR. It was

conducted in response to the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Area requirement to identify and

mitigate significant impacts of pedestrian‐level winds, as stated in the Mission Bay Subsequent EIR1

Mitigation Measure D.7 (adopted through UCSF’s LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1‐7), as excerpt is as

stated as follows:

“D.7 The Redevelopment Agency would conduct wind review of high‐rise structures above 100 feet.

Wind tunnel testing would also be required unless… it is determined that… impacts, based on a 26‐mile‐

per‐hour hazard for a single hour of the year criterion, will not occur. The purpose of the wind tunnel

studies is to determine design‐specific impacts based on the above hazard criterion and to provide a basis

for design modifications to mitigate these impacts. Projects within Mission Bay, including UCSF, would

be required to meet this standard or to mitigate exceedances through building design.”

A wind study was conducted to determine design‐specific impacts based only on the Planning Code’s

Hazard Criterion and to provide a basis for design modifications to mitigate these impacts. Wind‐tunnel

tests were conducted at 24 test locations for two scenarios, the Phase I development, and the combined

Phase I and Phase II development in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR. Under the Phase I scenario,

two locations, the south side of 16th Street, at the intersection at Owens, and the southeast corner of

Mariposa and 3rd Streets, wind would exceed the wind hazard criterion set forth in Planning Code

Section 148. However, the total duration of these exceedances would be similar to but less than the

1 City and County of San Francisco, Final Mission Bay Subsequent EIR, Sept. 17, 1998, and University of California San Francisco LRDP Amendment #2- Hospital Replacement EIR, March 2005.


‐ 17 ‐

duration of the existing wind hazards on the site, so the project would generally improve wind

conditions from those now existing and reduce the overall duration of hazard exceedances.

At the completion and full buildout of Phase II, two wind hazard exceedances that were identified under

Phase I would be eliminated. However, a new exceedance would be created at another location, at 3rd

and 16th Streets. Under the combined Phase I and Phase II scenario, the medical center would

substantially improve wind conditions by reducing the number of duration of previously occurring wind

hazard exceedances. The Phase II scenario would result in one remaining wind hazard exceedance at one

of the 24 pedestrian test point locations. As a result, the EIR concluded that continued actions under

UCSF Mitigation Measure 4.1‐7 and City Mitigation Measure D.7 (listed above) would be required to

eliminate this hazard through building design and no further mitigation measures were necessary.

As noted above, the Phase I parking structure has been modified and the height has increased to 105 feet

to the top‐of‐screen. Under Mitigation Measure D.7, because the structure would exceed 100 feet in

height, the revised structure would require a wind tunnel testing or technical review to determine the

potential wind conditions. An updated technical memorandum2 was prepared to evaluate potential

changes to the wind conditions due to the proposed design changes to the Phase I parking structure.

It should be noted that the 2008 wind tunnel test conducted for the UCSF Medical Center EIR included

the buildout, i.e. Phase II, however, without a defined design for the Phase II garage. The wind testing for

Phase II included the total building mass that would occupy that portion of the Campus, but made no

distinction between the allocations of building uses in the conceptual building mass of the Phase II

development. Therefore, the original proposed 600 space, 90‐foot‐tall parking structure was assumed to

be part of a larger conceptual building mass that would form the Phase II development.

The updated 2010 analysis considered whether the proposed modifications to the parking structure

would result in a hazardous wind condition. The mechanism in which buildings can adversely affect the

pedestrian wind environment is that buildings much taller than surrounding buildings intercept and

redirect winds that might otherwise flow overhead, bringing them down the vertical faces of the

buildings to the ground level, creating ground‐level wind.

An increase from 90 to 105 feet in height would not substantially rise above the height of the upwind

buildings in the Mission Bay South area. Thus, the updated analysis concluded that the resulting change

would not be substantial. The analysis also considered whether the screened (metal louvers), non‐solid

surface of the parking structure would gather and redirect winds to the ground level. It was determined

that although the screened façade would be taller, wind would not gather and be directed down the

vertical face of the garage to the ground level. As a result, the current building design would have a lesser

physical capability to gather and redirect winds down to the ground level than the building mass that

was modeled in the 2008 wind tunnel study. Therefore, the increase in height of the garage to 105 feet

would have no greater impact on the wind conditions than the project analyzed in the 2008 EIR and the

conclusions reached in the EIR would remain valid.

For the reasons noted, sunlight, shadow and wind impacts would be less than significant and will not be

further analyzed in the SEIR.

2 ESA, memo to Lori Yamauchi, Assistant Vice Chancellor UCSF Campus Planning, Technical Memorandum Potential Wind Conditions, UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay, December 3, 2010.


‐ 18 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES –

Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as

shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

CA Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?

□ ■

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or

a Williamson Act contract? □ ■

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning

of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code

section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public

Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned

Timberland Production (as defined by Government

Code section 51104(g))?

□ ■

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of

forest land to non‐forest use? □ ■

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment

which, due to their location or nature, could result in

conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or

conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

□ ■


The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. There are

no additionally applicable LRDP significance standards.





portion of the site as part of Phase I. The modified project would reduce a total of seven parking spaces in

Phase I and shift the location of the parking structure to the north. The modified project would not

include any parking levels below grade. All other aspects of the Phase I and Phase II project that was

analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would remain the same.


‐ 19 ‐


2a), b) and e): The NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay concluded that

implementation of the project would not create impacts or result in a substantial adverse effect on

agricultural uses. The proposed project would not be constructed on Farmland or land otherwise in

agricultural use. The revisions to the proposed parking structure would not change the analysis or

conclusions reached in the NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay project. However,

since the publication of the EIR, the CEQA Guidelines was revised to include checklist questions 2c) and

2d) above. The site is located in a dense urban area, zoned for urban uses. Therefore, the Medical Center

at Mission Bay and the minor modifications to the proposed parking garage would not impact forest or

agricultural resources and no further environmental analysis for these checklist topics are required

pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.


‐ 20 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance

criteria established by the applicable air quality

management or air pollution control district may be

relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan? □ ■

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality

violation?

□ ■

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of

any criteria pollutant for which the project region is

non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state

ambient air quality standard (including releasing

emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for

ozone precursors)?

□ ■

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations? □ ■

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people? □ ■

f) Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of

significance by exposing receptors to toxic air

contaminant emissions that (1) result in a cancer risk

greater than 10 cancer cases per one million people

exposed in a lifetime; or (2) for acute or chronic effects,

result in concentrations of toxic air contaminant

emissions with a Hazard Index of 1.0 or greater

□ ■






‐ 21 ‐





include any parking levels below grade.

As noted above, Phase II was also analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR which would

include a 261‐bed hospital and approximately 225 to 925 additional spaces in a parking structure. With

the completion of Phase II, the project would range from approximately 1,290 to 1,990 total parking

spaces. All other aspects of the Phase I and Phase II project that was analyzed in the EIR would remain

the same. No revisions are currently being proposed for Phase II. However, subsequent project‐level

environment review would be required once specific Phase II project design is available.

Describe how project was analyzed in earlier environmental document:

3a‐d) and f): The potential construction and operational effects of the proposed medical center on air

quality was evaluated in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR. With the exception of construction

criteria pollutant and criteria pollutants due to the operation of the Phase II development, all other air

quality impacts were determined to be less than significant. The EIR concluded that implementation of

Mitigation Measure MCMB.2‐1, criteria pollutant construction impacts would be mitigated to less‐than‐

significant levels. The mitigation measure would require certain emission standards for UCSF

construction equipment. The EIR also determined that the operation of the medical facilities in Phase II

would generate criteria pollutant emissions that would contribute to regional air pollution and this

impact would be significant and unavoidable. In addition, prior to approval of the Phase II development,

UCSF would conduct additional CEQA review to consider any new recommendations and

methodologies for mitigating criteria pollutants available at the time of project approvals.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were also analyzed under in the Air Quality CEQA checklist topic in

the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR. At the time of the EIR publication, no state or federal regulations

have been set for ambient air quality emission standards for greenhouse gas. The EIR quantified the

project’s emissions and included a GHG analysis, but used a significance standard that was consistent

with strategies to reduce GHG per AB32.3 The EIR concluded that the project would be consistent with

AB32 and impacts would be less than significant.

3e): The LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR assessed the potential effects of the proposed

project to create objectionable odors. Odorous substances are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7

and is required as part of the hospital operations. The current medical center complies with the

regulations for odorous substances under BAAQMD Regulations and the future operation would

continue to meet the regulations. The LRDP Amendment #2 EIR and the NOP/IS for the Medical Center

determined the proposed project would not result in an adverse effect on odors and impacts would be

less than significant.

3 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, known as AB32, was passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006, which set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law.


‐ 22 ‐

Describe how the minor project changes affect the earlier environmental analysis:

3a‐f): The revised parking structure would not result in new or substantially more significant air quality

impacts that were not previously examined in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR. The 26 additional

parking spaces in the parking garage would be offset by the decreased number of surface parking spaces.

The parking structure and associated surface parking lot would support the medical center that is

currently under construction and would not generate any additional new trips that was not previously

analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR. The parking structure would continue to be

developed as part of the Phase I project in the same timeframe that was analyzed in the EIR.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MCMB.2‐1 from the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would

still be required. Similar to the conclusions reached in the EIR, Phase II of the project would generate

criteria pollutant emissions that would contribute to regional air pollution and this impact would be

significant and unavoidable. UCSF would implement all previously adopted measures and new

mitigation measures identified in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR, with additional CEQA review

at the time of project approval for Phase II to consider any new recommendations and methodologies for

mitigating criteria pollutants.

In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants, GHGs, and

health risks from new sources. The recently adopted BAAQMD significance threshold for ROG, NOx,

and PM2.5 is 54lbs/day and 82lbs/day for PM10. An analysis for criteria air pollutants from new sources

based on the recently adopted BAAQMD thresholds of significance was conducted for Phase I.

With respect to the City of San Francisco’s fine‐particulate exposure standard for development proposals

located within 500 feet of a major roadway,4 the proposed project would incorporate filtration systems

into the general air supply systems of both the Phase I and Phase II projects. At this time, the proposed

261‐bed hospital in Phase II would be located within 500 feet of the I‐280 freeway, which could be at a

location where the potential for the PM2.5 concentration from local roadways to exceed 0.2 μg/m3. The

hospital plans to use high efficiency particulate filtration (such as HEPA or ULPA) within systems

serving bone marrow transfers, hematology/oncology treatment, radiation therapy, and pediatric

intensive care. Other air handling systems would include these filters as‐needed. Therefore, ambient

concentrations of fine particulates would not pose a substantial risk to patients, hospital workers or other

occupants of the hospital under construction in Phase I (which is beyond 500 feet) or the future hospital

in Phase II. However, as noted previously, subsequent project‐level environment review would be

required for the Phase II project once specific project design is available.

It can be assumed that the total criteria air pollutant emissions that were reported in the 2008 EIR would

remain the same under the current revised project since project revisions would not include any change

in overall use but slight change of location for the parking structure and a reduction of seven parking

spaces in Phase I. The “Proportional Emissions from the Revised Parking Structure in Phase 1” presented

below is the subset of emissions previous analyzed in the 2008 EIR. Based on the new adopted

significance criteria, the Phase I project would continue to be less than significant and the proportional

share of operational daily emissions for the proposed parking garage is listed in the table below:

4 As established by San Francisco Department of Public Health, the Potential Roadway Exposure Zones are defined as areas within the City and County of San Francisco that may exhibit high ambient PM2.5 concentrations due to their proximity to freeways and major roadways (i.e., “Local Roadway Traffic Sources”).


‐ 23 ‐

Table 3‐1: Project‐related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions and CEQA Significance Standards

Emission Sources

Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Total Phase I Project

(from 2008 MCMB EIR)

Mobile Sources

Area Sources

Stationary

Other1

Total

28.88

1.66

3.98

1.51

36.03

27.26

5.32

35.98

0.60

69.16

286.79

4.45

52.11

11.96

355.31

60.45

0.02

5.34

0.13

65.94

11.43

0.02

0.08

0.13

11.66

Proportional Emissions

from the Revised

Parking Structure in

Phase 1

Mobile Sources

Area Sources2

Stationary3

Other

Total

15.18

1.21

N/Ap

N/Ap

16.39

21.58

0.66

N/Ap

N/Ap

22.24

182.19

0.55

N/Ap

A/Ap

182.74

35.4

_

N/Ap

N/Ap

35.4

6.68

_

N/Ap

N/Ap

6.68

Prior BAAQMD

Guidelines (1999)

80 80 550

(screening)4

80 No

Threshold

BAAQMD Significance

Thresholds (June 2010)

54 54 See below5 82 54

Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with an

aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter

of 2.5 micrometers or less, N/Ap = Not Applicable; ppm = parts per million

1 “Other Emissions” applies only to the operation of the hospital and would have no emission values associated with the proposed parking structure. 2 The proportional area emission from the revised parking structure is an amount that is below what is measureable. 3 Operation of the parking structure would not produce stationary source emissions, hence N/Ap. 4 The 1999 guidelines recommend this level as a threshold for conducting additional detailed analysis. 5 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)

As shown in Table 3‐1, the proportional emission from the revised parking structure would be below the

prior 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines and the current 2010 BAAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria air

pollutants. It is BAAQMD policy that the adopted thresholds apply to projects for which a NOP is

published, or environmental analysis begins, on or after the applicable effective date.5 Therefore, while

the 2010 BAAQMD threshold for NOx was reduced from 80lbs/day to 54lbs/day, and the total NOx

emission for the total Phase I Project would be 69.16, this impact would not be significant and the

proportional emissions from the revised parking structure would be below the 54lbs/day significance

threshold. In regards to CO emissions, BAAQMD recommends analysis of CO emissions at a local, rather

than a regional, level. BAAQMD has established preliminary screening criteria to determine with fair

certainty that, if not violated, project‐generated, long‐term operational local mobile‐source emissions of

CO would not result in, or substantially contribute to, emissions concentrations that exceed the 1‐hour

ambient air quality standard of 20 ppm or the 8‐hour standard of 9 ppm, respectively.

Table 3‐2 below presents the thresholds of significance for operational‐related criteria air pollutant and

precursor emissions. These represent the levels at which a project‘s individual emissions of criteria air

pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the San Francisco

Bay Area Air Basin‘s existing air quality conditions. If daily average or annual emissions of operational‐

5 BAAQMD Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance - June 2, 2010, available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Adopted%20Thresholds%20Table_December%202010.ashx Accessed February 2011.


‐ 24 ‐

related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable threshold of significance listed in

the table below, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact. As shown in

Table 3‐1, the revised parking structure would not exceed any applicable thresholds and would not have

a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact.

Table 3‐2: Thresholds of Significance for Operational‐Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors

Pollutant/Precursor Maximum Annual Emissions

(tpy)

Average Daily Emissions

(lbs/day)

ROG 10 54

NOX 10 54

PM10 15 82

PM2.5 10 54 Notes: tpy = tons per year; lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable

particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an

aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less.

Criteria air pollutants are monitored at several monitoring stations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air

Basin. The monitoring station nearest the project site is at 10 Arkansas Street in San Francisco. In general,

the ambient air‐quality measurements from this station are representative of the air quality in the vicinity

of the project site. During the last three years, the station did not register any days the state CO standards

were exceeded.6

The modifications to the proposed project would not cause significant air quality impacts and no further

environmental analysis for these checklist topics are required. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines was

amended and adopted in December 2009 which includes updated significance standard for evaluating

GHG emissions. Additional GHG discussion and analysis due to project revisions and changes to the

CEQA Guidelines will be presented in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter in the SEIR.

6 California Air Resources Board (ARB), 2011, Air Quality Data Statistics, Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html, Accessed: January 2011.


‐ 25 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ‐‐ Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species identified

as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in

local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by

the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?

□ ■

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community identified

in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the

California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish

and Wildlife Service?

□ ■

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,

vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,

filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

□ ■

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or

with established native resident or migratory wildlife

corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery

sites?

□ ■

e) Conflict with any applicable policies protecting

biological resources? □ ■

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation

Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan?

□ ■

g) Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of

significance by damaging or removing heritage or

landmark trees or native oak trees of a diameter

specified in a local ordinance?

□ ■


The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. In


‐ 26 ‐

addition, the significance standard related to local tree ordinances is used as a basis to evaluate potential

heritage or landmark trees at UCSF campus sites.






Phase I and shift the location of the parking structure to the north. All other aspects of the Phase I and

Phase II project that was analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would remain the same.

Describe how project is analyzed under this CEQA checklist topic:

The NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay concluded that the development of the

proposed project would not result in a significant impact on riparian habitats, sensitive or special status

species, sensitive natural communities, protected wetlands, or movement or migration of any fish or

wildlife species. The proposed project would also not conflict with any applicable policy or conservation

plans. Therefore, the NOP/IS concluded that the proposed project would not create any substantial

adverse effect on biological resources. The modifications to the proposed project would not affect the

prior impact analyses or conclusions reached in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR related to

biological resources. Thus, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant and will not be

further analyzed in the SEIR.


‐ 27 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ‐‐ Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance

of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? □ ■

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance

of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section

15064.5?

□ ■

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological

resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ ■

d) Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries? □ ■






Four structures were on the project site along the eastern boundary, which have since been demolished to

accommodate the construction of the Phase I Medical Center at Mission Bay, which is currently

underway. A 600‐space parking structure at 90‐feet‐tall with 475 surface parking spaces was analyzed in

the EIR at the southwest portion of the site as part of Phase I. The modified project would reduce a total

of seven parking spaces in Phase I and shift the location of the parking structure to the north. All other

aspects of the Phase I and Phase II project that was analyzed in the EIR would remain the same.


The LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR assessed the proposed Mission Bay South project

site for potential historical resources and concluded the demolition of the structures would have a less‐

than‐significant impact on historic resource. The NOP/IS for the Medical Center at Mission Bay project

concluded that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3‐1 from the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR would be

required. The mitigation measure would require that in the event that archaeological resource or human

remains was encountered, construction work would halt and a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist

would be consulted to determine the significance and the appropriate next steps. The modifications to the

proposed project would not affect the prior impact analyses or conclusions reached related to cultural

resources. Thus, these checklist topics will not be analyzed further in the SEIR.


‐ 28 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ‐‐ Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or

death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State

Geologist for the area or based on other substantial

evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of

Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

□ ■

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? □ ■

iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including

liquefaction? □ ■

iv) Landslides? □ ■

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of

topsoil? □ ■

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,

or that would become unstable as a result of the project,

and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral

spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

□ ■

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐

1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating

substantial risks to life or property?

□ ■

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the

use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal

systems where sewers are not available for the disposal

of waste water?

□ ■

f) Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of

significance by exposing people to structural hazards in □ ■


‐ 29 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

an existing building rated Poor, or Very Poor, under the

University’s seismic performance rating system, or

substantial nonstructural hazards?








Phase I and shift the location of parking structure to the north. The modified project would not include

any parking levels below grade. All other aspects of the Phase I and Phase II project that was analyzed in

the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would remain the same.


Based on information from prior geological surveys, the NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at

Mission Bay concluded the impacts on soil erosion would be less than significant since the project would

be required to follow building code standards for drainage and earthwork. The LRDP Amendment #2‐

Hospital Replacement EIR concluded that exposure of people and property to liquefaction and

earthquake‐induced settlement at Mission Bay would be significant before mitigation.

The NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay concluded that implementation of Mitigation

Measure 4.4‐4 from the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR would be required. The mitigation measure would

require a site‐specific, design‐level geotechnical investigation be completed on the project design and

these geotechnical recommendations be incorporated into the final design of the project. Therefore, the

proposed project would not create any new impacts not previously considered or adversely affected by

geological seismic impacts that cannot be mitigated through implementation of LRDP Amendment #2

EIR Mitigation Measure 4.4‐4. The LRDP Amendment #2 EIR also concluded that the proposed

construction of new buildings for the medical center to meet current seismic codes and University policy

would future reduce potential seismic hazards.

The revisions to the proposed project would not affect the prior impact analyses or conclusions reached

related to geology and soils that were not previously examined in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR

or LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR. Therefore, impacts regarding geology and soils

would be less than significant and will not be analyzed further in the SEIR.


‐ 30 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the

project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the

environment?

■ □

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation

adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of

greenhouse gases?

■ □










include any parking levels below grade.

As noted previously, Phase II was also analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR which would







Greenhouse Gas was discussed as part of the Air Quality CEQA checklist topic in the Medical Center at

Mission Bay EIR. At the time of publication, no state or federal regulations had been set for ambient air

quality emission standards for greenhouse gas. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved 44

greenhouse gas reduction strategies under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)

and adopted mandatory reporting regulations requiring annual reporting from sources that generate

more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. However, at the time of the Medical Center at

Mission Bay EIR, no guidance from CARB, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), State


‐ 31 ‐

Clearinghouse or other resource agency on the relationship between AB32 and CEQA, and how GHG

emissions would be evaluated in an EIR had been developed.

At the time of the EIR, the University of California was developing a long‐term strategy to voluntarily

meet the State of California’s AB 32 goals to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Further, the

University was developing clean energy standards with the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 2000

levels by 2014 and to provide an action plan to become climate neutral. Each UC campus was to form a

Climate Change Working Group to monitor progress towards reaching the stated goals for GHG

reduction. Consistent with the UC’s sustainable policy, UCSF prepared a GHG inventory using the

California Climate Action Registry protocol followed by the development of a Climate Action Plan, and

by that action, UCSF is making reasonable progress on GHG emissions reduction.

The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR quantified the project’s emissions and included a GHG analysis,

but used a significance standard that was consistent with strategies to reduce GHG per AB32. The EIR

concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with AB32 and would not conflict with the state

goals; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


Since the certification of the EIR, the CEQA Guidelines was revised to include checklist questions 7a) and

b) above. In addition, in June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted new significance standards for criteria air

pollutants, GHGs, and health risks from new sources and an analysis methodology for the evaluation of

GHG emissions in CEQA documents. In general, parking structures do not by themselves generate

vehicle trips, rather they support the trips generated by nearby land use. As such, the proposed garage

and the associated surface parking lot would not generate vehicle trips and instead would accommodate

vehicles generated by the hospital, outpatient building, and other support uses of the Medical Center at

Mission Bay. Nonetheless, for a conservative analysis, the GHG emissions produced by vehicles that

would travel to the proposed garage will be analyzed in the SEIR.


‐ 32 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS –

Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use, or

disposal of hazardous materials?

□ ■

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and

accident conditions involving the release of hazardous

materials into the environment?

□ ■

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or

acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste

within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed

school?

□ ■

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to

Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,

would it create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment?

□ ■

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan

or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use airport, would

the project result in a safety hazard for people residing

or working in the project area?

□ ■

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,

would the project result in a safety hazard for people

residing or working in the project area?

□ ■

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere

with an adopted emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan?

□ ■

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of

loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including

where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or

□ ■


‐ 33 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

where residences are intermixed with wildlands?







parking structure at 90‐feet‐tall with 475 surface parking spaces was analyzed in the Medical Center at

Mission Bay EIR at the southwest portion of the site as part of Phase I. The modified project would

reduce a total of seven parking spaces in Phase I and shift the location of the parking structure to the

north. The modified project would not include any parking levels below grade. All other aspects of the

Phase I and Phase II project that was analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would remain

the same.



site for potential impacts of hazardous building material during demolition or renovation of existing

structures; use of hazardous materials in new construction; hazardous material transportation, storage

and disposal impacts during project operations; and exposure of the public to native contaminated soil or

groundwater. The EIR concluded that these impacts were less than significant and no mitigation

measures were recommended. However, the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR found that the generation of

hazardous waste could have a significant impact by contributing to additional loads on hazardous waste

management facilities outside California. The NOP/IS for the Medical Center at Mission Bay concluded

that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5‐4 from the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR would mitigate this

impact to less than significant.

The modifications to the proposed project would not affect the prior impact analyses or conclusions

reached related to hazards and hazardous materials that were previously examined in the Medical Center

at Mission Bay EIR or LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR. Impacts from hazards and

hazardous materials would be less than significant and will not be analyzed further in the SEIR.


‐ 34 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ‐‐ Would

the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements? □ ■

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or

interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such

that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a

lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the

production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would

drop to a level which would not support existing land

uses or planned uses for which permits have been

granted)?

□ ■

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of

the site or area, including through the alteration of the

course of a stream or river, in a manner which would

result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site?

□ ■

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of

the site or area, including through the alteration of the

course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the

rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which

would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site?

□ ■

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would

exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater

drainage systems or provide substantial additional

sources of polluted runoff?

□ ■

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? □ ■

g) Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard area as

mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood

Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation

map?

□ ■

h) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures

which would impede or redirect flood flows? □ ■


‐ 35 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of

loss, injury or death involving flooding, including

flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

□ ■

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? □ ■










north. The modified project would not include any parking levels below grade. All other aspects of the

Phase I and Phase II project that was analyzed in the EIR would remain the same.


The project site is located in a dense urban area in the vicinity of China Basin Channel and the San

Francisco Bay. Groundwater is not used at the site and the project would not alter or interfere with

groundwater supplies or recharge or alter the course of a stream or river. The site is not located within a

100‐year flood hazard area, or near a levee or dam. Nor is the site within an area with the potential to be

inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The modifications to the proposed project would not affect

the prior impact analyses or conclusions reached related to hydrology and water quality that were not

previously examined in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR or LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital

Replacement EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis of hydrology and water quality is

required and this topic will not be analyzed in the SEIR.


‐ 36 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING ‐‐ Would the

project:

a) Physically divide an established community? □ ■

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or

regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the

project (including, but not limited to the LRDP, general

plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning

ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect?

□ ■

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan? □ ■

d) Exceed an applicable LRDP EIR standard of

significance by being substantially incompatible with

existing land uses, or by substantially conflicting use,

density, height and bulk restrictions of local zoning,

although UCSF is exempt from such restrictions?

□ ■








increase the height of the parking structure to 105‐feet‐tall, reduce the number of parking spaces in Phase

I by seven spaces, and shift the location of the parking structure to the north, closer towards 16th Street,

along the future Owens Street extension. Due to the shift in the garage location, the intersection at Owens

and Parking Structure Road would be constructed as part of Phase I instead of Phase II, as analyzed in

the original EIR analysis. Therefore, under the revised project, three access points from Owens Street

would be created as part of Phase I, the North and South Connector Roads and the new intersection at

Parking Structure Road.


‐ 37 ‐

As noted previously, Phase II was also analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR which would







The project site is within an urban developed area and no habitat conservation plans or natural

community conservation plans apply to the Mission Bay area. The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR

concluded that the implementation of the Medical Center at Mission Bay would not result in new impacts

not previously considered and would not have a substantial adverse effect. Therefore, potential land use

impacts would be less than significant.

As noted previously, the 2008 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR analyzed two major phases,

Phase I and Phase II. Phase I would include a 289‐bed hospital, two outpatient facilities consisting of

336,500 gross square feet (GSF), a 36,000 GSF Energy Center, and a 600‐space parking structure with 475

surface parking spaces, totaling 1,075 parking spaces. Groundbreaking for Phase I began in October 2010.

The proposed project modifications would not change the uses proposed and analyzed in the 2008 EIR.

While the number of parking spaces in the parking structure (from 600 to 626) would increase, the

number of surface spaces would decrease (from 475 to approximately 442). Therefore, the overall number

of parking spaces would decrease by about seven spaces under Phase I. A decrease of seven parking

spaces would not change the prior impact discussion. The proposed parking facility would support the

medical center complex that is currently under construction and would be consistent with the existing

uses around the project site and UCSF’s LRDP, as amended.

The location of the Phase I parking structure has shifted further to the north, where it was previously

planned for surface parking in Phase I. However, it should be noted that under buildout of Phase II, the

entire site would be planned for a parking structure accommodating approximately 1,290 to 1,990

parking spaces. Therefore, it would be consistent with the use designated for this portion of Blocks 38 and

39 and consistent with the prior environmental analysis. Access and circulation to the site and the

proposed parking structure would remain the same, with the future Owen Street extension to

accommodate the majority of the vehicular traffic.

The project site is within the Mission Bay South Plan area where the allowable base building height is 90

feet with a provision for some building parcels to reach a maximum height of 160 feet. In addition, the

SFRA MOU established height limit standards that allowed a base height of 90 feet but may extend up to

105 feet for up to 75% of the medical center structures. The proposed height increase from 90 to 105 feet

would be consistent with the surrounding height and bulk restrictions and would be consistent with

SFRA MOU height standards.

Based on this analysis, the modified project would not result in new significant environmental impacts

related to land use that were not previously examined in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR.

Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant land use impact and land use will not be

analyzed further in the SEIR.


‐ 38 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

11. MINERAL RESOURCES ‐‐ Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral

resource that would be of value to the region and the

residents of the state?

□ ■

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐

important mineral resource recovery site delineated on

a local general plan, specific plan or other land use

plan?

□ ■










north. The modified project would not require additional excavation. All other aspects of the Phase I and

Phase II project that was analyzed in the EIR would remain the same.


The proposed project site is not in an area of known mineral resources and would not otherwise conflict

with mineral resource recovery. The NOP/IS for the LRDP Amendment #2 and the NOP/IS for the

Medical Center at Mission Bay determined that no further study of mineral resources would be

necessary. Modifications to the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe

significant environmental impacts related to mineral resources that were not previously examined in the

Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR or LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR. Therefore, these

checklist topics will not be analyzed further in the SEIR.


‐ 39 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

12. NOISE ‐‐ Would the project:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels

in excess of standards established in any applicable

plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of

other agencies?

□ ■

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ ■

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing

without the project?

□ ■

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project (including construction)?

□ ■

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan

or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use airport, would

the project expose people residing or working in the

project area to excessive noise levels?

□ ■

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,

would the project expose people residing or working in

the project area to excessive noise levels?

□ ■

g) Exceed an applicable LRDP EIR standard of

significance by contributing to an increase in average

daily noise levels (Ldn) of 3 dB(A) or more at property

lines, if ambient noise levels in areas adjacent to

proposed development already exceed local noise

levels set forth in local general plans or ordinances for

such areas based on their use?

□ ■


The impact questions above constitute the significance standards. Regarding question g), a project could

have a significant noise impact if it contributes to an increase in already exceeded noise ordinance levels.


‐ 40 ‐







north. All other aspects of the Phase I and Phase II project that was analyzed in the Medical Center at

Mission Bay EIR would remain the same.


12a‐d) and g): The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR concluded that demolition and construction

activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily elevate noise levels to significant levels

in and around the project site, particularly near sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors are

located in the Mission Bay research campus site, north of the project site, which includes a child care

center on Block 18 and the 430 residential units on Block 20. There is also the potential proposal for a

child care center on Block 23 and a site for a possible future SFUD public school on Block 14. Additional

residential uses are located south of the medical center site, along Mariposa and Pennsylvania Streets.

The revised parking structure would not result in new or substantially more significant demolition or

construction noise impacts that were not previously examined in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR

or LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR. The parking structure would continue to be

developed as part of the Phase I project in the same timeframe that was analyzed in the EIR.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MCMB.5‐1 from the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would

require construction contractors to minimize construction noise impacts by using proper equipment and

limiting construction hours, however, because the mitigation measure would not guarantee that

construction noise impacts would be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels, the EIR concluded that the

project would have a temporary but significant and unavoidable noise impact. Similar to the conclusions

reached in the EIR, the revised project would continue to have a temporary but significant and

unavoidable noise impact during project construction and demolition.

12e and f): The project site is more than two miles from an airport or private airstrip. The Medical Center

at Mission Bay EIR concluded that operation of the helicopter landing site (“helipad”) proposed as part of

the project would increase noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure MCMB.5‐4 was

included in the EIR, which requires UCSF to develop a Residential Sound Reduction Program (RSRP)

prior to helicopter operation and to include any additional mitigation measures developed as part of the

community process for the RSRP. Subsequent to the publication of the Medical Center at Mission Bay

EIR, a Supplemental EIR was prepared in April of 2009 to address the RSRP mitigation measure. The

Supplemental EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure MCMB.5‐4 from the Medical

Center at Mission Bay EIR, in conjunction with the RSRP Mitigation Measure MCMB.5‐4a from the

Supplemental EIR, would in general mitigate noise impacts on sensitive receptors from helicopter

operations to less‐than‐significant levels. However, because it may not be feasible for all property owners

to participate in the RSRP, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. The revised

project would not affect the prior impact analysis. Therefore, noise effects will not be analyzed further in

the SEIR.


‐ 41 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING ‐‐Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,

either directly (for example, by proposing new homes

and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through

extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

□ ■

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing

elsewhere?

□ ■

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating

the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ ■

d) Exceed an applicable LRDP or Program EIR

standard of significance by creating a demand for

housing outside the market area where the facilities or

site are located?

□ ■


The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. Population

and housing changes, in and of themselves, are not normally considered significant impacts (substantial,

adverse impacts on the physical environment). However, CEQA does allow inclusion of secondary effects

as indicators and influences on other impacts, such as traffic, public services, and air quality.









The proposed project would not displace existing housing or residents. The LRDP Amendment #2‐

Hospital Replacement EIR assessed the proposed Mission Bay South project site for potential impacts

under these checklist topics and determined that these impacts were less than significant. The NOP/IS

prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay concluded that the implementation of the Medical Center


‐ 42 ‐

at Mission Bay would not create a new impact not previously considered and would not have a

substantial adverse effect.

The revised parking structure would not result in new or substantially more population and housing

impacts that were not previously examined in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR or the LRDP

Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR. While the number of parking spaces in the parking structure

would increase from 600 to 626, the number of surface spaces would decrease from 475 to approximately

442. Therefore, the overall number of parking spaces would decrease by about seven spaces under Phase

I. The proposed Phase I parking structure and associated surface parking lot would accommodate the

trips generated from the medical center complex that is currently under construction and would not

create new population or housing demand. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing

would be less than significant and this topic will not be analyzed further in the SEIR


‐ 43 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

14. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical

impacts associated with the provision of new or

physically altered governmental facilities, need for new

or physically altered governmental facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant

environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable

service ratios, response times or other performance

objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection? □ ■

b) Police protection? □ ■

c) Schools? □ ■

d) Parks? □ ■

e) Other public facilities? □ ■













site for potential impacts under these checklist topics and concluded that the project’s demand for police

services, fire services, emergency medical service, and local school enrollments would be less than

significant. As noted in CEQA topic 15) Recreation, the impacts of the proposed project on parks would


‐ 44 ‐

also be less than significant. The NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay concluded that

the implementation of the Medical Center at Mission Bay would not result in new impacts not previously

considered and potential impacts on public services would be less than significant.

The modifications to the proposed project would not result in an increase in public service demand that

were not previously examined in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR or the LRDP Amendment #2‐

Hospital Replacement EIR. While the number of parking spaces in the parking structure would increase

from 600 to 626, the number of surface spaces would decrease from 475 to approximately 442. Therefore,

the overall Phase I parking supply would reduce by approximately seven spaces. The proposed parking

spaces would continue to accommodate the visitors and employees generated by the medical center

complex that is currently under construction and would not create new population that would increase

demand on public services. Therefore, no further environmental analysis of public service is required and

this topic will not be analyzed further in the SEIR.


‐ 45 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

15. RECREATION ‐‐

a) Would the project increase the use of existing

neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational

facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of

the facility would occur or be accelerated?

□ ■

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or

require the construction or expansion of recreational

facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect

on the environment?

□ ■












This checklist topic was focused out in the NOP/IS that was prepared for the LRDP Amendment #2‐

Hospital Replacement EIR. The NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay concluded that

the implementation of the medical complex would not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or

other recreational facilities in the area or result in the construction or expansion of existing recreational

facilities. The revisions to the proposed parking structure would not change the analysis or conclusions

reached in the NOP/IS prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay project. Therefore, potential

impacts on recreational resources would be less than significant and no further environmental analysis is

required in the SEIR.


‐ 46 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ‐‐

Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy

establishing measures of effectiveness for the

performance of the circulation system, taking into

account all modes of transportation including mass

transit and non‐motorized travel and relevant

components of the circulation system, including but

not limited to intersections, streets, highways and

freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass

transit?

■ □

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management

program, including, but not limited to level of service

standards and travel demand measures, or other

standards established by the county congestion

management agency for designated roads or

highways?

■ □

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including

either an increase in traffic levels or a change in

location that results in substantial safety risks?

■ □

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)

or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

■ □

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ■ □

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ■ □

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs

regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or

safety of such facilities?

■ □

h) Exceed the applicable LRDP or Program EIR

standard of significance by causing substantial conflict

among auto, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit

■ □


‐ 47 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

vehicles?

i) Exceed the applicable LRDP standard of significance

by generating transit demand that transit systems or

projected transit service would not be able to

accommodate?

■ □



Discussion of Checklist Questions:


The construction of the Phase I Medical Center at Mission Bay is currently underway. The Phase I

development includes a 289‐bed hospital and approximately 336,500 gross square feet of outpatient care

uses. A 600‐space parking structure at 90‐feet‐tall was analyzed in the EIR at the southwest portion of the

site as part of Phase I. Surface parking for approximately 475 vehicles would be provided on the

remainder of Blocks 38 and 39. Therefore, at the completion of Phase I, approximately 1,075 parking

spaces for staff, patients, and visitors would be provided on the Blocks 38 and 39 between 4th Street and

the proposed Owens Street extension.

Owens Street is designed to handle the majority of vehicular traffic. Therefore, the parking facilities are

located on the west side of the site. Fourth Street is envisioned as a low‐traffic street, with access to the

project site for drop‐offs and pick‐ups, access to the garage and deliveries, but limited through travel

between 16th and Mariposa Streets. Access to the Phase I parking structure and associated surface

parking spaces would be from Owens or 4th Streets via the North and South Connector Roads. The access

to the Phase I parking structure and associated surface parking would be located at the South Connector

Road with another ingress/egress along Owens Street (now the intersection of Owens Street and the

Parking Structure Road, located between the North and South Connector Roads. A secondary

ingress/egress into the parking structure is from the surface parking lot to the east.

Phase II would be located west of 4th Street and would include a 261‐bed hospital and approximately 225

to 925 parking spaces. Upon project completion and full buildout of Phase II, the onsite parking supply

for the medical center would range from 1,300 to 2,000 spaces. The 261‐bed hospital in Phase II would be

L‐shaped, running along 16th and 4th Streets on the eastern portion of Blocks 38 and 39 with the future

parking structure west of the hospital, along Owens Street. The Phase II parking structure would occupy

the western part of the site with three access points. Under Phase II, ingress/egress into the garage would

be provided from the new Parking Structure Road at Owens and North and South Connector Roads.


‐ 48 ‐

The modified project would include a 626‐space parking structure at 105 feet tall as part of the Phase I

project. It would be located further north, closer towards 16th Street, along the future Owen Street

extension. Compared to the previously proposed project, which would include 475 surface parking

spaces, the revised project would include approximately 429 surface parking spaces on the remainder of

Blocks 38 and 39. Thirteen spaces would be provided on the east lot, at the south end of the proposed

hospital across the future 4th Street extension. Therefore, approximately 442 surface parking spaces

would be provided in Phase I. The total number of parking spaces provided in Phase I would decrease

by approximately seven spaces and would total approximately 1,068 spaces. With the decrease of seven

parking spaces in Phase I, at full buildout of Phase II, the onsite parking supply could also decrease by

approximately seven spaces to approximately 1,290 to 1,990 spaces.

In the revised project, the location of the Phase I parking structure would be located further north, closer

towards 16th Street, just south of North Connector Road, along the future Owen Street extension. Similar

to the original proposed project, access to the parking structure and associated surface parking spaces

would be from Owens or 4th Streets via the North and South Connector Roads, and from the Owens

driveway at what is now proposed to be Parking Structure Road. However, there would only be one

ingress/egress to the revised parking garage from the interior connector road. Aside from this change, no

other revisions are currently proposed. Subsequent project‐level environment review would be required

once specific project design is available for Phase II.


An expanded Transportation Study was prepared for the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR.7 The

Transportation Study evaluated both the Phase I and future buildout of the Phase II development. In

addition, the traffic study evaluated two potential alternatives for the operation of 4th Street through the

Medical Center site. Both alternatives would convert the proposed 4th Street right‐of‐way to University of


Based on the analysis contained with the Transportation Study, traffic impacts resulting from Phase I of

the Medical Center at Mission Bay would be less than significant, as all study intersections would

continue to operate at level‐of‐service D or better.

At the completion Phase II, the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR concluded that that the operation of

the full buildout, would increase traffic at intersections on adjacent roadways. The significant impact to

the southbound approach of Owens Street at 16th Street identified in the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR

would still occur with the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 4.11‐2a from the LRDP Amendment #2

EIR identifies modifications to the Owens Street lane configurations (i.e. restriping) to mitigate this

impact. Implementation of the re‐striping at this location would improve the operating conditions at this

intersection to an acceptable LOS D (with an average delay of 50.3 seconds) during the p.m. peak hour.

In addition, a new potential impact could result from the proposed project in Phase II if all parking access

to the Medical Center is from a stop‐controlled approach at the garage access at Owens Street, halfway

between 16th and Mariposa Streets. The “T” intersection would operate at an unacceptable LOS F.

Implementation of a traffic signal at this location would improve the operating conditions at this

intersection to an acceptable LOS B (with an average delay of 15.5 seconds) during the p.m. peak hour.



‐ 49 ‐

Mitigation Measure MCMB.6‐3 from the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would require that UCSF

conduct a project‐level CEQA review at the time the Phase II development is considered for approval. In

addition, in order to determine the need for LOS improvements on Owens Street, between 16th and

Mariposa Streets, at Center Garage Access (now Parking Structure Road), such as a traffic signal, UCSF

would coordinate with the City of San Francisco in the periodic update of the Mission Bay traffic triggers

survey and would monitor on‐site parking access and circulation in order to determine the need for LOS

improvements.

Implementation of the restriping of southbound Owens Street at 16th Street would reduce this potential

Phase II impact to a less‐than‐significant level. The need for LOS improvements on Owens Street at the

Parking Structure Road in Phase II remains speculative pending a project‐level design of parking

requirements and project‐level traffic and circulation evaluation.

The estimated parking demand for Phase I would be approximately 900 spaces (390 spaces for patients

and visitors and 510 spaces for staff). As noted previously, the proposed onsite parking supply for the

medical center in Phase I is approximately 1,075 spaces (600 spaces in the parking structure and

approximately 475 surface parking spaces). Therefore, the proposed parking supply in Phase I (1,075

spaces) could accommodate the anticipated demand (900 spaces) and the proposed project would not

result in a shortfall of parking capacity under Phase I.

Under Phase II, the estimated parking demand at full buildout would be approximately 1,760 spaces (740

spaces for patients and visitors and 1,020 for staff). As noted previously, the proposed onsite parking

supply for the medical center in Phase II would range from approximately 1,300 to 2,000 spaces, resulting

in a potential shortfall in parking supply. As stated in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR, as part of

the proposed project, (as it does at other UCSF campus sites), UCSF would monitor parking demand at

each phase of development and adjust parking supply as demand warrants. Should the demand for

parking exceed onsite supply, priority for onsite parking would be given to patients and visitors, and if

necessary, UCSF would consider offsite parking to satisfy the anticipated staff demand. The additional

parking supply could be accommodated on the UCSF Mission Bay research campus, if available, or

elsewhere in the project vicinity. As the Mission Bay Campus develops, UCSF (through its Transportation

Services Office) will make efforts to educate faculty, staff and students about transit options in order to

reduce auto usage and parking demand. The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR concluded that the

potential parking shortfall under the full project buildout under Phase II would be less than significant.

The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR concluded that the construction and operation of the Medical

Center at Mission Bay would not cause a substantial adverse impact to transit, pedestrian, bicycle, or

parking conditions, nor result in inadequate emergency access.


While the number of parking spaces in the parking structure would increase from 600 to 626, the number

of surface spaces would decrease from 475 to approximately 442. Therefore, the overall number of

parking spaces would decrease by about seven spaces. While minor, the potential changes to the traffic

analysis contained in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR will be evaluated and discussed in the SEIR.


‐ 50 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

‐‐ Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? □ ■

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

□ ■

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm

water drainage facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

□ ■

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the

project from existing entitlements and resources, or are

new or expanded entitlements needed?

□ ■

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider, which serves or may serve the

project that it has adequate capacity to serve the

project’s projected demand in addition to the

provider’s existing commitments?

□ ■

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted

capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste

disposal needs?

□ ■

g) Comply with applicable federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ ■

h) Result in the wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary

consumption of energy (see CEQA Statutes Section

21100(b)(3))?

□ ■

i) Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of

significance by requiring or resulting in the

construction of new electrical or natural gas facilities,

□ ■


‐ 51 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

which would cause significant environmental effects?









include any parking levels below grade. All other aspects of the Phase I and Phase II project that was

analyzed in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR would remain the same.


The LRDP Amendment #2‐ Hospital Replacement EIR evaluated the demand for utilities, energy, and

service systems by the hospital replacement program as compared to existing and determined less‐than‐

significant impact. The Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR provided an updated assessment of the

medical center project to evaluate the potential impacts to water supply systems, wastewater disposal

systems, and energy consumption and determined that the project project’s demand on utilities, energy

and service systems would be less than significant and no mitigation measure would be necessary. .

While the revised parking garage is slightly larger, the proposed project would not change the analysis or

conclusions reached in in the Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR and impacts would be less than

significant. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required in the SEIR.


‐ 52 ‐

Issues

Additional

Project‐

level

Impact

Analysis

Required

Project Impact

Adequately

Addressed in

Earlier

Environmental

Document

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE – The lead agency shall find that

a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR

to be prepared for the project where there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole

record, that any of the following conditions may occur. Where prior to commencement

of the environmental analysis a project proponent agrees to mitigation measures or

project modifications that would avoid any significant effect on the environment or

would mitigate the significant environmental effect, a lead agency need not prepare an

EIR solely because without mitigation the environmental effects would have been

significant (per Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines):

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the

quality of the environment, substantially reduce the

habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or

wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining

levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal

community, substantially reduce the number or restrict

the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or

eliminate important examples of the major periods of

California history or prehistory?

□ ■

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually

limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively

considerable” means that the incremental effects of a

project are significant when viewed in connection with

the effects of past projects, the effects of other current

projects, and the effects of past, present and probable

future projects)?

■ □

c) Does the project have environmental effects which

will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,

either directly or indirectly?

■ □




Mission Bay EIR at the southwest portion of the site as part of Phase I.

Discussion of Potential Project Impacts:


‐ 53 ‐

18a) The modifications to the proposed project would not affect fish or wildlife habitat, populations,

communities, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or

animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

18 b‐c): An evaluation of the proposed project’s potential cumulatively considerable impacts and the

project’s potential to result in substantial effects on human beings will be included in the SEIR.

VI. SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Adavant Consulting and Wilbur Smith Associates, UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Transportation

Study, March 2008.

ESA, memo to Lori Yamauchi, Assistant Vice Chancellor UCSF Campus Planning, Technical

Memorandum Potential Wind Conditions, UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay, December 3,

2010.

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Design for Development of the Mission Bay South Plan Area,

March 16, 2004. Available at: http://www.sfredevelopment.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=787 , accessed

January 20, 2011.

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, Redevelopment Plan for the Mission Bay South Redevelopment

Project, November 2, 1998. Available at:

http://www.sfredevelopment.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=767, accessed

January 20, 2011.

VII. INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS


654 Minnesota Street, San Francisco CA 94143‐0286

APPENDIX B AIR EMISSIONS ESTIMATES

1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 1

File Name: C:\Users\pfranke\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Medical Center Garage 3.urb924

Project Name: Medical Center Garage 3

Project Location: San Francisco County

On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007

Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)

Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4

Percent Reduction 0.00 20.00 16.67 NaN NaN NaN 20.00

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) 0.22 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 141.10

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.38

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

2008 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 2.43 2.43 3.06 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.12 448.52

2008 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 2.43 2.43 3.06 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.01 0.11 0.11 448.52

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.23 0.00 3.27 13.14 0.00 0.85 0.00

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.34 0.00 26.02 43.27 0.00 11.02 0.00

2007 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.04 0.34 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 27.01

2007 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.04 0.34 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 27.01

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust

PM2.5 CO2

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

Summary Report:

1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 2

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.73 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) 2.99 4.06 33.35 0.03 6.46 1.22 3,566.85

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 2.99 4.09 33.37 0.03 6.46 1.22 3,602.13

SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES





OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES


1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 3

2007 0.04 0.34 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.02 27.010.03 0.02 0.01 0.02

0.00Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.170.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18

Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98

0.04Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

0.04 0.33 0.17 0.00 0.02 25.840.03 0.02 0.01 0.02

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12

Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.04 0.33 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 24.72

1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 4

20 lbs per acre-day

Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default

Phase: Fine Grading 11/30/2007 - 1/11/2008 - Default Fine Site Grading Description

Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.12

Total Acres Disturbed: 0.5

Phase Assumptions

2008 2.43 2.43 3.06 0.00 0.14 0.12 448.520.03 0.12 0.01 0.11

0.12Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 0.26 2.24 2.92 0.00 0.10 430.130.01 0.11 0.01 0.10

Building Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 138.02

Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.30 0.87 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 220.19

Building Off Road Diesel 0.11 0.84 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 71.92

0.00Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 2.14 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.550.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.55

Architectural Coating 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.01Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.270.00 0.01 0.00 0.00



Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.02Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

0.02 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.01 10.570.01 0.01 0.00 0.01





1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 5

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day

2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day

1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Building Construction 1/11/2008 - 8/22/2008 - Default Building Construction Description

Off-Road Equipment:

Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Phase: Architectural Coating 8/8/2008 - 9/5/2008 - Default Architectural Coating Description

Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250


1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day


1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0

Off-Road Equipment:

1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day

4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day

1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day

1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day

Phase: Paving 12/28/2007 - 1/11/2008 - Default Paving Description

Acres to be Paved: 0.12

Off-Road Equipment:

1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 6

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated


2007 0.04 0.34 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.02 27.010.01 0.02 0.00 0.02

0.00Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.170.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.03Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

0.04 0.33 0.17 0.00 0.02 25.840.01 0.02 0.00 0.02





1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 7

2008 2.43 2.43 3.06 0.00 0.14 0.11 448.520.02 0.12 0.01 0.11

0.12Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 0.26 2.24 2.92 0.00 0.10 430.130.01 0.11 0.01 0.10

Building Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 138.02

Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.30 0.87 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.05 220.19


0.00Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 2.14 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.550.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



0.01Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.270.00 0.01 0.00 0.00



Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.01Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

0.02 0.13 0.07 0.00 0.01 10.570.01 0.01 0.00 0.01





For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:

PM10: 55% PM25: 55%

The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 11/30/2007 - 1/11/2008 - Default Fine Site Grading Description

Construction Related Mitigation Measures

1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 8

Architectural Coatings 0.21

Consumer Products 0.00

Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Landscape

Natural Gas 0.01 0.15 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.38

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.38

Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:

Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected



Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Landscape

Natural Gas 0.01 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 141.10

TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) 0.22 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 141.10


AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

Industrial Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title 24 20.00

Mitigation Description Percent Reduction

Area Source Mitigated Detail Report:

Area Source Changes to Defaults

1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 9

Residential Mitigation Measures

Operational Mitigation Options Selected

The Presence of Local-Serving Retail checkbox was NOT selected.

Percent Reduction in Trips is 0%

Inputs Selected:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Residential Local-Serving Retail Mitigation

Nonresidential Mitigation Measures

OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

Warehouse 2.77 3.94 33.25 0.03 6.46 1.22 3,425.75


Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2

Operational Mitigated Detail Report:

OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

Warehouse 2.77 3.94 33.25 0.03 6.46 1.22 3,425.75



Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:

Does not include correction for passby trips

Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips

Operational Settings:

1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 10

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.6 0.0 18.8 81.2

Motor Home 0.2 0.0 100.0 0.0

Other Bus 0.1 0.0 100.0 0.0

School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motorcycle 3.5 51.4 48.6 0.0

Urban Bus 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0

Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.0 0.0 99.1 0.9

Light Auto 61.0 0.3 99.5 0.2

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 80.0 20.0

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 4.7 0.0 100.0 0.0

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 16.4 0.0 100.0 0.0

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Warehouse 13.08 1000 sq ft 200.00 2,616.00 20,633.70

2,616.00 20,633.70

Summary of Land Uses

Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT

Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Analysis Year: 2012 Season: Annual

1/24/2011 6:15:28 PM

Page: 11

% of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1

Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)

Warehouse 25.0 12.5 62.5

Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6

Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4

Travel Conditions

Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer

Residential Commercial

Operational Changes to Defaults

1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 1






Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)



TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 1.22 0.64 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 773.16

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 1.23 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 966.44



2008 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 207.30 69.39 60.30 0.04 2.60 3.89 6.49 0.57 3.57 4.14 8,863.45

2008 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 207.30 69.39 60.30 0.04 1.55 3.89 5.44 0.35 3.57 3.92 8,863.45




PM2.5 CO2


Summary Report:

1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 2


CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated


Time Slice 11/30/2007-12/27/2007 Active Days: 20

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 3.90 1.87 2,349.392.40 1.49 0.50 1.37

3.90Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 1.87 2,349.392.40 1.49 0.50 1.37




Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.52 29.64 14.18 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 1.37 1.37 2,247.32


TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 16.04 19.30 179.67 0.20 35.38 6.70 20,438.20

TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 16.05 19.47 179.81 0.20 35.38 6.70 20,631.48








1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 3


6.04 43.98 25.01 0.00 5.12 3.00 3,520.262.41 2.71 0.51 2.49

3.90Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 1.87 2,349.392.40 1.49 0.50 1.37





1.22Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.48 14.27 9.54 0.00 1.12 1,170.870.01 1.22 0.00 1.12



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



5.68 41.56 24.07 0.00 4.98 2.87 3,520.212.41 2.57 0.51 2.36

3.82Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.35 28.07 14.77 0.00 1.80 2,349.372.40 1.41 0.50 1.30





1.16Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.33 13.49 9.30 0.00 1.07 1,170.840.01 1.15 0.00 1.06



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 4


8.88 69.39 60.30 0.04 6.49 4.14 8,863.452.60 3.89 0.57 3.57

3.82Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.35 28.07 14.77 0.00 1.80 2,349.372.40 1.41 0.50 1.30





1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21

Building Worker Trips 0.69 1.18 20.35 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.06 1,714.52

Building Vendor Trips 1.12 16.17 10.79 0.03 0.10 0.61 0.71 0.03 0.56 0.60 2,735.32


1.16Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.33 13.49 9.30 0.00 1.07 1,170.840.01 1.15 0.00 1.06



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.50 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21

1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 5

20 lbs per acre-day


Off-Road Equipment:









Phase Assumptions


204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.02 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.02Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00




207.30 27.99 39.12 0.04 1.52 1.28 5,586.220.20 1.32 0.07 1.21

0.02Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00



1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 6


CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated












Off-Road Equipment:




Off-Road Equipment:



1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 7


3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 2.85 1.66 2,349.391.36 1.49 0.29 1.37

2.85Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 1.66 2,349.391.36 1.49 0.29 1.37






6.04 43.98 25.01 0.00 4.08 2.78 3,520.261.37 2.71 0.29 2.49

2.85Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 1.66 2,349.391.36 1.49 0.29 1.37





1.22Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.48 14.27 9.54 0.00 1.12 1,170.870.01 1.22 0.00 1.12



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 8


5.68 41.56 24.07 0.00 3.94 2.65 3,520.211.37 2.57 0.29 2.36

2.78Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.35 28.07 14.77 0.00 1.59 2,349.371.36 1.41 0.29 1.30





1.16Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.33 13.49 9.30 0.00 1.07 1,170.840.01 1.15 0.00 1.06



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 9


8.88 69.39 60.30 0.04 5.44 3.92 8,863.451.55 3.89 0.35 3.57

2.78Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.35 28.07 14.77 0.00 1.59 2,349.371.36 1.41 0.29 1.30





1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1.16Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.33 13.49 9.30 0.00 1.07 1,170.840.01 1.15 0.00 1.06



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.50 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21

1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 10


204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.02 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.02Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00




207.30 27.99 39.12 0.04 1.52 1.28 5,586.220.20 1.32 0.07 1.21

0.02Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00



1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21





PM10: 55% PM25: 55%



1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 11



Hearth - No Summer Emissions

Landscape

Natural Gas 0.06 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 966.44



AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated





Hearth - No Summer Emissions

Landscape

Natural Gas 0.05 0.64 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 773.16



AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated





1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 12





Inputs Selected:

---------------------------------------------------------------



OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

Warehouse 14.82 18.66 179.13 0.20 35.38 6.70 19,665.04




OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

Warehouse 14.82 18.66 179.13 0.20 35.38 6.70 19,665.04







1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 13



Motor Home 0.2 0.0 100.0 0.0

Other Bus 0.1 0.0 100.0 0.0

School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motorcycle 3.5 51.4 48.6 0.0

Urban Bus 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0

Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.0 0.0 99.1 0.9

Light Auto 61.0 0.3 99.5 0.2



Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 4.7 0.0 100.0 0.0

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 16.4 0.0 100.0 0.0

Vehicle Fleet Mix


Warehouse 13.08 1000 sq ft 200.00 2,616.00 20,633.70

2,616.00 20,633.70




Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer

1/24/2011 6:17:06 PM

Page: 14


Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0


Warehouse 25.0 12.5 62.5



Travel Conditions




1/24/2011 6:16:43 PM

Page: 1






Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day)












PM2.5 CO2


Summary Report:

1/24/2011 6:16:43 PM

Page: 2


CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated



3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 3.90 1.87 2,349.392.40 1.49 0.50 1.37

3.90Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 1.87 2,349.392.40 1.49 0.50 1.37















1/24/2011 6:16:43 PM

Page: 3


6.04 43.98 25.01 0.00 5.12 3.00 3,520.262.41 2.71 0.51 2.49

3.90Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 1.87 2,349.392.40 1.49 0.50 1.37





1.22Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.48 14.27 9.54 0.00 1.12 1,170.870.01 1.22 0.00 1.12



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



5.68 41.56 24.07 0.00 4.98 2.87 3,520.212.41 2.57 0.51 2.36

3.82Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.35 28.07 14.77 0.00 1.80 2,349.372.40 1.41 0.50 1.30





1.16Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.33 13.49 9.30 0.00 1.07 1,170.840.01 1.15 0.00 1.06



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 4


8.88 69.39 60.30 0.04 6.49 4.14 8,863.452.60 3.89 0.57 3.57

3.82Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.35 28.07 14.77 0.00 1.80 2,349.372.40 1.41 0.50 1.30





1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1.16Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.33 13.49 9.30 0.00 1.07 1,170.840.01 1.15 0.00 1.06



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.50 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21

1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 5

20 lbs per acre-day


Off-Road Equipment:









Phase Assumptions


204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.02 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.02Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00




207.30 27.99 39.12 0.04 1.52 1.28 5,586.220.20 1.32 0.07 1.21

0.02Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00



1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 6


CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated












Off-Road Equipment:




Off-Road Equipment:



1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 7


3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 2.85 1.66 2,349.391.36 1.49 0.29 1.37

2.85Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 1.66 2,349.391.36 1.49 0.29 1.37






6.04 43.98 25.01 0.00 4.08 2.78 3,520.261.37 2.71 0.29 2.49

2.85Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.56 29.72 15.47 0.00 1.66 2,349.391.36 1.49 0.29 1.37





1.22Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.48 14.27 9.54 0.00 1.12 1,170.870.01 1.22 0.00 1.12



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 8


5.68 41.56 24.07 0.00 3.94 2.65 3,520.211.37 2.57 0.29 2.36

2.78Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.35 28.07 14.77 0.00 1.59 2,349.371.36 1.41 0.29 1.30





1.16Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.33 13.49 9.30 0.00 1.07 1,170.840.01 1.15 0.00 1.06



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 9


8.88 69.39 60.30 0.04 5.44 3.92 8,863.451.55 3.89 0.35 3.57

2.78Fine Grading 11/30/2007-01/11/2008

3.35 28.07 14.77 0.00 1.59 2,349.371.36 1.41 0.29 1.30





1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1.16Asphalt 12/28/2007-01/11/2008 2.33 13.49 9.30 0.00 1.07 1,170.840.01 1.15 0.00 1.06



Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.50 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21

1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21




1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 10


204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.02 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.02Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00




207.30 27.99 39.12 0.04 1.52 1.28 5,586.220.20 1.32 0.07 1.21

0.02Coating 08/08/2008-09/05/2008 204.11 0.17 2.88 0.00 0.01 242.990.01 0.01 0.00 0.00



1.50Building 01/11/2008-08/22/2008 3.19 27.83 36.23 0.04 1.27 5,343.230.18 1.32 0.06 1.21





PM10: 55% PM25: 55%



1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 11



Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Landscape

Natural Gas 0.06 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 966.44



AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated





Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Landscape

Natural Gas 0.05 0.64 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 773.16



AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated





1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 12





Inputs Selected:

---------------------------------------------------------------



OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated

Warehouse 15.87 27.42 188.26 0.17 35.38 6.70 16,983.59




OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated

Warehouse 15.87 27.42 188.26 0.17 35.38 6.70 16,983.59







1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 13



Motor Home 0.2 0.0 100.0 0.0

Other Bus 0.1 0.0 100.0 0.0

School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motorcycle 3.5 51.4 48.6 0.0

Urban Bus 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0

Light Truck < 3750 lbs 11.0 0.0 99.1 0.9

Light Auto 61.0 0.3 99.5 0.2



Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 4.7 0.0 100.0 0.0

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 16.4 0.0 100.0 0.0

Vehicle Fleet Mix


Warehouse 13.08 1000 sq ft 200.00 2,616.00 20,633.70

2,616.00 20,633.70




Analysis Year: 2012 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter

1/24/2011 6:16:44 PM

Page: 14


Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0


Warehouse 25.0 12.5 62.5



Travel Conditions




Bay Area Air Quality Management District Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM) Version: 1.1.9 Beta

Copyright:

LINKS

Transportation

Area Source

Electricity and Natural Gas

Water and Wastewater

Solid Waste

AgricultureAssistance provided by:

Off-Road Equipment

Refrigerants

Mitigation

Carbon Sequestration

Enter data in yellow cells with values applicable to your project

Enter data in peach cells if you have information specific to your project; these values will be used in place of the default values

Summary Results

Open an Urbemis Project File

Step 1: Enable MacrosMacros must be enabled for this model to operate correctly. The method for enabling macros for this spreadsheet

differs depending on the security settings in Excel.

Step 2: Open an Urbemis Project File, or Refresh Urbemis DataBGM depends on the data and results from an URBEMIS project file. Two URBEMIS files can be specified : a project file and (optionally) a baseline file. To open a file, or to refresh the data in this spreadsheet after an URBEMIS file has been modified, go to the Settings tab by clicking on the Open an URBEMIS Project File link to the right . Select the URBEMIS file(s) that you want to import and hit the refresh data button. Please make sure that the Emfac Database Location is correct before clicking either of the Refresh buttons.

Step 4: View ResultsThe Results Tab presents a graphical and tabular view of the results of the Greenhouse Gas Calculator. Both a summary and detailed report are included on the Results tab. The user also has the option of selected project specific mitigation on the Mitigation tab and on the Carbon Sequestration tab.

Step 3: Data Entry OptionsThe bright yellow areas on each tab represent data entry locations, if applicable to your project. In some cases, there are optional data inputs (shown in peach). Some tabs, such as transportation and area sources, do not require any data input, as results are imported directly from URBEMIS. Certain other tabs ‐ electricty & natural gas, water & wastewater, and solid waste ‐ require some minor amount of user input, although most of the information used to estimate emissions is imported from URBEMIS. And for certain tabs, ‐ ag, off‐road, refrigerants, and carbon sequestration ‐ the user must enter project specific information to obtain emission estimates.

1 of 4

Summary Results


Project and Baseline Years: 2012 2011

ResultsTransportation: 3,167.59 3,167.59

Area Source: 0.00 0.00

Electricity: 563.95 451.16

Natural Gas: 46.01 36.81

Water & Wastewater: 6.32 6.05

Solid Waste: 334.16 133.66

Agriculture: 0.00 0.00

Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00

Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00

Sequestration: N/A 0.00

Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00

Total: 4,118.02 3,795.27

Baseline is currently: ON

Unmitigated Project‐Baseline CO2e (metric

tons/year)

Mitigated Project‐Baseline CO2e

(metric tons/year)

2 of 4

Baseline is Currently: ON

Target Year: 2012 2011 Target Year: 2012 2011

Unmitigated Transportation Mitigated TransportationProject Baseline Project‐Baseline Project Baseline Project‐Baseline

Operational Emissions from URBEMIS (CO2 tons/year) 3,425.75 0.00 Operational Vehicles from URBEMIS (CO2 tons/year): 3,425.75 0.00

Metric Ton Adjustment (CO2 metric tons/year) 3,108.67 0.00 Metric Ton Adjustment (CO2 metric tons/year): 3,108.67 0.00

Pavley Regulation Adjustment (CO2 metric tons/year): 3,020.08 0.00 Pavley Regulation Adjustment (CO2 metric tons/year): 3,020.08 0.00

US EPA Adjustment (CO2e metric tons/year): 3,179.03 0.00 US EPA Adjustment (CO2e metric tons/year): 3,179.03 0.00

Low Carbon Fuels Rule Adjustment (CO2e metric tons/year) 3,167.59 0.00 Low Carbon Fuels Adjustment (CO2e metric tons/year): 3,167.59 0.00

Total (CO2e metric tons/year): 3,167.59 Total (CO2e metric tons/year): 3,167.59

The BGM User's Manual describes in detail each step used to convert URBEMIS's transportation CO2 emissions to total CO2e.

These steps include converting from English to Metric units, adjusting for the Pavley Rule, converting CO2 to CO2e, and adjusting for the Low Carbon Fuels Rule.

Reference

Jump to the Following Transportation Related Tabs:

Transportation Detail for Operational Mitigation

Land Use Detail

Don't Need to

Adjust this

amt

Unadjusted

Amount

Affected by

Pavley Adjusted Adusted Adusted Adusted Adjusted

Not Affected

by Pavley

LDA/ LDT1/

LDT2/ MDV LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV 4 totaled

Pavley Calculations ‐ Project Unmitigated 520.13 2,588.54 1,249.26 376.00 589.67 285.02 2,499.96

Pavley Calculations ‐ Baseline Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pavley Calculations ‐ Project Mitigated 520.13 2,588.54 1,249.26 376.00 589.67 285.02 2,499.96

Pavley Calculations ‐ Baseline Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

U.S. EPA assumption that GHG emissions from other pollutants ‐ CH4, N20, and hydrofluorcarbons (HFCs) from leaking air conditioners account for 5 percent of emissions from vehicles, after accounting for global warming potentail of each GHG.

Transportation

3 of 4

Unmitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total

Transportation*: 3,167.59 76.92%

Area Source: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Electricity: 563.04 0.00 0.00 563.95 0.00%

Natural Gas: 45.89 0.00 0.00 46.01 0.00%

Water & Wastewater: 6.31 0.00 0.00 6.32 0.00%

Solid Waste: 2.44 15.80 N/A 334.16 0.00%

Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%

Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total: 4,118.02 76.92%

* Several adjustments were made to transportation emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS.

After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley"

regulation. Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs [from leaking air con

Finally, CO2e is adjusted to account for th low carbon fuels rule.

Mitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total

Transportation*: 3,167.59 83.46%

Area Source: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Electricity: 450.44 0.00 0.00 451.16 11.89%

Natural Gas: 36.71 0.00 0.00 36.81 0.97%

Water & Wastewater: 6.04 0.00 0.00 6.05 0.16%

Solid Waste: 0.98 6.32 N/A 133.66 3.52%

Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Off‐Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%

Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%

Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00%

Total: 3,795.27 100.00%

Detailed Results

4 of 4

APPENDIX C ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS

UCSF - Energy Efficency Projects / Greenhouse Gas Reductions

SEP # Project Name Savings - kWh Savings - Therm GHG Reduction

( MTCO2e )B-3027 Genentech Hall -MBCx 2,107,045 200,550 1,672B-3576 Parnassus Steam Trap Retrofit 0 141,700 752B-3585 MCB Data Center - Return Air Retrofit 264,500 0 76B-3586 MCB Data Center - Server Virtualization 86,700 0 25B-3069 Mission Bay Housing - Light Retrofit 37,106 0 11B-3578 HSIR East - Building Exhaust Fan VFD 463,005 0 134B-3577 MCB Boiler Replacement 0 14,000 74B-3575 Hunters Point Boiler 0 4,480 24B-3574 HSIR East Main Manifold VFD 485,471 0 140B-3573 HSIR HW Pumps VFD 178,849 0 52B-3571 3Way - 2Way Chilled Water Valve 207,256 0 60B-3031 HSIR East - MBCx 963,758 136,764 1,004B-3032 HSIR West - MBCx 1,090,875 154,802 1,136B-3021 MCB - Chiller Replacement 432,266 0 125B-3570 MCB VFD System 4.2 438,542 0 127B-3100 HSIR T-12 to T-8 47,489 0 14B-3094 Oyster Point Light Retrofit 164,765 0 48B3579 515 Spruce Light Retrofit - Med Center 14,503 0 4B-3582 100 Buchannan Light Retrofit 77,108 0 22B-3546 Koret Vision _ Light Retrofit 125,506 0 36B-3581 PCUP Air Compressor 228,724 0 66B-3580 HSIR, MedSci, ClinSci - VacPmp VFD 275,667 0 80B-3583 Mt.Zion -Vivarium 243,638 23,306 194B-3080 Parnassus Refrigerator Replacement 43,404 0 13B-3572 HSIR East & West ( T-12 to T-8 ) 191,533 0 55B-3078 HSIR Freezer Replacement 77,282 0 22B-3083 Work Station Power Mgmt - Phase 1 500,000 0 144B-9050 OASIS - 3Par T400 Installation 35,416 0 10B-3590 OASIS - Data Center Storage Virtualization 72,966 0 21B-3588 MCB - VFDs 2.2 & 3.1 243,000 22,200 188B-3589 PC Power Mgmt - Phase 2 600,000 0 173B-3587 Koret Vision - VFDs AHU 1,2,3 259,000 47,000 324B-3034 Byers Hall MBCx 515,282 13,208 219B-3026 PSSRB MBCx 251,029 18,372 170B-3029 MCB MBCx 527,422 76,987 561B-3025 Laurel Heights MBCx 370,180 21,576 221B-3016 LPPI MBCx 70,974 21,769 136B-3008 Library MBCx 326,188 13,514 166B-3013 Medical Sciences 713,942 140,554 952B3011 Millberry Union Fitness Center - MBCx 433,848 15,734 209B-3012 Clinical Science MBCx 223,840 32,573 237B-3019 School of Nursing MBCx 79,155 18,000 118B-3028 Community Center 291,879 26,654 226

Total = 13,759,113 1,143,743 10,039