FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE State Clearinghouse Number

Transcription

1 University of California San Francisco Campus Planning FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE State Clearinghouse Number 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 Contact: Environmental Coordinator (415)

2 [This page intentionally left blank.] UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage

3 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 Organization of the Document SUMMARY 2.1 Background Project Description Summary of Project Impacts Summary of Alternatives Analysis Areas of Controversy PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Background Project Description Project Objectives Mitigation Monitoring Required Approvals ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 4.0 Scope of Analyses Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation CEQA STATUTORY SECTIONS 5.1 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Cumulative Impacts Growth Inducing Impacts Effects Found Not to Be Significant Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Alternatives Analysis i

4 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 7. REPORT PREPARATION 7.1 Report Authors COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 8.1 Overview Public Hearing Transcript MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM LIST OF FIGURES 3 1 Project Location Project Site Project Site Plan Project Site Plan/First Floor Plan Approach from Owens Street 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. ii

5 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 decisionmaking 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 Page 1 of 74

6 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. CEQA Guidelines Section 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. Page 2 of 74

7 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 3 of 74

8 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 ) 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 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 16 th Street to the north, 3 rd 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 Page 4 of 74

9 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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 Page 5 of 74

10 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 In furtherance of the goal to meet these goals, the University is currently implementing the 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 Page 6 of 74

11 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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 page 14/21 Page 7 of 74

12 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 singleoccupancy 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 There are now 53 shuttle mounted bike racks. Expenditures on new bike racks were $13,445 in 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 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 Page 8 of 74

13 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 energyefficient 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 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. Significance Criteria 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 Page 9 of 74

14 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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. Construction Impacts 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 , 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 Page 10 of 74

15 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 Impact MCMB.6 2 of the MCMB EIR (analysis updated with this SEIR): The MCMB EIR 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. Mitigation: None required. 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 16 th /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. Page 11 of 74

16 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage Mitigation: The mitigation measures identified in the MCMB EIR to address significant traffic impacts in Phase II would remain unchanged, as follows: 16 th /Owens: Mitigation Measure a 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 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. Page 12 of 74

17 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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. 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. 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. Page 13 of 74

18 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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 14 of 74

19 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 ) 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 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 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 Page 15 of 74

20 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage Source: Environmental Science Associates, April 2008 Figure 3 1 Location of UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Page 16 of 74

21 Proposed Project Source: UCSF, April 2008 Figure 3 2 Project Site Page 17 of 74

22 Source: WRNS Studio Figure 3 3 Project Site Plan Page 18 of 74

23 Source: WRNS Studio Figure 3 4 Project Site Plan/First Floor Plan Page 19 of 74

24 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage Source: Rudolph and Sletten and WRNS Studios LLP Figure 3 5 Approach from Owens Street Page 20 of 74

25 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage The Medical Center project site is bordered by 16 th Street to the north, 3 rd 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 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.) Page 21 of 74

26 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 ). 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 22 of 74

27 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). Page 23 of 74

28 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 4.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 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, , 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 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, They became effective in March The BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines on June 2, 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 projectlevel 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 software with an additional Bay Area specific spreadsheet module that takes into account Assembly Bill 1493 limitations on motor vehicles. 9 State Clearinghouse No Table GHG-1 Page 24 of 74

29 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 troposphere 11 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). Page 25 of 74

30 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 Page 26 of 74

31 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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 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 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 This inventory covers the period from 1990 to The EPA estimates that the United States emitted 6,127 MMTCO2e in In 2008, total U.S. greenhouse 12 The IPCC s Fourth Assessment Report is available online at 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. Page 27 of 74

32 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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 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 Comparative GHG Emissions GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e) ~ Per Capita (MTCO2e) World 43, United States 6, California Bay Area Region San Francisco 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 This translates into approximately 14 MTCO2e per capita in 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 California Department of Finance 2010a, U.S. Census Bureau California Department of Finance 2010 Page 28 of 74

33 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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). Page 29 of 74

34 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage Table GHG Emission Detail in California Source Category 1990 (MMTCO2e) Percent of Total 2008 (MMTCO2e) Percent of Total ENERGY % % Energy Industries % % Manufacturing Industries & Construction % % Transport % % Other (Resident/Commercial/Institutional) % % Non Specified % % Fugitive Emissions Oil & Natural Gas % % Fugitive Emissions Other Energy Prod % % INDUSTRIAL PROCESS & PRODUCT USE % % Mineral Industry % % Chemical Industry % % Non Energy Products Fuels & Solvent Use % % Electronics Industry % % Substitutes Ozone Depleting Substances % % Other Product Manufacture and Use % % Other % % AGRI., FORESTRY, & OTHER LAND USE % % Livestock % % Land % % Aggr. Sources & Non CO2 Sources on Land % % WASTE % % Solid Waste Disposal % % Wastewater Treatment & Discharge % % EMISSIONS SUMMARY Gross California Emissions Sinks from Forests and Rangelands Net California Emissions Source: California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory by IPCC Category Summary California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory by IPCC Category Summary Page 30 of 74

35 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 Based upon that GHG inventory, the entire region emitted 87.7 MMTCO2e in 1990, and, 97.4 MMTCO2e, or 11% more, in 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 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 _2_10.ashx Page 31 of 74

36 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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) 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 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, The CO2 emission standards and fuel economy standards stated are based on U.S. EPA formulas Page 32 of 74

37 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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 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, Page 33 of 74

38 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 Page 34 of 74

39 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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, 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 longterm 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. Page 35 of 74

40 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage On December 16 th, 2010 CARB adopted cap and trade regulations designed to cut greenhouse gases in the State 15 percent by These regulations were scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, 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 ). 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 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 year 24. 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 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 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 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 ng.pdf 24 Page 36 of 74

41 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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, The Natural Resources Agency conducted formal rulemaking procedures in 2009 and adopted the CEQA Guideline Amendments on December 30, They became effective in March Senate Bill 375 The California legislature passed SB 375 (Steinberg) on September 1, 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, 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, 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 For the Bay Area, CARB established a draft target of 7 percent for 2020 and 15 percent for These targets were recommended to CARB by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which adopted the thresholds for its planning purposes on July 28, 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, Title 24 Building Standards Code Page 37 of 74

42 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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, 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 25 Page 38 of 74

43 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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 Page 39 of 74

44 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage the Policy on Sustainable Practices goals. Page 40 of 74

45 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage SIGNIFICANCE STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 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. 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 , 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 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 Page 41 of 74

46 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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). Page 42 of 74

47 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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. Sitespecific 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. Page 43 of 74

48 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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, 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 Page 44 of 74

49 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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. Page 45 of 74

50 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage Table Estimated Operational GHG Emissions Source Emissions (MTCO2e) Transportation 3, Electricity Natural Gas Water & Wastewater 6.05 Solid Waste Total Operational GHG Emissions BAAQMD Threshold Exceeds Threshold 3, MTCO2e /year or 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year 1,100 MTCO2e /year or Compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or 4.6 MTCO2e/SP/year 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 In furtherance of the goal to meet these goals, the University is currently implementing the 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 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, With external financing providing $178 million and utility incentive payments and other individual Campus funds providing the balance. Page 46 of 74

51 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 Impacts Construction of the proposed project would result in one time emissions of greenhouse gases. The primary greenhouse gases during construction are CO2, CH4, and N2O. These emissions are the result of fuel combustion by construction equipment and motor vehicles. The other GHGs defined by state law (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are typically associated with specific industrial sources and processes and would not be emitted during construction of the proposed project. The URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software was used to estimate the construction related CO2 emissions. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in 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 Including $2.4 million additional for the UCSF campus page 14/21 Page 47 of 74

52 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions Construction Year Emissions (MTCO2e) Total 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 Page 48 of 74

53 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 32 Page 49 of 74

54 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 singleoccupancy 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 There are now 53 shuttle mounted bike racks. Expenditures on new bike Page 50 of 74

55 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage racks were $13,445 in 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 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. Page 51 of 74

56 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage References Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. and Research/CEQA GUIDELINES/UpdatedCEQA Guidelines.aspx. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b Clean Air Plan. Divisions/Planning and Research/Plans/Clean Air Plans.aspx. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ntory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board 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 Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Version 1.0. California Air Resources Board Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program. This regulation is an early action measure under AB 32. California Air Resources Board. 2010a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory by Scoping Plan Category Summary. 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 California Green Building Standards Code. California Building Standards Commission CALGreen. default.htm. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity Wide Greenhouse as Emissions Version 3.1. California Climate Action Team 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, , with 2000 Benchmark. Page 52 of 74

57 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage reports/estimates/e 5/2009. California Department of Finance. 2010b. Financial & Economic Data: Gross Domestic Product, California. California Energy Commission 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 ). Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. California Energy Commission Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report, Published in December / _GHG_INVENTORY_REVISIONS.PDF. California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team 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 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S California Public Resources. nd. Code Section California Office of the Attorney General The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. California Office of the Attorney General Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level, City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor Press Release: Mayor Newsom Announces San Francisco s Waste Diversion Rate At 77 Percent, Shattering City Goal And National Recycling Records. 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. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Page 53 of 74

58 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage Basis, Summary for Policymakers. Approved.pdf. Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, December 19, Natural Resources Agency 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 Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Rimpo and Associates URBEMIS2007 for Windows. United States Census Bureau Data Finders. 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 ). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420 F ). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act. climatechange/anpr.html. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. United States Environmental Protection Agency Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks United States Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.a. High GWP Gases and Climate Change. Page 54 of 74

59 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage United States Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.b. Methane: Sources and Emissions. University of California, San Francisco Medical Center at Mission Bay FEIR. University of California, San Francisco Climate Action Plan. sustainability/documents/ucsf_cap_09.pdf Page 55 of 74

60 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 4.2 TRANSPORTATION 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 SETTING The setting information is substantially the same as discussed in the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR (pp 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 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. Page 56 of 74

61 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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. Effects of Modified Project The impacts analysis below updates the impacts analysis of the MCMB EIR. Construction Impacts 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 , 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. Mitigation: None required. 33 Adavant Consulting and Wilbur Smith Associates, UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Transportation Study, March Page 57 of 74

62 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage Operational Impacts Impact MCMB.6 2 of the MCMB EIR (analysis updated with this SEIR): The MCMB EIR 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. Mitigation: None required. Impact MCMB.6 3 of the MCMB EIR (analysis updated with this SEIR): The MCMB EIR 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 16 th /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: Page 58 of 74

63 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 16 th /Owens: Mitigation Measure a 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 59 of 74

64 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 Page 60 of 74

65 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage to 5 5), which is hereby incorporated by reference. The modified project does not affect the analysis. Page 61 of 74

66 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 4 th Street Closed to Through Traffic (No 4 th Street) alternative. The modified project would not affect the conclusions of the alternatives analyses, including the 4 th Street Closed to Through Traffic (No 4 th 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 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. Page 62 of 74

67 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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 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 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 Page 63 of 74

68 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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. 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. 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 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 64 of 74

69 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 University of California, San Francisco 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 65 of 74

70 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, 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. Page 66 of 74

71 University of California, San Francisco Mission Bay Campus th 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, :00 P.M. Reported by Tahsha Sanbrailo CALIFORNIA REPORTING LLC 52 Longwood Drive, San Rafael, CA (415)

72 APPEARANCES Present: 1 Lori Yamauchi Assistant Vice Chancellor, Campus Planning CALIFORNIA REPORTING LLC 52 Longwood Drive, San Rafael, CA (415)

73 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MARCH 28, :05 P.M. 3 4 Item 1 Welcome and Meeting Purpose. MS. YAMAUCHI: Good evening. My name is Lori Yamauchi, I am the Assistant Vice Chancellor, Campus Planning, for the University of California, San Francisco. I will be the Hearing Officer for tonight s public hearing on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, or Draft SEIR for the UCSF Medical Center Mission Bay Phase 1 Garage. The primary purpose of this hearing is to receive public testimony and evidence regarding the adequacy of the Environmental Review for the proposed project. This is not a hearing on the proposed project, itself. We have held several community meetings regarding the project where we received comments about the garage, the design, and about parking, in general. Tonight s hearing is being conducted pursuant to the University of California s procedures for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Public Notice regarding this hearing and the availability of the Draft EIR included advertisements in the San Francisco Examiner, postcard mailing to adjacent property owners, two notifications to a Listserv of about 500 people and organizations, and posting on the Campus Planning Website, CALIFORNIA REPORTING LLC 52 Longwood Drive, San Rafael, CA (415)

74 Community Relations Website, and UCSF Events Calendar. This hearing will be transcribed by a Reporter. A complete transcript of this proceeding, as well as all written comments received during the SEIR s public review period, will be included in and responded to in the Final SEIR. All comments will be presented to the UCSF Chancellor for review before considering the certification of the Final SEIR. If you do not wish to speak tonight, you may submit written comments, which are given equal weight, with oral remarks. Written comment sheets are available on the table if you would like to use them outside in the back. You may also supplement any oral testimony given tonight with additional written material. I would like to note that all comments must be received by the close of the public review period on Monday, April 11 th, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. in order to be considered as part of the record. Correspondence should be sent to Diane Wong, Campus Planning, 654 Minnesota Street, San Francisco, California Regarding the hearing tonight, if you would like to speak and have not already signed up, please fill out a speaker card now and return it to the staff. In order for your testimony to be accurately recorded, and so that we may respond accurately in the Final SEIR, please come forward CALIFORNIA REPORTING LLC 52 Longwood Drive, San Rafael, CA (415)

75 when called and use the microphone. As you begin your remarks, please spell your name for the Reporter and indicate the name of any organization you represent. Because the purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony and evidence for the Chancellor to consider, UCSF staff will not attempt to respond to the testimony this evening, nor engage in a dialogue with the public; however, I will be happy to answer any procedural questions about the hearing. Are there any questions that have not been addressed by my comments? If not, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the SEIR? If not, then I will close the public hearing and thank everyone for coming. -ooo- [Public Hearing Adjourned.] CALIFORNIA REPORTING LLC 52 Longwood Drive, San Rafael, CA (415)

76

77 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 (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 Page 73 of 74

78 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Supplemental EIR Phase 1 Garage 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. Page 74 of 74

79 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. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase 1 Garage SEIR 1

80 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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 thansignificant 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. 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. 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 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 2

81 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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: UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 3

82 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 4

83 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 5

84 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism Mitigation Monitoring Reporting and Compliance Program. 4.5 NOISE MCMB.5 1: Demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would elevate noise levels in and around the project site, and particularly at nearby sensitive receptors. 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. Issue instructions in each bid package of each construction project for contractors to incorporate the mitigation. The successful contractor will prepare a construction noise impact abatement plan 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 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. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 6

85 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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 improvements on Owens Street between 16 th 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 improvements on Owens Street between 16 th 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 Medical Center Design and Construction Team, Project Manager. Provide written verification in report 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 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 7

86 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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) Issue instructions 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 contractors to document how siting and construction lighting measures are incorporated. Review construction documentation to ensure that mitigation is included to address lighting effects. Medical Center Design and Construction Team, Project Manager. Provide written verification in report 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. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 8

87 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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. 4.2 AIR QUALITY 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 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 : Demolition and construction activities 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 Issue instructions in each bid package of each construction project for contractors to incorporate the mitigation. The successful contractor will prepare a construction air Project Manager, Medical Center Design and Construction Team. 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 provisions for construction UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 9

88 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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 LRDP and Future Phase) 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 : 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 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 (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: Issue instructions in each bid package of each construction project for contractors to incorporate the mitigation. The successful contractor will demonstrate knowledge of procedures and requirements when cultural resources are discovered during construction activities. UCSF Capital Projects Facilities Management Project Manager. 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 provisions for mitigation if cultural resources are discovered during construction activities. Provide construction status report to Monitor upon request. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 10

89 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism (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 , 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 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 11

90 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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 LRDP Amendment #2 EIR for the LRDP and Future Phase) 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 earthquakeinduced 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 Amendment #2 EIR for 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. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 12

91 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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 biannual 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: UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 13

92 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 14

93 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 4.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY and remediation itself in accordance with federal and state requirements : 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. Issue instructions in each bid package of each construction project for contractor to incorporate the mitigation measures. Medical Center Design and Construction Team 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 provisions for mitigation measures. Provide construction status report to Monitor upon request. 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 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 15

94 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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, Citytreated 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 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 16

95 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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 sensitivereceptor areas, and require use of acoustic shielding with such package of each construction project for contractors to incorporate the mitigation. The successful contractor 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 form to the Monitor within 10 working days of each contract bid on each phase to certify that selected bid includes provisions for construction noise abatement. Provide a report on noise abatement to Monitor upon request; but no less than quarterly after beginning each construction activity. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 17

96 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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. Medical Center Design and Construction Team, Project Manager. Provide written verification to the Monitor of the inclusion of the performance standards and conduct final monitoring as required : Site specific construction and demolition activities at each campus site would have a local, significant cumulative impact on the local noise Implement Mitigation Measure UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 18

97 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism environment TRANSPORTATION : 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 : 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: Issue instructions in each bid package of each construction project for contractors to incorporate the 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. Medical Center Design and Construction Team, Capital Projects 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 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. 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 UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 19

98 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism 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) : Operation of a hospital at the Mission Bay North or South sites would increase traffic at intersections on the adjacent roadway network a: 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. See below. 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. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 20

99 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (Continued) SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PHASE 1 GARAGE Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism lane, one southbound through lane, and one southbound exclusive rightturn lane. (Identified in the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR for the Future Phase) b: 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. UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage SEIR 21

100

101 APPENDIX A INITIAL STUDY

102

103 University of California San Francisco Campus Planning University Advancement and Planning 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 February 25, 2011

104 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

105 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 Contact person and phone number: UCSF Campus Planning Tammy Chan, Senior Planner (415) Project location: UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Portions of Blocks 38 and 39 San Francisco, California 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 Related UCSF documents that are referenced: Final EIR on the 1996 LRDP certified by The Regents on January 17, 1997 (State Clearinghouse No ) Final LRDP SEIR on LRDP Amendment #1, Mission Bay Housing Program, certified by The Regents on January 17, 2002 (State Clearinghouse No ) Final LRDP FEIR on LRDP Amendment #2, Hospital Replacement Program, certified by The Regents on March 17, 2005 (State Clearinghouse Number ) 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 ) Copies of all relevant CEQA documents, including the 1996 LRDP and subsequent LRDP Amendments are available at UCSF Campus Planning. 1

106 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Parking Garage 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 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 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 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. 2

107 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage The UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay EIR was certified by The Regents on September 17, 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 3

108 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage 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. 4

109 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage 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. 5

110 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage Figure 1: UCSF Campus Sites Project Site is located within the Mission Bay Campus Project Site 6

111 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage Figure 2: Mission Bay Campus Area Proposed Project 7

112 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage Figure 3: Project Site Plan 8

113 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Parking Garage Figure 4: Aerial View of the Proposed Project Proposed Parking Garage 9

114 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Garage Figure 5: Proposed Ground Floor Plan UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PARKING STRUCTURE Source: Rudolph and Sletten and WRNS Studios LLP 10

115 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Parking Garage Figure 6: Proposed North South Building Section UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PARKING STRUCTURE Source: Rudolph and Sletten and WRNS Studios LLP 11

116 Initial Study for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay Phase I Parking Garage Figure 7: Approach from Owens Street UCSF MEDICAL CENTER AT MISSION BAY PARKING STRUCTURE Source: Rudolph and Sletten and WRNS Studios LLP 12