Environmental Impact Report UCSF Mount Zion Garage · elements to promote sustainability, including...

D R A F T

Campus Planning

Environmental Impact ReportUCSF Mount Zion GarageState Clearinghouse No. 2010112056

Financial and Administrative Services

Impact Sciences, Inc. i UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR

1063.001 January 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1.0-1

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................2.0-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................3.0-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................4.0-1

4.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................4.1-1

4.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................4.2-1

4.3 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................4.3-1

4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.....................................................................................................4.4-1

4.5 Land Use and Planning ...........................................................................................................4.5-1

4.6 Noise ..........................................................................................................................................4.6-1

4.7 Transportation and Traffic......................................................................................................4.7-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................5.0-1

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................6.0-1

7.0 REPORT PREPARATION .....................................................................................................................7.0-1

Appendices

1.0 Notice of Preparation and Initial Study

4.2 Air Emissions Calculations

URBEMIS Construction Emissions

URBEMIS Operational Emissions

Dispersion Modeling Results

4.3 Northwest Information Center Results for Project Site

4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations

4.5 City and County of San Francisco Transit First Policy

4.6 Noise Model Calculations

4.7 Traffic Study

Impact Sciences, Inc. ii UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR

1063.001 January 2011

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

3.0-1 Regional Location...................................................................................................................................3.0-3

3.0-2 Project Vicinity........................................................................................................................................3.0-4

3.0-3 Aerial View..............................................................................................................................................3.0-5

3.0-4 Mount Zion Campus Site Plan .............................................................................................................3.0-6

3.0-5 Ground Floor Plan................................................................................................................................3.0-10

3.0-6 Basement Plan.......................................................................................................................................3.0-11

3.0-7 Typical Level Plan ................................................................................................................................3.0-14

3.0-8 South Elevation.....................................................................................................................................3.0-12

3.0-9 East Elevation........................................................................................................................................3.0-13

3.0-10 North Elevation ....................................................................................................................................3.0-14

3.0-11 West Elevation ......................................................................................................................................3.0-15

3.0-12 Building Section....................................................................................................................................3.0-16

4.1-1 Neighborhood Context ..........................................................................................................................4.1-3

4.1-2 Adjacent Buildings .................................................................................................................................4.1-4

4.1-3 Perspective View ....................................................................................................................................4.1-7

4.6-1 Common Noise Levels...........................................................................................................................4.6-3

4.6-2 Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration ..........................................................................................4.6-6

4.7-1 Local Roadway System..........................................................................................................................4.7-7

4.7-2 Baseline Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour ..........................................................4.7-8

4.7-3 Baseline Plus Project Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday .............................................................4.7-23

4.7-4 2030 Cumulative Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour.........................................4.7-30

Impact Sciences, Inc. iii UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR

1063.001 January 2011

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.0-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................2.0-5

2.0-2 Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives.................................................................................2.0-12

4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ...........................................................................................................4.2-2

4.2-2 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site ..........................................4.2-5

4.2-3 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

(San Francisco City and County)..........................................................................................................4.2-8

4.2-4 California Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin .......4.2-9

4.2-5 BAAQMD Construction Emission Thresholds.................................................................................4.2-14

4.2-6 BAAQMD Operational Emission Thresholds ..................................................................................4.2-14

4.2-7 Estimated Construction Emissions ....................................................................................................4.2-18

4.2-8 Estimated Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations ..................................................................4.2-19

4.2-9 Estimated Construction Cancer Risks ...............................................................................................4.2-20

4.2-10 Estimated Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts......................................................4.2-20

4.2-11 Estimated Operational Emissions ......................................................................................................4.2-22

4.2-12 Estimated Cumulative Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations ............................................4.2-28

4.2-13 Estimated Cumulative Construction Cancer Risks..........................................................................4.2-28

4.2-14 Estimated Cumulative Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts ................................4.2-28

4.4-1 Top Five GHG Producer Countries and the European Union.........................................................4.4-4

4.4-2 GHG Emissions in California ...............................................................................................................4.4-5

4.4-3 AB 32 Scoping Plan Measures (SPMs)...............................................................................................4.4-12

4.4-4 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ..........................................................................................4.4-21

4.4-5 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions............................................................................................4.4-23

4.6-1 Measured and Calculated Noise Levels at Project Site .....................................................................4.6-5

4.6-2 Existing Roadway Modeled Noise Levels ..........................................................................................4.6-5

4.6-3 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................................................4.6-11

4.6-4 Operational Roadway Noise Levels ..................................................................................................4.6-12

4.6-5 Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels...................................................................................................4.6-15

4.7-1 Intersection Level of Service Baseline1 Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour...............................4.7-6

4.7-2 Summary of Existing Nearby Muni Service .....................................................................................4.7-10

4.7-3 Existing Muni Service Utilization Weekday PM Peak Hour..........................................................4.7-11

4.7-4 Existing Pedestrian Volumes on Sutter Street North Sidewalk Weekday Midday and PM

Peak Periods..........................................................................................................................................4.7-12

4.7-5 Existing Bicycle Volumes in the Vicinity of the Project Site Weekday Midday and PM

Peak Periods..........................................................................................................................................4.7-13

4.7-6 Osher Building Estimated Daily Vehicle Parking Demand Weekday ..........................................4.7-17

4.7-7 Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage by the

Osher Building Weekday Off-Street Demand Only ........................................................................4.7-18

4.7-8 Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage All Vehicles

– Weekday Parking Demand ..............................................................................................................4.7-20

4.7-9 Mount Zion Campus Site Trip Distribution Patterns......................................................................4.7-21

4.7-10 Intersection Level of Service Baseline and Baseline plus Project Conditions Weekday PM

Peak Hour..............................................................................................................................................4.7-22

4.7-11 Pedestrian-Vehicular Conflicts at 2420 Sutter Street Garage Driveway Weekday Midday

and PM Peak Hours .............................................................................................................................4.7-25

Impact Sciences, Inc. iv UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR

1063.001 January 2011

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

Table Page

4.7-12 Average Number of Daily Construction Trucks and Workers ......................................................4.7-25

4.7-13 Intersection Level of Service 2030 Cumulative Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour ..............4.7-27

5.0-1 Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives.................................................................................5.0-14

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-1 UCSF Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR

1063.001 January 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to provide an assessment of the

potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (hereinafter-

proposed project). As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Draft EIR

(1) assesses the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including

cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future development; (2) identifies feasible means of avoiding or substantially lessening significant

adverse impacts; and (3) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including

the No Project alternative. The University of California (the University) is the “lead agency” for the

project evaluated in this Draft EIR. The Board of Regents of the University of California (The Regents) or

its delegated committee has the principal responsibility for approving this project.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS EIR

The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) has prepared this EIR on the proposed project for the

following purposes:

To inform the general public; the local community; and public agencies of the nature of the proposed

project, its potentially significant environmental effects, feasible measures to mitigate those effects,

and its reasonable and feasible alternatives;

To enable the University to consider the environmental consequences of approving the proposed

project; and

To satisfy CEQA requirements.

As described in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are charged with the duty to avoid

or substantially lessen significant environmental effects, where feasible. In discharging this duty, a public

agency has an obligation to balance the proposed project’s significant effects on the environment with its

benefits, including economic, social, technological, legal, and other benefits. This EIR is an informational

document, the purpose of which is to: identify the potentially significant effects of the proposed project

on the environment; identify mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce those significant effects;

identify any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated; and identify

reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would eliminate any significant adverse

environmental effects or reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

The lead agency is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other relevant

information, in making its decisions on the proposed project. Although the EIR does not determine the

1.0 Introduction


1063.001 January 2011

ultimate decision that will be made regarding implementation of the project, CEQA requires the

University to consider the information in the EIR and make findings regarding each significant effect

identified in the EIR before it can approve the project. The Regents or its delegated committee would

certify the Final EIR prior to taking any action approving the proposed project.

1.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

UCSF proposes to construct and operate the Mount Zion Garage project on a 14,600-square-foot site

located adjacent to the Mount Zion campus site in the City and County of San Francisco, California. The

proposed project would consist of a 49-foot-tall parking structure (with a 60-foot-tall elevator penthouse),

with one below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The proposed parking structure

would provide approximately 228 parking spaces, with about 172 spaces reserved for the public (i.e.,

patients and visitors) and about 56 spaces reserved for UCSF essential healthcare providers. Each level

would contain between 23 and 38 parking spaces. The total floor area of the parking levels would be

about 88,810 gross square feet. The proposed project includes a number of specific design features and

elements to promote sustainability, including electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle parking,

motorcycle parking, use of natural ventilation where possible, energy efficient light fixtures, a storm

water purification system, use of fly-ash in concrete and material reuse. The project also includes a

transportation demand management office (600 gross square feet) on the ground floor, at which

information about alternative transportation (e.g., public transit, carpools, etc.) may be obtained and

transit passes would be sold.

The project site is currently not within the limits of the Mount Zion campus site. As part of the proposed

project, the University proposes a minor amendment to the UCSF 1996 LRDP (as amended) to include the

project site as part of the Mount Zion campus site.

The project is needed in order to offset UCSF’s existing and projected parking shortfall at the Mount Zion

campus site and alleviate pressure on neighborhood on-street parking. It is proposed at a location that is

as close as possible to the center of clinical activities, thereby maximizing accessibility and convenience to

patients and visitors.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

UCSF has filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State

Clearinghouse indicating that this Draft EIR has been completed and is available for review and comment

by agencies and the public.

This Draft EIR has been made available for review by agencies, organizations, the public and interested

parties for a review period of 45 days, as mandated by California law. In reviewing the Draft EIR,

1.0 Introduction


1063.001 January 2011

reviewers should focus on the document’s adequacy in identifying and analyzing significant effects on

the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.

To ensure inclusion in the Final EIR and full consideration by the lead agency, comments on the Draft EIR

must be received during the public review period at the following address:

UCSF Campus Planning

654 Minnesota Street

San Francisco, California 94143-0286

Contact: Diane Wong, Senior Planner

[email protected]

UCSF will accept e-mail comments in lieu of traditional mailed comments; nevertheless, reviewers are

encouraged to follow up on any e-mail comments with letters. Following the close of the review period,

responses to comments on the Draft EIR will be prepared and published as a separate document. The

Draft EIR text and appendices, together with responses to comments and any text changes made to the

Draft EIR will constitute the Final EIR.

The Regents, the decision-making body for the University, or its delegated committee will review UCSF’s

Mount Zion Garage Project Final EIR for adequacy and consider it for certification pursuant to the

requirements of Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines. If The Regents or its delegated committee

certifies the Final EIR, then The Regents or its delegated committee will consider the project separately for

approval or denial. If The Regents or its delegated committee choose to approve the project, findings on

the feasibility of reducing or avoiding significant environmental effects will be made and, if necessary, a

Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared. If The Regents or its delegated committee

approves the project, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be prepared and will be filed with the State

Clearinghouse. The NOD will include a description of the project, the date of approval, an indication of

whether the Findings were prepared and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted, and the

address where the Final EIR and record of project approval are available for review.

1.3.1 Type of EIR

This is a project EIR prepared pursuant to Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Because the

proposed project is proposed by the University, relevant mitigation measures adopted by The Regents in

conjunction with the approval of the 1996 LRDP and 2005 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement

project are included in and a part of the proposed project. These mitigation measures are listed in each

resource subsection of Section 4.0. The analysis presented in Section 4.0 evaluates environmental impacts

that would result from project implementation following the application of these mitigation measures, as

part of the project as proposed. The mitigation measures that are included in the project would be

monitored pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan that will be adopted for the

proposed project.

1.0 Introduction


1063.001 January 2011

1.4.2 Public and Agency Review

On November 22, 2010, a Notice of Preparation (NOP), including an Initial Study, was published for the

Mount Zion Garage Project EIR. The 30-day comment period ended on December 21, 2010. A copy of the

NOP and the Initial Study is included in Appendix 1.0. No written comments were received on the NOP.

An EIR scoping meeting was held at the Herbst Hall Auditorium at Mount Zion Hospital on December 8,

2010. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the public and interested agencies of the proposed

project, solicit comments, and identify areas of concern. No comments were received from the public at

the meeting.

Copies of this Draft EIR and relevant materials referenced therein are available for review online at

http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/or at the following locations:

UCSF Kalmanovitz Library, 530 Parnassus Avenue

Western Addition Branch Library, 1550 Scott Street

1.4.3 Intended Uses of this EIR

The Regents or its delegated committee will use this EIR to evaluate the environmental implications of

approving the proposed project. There are no responsible agencies with permitting authority over the

project, as the proposed project does not require any discretionary approvals from other agencies.

The proposed project may require a ministerial authorization from the City of San Francisco to create a

curb cut along Sutter Street and to shore the site during excavation activities.

1.5 SCOPE OF THIS EIR

UCSF completed a preliminary review of the project, as described in Section 15060 of the State CEQA

Guidelines, and determined that environmental review was required. UCSF prepared an Initial Study in

November 2010 and determined that an EIR would be prepared. Based on the Initial Study and the

comments received at the scoping meeting and in response to the NOP, it was determined that the EIR

would evaluate the following environmental topics in further detail:

Aesthetics

Air Quality

Cultural Resources

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Land Use and Planning

Noise

Transportation and Traffic

1.0 Introduction


1063.001 January 2011

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This Draft EIR is organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0, Introduction, provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose and scope of

topics addressed in this EIR and the environmental review process.

Section 2.0, Executive Summary, summarizes environmental consequences that would result from the

proposed project, provides a summary table that denotes anticipated significant environmental impacts,

describes identified mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and

after mitigation.

Section 3.0, Project Description, describes the proposed project.

Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, describes the environmental

setting, including applicable plans and policies; provides an analysis of the potential environmental

impacts of the proposed project; and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant

impacts. It also includes an evaluation of the project’s cumulative impacts.

Section 5.0, Alternatives, summarizes alternatives to the project and the comparative environmental

consequences of each alternative. This section includes an analysis of the No Project Alternative, among

others, as required by CEQA.

Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, provides a discussion of the project’s significant and

unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible changes which would be caused if the project were to be

implemented, the potential for growth inducement from the project, and a brief description of the

environmental effects that were found not to be significant and, therefore, not evaluated in further detail.

Section 7.0, Report Preparation, provides a list of the individuals involved in the preparation of this EIR.


1063.001 January 2011

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 PURPOSE

This Draft EIR evaluates the potential for significant environmental impacts from the construction and

operation of the Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project) proposed by the University of California,

San Francisco (UCSF). It is the intent of this Executive Summary to provide the decision makers and the

public with a clear, simple, and concise description of the proposed project and its potential significant

environmental impacts. Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

requires that the summary identify each significant effect, recommended mitigation measure(s), and

alternatives that would minimize or avoid potential significant impacts. The summary is also required to

identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the

public and issues to be resolved. These issues include the choice among alternatives and whether or how

to mitigate significant effects. This section focuses on the major areas of importance in the environmental

analysis for the proposed project and utilizes non-technical language to promote understanding.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The project site at 2420 Sutter Street is located in the Western Addition neighborhood of the City of San

Francisco, approximately 1.5 miles west of the San Francisco civic center. The project site is located on the

north side of Sutter Street, between Divisadero and Broderick Streets. The project site is approximately

14,600 square feet in size and is currently vacant. A building occupied by an institutional/educational use

and a parking lot were previously located on the project site, but were demolished in 2008 by the

property owner as part of an earlier project that did not go forward. The project site currently supports

remnant demolition debris and sparse ruderal vegetation.

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

UCSF proposes to construct and operate the Mount Zion Garage project on a 14,600-square-foot site

located adjacent to UCSF’s medical office building at 1701 Divisadero Street on the Mount Zion campus

site in the City and County of San Francisco, California. The proposed project would consist of a

49-foot-tall parking structure as measured from Sutter Street (with a 60-foot above-grade elevator

penthouse), with one below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The proposed

parking structure would provide approximately 228 parking spaces, with about 172 spaces for the public

(i.e., patients and visitors) and about 56 spaces reserved for essential healthcare providers. Each level

would contain between 23 and 38 parking spaces. The total floor area of the parking levels would be

about 88,810 gross square feet. The proposed project includes a number of specific design features and

elements to promote sustainability, including electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle parking,

motorcycle parking, use of natural ventilation where possible, energy efficient light fixtures, a storm

2.0 Executive Summary


1063.001 January 2011

water purification system, use of fly-ash in concrete and material reuse. The project also includes a

transportation demand management office (600 gross square feet) on the ground floor, at which

information about alternative transportation (e.g., public transit, carpools, etc.) may be obtained and

transit passes would be sold.

The project site is currently not within the limits of the Mount Zion campus site. As part of the proposed

project, the University proposes a minor amendment to the UCSF 1996 LRDP (as amended) to include the


2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Key objectives of the proposed project are to:

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

affordable parking for those who often cannot utilize alternative forms of transportation

To offset UCSF’s existing and projected parking shortfall by providing parking for patients, visitors,

and essential healthcare providers

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

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

To provide parking at a location that is as close as possible to the center of clinical activities, thereby

maximizing accessibility and convenience to patients and visitors

To provide parking at a location that retains flexibility for future uses of UCSF land

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

To alleviate pressure on neighborhood on-street parking

To construct the proposed project on a site that minimizes displacement and disruption of existing

UCSF uses.

2.5 TOPICS OF KNOWN CONCERN

To determine which environmental topics should be addressed in this EIR, UCSF prepared an Initial

Study and circulated it along with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) in order to receive input from interested

public agencies and private parties. Copies of the NOP and Initial Study are presented in Appendix 1.0 of

this EIR. Based on both the Initial Study and the NOP comments, this EIR addresses the following

environmental topics in depth:

Aesthetics

Air Quality


Noise



1063.001 January 2011

Cultural Resources



2.6 IMPACT SUMMARY

A detailed discussion regarding potential impacts is provided in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting,

Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, a summary of the

project’s impacts is provided in Table 2.0-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, presented at

the end of this section. All project-level impacts of the proposed project would either be less than

significant or would be reduced to a less than significant level with the proposed project-level mitigation

measures. All cumulative impacts would also be less than significant.

2.7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The alternatives evaluated in this EIR focus on avoiding or further reducing potentially significant

cumulative impacts related to traffic. Project alternatives include the following:

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. This alternative assumes the proposed project would not be

constructed at the proposed site, and that the site would remain vacant.

Alternative 2: Smaller Project Alternative. This alternative would involve removing the number of

spaces planned for essential healthcare providers (about 56), reducing the total number of proposed

spaces to 172, and reducing the size of the parking structure by 2 levels such that the garage under this

alternative would be a total of 4 levels above grade and one level below grade.

Alternative 3: Alternate Location on Main Hospital block. This alternative would involve the

construction of the parking structure on the Main Hospital block, instead of at the proposed project site.

The alternative would locate a new parking structure on the east end of the block, at Sutter/Scott. It

would involve demolition of two existing buildings.

Other alternatives including an enhanced transportation demand management (TDM) program and

another site at the Mount Zion campus site were considered but not carried forth for detailed evaluation

because they did not eliminate the need for the project or were determined to be infeasible.

Detailed descriptions of the three alternatives evaluated in detail and their comparative merits are

presented in Section 5.0 of this EIR. Table 2.0-2, Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives, which

follows Table 2.0-1, presents a comparison of the environmental impacts of each alternative to those that

are expected to result from the proposed project.



1063.001 January 2011

Based on the analysis presented in the EIR, Alternative 2 was identified as the Environmentally Superior

Alternative (see Section 5.0 of this EIR).

2.8 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED/AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

This EIR addresses environmental issues associated with the proposed project that are known to the lead

agency or were raised by other public agencies or interested parties during the EIR scoping process. An

EIR scoping meeting was held at the Herbst Hall Auditorium at Mount Zion Hospital on December 8,

2010. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the public and interested agencies of the proposed

project, solicit comments, and identify areas of concern. Questions were raised at the EIR scoping meeting

regarding what alternatives would be analyzed and the duration of construction, but no other public

comments were made.



1063.001 January 2011

Table 2.0-1

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Environmental Topic and Impact

Level of Significance

before Mitigation Mitigation Measures


after Mitigation

4.1 Aesthetics

Impact AES-1

The proposed project would alter the existing visual character

of the project site but would not substantially degrade the

existing visual character or quality of the site and its

surroundings

Less than significant No project-level mitigation measure required. Less than significant

Impact AES-2

The proposed project would create a new source of substantial

light or glare that would not adversely affect day or nighttime

views in the area.


Cumulative Impact AES-1

Cumulative development would alter the existing visual

character but would not substantially degrade the existing

visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings.

Less than significant No mitigation measure required. Less than significant

Cumulative Impact AES-2

Cumulative development would create new sources of light

or glare that would not adversely affect day or nighttime

views in the area.




1063.001 January 2011





after Mitigation

4.2 Air Quality

Impact AQ-1

Construction of the proposed project would generate

short-term emissions of fugitive dust and criteria air

pollutants that could adversely affect local air quality in the

vicinity of the construction site and could exceed the

BAAQMD construction significance thresholds.

Less than significant MM AQ-1: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas,

staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved

access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

Less than significant

MM AQ-2: All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or

other loose material off-site shall be covered.

MM AQ-3: All visible mud or dirt track-out onto

adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet

power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

MM AQ-4: All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall

be limited to 15 mph.

MM AQ-5: All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks

to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after

grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

MM AQ-6: Idling times shall be minimized either by

shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing

the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required

by the California airborne toxics control measure

Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of

Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided

for construction workers at all access points.

MM AQ-7: All construction equipment shall be

maintained and properly tuned in accordance with

manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be

checked by a certified mechanic and determined to

be running in proper condition prior to operation.

MM AQ-8: Post a publicly visible sign with the

telephone number and person to contact at the Lead

Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall

respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible

to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.



1063.001 January 2011





after Mitigation

4.2 Air Quality (continued)

Impact AQ-2

The proposed project would generate long-term operational

emissions of criteria pollutants from increases in traffic that

could adversely affect air quality.


Impact AQ-3

The proposed project would increase carbon monoxide

concentrations at busy intersections and along congested

roadways in the project vicinity that could expose sensitive

receptors to substantial pollution concentrations.


Impact AQ-4

The proposed project could expose the maximally exposed

individual to an increased cancer risk exceeding 10 in

1 million.


Impact AQ-5

The proposed project would generate ground level

concentrations of noncarcinogenic toxic air contaminants that

could result in a Hazard Index greater than 1.0 for the

maximally exposed individual.


Impact AQ-6

Development of the proposed project could result in a

cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria

pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under

the federal and state ambient air quality standard.


Cumulative Impact AQ-1

Cumulative development could result in a significant

cumulative impact related to criteria pollutant and toxic air

contaminant emissions from project operations.


Cumulative Impact AQ-2

Cumulative development could result in a significant

cumulative impact related to toxic air contaminant emissions

during project construction.




1063.001 January 2011





after Mitigation

4.3 Cultural Resources

Impact CUL-1

The proposed project would not cause a substantial change in

the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to

Section 15064.5.

Potentially Significant CUL-1: UCSF shall retain a qualified archaeologist to

conduct an archaeological testing program at the

project site subsequent to removal of paving and

other surface cover, and before any construction

excavation is commenced. Testing will be conducted

in accordance with a systematic archaeological

testing plan prepared by the archaeologist. The plan

will determine the locations where testing will be

conducted and the methods that will be employed

for testing. These may include mechanical augering,

trenching, or other subsurface explorations.

In the event that archaeological resources are

encountered during testing, the significance of the

materials will be evaluated relative to the significance

criteria of the CRHR, and if determined to be

historical resources or unique archaeological

resources pursuant to CEQA, additional measures

shall be undertaken at the direction of the

archaeologist. These would include but not limited to

additional testing and/or an archaeological data

recovery program, whereby a sufficient sample of the

archaeological deposits shall be recovered to

preserve the significant data represented by the

deposit. All recovered material would be subjected to

appropriate analysis, reported, and curated in an

appropriate repository. Depending on the results of

testing, the archaeologist may recommend

construction monitoring.


Impact CUL-2

The proposed project would not disturb any human remains,

including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.




1063.001 January 2011





after Mitigation

4.3 Cultural Resources (continued)

Cumulative Impact CUL-1

Cumulative development would not cause a substantial

change in the significance of a historical resources or unique

archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 or disturb

any human remains, including those interred outside of

formal cemeteries.


4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact GHG-1

Project development would generate greenhouse gas

emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a

significant impact on the environment.


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.


4.5 Land Use and Planning

Impact LU-1

The proposed project would not conflict with the UCSF 1996

LRDP as amended.


Cumulative Impact LU-1

Cumulative development would not adversely alter the land

uses in the project vicinity.




1063.001 January 2011





after Mitigation

4.6 Noise

Impact NOISE-1

Construction activities associated with the proposed project

would temporarily elevate noise levels at the project site and

surrounding areas.


Impact NOISE-2

Project construction activities would not expose people to

excessive ground-borne vibration levels.


Impact NOISE-3

Vehicular traffic associated with the proposed project would

result in an incremental, but imperceptible, long-term increase

in ambient noise levels.


Impact NOISE-4

The operation of the proposed facility would not result in a

substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels.


Cumulative Impact NOISE-1

Construction of cumulative development would temporarily

elevate noise levels in the Mount Zion neighborhood



Temporary vibration related to the construction of cumulative

development would not cause a cumulative impact.



Vehicular traffic associated with cumulative development

would result in an incremental, but imperceptible, long-term

increase in ambient noise levels.



The operation of cumulative development would not result in

a substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels.




1063.001 January 2011





after Mitigation

4.7 Transportation and Traffic

Impact TRANS-1

Operation of the proposed project would not cause an

increase in vehicle traffic that would exceed the capacity of

study area intersections.


Impact TRANS-2

Operation of the proposed project would not cause an

increase in vehicle traffic that would delay transit service.


Impact TRANS-3

The proposed project would not cause an increase in

pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.

No impact No project-level mitigation measure required. No impact

Impact TRANS-4

The construction of the proposed project would temporarily

and intermittently impact the existing transportation network.

No impact No project-level mitigation measure required. No impact

Cumulative Impact TRANS-1

Traffic associated with cumulative development would not

cause an increase in vehicle traffic that would exceed the

capacity of study area intersections.



Future operation of BRT service on Geary Boulevard would

not negatively affect traffic operations at the intersection of

Geary Boulevard and Divisadero Street under 2030

Cumulative Conditions.



Cumulative development would not cause an increase in

pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.



The construction of cumulative projects would temporarily

and intermittently impact the existing transportation network.




1063.001 January 2011

Table 2.0-2

Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives

Mount Zion Garage Project Impact

Proposed Project

(Before Mitigation)

Alternative 1- No

Project Alternative

Alternative 2-Reduced

Project

Alternative 3-

Alternative Location on

Main Hospital Block

CUL-1 The project site is moderately

sensitive for subsurface

archaeological resources. Project

excavation and grading could

inadvertently destroy subsurface

archaeological resources.

Potentially Significant No impact

However, there would be a

similar potentially

significant impact from the

construction of another

building at the project site.

Potentially Significant

Similar to the proposed

project.



project.

New Impact

(related to

Alternative 3)

Project construction could

generate short-term emissions of

fugitive dust and criteria air

pollutants that could adversely

affect local air quality in the

vicinity of the construction site

and could exceed the BAAQMD

construction significance

thresholds.

Less than significant No impact

However, there could be a

similar less than significant

impact from the

development of another

project at the proposed

site.



project.


Demolition of existing

buildings would result in

an increase in fugitive dust

and emissions of criteria

pollutants.

New Impact

(related to

Alternative 3)

Project construction activities

could expose people or sensitive

equipment to excessive ground-

borne vibration levels.


However, there could be

similar less than significant

impacts from the

development of another

project at the proposed

site.



project.


Vibration from

construction could disturb

inpatients and affect

nearby medical uses,

which could contain

sensitive equipment.


1063.001 January 2011

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The section presents the details of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project) in terms of

the need for the project and its objectives, the facility’s various components and design features, and

construction schedule and activities.

The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is proposing to construct a 49-foot-tall parking

structure with one below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The proposed parking

structure would provide approximately 228 parking spaces, with about 172 spaces allocated for the

public (i.e., patients and visitors) and about 56 spaces reserved for essential healthcare providers.

3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING USES

As illustrated in Figure 3.0-1, Regional Location, the project site at 2420 Sutter Street is located in the

Western Addition neighborhood of the City of San Francisco, approximately 1.5 miles west of the San

Francisco civic center. As shown in Figure 3.0-2, Project Vicinity, the project site is located on the north

side of Sutter Street, between Divisadero and Broderick Streets. The project site is approximately

14,600 square feet in size. As illustrated in Figure 3.0-3, Aerial View, the project site is currently vacant. A

building occupied by an institutional/educational use and a parking lot were previously located on the

project site, but were demolished in 2008 by the property owner as part of an earlier project that did not

go forward. The project site currently supports remnant demolition debris and sparse ruderal vegetation.

The project site is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) and is located in a 65-A

Height and Bulk district.

The project site is bordered to the north by a vacant one- and two-story convalescent facility; to the east

by a five-story, 65-foot-tall UCSF medical office building located at 1701 Divisadero Street; to the south by

a five-level privately owned parking garage; and to the west by the approximately 45-foot-tall Russian

Center of San Francisco, a community facility. The UCSF Medical Center at Mount Zion, with various

buildings that range from two to eight stories, occupies the east side of Divisadero Street, generally from

Sutter to Post Streets, and includes facilities along Sutter, Post, and Bush Streets and on the west side of

Divisadero Street south of Post Street. Figure 3.0-4, Mount Zion Campus Site Plan, depicts the project

site in relation to the Mount Zion buildings. There are privately owned medical services buildings with

some commercial uses along Divisadero Street from Sutter Street to Geary Boulevard, including facilities

associated with UCSF. Residential uses are located along side streets, further from Divisadero Street, to

the east and west. The eight-story Kaiser Permanente Medical Center occupies the south side of Geary

Boulevard two blocks to the south.

3.0 Project Description


1063.001 January 2011

3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the project description in an EIR include “a

statement of the objectives sought by the applicant,” which should include “the underlying purpose of

the project.” The objectives of the proposed project are to:


affordable parking for those who often cannot utilize alternative forms of transportation











UCSF uses

3.4 PROJECT NEED

The primary purpose of the proposed parking structure is to accommodate parking demand by patients

and visitors. Approximately 75 percent of the proposed spaces would be public parking to serve the

needs of patients and visitors. The remaining parking (about 25 percent of the proposed spaces) would

serve essential healthcare providers. An essential health care provider is a clinical practitioner or provider

(typically a physician) who has direct patient care responsibilities; such responsibilities may require

response to life-safety emergencies on- or off-campus on a 24 hour-a-day basis.

Novato

SanRafael

MountainView

SanJose

Fremont

Hayward

SanRamon

WalnutCreek

Concord

Santa RosaNapa

Fairfield

AlamedaSan

Francisco

DalyCity

Berkeley

Vallejo

Vacaville

RedwoodCity

Woodside

SanMateo

Oakland

Richmond

Pa c i f i c O

c e an

S an

Fr a

nc i s c o

Ba

y

US

101

US

101

80INTERSTATE

680INTERSTATE

580INTERSTATE

880INTERSTATE

280INTERSTATE

280INTERSTATE

ProjectSite

Regional Location

FIGURE 3.0-1

1063-001•11/10

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – November 2010

NOT TO SCALEn

Legend: Project Boundary

PINE ST

BUSH ST

POST ST

GEARY BLVD

SUTTER ST

SCO

TTST

CALIFORNIA ST

LYON

ST

STEINE

RST

SACRAMENTO STCLAY ST

BAKERST

OFARRELL ST

ELLIS ST

FILLMO

RE

ST

PRESID

IOAVE

PIERC

ESTBR

OD

ERIC

KST

MAS

ON

ICAVE

EDDY ST

WILMOT ST

DIVISA

DER

OST

TERRA VISTA AVE

EUCLID AVE

WALN

UT

ST

PERINE PL

GARDEN ST

ANZA ST

OR

BEN

PL

EME

RSO

NST

LUPIN

EAVE

LEONA TERER

KSON

CT

BOSW

OR

THW

AY

LYONST

OFARRELL ST

PIERC

EST

BRO

DER

ICK

ST

250

PINE ST

BUSH ST

POST ST

GEARY BLVD

SUTTER ST

SCO

TTST

CALIFORNIA ST

LYON

ST

STEINE

RST

SACRAMENTO STCLAY ST

BAKERST

OFARRELL ST

ELLIS ST

FILLMO

RE

ST

PRESID

IOAVE

PIERC

ESTBR

OD

ERIC

KST

MAS

ON

ICAVE

EDDY ST

WILMOT ST

DIVISA

DER

OST

TERRA VISTA AVE

EUCLID AVE

WALN

UT

ST

PERINE PL

GARDEN ST

ANZA ST

OR

BEN

PL

EME

RSO

NST

LUPIN

EAVE

LEONA TERER

KSON

CT

BOSW

OR

THW

AY

LYONST

OFARRELL ST

PIERC

EST

BRO

DER

ICK

ST

250

0 500 1,000 F

Project Vicinity

FIGURE 3.0-2

1063-001•11/10

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – November 2010

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

500 250 0 500

n

0 500 1,000 F

ProjectSite

Aerial View

FIGURE 3.0-3

1063-001•12/10

SOURCE: Google Earth – September 2010, Impact Sciences, Inc. – December 2010


225 112 0 225

n

ProjectSite

Bush St.Bush St.

Post St.

Sutter St.

Broderick St.

Sutter St.

Post St.

Broderick St.

Divisadero St.

Divisadero St.

Scott St.Scott St.B

aker St.B

aker St.

Mount Zion Campus Site Plan

FIGURE 3.0-4

1063-001•12/10

SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – September 2010


150 75 0 150

n

ProjectSite

Bro

deric

k. S

treet



1063.001 January 2011

As a world-renowned academic medical center, UCSF attracts patients from within San Francisco, the

Bay Area, and beyond. Many of these patients are seriously ill and require highly specialized care. The

UCSF Mount Zion campus site is home to the UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center, the only

comprehensive cancer center in Northern California, designated by the National Cancer Institute, part of

the National Institutes of Health; the Women’s Health Center, the only nationally designated Center of

Excellence in Women’s Health in Northern California; a dialysis center; the Osher Center for Integrative

Medicine; the Pain Management Center, Sleep Disorders Center, and more. Outpatient visits at Mount

Zion number about 285,000 annually, or about 1,140 per day. There are about 90 inpatient beds, and over

1,300 employees at Mount Zion.

Parking supply at Mount Zion is highly constrained. Currently, UCSF controls a limited supply of about

218 parking spaces in the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site, consisting of the following: 150 spaces

at 1701 Divisadero Street, 21 spaces in a parking lot at the southwest corner of Bush and Scott Streets, and

47 spaces at 2325 Post Street. In addition, UCSF employees have access to about 137 parking spaces at the

1635 Divisadero Street garage, but UCSF does not own or manage those spaces. UCSF has no supply of

spaces for patients or visitors, although parking facilities operated by others serve the public.

Current UCSF demand for employee and visitor parking in the Mount Zion neighborhood is estimated at

over 700 spaces, which is much greater than UCSF’s existing supply of parking spaces (approximately

355 spaces, counting access to the 137 spaces at 1635 Divisadero Street). UCSF’s patients and visitors, as

well as employees who are not accommodated in UCSF parking facilities, park on the street and in

nearby parking facilities, which are at or near capacity during peak times and which serve other uses in

the vicinity such as private medical offices, Kaiser Medical Center, and nearby retail and restaurants.

Increases in parking demand are imminent. UCSF’s newly constructed Osher Building, which opened in

December 2010, is a 48,000-square-foot building that will not contain parking within the building yet will

increase parking demand at Mount Zion. The building houses clinics that relocated from the Parnassus

Heights campus site to the Mount Zion campus site, and contains a consolidated and expanded location

for the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, which relocated from other locations at Mount Zion. In

addition, over the next few years, other UCSF Medical Center departments will move from the Parnassus

Heights campus site to the Mount Zion campus site to make space at the Parnassus Heights campus site

to accommodate growing clinical programs there. In UCSF’s 2005 amendment of its Long Range

Development Plan, the Mount Zion campus site was identified as a future major outpatient hub following

the move of cancer inpatient beds from Mount Zion to the Medical Center at Mission Bay, scheduled to

open in 2014. The additional parking demand from increased patient and employee population at the

Mount Zion campus site resulting from these activities, coupled with the existing shortage of parking at

the Mount Zion campus site, results in the need for additional parking.



1063.001 January 2011

Patients and visitors need parking for several reasons. Approximately 68 percent of inpatients and

45 percent of outpatients at the Mount Zion campus site come from outside San Francisco. Many of them

have serious illnesses, and alternative transportation, such as public transit, bicycling, or walking, are not

always feasible for patients due to compromised health, mobility problems, and travel distance. In

addition, many patients are children who are brought in by their parents and public transit is not an

option for them. As such, many patients and visitors have few options but to drive.

The UCSF campus has had an active and growing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program

since 1971, which consists of the UCSF shuttle system, vanpools, a commuter bus club, carpools, ride

sharing (Zimride), carshare, an emergency ride home program, bicycle parking, on-site transit pass sales,

and pretax transit program. At present, about 65 percent of Mount Zion-based employees take alternative

forms of transportation1 to work. Despite this program, essential healthcare providers at Mount Zion

need parking because many of them provide health care on a 24-hour/7-day basis, and many essential

care providers have responsibilities at multiple medical centers including at Parnassus Heights, the

Veterans Administration Hospital, and SF General Hospital. The 56 employee spaces in the proposed

garage will be assigned (via permit) only to individuals who are essential healthcare providers.

The project proposes to provide this parking in close proximity to the center of the Mount Zion clinical

facilities in order to maximize accessibility and convenience to patients, visitors and essential healthcare

providers, and alleviate pressure on neighborhood on-street parking.

3.5 PROJECT FEATURES AND OPERATIONS

The proposed project would consist of a 49-foot-tall parking structure (with a 60-foot above grade

elevator penthouse), with one below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The

proposed parking structure would provide approximately 228 parking spaces, with about 172 spaces

reserved for the public (i.e., patients and visitors) and about 56 spaces reserved for essential healthcare

providers. The distribution of parking spaces between those for the public and those for essential

healthcare providers is not expected to change but slight adjustments may be made by UCSF depending

on need. Each level would contain between 23 and 38 parking stalls. The total floor area of the parking

levels would be about 88,810 gross square feet. The proposed project would also include a transportation

demand management office (600 gross square feet) on the ground floor, where information about

alternative forms of transportation would be made available to patients, visitors and employees and

transit passes would be sold. Two to three employees would be located on the project site during

business hours.

1 Alternative forms of transportation are those that do not involve travel by a single-occupant vehicle.



1063.001 January 2011

Figure 3.0-5, Ground Floor Plan, provides the footprint of the proposed parking structure while Figure

3.0-6, Basement Plan and Figure 3.0-7, Typical Level Plan provides the layout of the basement level and

a typical parking level, respectively. Figures 3.0-8 through 3.0-11 provide elevations for each side of the

proposed project. Figure 3.0-12, Building Section, provides a section view of the entire structure.

The proposed garage would be naturally ventilated on levels 5 and 6 where these levels will largely be

open to the air. Both the north wall (facing the vacant one- and two-story convalescent facility on Bush

Street) and the west wall (facing the Russian Center) will have no openings. The east wall facing

1701 Divisadero Street Building will have perforated openings and the south wall facing Sutter Street will

be largely open with the openings screened by perforated metal panels. The below-grade parking level

and levels 1 through 4 will be mechanically ventilated. The ventilation system will include an air intake, a

fan and motor, ductwork, and an exhaust point and diffuser. The air intake will be located on the second

level of the Sutter Street aspect of the garage. The mechanical exhaust point and diffuser will be installed

at the fourth floor level in the northeast corner of the garage facing the 1701 Divisadero Street building.

The proposed project would provide landscaping in the form of a planter and street trees along the

sidewalk in front of the building that would conform to UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines. The project

also includes planter boxes on the north side of the building at the fifth level to allow vines to grow down

the north façade. In addition, the project includes lighting design that would ensure that the parking

garage lighting on the 5th and 6th levels does not point toward the courtyard that is planned as part of the

approved mixed-use project that would redevelop the convalescent facility site on Bush Street.

The primary entry/exit for the parking structure would be provided on Sutter Street via a two-way

20-foot-wide entrance located approximately 22 feet inside the eastern property line. With a 15-foot

sidewalk, there would be about 37 feet of available queue space on Sutter Street. In addition, the

proposed parking structure would connect underground to an existing underground parking garage at

1701 Divisadero Street, and vehicles could utilize the existing garage entry/exit, which is located on Sutter

Street, to access the proposed garage. The purpose of this underground connection is to allow both

garages to function as one, enabling the greatest amount of operational flexibility possible in directing

traffic flow into and out of the garage to avoid unnecessary queuing.

Public parking hours of operation would be from 6 AM to 10 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding

Medical Center holidays; there are no plans to open the garage to the public on weekends. Afterhours

access that would be necessary for essential healthcare providers would be provided through the

1701 Divisadero garage The proposed 228 parking spaces would be combined with the existing inventory

of 150 spaces in the existing adjacent garage at 1701 Divisadero Street to serve both patients/visitors and

employees (primarily physicians and patient care providers). The proposed garage would contain



1063.001 January 2011

22 ADA accessible spaces; three of them van accessible, as required by the California Building Code

based on the number of spaces provided. Eighteen Class 1 bicycle parking spaces would be provided on

the ground level, near the vehicle entrance. Motorcycle parking (21 spaces) would also be provided.

Vehicular access control would include automatic gates, magnetic stripe ticket dispensers, card readers,

fee computers, steel cashier booths, and related items. Payment would be processed at the point of exit by

way of on-site cashiers.

Pedestrians would access the building, including the transportation demand management office, through

a pedestrian lobby entrance on Sutter Street, located approximately 80 feet west of the eastern property

line. An elevator and stairs would connect the underground parking to the ground and above levels.

A private party currently owns the site. Prior to construction of the parking structure, the University

proposes to lease the property pursuant to a 60-year lease. The project construction would be completed

by a third-party developer. Once completed, the entire parking structure would be leased to the

University pursuant to the 60-year lease. The project site is currently not within the limits of the Mount

Zion campus site as defined by the UCSF 1996 LRDP. As part of the proposed project, the University

proposes a minor amendment to the UCSF 1996 LRDP (as amended) to include the 14,600-square-foot


LRDP EIR mitigation measures that were adopted by The Regents in conjunction with the approval of the

1996 LRDP and its subsequent amendments are applicable to and made part of the proposed project.

These measures will be incorporated into the development agreement with the developer and their

implementation will be monitored by the University. The full text of the pertinent LRDP mitigation

measures is provided in the resource sections in Chapter 4 of this EIR.

3.6 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FEATURES

The proposed project includes a number of specific design features and elements to promote

sustainability, including electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle parking, use of natural ventilation

where possible, energy efficient light fixtures, a stormwater purification system, use of fly-ash in concrete

and material reuse. As noted above, the project also includes a transportation demand management office

on the ground floor, where information about alternative transportation such as ride sharing and pretax

transit incentive programs would be provided and transit passes and UCSF bicycle permits would be

sold. The project includes preferential parking for carpools and electric vehicles. The public parking rates

would be market-based with a disincentive for all-day parking.

Ground Floor Plan

FIGURE 3.0-5

1063-001•12/10

SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – December 2010

NOT TO SCALEn


Basement Plan

FIGURE 3.0-6

1063-001•12/10


NOT TO SCALEn


Typical Level Plan

FIGURE 3.0-7

1063-001•12/10


NOT TO SCALEn


South Elevation

FIGURE 3.0-8

NOT TO SCALE

1063-001•12/10


East Elevation

FIGURE 3.0-9

NOT TO SCALE

1063-001•12/10


North Elevation

FIGURE 3.0-10

NOT TO SCALE

1063-001•12/10


West Elevation

FIGURE 3.0-11

NOT TO SCALE

1063-001•12/10


Building Section

FIGURE 3.0-12

NOT TO SCALE

1063-001•12/10




1063.001 January 2011

3.7 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND DETAILS

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in spring 2011 and continue for

approximately 12 months. There would be four primary construction phases, which would partially

overlap:

Shoring, Underpinning, and Excavation - One month

Below grade concrete foundation and structure - Two months

Above grade concrete structure - Three months

Exterior skin, mechanical, life safety systems and elevator – Six months

The proposed project would include site grading and excavation up to an average depth of 16 feet below

average grade (19 feet from average grade to the bottom of the elevator pit) for the construction of one

lower level. Grading would include the export of about 7,700 cubic yards of material. The structure

would be built on a mat foundation and pile driving to install piles will not be necessary. The edge of the

eastern side of the mat may require pier support. In that event, either the existing piers at the

1701 Divisadero Street temporary shoring wall would be used or new piers would be installed by drilling

and casting new piers. Piles will not be implemented and therefore will not be driven.

Construction related activities would typically occur Monday through Friday, between 7 AM and 6 PM

or later, with most activities completed by 5 PM. Some construction work, such as concrete pouring,

could occasionally take place on Saturdays with reduced work crews. Project construction is not

anticipated to occur on Sundays or major legal holidays. UCSF may alter these hours if feasible should

there be community concerns.

Construction staging would occur on the 15-foot-wide sidewalk adjacent to the south border of the

project site. The sidewalk would be moved into the parking lane with a covered and protected walkway.

An additional staging area would be located in the easement between the project site and the adjacent

building at 1701 Divisadero Street, where the construction trailer would also be located. Periodic closures

of the pedestrian walkway would take place during concrete pouring of the floor slabs and supporting

columns; pedestrians would then be rerouted at both ends of the block to the sidewalk on the south side

of Sutter Street. It is not anticipated that any travel lane closures would be required. Any temporary

sidewalk or traffic lane closures would be coordinated with the City in order to minimize the impacts on

pedestrian and traffic flow. In general, lane and sidewalk closures are subject to review and approval by

the San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW).



1063.001 January 2011

Construction workers would be incentivized to car pool. For those construction workers who drive, a

surface lot located at 2184 Geary Boulevard would be available for parking until the lower level of the

proposed parking structure is accessible. Construction traffic would access the site via Sutter Street. The

proposed project would involve the excavation of approximately 7,700 cubic yards of material, which

would require approximately 426 truck trips (at 18 cubic yards per truck) to haul off the site. Construction

truck traffic would primarily occur on Sutter and Divisadero Streets.


1063.001 January 2011

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS,

AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.0.1 INTRODUCTION

This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) presents potential environmental impacts of

the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project). The scope of the analysis and key attributes

of the analytical approach are presented below to assist readers in understanding the manner in which

the impact analysis has been conducted in this Draft EIR.

4.0.2 LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Draft EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the levels of significance of adverse impacts identified

during the course of the environmental analysis. The following are definitions of terms used in this Draft

EIR:

Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and

cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of

feasible mitigation measures.

Significant Impact. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and that can be

eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of feasible

mitigation measures.

Potentially Significant Impact. Significant impacts that may ultimately be determined to be less than

significant; the level of significance may be reduced in the future through implementation of policies

or guidelines (that are not required by statute or ordinance), or through further definition of the

project detail in the future. Potentially Significant Impacts may also be impacts about which there is

not enough information to draw a firm conclusion; however, for the purpose of this Draft EIR, they

are considered significant. Such impacts are equivalent to Significant Impacts and require the

identification of feasible mitigation measures.

Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts that are adverse but that do not exceed the specified

standards of significance.

No Impact. The project would not create an impact.

4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation


1063.001 January 2011

4.0.3 APPROACH TO IMPACT ANALYSIS

The preparation of this Draft EIR was preceded by an Initial Study (included in Appendix 1.0), which

determined that the proposed project would not result in significant or potentially significant impacts

on certain resource areas. Therefore, this Draft EIR evaluates project impacts in seven of the

17 resource areas on the Appendix G California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist.

For each of the seven resource areas evaluated in the sections that follow, the Draft EIR describes the

existing environmental setting, the potential for the proposed project to significantly affect the

existing resources, and recommended mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid potentially

significant impacts. Each of the resource sections also clearly identifies those impacts that were

determined in the Initial Study to be less than significant, and thus, do not require detailed evaluation

in this Draft EIR.

For purposes of the analyses in this Draft EIR, the year 2010 is used to establish the baseline or

existing conditions. Impacts are evaluated in terms of environmental changes as a result of

implementation of the proposed project as compared to existing conditions in 2010.

Relevant mitigation measures adopted by The Regents in conjunction with the approval of the

1996 LRDP and 2004 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement project are included in and a part

of the proposed project. The analysis presented in the subsequent sections evaluates environmental

impacts that would result from project implementation after the application of these mitigation

measures.

4.0.4 APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CEQA requires that EIRs discuss cumulative impacts, in addition to project-specific impacts. In

accordance with CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and

the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of

environmental impacts attributable to the project alone. According to Section 15355 of the State CEQA

Guidelines:

“Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are

considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate

projects.

(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results

from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.



1063.001 January 2011

Section 15130(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines further states that “a cumulative impact consists of an

impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with

other projects causing related impacts.”

Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines also requires that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a

project when the project's incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.”1 Where a Lead Agency is

examining a project with an incremental effect that is not cumulatively considerable, it need not consider

the effect significant but must briefly describe the basis for its conclusion. If the combined cumulative

impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant,

Section 15130(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a brief discussion in the EIR of why the

cumulative impact is not significant and why it is not discussed in further detail. Section 15130(a)(3) of

the State CEQA Guidelines requires supporting analysis in the EIR if a determination is made that a

project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is rendered less than cumulatively considerable

and, therefore, is not significant. CEQA recognizes that the analysis of cumulative impacts need not be as

detailed as the analysis of project-related impacts, but instead should “be guided by the standards of

practicality and reasonableness” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)). The discussion of cumulative

impacts in this draft EIR focuses on whether the impacts of the proposed Project are cumulatively

considerable.

The fact that a cumulative impact is significant does not necessarily mean that the project contribution to

the cumulative impact is significant as well. Instead, under CEQA, a project-related contribution to a

significant cumulative impact is only significant if the contribution is “cumulatively considerable.” To

support each significance conclusion, the Draft EIR provides a cumulative impact analysis; and where

project-specific impacts have been identified that, together with the effects of other related projects, could

result in cumulatively significant impacts, these potential impacts are documented.

Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines consideration of the following two elements as

necessary to provide an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: “(A) a list of past, present, and

reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects

outside the control of the Agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional

or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to

the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for

the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

In this Draft EIR, a combination of these two methods is used depending upon the specific environmental

issue area being analyzed. To evaluate traffic and traffic-related air quality and noise impacts, the

1 Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable” means that “the incremental

effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the

effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”



1063.001 January 2011

cumulative impacts were evaluated using the projected growth in traffic through 2030 based on City and

County of San Francisco projections. However, to evaluate other cumulative impacts such as construction

noise, the list-based approach was used, and one related project within the Mount Zion neighborhood

was considered in the Draft EIR which is the only project close enough to the project site to have the

potential to result in impacts that cumulate with the impacts of the proposed project. The related project

is an approved mixed use project located at 2655 Bush Street which was approved by the City in April

2009. The site of this project is immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed UCSF

Garage project site. The 2655 Bush Street project would demolish a vacant two-story 20 foot high,

approximately 48,000-square-foot convalescent facility and replace it with a 108,000 square foot

mixed-use building with 4,500 square feet of ground-level retail space and 83 dwelling units. The roof

line of the proposed buildings would range from 40 to 65 feet (four to six stories). According to the

mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City for this project, project construction was to

commence in spring 2010 and the project would be ready for occupancy by late 2011. Project construction

has not commenced at this time due to the economic downturn. However, to provide a conservative

analysis of potential cumulative impacts from concurrent construction, the analysis in this EIR assumes

that the Bush Street project would be under construction the same time as the proposed project.


1063.001 January 2011

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 INTRODUCTION

This section addresses the existing visual characteristics of the project site and the surrounding area and

evaluates the significance of the changes in visual character that would result from development of the

proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project) as viewed from the surrounding streets and

other public viewpoints.

4.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The UCSF Mount Zion campus site occupies approximately 7.3 acres plus leased space in San Francisco’s

Western Addition, an urban neighborhood that consists of commercial, medical, residential, and

neighborhood commercial uses. The main block containing the UCSF Mount Zion Hospital and Medical

Center is bounded by Sutter Street to the north, Post Street to the south, Scott Street to the east, and

Divisadero Street to the west (UCSF 2005).

The Mount Zion Hospital is an eight-story medical center housed in two buildings (Buildings A and B).

Building A is on the north side of Post Street, with a 275-foot frontage that creates an unbroken visual

plane for about three-quarters of the block. The hospital’s long, horizontal bands of inset picture

windows and its distinctive salmon-pink cladding lend to its visual prominence on the block. Building B

is perpendicular to Building A, with its narrow frontage located mid-block on Sutter Street, adjacent to

the hospital’s loading area (UCSF 2005).

Other medically related uses line the perimeter of the block in buildings up to five stories tall. These

include the five-story Hellman Building on the southeast corner of Post and Scott Streets; the four-story

Harold Brunn Institute located mid-block on Scott Street; the single-story Dialysis Center on the corner of

Sutter and Scott Streets; and the five-story outpatient Cancer Center on the corner of Divisadero and

Sutter Streets (UCSF 2005).

The UCSF Cancer Research Building and the Pavilion Tower, which houses outpatient women’s

programs in an eight-story contemporary building, are located across Sutter Street from Building B. To

the northeast and southwest of the main block are two UCSF outpatient medical office buildings of four

stories each, constructed in 1997. The new Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, a five-story

contemporary building, is located southwest of the main hospital block at 1545 Divisadero Street. The

south block (south of the hospital and bounded by Divisadero, Post, Scott, and Geary Streets) is

predominantly characterized by low-rise medical offices, portions of which are leased by UCSF, and

surface parking lots (UCSF 2005).

4.1 Aesthetics


1063.001 January 2011

The Mount Zion campus site is visually intertwined with adjacent non-campus uses and the campus

buildings are not perceived as a single visual entity, as is the case at the Parnassus Heights campus site.

Figure 4.1-1, Neighborhood Context, provides a visual depiction of conditions throughout the Mount

Zion neighborhood. As shown in Figure 4.1-1, the neighborhood consists of several large buildings

ranging in height from three to seven stories. The streetscape consists of roadways and sidewalks along

with power lines and overhead electric cables.

The project site consists of a vacant lot between the 45-foot Russian Center and the 65-foot UCSF medical

office building located at 1701 Divisadero Street. Figure 4.1-2, Adjacent Buildings, provides photographs

of each of the adjacent buildings. The Russian Center is an older building that was constructed in 1911

while the UCSF medical office building at 1701 Divisadero Street is a modern building that was

constructed in 1996.

4.1.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines

New development at UCSF is guided by the Facilities Design Guidelines. The guidelines set forth design

objectives and special considerations for UCSF projects, with an emphasis on a project’s functional

requirements, overall economy, and technical guidelines.

The UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines also contain specific policies related to landscaping at UCSF

campuses sites. These policies include designing landscapes at entrances and exits to UCSF facilities (e.g.,

roadways, parking lots and pedestrian areas) in a manner that maximizes visibility and allows adequate

lighting. Vegetation should be compatible with the natural limitations presented by the Bay Area’s

climate and soil conditions, and also be appropriate for man-made environments (e.g., appropriate for

use as street trees). Additional policies related to landscaping include incorporating water and energy

conservation and utilizing low-maintenance materials (UCSF 1996).

Neighborhood Context

FIGURE 4.1-1

1063-001•12/10

SOURCE: University of California, San Francisco – November 2010

0 500 1,000 F

Adjacent Buildings

FIGURE 4.1-2

1063-001•12/10


0 500 1,000 F

4.1 Aesthetics


1063.001 January 2011

UCSF Physical Design Framework

Development at UCSF is also guided by the Physical Design Framework (PDF), which sets forth a vision

for the physical development of UCSF campus sites throughout the City and County of San Francisco. It

serves as the foundation for UCSF to plan and design future projects according to a clear and consistent

set of planning and design principles, guidelines and strategies. The PDF contains six planning principles

that are universally applicable to UCSF campus sites. They express key thematic concepts of Context,

Connectivity, Cohesiveness, Collegiality, Community, and Conservation:

Respond to Context while reinforcing identity

Welcome the Community

Ensure Connectivity to and within the campus

Improve campus Cohesiveness

Create spaces to promote Collegiality

Lead through Conservation and sustainability

Each of the above principles contains related specific guidelines, such as designing buildings to fit within

their urban context, considering massing, style, pattern, and color of buildings in the vicinity; relating

buildings to pedestrians and scale to human activity and visual interest; providing a positive campus

interface at campus edges; providing comfortable, activated campus open spaces; and incorporating

sustainability features in buildings (UCSF 2010).

4.1.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Significance Criteria

The impact of the proposed project on aesthetics would be considered significant if it would exceed the

following standards of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the

UC CEQA Handbook:

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;

Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and

historic buildings within a State scenic highway;

Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings;

Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views

in the area; or

4.1 Aesthetics


1063.001 January 2011

Exceed the LRDP EIR significance standard by substantially reducing sunlight or significantly

increasing shadows in public open space areas, or by increasing pedestrian-level wind speeds above

the hazard level set forth in the San Francisco Planning Code.

Issues Not Discussed Further

The Initial Study for the proposed project found that implementation of the proposed project would have

no impact on scenic vistas as there are no existing scenic viewsheds in the vicinity of the project site. In

addition, the Initial Study for the proposed project found that implementation of the proposed project

would have no impact on scenic resources within a State scenic highway, as there are no scenic routes

located within the vicinity of the project site. Finally, the Initial Study for the proposed project found that

the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to creating shadows in

public places or increasing pedestrian-level wind speeds above the hazard level set forth in the San

Francisco Planning Code as the nearest public open space is three blocks to the southeast of the project

site and would not be affected by project shadows and the height of the proposed project (49 feet) does

not meet the minimum height (100 feet) to redirect wind speeds at the pedestrian level. These issues are

not discussed further in this section.

Project Characteristics

The proposed project consists of a 49-foot-tall parking structure that would include one parking level

below grade and six parking levels above grade. Figures 3.0-4 through 3.0-7 present floor level plans and

a building section drawing of the proposed parking garage. At its highest point (an elevator penthouse),

the structure would be approximately 60 feet high above sidewalk grade at Sutter Street. The exterior of

the building would be compatible with the surrounding buildings and appropriate for the intended uses

of the site. The proposed project would be constructed of concrete with stucco, glass, perforated metal

panels and concrete masonry infill at the exterior.

Figure 4.1-3, Perspective View provides a perspective illustrating the conceptual architectural design of

the proposed project. While the final architectural design has not been completed at this time, the

perspective illustrates the general massing of the building proposed and of the types of architectural

detail under consideration for the parking structures facade along Sutter Street. Note that because of the

infill nature of the project site, the parking garage would not be visible from any other public street

except Sutter Street.

Perspective View

FIGURE 4.1-3

1063-001•12/10


0 500 1,000 F

4.1 Aesthetics


1063.001 January 2011

Mitigation Measures included in the Proposed Project

The following mitigation measure was adopted by The Regents in connection with certification of the

1996 LRDP EIR and is included as part of the proposed project (UCSF 1997). The analysis presented

below evaluates environmental impacts that would result from project implementation following the

application of this mitigation measure.

LRDP EIR MM 4L-2 Minimize light and glare from LRDP development through orientation of

buildings, use of landscaping, and use of primary façade materials with

low-glare potential. Design standards and guidelines for minimizing light and

glare would be followed, including avoiding the use of mirrored glass as

primary building materials for façades, and configuring exterior light fixtures to

emphasize close spacing of low intensity light sources directed downward.

LRDP EIR MM 4L-3 Construction plans would include specifications for placing and directing any

construction area or flood lighting to minimize potential disturbances to adjacent

residents and businesses.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact AES-1: The proposed project would alter the existing visual character of the project

site but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or

quality of the site and its surroundings. (Less than Significant)

The area surrounding the proposed project is densely developed. The project site is set within a block that

contains a mixture of institutional uses, such as medical office and research facilities, a vacant

convalescent home, and a mixture of one- to three-story commercial and residential buildings. The

proposed six-level, 49-foot-tall parking structure would be similar in height to other buildings in the area,

including the 45-foot-tall Russian Center to the west of the project site and the 65-foot-tall medical office

building at 1701 Divisadero to the east of the project site. In addition, a five-level public parking garage is

located across the street from the project site to the south.

As shown in Figure 4.1-1, the mass of the proposed garage would be similar to the two adjoining

structures and the façade of the proposed garage would be broken down to a smaller scale through the

use of façade articulation. The height of the proposed garage is even with the adjacent building to the

west (Russian Center) while the modern design of the building is consistent in style to the medical office

building to the east located at 1701 Divisadero Street. As a result, the proposed project simultaneously

respects aspects of both of its immediate neighbors. The modern design of the proposed project is also

4.1 Aesthetics


1063.001 January 2011

consistent with the design of the parking garage that is located directly across the street on the south side

of Sutter Street. Thus, the proposed project would reflect the context of the surrounding neighborhood,

which is in line with the principles contained in the UCSF Physical Design Framework. In addition, the

use of articulation to better relate the façade of building to the pedestrian and human environment is also

in line with the principles contained in the UCSF Physical Design Framework. Finally, the proposed

project would provide landscaping in the form of a planter and street trees along the sidewalk in front of

the building that would conform to UCSF Facilities Design Guidelines. The project also includes planter

boxes on the north side of the building at the fifth level to allow vines to grow down the north façade. For

these reasons, development of the proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual

character or quality of the proposed project site and its surroundings, and this impact is considered less

than significant.

Mitigation Measure: No project-level mitigation measure is required.

Impact AES-2: The proposed project would create a new source of substantial light or glare

that would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than

Significant)

Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials, such as reflective

glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on the intensity and

direction of sunlight. At night, artificial lighting can cause glare. The proposed project would be

constructed of concrete with stucco, glass, and concrete masonry infill at the exterior. These building

materials are generally not highly reflective. Furthermore, LRDP Mitigation Measure 4L-2, which is

included in the project, would require that design standards and guideline for minimizing light and glare

be followed. The project has been designed to be sensitive to adjacent land uses. The garage walls to the

west and the north would have no openings and therefore glare from garage lighting would not be

experienced by persons in the Russian Center or residents of the approved mixed-use development

project to the north of the garage site on Bush Street. In addition, the project includes lighting design that

would ensure that the parking garage lighting on the 5th and 6th levels does not point toward the court

yard that is planned as part of the mixed-use development project. Therefore, the impact would be less

than significant.

While nighttime construction of the proposed project is not proposed or planned, it is possible that it

could occur under exceptional circumstances. Nighttime construction could require the use of flood

lighting. However, LRDP Mitigation Measure 4L-3, which is included in the project, would require that

construction plans include specifications for placing and directing any construction area or flood lighting

4.1 Aesthetics


1063.001 January 2011

to minimize potential disturbances to adjacent residents and businesses. As a result, the impact would be

less than significant.


4.1.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, one other project is proposed in the vicinity

of the proposed UCSF Mount Zion Garage project, that when combined with the proposed garage

project, could potentially result in cumulative impacts. The proposed mixed-use project would be located

at 2655 Bush Street adjacent to the project site to the north. The 2655 Bush Street project consists of a

108,000 square foot mixed use building with 4,500 square feet of ground-level retail space and 83

dwelling units. The roof line of the proposed building would range from 40 to 65 feet (four to six stories).

Cumulative Impact AES-1: Cumulative development would alter the existing visual character but

would not substantially degrade the existing visual character and

quality of the site and its surroundings. (Less than Significant)

The 2655 Bush Street project would demolish a vacant two story 20-foot-high, approximately

48,000-square-foot 116-bed convalescent facility and replace it with a 108,000-square-foot mixed-use

building that would range in height from 40 to 65 feet (four to six stories). The height of the 2655 Bush

Street project would be compatible with the heights of surrounding buildings along Divisadero Street and

the main Mount Zion Hospital Block. The design of the 2655 Bush Street project would be a

contemporary interpretation of the pre-war traditional residential architectural style found in the

neighborhood (San Francisco 2009). Views of the 2655 Bush Street project would only be available from

Bush Street while views of the proposed project would be available from Sutter Street. Both projects

would not be visible from any one viewpoint. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the two projects on the

visual character of the Mount Zion neighborhood would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impact AES-2: Cumulative development would create new sources of light or glare

that would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

(Less than Significant)

The proposed mixed-use project at 2655 Bush Street would add lighting typical of residential and

commercial development in the neighborhood. This includes directed lighting for architectural accents,

signage, and security focused onto surfaces to be lit, such as building details, landscape elements, signs,

4.1 Aesthetics


1063.001 January 2011

and pedestrian areas. Exterior lighting would be consistent with similar lighting on surrounding land

uses and the fixtures would be directed downward to minimize visible light on and off the project site. In

addition the 2655 Bush Street project would not include mirrored or reflective glass (San Francisco 2009).

As discussed above, the proposed project would also not be built with highly reflective material. In

addition, light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be minimized with the

implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4L-2 and 4L-3. Combined, light and glare generated by the

proposed project and the 2655 Bush Street project would not result in a substantial amount of light and

glare, and the cumulative impact of the two projects would be less than significant.


4.1.6 REFERENCES

City and County of San Francisco. 2009. Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2655 Bush Street, Case No.

2005.1106E. (San Francisco 2009)

University of California, San Francisco. 1996. Facilities Design Guidelines. (UCSF 1996)

University of California, San Francisco. 1996 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact

Report. SCH No. 1995123032. January 1997. (UCSF 1997)

University of California, San Francisco. LRDP Amendment No. 2 – Hospital Replacement Final

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2004072067. March 2005. (UCSF 2005)

University of California, San Francisco. 2010. Physical Design Framework. (UCSF 2010)


1063.001 January 2011

4.2 AIR QUALITY

4.2.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents existing air quality conditions in the area of the proposed Mount Zion Garage

project (proposed project) and analyzes the potential air quality impacts associated with implementation

of the proposed project. This section also provides a description of the regulatory framework for air

quality management on a federal, state, regional, and local level. In addition, this section evaluates the

types and quantities of air emissions that would be generated on a short-term basis during project

construction and over the long-term from the operation of the proposed project.

The analysis of air quality impacts is based on air quality regulations administered by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay

Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) with each agency responsible for different aspects of

the proposed project’s activities. The roles of these agencies are discussed in detail in the Regulatory

Considerations section. Air quality emission calculations conducted for the project are contained in

Appendix 4.2 of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).


Climate and Meteorology

The project area is centrally located in the City of San Francisco, which is situated on the northern tip of

the peninsula separating the San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean and within the boundaries of the

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Basin). The climate of the Bay Area is Mediterranean in

character, with mild, rainy winter weather from November through March and warm, dry weather from

June through October. At the northern end of the peninsula in San Francisco, pollutant emissions are

high, especially from motor vehicle congestion. Localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, can build

up in "urban canyons." Winds are generally fast enough to carry the pollutants away before they can

accumulate. The frequent storms and infrequent periods of sustained sunny weather in the winter are not

conducive to ozone formation.

The average annual temperature in the area is in the mid 50s with mean high temperatures in the low 80s

during the summer and in the low 60s in the winter. Annual and daily temperatures in the region have

small oscillations due to the moderating effects of the nearby ocean. In contrast to the steady temperature

regime, rainfall is highly variable and confined almost exclusively to the “rainy” period from November

through April. The area receives approximately 30 inches of rainfall annually, of which about 95 percent

occurs during November to April. Precipitation may vary widely from year to year as a shift in the

annual storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the difference between a very wet year and drought

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

conditions. The usual wind pattern in the project area consists of daytime winds originating offshore

from the west and northwest as air is funneled through the Golden Gate, and nighttime winds

originating from the east and southeast due to the cooling of land areas. Summer afternoon sea breezes

can often exceed 20 miles per hour. Peak annual winds occur during winter storms. South and southeast

winds typically also precede weather systems passing through the region.

Regional Air Quality

The determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is made by comparing

contaminant levels in ambient air samples to national and state standards. Health-based air quality

standards have been established by California and the federal government for the following criteria air

pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable

particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in

diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). These standards were established to protect sensitive receptors with a

margin of safety from adverse health impacts due to exposure to air pollution. California has also

established standards for sulfates, visibility reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The

state and national ambient air quality standards for each of the monitored pollutants and their effects on

health are summarized in Table 4.2-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Table 4.2-1

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Air Pollutant

Concentration/Averaging Time

Most Relevant Health Effects

State Standard

(CAAQS)

Federal Primary

Standard (NAAQS)

Ozone 0.09 ppm, 1-hr. avg.

0.070 ppm, 8-hr avg.


(3-year average of

annual 4th-highest daily

maximum)

(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized

lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to

public health implied by alterations in pulmonary

morphology and host defense in animals; (c)

Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health

implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and

altered pulmonary morphology in animals after

long-term exposures and pulmonary function

decrements in chronically exposed humans;

(e) Vegetation damage; and (f) Property damage

Nitrogen Dioxide1 0.18 ppm, 1-hr avg.

0.030 ppm, annual

arithmetic mean


(3-year avg. of the 98th

percentile of the daily

maximum 1-hour avg.)

0.053 ppm, annual

arithmetic mean

(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease

and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b)

Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and

extrapulmonary biochemical and cellular changes

and pulmonary structural changes; and (c)

Contribution to atmospheric discoloration

Carbon Monoxide 20 ppm, 1-hr avg.

9.0 ppm, 8-hr avg.

35 ppm, 1-hr avg. (not to

be exceeded more than

once per year)

9 ppm, 8-hr avg. (not to

be exceeded more than

once per year)

(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects

of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise

tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease

and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous

system functions; and (d) Possible increased risk to

fetuses

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

Air Pollutant

Concentration/Averaging Time

Most Relevant Health Effects

State Standard

(CAAQS)

Federal Primary

Standard (NAAQS)

Sulfur Dioxide2 0.25 ppm, 1-hr. avg.


0.075 ppm, 1-hr avg. (3-

year avg. of the 99th

percentile)

Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms,

which may include wheezing, shortness of breath

and chest tightness, during exercise or physical

activity in persons with asthma

Respirable

Particulate Matter

(PM10)

50 µg/m3, 24-hr avg.

20 µg/m3, annual

arithmetic mean

150 µg/m3, 24-hr avg.

(not to be exceeded more

than once per year on

average over 3 years)

(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients

with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b)

Declines in pulmonary function growth in children;

and (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart

or lung diseases in the elderly

Fine Particulate

Matter (PM2.5)

12 µg/m3, annual

arithmetic mean

35 µg/m3, 24-hr avg. (3-

year average of 98th

percentile)

15 µg/m3, annual

arithmetic mean

(3-year average)

(a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients

with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b)

Declines in pulmonary function growth in children;

and (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart

or lung diseases in the elderly

Lead3 1.5 µg/m3, 30-day avg. 1.5 µg/m3, calendar

quarter

0.15 µg/m3, 3-month

rolling average

(a) Increased body burden; and (b) Impairment of

blood formation and nerve conduction

Visibility-

Reducing Particles

Reduction of visual

range to less than 10

miles at relative

humidity less than

70%, 8-hour avg.

(10 AM–6 PM)

None Visibility impairment on days when relative

humidity is less than 70%

Sulfates 25 µg/m3, 24-hr avg. None (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation

of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-

pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e)

Degradation of visibility; and (f) Property damage

Hydrogen Sulfide 0.03 ppm, 1-hr avg. None Odor annoyance

Vinyl Chloride3 0.01 ppm, 24-hr avg. None Known carcinogen

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2007 Air Quality

Management Plan, (2007) Table 3.1-1, p. 3.1-3.

µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter.

ppm = parts per million by volume.1 On January 25, 2010, the U.S. EPA promulgated a new 1-hour NO2 standard. The new 1-hour standard is 0.100 parts per million (188

micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) and became effective on April 12, 2010.2 On June 3, 2010, the U.S. EPA issued a new 1-hour SO2 standard. The new 1-hour standard is 0.075 parts per million (196 µg/m3). The

U.S. EPA also revoked the existing 24-hour and annual standards citing a lack of evidence of specific health impacts from long-term exposures.

The new 1-hour standard becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.3 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects

determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these

pollutants.

Air quality of a region is considered to be in attainment of the NAAQS if the measured ambient air

pollutant levels are not exceeded more than once per year, except for O3, PM10, PM2.5 and those based on

annual averages or arithmetic mean. The NAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

calculations over one- to three-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The SFBAAB is currently

designated as a marginal nonattainment area with respect to the national standard for 8-hour O3, and

nonattainment for 24-hour PM2.5; and is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all other pollutants.

Additional details regarding the attainment status are provided later in this section.

Air quality of a region is considered to be in attainment of the state standards if the measured ambient air

pollutant levels for O3, CO, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles are

not exceeded, and all other standards are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive

three-year period. The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state

standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 and is designated as attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.

Additional details regarding the attainment status are provided later in this section.

The project site is located within the SFBAAB, which includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,

San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties as well as the southern half of Sonoma County and

the southwestern portion of Solano County. The Basin is affected by the pollutants generated within

dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, and industry. However, as mentioned above, coastal

sea breezes tend to transport pollutants generated within the SFBAAB to inland locations such as the

Central Valley.

The air pollutants within the Basin are generated by two categories of sources: stationary and mobile.

Stationary sources are known as “point sources,” which have one or more emission sources at a single

facility, or “area sources,” which are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Point sources

are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial uses and include sources such as refinery

boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or process heat. Examples of area sources

include residential water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and

consumer products, such as barbecue lighter fluid or hair spray. “Mobile sources” refer to operational

and evaporative emissions from on- and off-road motor vehicles.

Local Air Quality

To identify ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD operates more than 30 air

quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin. The nearest monitoring station to the project site is

located at Arkansas Street in San Francisco, approximately 4 miles southeast of the project site.

Table 4.2-2, Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site, lists the

concentrations registered and the exceedances of California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)

and the NAAQS that have occurred at this monitoring station from 2007 through 2009, the most recent

years for which data is available. During this period (i.e., 2007 through 2009), the station registered

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

exceedances for the state 24-hour PM10 standard in 2007 and the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2007

and 2009. No other exceedances of the state or federal standards for O3, NO2, CO, SO2, or Pb were

registered at this station between 2007 and 2009.

Table 4.2-2

Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site

Pollutant Standards 1

Year

2007 2008 2009

OZONE (O3)

Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.060 0.082 0.072


Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.09 ppm 0 0 0


Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard 0.075 ppm 0 0 0

NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)


Annual average concentration (ppm) 0.016 0.016 0.015


CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)2




Number of days exceeding federal 8-hour standard 9 ppm 0 0 0

SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2)3

Maximum 1-hour concentration in ppm 0.016 0.021 N/A

Maximum 24-hour concentration in ppm 0.006 0.004 N/A

Number of days exceeding state 1-hour standard 0.25 ppm 0 0 N/A

Number of days exceeding state 24-hour standard 0.04 ppm 0 0 N/A

PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)

Maximum 24-hour concentration, state (µg/m3)4 69.8 41.3 36.0

Maximum 24-hour concentration, federal (µg/m3)5 65.7 41.2 35.3

Annual arithmetic mean concentration (µg/m3)4 21.8 21.9 18.6

Number of samples exceeding state 24-hour standard 50 µg/m3 2 0 0

Number of samples exceeding federal 24-hour standard 150 µg/m3 0 0 0

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

Pollutant Standards 1

Year

2007 2008 2009

PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)

Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3)5 45.2 29.4 35.5

Annual arithmetic mean concentration (µg/m3)6 8.7 9.8 9.7

Number of samples exceeding federal 24-hour standard 35 µg/m3 5 0 1

N/A = not available.

Source: California Air Resources Board, “iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. 2010.1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3) or annual arithmetic mean (aam).2 Carbon monoxide 1-hour monitoring data was obtained from the BAAQMD’s Bay Area Air Pollution Summary from 2007 through 2009

(http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx).3 Sulfur dioxide 1-hour monitoring data was obtained from the U.S. EPA’s AirData website (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html).4 Using state methods for sampling.5 Using federal methods for sampling.2 PM2.5 annual arithmetic mean data was obtained from the BAAQMD’s Bay Area Air Pollution Summary from 2007 through 2009

(http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx).

Surrounding Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project include residential neighborhoods and

hospitals. The nearest residences are approximately a half block west of the project site. The Mount Zion

hospital buildings are adjacent to the project site and the Kaiser Permanente hospital is located about two

blocks to the south. The nearest school is Benjamin Franklin Middle School and the nearest recreation

center is Hamilton Recreation Center, both located several blocks to the southeast of the project site.

Land uses such as schools and hospitals are considered relatively sensitive to poor air quality because

children and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air-quality-related health

problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to air pollution because

residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting

in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Recreational areas are also considered sensitive locations

due to vigorous exercise associated with these types of land uses (exercise causes an increased breathing

rate that will lead to greater exposure to ambient air pollutants).

Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations

Traffic congestion along roadways and at intersections has the potential to generate localized high levels

of CO. The BAAQMD monitoring stations have not recorded any exceedances of the state or federal CO

standards since 1991. However, because elevated CO concentrations are generally localized, heavy traffic

volumes and congestion at specific intersections or roadway segments can lead to high levels of CO, or

hotspots, while concentrations at the nearest air quality monitoring station may be below state and

federal standards.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011


Air quality within the SFBAAB is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional and

local government agencies. These agencies work jointly as well as individually to improve air quality

through legislation, regulations, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. With

respect to the proposed project, the BAAQMD would administer most of the air quality requirements

affecting the proposed project. The agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality within

the Basin are discussed below along with their individual responsibilities.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Criteria Pollutants

The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the NAAQS. The NAAQS

identify levels of air quality for seven criteria pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of

ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the

public health and welfare. The seven criteria pollutants are O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The

federal ambient air quality standards and the relevant health effects of the criteria pollutants are

summarized above in Table 4.2-1.

The Basin is currently classified by the U.S. EPA as a nonattainment/marginal area for the 8-hour

standard for O3 and a nonattainment area for PM2.5. Additionally, it has been designated as an

attainment/unclassifiable1 area for the 1-hour and 8-hour standards for CO and the annual standard for

NO2, and as an attainment area for the quarterly lead standard and 24-hour and annual SO2 standards.

The Basin is currently designated as unclassifiable for the 24-hour PM10 standard. In response to its

enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state to prepare and submit a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) describing how the state will achieve the federal standards by specified dates,

depending on the severity of the air quality within the state or air basin. The BAAQMD has been

delegated the responsibility for implementing many of the CAA requirements for the region, which

includes the project site. The status of the SFBAAB with respect to attainment with the NAAQS is

summarized in Table 4.2-3, National Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations – San Francisco Bay

Area Air Basin (San Francisco City and County).

1 Unclassifiable in terms of attainment status indicates that there is insufficient data available to support a

designation of either attainment or nonattainment.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

Table 4.2-3

National Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (San Francisco City and County)

Pollutant Designation/Classification

Ozone (O3) Nonattainment/Marginal

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment/Maintenance

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment/Unclassifiable

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment/Unclassifiable

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment/Unclassifiable

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment

Lead (Pb) Attainment

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Region 9: Air Programs, Air Quality Maps,” http://www.epa.gov/region9/

air/maps/index.html. 2010.1 The U.S. EPA has promulgated a new 1-hour NAAQS for NO2. The new 1-hour standard is 0.100 parts per million (188 micrograms per

cubic meter) and became effective on April 12, 2010. The U.S. EPA will make nonattainment area designations for the 1-hour standard by

2012.

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Regulation of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under federal regulations is achieved through federal and

state controls on individual sources. Federal law defines HAPs as non-criteria air pollutants with

short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. The

1990 federal CAA Amendments offer a comprehensive plan for achieving significant reductions in both

mobile and stationary source emissions of HAPs. Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, a total of

189 chemicals or chemical families were designated HAPs because of their adverse human health effects.

Title III of the 1990 federal CAA Amendments amended Section 112 of the CAA to replace the former

program with an entirely new technology-based program. Under Title III, the U.S. EPA must establish

maximum achievable control technology emission standards for all new and existing “major” stationary

sources through promulgation of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

Major stationary sources of HAPs are required to obtain an operating permit from the BAAQMD

pursuant to Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments. A major source is defined as one that emits at least

10 tons per year of any HAP or at least 25 tons per year of all HAPs.

California Air Resources Board

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency

(CalEPA), oversees air quality planning and control throughout California. It is primarily responsible for

ensuring implementation of the 1988 California Clean Air Act (CCAA), for responding to the federal

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

CAA requirements and for regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products within the

state. The CCAA and other California air quality statutes designate local air districts, such as the

BAAQMD, with the responsibility for regulating most stationary sources, and to a certain extent, area

sources.

Like the U.S. EPA, CARB has established ambient air quality standards for the state (i.e., CAAQS). These

standards apply to the same seven criteria pollutants as the federal CAA and also address sulfates (SO4),

visibility-reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). The CCAA standards

are more stringent than the federal standards and, in the case of PM10 and SO2, far more stringent. Based

on monitored pollutant levels, the CCAA divides O3 nonattainment areas into four categories – moderate,

serious, severe, and extreme – to which progressively more stringent planning and emission control

requirements apply.

The Basin is a nonattainment area for the California 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard. The Basin is

designated as nonattainment for the California 24-hour and annual PM10 standards, as well as the

California annual PM2.5 standard. The Basin is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all other

CAAQS. The ozone precursors, ROG and NOX, in addition to PM10, are the pollutants of concern for

projects located in the Basin. The status of the Basin with respect to attainment with the CAAQS is

summarized in Table 4.2-4, California Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations – San Francisco Bay

Area Air Basin.

Table 4.2-4

California Ambient Air Quality Standard Designations

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

Pollutant Designation/Classification

Ozone (O3) Nonattainment1

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment

Lead (Pb) Attainment

Sulfates (SO4) Attainment

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Unclassified

Vinyl Chloride Unclassified

Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified

Source: California Air Resources Board, “Area Designations Maps/State and National,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 2010.1 CARB has not issued area classifications based on the new state 8-hour standard. The previous classification for the 1-hour ozone standard

was Serious.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

Toxic Air Contaminants

California law defines Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) as air pollutants having carcinogenic or other

health effects. A total of 245 substances have been designated TACs under California law; they include

the federal HAPs adopted as TACs in accordance with Assembly Bill 2728. The Air Toxics Hot Spots

Information and Assessment Act of 1987, Assembly Bill 2588 (AB 2588), seeks to identify and evaluate

risk from air toxics sources; AB 2588 does not regulate air toxics emissions directly. Under AB 2588,

sources emitting more than 10 tons per year of any criteria air pollutant must estimate and report their

toxic air emissions to the local air districts. Local air districts then prioritize facilities on the basis of

emissions, and high priority facilities are required to submit a health risk assessment and communicate

the results to the affected public. Depending on risk levels, emitting facilities are required to implement

varying levels of risk reduction measures. The BAAQMD is responsible for implementing AB 2588 in the

Basin.

The BAAQMD is currently working to control TAC impacts from local hot spots and from ambient

background concentrations. The control strategy involves reviewing new sources to ensure compliance

with required emission controls and limits, maintaining an inventory of existing sources to identify major

TAC emissions and developing measures to reduce TAC emissions. The BAAQMD publishes the results

of the various control programs in an annual report, which provides information on the current TAC

inventory, AB 2588 risk assessments, TAC monitoring programs, and TAC control measures and plans.

One of the TACs being controlled by the BAAQMD is particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines, also

known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Compared to other TACs, DPM emissions are estimated to be

responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient air toxics risk in the Basin. On a statewide basis, the

average potential cancer risk associated with these emissions is over 500 potential cancer cases per million

exposed people. In addition to these general risks, diesel exhaust particulate can also present elevated

localized or near-source exposures. Depending on the activity and nearness to receptors, these potential

risks can range from a low number to 1,500 cancer cases per million exposed people (CARB 2010).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Management of air quality in the Basin is the responsibility of the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is

responsible for bringing and/or maintaining air quality in the Basin within federal and state air quality

standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has responsibility for monitoring ambient air pollutant levels

throughout the Basin and developing and implementing attainment strategies to ensure that future

emissions will be within federal and state standards. The following plans have been developed by the

BAAQMD to achieve attainment of the federal and state ozone standards. The Clean Air Plan (CAP) and

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

Ozone Strategy fulfill the planning requirements of the CCAA, while the Ozone Attainment Plan fulfills

the federal CAA requirements.

Clean Air Plans

The CCAA requires air districts within nonattainment areas to prepare a triennial assessments and

revisions to their Clean Air Plans (CAPs). The BAAQMD has prepared a series of CAPs, the most recent

and rigorous of which was drafted in March 2010 (BAAQMD 2010a). The 2010 Draft CAP continues the

air pollution reduction strategy established by the 1991 CAP and represents the fourth triennial update to

the 1991 CAP, following previous updates of 1994, 1997, and 2000. The 2010 CAP is designed to address

attainment of the state standard for ozone, particulate matter, air toxics and greenhouse gases. CAPs are

intended to focus on the near-term actions through amendments of existing regulations and

promulgation of new District regulations.

The Bay Area 2010 CAP provides a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect

public health. The 2010 CAP defines a control strategy that the District and its partners will implement to:

(1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutant; (2) safeguard public

health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that poses the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on

protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce greenhouse gas

emissions to protect the climate. The 2010 CAP is designed to update the most recent ozone plan, the

BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy, to comply with state air quality planning requirements as codified in the

California Health and Safety Code. State law required the CAP to include all feasible measures to reduce

emissions of ozone precursors and to reduce transport of ozone precursors to neighboring air basins.

The SFBAAB was recently designated as non-attainment for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and will

be required to prepare a PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to federal air quality guidelines

by December 2012. The 2010 CAP is not a SIP document and does not respond to federal requirements for

PM2.5 or ozone planning. However, in anticipation of future PM2.5 planning requirements, the CAP

control strategy also aims to reduce PM emissions and concentrations. In addition, U.S. EPA is currently

reevaluating national ozone standards, and is likely to tighten those standards in the near future. The

2010 CAP updates the BAAQMD’s most recent state ozone plan, the 2005 Ozone Strategy, by addressing

new emerging challenges and opportunities. The 2010 CAP control strategy includes revised, updated,

and new measures in the three traditional control measure categories: Stationary Source Measures,

Mobile Source Measures, and Transportation Control Measures. In addition, the CAP identifies two new

categories of control measures: Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures

(BAAQMD 2010a). The control measures in the CAP will also help in the Basin’s continuing effort to

attain national ozone standards.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

2001 Ozone Attainment Plan

The BAAQMD developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan as a guideline to achieve the then federal

1-hour ozone standard (BAAQMD 2001). The 2001 Attainment Plan was approved by CARB in 2001 and

by the U.S. EPA in 2003. In April 2004, the U.S. EPA determined the SFBAAB had attained the federal

1-hour ozone standard. Due to the attainment status of the Basin, the 1-hour ozone requirements set forth

in the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan were not required anymore. A year later, in 2005, the federal 1-hour

ozone standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA for a new and more health-protective 8-hour standard. The

Basin was designated as marginal nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. Although

designated as nonattainment, areas designated as marginal nonattainment or less were not required to

submit new attainment plans. Nonetheless, the control measures and strategies described in the

2001 Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-hour standard will also help achieve attainment with the 8-hour

standard.

BAAQMD Rules and Regulations

Specific rules and regulations have been adopted by the BAAQMD that limit emissions that can be

generated by various uses and/or activities. These rules regulate not only the emissions of the state and

federal criteria pollutants, but also the emissions of TACs. The rules are also subject to ongoing

refinement by the BAAQMD.

In general, all stationary sources with air emissions are subject to BAAQMD’s rules governing their

operational emissions. Some emissions sources are further subject to regulation through the BAAQMD’s

permitting process. Through this permitting process, the BAAQMD also monitors the amount of

stationary emissions being generated and uses this information in developing the CAP. The proposed

project does not include any stationary sources such as emergency generators or boilers that would be

required to obtain a permit for operation. The only rules applicable to the project include the following:

Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings): This rule sets limits on the ROG content in

architectural coatings sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured within the BAAQMD’s

jurisdiction. The rule also includes time schedules that specify when more stringent ROG standards

are to be enforced. The rule applies during the construction phase of a project. In addition, any

periodic architectural coating maintenance operations are required to comply with this rule.

Regulation 8, Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts): This rule sets limits on the ROG content in

emulsified and liquid asphalt used for maintenance and paving operations. The rule includes specific

ROG content requirements for various types of asphalt (e.g., emulsified asphalt, rapid-cure liquid

asphalt, slow-cure liquid asphalt). This rule applies during the construction phase of a project. In

addition, any future asphalt maintenance of a project’s roads would be required to comply with the

ROG standards set in Rule 15.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines

In April 1996, the BAAQMD prepared its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as a guidance document to provide

lead government agencies, consultants and project proponents with uniform procedures for assessing air

quality impacts and preparing the air quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to

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

describe the criteria that the BAAQMD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of

environmental documents, such as this EIR. The updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines

recommend thresholds for use in determining whether projects would have significant adverse

environmental impacts, identify methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identify

measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. This EIR section was prepared

following these recommendations.



For the purposes of this EIR, air quality impacts would be considered significant if they would exceed the

following standards of significance, which are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, and the UC CEQA Handbook. According to these guidelines, a

project would normally have a significant impact on air quality if it would:

Conflict or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality

violation;

Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project

region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including

releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations;

Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people;

Exceed the probability of 10 in 1 million of a maximally exposed individual contracting cancer due to

emissions of toxic air contaminants; or

Have ground level concentrations of non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that would result in a

hazard index greater than 1.0 for the maximally exposed individual.

The UC CEQA Handbook states that, where applicable, the significance criteria established by the

applicable air district may be used to make these determinations. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

Guidelines recommend analytical methodologies and provide thresholds for determining the level of

significance of project impacts under the above-listed general criteria. The thresholds from the BAAQMD

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are presented below.

Construction Emissions

Impacts related to construction emissions associated with the proposed project would be considered

significant if the project emissions exceeded the thresholds listed in Table 4.2-5, BAAQMD Construction

Emission Thresholds.

Table 4.2-5

BAAQMD Construction Emission Thresholds

Criteria Air Pollutants

Average Daily Emissions

(Pounds per Day)

ROG 54

NOX 54

PM10 (Exhaust) 82

PM2.5 (Exhaust) 54

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010b.

Operational Emissions

Impacts from direct and/or indirect operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be

considered significant if they exceeded the thresholds in Table 4.2-6, BAAQMD Operational Emission

Thresholds.

Table 4.2-6

BAAQMD Operational Emission Thresholds

Criteria Air Pollutants

Average Daily Emissions

(Pounds per Day)

ROG 54

NOX 54

PM10 (Exhaust) 82

PM2.5 (Exhaust) 54

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010b.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

Direct emissions are those that are emitted on a site and include stationary sources and on-site mobile

equipment, if applicable. Examples of land uses and activities that generate direct emissions are

industrial operations and sources subject to an operating permit by the BAAQMD. Indirect emissions

come from mobile sources that access the project site, but generally are emitted off site. For many types of

land development projects, the principal source of air pollutant emissions is the motor vehicle trips

generated by the project.

Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts

Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these

pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The proposed project would result in a

significant impact if its emissions of TACs or PM2.5 resulted in any of the following:

Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or,

An incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 10 in 1 million, or an increase in non-cancer risk

(i.e., chronic or acute) as measured by a hazard index greater than 1.0; and

An incremental increase in ambient PM2.5 of more than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)

annual average.

Cumulative Impacts

A project would have a significant cumulative impact if the aggregate total of TAC or PM2.5 emissions

from all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a

source, or from the location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, result the following:

Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or,

An incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 100 in 1 million or an increase in chronic

non-cancer risk (from all local sources) as measured by a hazard index greater than 10.0; and

An incremental increase in ambient PM2.5 of more than 0.8 µg/m3 annual average.

Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations

Indirect CO emissions are considered significant if they will contribute to a violation of the state

standards for CO (9.0 ppm averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm over 1 hour). The BAAQMD recommends

CO modeling for projects in which: (1) project vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 550 pounds per day;

(2) project traffic would affect intersections or roadway segments operating at level of service (LOS) E or

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

F, or would cause a decline to LOS E or F;2 or (3) project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby

roadways by 10 percent or more (unless the increase in traffic volume is less than 100 vehicles per hour).

Intersections are determined to operate at an LOS between A and F (LOS A being the best and LOS F

being the worst) according to congestion or delay time, demand/capacity ratio, and relative flow of traffic

at the intersection. Intersections that are determined to operate at LOS F or E have the potential to cause a

CO hotspot (i.e., exceedance of the CAAQS). If necessary, a simplified CO modeling analysis, described in

the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, may be used to determine localized CO concentrations. If

modeling demonstrates that the source would not cause a violation of the state standard at existing or

reasonably foreseeable receptors, the motor vehicle trips generated by the project would not have a

significant impact on local air quality.


The Initial Study prepared for the project noted that while odors would be generated during project

construction, these odors would be short term and temporary and would not be pervasive enough to

affect a substantial number of people or to be objectionable. Concerning operation, the Initial Study noted

that odors are not typically associated with vehicular traffic that would utilize the proposed parking

structure. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not cause or be affected

by odors, and the impact would be less than significant. This issue is not discussed further in the analysis

below.

Impact Assessment Methodology

Air quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project fall into two categories:

short-term impacts due to construction activities and long-term impacts from the day-to-day operations

of the proposed project. Construction activities would impact air quality on a local level due to fugitive

dust PM10 and other criteria pollutant emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment

exhaust. The URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software, and information provided in the

Software User’s Guide [for] URBEMIS2007 for Windows was used to quantify construction emissions

resulting from the development of the proposed project (Rimpo and Associates 2008). The URBEMIS2007

model utilizes the EMPAC2007 emissions factor model for on-road motor vehicle sources and the

OFFROAD2007 emissions factor model for off-road equipment.

Following construction of the proposed project, operational criteria pollutant emissions would be

generated primarily by project-related motor vehicle trips. The project would not include any substantial

2 Levels of Service (LOS) range from A (least congested) with a condition of free flow with low volumes and high

speeds to F (most congested) with stop and go, low-speed conditions with little or poor maneuverability.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

area sources of emissions. Nonetheless, as a conservative measure, the URBEMIS2007 model was used to

quantify area source emissions based on the emission factors for a warehouse land-use type. The model

does not include a parking structure as a land-use type and the warehouse land-use type is typically used

as a surrogate. The emission calculations and daily emissions are described in further detail below.

Mitigation Measures Included in the Proposed Project


1996 LRDP EIR and is thus included as part of the proposed project (UCSF 1997). The analysis presented



LRDP EIR MM 4D-1 UCSF would require in all construction contracts that the contractors reduce

major criteria air pollutant emissions by complying with the air pollution control

strategies developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD). UCSF would include appropriate dust control requirements in all

construction and demolition contracts.


Impact AQ-1: Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term emissions of

fugitive dust and criteria air pollutants that could adversely affect local air

quality in the vicinity of the construction site and could exceed the BAAQMD

construction significance thresholds. (Less than Significant)

Mass-Based Thresholds

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in spring 2011 and continue for

approximately 12 months. Construction activities would include grading/excavation, trenching, building

construction, and architectural coating. Site-specific or project-specific data were used in the

URBEMIS2007 model where available. UCSF provided a preliminary schedule for construction and

grading amounts. Grading would include the export of 7,700 cubic yards of material. The default

construction equipment and vehicle mixes generated by URBEMIS2007 were assumed for grading and

building construction. The number of vendor trips (e.g., transport of building materials) and worker trips

were based on default values in the URBEMIS2007 model. For all proposed projects, BAAQMD

recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BAAQMD 2010), whether

or not construction-related emissions exceed the construction thresholds of significance. Furthermore,

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4D-1 is part of the proposed project and would be implemented during

construction. Therefore, these mitigation measures were applied to the URBEMIS2007 model calculations.

Table 4.2-7, Estimated Construction Emissions, identifies the maximum daily emissions for each

pollutant during each phase of project construction. Construction emissions include all emissions

associated with the construction equipment, grading and trenching activities, worker trips, and on-road

diesel trucks.

Table 4.2-7

Estimated Construction Emissions

Emissions in Pounds per Day

Construction Year ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 exhaust PM2.5 exhaust

2011 Maximum Daily Emissions 33.44 43.25 32.50 0.01 2.52 2.31

2012 Maximum Daily Emissions 29.63 14.53 11.30 0.00 1.25 1.15

BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 — — 82 54

Exceeds Threshold? NO NO — — NO NO

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed URBEMIS2007 emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.

Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.

As shown in Table 4.2-7, construction emissions would not exceed any BAAQMD thresholds of

significance; therefore, construction of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on air

quality. To ensure that the emissions remain below the thresholds, mitigation measures recommended by

the BAAQMD are included below and would be implemented during project construction.

Concentration-Based Thresholds

The BAAQMD has established a concentration-based threshold for exhaust emissions of PM2.5 during

construction. As shown above in Table 4.2-7, emissions of PM2.5 are well below the threshold. In view of

these very low emissions, the resulting PM2.5 concentrations would likely be well below the BAAQMD

significance thresholds, as well as the chronic health hazard index threshold. Additionally, because

construction would last for about one year, the resulting incremental increase in Lifetime Excess Cancer

Risk (LECR) would also be well below the BAAQMD significance threshold.

A dispersion modeling analysis was performed to confirm that the DPM emissions from construction

would not result in a significant health impact to the community. The modeling analysis accounted for

DPM emissions from heavy-duty off-road construction equipment and on-road haul trucks and delivery

trucks. The emissions from heavy-duty off-road equipment were modeled as volume sources located at

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

the construction site while the on-road trucks were modeled as line sources along the route that these

trucks would likely take to delivery material to and from the site. Consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA

Guidelines, only exhaust PM2.5 emissions were considered in the analysis and the on-road trucks were

modeled out to 1,000 feet from the project site. The results of the dispersion model are presented in Table

4.2-8, Estimated Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations. As shown in Table 4.2-8, construction of

the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the potential adverse

effects to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) from DPM during construction would be less than

significant. A detailed discussion of the dispersion modeling analysis is provided in Appendix 4.2.

Table 4.2-8

Estimated Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations

Receptor

Modeled PM2.5 Concentration

Annual Average

(micrograms/cubic meter)

Significance Threshold

Annual Average


Exceeds

Threshold?

Residential 0.06 0.3 No

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2.

On August 27, 1998, the CARB designated DPM emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC because

some of the exhaust constituents that make up DPM, such as arsenic, benzene, and nickel, are known to

cause cancer in humans. Exposure to DPM also can cause chronic non-cancer health effects, including

respiratory symptoms, changes in lung function, and cardiovascular disease. As noted above, the

BAAQMD thresholds state that an incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 10 in 1 million, or an

increase in non-cancer risk (i.e., chronic or acute) as measured by a hazard index greater than 1.0 would

be considered a significant impact. These thresholds are assessed using the methodologies described in

the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance

Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA Guidance 2003). For evaluating cancer risk, the

OEHHA Guidance recommends that a 70-year exposure duration be used for determining lifetime

residential cancer risks (7 days per week, 50 weeks per year). This ensures that a person residing in the

vicinity of a facility for a lifetime will be included in the evaluation of risk posed by that facility. For

evaluating non-cancer effects sensitive receptors should be evaluating based on the exposure pathways

(inhalation, ingestion, and/or dermal [skin absorption]) as well as the duration of exposure (short-term or

long-term). OEHHA has not identified acute (short-term) non-cancer health impact factors for DPM.

However, OEHHA has identified chronic (long-term) non-cancer health impact factors for DPM via the

inhalation pathway only. OEHHA has not identified non-cancer health impact factors for DPM from

exposure via the ingestion or dermal pathways. Therefore, the non-carcinogenic effects of DPM are

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

evaluated for chronic impacts via inhalation. Chronic non-cancer inhalation impacts are evaluated over

an annual exposure period.

The results of the modeling analysis for cancer risk are presented in Table 4.2-9, Estimated Construction

Cancer Risks. The results of the modeling analysis for chronic non-cancer impacts are presented in Table

4.2-10, Estimated Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts. As shown in Table 4.2-9 and Table

4.2-10, construction of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the

potential adverse health effects to sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) from DPM during construction

would be less than significant. A detailed discussion of the dispersion modeling analysis and health risk

calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.

Table 4.2-9

Estimated Construction Cancer Risks

Receptor

Modeled DPM Concentration

70-Year Lifetime Average


Cancer Risk

(in 1 million)

Significance

Threshold

Exceeds

Threshold?

Residential 0.06 2.7 10 in 1 million No


Table 4.2-10

Estimated Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts

Receptor


Annual Average


Maximum

Chronic Hazard

Index

Significance

Threshold

Exceeds

Threshold?

Residential 0.06 0.013 1.0 No


Mitigation Measures:

MM AQ-1 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and

unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

MM AQ-2 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

MM AQ-3 All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet

power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is

prohibited.

MM AQ-4 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

MM AQ-5 All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as

possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or

soil binders are used.

MM AQ-6 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or

reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne

toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

MM AQ-7 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with

manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic

and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

MM AQ-8 Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead

Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action

within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure

compliance with applicable regulations.

Impact AQ-2: The proposed project would generate long-term operational emissions of

criteria pollutants from increases in traffic that could adversely affect air

quality. (Less than Significant)


Operational emissions associated with the proposed project would result from increased vehicular trips

to and from the facility (i.e., mobile sources). The mobile source emissions associated with the proposed

project were estimated using URBEMIS2007, a land use and emissions estimation model. URBEMIS2007

estimates vehicle emissions based on the amount of development and trip generation rate of the

development. Parking structures do not generate vehicle trips; rather vehicles trips are generated by the

land uses that the parking structure serves. The proposed project would serve vehicle trips associated

with the Osher Building. According to the traffic study, about 239 vehicles per day associated with the

Osher Building would park in the proposed garage instead of on the streets near the center. In addition, it

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

is estimated that there could be approximately 39 vehicles per day that would travel to the project site

because parking would be available (this is described in the Traffic section as induced demand).

Conservatively, trips associated with these 278 vehicles (239 vehicles plus 39 vehicles) are considered new

trips and these 556 daily one-way trips (278 x 2) are analyzed for the criteria pollutant emissions they

would produce.

The URBEMIS2007 model incorporates trip distances and emission factors specific to counties, air basins,

and air district jurisdictions. For the proposed project, parameters specific to the City and County of San

Francisco were used to estimate mobile and area source emissions. Table 4.2-11, Estimated Operational

Emissions, identifies the maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during project operation.

Table 4.2-11

Estimated Operational Emissions

Emissions in Pounds per Day

Emissions Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Summertime Emissions1

Area Sources 0.91 0.85 3.77 0.00 0.01 0.01

Operational (Mobile) Sources 3.85 3.87 38.88 0.04 7.07 1.34

Summertime Emission Totals 4.76 4.72 42.65 0.04 7.08 1.35



Wintertime Emissions2

Area Sources 0.66 0.81 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00

Operational (Mobile) Sources 3.63 5.75 42.24 0.03 7.07 1.34

Wintertime Emission Totals 4.29 6.56 42.92 0.03 7.07 1.34



Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed URBEMIS2007 and stationary source emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.

Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.1 “Summertime Emissions” are representative of the conditions that may occur during the ozone season (May 1 to October 31).2 “Wintertime Emissions” are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30).

As shown in Table 4.2-11, emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project would not

exceed any of the operational thresholds of significance. Projects that generate emissions below the

regional thresholds of significance would not be considered to contribute a substantial amount of air

pollutants. Therefore, operational emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact,

and the project would not contribute substantially to the existing ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment

status for the Basin.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011


The BAAQMD has established a concentration-based threshold for exhaust emissions of PM2.5 during

project operation. However, the proposed project has no significant sources of PM2.5 during operation

other than increased vehicle traffic. The most significant source of PM2.5 from vehicle traffic is

diesel-fueled vehicles, especially heavy trucks. The traffic associated with the proposed project would not

include significant numbers of heavy trucks during operation as trips would be made almost entirely by

gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles with relatively small emissions of PM2.5. Operational emissions of

PM2.5 are far below significance thresholds even when conservatively modeled; therefore, the resulting

incremental increase in PM2.5 concentrations would be below the BAAQMD significance threshold and no

significant impacts are expected.


Impact AQ-3: The proposed project would increase carbon monoxide concentrations at busy

intersections and along congested roadways in the project vicinity that could

expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations. (Less than

Significant)

Emissions and ambient concentrations of CO decreased dramatically in the SFBAAB with the

introduction of the catalytic converter in 1975. No exceedances of CAAQS or NAAQS for CO have been

recorded at nearby monitoring stations since 1991. SFBAAB is currently designated as an attainment area

for the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO; however, localized CO concentrations can exceed CAAQS or

NAAQS. CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and is usually concentrated at or

near ground level under cool, stable (i.e., low or no wind) atmospheric conditions because it does not

readily disperse into the atmosphere. As a result, potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors are

assessed through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Congested intersections, roadways, and

parking structures where high ambient concentrations of CO accumulate are termed CO “hotspots.”

These hotspots have the potential to exceed the state ambient air quality of 1-hour CO standard of

20 ppm or the 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm. Note that the federal levels are based on 1- and 8-hour

standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition would occur based on the state

standards prior to exceedance of the federal standard. As such, exceedance of the state ambient air

quality 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm would constitute a significant air

quality impact.

The proposed project was evaluated to determine if it would cause a CO hotspot using the BAAQMD’s

preliminary screening procedure, which provides a conservative indication of whether the proposed

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

project would result in CO concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of the

thresholds of significance. This methodology states that the proposed project would result in a less than

significant impact related to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:

The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the

county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation

plan, and local congestion management agency plans;

The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than

44,000 vehicles per hour; and

The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than

24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel,

parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable congestion management programs

established by the County congestion management agency. The proposed parking structure would

include secure bicycle parking, parking fees, electric vehicle charging stations, and a Transportation

Demand Management Center that will provide information on alternative transportation and sell transit

passes. Moreover, the traffic report prepared for the proposed project did not find any intersections

where the project would increase traffic volumes to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or where the

project trips would increase volumes to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or

horizontal mixing is substantially limited (Adavant Consulting 2010). According to the traffic report, the

project would increase peak traffic volumes to 464 vehicles per hour along Sutter Street during the

afternoon peak hour, which is substantially less than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The peak number of

vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure is 548 vehicles per day; therefore, the project would

not result in traffic inside the garage that exceeds 24,000 vehicles per hour. As a result, the proposed

project would have a less than significant impact on air quality with respect to CO hotspots.


Impact AQ-4: The proposed project could expose the maximally exposed individual to an

increased cancer risk exceeding 10 in 1 million. (Less than Significant)

Sensitive receptors are located in the vicinity of the proposed project including residential and hospital

land uses. Typical sources of TACs and PM2.5 include stationary sources such as diesel engines,

emergency generators, gasoline filling stations, dry cleaners and spray booths. Mobile sources, especially

diesel-fueled vehicles such as trains or heavy-duty trucks, are also a source of TACs and PM2.5. The

proposed project has no stationary sources of TACs or PM2.5. Operation of the proposed parking structure

would result in 548 daily trips, according to the project traffic study (Adavant Consulting 2010). The

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

majority of these trips are already existing trips to nearby land-uses that the proposed parking structure

would serve; therefore, this analysis is conservative and likely double counts a portion of the motor

vehicle emissions that are already occurring without the project. Additionally, the majority of these trips

would be made by gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles with relatively small emissions of PM2.5.

Consequently, it is expected that the project would not result in an incremental increase in LECR that

exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than

significant.


Impact AQ-5: The proposed project would generate ground level concentrations of

noncarcinogenic toxic air contaminants that could result in a Hazard Index

greater than 1.0 for the maximally exposed individual. (Less than Significant)

The noncarcinogenic risk analysis follows similar reasoning as presented above for cancer risk. The

proposed project has no significant stationary or mobile sources of hazardous air pollutants.

Consequently, the project would not result in a health hazard index that exceeds the BAAQMD

significance threshold. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant.


Impact AQ-6: Development of the proposed project could result in a cumulatively

considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region

is nonattainment under the federal and state ambient air quality standard.


The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and

particulate matter standards. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s

adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result

in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines

states that a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air

quality impacts. According to the BAAQMD, if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds for

any criteria pollutant for which the air basin is in nonattainment, its emissions would be cumulatively

considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality

conditions. Because as shown in the analysis above, the proposed project would not exceed any of

BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively

considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under the

federal and state ambient air quality standards. The impact would be less than significant.

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011



As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, one other

project is proposed in the vicinity of the proposed UCSF Mount Zion Garage project, that when combined

with the proposed garage project, could potentially result in cumulative impacts. The proposed

mixed-use project would be located at 2655 Bush Street adjacent to the project site to the north. The

2655 Bush Street project consists of a 108,000 square foot mixed use building with 4,500 square feet of

ground-level retail space and 83 dwelling units.

Cumulative Impact AQ-1: Cumulative development could result in a significant cumulative

impact related to criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions

from project operations. (Less than Significant)

According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, project emissions that do not exceed the BAAQMD

emission thresholds would not have a significant cumulative impact. This is because the mass-based

significance thresholds published by the BAAQMD include impacts from projected growth in the

SFBAAB. As shown in Table 4.2-11, the proposed project’s operational emissions of criteria pollutants

would not exceed the operations-related emission thresholds. As a result, the project’s criteria pollutant

emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.

The proposed project does not include any significant sources of PM2.5 or other TACs such as boilers and

generators, other than slightly increased vehicle traffic. The majority of the vehicle trips in the local area

would be made by gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles with relatively small emissions of PM2.5.

Operational emissions of PM2.5 are far below significance thresholds even when conservatively modeled;

therefore, the resulting incremental increase in PM2.5 concentrations, LECR, and health hazard index

would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, project operations would not

contribute to a cumulative impact associated with TACs.


4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

Cumulative Impact AQ-2: Cumulative development could result in a significant cumulative

impact related to toxic air contaminant emissions during project

construction. (Less than Significant)


According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, project construction emissions that do not exceed the

BAAQMD emission thresholds would not have a significant cumulative impact. This is because the

mass-based significance thresholds published by the BAAQMD include impacts from projected growth in

the SFBAAB. As shown in Table 4.2-7 and Table 4.2-8, the proposed project’s construction emissions

would not exceed the construction-related emission thresholds. As a result, the project’s construction

emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts.


According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, cumulative health impacts would be considered

significant if TAC emissions from the project’s construction activities and other sources within 1,000 feet

of the project site would result in an increase in cancer risk of 100 in a million or an annual PM2.5

concentration of 0.8 ug/m3. Immediately adjacent to the proposed project is a mixed-use development at

2655 Bush Street that has been approved for construction. Construction of that project could potentially

coincide with construction of the proposed project. Construction of the 2655 Bush Street project would

take place over a period of 20 months, and would incorporate air quality and dust control measures as

required by the BAAQMD. The 2655 Bush Street development would have less than significant air quality

impacts during construction, according to CEQA findings adopted in April 2009. No other sources of

construction TACs are within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Similar to the project-level construction analysis, a dispersion modeling analysis was performed for the

cumulative scenario. The modeling analysis accounted for DPM emissions from heavy-duty off-road

construction equipment and on-road haul trucks and delivery trucks from construction of both projects.

The emissions from heavy-duty off-road equipment were modeled as volume sources located at the

respective construction sites while the on-road trucks were modeled as line sources along the route that

these trucks would likely take to delivery material to and from the two project sites. Consistent with the

BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, only exhaust PM2.5 emissions were considered in the analysis and the

on-road trucks were modeled out to 1,000 feet from the proposed project site. The results of the

dispersion model are presented in Table 4.2-12, Estimated Cumulative Construction Exhaust PM2.5

Concentrations. As shown in Table 4.2-12, construction of both projects would not exceed the BAAQMD

significance thresholds. Therefore, the potential cumulative adverse effects to sensitive receptors (e.g.,

4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011

residences) from DPM during construction would be less than significant. A detailed discussion of the

dispersion modeling analysis is provided in Appendix 4.2.

Table 4.2-12

Estimated Cumulative Construction Exhaust PM2.5 Concentrations

Receptor

Modeled PM2.5 Concentration

Annual Average


Significance Threshold

Annual Average


Exceeds

Threshold?

Residential 0.18 0.8 No


The results of the modeling analysis for cancer risk are presented in Table 4.2-13, Estimated Cumulative

Construction Cancer Risks. The results of the modeling analysis for chronic non-cancer impacts are

presented in Table 4.2-14, Estimated Cumulative Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts. As

shown in Table 4.2-13 and Table 4.2-14, construction of both projects would not exceed the BAAQMD

significance thresholds. Therefore, the potential cumulative adverse health effects to sensitive receptors

(e.g., residences) from DPM during construction would be less than significant. A detailed discussion of

the dispersion modeling analysis and health risk calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.

Table 4.2-13

Estimated Cumulative Construction Cancer Risks

Receptor


70-Year Lifetime Average


Cancer Risk

(in 1 million)

Significance

Threshold

Exceeds

Threshold?

Residential 0.18 7.3 100 in 1 million No


Table 4.2-14

Estimated Cumulative Construction Chronic Non-Cancer Health Impacts

Receptor


Annual Average


Maximum

Chronic Hazard

Index

Significance

Threshold

Exceeds

Threshold?

Residential 0.18 0.036 10.0 No


4.2 Air Quality


1063.001 January 2011


4.2.6 REFERENCES

Adavant Consulting. 2010. 2420 Sutter Street Garage Transportation Study. December.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1997. 1997 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment. December.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2000. 2000 Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment. December.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2001. Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for

the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard. October.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. January.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a. Draft Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. March.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b. “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.”

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-

CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.

California Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2010.

“Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values.”

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm.


2005.1106E.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. 2003. Guidance

Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. August.

Rimpo and Associates. 2008. “URBEMIS2007 for Windows.” http://www.urbemis.com.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

(AP 42), Fifth Edition.” http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010a. “Class I Ozone Depleting Substances.”

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classone.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. The Accelerated Phase-Out of Class 1 Ozone-

Depleting Substances. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/accfact.html.

University of California, Office of the President. 2001. University of California CEQA Handbook. July.




1063.001 January 2011

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 INTRODUCTION

This section evaluates the potential impacts to cultural resources from the development of the proposed

Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project). Information and analysis presented in this section is based

on archival research conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS)

Northwest Information Center for the project site.


Cultural Background

The prehistoric (2500 BC to 1500 AD) occupation and use of the San Francisco Bay Area are not well

known. The rapid development of the Bay Area during the California Gold Rush likely contributed to the

destruction of many archaeological sites that may have existed or rendered those sites inaccessible due to

surface cover. However, on the basis of archaeological data from Bay Area sites that have survived to the

present and from ethnographic sources, archaeologists know that prehistoric life-ways in the Bay Area

involved subsistence hunting and gathering. Seasonally, parties went out from villages to temporary

camps within their territory to hunt and gather mussels, shellfish, salmon, seals, land mammals, and

plant foods, typically acorns. The Costanoan California Indians occupied the Bay Area at the time of

initial European contact. The term Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word “costanos” meaning coast

people. The territory of the Costanoans extended from the confluence of the San Joaquin and Sacramento

Rivers, to the (present day) Golden Gate Bridge, along the entire southern arm of the San Francisco Bay

south to the Salinas and Carmel Rivers. Inland territorial limits are believed to have extended to the

Mount Diablo Range Mountains (UCSF 2005).

Historical Background

Mount Zion Hospital was founded in 1887 by the Mount Zion Association, comprised primarily of

members of San Francisco’s Jewish community. Their purpose was to establish a hospital in the San

Francisco area “…for the purpose of aiding the indigent sick without regard to race or creed, to be

supported by the Jewish community” (UCSF 2010). The first hospital began operation in January 1897 on

Sutter Street in downtown San Francisco, and moved to its current location in the Western Addition

neighborhood in 1912. Hospital expansion occurred regularly throughout the 20th century.

Community-based fundraising campaigns enabled the hospital to modernize and expand in the post-war

era and again in the 1960s. In the mid-1980s, Mount Zion and UCSF created a joint venture in the areas of

patient care, education, and research. In 1990, The Regents of the University of California approved the


Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-2 Mount Zion Garage Draft EIR

1063.001 January 2011

integration of Mount Zion Health Systems with UCSF and the Mount Zion Campus site became a UCSF

facility. The UCSF Mount Zion campus site is located in a dense urban neighborhood of San Francisco,

distributed across five adjoining blocks, within the area bounded by Broderick Street to the west, Scott

Street to the east, Bush Street to the north, and Geary Boulevard to the south (UCSF 2005).

The project site has supported urban land uses since the 1870s. According to Block Books of San Francisco

and other records, the project site was developed with residential uses in the 1870s. The 1949 Sanborn

map shows that the project site was developed with warehouse uses. In 1963, the previous uses were

demolished and a medical office building and associated parking lot was developed on the site (City of

San Francisco 2006). These uses were demolished in 2008 in conjunction with a proposal to develop an

assisted living facility and educational facility for the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis. That

project was not built and the site is currently vacant.


California Environmental Quality Act

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a “project that may cause a substantial adverse

change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the

environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)) This statutory standard involves a two-part inquiry.

The first involves a determination of whether the project involves a historical resource. If it does, the

second part involves determining whether the project may involve a “substantial adverse change in the

significance” of the historical resource. To address these issues, guidelines that implement the

1992 statutory amendments relating to historical resources were adopted in final form on October 26,

1998 with the addition of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The State CEQA Guidelines specify that

for purposes of CEQA compliance, the term “historical resources” includes the following:

A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the state Historical Resources Commission, for

listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.

A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the

Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the

requirements in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically

or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the

preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines

to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,

agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered

to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial

evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to



1063.001 January 2011

be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of

Historical Resources.

The fact that a resource is not listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register

of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section

5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the

criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from

determining that the resource may be a historical resource, as defined in Public Resources Code

Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.



The impact of the proposed project on cultural resources would be considered significant if it would

exceed the following standards of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA

Guidelines and the UC CEQA Handbook:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section

15064.5;

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to

Section 15064.5;

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or

Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.


The Initial Study for the proposed project found that implementation of the proposed project would have

a less than significant impact on historical buildings, as the construction of the proposed project would

not physically impact the adjacent Russian Center nor would it significantly change the context within

which the Russian Center is located as the original setting for the building has already been extensively

altered by surrounding development. In addition, the Initial Study for the proposed project found that

implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on paleontological

resources, as there are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the site and

because there is minimal potential that project excavation would encounter or result in damage to unique

geologic features or significant paleontological resources due to the long history of settlement in San

Francisco and the fact that the project does not involve excavations that extend more than about 19 feet

below existing grade. These issues will not be discussed further in this section.



1063.001 January 2011


The following mitigation measures were adopted by The Regents in connection with certification of the

2004 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement EIR and are thus included as part of the proposed

project (UCSF 2005). The analysis presented below evaluates environmental impacts that would result

from project implementation following the application of these mitigation measures.

LRDP EIR MM 4.3-1 Should an archaeological artifact be discovered on the project site during project

construction and excavation, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5

(f), “provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally

discovered during construction” shall be instituted. In the event that any

prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during

ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be

halted and UCSF shall consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to

assess the significance of the find (per Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, Title

14 CCR, Section 4852 and/or Public Resource Code 21083.2 in the event of a

unique archaeological find). If any find is determined to be significant and will

be adversely affected by the project, representatives of UCSF and the qualified

archaeologist and/or paleontologist would meet to determine the appropriate

avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation (per State CEQA Guidelines

Section 15064.5 (b) and Public Resource Code 21083.2). All significant cultural

materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum

curation, and documented by the qualified archaeologist according to current

professional standards (per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716)).

If the discovery includes human remains, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5

(e)(1) shall be followed:

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains

in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should

be taken:

(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any

nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains

until:

(A) The coroner of the City and County of San Francisco shall be

contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is

required, and



1063.001 January 2011

(B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: (1) The

coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission

within 24 hours. (2) The Native American Heritage Commission

shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely

descended from the deceased Native American. (3) The most likely

descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the

person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or

disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any

associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code

Section 5097.98, or

(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized

representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and

associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a

location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

(A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a

most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make

a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the

commission.

(B) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or

(C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the

recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native

American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable

to the landowner.


Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial change in the significance

of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Potentially

Significant; Less than Significant)

The Northwest Information Center was contacted to conduct an archaeological records search for the

project site and surrounding area. The results of the records search are included in Appendix 4.3 of this

EIR. According to the Northwest Information Center, while there is low probability of encountering

subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources on the project site because any such resources are likely to

be very deeply buried because of the site’s depositional history, there is a moderate possibility of

encountering historic-period archaeological resources during site grading and excavation on the project

site as buildings were located on or immediately adjacent to the project site at the turn of the 20th century

(NWIC 2010). A research design and treatment plan developed for the project site for a previous project

determined that the project site is located in an archaeologically sensitive area in which deeply buried

prehistoric Native American cultural deposits/human remains and/or later 19th century residential refuse



1063.001 January 2011

could be expected (San Francisco 2006). Although the proposed project would implement LRDP EIR

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, which outlines procedures to be followed in the event that previously

unidentified archaeological resources are discovered during construction, because of the moderate

potential for historic period resources to be present on the site according to the NWIC assessment, and for

both prehistoric and historic period resources to be present according to the previous assessment of the

site, the “emergency discovery” provisions set forth in the LRDP mitigation measure by itself would not

be adequate because construction activities may damage archaeological resources before they are

recognized. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on archaeological resources would be

potentially significant.

A mitigated negative declaration prepared by the City of San Francisco for a previous project on the

project site included an archaeological testing program as mitigation to reduce potential negative effects

to archaeological resources. A project-level mitigation measure, similar to the mitigation measure

included in the mitigated negative declaration is proposed. This would entail conducting

pre-construction testing at the project site, followed by pre-construction data recovery should a

significant archaeological deposit or feature be discovered, and construction monitoring if recommended

by the archaeologist based on the results of the testing program. Implementation of this measure would

reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

MM CUL-1 UCSF shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an archaeological

testing program at the project site subsequent to removal of paving and

other surface cover, and before any construction excavation is

commenced. Testing will be conducted in accordance with a systematic

archaeological testing plan prepared by the archaeologist. The plan will

determine the locations where testing will be conducted and the

methods that will be employed for testing. These may include

mechanical augering, trenching, or other subsurface explorations.

In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during

testing, the significance of the materials will be evaluated relative to the

significance criteria of the CRHR, and if determined to be historical

resources or unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA,

additional measures shall be undertaken at the direction of the

archaeologist. These would include but not limited to additional testing

and/or an archaeological data recovery program, whereby a sufficient

sample of the archaeological deposits shall be recovered to preserve the

significant data represented by the deposit. All recovered material would



1063.001 January 2011

be subjected to appropriate analysis, reported, and curated in an

appropriate repository. Depending on the results of testing, the

archaeologist may recommend construction monitoring.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and LRDP EIR Mitigation

Measure 4.3-1 would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Impact CUL-2: The proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant)

There are no known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, located

within the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site. However, given the moderate potential for prehistoric

deposits to be present, human remains could be present and could be disturbed by the project during

excavation and grading. However, the testing program implemented under Mitigation Measure CUL-1

would also help determine whether human remains are present on the site. If encountered during the

testing, these resources would be appropriately handled consistent with LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure

4.3-1, above, which outlines procedures to be followed in the event that previously unidentified human

remains are discovered. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on human remains would be less

than significant.



As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, only one project

is proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project which would involve ground disturbing activities.

However, that project is also a redevelopment project which would demolish an existing building and

construct a mixed use project.

Cumulative Impact CUL-1: Cumulative development would not cause a substantial change in the

significance of a historical resources or unique archaeological resource

pursuant to Section 15064.5 or disturb any human remains, including

those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant)

Development in San Francisco and around the San Francisco bay has resulted in the destruction of

prehistoric deposits; many were destroyed without data recovery, during the first half of the 20th century.

This loss has been stemmed since the 1970s by the provisions of the state law and the environmental

review process. Future development in San Francisco, including the proposed project would minimize



1063.001 January 2011

any further losses by complying with the state law. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, the

development of the proposed mixed-use development at 2655 Bush Street would also require grading

and excavation that could potentially affect undiscovered archaeological or human remains. If

archaeological deposits are present, the construction of that project could contribute to the loss of

subsurface cultural resources, if these resources were not protected upon discovery. CEQA requirements

for protecting archaeological resources or human remains are applicable to development in the City and

County of San Francisco. Because subsurface cultural resources are protected upon discovery as required

by law, impacts to those resources would be less than significant on a project level as well as on a

cumulative level. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1,

which would ensure that the important data contained in any significant archaeological resource

discovered on the site are recovered and preserved. Consequently, the project’s contribution to any

cumulative impacts associated with the loss of subsurface cultural resources would not be cumulatively

considerable. The impact would, therefore, be less than significant.

4.3.6 REFERENCES

City and County of San Francisco. 2006. Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2420 Sutter Street, Case No.


Northwest Information Center. 2010. Records search results for the proposed UCSF Mt. Zion Parking

Structure Project at 2440 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California. (NWIC 2010)



University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center at Mount Zion, Mount Zion History; available

online at http://mountzion.ucsfmedicalcenter.org/history/; accessed 2010 (UCSF 2010)


1063.001 January 2011

4.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.4.1 INTRODUCTION

This section discusses the existing global, national, and statewide conditions for greenhouse gases (GHG)

and global climate change and evaluates the potential impacts on global climate from the implementation

of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project). The section also provides discussion of

the applicable federal, state, regional, and local agencies that regulate, monitor, and control GHG

emissions. The impacts associated with the proposed project are compared with the thresholds of

significance adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Copies of the

modeling runs to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed project and supporting technical

data are found in Appendix 4.4.


Background

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

precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer) (U.S. EPA 2008b). Climate

change may result from:

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

sun;

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

from the addition of GHG and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and

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

the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification).

The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere1 is called the “greenhouse effect.”

The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: (1) short-wave

radiation in the form of visible light emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth as heat; (2) long-wave

radiation is re-emitted by the Earth; and (3) Certain gases termed greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the upper

atmosphere absorb or trap the long-wave radiation and re-emit it back towards the Earth and into space.

This third process is the focus of current climate change actions.

1 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to

12 kilometers).



1063.001 January 2011

While water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the most abundant GHGs, other trace GHGs have a

greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long-wave radiation. To gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists

have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and

re-emit long-wave radiation over a specific period. The GWP of a gas is determined using CO2 as the

reference gas, which has a GWP of 1 over 100 years (IPCC 1996). For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is

10 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. The use of GWP allows GHG emissions to be reported

using CO2 as a baseline. The sum of each GHG multiplied by its associated GWP is referred to as “carbon

dioxide equivalents” (CO2e). This essentially means that 1 metric ton of a GHG with a GWP of 10 has the

same climate change impacts as 10 metric tons of CO2.

Greenhouse Gases

State law defines GHGs to include the following six compounds:

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

stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources over

the past 250 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent

(U.S. EPA 2008c). Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of

1) for determining the GWP of other GHGs. In 2004, 82.8 percent of California’s GHG emissions were

carbon dioxide (CEC 2007).

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

organisms), incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in

natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills, natural gas

systems, and enteric fermentation (U.S. EPA n.d.b.). Methane is the primary component of natural

gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The GWP

of methane is 21.

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

human-related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage

treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid

production. The GWP of nitrous oxide is 310.

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

and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam-blowing is growing particularly

as the continued phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)

gains momentum. The GWP of HFCs ranges from 140 for HFC-152a to 6,300 for HFC-236fa.

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

are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

Perfluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a GWP several thousand times that of carbon dioxide,

depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric

lifetime (up to 50,000 years) (EIA n.d.). The GWPs of PFCs range from 5,700 to 11,900.



1063.001 January 2011

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

is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that transmits and

distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the

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

warming contribution is not as high as the GWP would indicate due to its low mixing ratio, as

compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million [ppm] of

CO2) (U.S. EPA n.d.a.).

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

are generally emitted from combustion activities. The other GHGs listed above are related to specific

industrial uses and not anticipated to be emitted in measurable or substantial quantities by the project.

Contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Global

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

developing nations. Man-made GHG emissions from industrialized and developing nations are available

through 2007 and 2005, respectively. The sum of these emissions totaled approximately 43,363 million

metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MMTCO2e).2 It should be noted that global emissions inventory data are

not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the emissions inventory data.

Emissions from the top five countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 59 percent of

the total global GHG emissions, according to the most recently available data. (See Table 4.4-1, Top Five

GHG Producer Countries and the European Union). The GHG emissions presented in Table 4.4-1 are

representative of currently available global inventory data.

2 The CO2 equivalent emissions commonly are expressed as “million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

(MMTCO2E).” The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the

associated GWP, such that MMTCO2E = (million metric tons of a GHG) x (GWP of the GHG). For example, the

GWP for methane is 21. This means that the emission of one million metric tons of methane is equivalent to the

emission of 21 million metric tons of CO2.



1063.001 January 2011

Table 4.4-1

Top Five GHG Producer Countries and the European Union

Emitting Countries

GHG Emissions

(MMTCO2e)

China 7,265

United States 7,217

European Union (EU), 27 Member States 5,403

Russian Federation 2,202

India 1,877

Japan 1,412

Total 25,376

Source: World Resources Institute, “Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT),” http://cait.wri.org/. 2010.

Excludes emissions and removals from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

Note: Emissions for Annex I nations are based on 2007 data. Emissions for Non-Annex I nations (e.g., China,

India) are based on 2005 data.

United States

As noted in Table 4.4-1, the United States was the number two producer of global GHG emissions as of

2005. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing

approximately 85 percent of total GHG emissions. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, the largest

source of U.S. GHG emissions, accounted for approximately 80 percent of GHG emissions (U.S. EPA

2010).

State of California

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

upon the 2008 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2008

greenhouse gas emissions inventory, California emitted 474 MMTCO2e including emissions resulting

from imported electrical power in 2008. Based on the CARB inventory data and GHG inventories

compiled by the World Resources Institute, California’s total statewide GHG emissions rank second in

the United States (Texas is number one) with emissions of 417 MMTCO2e excluding emissions related to

imported power (CARB 2010a).

Table 4.4-2, GHG Emissions in California, provides a summary of GHG emissions reported in

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

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



1063.001 January 2011

Table 4.4-2

GHG Emissions in California

Source Category

1990

(MMTCO2e)

Percent of

Total

2008

(MMTCO2e)

Percent of

Total

ENERGY 386.41 89.2% 413.80 86.6%

Energy Industries 157.33 36.3% 171.23 35.8%

Manufacturing Industries & Construction 24.24 5.6% 16.67 3.5%

Transport 150.02 34.6% 173.94 36.4%

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

Non-Specified 1.38 0.3% 0.00 0.0%

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

Fugitive Emissions from Other Energy Production 2.31 0.5% 2.09 0.4%

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES & PRODUCT USE 18.34 4.2% 30.11 6.3%

Mineral Industry 4.85 1.1% 5.35 1.1%

Chemical Industry 2.34 0.5% 0.06 0.0%

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

Electronics Industry 0.59 0.1% 0.80 0.2%

Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances 0.04 0.0% 13.89 2.9%

Other Product Manufacture and Use 3.18 0.7% 1.66 0.3%

Other 5.05 1.2% 6.39 1.3%

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, & OTHER LAND USE 19.11 4.4% 24.42 5.1%

Livestock 11.67 2.7% 16.28 3.4%

Land 0.19 0.0% 0.19 0.0%

Aggregate Sources & Non-CO2 Sources on Land 7.26 1.7% 7.95 1.7%

WASTE 9.42 2.2% 9.41 2.0%

Solid Waste Disposal 6.26 1.4% 6.71 1.4%

Wastewater Treatment & Discharge 3.17 0.7% 2.70 0.6%

EMISSIONS SUMMARY

Gross California Emissions 433.29 477.74

Sinks from Forests and Rangelands -6.69 -3.98

Net California Emissions 426.60 473.76

Sources:1 California Air Resources Board, “California Greenhouse Gas 1990–2004 Inventory by IPCC Category - Summary,”

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ inventory/ archive/archive.htm. 2007.2 California Air Resources Board, “California Greenhouse Gas 2000–2008 Inventory by IPCC Category - Summary,”

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

Between 1990 and 2008, the population of California grew by approximately 8.1 million (from 29.8 to 37.9

million), or 27.2 percent (California Department of Finance 2010a, U.S. Census Bureau 2010). In addition,

the California economy, measured as gross state product, grew from $788 billion in 1990 to $1.8 trillion in



1063.001 January 2011

2008 representing an increase of approximately 128 percent (California Department of Finance 2010b).

Despite the population and economic growth, California’s net GHG emissions only grew by

approximately 11 percent. The CEC attributes the slow rate of growth to the success of California’s

renewable energy programs and its commitment to clean air and clean energy (CEC 2006a).

Effects of Global Climate Change

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

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

between 1990 and 2005 (IPCC 2007). Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates suggests that

further warming is likely to occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system

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

proposed project site, could include:

Declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, thereby increasing sea levels and sea surface

evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s

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

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

and more energetic aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves,

extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007);

Declining Sierra snowpack levels, which account for approximately half of the surface water storage

in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years (CalEPA 2006);

Increasing the demand for electricity by 1 to 3 percent by 2020 due to rising temperatures resulting in

hundreds of millions of dollars in extra expenditures (CalEPA 2006); and

Summer warming projections in the first 30 years of the 21st century ranging from about 0.5 to 2

degrees Celsius (°C) (0.9 to 3.6 °F) and by the last 30 years of the 21st century, from about 1.5 to 5.8 °C

(2.7 to 10.5 °F) (CalEPA 2006).


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

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

established the IPCC in 1988. The goal of the IPCC is to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by

human activities. Rather than performing research or monitoring climate, the IPCC relies on

peer-reviewed and published scientific literature to make its assessment. The IPCC assesses information

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

change, and options for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. The IPCC reports its evaluations in



1063.001 January 2011

special reports called “assessment reports,” the latest of which was published in 2007.3 In its 2007 report,

the IPCC stated that global temperature increases since the mid-20th century were “very likely”

attributable to man-made activities (greater than 90 percent certainty).

Federal

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

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

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

emissions; however, it indicated that the agency must decide whether GHGs from motor vehicles cause

or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Upon

the final decision, the President signed Executive Order 13432 on May 14, 2007, directing the U.S. EPA,

along with the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture, to initiate a regulatory process

that responds to the Supreme Court’s decision.

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

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

applicable to the regulation of GHGs and presents potential regulatory approaches and technologies for

reducing GHG emissions. On April 10, 2009, the U.S. EPA published the Proposed Mandatory

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in the Federal Register (U.S. EPA 2009). The rule was adopted on

September 22, 2009 and covers approximately 10,000 facilities nationwide, accounting for 85 percent of

U.S. GHG emissions.

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

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

of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce GHG emissions

and improve fuel economy. The proposed standards would be phased in and would require passenger

cars and light-duty trucks to comply with a declining emissions standard. In 2012, passenger cars and

light-duty trucks would have to meet an average standard of 295 grams of CO2 per mile and 30.1 miles

per gallon. By 2016, the vehicles would have to meet an average standard of 250 grams of CO2 per mile

and 35.5 miles per gallon.4 These standards were formally adopted by the U.S. EPA and DOT on April 1,

2010.

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

section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

3 The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/.

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



1063.001 January 2011

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the

six key well-mixed GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,

perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare

of current and future generations.

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

well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to

the greenhouse gas pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

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

a prerequisite to finalizing the U.S. EPA’s proposed GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles,

which were jointly proposed by the U.S. EPA and DOT.

State

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

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

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

Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be

reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The

Secretary of Cal EPA is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies in order to collectively and

efficiently reduce GHGs. Some of the agency representatives involved in the GHG reduction plan include

the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, the Secretary of the Department of

Food and Agriculture, the Secretary of the Resources Agency, the Chairperson of CARB, the Chairperson

of the CEC, and the President of the Public Utilities Commission.

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

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

governor and state legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG emission reduction targets. In

addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on

California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, coastline, and forests, and reporting possible

mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. The Climate Action Team has fulfilled both of

these report requirements through its March 2006 Climate Action Team Report to Governor

Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (2006 CAT Report) (Cal EPA 2006). Some strategies currently being

implemented by state agencies include CARB introducing vehicle climate change standards and diesel

anti-idling measures, the Energy Commission implementing building and appliance efficiency standards,

and the Cal/EPA implementing their green building initiative. The Climate Action Team also

recommends future emission reduction strategies, such as using only low-GWP refrigerants in new



1063.001 January 2011

vehicles, developing ethanol as an alternative fuel, reforestation, solar power initiatives for homes and

businesses, and investor-owned utility energy efficiency programs. According to the report,

implementation of current and future emission reduction strategies have the potential to achieve the

goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05.

Assembly Bill 32

In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S-3-05, the legislature enacted Assembly Bill 32

(AB 32, Nuñez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor

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

to limit GHG emissions from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. AB 32 requires the

State to undertake several actions – the major requirements are discussed below:

CARB Early Action Measures

CARB is responsible for carrying out and developing the programs and requirements necessary to

achieve the goal of AB 32—the reduction of California's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The first

action under AB 32 resulted in CARB’s adoption of a report listing three specific early action greenhouse

gas emission reduction measures on June 21, 2007. On October 25, 2007, CARB approved an additional

six early action GHG reduction measures under AB 32. CARB has adopted regulations for all early action

measures. The early action measures are divided into three categories:

Group 1 – GHG rules for immediate adoption and implementation

Group 2 – Several additional GHG measures under development

Group 3 – Air pollution controls with potential climate co-benefits

The original three adopted early action regulations meeting the narrow legal definition of “discrete early

action GHG reduction measures” include:

A low-carbon fuel standard to reduce the “carbon intensity” of California fuels;

Reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance to restrict the

sale of ”do-it-yourself” automotive refrigerants; and

Increased methane capture from landfills to require broader use of state-of-the-art methane capture

technologies.



1063.001 January 2011

The additional six early action regulations adopted on October 25, 2007, also meeting the narrow legal

definition of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures,” include:

Reduction of aerodynamic drag, and thereby fuel consumption, from existing trucks and trailers

through retrofit technology;

Reduction of auxiliary engine emissions of docked ships by requiring port electrification;

Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry;

Reduction of propellants in consumer products (e.g., aerosols, tire inflators, and dust removal

products);

The requirement that all tune-up, smog check and oil change mechanics ensure proper tire inflation

as part of overall service in order to maintain fuel efficiency; and

Restriction on the use of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from non-electricity sectors if viable alternatives

are available.

State of California Greenhouse Gas Inventory and 2020 Limit

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

inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit was set at

427 MMTCO2e. CARB also projected the state’s 2020 GHG emissions under “business as usual” (BAU)

conditions—that is, emissions that would occur without any plans, policies, or regulations to reduce

GHG emissions. CARB used an average of the State’s GHG emissions from 2002 through 2004 and

projected the 2020 levels based on population and economic forecasts. The projected net emissions totaled

approximately 596 MMTCO2e. Therefore, the state must reduce its 2020 BAU emissions by approximately

29 percent in order to meet the 1990 target.

The inventory revealed that in 1990, transportation, with 35 percent of the state's total emissions, was the

largest single sector, followed by industrial emissions, 24 percent; imported electricity, 14 percent; in-state

electricity generation, 11 percent; residential use, 7 percent; agriculture, 5 percent; and commercial uses,

3 percent (these figures represent the 1990 values, compared to Table 4.2-2, which presents 2006 values).

AB 32 does not require individual sectors to meet their individual 1990 GHG emissions inventory; the

total statewide emissions are required to meet the 1990 threshold by 2020.

CARB Mandatory Reporting Requirements

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

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

require annual reporting from the largest facilities in the state, which account for approximately



1063.001 January 2011

94 percent of point source greenhouse gas emissions from industrial and commercial stationary sources

in California. About 800 separate sources fall under the new reporting rules and include

electricity-generating facilities, electricity retail providers and power marketers, oil refineries, hydrogen

plants, cement plants, cogeneration facilities, and industrial sources that emit over 25,000 tons of carbon

dioxide each year from on-site stationary combustion sources. Transportation sources, which account for

38 percent of California’s total greenhouse gas emissions, are not covered by these regulations but will

continue to be tracked through existing means. Affected facilities will begin tracking their emissions in

2008, to be reported beginning in 2009, with a phase-in process to allow facilities to develop reporting

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

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

will be subject to third-party verification. Verification will take place annually or every three years,

depending on the type of facility.

AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan

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

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

After receiving public input on their discussion draft of the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan released

in June 2008, CARB released the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in October 2008 that contains an

outline of the proposed state strategies to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emission limits. The CARB

Governing Board approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. Key elements of the

Scoping Plan include the following recommendations:

Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance

standards;

Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent;

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

partner programs to create a regional market system;

Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout

California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;

Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including

California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and

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

potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment to

AB 32 implementation.



1063.001 January 2011

Under the Scoping Plan, approximately 85 percent of the state’s emissions are subject to a cap-and-trade

program where covered sectors are placed under a declining emissions cap. The emissions cap

incorporates a margin of safety whereas the 2020 emissions limit will still be achieved even in the event

that uncapped sectors do not fully meet their anticipated emission reductions. Emissions reductions will

be achieved through regulatory requirements and the option to reduce emissions further or purchase

allowances to cover compliance obligations. It is expected that emission reduction from this

cap-and-trade program will account for a large portion of the reductions required by AB 32.

Table 4.4-3, AB 32 Scoping Plan Measures (SPMs), lists CARB’s preliminary recommendations for

achieving greenhouse gas reductions under AB 32 along with a brief description of the requirements and

applicability.

Table 4.4-3

AB 32 Scoping Plan Measures (SPMs)

Scoping Plan Measure Description

SPM-1: California Cap-and-Trade Program

linked to Western Climate Initiative

Implement a broad-based cap-and-trade program that links with other

Western Climate Initiative Partner programs to create a regional market

system. Ensure California’s program meets all applicable AB 32 requirements

for market-based mechanisms. Capped sectors include transportation,

electricity, natural gas, and industry. Projected 2020 business-as-usual

emissions are estimated at 512 MTCO2e; preliminary 2020 emissions limit

under cap-and-trade program are estimated at 365 MTCO2e (29 percent

reduction).

SPM-2: California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG

Standards

Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second phase of the

program. AB 32 states that if the Pavley standards (AB 1493) do not remain in

effect, CARB shall implement equivalent or greater alternative regulations to

control mobile sources.

SPM-3: Energy Efficiency Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue

additional efficiency efforts. The Scoping Plan considers green building

standards as a framework to achieve reductions in other sectors, such as

electricity.

SPM-4: Renewables Portfolio Standard Achieve 33 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard by both investor-owned

and publicly owned utilities.

SPM-5: Low Carbon Fuel Standard CARB identified the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a Discrete Early Action

item and the final regulation was adopted on April 23, 2009. In January 2007,

Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-1-07, which called for

the reduction of the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at

least 10 percent by 2020.

SPM-6: Regional Transportation-Related

Greenhouse Gas Targets

Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger

vehicles. SB 375 requires CARB to develop, in consultation with metropolitan

planning organizations (MPOs), passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions

reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 by September 30, 2010. SB 375 requires

MPOs to prepare a sustainable communities strategy to reach the regional

target provided by CARB.

SPM-7: Vehicle Efficiency Measures Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures. CARB is pursuing fuel-

efficient tire standards and measures to ensure properly inflated tires during

vehicle servicing.



1063.001 January 2011

Scoping Plan Measure Description

SPM-8: Goods Movement Implement adopted regulations for port drayage trucks and the use of shore

power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods movement operations.

SPM-9: Million Solar Roofs Program Install 3,000 MW of solar-electric capacity under California’s existing solar

programs.

SPM-10: Heavy/Medium-Duty Vehicles Adopt heavy- and medium-duty vehicle and engine measures targeting

aerodynamic efficiency, vehicle hybridization, and engine efficiency.

SPM-11: Industrial Emissions Require assessment of large industrial sources to determine whether

individual sources within a facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and provide other pollution reduction co-benefits. Reduce

greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction

and gas transmission. Adopt and implement regulations to control fugitive

methane emissions and reduce flaring at refineries.

SPM-12: High Speed Rail Support implementation of a high-speed rail (HSR) system. This measure

supports implementation of plans to construct and operate a HSR system

between Northern and Southern California serving major metropolitan

centers.

SPM-13: Green Building Strategy Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of

California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.

SPM-14: High GWP Gases Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases. The Scoping

Plan contains 6 measures to reduce high-GWP gases from mobile sources,

consumer products, stationary sources, and semiconductor manufacturing.

SPM-15: Recycling and Waste Reduce methane emissions at landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting,

and commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste.

SPM-16: Sustainable Forests Preserve forest sequestration and encourage the use of forest biomass for

sustainable energy generation. The federal government and California’s

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection have the regulatory authority to

implement the Forest Practice Act to provide for sustainable management

practices. This measure is expected to play a greater role in the 2050 goals.

SPM-17: Water Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move water.

California will also establish a public goods charge for funding investments in

water efficiency that will lead to as yet undetermined reductions in

greenhouse gases.

SPM-18: Agriculture In the near-term, encourage investment in manure digesters and at the five-

year Scoping Plan update determine if the program should be made

mandatory by 2020. Increase efficiency and encourage use of agricultural

biomass for sustainable energy production. CARB has begun research on

nitrogen fertilizers and will explore opportunities for emission reductions.

Source: California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, (2008).

Senate Bill 97 (CEQA Guidelines)

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

and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

A number of actions have taken place under SB 97, which are discussed below.



1063.001 January 2011

OPR Climate Change Technical Advisory

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

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

including those associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities should be identified and

estimated. The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts

and impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant

level. The advisory did not recommend a specific threshold of significance. Instead, OPR requested that

CARB recommend a method for setting thresholds that lead agencies may adopt (OPR 2009).

CEQA Guideline Amendments

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

Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to the Secretary for Natural Resources on

April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency conducted formal rulemaking procedures in 2009 and

adopted the CEQA Guideline Amendments on December 30, 2009. They became effective in March 2010.

Senate Bill 375

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

regional greenhouse gas reduction targets after consultation with local governments. The target must

then be incorporated within that region’s regional transportation plan (RTP), which is used for long-term

transportation planning, in a Sustainable Communities Strategy. SB 375 also requires each region’s

regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) to be adjusted based on the Sustainable Communities

Strategy in its RTP. Additionally, SB 375 reforms the environmental review process to create incentives to

implement the strategy, especially transit priority projects. The governor signed SB 375 into law on

September 30, 2008.

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

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

recommendations in a report to CARB on September 29, 2009. On August 9, 2010, CARB staff issued the

Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets For Automobiles And Light Trucks Pursuant To

Senate Bill 375 (CARB 2010b). CARB staff proposed draft reduction targets for the four largest MPOs (Bay

Area, Sacramento, Southern California, and San Diego) of 7 to 8 percent for 2020 and reduction targets

between 13 to 16 percent for 2035. For the Bay Area, CARB established a draft target of 7 percent for

2020 and 15 percent for 2035. These targets were recommended to CARB by the Metropolitan

Transportation Commission, which adopted the thresholds for its planning purposes on July 28, 2010. Of



1063.001 January 2011

note, the proposed reduction targets explicitly exclude emission reductions expected from the AB 1493

and low carbon fuel standard regulations. CARB adopted the final targets on September 23, 2010.

Title 24 Building Standards Code

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

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

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

reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas,

and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings

subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and

inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest revisions were adopted in 2008

and became effective on January 1, 2010.

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

Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and

general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building

concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in

the following categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Energy efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and

conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) Environmental air quality”

(California Building Standards Commission 2009). Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly

constructed buildings in California are subject of the requirements of the CALGreen Code.

Regional

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

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

greenhouse gas operational emissions significance thresholds and recommended methodologies and

models to be used for assessing the impacts of project-specific GHG emissions on global climate change

(BAAQMD 2010a). The updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain project-level screening criteria and

recommended significance thresholds for evaluation of operational GHG emissions from a proposed

project. The guidelines also contain recommended methodologies to use to estimate these emissions and

provide recommended measures for reducing GHG emissions from land use development projects and

stationary sources.



1063.001 January 2011

Local Plans and Policies

University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices

The University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices is a system-wide commitment to minimize

the University of California’s impact on the environment and reduce the University’s dependence on

non-renewable energy sources. The University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices promotes the

principles of energy efficiency and sustainability in the areas of Green Building Design; Clean Energy

Standard; Climate Protection Practices; Sustainable Transportation Practices; Sustainable Operations;

Recycling and Waste Management; Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Practices; and Food, all of

which help reduce GHG emissions from University operations.

The Policy notes “these guidelines currently recommend that University operations:

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

projects, operations and maintenance within budgetary constraints and programmatic requirements.

Minimize the use of non-renewable energy sources on behalf of the University’s built environment by

creating a portfolio approach to energy use, including the use of local renewable energy and purchase

of green power from the grid as well as conservation measures that reduce energy consumption.

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

quality of life on campus and in the surrounding community. The campuses will continue their

strong commitment to provide affordable on-campus housing, in order to reduce the volume of

commutes to and from campus. These housing goals are detailed in the campuses’ Long Range

Development Plans.

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

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

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

UCSF Climate Action Plan

UCSF published its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December of 2009 in order to comply with the UC

Policy on Sustainable Practices as well as meet the requirements of the American Colleges and University

Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), of which the UC system is a signatory. The UCSF CAP

includes the UCSF GHG emissions baseline and projected inventories, sustainability efforts to date, and

future reduction efforts. The CAP informs practices throughout the campus including procurement,

building operation and design, transportation, recycling and education. Through its participation in the

ACUPCC, UCSF is committed to reduce its GHG emissions from all of its operations to the 1990 level by



1063.001 January 2011

2020, with the eventual goal of achieving carbon neutrality for the campus. As part of this emissions

reduction effort, UCSF regularly reports to the ACUPCC its emissions, progress towards reduction goals,

and measures used or proposed to meet these goals.



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

CEQA Guidelines on December 30, 2009, which include criteria for evaluating GHG emissions.5 According

to the amended Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the

environment if it would:

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

on the environment; or

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

emissions of greenhouse gases.

The amended State CEQA Guidelines include a new Section 15064.4, which states that, when making a

determination of the significance of GHG emissions, a lead agency shall have discretion to determine

whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a

project, and which model or methodology to use; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance

based standards.

Section 15064.4 also states that a lead agency should consider the following factors when assessing the

significance of GHG emissions on the environment: (1) The extent to which the project may increase or

reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the

project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project;

and (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement

a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

The first Appendix G criteria may be evaluated by performing a direct calculation of the GHG emissions

resulting from the proposed project and comparing the emissions with the available significance

thresholds. The BAAQMD has established project-level screening criteria and significance thresholds for

5 The adopted amendments may be viewed at the following website: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. 2009.



1063.001 January 2011

operational GHG emissions in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance

for operational-related GHG emissions are as follows:

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

Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year (MTCO2e/yr); or 4.6 MT

CO2e/person/yr (residents plus employees). Land use development projects include residential,

commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities.

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

land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit GHG emissions and would

require an Air District permit to operate.

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

GHG emissions resulting from a project’s construction activities.

The second Appendix G criteria may be evaluated by demonstrating compliance with plans, policies, or

regulations adopted by local governments to curb GHG emissions. According to the Natural Resources

Agency:

Provided that such plans contain specific requirements with respect to resources that are within

the agency‘s jurisdiction to avoid or substantially lessen the agency‘s contributions to GHG

emissions, both from its own projects and from private projects it has approved or will approve,

such plans may be appropriately relied on in a cumulative impacts analysis (Natural Resources

Agency 2009).

Under CEQA, “the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment

calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on

scientific and factual data” (CEQA Section 15064). CEQA grants agencies with the general authority to

adopt criteria for determining whether a given impact is “significant” (California Public Resources Code

Section 21082). When no guidance exists under CEQA, the agency may look to and assess general

compliance with comparable regulatory schemes. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines represent

a comparable regulatory scheme.

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

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

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

measures to reduce GHG emissions.



1063.001 January 2011

Methodology

OPR in its Technical Advisory has recommended that GHG emissions from project-related traffic, energy

consumption, water usage, and construction activities, should be identified and estimated, to the extent

that data is available to calculate such emissions. In addition, CARB staff has considered extensively the

value of indirect emissions in a mandatory reporting program. CARB believes that indirect energy usage

provides a more complete picture of the emissions footprint of a facility: “As facilities consider changes

that would affect their emissions – addition of a cogeneration unit to boost overall efficiency even as it

increases direct emissions, for example – the relative impact on total (direct plus indirect) emissions by

the facility should be monitored. Annually reported indirect energy usage also aids the conservation

awareness of the facility and provides information” to CARB to be considered for future strategies by the

industrial sector. For these reasons, CARB has proposed requiring the calculation of direct and indirect

GHG emissions as part of the AB 32 reporting requirements, and this analysis does so (CARB 2007).

The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has stated that the information

needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end-of-life of construction

materials (often referred to as lifecycle emissions) would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level

(CAPCOA 2008). Since accurate and reliable data does not exist for estimating lifecycle emissions for the

proposed project, the analysis does not assess such lifecycle GHG emissions.

The data sources and tools used to evaluate the GHG impacts associated with construction and operation

of the proposed project include the URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software, and

information provided in the Software User’s Guide [for] URBEMIS2007 for Windows (Rimpo and Associates

2008) and calculation algorithms supported by the sources listed above. The URBEMIS2007 model utilizes

the EMFAC2007 emissions factor model for on-road motor vehicle sources and the OFFROAD2007

emissions factor model for off-road equipment. Site-specific or project-specific data were used in the

URBEMIS2007 model where available. Where information was not available for the project, model

default values suggested by the BAAQMD were selected. The average daily trip (ADT) generation rate

for the proposed project was based on the project’s traffic study (Adavant Consulting 2010). The

BAAQMD has developed a greenhouse gas emissions modeling spreadsheet, called BGM, which uses

URBEMIS2007 files in conjunction with emission and resource consumption factors specific to the Bay

Area to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from projects within the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The BGM is

the BAAQMD’s preferred method for estimating operational GHG emissions. The BGM was used in

conjunction with URBEMIS2007.



1063.001 January 2011

Additional sources consulted for this analysis include data and guidance from the U.S. EPA, the U.S.

Energy Information Administration, CARB, the California Energy Commission, the California Climate

Action Registry’s General Reporting Protocol, and other GHG and global climate change data as referenced.

Emission calculations conducted for the proposed project are contained in Appendix 4.4.


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

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

than significant)

Construction Impacts

Construction of the proposed project would result in one-time emissions of greenhouse gases. The

primary greenhouse gases during construction are CO2, CH4, and N2O. These emissions are the result of

fuel combustion by construction equipment and motor vehicles. The other GHGs defined by state law

(hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are typically associated with specific

industrial sources and processes and would not be emitted during construction of the proposed project.

The URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software was used to estimate the construction-related

CO2 emissions. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in spring 2011 and

continue for approximately 12 months. Construction activities would include grading/excavation,

trenching, building construction, and architectural coating. UCSF provided a preliminary schedule for

construction and grading amounts. Grading would include the export of 7,700 cubic yards of material.

The default construction equipment and vehicle mixes generated by URBEMIS2007 were assumed for

grading and building construction. The number of vendor trips (e.g., transport of building materials) and

worker trips were based on default values in the URBEMIS2007 model. URBEMIS2007 only calculates

CO2 emissions and does not provide estimates of other GHGs associated with combustion (i.e., CH4 and

N2O). Therefore, in order to account for emissions of these compounds, the following adjustments were

made to the URBEMIS2007 emission calculations to convert CO2 emissions to a CO2e basis:

Construction Off-Road and On-Road Equipment. The CO2 emissions associated with off-road and

on-road equipment were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents

approximately 99.1 and 99.9 percent, respectively, of the CO2e emissions. These assumptions were

derived from the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR 2009) and the California Energy

Commission (CEC 2002).



1063.001 January 2011

Motor Vehicles (Workers). The CO2 emissions associated with construction-related worker trips

were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95 percent of the CO2e

emissions associated with passenger vehicles, which account for most of the project-related trips (U.S.

EPA 2005). The 95 percent factor accounts for CH4, N2O and fugitive GHG emissions associated with

mobile source air conditioning equipment.

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

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

GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Table 4.4-4, Estimated Construction GHG

Emissions shows a summary of total estimated GHG emissions from the construction of the proposed

project. Given the low numbers, the fact that they are much lower than the threshold for operational

emissions, and the fact that these would be one-time emissions, the effect on global climate from the

proposed project’s construction would not be substantial.

Table 4.4-4

Estimated Construction GHG Emissions

Construction Year

Emissions

(Metric Tons CO2e/year)

2011 311.32

2012 8.16

Total GHG Emissions 319.49

BAAQMD Threshold None

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.4.

Operational Impacts

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

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

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

air conditioning. Motor vehicle air conditioning systems may also use HFCs (and HCFCs and CFCs to the

extent that they have not been completely phased out at later dates); however, these emissions are not

quantified since they would only occur through accidental leaks and it is not possible to estimate the

frequency of accidental leaks without some level of speculation. It should be noted that CARB has

adopted a mobile air conditioning regulation that reduces emissions associated with the use of small

containers of automotive refrigerants. This regulation requires that refrigerant container be self-sealing

and went into effect on January 1, 2010. CARB has also proposed regulations that require the use of lower

GWP refrigerants in vehicle air conditioners.



1063.001 January 2011

Mobile Source Emissions

Emissions from motor vehicles were calculated using the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM),

which uses URBEMIS2007 files in conjunction with emission and consumption factors specific to the Bay

Area to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from projects within the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The BGM is

the BAAQMD’s preferred method for estimating operational GHG emissions. For the purposes of

estimating GHG emissions with BGM, the proposed project was assumed to have similar emissions

characteristics to a warehouse, as a parking garage is not included as a land use category in BGM. Mobile

emissions were based on traffic data provided by the traffic study for the proposed project (Adavant

Consulting 2010). Parking structures do not generate vehicle trips; rather vehicles trips are generated by

the land uses that the parking structure serves. The proposed project would serve vehicle trips associated

with the Osher Center building. According to the traffic study, about 239 vehicles per day associated with

the Osher Center would park in the proposed garage instead of on the streets near the center. In addition,

it is estimated that there could be approximately 39 vehicles per day that would travel to the project site

because parking would be available (this is described in the Traffic section as induced demand).

Conservatively, trips associated with these 278 vehicles (239 vehicles plus 39 vehicles) are considered new

trips and these 556 daily one-way trips (278 x 2) are analyzed for the GHG emissions they would

produce.

Non-Mobile Source Emissions

Non-mobile sources include area sources (landscaping, hearths and fireplaces), natural gas and electricity

consumption, water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. Emissions from these

sources were also calculated using the BGM. Neither the BGM nor the URBEMIS2007 model includes a

parking garage land-use type and so the warehouse land-use type is typically used as a surrogate.

Electricity and natural gas consumption, water and wastewater generation, and solid waste estimates

were based on a warehouse land-use type. It should be noted that emissions estimated from electricity

and natural gas consumption, water and wastewater generation, and solid waste estimates are highly

conservative as a warehouse would be expected to use significantly more electricity, natural gas, and

water, and generate more waste than a parking garage. The solid waste emissions take into account the

City and County of San Francisco’s waste diversion rate of 77 percent in 2010 (City and County of San

Francisco 2010).

Table 4.4-5, Estimated Operational GHG Emissions, shows a summary of total estimated GHG

emissions from operation of the proposed project and compares these to the BAAQMD significance

thresholds.



1063.001 January 2011

Table 4.4-5

Estimated Operational GHG Emissions

GHG Emissions Source

Emissions

(Metric Tons

CO2e/year)

Non-Stationary Sources

Transportation (Mobile Sources) 639.47

Area Sources 0.46

Electricity 291.52

Natural Gas 24.25

Water & Wastewater 3.31

Solid Waste 43.44

Total Operational GHG Emissions 1,002.45

BAAQMD Threshold 1,100

Exceeds Threshold? NO

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.4.

As shown in Table 4.4-5, the proposed project’s operational emissions would not exceed the threshold of

1,100 MTCO2e for land use development projects. The project’s impact would therefore be less than

significant.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measure is required.

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

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse

gases. (Less than Significant)

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

GHG significance threshold was specifically designed to ensure compliance with AB 32 emissions

reductions requirements in the Bay Area. This was accomplished by the BAAQMD by inventorying

existing GHG emissions, estimating projected GHG emissions based on projected growth in the Bay Area,

determining the reductions needed to comply with AB 32 target for the Bay Area, determining the GHG

emissions allowable from new sources associated with the growth, and arriving at the 1,100 MTCO2e

threshold for a land development project as an emission level that would not set back the area from the

attainment of AB 32 goals. Therefore if a proposed project emits below the significance threshold it can be

assumed to comply with AB 32. As shown above, the proposed project would result in emissions that are



1063.001 January 2011

substantially lower than the significance threshold and therefore the project would not set back AB 32

efforts for the Bay Area air basin.

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

that would reduce operational GHG emissions and that would be potentially applicable to the project.

The following measures are taken from the 2010 CAP (BAAQMD 2010b).

MSM A-2: Zero Emission Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrids. Expand the use of Zero Emission (ZEV) and

Plug‐in Hybrid (PHEV) passenger vehicles and light‐duty trucks within the Bay Area, working in

partnership with the Bay Area Electric Vehicle Corridor coalition.

TCM E‐2: Parking Pricing and Management Strategies. Promote policies to implement market‐rate

pricing of parking facilities, reduce parking requirements for new development projects, parking

“cash‐out,” unbundling of parking in residential and commercial leases, shared parking at mixed‐use

facilities, etc.

TCM E-3: Implement Transportation Pricing Reform. Develop a regional transportation pricing

strategy that includes policy evaluation and implementation. Pricing policies to be evaluated include

gasoline taxes, bridge tolls, congestion pricing, parking pricing, HOT lanes, VMT or carbon fees,

pay‐as‐you‐drive insurance, etc.

The project includes project design features that are generally consistent with the above measures.

Furthermore, UCSF has incorporated into the proposed project substantial sustainability features,

including several GHG mitigation measures included in the BAAQMD CEQA guidelines. These features

include secure bicycle parking, parking fees, electric vehicle charging stations, and a Transportation

Demand Management Center that will provide information on alternative transport and sell transit

passes. Design features to minimize the use of energy and water would also be employed. These features

would reduce GHG emissions from the levels estimated, which assumed no such features would be

included, and ensure compliance with the BAAQMD GHG control plans.

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

Climate Action Plan contains the following transportation-related measures would reduce

transportation-related GHG emissions:

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

Transit First Policy to encourage the use of alternative transportation to single-occupancy vehicles.

UCSF has excellent transit ridership rates according to latest transportation survey. About 25.6% of

respondents (faculty, staff, and students) reported taking public transit (e.g., Muni or other bus

system) as their main transportation choice in the latest mobility choices survey.

Bicycling Accommodations - Bicycle racks have been expanded from 400 spaces in 2003 to 680 in

2008. There are now 53 shuttle mounted bike racks. Expenditures on new bike racks were $13,445 in



1063.001 January 2011

2008. UCSF bicyclists are eligible for a reduced price membership in the San Francisco Bicycle

Coalition.

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

(42 of 273) of campus fleet vehicles are powered by alternative fuel or a hybrid electric and gas. The

Campus offers 103 motorcycle parking stalls.

Transit Pass sales –To further encourage transit use UCSF offers the Campus community 5

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

Commuter Ticket) Monthly sales are 600 passes in 2008.

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

sharing from three to 17 during the same period. These efforts, led by UCSF Transportation Services,

earned UCSF a place on the inaugural 2006 national list of Best Workplaces for Commuters from

colleges and universities, awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vanpools

receive preferential parking spaces at UCSF.

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

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

the proposed project and would reduce energy demand and associated GHG emissions:

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

to 28 watt T8 lamps. Other possibilities include: broader use of occupancy sensor controls, daylight

harvesting, and new stairwell fixtures. The replacement of lighting in parking structures and interior

HID fixtures and with fluorescent will also be evaluated. New technologies such as LED lighting,

bi-level fixtures and induction lamps are anticipated to become readily available in the near future

and these technologies will be incorporated into energy efficiency retrofit projects where appropriate.

As noted above, the proposed project includes secure bicycle parking, parking fees, electric vehicle

charging stations, and a Transportation Demand Management Center that will provide information on

alternative transport and sell transit passes. The project could also provide preferential parking spaces for

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

reduce transportation-related GHG emissions consistent with the Climate Action Plan measures. The

project would also be designed to minimize the energy demand by using energy-efficient lighting

(fluorescent, LED lighting, or similar depending on cost effectiveness). Based on the inclusion of these

project design features, the project would be consistent with applicable plans that have been adopted to

reduce GHG emissions. The impact would be less than significant.




1063.001 January 2011

4.4.5 References

Adavant Consulting. 2010. 2420 Sutter Street Garage Transportation Study. December.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a. “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.”

http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-

CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b. “2010 Clean Air Plan.” http://www.baaqmd.gov/

Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and

Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

California Air Resources Board. 2007. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Regulation for

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions

Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32).

California Air Resources Board. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and

Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Version 1.0.

California Air Resources Board. 2009. “Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program.”

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reftrack/reftrack.htm. This regulation is an early action measure under

AB 32.

California Air Resources Board. 2010a. “California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2008 Inventory by Scoping Plan

Category – Summary.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.

California Air Resources Board. 2010b. Staff Report: Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Targets For Automobiles And Light Trucks Pursuant To Senate Bill 375.

California Building Standards Commission. 2009. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code.

California Building Standards Commission. 2010. “CALGreen.” http://www.bsc.ca.gov/CALGreen/

default.htm.

California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse as

Emissions Version 3.1.

California Climate Action Team. 2007. Updated Macroeconomic Analysis of Climate Strategies Presented in the

March 2006 Climate Action Team Report.

California Department of Finance. 2010a. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties,

and the State, 2001-2008, with 2000 Benchmark.” http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/

reports/estimates/e-5/2009.

California Department of Finance. 2010b. “Financial & Economic Data: Gross Domestic Product,

California.” http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm.



1063.001 January 2011

California Energy Commission. 2002. Diesel Use in California. Remarks by Commissioner James D. Boyd.

California Energy Commission. 2006a. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to

2004, Figure 2.

California Energy Commission. 2006b. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California, PIER

Final Project Report (CEC-500-2006-118). Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc.

California Energy Commission. 2007. “Revisions to the 1990-2004 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

Report, Published in December 2006.” http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-

2006-013/2007-01-23_GHG_INVENTORY_REVISIONS.PDF.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to

Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6,

Chapter 3, Section 15064(b).

California Natural Resources Agency, Climate Action Team. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation

Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008.

California Public Resources. nd. Code Section 21082.

California Office of the Attorney General. 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global

Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level.

California Office of the Attorney General. 2010. “Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level,”

http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf

City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Mayor. 2010. “Press Release: Mayor Newsom Announces

San Francisco’s Waste Diversion Rate At 77 Percent, Shattering City Goal And National Recycling

Records.” http://sfmayor.org/press-room/press-releases/press-release-mayor-newsom-announces-

san-francisco%E2%80%99s-waste-diversion-rate-at-77-percent-shattering-city-goal-and-national-

recycling-records/.

Energy Information Administration. n.d. “Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and

Sulfut Hexafluoride.” http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt/other_gases.html.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change –

Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,

Summary for Policymakers.” http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Plenary

Approved.pdf.

Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, December

19, 2007.



1063.001 January 2011

Natural Resources Agency. 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State

CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97.

Office of Planning and Research. 2008a. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.

Office of Planning and Research. 2008b. Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate

Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.

Office of Planning and Research. 2009. Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas

Emissions.

Rimpo and Associates. 2008. “URBEMIS2007 for Windows.” http://www.urbemis.com.

United States Census Bureau. 2010. “Data Finders.” http://www.census.gov/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-

42.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 1998b.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste (EPA-

530-R-98-013).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2005.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F-05-004).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act.” http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/anpr.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. “Glossary of Climate Change Terms.”

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. “Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and

Sinks 1990-2008.” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.a. “High GWP Gases and Climate Change.”

http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html#sf6.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.b. “Methane: Sources and Emissions.”

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html.

University of California, San Francisco. 2009. Climate Action Plan. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/

sustainability/documents/ucsf_cap_09.pdf


1063.001 January 2011

4.5 LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.5.1 INTRODUCTION

This section addresses the consistency of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project)

with the UCSF 1996 Long Range Development Plan, as amended.


Regional Setting

The regional setting for the proposed project is the San Francisco Bay Area. The project is contained

within the City and County of San Francisco, a relatively dense urban environment that is built out in

most areas. Few large tracts of vacant or underused land are available for new development. San

Francisco consists of a number of neighborhoods, each with its unique physical characteristics and mix of

land uses (UCSF 2005).

Local Setting – Mount Zion

The UCSF Mount Zion campus site occupies approximately 7.3 acres plus leased space in San Francisco’s

Western Addition neighborhood. The campus site consists of a main block and includes the UCSF Mount

Zion Hospital and Medical Center, bounded by Sutter Street to the north, Post Street to the south, Scott

Street to the east, and Divisadero Street to the west. Although some inpatient facilities exist at Mount

Zion, the site functions primarily as an outpatient surgery and ambulatory care facility, with a focus on

cancer programs as part of UCSF’s designation as a National Institutes of Health comprehensive cancer

center for Northern California. Uses on the main block include the Medical Center (“main hospital” or

“Buildings A and B”); the Comprehensive Cancer Center (an outpatient cancer center); the Hellman

Building (Building C offices); the dialysis center; and other clinics and support services (UCSF 2005).

Additional Mount Zion facilities are located on and distributed across five adjoining blocks, within the

area bounded by Broderick Street to the west, Scott Street to the east, Bush Street to the north, and Geary

Boulevard to the south. Uses on these blocks include the Women’s Health Center (at 2356 Sutter Street) to

the north of the main block; medical offices (at 2230 Post Street and 1701 Divisadero Street); records

storage; a pharmacy; UCSF’s Fishbon Medical Library; and the new Osher Building (at 1545 Divisadero

Street) that will contain the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine and clinics of the Division of General

Internal Medicine in the Department of Medicine (UCSF 2005).



1063.001 January 2011

Campus Vicinity Land Uses and Zoning

The Mount Zion campus site is in the Western Addition neighborhood of San Francisco. The Western

Addition is a highly urbanized area with a diverse mix of land uses, including commercial, medical,

residential, and neighborhood commercial uses. The Kaiser Permanente Medical Center on Geary Street,

about two blocks southwest of the UCSF Mount Zion campus site, includes a hospital, medical office

buildings, clinics, and parking facilities. Other medical and treatment facilities in the vicinity include the

California Podiatry Hospital (Pacific Coast Hospital), located southeast of Kaiser Permanente and south

of the Mount Zion campus site on Scott Street between Eddy and Ellis Streets; and the University of the

Pacific School of Dentistry, located five blocks east of the Mount Zion campus site on Webster Street

between Sacramento and Clay Streets (UCSF 2005).

Retail and commercial development in the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site is primarily small-scale

and neighborhood-oriented and includes: cafes, delicatessens, local fast food outlets, small grocers, dry

cleaners, launderettes, florists, gift shops, hair stylists, thrift shops, banks, realtors, and health-related

businesses such as dispensing opticians, acupuncturists, and medical supply stores. Residential uses in

the Mount Zion campus site vicinity include older one-, two-, and three-story single-family units and

several multifamily units (UCSF 2005).

Zoning in the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site includes: RH-1, RH-2, and RH-3 Zoning Districts

(Residential House District, One-, Two-, and Three-Family, respectively) surrounding the main hospital

block, as well as NC-2 and NC-3 Zoning Districts (Small- and Moderate-Scale Neighborhood

Commercial, respectively) on Sutter, Pierce, Scott and Divisadero Streets and Geary Boulevard, which

include the main hospital block and the adjacent uses on the UCSF Mount Zion campus site (UCSF 2005).

The Mount Zion campus site is located within the City of San Francisco’s 40-X, 50-X, 65-A and 105-E

Height and Bulk Districts. Surrounding Height and Bulk Districts are relatively low, with 40-X Height

Districts to the north, west, and northeast. A 65-A Height District covers Divisadero Street between Bush

Street and Geary Boulevard. A 50-X Height District encompasses a portion of the block south of the main

hospital site and blocks between Divisadero and Scott Streets, south of Geary Boulevard (UCSF 2005).


UCSF Long Range Development Plan

Each campus within the University of California system is required to prepare a Long Range

Development Plan, which sets forth concepts, principles, and plans intended to guide future physical

growth and change of the campus. Current development at UCSF is guided by the 1996 LRDP, as



1063.001 January 2011

amended, which includes specific policies related to future program development and space needs at the

Mount Zion campus site. Amendment #1 to the LRDP was adopted in 2002 to permit development of

campus housing at the UCSF Mission Bay campus site. Amendment #2 to the LRDP, which discussed

hospital replacement and clinical planning, was adopted in March 2005 and identified a preferred plan

that proposes two major integrated campus sites at Parnassus Heights and Mission Bay with clinical care

co-located with basic and translational research programs. As indicated in LRDP Amendment #2, the

Mount Zion campus site is to serve as an outpatient hub.

Local Plans and Policies

UCSF is constitutionally exempt from local jurisdiction regulations, including general plans and zoning,

whenever using property under its control for its educational purposes. However, UCSF seeks to

cooperate with the City and County of San Francisco to reduce any physical consequences of potential

land use conflicts to the extent feasible. San Francisco has a Transit First policy contained within Section

VIIIA.115 of the San Francisco Municipal Code that encourages the use of public transit as well as

bicycles as an alternative to automobile use. The text of the Transit First Policy is contained in Appendix

4.5 of this document.



The impact of the proposed project on land use would be considered significant if it would exceed the


UC CEQA Handbook:

Physically divide an established community;

Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over

the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or

zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect;

Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; or

Exceed an applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by being substantially incompatible with

existing land uses, or by substantially conflicting use, density, height and bulk restrictions of local

zoning, although UCSF is exempt from such restrictions.



1063.001 January 2011


The Initial Study for the proposed project determined that implementation of the proposed project would

not physically divide an established community as the height, size, and character of the proposed project

would be in keeping with that of surrounding structures and therefore would not create a physical

division in the existing established uses around the site. In addition, the proposed project would be built

on an infill site and would not cut off any existing or proposed transportation route creating connectivity

within the Mount Zion neighborhood. The Initial Study also found that the proposed project would not

conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as no

habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan is applicable to the project site. Finally,

the Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not exceed an applicable LRDP EIR

standard of significance by substantially conflicting with use, density, height and bulk restrictions of local

zoning as the proposed project would be consistent with the NC-3 zoning district in which it is located

and would meet the City’s 65-foot height limit for the project site. In addition, the proposed project

would meet the City’s maximum bulk requirements for levels higher than 40 feet in a NC-3 zone as the

proposed parking structure has a length of 110 feet and a diagonal dimension of 125 feet. These issues are

not discussed further in this section.


Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not conflict with the UCSF 1996 LRDP as

amended. (Less than Significant)

The project site is not currently owned or leased by UCSF, and therefore is not considered part of the

Mount Zion campus site at present. However, the LRDP includes a proposal to “Provide additional

parking at UCSF/Mount Zion . . . and study the development of a new parking garage in the

UCSF/Mount Zion vicinity.” The project site was envisioned in the 1996 LRDP as a potential location for

parking, and was identified as a “Parking Opportunity Site” (LRDP Figure 10, pg. 125), as it had been

discussed as a potential location for parking in the 1992 UCSF Mount Zion Program Revisions and

Associated Building Projects Subsequent EIR. Therefore, the proposed use of the project site for parking is

consistent with the UCSF’s development program for the Mount Zion campus site. In addition, as part of

the proposed project, UCSF proposes to amend the LRDP to include the 14,600-square-foot project site as

part of the Mount Zion campus site. No other changes to the LRDP are required to incorporate the

proposed project because parking structures are not included in the space profile (total square footage) of

the UCSF campus sites. The location of the project site in relation to the Mount Zion campus site is shown

in Figure 3.0-4, Mount Zion Campus Site Plan (see Section 3.0, Project Description)



1063.001 January 2011

The LRDP also contains various goals and objectives on transportation, circulation, and parking that

apply to the UCSF campus as a whole. These goals and objectives include emphasizing transportation

alternatives to single-occupant vehicles; provision of adequate parking to serve patients, visitors, faculty,

staff, and students while promoting use of public transit and alternative forms of transportation; and

minimizing impacts on local traffic congestion and parking shortages in a manner consistent with local

government plans.

The proposed garage is but one component of UCSF’s overall strategy to meet a diversity of travel needs.

As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, despite UCSF’s extensive and growing Transportation

Demand Management (TDM) program, there remain some patients, visitors, and essential healthcare

providers for whom alternative transportation is not feasible. The proposed project is intended to help

meet some of the parking need of this segment of UCSF’s population. UCSF would continue to promote

alternative transportation and would provide a TDM office within the project. Thus, the project would

not conflict with TDM strategies, and the project would be consistent with the LRDP goal to provide

adequate parking to serve patients, visitors, and in this case essential healthcare providers, while

promoting alternative forms of transportation.

The City of San Francisco’s Transit First Policy encourages the use of public transit as well as bicycles as

an alternative to automobile use. The Transit First Policy does not preclude parking, but does indicate

“Parking policies for areas well-served by public transit shall be designed to encourage travel by public

transit and alternative transportation.” As discussed above, UCSF in general and the proposed TDM

component of the project would continue to promote alternative transportation. The project would not

interfere with the City’s ability to encourage public transit use or bicycling, and therefore would not

conflict with the City’s Transit First Policy.


4.5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Cumulative Impact LU-1: Cumulative development would not adversely alter the land uses in

the project vicinity. (Less than Significant)

As described in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, one other project is proposed in the vicinity

of the proposed UCSF Garage project, that when combined with the proposed project, could potentially

result in cumulative land use impacts in that both projects would alter existing land uses in the project

area. However, both land uses are consistent with the zoning and land use designations of their

respective sites. The heights and mass of both projects would be compatible with the heights of



1063.001 January 2011

surrounding buildings along Sutter, Bush, and Divisadero Streets. Therefore, the cumulative impact of

the two projects on the land uses in the Mount Zion neighborhood would be less than significant.


4.5.6 REFERENCES

University of California, San Francisco. 1996 Long Range Development Plan.



University of California, San Francisco, Mount Zion Program Revisions and Associated Building Projects

Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 89060609


1063.001 January 2011

4.6 NOISE

4.6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section discusses the existing noise environment in the project vicinity, the regulatory framework for

regulation of noise, and analyzes the potential for the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed

project) to affect the existing ambient noise environment during project construction and operation.


Background Information on Noise

Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound and can be an undesirable by-product of society’s normal

day-to-day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, causes actual

physical harm, or has an adverse effect on health. The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that

it has an adverse effect or causes a substantial annoyance to people and their environment.

Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness because the human ear does not respond

uniformly to sounds at all frequencies. For example, it is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than to

the medium frequencies that more closely correspond to human speech. In response to the human ear’s

sensitivity to different frequencies or lack thereof, the A-weighted noise level, referenced in units of

dB(A), was developed to better correspond with peoples’ subjective judgment of sound levels. In general,

changes in a community noise level of less than 3 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear (FHA

1980). Changes from 3 to 5 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to

changes in noise. An increase greater than 5 dB(A) is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a

10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound volume. A doubling of sound energy results in

a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound wave energy (e.g., doubling the volume

of traffic on a roadway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. Common noise levels

associated with certain activities are shown on Figure 4.6-1, Common Noise Levels.

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or individual motor

vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of mobile point sources (motor

vehicles). Sound generated by a stationary point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of

6 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites, and at a

rate of 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically “soft” sites (FHA 1980). For example, a 60 dB(A) noise level measured at

50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and

it would be 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at

a rate of 3 dB(A) and 4.6 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft

sites, respectively (FHA 1980).

Environmental noise fluctuates in intensity over time, and several descriptors of time-averaged noise

level are in use. The three most commonly used descriptors are Leq, Ldn, and CNEL. Leq, the energy

equivalent noise level, is a measure of the average energy content (intensity) of noise over any given

period of time. Ldn, the day-night average noise level, is the 24-hour average of the noise intensity, with a

10-dB(A) "penalty" added for nighttime noise (10 PM to 7 AM) to account for the greater sensitivity to

noise during this period. CNEL, the community equivalent noise level, is similar to Ldn, but adds a

5-dB(A) penalty to evening noise (7 PM to 10 PM).

Background Information on Vibration

Vibration is minute variation in pressure through structures and the earth, whereas noise is minute

variation in pressure through air. Thus, vibration is felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be

caused by noise; e.g., the rattling of windows from truck pass-bys. This phenomenon is related to the

coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material

being vibrated. Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration

increases.

Vibration can be measured as particle velocity in inches per second and referenced as vibration decibels

(VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A

vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly

perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within

buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors.

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled

trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is

barely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is typical background

vibration velocity, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile

buildings.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

EXAMPLES DECIBELS (dB)‡ SUBJECTIVEEVALUATIONS

DEAFENING

VERY LOUD

LOUDRange of S

peech

continuous exposureabove here is likely

to degrade the hearingof most people

MODERATE

FAINT

VERY FAINT

NEAR JET ENGINE

THRESHOLD OF PAIN

THRESHOLD OF FEELING–HARD ROCK BAND

ACCELERATING MOTORCYCLE ATA FEW FEET AWAY*

LOUD AUTO HORN AT 10' AWAY

NOISY URBAN STREET

NOISY FACTORY

SCHOOL CAFETERIA WITHUNTREATED SURFACES

STENOGRAPHIC ROOM

NEAR FREEWAY AUTO TRAFFIC

AVERAGE OFFICE

SOFT RADIO MUSIC IN APARTMENT

AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUTSTEREO PLAYING

AVERAGE WHISPER

RUSTLE OF LEAVES IN WIND HUMAN BREATHING

THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY

‡NOTE: dB are “average” values as measured on the A–scale of a sound–level meter.

* NOTE: 50' from motorcycle equals noise at about 2000' from a four-engine jet aircraft.

Common Noise Levels

FIGURE 4.6-1

1063-001•11/10

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

Figure 4.6-2, Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration, identifies the typical groundborne vibration

levels in VdB and human response to different levels of vibration.

Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses

The project site is currently vacant. Land uses around the project site include a vacant convalescent

facility to the north; a UCSF medical office building located at 1701 Divisadero Street to the east; a

privately owned parking garage to the south; and the Russian Center community facility to the west. The

nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is the Russian Center community facility to the west and a

residential neighborhood located a half block (approximately 100 feet) to the west. A mixed-use

development project consisting of retail space and 83 dwelling units has been approved at the site of the

vacant convalescent facility immediately north of the project site. Other sensitive receptors in the vicinity

of the project site include the facilities in the Mount Zion hospital complex, located one block to the east,

and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, located two blocks to the south.

The project site and surrounding uses are located in a densely developed urban area of the City and

County of San Francisco and are exposed to noise sources typical of such a setting. No sources of noise

are currently located on the project site, although a medical office building and associated parking that

generated some amount of noise was present on the site up until 2008 at which time it was demolished.

Off-site noise sources in the area that are audible on the site include activities associated with commercial

uses surrounding the site, such as people talking, doors slamming and tires squealing, and truck

deliveries. Mobile sources of noise that are audible in the project vicinity are related to road traffic along

Sutter Street, Divisadero Street, and Broderick Street.

Existing Noise Levels at the Project Site

To characterize the existing noise environment at the site, one continuous long-term 24-hour

measurement on Sutter Street at the project site, supplemented by one short-term 15-minute

simultaneous noise measurement (at the northeast corner of the site) was conducted by Charles M Salter

and Associates between the dates of 10 and 12 August 2010. The purpose of the measurements was to

quantify the noise levels at the setbacks of the project. The measurements were also used to establish

existing property line “ambient” noise levels as defined by the City. The short-term measurement

measured noise levels simultaneously with the synchronized long-term measurement, and were used to

estimate the DNL at the north end of the project site. Table 4.6-1, Measured and Calculated Noise Levels

at the Project Site, reports the existing noise levels.

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

Table 4.6-1

Measured and Calculated Noise Levels at Project Site

Location Measured or Calculated DNL

Lowest Measured Ambient Noise

Levels between 6:00AM and 10:00

PM2

Sutter Street 68 dB 51 dB

North Property Line 63 dB1 46 dB

Source: Charles M Salter and Associates, 2010

1 Calculated from synchronized 15-minute Leq offset of Sutter Street long-term monitor.

2 Quietest time period during the proposed hours of operation was the 6:00 AM hour.

Roadway Traffic Noise

The existing ambient noise levels were estimated for the roadways near the project site based on average

daily trips provided in the traffic study for this project. The traffic noise was modeled using the Federal

Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5. The results of the noise

modeling are presented in Table 4.6-2, Existing Roadway Modeled Noise Levels. As shown, roadway

noise levels range from a low of 52.6 on Broderick Street to a high of 70.7 dB(A) Ldn at 50 feet from

roadway centerline along Geary Boulevard. It is noted that noise levels along these roadways are likely

higher than these levels due to the contribution of noise from other sources. However, traffic is the

dominant noise source in the area.

Table 4.6-2

Existing Roadway Modeled Noise Levels

Roadway Segment/Intersection

Ldn in dB(A) at 50 Feet

from Roadway Centerline

Broderick Street, south of Bush 52.6

Divisadero Street, south of Pine 63.2

Divisadero Street, south of Bush 63.2

Divisadero Street, south of Sutter 63.6

Divisadero Street, south of Post 64.2

Scott Street, south of Sutter 57.2

Scott Street, south of Post 58.1

Bush Street, west of Divisadero 63.8

Sutter Street, east of Broderick 56.2

Sutter Street, east of Divisadero 55.8

Post Street, east of Divisadero 59.8

Geary Boulevard, east of Broderick 70.7

Geary Boulevard, east of Divisadero 70.6

Source: Impact Sciences. Model results are contained in Appendix 4.6.

HUMAN/STRUCTURALRESPONSE

VELOCITY LEVEL IN

VdBTYPICAL SOURCES

50 FEET FROM SOURCE

BUS OR TRUCK, TYPICAL

TYPICAL GROUND VIBRATION

THRESHOLD, MINOR COSMETIC DAMAGE TO FRAGILE BUILDINGS

DIFFICULTY WITH TASKS SUCH AS READING A VDT SCREEN

RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, INFREQUENT EVENTS(E.G., COMMUTER RAIL)

RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, FREQUENT EVENTS(E.G., RAPID TRANSIT)

LIMIT FOR VIBRATION-SENSITIVE EQUIPMENTAPPROXIMATE THRESHOLD FOR HUMAN PERCEPTION OF VIBRATION

AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUTSTEREO PLAYING

AVERAGE WHISPER

100

90

80

70

60

50

RAPID TRANSIT, TYPICAL BUS OR TRUCK OVER BUMP

COMMUTER RAIL, TYPICAL

RAPID TRANSIT, UPPER RANGE

COMMUTER RAIL, UPPER RANGE

BULLDOZER AND OTHER HEAVY-TRACKED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

BLASTING FROM CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration

FIGURE 4.6-2

1063-001•12/10

SOURCE: United States Department of Transportation, "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment", Office of Planning and Environment Federal Transit Administration, May 2006

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011


UCSF is constitutionally exempt from local jurisdiction regulations whenever using property under its

control in furtherance of its educational purposes. However, UCSF seeks to cooperate with the City and

County of San Francisco to reduce any physical consequences of potential land use conflicts to the extent

feasible. This section summarizes regulations contained in the City and County of San Francisco Noise

Ordinance relevant to noise impacts.

City and County of San Francisco Noise Ordinance

Sections 2907 and 2908 of Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code regulate noise generated by

construction equipment and construction work. Section 2907(b) states “it shall be unlawful for any

person, including the City and County of San Francisco, to operate any powered construction equipment,

regardless of age or date of acquisition, if the operation of such equipment emits noise at a level in excess

of 80 dB(A) when measured at a distance of 100 feet from such equipment, or an equivalent sound level at

some other convenient distance.” The Ordinance also requires that such equipment be equipped with

intake/exhaust mufflers and/or acoustically attenuating shields/shrouds recommended by the

manufacturers and approved by the Director of Public Works to best accomplish maximum noise

attenuation. Exemptions to the Ordinance include impact tools and equipment, pavement breakers, and

jackhammers.

In addition to the 80 dB(A) noise limit, Section 2908 states that “it shall be unlawful for any person,

between the hours of 8:00 PM of any day and 7:00 AM of the following day to erect, construct, demolish,

excavate for, alter, or repair any building or structure if the noise level created thereby is in excess of the

ambient noise level by 5 dB(A) at the nearest property plane, unless a special permit therefore has been

applied for and granted by the Director of Public Works.”

Section 2909 of Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code states that “no person shall produce or allow to

be produced by any machine or device, music or entertainment or any combination of same, on a

commercial or industrial property over which the person had ownership or control, a noise level more

than 8 dB(A) above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.”


The impact of the proposed project related to noise would be considered significant if it would exceed the


UC CEQA Handbook.

Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or

noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

Expose people to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels;

Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project;

Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity

above levels existing without the project;

Result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels if the

project is located within an area covered by an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not

been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport;

Result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels if the

project is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip; or

Exceed an applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by contributing to an increase in average

daily noise levels (Ldn) of 3 dB(A) or more at property lines, if ambient noise levels in areas adjacent to

proposed development already exceed local noise levels set forth in local general plans or ordinances

for such areas based on their use.


The Initial Study for the proposed project noted that the project site is not located within the boundaries

of any airport land use plan and is more than 2 miles from the nearest public airport. The project site is

not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project

would not be affected by operation of a public airport or by a private airstrip. These issues are not

discussed further in the analysis below.

Significance Thresholds

Noise

For office buildings and commercial uses, satisfactory noise levels are those below 70 dB(A) Ldn. For

residential uses, satisfactory noise levels are those below 60 dB(A) Ldn. Land uses immediately adjacent to

the project site include the UCSF medical office building at 1701 Divisadero Street, the Russian Center,

and the private parking structure. All of these are non-residential uses and therefore would be subject to

the 70 dB(A) Ldn noise standard. Existing residential uses located less than 100 feet to the west of the

project site and the approved mixed-use development immediately adjacent to the north side of the

garage project site would be subject to the 60 dB(A) Ldn noise standard.

For the purposes of this EIR, noise impacts from project-related long-term or permanent increases would

be considered significant if the project resulted in a 3 dB(A) Ldn increase in noise above existing

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

conditions or above future no project conditions. Long-term or permanent increases are associated with

project operations and project-related traffic.

UCSF does not have a numerical threshold for evaluation of construction noise. However, the Campus

does voluntarily adhere to the standards contained in the San Francisco Noise Ordinance for the control

of construction noise.

Vibration

UCSF does not have a numerical threshold for evaluation of vibration impacts. A numerical threshold to

identify the point at which a vibration impact is deemed perceptible is also not identified in the City’s

Municipal Code. In the absence of significance thresholds for vibration from construction, the Federal

Transit Administration identifies a maximum acceptable level threshold of 65 VdB for buildings where

low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (such as hospitals and recording studios), 72

VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, and 75 VdB for institutional land uses

with primary daytime use (such as churches, community centers, and schools).



1996 LRDP EIR and is included as part of the proposed project (UCSF 1997). The analysis presented



LRDP EIR MM 4E1-1 UCSF would require construction contractors to minimize construction noise

impacts by the following strategies:

Limit construction hours to between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM, unless night

work is reviewed and authorized by UCSF.

Require use of construction equipment with noise reduction devices, such as

mufflers, which are in good condition.

Erect temporary noise walls and acoustical shielding that are designed by an

acoustical engineer when construction would occur adjacent to existing

residents.

Minimize the use of impact tools to the extent possible.

Locate stationary construction noise sources away from residential areas,

and require use of acoustic shielding with such equipment when feasible and

appropriate.

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011


Impact NOISE-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project would

temporarily elevate noise levels at the project site and surrounding areas. (Less

than Significant)

Construction activities would occur over a period of approximately one year. Excavation and project

construction would temporarily increase noise near the project site. Construction noise would fluctuate

depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between noise source

and listener, and presence or absence of barriers. As stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, no pile

driving would be required for the proposed project.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur less than 50 feet from existing

office and commercial uses. In addition, construction activities associated with the proposed project

would occur less than 100 feet from existing residential uses to the west of the project site. As a result,

there would be times when noise could interfere with indoor activities in these nearby uses. However,

noise impacts would be intermittent and temporary over the yearlong construction period. In addition,

LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4E1-1, which is a part of the project, would require construction

contractors to minimize construction noise impacts by implementing the following strategies: limiting

construction to the hours of 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, requiring noise reduction devices, minimizing the use of

impact tools to the extent possible, locating stationary construction noise sources away from residential

areas, and requiring use of acoustic shielding with such equipment when feasible and appropriate. These

strategies included in LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4E1-1 are consistent with the standards contained in

the San Francisco Noise Ordinance for the control of construction noise. Therefore, the effects of

construction noise on surrounding lands uses would be minimized, and temporary noise impacts

associated with construction would be less than significant.


Impact NOISE-2: Project construction activities would not expose people to excessive

groundborne vibration levels. (Less than Significant)

The primary and most intensive vibration source associated with the development of the proposed

project would be the use of bulldozers during construction. This type of equipment can create intense

noise that is disturbing and can result in ground vibrations. The results from vibration can range from no

perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at

moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction

activities rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can achieve the audible and

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Table 4.6‐3, Vibration Levels for

Construction Equipment, lists vibration levels for construction equipment.

Table 4.6-3

Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment

Approximate VdB

25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet

Large Bulldozer 87 81 77 75

Loaded trucks 86 80 76 74

Jackhammer 79 73 69 67

Small Bulldozer 58 52 48 46

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2005.

As indicated in Table 4.6-3, large bulldozers are capable of producing approximately 87 VdB at 25 feet.

Land uses within 25 feet of the site consist of community and commercial uses, and do not contain

sensitive equipment and therefore would not be adversely affected by vibrations produced by large

bulldozers on the project site. However, residential uses are located less than 100 feet to the west of the

project site. As indicated in Table 4.6-3, large bulldozers are capable of producing approximately 75 VdB

at this distance, which would exceed the residential threshold of 72 VdB. The main concern related to the

effects of high vibrations on residential uses is disturbance of sleep. As discussed above, high

noise-producing (and vibration–producing) activities during construction will be scheduled to occur

between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM to minimize disturbance to sensitive uses. As a result,

vibration-producing activities would not occur during normal sleeping hours, and vibration impacts

associated with construction-phase vibration would be less than significant.


Impact NOISE-3: Vehicular traffic associated with the proposed project would result in an

incremental, but imperceptible, long-term increase in ambient noise levels.


Changes in traffic volumes from project implementation along roadways leading to the project site could

result in changes in ambient noise levels. Vehicular noise levels were modeled for the roadways analyzed

in Section 4.7, Transportation and Traffic using traffic volumes1 analyzed in the traffic section. The

1 The traffic analysis in Section 4.7 is highly conservative as it analyzes the level of service impacts from all of the

vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, treating all the trips as “new” whereas at least 49 percent of

the 548 daily one-way trips are existing trips. The vehicular noise impacts are analyzed using the same numbers

as used in the traffic analysis; therefore, this vehicular noise analysis is also a highly conservative analysis.

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

results of the modeled weekday roadway noise levels are provided below in Table 4.6-4, Operational

Roadway Noise Levels. As shown, no significant changes in Ldn would result from the proposed project.

As discussed above, an increase in Ldn of 3 dB(A) represents the point at which only the most sensitive

individuals notice a change in noise levels. Since the project would not increase roadway noise levels by

3 dB(A) or greater during the weekday, land uses located along study area roadways, including the

residential area less than 100 feet west of the project site, would not be affected by traffic noise. Therefore,

impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.6-4

Operational Roadway Noise Levels


Existing Noise

Levels Without

Project

Existing Noise

Levels Plus

Project

Change in

Noise Levels

Significant

Project Impact

Broderick Street, south of Bush 52.6 52.9 0.3 No

Divisadero Street, south of Pine 63.2 63.2 0.0 No

Divisadero Street, south of Bush 63.2 63.2 0.0 No

Divisadero Street, south of Sutter 63.6 63.7 0.1 No

Divisadero Street, south of Post 64.2 64.3 0.1 No

Scott Street, south of Sutter 57.2 57.3 0.1 No

Scott Street, south of Post 58.1 58.1 0.0 No

Bush Street, west of Divisadero 63.8 63.8 0.0 No

Sutter Street, east of Broderick 56.2 56.8 0.6 No

Sutter Street, east of Divisadero 55.8 55.8 0.0 No

Post Street, east of Divisadero 59.8 59.8 0.0 No

Geary Boulevard, east of Broderick 70.7 70.7 0.0 No

Geary Boulevard, east of Divisadero 70.6 70.7 0.1 No



Impact NOISE-4: The operation of the proposed facility would not result in a substantial long-

term increase in ambient noise levels. (Less than Significant)

Over the long term, operation and use of proposed parking structure would result in an increase in noise

levels at the project site. Stationary equipment, such elevator equipment would increase noise in the

immediate area. In addition, parking structures can be a source of annoyance due to automobile engine

start-ups and acceleration, and the activation of car alarms. However, as noted in Section 3.0, Project

Description, public parking hours of operation of the proposed garage would be from 6 AM to 10 PM,

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

Monday through Friday, excluding Medical Center holidays and the garage would not be open to the

public on weekends. Therefore, noise generated by vehicles within the garage would be limited to

working days and hours. Furthermore, the western wall of the parking structure would contain no

openings while the northern wall that would be towards the future mixed-use project on Bush Street

would be partially enclosed. Therefore, noise generated by vehicles within the garage would be

completely blocked to the west and minimized by project design to the north.

The proposed project includes a mechanical ventilation system that would include an air intake on the

second level of the Sutter Street aspect of the parking garage and a fan exhaust on the northeast corner of

the garage about 12 feet from the UCSF medical office building and about 15 feet from the approved

mixed-use development project on Bush Street. With respect to mechanical equipment noise, San

Francisco Noise Ordinance states that “No person shall produce or allow to be produced by any machine

or device, music or entertainment or any combination of same, on a commercial or industrial property

over which the person had ownership or control, a noise level more than 8 dB(A) above the local ambient

at any point outside of the property plane.” As noted earlier, noise measurements were conducted at the

project site and ambient noise levels on Sutter Street and the northern property line were estimated. The

increase in ambient noise levels from the air intake on Sutter was estimated to be less than 8 decibels and

therefore, that element of the mechanical ventilation system would not result in an exceedance of the

Noise Ordinance. Assuming the “worst case” operation of the exhaust system early morning at full fan

speed, at the north and east property lines, the fan exhaust noise is predicted to produce 75 dB(A) (or

19 dB over the allowable limit given the ambient noise level) and 80 dB(A) (or 21 dB over the allowable

limit given the ambient noise level). To reduce fan exhaust noise to meet Noise Ordinance requirements,

the proposed project includes a silencer, appropriate ductwork, an acoustical louver at the exterior

exhaust port, and a solid-state speed controller for the fan. With these design features included in the

project, mechanical noise levels would not cause an exceedance of the requirements of the Noise

Ordinance.

In summary, the operation of the proposed facility would not result in a substantial long-term increase in

ambient noise levels that could affect off-site receptors, and this impact is considered less than significant.



Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source

increases. Consequently, only projects and growth that would occur in the general area of the project site

would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. There is only one development project that is proposed in

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

the project vicinity which is a mixed-use project located at 2655 Bush Street, immediately to the north of

the project site. This project was considered in the evaluation of cumulative noise impacts, below.

Construction of the 2655 Bush Street project was scheduled to begin in spring 2010 and end by late 2011.

However, the start of construction has been delayed due to the economy. Conservatively for this EIR, it is

assumed that the construction of the 2655 Bush Street project would overlap with the construction of the

proposed project.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project and the 2655 Bush Street project is the Russian

Center and residential uses located to the west. Both the Russian Center and residential uses are located

immediately adjacent to the 2655 Bush Street project.

Cumulative Impact NOISE-1: Construction of cumulative development would temporarily elevate

noise levels in the Mount Zion neighborhood. (Less than Significant)

Noise impacts are localized in nature and decrease with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a

cumulative increase in noise, more than one source emitting high levels of noise would need to be located

in close proximity to the noise receptor. The proposed mixed-use project at 2655 Bush Street is located in

close enough proximity to the project site to result in cumulative noise impacts. Construction of the 2655

Bush Street project would temporarily increase noise in the area above existing levels. However, impacts

would be minimal, as construction would be required to comply with regulations set forth in the San

Francisco Noise Ordinance. In addition, while increased noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors due to

construction would be annoying, closed windows typically can reduce daytime interior noise levels to an

acceptable level (San Francisco 2009). As discussed above, noise impacts during construction of the

proposed project would be intermittent and temporary over the yearlong construction period. In

addition, the proposed project would implement LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4E1-1, which is

consistent with the standards set forth in the San Francisco Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the combined

noise effect of the proposed project and the 2655 Bush Street project during construction would be less

than significant.


Cumulative Impact NOISE-2: Temporary vibration related to the construction of cumulative

development would not cause a cumulative impact. (Less than

Significant)

Vibration impacts are also localized in nature and decrease with distance. Consequently, in order to result

in a cumulative impact, more than one source emitting high levels of vibration would need to be in close

proximity to the sensitive receptor. The proposed mixed-use development project located at 2655 Bush

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

Street is located in close enough proximity to the proposed project to have the potential to result in

cumulative vibration impacts at the nearest receptors. The 2655 Bush Street project by itself could

generate vibration levels between 65 VdB and 75 VdB at adjacent locations. The City’s code requires that

construction associated with the 2655 Bush Street be scheduled to occur between the hours of 7:00 AM

and 8:00 PM to minimize disruption on sensitive uses. Therefore, vibration-producing activities

associated with the 2655 Bush Street project would not occur during normal sleeping hours. In addition,

construction associated with the proposed project would be scheduled to occur between the hours of

7:00 AM and 8:00 PM to minimize disturbance to sensitive uses. As a result, vibration-producing

activities associated with the proposed project would not occur during normal sleeping hours. The

cumulative impact of both projects would be less than significant.


Cumulative Impact NOISE-3: Vehicular traffic associated with cumulative development would

result in an incremental, but imperceptible, long-term increase in

ambient noise levels. (Less than Significant)

Increase in vehicular traffic on study area streets due to cumulative growth would incrementally increase

ambient noise levels. However, based on the projected growth in traffic on the study area roadways

between existing conditions and 2030, including the traffic associated with the proposed project, traffic

noise levels would increase by less than 2 dB(A) Ldn, an imperceptible level. As shown in Table 4.6-5,

Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels, no increase above 1.6 dB(A) Ldn is anticipated. Consequently, there

would not be a significant cumulative impact with regard to roadway noise.

Table 4.6-5

Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels


Existing Noise

Levels

Future 2030

Noise Levels

Cumulative

Change in

Noise Levels

Cumulative

Impact

Broderick Street, south of Bush 52.6 53.4 0.8 No

Divisadero Street, south of Pine 63.2 63.5 0.3 No

Divisadero Street, south of Bush 63.2 63.5 0.3 No

Divisadero Street, south of Sutter 63.6 63.9 0.3 No

Divisadero Street, south of Post 64.2 64.4 0.2 No

Scott Street, south of Sutter 57.2 57.7 0.5 No

Scott Street, south of Post 58.1 58.5 0.4 No

Bush Street, west of Divisadero 63.8 64.0 0.2 No

Sutter Street, east of Broderick 56.2 57.7 1.5 No

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011


Existing Noise

Levels

Future 2030

Noise Levels

Cumulative

Change in

Noise Levels

Cumulative

Impact

Sutter Street, east of Divisadero 55.8 57.4 1.6 No

Post Street, east of Divisadero 59.8 60.7 0.9 No

Geary Boulevard, east of Broderick 70.7 70.8 0.1 No

Geary Boulevard, east of Divisadero 70.6 70.7 0.1 No



Cumulative Impact NOISE-4: The operation of cumulative development would not result in a

substantial long-term increase in ambient noise levels. (Less than

Significant)

Most of the project vicinity is already developed with land uses. The only new land uses to be developed

in the area are the proposed project and the mixed-use development project at 2655 Bush Street. Both

projects are located in close proximity to each other to have the potential to result in cumulative

operational noise impacts. The 2655 Bush Street project by itself could generate noise from stationary

sources such as rooftop elevator and HVAC equipment. Combined, the proposed project and the

2655 Bush Street project would increase noise in the immediate area. However, as development of the

proposed project and the 2655 Bush Street project would be consistent with local zoning and with the

character of surrounding uses, noise levels generated by both projects would be similar to noise levels

generated by surrounding uses. In addition, both projects would control their mechanical equipment

noise in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. As a result, the cumulative impact of operational noise

from the two projects would be less than significant.


4.6.6 REFERENCES

City and County of San Francisco. 2010. City and County of San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 712 (San

Francisco 2010)



Charles M Salter and Associates. 2010. 2420 Sutter Street Garage – Review of DD-Phase Project Drawings

CSA Project No. 10-0294

4.6 Noise


1063.001 January 2011

Cunniff, P.F. 1977. Environmental Noise Pollution.

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 1971. Highway Noise: A Design Guide for

Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117.



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Building Operations,

Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December 1971. (EPA 1971)

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals.

Springfield, Virginia. September 1980. (FHA 1980)

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. High-Speed Ground

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.


1063.001 January 2011

4.7 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.7.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the existing transportation setting in the project area and analyzes the potential

impacts of the proposed Mount Zion Garage project (proposed project) on transportation and traffic.

The section is based on a traffic report prepared for the proposed project by Adavant Consulting,

November 3, 2010. A complete copy of the traffic has been included in Appendix 4.7 of this

Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

4.7.2 SCOPE OF TRAFFIC STUDY

Given the project location, and for consistency with other analyses conducted in its vicinity, the study

scope and approach follows, to the extent applicable, the San Francisco Planning Department’s

Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Environmental Review, October 2002 (SF Guidelines).

For the analysis of the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project, the following three transportation

scenarios were evaluated:

Baseline;

Baseline plus Project; and

Future year 2030 Cumulative.

The Baseline scenario represents traffic conditions that include the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero

Street, recently completed in December 2010, plus a mixed use project consisting of 4,500 square feet of

ground-level retail space and 83 residential units located at 2655 Bush Street, which was proposed by a

private entity and approved by the City of San Francisco in 2009 but not yet constructed. The inclusion of

this project’s trips in the baseline conditions represents a highly conservative analysis.

The following 11 intersections in the vicinity of the project site were analyzed for intersection Level of

Service (LOS) during the weekday PM peak hour (the highest traffic hour between 4:00 and 6:00 PM).

1. Bush Street/Broderick Street (Traffic Signal)

2. Sutter Street/Broderick Street (All-Way STOP)

3. Geary Boulevard/Broderick Street (One-Way STOP)

4. Pine Street/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)


1063.001 January 2011

5. Bush Street/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)

6. Sutter Street/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)

7. Post Street/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)

8. Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street (Traffic Signal)

9. Sutter Street/Scott Street (All-Way STOP)

10. Post Street/Scott Street (Traffic Signal)

11. Geary Boulevard/Scott Street (Traffic Signal)

Intersections #2 through #11 were selected for consistency with the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine

Building FEIR (2005) (now the Osher Building) and its addendum (2007). The signalized intersection of

Bush and Broderick Streets (Intersection #1) was selected so that all four intersections surrounding the

block where the proposed project would be located could be evaluated. In addition, this intersection,

together with Pine/Divisadero (Intersection #4) and Bush/Divisadero (Intersection #5), was also analyzed

as part of the transportation study conducted for 2655 Bush Street project (2008). Analysis of these

11 intersections is considered sufficient to assess the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project.

Vehicle turning movement counts were collected once at the 11 study intersections on Wednesday,

March 10, 2010, Tuesday, March 16, 2010 and Wednesday, March 17, 2010 during the evening peak

commute period from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. A comparison of these traffic counts with those collected for

previous studies indicates that the PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes in 2010 are 2 to 15 percent

lower than those collected in 2002 and 2006.


A description of existing transportation conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project is provided

below, including descriptions of the existing roadway traffic, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, emergency

vehicle access, and parking conditions.

Roadway Network

Regional Access

Travel to and from the project site involves the use of regional highway transportation facilities that link

San Francisco with other parts of the Bay Area, as well as Northern and Southern California. The project

site is accessible by local streets with connections to and from regional freeways and highways in the

state system.


1063.001 January 2011

Interstate 80 and U.S. Highway 101

Interstate 80 (I-80) and U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) provide the primary regional access to the project

area. U.S. 101 serves San Francisco and the Peninsula/South Bay, and extends north via the Golden Gate

Bridge to the North Bay. Van Ness Avenue serves as U.S. 101 between Market Street and Lombard Street.

I-80 connects San Francisco to the East Bay and points east via the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

U.S. 101 and I-80 merge south of the project site. The closest access to the U.S. 101 south freeway is via the

ramps at Market Street and Octavia Boulevard.

Interstate 280

Interstate 280 (I-280) provides regional access from the South of Market area to southern San Francisco,

the Peninsula, and the South Bay. I-280 has an interchange with U.S. 101 south of the project area. The

closest access to I-280 is provided via on- and off-ramps at the intersection of Sixth/Brannan Streets.

Local Access

A discussion of the existing local roadway system in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway

designation, number of travel lanes, and traffic flow directions, is provided below. Figure 4.7-1, Local

Roadway System, provides the location of each roadway in relation to the project site.

Broderick Street

Broderick Street is a north-south roadway that runs discontinuously between Marina Boulevard and

Waller Street. Broderick Street generally has one lane in each direction and parking on both sides of the

street.

Divisadero Street

Divisadero Street is the major north-south arterial that runs between Marina Boulevard and 14th Street.

Between Castro Street and California Street, Divisadero Street is a two-way roadway with two lanes in

each direction and parking on both sides of the street. In the General Plan, Divisadero Street is designated

as a Major Arterial between Pine and Lombard Streets, and as a Secondary Arterial between Castro and

California Streets. It is also designated as a Secondary Transit Street and a Neighborhood Commercial

Street between Haight Street and California Street. Divisadero Street is a Congestion Management Plan

(CMP) network street between Castro and Pine Streets, and a Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS)

network Street between Castro and Lombard Streets.


1063.001 January 2011

Scott Street

Scott Street is a north-south roadway that runs between Marina Boulevard and Duboce Avenue. Scott

Street generally has one lane in each direction and parking on both sides of the street. Between McAllister

and Haight Streets, Scott Street is part of Citywide Bicycle Route #45, and a bicycle lane is provided on

both sides of the street between McAllister and Fell Streets, and between Page and Haight Streets.

Pine Street

Pine Street is an east-west direction roadway that begins at Davis/Market Streets in the downtown area

and extends to just west of Presidio Avenue, where it meets Bush Street and becomes Masonic Avenue.

Pine Street is a one-way roadway, with two to three westbound lanes, and parking on both sides of the

street. Peak period parking prohibitions are enforced east of Gough Street during the PM peak periods to

provide additional travel lanes. Pine Street is designated as a Major Arterial, as well as a part of the

Neighborhood Pedestrian Street network between Market and Kearny Streets, and between Scott and

Divisadero Streets. It is also a Transit Preferential Street between Market and Kearny Streets.

Bush Street

Bush Street is an east-west direction roadway between Davis Street in the downtown area to just west of

Presidio Avenue. The street has two to three travel lanes in the eastbound direction, with on-street

parking spaces on both sides of the street. The General Plan identifies Bush Street as a Major Arterial, as

well as a Neighborhood Pedestrian Street network between Market and Kearny Streets, and between

Scott and Divisadero Streets. It is also a Transit Preferential Street between Market and Kearny Streets.

Sutter Street

Sutter Street is an east-west direction roadway that runs between Presidio Avenue in the west, and

Market Street in the east. It is one-way westbound between Market Street and Gough Street, and forms a

couplet with Post Street (which runs one-way eastbound east of Gough Street). The one-way segment of

Sutter Street has three travel lanes in the westbound direction. Sutter Street has one travel lane in each

direction directly in front of the project site. The General Plan identifies Sutter Street as a Transit Conflict

Street in the CMP Network, and as a Transit Preferential Street (secondary transit street). Sutter Street is

identified as a Neighborhood Pedestrian Street between Market and Fillmore Streets, and between Scott

and Divisadero Streets. Bicycle Route #16 runs westbound on Sutter Street east of Steiner Street. Adjacent

to the project site between Divisadero Street and Broderick Streets, Sutter is a two-lane street with one

travel lane in each direction and metered parking on both sides of the street.


1063.001 January 2011

Post Street

Post Street is an east-west direction roadway that runs between Presidio Avenue in the west, and Market

Street in the east. Between Presidio Avenue and Gough Street, Post Street has one to two travel lanes in

each direction, with parking on both sides of the street. East of Gough Street, Post Street is one-way

eastbound, with two mixed-flow travel lanes and a bus-only lane. The General Plan identifies Post Street

as a Transit Preferential Street (secondary transit street). Post Street is identified as a Neighborhood

Pedestrian Street between Market and Gough Streets, between Laguna and Fillmore Streets, and between

Pierce and Divisadero Streets. Bicycle Route #16 runs eastbound/westbound within bicycle lanes on either

side of the street between Presidio Avenue and Steiner Street, and westbound between Market and

Steiner Streets (as a signed route only).

Geary Boulevard

Geary Boulevard is an east-west direction major thoroughfare, linking downtown with the Richmond

district. Between 48th Avenue and Collins Street, this roadway is designated as Geary Boulevard and

generally has three travel lanes in each direction. Between Collins Street and Gough Street, this roadway

is designated as Geary Expressway and is generally an eight lane two-way roadway. East of Gough

Street, this roadway becomes Geary Street and is one way westbound, forming a couplet with O’Farrell

Street. The General Plan identifies Geary Street as a Major Arterial in the CMP Network, an MTS Street, a

Transit Preferential Street (transit important), and a Neighborhood Commercial Street. A Bus Rapid

Transit (BRT) system is being planned for Geary Boulevard.

Intersection Operating Conditions

The operating characteristics of intersections are described by the concept of Level of Service (LOS). LOS

is a qualitative description of the performance of an intersection based on the average delay per vehicle.

Intersection levels of service ranges from LOS A, which indicates free flow or excellent conditions with

short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with extremely long delays.

LOS A through LOS D are considered excellent to satisfactory service levels, LOS E is undesirable, and

LOS F conditions are unacceptable.

Traffic conditions at the 11 study intersections were assessed for the Baseline scenario, which represents

traffic conditions after the opening of the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero Street, recently completed in

December 2010, plus a mixed use project consisting of 4,500 square feet of ground-level retail space and

83 residential units located at 2655 Bush Street, at the corner of Divisadero Street. The Baseline turning

movement volumes were calculated by adding the Osher Building generated traffic (obtained from its

EIR) and the 2655 Bush Street project traffic (obtained from its transportation study) to the existing


1063.001 January 2011

turning movement volumes collected in March 2010. Figure 4.7-2, Baseline Traffic Volumes and LOS

Weekday PM Peak Hour, shows the resulting weekday PM peak hour turning movement traffic volumes

at each study intersection for the Baseline scenario.

Traffic conditions at both signalized and unsignalized intersections were calculated using the 2000

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. For signalized intersections, this methodology determines

the capacity of each lane group approaching the intersection. The LOS is then based on average delay (in

seconds per vehicle) for the various movements within the intersection. A combined weighted average

delay and LOS are presented for the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, the average delay and

LOS operating conditions are calculated by approach (e.g., northbound) and movement (e.g., northbound

left-turn) for those movements that are subject to delay. Therefore, for unsignalized intersections, the LOS

summary tables present the operating conditions for the worst approach.

Table 4.7-1, Intersection Level of Service Baseline Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour, presents the

results of the intersection LOS analysis for the Baseline weekday PM peak hour conditions. During the

weekday PM peak hour, all 11 existing study intersections operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better),

with average delays per vehicle of less than 40 seconds.

Table 4.7-1

Intersection Level of Service Baseline1 Conditions

Weekday PM Peak Hour

No. Intersection Traffic Control Device Delay2 Level of Service

1 Bush Street/Broderick Street Traffic Signal 11.8 B

2 Sutter Street/Broderick Street3 Four-way STOP 8.9 (WB) A (WB)

3 Geary Boulevard/Broderick Street3 Southbound STOP 19.8 (SB) C (SB)

4 Pine Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 33.7 C

5 Bush Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 16.6 B

6 Sutter Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 12.7 B

7 Post Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 22.9 C

8 Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 39.7 D

9 Sutter Street/Scott Street3 Four-way STOP 12.3 (SB) B (SB)

10 Post Street/Scott Street Traffic Signal 18.8 B

11 Geary Boulevard/Scott Street Traffic Signal 22.1 C

Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 Represents traffic conditions after the opening of the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero St plus the approved mixed-use

development located at 2655 Bush St, at the corner of Divisadero St.2 Intersection delay presented in seconds per vehicle.3 For unsignalized intersections, delay is presented for the worst stop-controlled approach.

Pine St

Bush St

Sutter St

Post St

Bro

deric

k S

t

Div

isad

ero

St

Sco

tt S

tGeary Blvd

UCSFMt. Zion

Source: Adavant Consulting

LOMBARD

COLUMBUS

SANSO

ME

BATTERY

BAY

BROADWAY

PACIFIC

CALIFORNIA

GEARY

FELL

MASO

NIC

DIVISAD

ERO FILLM

OR

E

GO

UG

HOC

TAVIA

VAN N

ESSPO

LK

HAIGHT

DUBOCE

16TH ST

14TH ST 15TH ST

17TH ST18TH ST

PINE

SIXTHST.

THIRD ST.

NINTH ST.

TENTH ST.

MARKET

MISSION

FOLSOM

BRANNAN

TOWNSEND

THEEMBARCADER

SITE

Local Roadway System

FIGURE 4.7-1

1063-001•12/10

SOURCE: Adavant Colsulting – November 2010


200 100 0 200

n

PROJECT SITE

ONE-WAY STREET

Legend

NORTH

FEET

2000

Pine St

Bush St

Sutter St

Post St

Div

isad

ero

St

Sco

tt S

t

Geary Blvd

Bro

deric

k S

t

UCSFMt. Zion

24*1160

26

6655

32*

83

317784

47473*51

47119*4441 54

713

207563

2915826

291102457 21

622

43*218112

8148839

40854622 60

7*46

4749

26587

591352223 21 14

15*259

71

101182*32

161063233 24

030

147033

5616646

821869*145 22

1*45

135486

5651970

831841*

118

659*

48

1371892

62

85*1123

83

94448

518*

76

474*59

1031515*10272 49

2

Baseline Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour

FIGURE 4.7-2

1063-001•12/10


*

NORTH

FEET

2000

PROJECT SITELOS Signalized UnsignalizedA or B

C

D

E

F

ONE-WAY STREET

CRITICAL MOVEMENT

Legend


200 100 0 200

n


1063.001 January 2011

Transit Network

The project site is well-served by public transit. Direct regional transit service is provided by the Golden

Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, while local service is provided by the San Francisco

Municipal Railway (Muni) bus lines. In addition, UCSF provides shuttle bus service between the Mount

Zion campus site and other UCSF campus sites.

Regional Transit Service

Golden Gate Transit (GGT), one of the three operating divisions of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway &

Transportation District, provides bus and ferry service to/from Marin/Sonoma Counties, with most bus

routes running in either the Van Ness Avenue corridor or the Financial District. One GGT line (Route 92)

operates during the AM and PM peak commute periods on weekdays between Marin City (Marin

County) and downtown San Francisco traveling along Geary Boulevard both ways. Route 92 has the

nearest stop at Divisadero Street; it also stops at the Golden Gate Bridge Plaza for passenger transfer to or

from other GGT lines. Route 92 serves Geary Boulevard and Divisadero Street approximately six times a

day each way (three times each peak commute period), stopping once every hour from approximately

7:00 AM to 9:30 AM, and from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM. GGT also provides ferry service to and from the North

Bay to the Ferry Building.

Regional transit service to and from the East Bay is provided by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) along

Market and Mission Streets, and by AC Transit buses terminating at the Transbay Transit Terminal (on

Main Street at Folsom Street). BART also provides transit services to the northern portions of the

Peninsula. Commuter rail service to and from the Peninsula and South Bay is provided by Caltrain to its

Depot located at Fourth and Townsend Streets, while bus service is provided by the San Mateo County

Transit District (SamTrans) terminating at the Transbay Transit Terminal.

Connecting service from these regional transit providers to UCSF requires a transfer to the San Francisco

Municipal Railway (Muni) lines or the UCSF shuttle bus service. The Embarcadero BART station is

located approximately 2.5 miles east of the site (accessed via the 1-California and 1BX-California Express),

while the Montgomery Street BART station is located about 2 miles east of the site (accessed via the

2-Clement, 4-Sutter, 38-Geary, and 38L-Geary Limited). The Caltrain Depot is located approximately

3 miles southeast of the project site (accessed via the 38-Geary and 30-Union), and the temporary

Transbay Transit Terminal is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project site (accessed via

the 1-California or the 38-Geary).


1063.001 January 2011

San Francisco Municipal Railway Service

Table 4.7-2, Summary of Existing Nearby Muni Service, presents the service frequencies and nearest

stop location for the Muni lines that operate in the vicinity of the proposed project.

The 2-Clement line travels directly in front of the project site; however, there are no transit bus stops for

the line at or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest transit bus stop for the 2-Clement

line is across Divisadero Street on the north and south sides of Sutter Street. Although the 2-Clement line

is a motor-coach line, trolley poles and wires are installed on Sutter Street in front of the project site to

provide trolley bus access between Divisadero Street and Muni’s Presidio Division yard and maintenance

shops at Sutter Street and Presidio Avenue.

Table 4.7-2

Summary of Existing Nearby Muni Service

Route

Scheduled Service Headways (minutes)

Nearest Stop LocationAM Mid-day PM Evening

1-California 7.5 6 5.5 15 California/Divisadero

1BX-California Express 5.5 -- 10 -- California/Divisadero

2-Clement 8.5 20 10 -- Sutter/Divisadero

24-Divisadero 8.5 10 10 20 Sutter/Divisadero

38-Geary 7.5 7.5 6 10 Geary/Divisadero

38L-Geary Limited 6.5 7 7 -- Geary/Divisadero

Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 The 1AX-California Express, 31AX/31BX-Balboa Express, and the 38AX/BX-Geary Express travel on Pine and Bush streets in the vicinity

of the project site, but do not stop.2 The scheduled headways shown in this table reflect service prior to December 2009 when the TEP Monitoring Data was collected. Existing

headways are generally 2 to 5 minutes higher (less buses per hour) with the exception of the 38L-Geary Limited which operates with a

scheduled headway of 6 minutes until 9:00 PM.

For the purposes of this study, the six Muni bus lines serving the proposed project (within approximately

0.25 mile of the project site) were grouped into two corridors and the capacity utilization was determined

by corridor. Capacity utilization relates the number of passengers per transit vehicle to the design

capacity of the vehicle. The capacity per vehicle includes both seated and standing capacity, where

standing capacity is somewhere between 30 to 80 percent of seated capacity (depending upon the specific

transit vehicle configuration). Capacity utilization is calculated at the Maximum Load Point (MLP), the

transit stop with the greatest demand. Muni’s capacity utilization standard is 85 percent of total capacity.

Table 4.7-3, Existing Muni Service Utilization – Weekday PM Peak Hour, presents the ridership and

capacity utilization at the maximum load point for the nearby north/south and east/west Muni lines


1063.001 January 2011

during the weekday PM peak hour. The 1- California, 1BX-California Express, 2-Clement, 38-Geary, and

38L-Geary Limited comprise the east/west corridor, while the 24-Divisadero comprises the north/south

corridor. For the east/west lines, the most congested MLPs (outbound) are located to the east of the

project site, at or near downtown. For the north/south 24-Divisadero line, the most congested MLP

(southbound) is to the south of the project site, near Market and Castro Streets. Both the east/west and the

north/south corridors currently operate below the capacity utilization standard of 85 percent at the MLP,

signifying that bus lines have available capacity to accommodate additional passengers.

Table 4.7-3

Existing Muni Service Utilization


Corridor/Direction of Travel Hourly Ridership1 Hourly Capacity1 Capacity Utilization

North/South Line2

Northbound 144 378 38%

Southbound 223 378 59%

East/West Lines3

Eastbound 1,625 3,551 46%

Westbound 2,872 3,710 77%

Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 Number of passengers2 24-Divisadero3 1-California, 1BX-California Express, 2-Clement, 38-Geary, 38L-Geary Limited

UCSF Shuttle Bus Service

UCSF has had an active and growing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program since 1971,

and at present, about 65 percent of Mount Zion-based employees take alternative forms of transportation

to work. Among other TDM programs at the Mount Zion Medical Center, UCSF provides shuttle bus

services to transport faculty, staff, students, and patients between campus sites with two routes, the

Blue/Gold and the Black/Tan, each route providing service to and from Mount Zion campus site every 20

minutes. The Blue/Gold route operates from about 6:00 AM to 9:30 PM and connects directly with the

Parnassus Heights and Mission Bay campus sites, while the Black/Tan route operates from about 7:00 AM

to 9:00 PM and connects directly with the Parnassus Heights and Laurel Heights campus sites.

There is a combined weekday average of 1,074 daily boardings at Mount Zion for both routes.

Wednesday is the peak day with an average of 1,130 daily boardings. The daily peak demand periods are

from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, which combined account for approximately

45 percent of the daily demand.


1063.001 January 2011

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project

In 2007, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) Authority Board approved the final

report of the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study. The SFCTA is now conducting an

Environmental Impact Statement and Report (EIS/EIR) in partnership with the San Francisco Municipal

Transportation Agency (SFMTA) looking at possible configurations of the Geary BRT and analyzing

potential impacts of the project. The Geary BRT EIS/EIR is assessing the effects of a new dedicated transit

lane each way in the center or at the curb of Geary Boulevard between Van Ness/Gough and 33rd Avenue.

The SFCTA expects to complete the Draft EIS/EIR document in Spring 2011 and initiate the project design

shortly thereafter. Construction could start in 2014, with a potential start of service before 2020.

Pedestrian Conditions

An evaluation of existing pedestrian conditions was conducted during field visits to the project site.

Adjacent to the project site, the Sutter Street sidewalk is 15 feet wide. Striped crosswalks are provided at

the adjacent unsignalized intersections of Sutter/Broderick Streets. Striped crosswalks and handicapped

curb ramps at all four corners are also provided at the adjacent signalized intersection of

Sutter/Divisadero Streets; there are no pedestrian signal heads installed at this intersection.

Pedestrian counts were conducted at 5-minute intervals in front of the proposed project on Tuesday,

March 16, 2010, between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM (period of highest vehicle arrivals and highest pedestrian

activity), and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM (peak commute period for the transportation network). The

results are summarized in Table 4.7-4, Existing Pedestrian Volumes on Sutter Street North Sidewalk –

Weekday Midday and PM Peak Periods.

Table 4.7-4

Existing Pedestrian Volumes on Sutter Street North Sidewalk

Weekday Midday and PM Peak Periods

Period Peak Hour Period Peak Hour Pedestrians

Average Number of

Pedestrians per Minute

11 AM to 1 PM 11:10–2:10 68 1.1

4 PM to 6 PM 5-6 56 0.9

Source: Adavant Consulting, 2010

As shown in Table 4.7-4, pedestrian volumes are relatively moderate during the midday and the evening

commute periods. Overall, the sidewalks and crosswalks in the area were observed to be operating under

satisfactory conditions, with pedestrians moving at normal walking speeds and with freedom to bypass


1063.001 January 2011

other pedestrians. Field observations adjacent to the project site did not indicate any pedestrian-vehicle

conflicts at the existing driveways to the 1701 Divisadero Street medical office building garage or the 1635

Divisadero Street public garage.

Bicycle Conditions

Bicycle Route #16 on Post Street is a designated Class II bicycle facility – bicycle lanes – both ways,

between Presidio Avenue and Steiner Street in the vicinity of the proposed project. Bicycle Route #16

becomes a Class II facility – signed route where bicyclists and vehicles share the travel lane – to the east of

Steiner Street.

Bicycle counts were conducted at 15-minute intervals on the approaches to the intersections of

Sutter/Divisadero and Post/Divisadero on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM,

which are summarized in Table 4.7-5, Existing Bicycle Volumes in the Vicinity of the Project Site –

Weekday Midday and PM Peak Periods. In addition, Table 4.7-5 presents the midday bicycle count

conducted at the intersection of Sutter/Divisadero Streets.

Table 4.7-5

Existing Bicycle Volumes in the Vicinity of the Project Site

Weekday Midday and PM Peak Periods

Location

Midday Peak Period PM Peak Period

Peak Hour

Bicyclists1

Peak Hour

Period Peak Hour Bicyclists

Peak Hour

Period

Divisadero Street, between

Sutter Street and Post Street -- -- 11 5-6

Sutter Street, west of

Divisadero Street (Project Site) 4 11:15-12:15 9 5-6

Post Street, west of

Divisadero Street (Route #16) -- -- 25 5-6


1 Total both ways

No substantial safety conflicts between bicyclist and pedestrians or vehicles, or right-of-way issues were

observed during field visits.


1063.001 January 2011



The impact of the proposed project on traffic and transportation would be considered significant if it

would exceed the following standards of significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA

Guidelines and the UC CEQA Handbook:

Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the

performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass

transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but

not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass

transit;

Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of

service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county

congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;

Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in

location that results in substantial safety risks;

Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)

or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);

Result in inadequate emergency access;

Result in inadequate parking capacity;

Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities;

Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by causing substantial conflict among autos,

bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit vehicles; and

Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by generating transit demand that transit

systems or projected transit service would not be able to accommodate.

The following thresholds were used to evaluate the project’s traffic impacts:

The operational impact on signalized intersections is considered significant when project-related

traffic causes the intersection level of service to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or

from LOS E to LOS F. The operational impacts on unsignalized intersections are considered

potentially significant if project-related traffic causes the level of service at the worst approach to

deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F and Caltrans signal warrants would be met, or would

cause Caltrans signal warrants to be met when the worst approach is already operating at LOS E or F.

The project may result in significant adverse impacts at intersections that operate at LOS E or F under

existing conditions depending upon the magnitude of the project’s contribution to the worsening of


1063.001 January 2011

the average delay per vehicle. The project would have a significant adverse effect at intersections if it

would contribute considerably to the LOS E or F conditions under cumulative (with project)

conditions. The project’s contribution would be considerable if the project contribution to cumulative

growth (the increase in traffic volumes between existing and cumulative 2030 conditions) would be 5

percent or greater, and if the project contribution to total 2030 volume(s) on critical movements

operating at LOS E or F would be 5 percent or greater. In addition, the project would have a

significant adverse impact if it would cause major traffic hazards or contribute considerably to

cumulative traffic increases that would cause deterioration in levels of service to unacceptable levels.

The project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would cause a substantial increase

in transit demand that could not be accommodated by adjacent transit capacity, resulting in

unacceptable levels of transit service; or cause a substantial increase in delays or operating costs such

that significant adverse impacts in transit service levels could result. With the Muni and regional

transit screenlines analyses, the project would have a significant effect on the transit provider if

project-related transit trips would cause the capacity utilization standard to be exceeded during the

weekday peak hour.

The project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in substantial

overcrowding on public sidewalks, create potentially hazardous conditions for pedestrians, or

otherwise interfere with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining areas.

The project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would create potentially

hazardous conditions for bicyclists or otherwise substantially interfere with bicycle accessibility to

the site and adjoining areas.


The Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not affect the air traffic patterns at any of

the regional airports. The project does not include activities or structures that could hinder aviation

activity. The Initial Study also determined that the proposed project would not result in inadequate

emergency access as the proposed access points are consistent with current standards for parking

structure design. In addition, the Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not result in

an inadequate parking supply but would actually be beneficial as it would reduce the existing parking

deficit in the neighborhood. The Initial Study also determined that the proposed project would result in a

less than significant impact with regard to conflicting with adopted policies, plans, or programs

regarding alternative transportation as the parking provided by the proposed project would not

undermine UCSF’s existing TDM program. Finally, the Initial Study determined that the proposed project

would result in a less than significant impact with regard to transit demand as the increased transit

demand resulting from two or three employees associated with the project would not overly burden

existing transit systems. These issues are not discussed further in this section.


1063.001 January 2011

Travel Demand Characteristics

Travel demand refers to the new vehicle, transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the proposed

project. The following discussion provides an estimate of the trips that would be generated by the new

228 parking space garage, with 172 spaces allocated as public (75 percent) and 56 spaces reserved for

UCSF employees (25 percent).

The time period chosen for analysis of potential transportation impacts was the peak hour within the

2-hour 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM weekday afternoon commute period. This time of day traditionally comprises

a larger (more concentrated) portion of the total daily trips in San Francisco, and consequently reflects the

worst-case scenario on a typical weekday. While parking occupancy at the garage would peak at midday,

and arrivals and departures would also occur earlier and later in the day, the weekday PM peak hour

would still represent the worst-case scenario as traffic in San Francisco is heaviest during this period.

The following sections describe the methodology used to develop the vehicle parking demand for the

proposed project, as well as its distribution and assignment to the local street network.

Parking Garage Demand

A vehicle demand was estimated for the 228 parking spaces to be provided on site, based on the parking

utilization data collected at nearby facilities.

A parking garage does not directly generate trips. Rather the trips are generated by the uses located in its

vicinity. As such, the number of vehicles trips associated with the proposed garage can be grouped into

three categories:

Parking Garage Demand of Nearby Uses (Osher Center) – Vehicles associated with existing nearby

uses that currently park at nearby garages or parking lots, who will find it more convenient to park at

the proposed garage. It also includes the parking demand associated with future development

projects in the area, including the 48,000-gsf Osher Building now under construction at 1545

Divisadero Street.

Latent Parking Garage Demand – Vehicle demand associated with those who would typically park

on the street, but who would park at a garage if on-street parking became very difficult, or if cheaper

off-street parking became available. UCSF anticipates various department moves from the Parnassus

Heights campus site to the Mount Zion campus site over the next several years. Additional parking

demand resulting from these moves also would be considered latent parking demand for the parking

garage for the purposes of this analysis.

Induced Parking Garage Demand – Additional vehicle demand representing those who would not

typically travel to the area or who would travel by other means, such as public transportation, walk

or bicycle, but who would switch to the automobile with increased availability of parking.


1063.001 January 2011

Parking Demand of Nearby Uses (Osher Center)

Table 4.7-6, Osher Building Estimated Daily Vehicle Parking Demand – Weekday, presents the

estimated daily number of vehicles from the Osher Building that would park in the Mount Zion campus

site vicinity. The vehicle demand was obtained from the Osher Center EIR Addendum, while the

expected parking location is based on recent UCSF survey data. The parking demand figures presented

here might be higher than actual values, as they are based on prior environmental analyses that contained

population figures that were somewhat overestimated, which would be appropriate for the purpose of

assessing potential traffic impacts in the area.

As shown in Table 4.7-6, over half of the Osher Center faculty, staff, patient and visitor vehicles (270

vehicles) would be expected to park at a parking facility in the area. Table 4.7-6 also shows that

approximately 239 vehicles could be expected to park on the adjacent streets, assuming, of course, that a

sufficient number of on-street parking spaces could be found by these vehicles.

Table 4.7-6

Osher Building Estimated Daily Vehicle Parking Demand1

Weekday

Parking Location2 Osher Center (48,000 gsf)3

At a parking facility 270 53%

On the street/Other4 239 47%

Total 509 100%


1 Drive alone, carpool and vanpool; excludes drop offs, bicycles and motorcycles

2 Based on UCSF Transportation Sustainability Survey, March-April 2009

3 Memorandum – Osher Center EIR Updated Analysis, Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2007

4 Assuming that a sufficient number of on-street parking spaces could be found by these vehicles; on-street parking

utilization is currently over 90 percent between 10 AM and 4 PM

Table 4.7-7, Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage by the Osher

Building – Weekday Off-Street Demand Only, presents the hourly distribution of vehicle arrivals and

departures for the 270 vehicles from the Osher Building who would be expected to park at the proposed

garage facility at 2420 Sutter Street as a matter of first preference. The arrival and departure patterns have

been estimated from the data gathered from the 1635 Divisadero Street garage (for hourly public parking)

and the 1701 Divisadero Street medical office building garage (for UCSF permit parking).


1063.001 January 2011

As shown in Table 4.7-7, the proposed garage at 2420 Sutter Street would be almost 50 percent occupied

during the midday period, if only the Osher Building off-street vehicle parking demands were to be

considered.

Table 4.7-7

Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage

by the Osher Building

Weekday Off-Street Demand Only1

End Time

Vehicle

Arrivals1

Vehicle

Departures1

Percent of Parking

Spaces Occupied2

6:00 AM 3 2 3%

7:00 AM 12 1 7%

8:00 AM 21 4 15%

9:00 AM 44 6 32%

10:00 AM 39 15 42%

11:00 AM 32 23 46%

Noon 21 28 43%

1:00 PM 23 24 43%

2:00 PM 23 21 43%

3:00 PM 21 27 41%

4:00 PM 15 29 35%

5:00 PM 6 28 25%

6:00 PM 2 26 14%

7:00 PM 5 16 10%

8:00 PM 1 9 6%

9:00 PM 0 7 3%

10:00 PM 0 2 2%

11:00 PM 0 1 2%

Midnight 0 2 1%

Total3 270 270


1 Osher Building vehicles identified in Table 4.7-6 as parking off-street in a garage or at a parking

lot facility. Arrival and departure patterns estimated from the data gathered from the 1635

Divisadero St. and 1701 Divisadero St. garages.

2 Percentage of capacity; highest values are shown in bold.

3 Columns may not always add up due to rounding.

Induced and Latent Demand

Determining the magnitude of the latent and induced parking demands is a difficult task without first

conducting detailed travel behavior surveys of faculty, employees, patients, and visitors at the Mount


1063.001 January 2011

Zion campus site. On the other hand, given the existing high on-street parking occupancies, it is unlikely

that the 239 future vehicles from the Osher Building who would try to park on the street as a matter of

first preference would actually be able to do so. In addition, UCSF anticipates various department moves

from the Parnassus Heights campus site to the Mount Zion campus site over the next several years, which

would generate additional parking demand. All of these vehicles would be considered as latent parking

demand for the parking garage for the purposes of this analysis.

In addition, it is likely that some individuals might consider driving to the area after the 2420 Sutter Street

garage becomes operational, until the parking occupancy at the new garage reaches a level similar to

those currently experienced by the nearby garages. These motorists who might be in the area to work, to

visit, or for other purposes not necessarily related to UCSF activities would be considered as induced

parking demand. The induced parking demand at the 2420 Sutter Street garage was estimated as the

additional number of vehicles that would increase the overall occupancy to current levels, about 90 to 95

percent.

As shown in Table 4.7-8, Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage

All Vehicles – Weekday Parking Demand, 39 daily vehicles would be necessary, in addition to the 509

vehicles identified in Table 4.7-7, to reach a midday occupancy level of 92 percent at the 2420 Sutter Street

garage, which is the average garage occupancy for the area. The 39 vehicles would represent the induced

parking demand of the project (about 7 percent of the total demand).

Of the 548 vehicles expected to park at the proposed garage, about 509 would be generated by the Osher

Building. Of the 509 vehicles, 239 vehicles (47 percent) would be attributed to the latent parking demand

of the Osher project or the vehicles that would park on the street if parking was available, 270 vehicles

would be those that would otherwise parking in other garages nearby, and 39 vehicles would be those

that would travel to the garage because space was available. The 548 vehicles would generate

approximately 630 walk trips each way to and from the parked cars, about 40 of these during the PM

peak hour.

The 39 induced trips represent new trips that would be directly attributed to the proposed garage and the

509 vehicles represent trips that are attributable to the Osher Center. Although the traffic impacts

associated with the Osher Building were analyzed in its own environmental review, the traffic analysis in

this EIR conservatively analyzes the impacts from the combined total of 548 daily vehicles (or 1,096 daily

one-way vehicle-trips).


1063.001 January 2011

Table 4.7-8

Estimated Parking Demand and Occupancy at the 2420 Sutter Street Garage

All Vehicles – Weekday Parking Demand

End Time Osher Center1 Induced Demand All Vehicles

Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures

Occupied

Spaces2

6:00 AM 5 4 0 0 5 4 10 4%

7:00 AM 23 1 1 0 24 1 33 14%

8:00 AM 40 8 2 0 42 8 67 29%

9:00 AM 82 11 5 1 87 12 142 62%

10:00 AM 73 28 6 3 79 31 190 83%

11:00 AM 60 43 6 4 66 47 209 92%

Noon 40 53 4 5 44 58 195 86%

1:00 PM 43 45 3 4 46 49 192 84%

2:00 PM 44 40 4 4 48 44 196 86%

3:00 PM 40 51 4 4 44 55 185 81%

4:00 PM 29 54 2 5 31 59 157 69%

5:00 PM 11 52 1 4 12 56 113 50%

6:00 PM 4 50 0 3 4 53 64 28%

7:00 PM 10 29 0 1 10 30 44 19%

8:00 PM 2 17 0 1 2 18 28 12%

9:00 PM 0 13 0 1 0 14 14 6%

10:00 PM 0 4 0 0 0 4 10 4%

11:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 2 8 4%

Midnight 0 2 0 0 0 2 6 3%

Total3 509 509 39 39 548 548


1 Represents all vehicles generated by the Osher Building, including those who would have first tried to park on the street (latent

demand), as identified in Table 4.7-7.

2 Highest occupancy and percentage of capacity values are shown in bold.

3 Columns may not always add up due to rounding.

Trip Distribution/Assignment

As indicated in Table 4.7-8, 68 vehicles (12 inbound and 56 outbound) would access the garage between

4:00 PM and 5:00 PM (the PM peak hour). These vehicles were then distributed as originating from or

being destined to San Francisco or for the East Bay, South Bay, and North Bay. San Francisco is divided

into four quadrants (Superdistrict 1 through Superdistrict 4), while the East Bay includes Alameda,

Contra Costa, Napa and Solano Counties, the North Bay includes Marin and Sonoma Counties, and the

South Bay is defined as San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Table 4.7-9, Mount Zion Campus Site Trip


1063.001 January 2011

Distribution Patterns, shows the geographical percentage distribution of trips assumed for the proposed

project based on data from surveys conducted at Mount Zion in 2009.

Table 4.7-9

Mount Zion Campus Site Trip Distribution Patterns

Location Percentage of Trips1

San Francisco2 60%

Superdistrict 1 11%

Superdistrict 2 27%

Superdistrict 3 13%

Superdistrict 4 9%

East Bay 15%

North Bay 11%

South Bay 13%

Other 1%

Total 100%


1 Combination of trips by patients, visitors, faculty and staff.

2 Superdistrict percentages within San Francisco were obtained from “Osher Center EIR Updated

Analysis,” Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2007.

As shown in Table 4.7-9, the vast majority of the combined trips to the Mount Zion campus site

(60 percent) come from within San Francisco, with smaller and almost equal percentages to and from the

North, East and South Bay areas. The trip distribution presented in Table 4.7-9 was used as the basis for

assigning the project-generated trips to the local streets in the study area.

It is noteworthy that the traffic analysis in this EIR is highly conservative because parking structures do

not in themselves generate trips (it is the land uses served by the garage that generate the trips).

However, the garage has been evaluated in this EIR as a trip generating land use. Secondly, for purposes

of the analysis, it is assumed that all trips associated with the garage would be new even though many of

the trips are existing trips. The Osher Building trips are both in the baseline, and then they are counted

again as new trips associated with the garage. The analysis also overestimates trips because it assumes

that the garage will be over 90 percent occupied.


1063.001 January 2011


Impact TRANS-1: Operation of the proposed project would not cause an increase in vehicle

traffic that would exceed the capacity of study area intersections. (Less than

Significant)

To determine the potential impact of the proposed project on each study area intersection, proposed

project traffic volumes were added to baseline traffic conditions. The resulting Baseline plus Project

traffic volumes for the weekday PM peak hour at the 11 study intersections are presented in Figure 4.7-3,

Baseline Plus Project Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday. Table 4.7-10, Intersection Level of Service

Baseline and Baseline plus Project Conditions – Weekday PM Peak Hour, presents a comparison of the

Baseline and Existing plus Project intersection delay and LOS for the weekday PM peak hour.

Table 4.7-10

Intersection Level of Service

Baseline and Baseline plus Project Conditions


No. Intersection

Traffic Control

Device

Baseline1

Baseline

Plus Project

Delay2

Level of

Service Delay2

Level of

Service

1 Bush Street/Broderick Street Traffic Signal 11.8 B 11.8 B

2 Sutter Street/Broderick Street3 Four-way STOP 8.9(WB) A(WB) 9.4(WB A(WB)

3 Geary Boulevard/Broderick Street3 Southbound STOP 19.8(SB) C(SB) 21.3(SB) C(SB)

4 Pine Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 33.7 C 33.8 C

5 Bush Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 16.6 B 16.6 B

6 Sutter Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 12.7 B 13.1 B

7 Post Street/Divisadero Street4 Traffic Signal 22.9 C 22.8 C

8 Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 39.7 D 42.3 D

9 Sutter Street/Scott Street3 Four-way STOP 12.3(SB) B(SB) 12.3(SB) B(SB)

10 Post Street/Scott Street Traffic Signal 18.8 B 18.9 B

11 Geary Boulevard/Scott Street Traffic Signal 22.1 C 22.2 C

Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 Represents traffic conditions after the opening of the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero St plus the approved mixed-use development

located at 2655 Bush St, at the corner of Divisadero St.2 Intersection delay presented in seconds per vehicle.3 For unsignalized intersections, delay is presented for the worst stop-controlled approach.4 Intersection delay at a signalized intersection might decrease slightly with the addition of the proposed project traffic since it is calculated

as an average of the delays on all approaches.

Pine St

Bush St

Sutter St

Post St

Div

isad

ero

St

Sco

tt S

t

Geary Blvd

Bro

deric

k S

t

UCSFMt. Zion

24*1161

28

6663

34*

83

34*8397

47473*55

471194444 54

713

207668

2915826

291102457 21

622

43*218112

8149939

40854622 62

0*46

4769

26587

671414223 21 18

15*259

71

101182*32

161063233 24

530

147533

5616646

821871*145 22

1*50

135486

56521*70

851841*

118

667

53

1371892

82

85*1123

84

96449

520*

76

475*59

1031515*10372 49

3

Baseline Plus Project Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday

FIGURE 4.7-3

1063-001•12/10


NORTH

FEET

2000


200 100 0 200

n

A or B

C

D

E

F

LOS

* CRITICAL MOVEMENT

PROJECT SITESignalized Unsignalized

ONE-WAY STREET

Legend


1063.001 January 2011

The addition of project-generated traffic to the Baseline scenario would result in minor increases in the

average delay per vehicle at almost all the study intersections; all study intersections would continue to

operate at the same LOS as under Baseline conditions during the weekday PM peak hour, LOS D or

better. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on intersection operations would be less than significant.


Impact TRANS-2: Operation of the proposed project would not cause an increase in vehicle

traffic that would delay transit service. (Less than Significant)

The 2-Clement Muni line travels along Sutter Street, but its nearest bus stops are across Divisadero Street

on the north and south sides of Sutter Street. As described above in Impact TRA-1, the addition of project-

generated vehicle-trips would result in minor increases in the average delay per vehicle, which would not

substantially modify traffic conditions in the area, and would, therefore, not noticeably affect transit

service. Thus, the proposed project’s impact on transit operations would be less than significant.


Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project would not cause an increase in pedestrian and vehicular

conflicts. (Less than Significant)

Conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles could occur at the garage driveway, which could cause

inbound vehicles to queue onto Sutter Street. The proposed inbound automatic gate and ticker-spitter

would be located about 22 feet from the Sutter Street property line, allowing one vehicle to queue within

the building. The sidewalk of about 15 feet would allow for 37 feet of queuing space, minimizing vehicle

queuing on Sutter Street. Outbound vehicles would queue inside the garage and would not affect street

traffic. Conflicts between outbound vehicles and pedestrians could still occur but their effect on

pedestrians would be reduced because pedestrians on the sidewalk have the right-of-way.

Table 4.7-11, Pedestrian-Vehicular Conflicts at 2420 Sutter Street Garage Driveway – Weekday Midday

and PM Peak Hours, presents a comparison of potential vehicular and pedestrian conflicts during the

weekday midday and PM peak hours at the garage driveway. The vehicle and pedestrian flow values

shown in the table are relatively small (about one vehicle and three pedestrians every minute on

average), and it is therefore not anticipated that the proposed project would cause any major conflict or

interfere with pedestrian movements in the area, and this impact is considered less than significant.


1063.001 January 2011

Table 4.7-11

Pedestrian-Vehicular Conflicts at 2420 Sutter Street Garage Driveway

Weekday Midday and PM Peak Hours

Time Period

Average Number of Inbound Vehicles

per Minute

Average Number of Pedestrians on

Sidewalk per Minute

Midday Peak Hour 1.1 3.3

PM Peak Hour 0.2 2.2


1 Includes existing pedestrian volumes shown in Table 4.7-4


Impact TRANS-4 The construction of the proposed project would temporarily and intermittently

impact the existing transportation network. (Less than Significant)

Table 4.7-12, Average Number of Daily Construction Trucks and Workers, presents the estimated

number of construction trucks and construction workers traveling to the site on a daily basis during the

various construction phases. Throughout the construction period, there would be a flow of construction-

related trucks into and out of the site. The impact of construction truck traffic would be a temporary

lessening of the capacities of local streets due to the slower movement and larger turning radii of trucks,

which may affect traffic operations.

Table 4.7-12

Average Number of Daily Construction Trucks and Workers

Construction Phase

Average Daily

Construction Trucks

Average Daily Construction

Workers

Underpinning 5 10

Excavation 35 15

Concrete Foundation and Above Grade Superstructure 15 30

MEP/Exterior Skin 10 30


It is anticipated that there would be an average of between five and 35 construction truck trips (two-way

trips) per day traveling to the project site, with the greatest number during the excavation. While the

exact routes that construction trucks would use would depend on their origin, it is expected that Octavia


1063.001 January 2011

Boulevard, Fell and Oak Streets, Divisadero Street, and Sutter Street would be the primary access routes

to connect with U.S. 101 for South Bay and East Bay destinations.

There would be an average of between five and 30 construction workers per day at the project site, with

the greatest number during the Foundation and Above Grade Concrete Structure and the MEP/Exterior

Skin phases (30 workers). The trip distribution and mode split of construction workers are not known. In

San Francisco, most construction workers use transit or carpool to the site to reduce traffic and parking

problems during construction and, additionally, the University has indicated that workers would be

incentivized to carpool to the project site. The time-limited metered parking and residential parking

restrictions in the vicinity of the project site limit legal all-day parking by construction personnel.

Construction workers who drive would be allowed to park at the 2186 Geary Boulevard parking lot until

the lower level of the proposed 2420 Sutter Street garage is completed and becomes accessible through

the 1701 Divisadero Street garage, at which time they would be allowed to park at the newly constructed

lower level.

The addition of the worker-related vehicle- or transit-trips would not substantially affect transportation

conditions, as any impacts on local intersections or the transit network would be similar to, or less than,

those associated with the proposed project. Construction workers who drive to the site would cause a

temporary parking demand. Thus, any potential impacts that would occur would not be considered

significant due to their temporary and limited duration. Therefore, construction impacts associated with

the proposed project would be less than significant.



The San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s (SFCTA) travel demand model is used to develop

traffic and transit forecasts for cumulative development and growth within San Francisco and in the nine-

county Bay Area. The increase in traffic volumes at the study intersections between existing (2010) and

future (2030) cumulative conditions was based on average annual growth rates calculated from SFCTA

travel demand model output for the northbound, southbound, eastbound and westbound approaches of

each study intersection. These growth rates were then applied to the existing turning movement volumes

at the study intersections to yield 2030 Cumulative traffic volumes.


1063.001 January 2011

Cumulative Impact TRANS-1: Traffic associated with cumulative development would not cause an

increase in vehicle traffic that would exceed the capacity of study area

intersections. (Less than Significant)

The resulting 2030 cumulative volumes and LOS for the weekday PM peak hour at the 11 study

intersections are presented in Figure 4.7-4, 2030 Cumulative Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM

Peak Hour. Table 4.7-13, Intersection Level of Service – 2030 Cumulative Conditions – Weekday PM

Peak Hour, presents the 2030 Cumulative intersection operating conditions (delay and LOS) for the

weekday PM peak hour.

Table 4.7-13

Intersection Level of Service

2030 Cumulative Conditions


No. Intersection

Traffic Control

Device

Baseline1

Baseline

Plus Project

2030 Cumulative

Delay2

Level of

Service Delay2

Level of

Service Delay2

Level of

Service

1 Bush Street/Broderick Street Traffic Signal 11.8 B 11.8 B 12.2 B

2 Sutter Street/Broderick Street3 Four-way STOP 8.9(WB) A(WB) 9.4(WB A(WB) 10.9(WB) B(WB)

3 Geary Boulevard/Broderick Street3 Southbound STOP 19.8(SB) C(SB) 21.3(SB) C(SB) 22.2(SB) C(SB)

4 Pine Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 33.7 C 33.8 C 35.4 D

5 Bush Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 16.6 B 16.6 B 17.7 B

6 Sutter Street/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 12.7 B 13.1 B 16.4 B

7 Post Street/Divisadero Street4 Traffic Signal 22.9 C 22.8 C 35.4 D

8 Geary Boulevard/Divisadero Street Traffic Signal 39.7 D 42.3 D 49.0 D

9 Sutter Street/Scott Street3 Four-way STOP 12.3(SB) B(SB) 12.3(SB) B(SB) 16.3(SB) C(SB)

10 Post Street/Scott Street Traffic Signal 18.8 B 18.9 B 21.8 C

11 Geary Boulevard/Scott Street Traffic Signal 22.1 C 22.2 C 22.8 C

Source: Adavant Consulting, 20101 Represents traffic conditions after the opening of the Osher Building at 1545 Divisadero St plus the approved mixed-use development located at 2655

Bush St, at the corner of Divisadero St.2 Intersection delay presented in seconds per vehicle.3 For unsignalized intersections, delay is presented for the worst stop-controlled approach.4 Intersection delay at a signalized intersection might decrease slightly with the addition of the proposed project traffic since it is calculated as an

average of the delays on all approaches.


1063.001 January 2011

Under 2030 Cumulative conditions, vehicle delays would increase at all the study intersections over

Baseline plus Project conditions, although all of them would operate acceptably at LOS D or better. Six of

the 11 study intersections would continue to operate at the same LOS in 2030 as in Baseline plus Project,

one intersection would change from LOS A to B, two intersections would change from LOS B to C and

two intersections would change from LOS C to D. Therefore, the impact of 2030 Cumulative

development, including the traffic from the proposed project, on intersection operations would be less

than significant.


Cumulative Impact TRANS-2 Future operation of BRT service on Geary Boulevard would not

negatively affect traffic operations at the intersection of Geary

Boulevard and Divisadero Street under 2030 Cumulative Conditions.


BRT service on Geary Boulevard could potentially start before 2020. The BRT project would provide

enhanced transit service in the vicinity of the Mount Zion campus site with buses operating on dedicated

side-aligned or center lanes along Geary Boulevard. As a result, the BRT Project would modify the

existing configuration of Geary Boulevard, eliminating one general traffic lane each way.

A preliminary traffic operations analysis conducted at the intersection of Geary Boulevard and

Divisadero Street indicates that vehicle delays would increase at this location under 2030 Cumulative

conditions as a result of the reduction in general traffic lanes from three to two, and that the overall

intersection LOS would degrade from D (49 seconds per vehicle) to E (64.1 seconds per vehicle).

The proposed project would add two vehicle trips each to the northbound and westbound critical

movements that would operate at LOS E and F, respectively. The project contribution to these

movements would be minimal (the maximum contribution to cumulative growth would be 4.7 percent

and the maximum contribution to total 2030 volumes would be 0.3 percent), and therefore, the proposed

project would not result in a significant impact to this intersection in 2030 with implementation of the

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project.



1063.001 January 2011

Cumulative Impact TRANS-3: Cumulative development would not cause an increase in pedestrian

and vehicular conflicts. (No Impact)

As discussed above, the proposed project would not cause any major conflict or interfere with pedestrian

movements in the area. Although the proposed mixed-use project at 2655 Bush Street would add new

residents to the project vicinity, due to its location on Bush Street, that project would not increase

pedestrian activity on Sutter Street near the entrance to the proposed garage. Therefore, cumulative

development would not cause an increase in pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. There would be no

cumulative impact.


Cumulative Impact TRANS-4 The construction of cumulative projects would temporarily and

intermittently impact the existing transportation network. (Less than

Significant)

While construction of the proposed mixed-use project at 2655 Bush Street project would occur over a

period of 20 months, the degree to which the construction of the 2655 Bush Street project would overlap

with the proposed project is uncertain. Construction of the 2655 Bush Street project would require the

delivery of construction materials and the hauling of material from the site. It is anticipated that there

would be an average of six to 15 construction truck trips per day varying by phase of construction, with

peak trips varying from 10 to 20 trips. There would also be an average of about 15 construction workers

at the 2655 Bush Street project site (San Francisco 2009). The impact of construction traffic would be a

temporary lessening of the capacities of local streets due to the slower movement of and larger turning

radii of trucks, which may affect traffic operations. Construction worker trips would also add trips to the

local street system. However, given the small number of truck and construction worker trips,

construction of the 2655 Bush Street project is not expected to substantially affect transportation

conditions in the area. As discussed above, truck and construction worker trips associated with the

proposed project would also not substantially affect transportation conditions in the area. Therefore,

cumulative impact of the construction of both projects, should their construction overlap, on the existing

transportation network would be less than significant.


Pine St

Bush St

Sutter St

Post St

Div

isad

ero

St

Sco

tt S

t

Geary Blvd

Bro

deric

k S

t

UCSFMt. Zion

26*1203

32

7066

40*

86

35109106

6748558

82166*5553 56

126

2512284

3416134

361692974 23

029

46*270113

8850940

541175822 64

8*52

410110

32629

702094429 23 25

16*314

78

108193*36

191523942 26

635

151436

5717847

841881*147 24

8*52

139999

60542*77

871861*

121

669

55

1481910

88

88*1185

85

98493

555*

84

521*60

1111518*10774 53

0

2030 Cumulative Traffic Volumes and LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour

FIGURE 4.7-4

1063-001•12/10



200 100 0 200

n

A or B

C

D

E

F

LOS

* CRITICAL MOVEMENT

NORTH

FEET

2000

PROJECT SITESignalized Unsignalized

ONE-WAY STREET

Legend


1063.001 January 2011

4.7.6 REFERENCES

Adavant Consulting. 2010. 2440 Sutter Street Garage Transportation Study. November 12.



University of California San Francisco Osher Center for Integrative Medicine Final Environmental Impact

Report Addendum, SCH No. 2005052029. October 2007.


1063.001 January 2011

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

contain an analysis describing a range of reasonable alternatives to a project that could feasibly attain

most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant

impacts of the proposed project. The analysis must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives

(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). Alternatives that avoid or substantially reduce significant

impacts should be considered, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of

project objectives or would be more costly to the project proponent (State CEQA Guidelines Section

15126.6(b)). The alternatives do not need to consider less than significant impacts identified for the

proposed project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, but rather, it must

consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making

and public participation (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)).

The analysis in this section is intended to inform the public and decision makers of alternatives to the

project and to provide a meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison of these alternatives with the

proposed project. As required by CEQA, this section also includes an analysis of the No Project

alternative.

5.1.1 Project Objectives

As noted in Section 3.0, Project Description, the project is needed in order to offset UCSF’s existing and

projected parking shortfall at the Mount Zion campus site and alleviate pressure on neighborhood

on-street parking. It is proposed at a location that is as close as possible to the center of clinical activities

at UCSF in order to maximize accessibility and convenience to patients and visitors.

Key objectives of the proposed project are to:


affordable parking for those who cannot often utilize alternative forms of transportation





5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011







UCSF uses

5.1.2 Impacts of the Proposed Project

To develop project alternatives, UCSF considered the project objectives and reviewed the significant

impacts of the proposed project, identified those impacts that could substantially be avoided or reduced

through an alternative, and determined the appropriate range of alternatives to be analyzed. Section 4.0,

Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR evaluates the potential for the

proposed project to result in significant impacts to the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality,

cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, and transportation and

traffic. The analysis in Section 4.0 revealed that with the implementation of the 1996 Long Range

Development Plan (LRDP) EIR (as amended by 2004 LRDP Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement EIR)

mitigation measures that are already included in the proposed project, the proposed project would not

result in any potentially significant or significant project-specific impacts in all of the resource areas listed

above except cultural resources. With respect to cultural resources, the analysis concluded that given the

long history of previous development, the project site was moderately sensitive for subsurface

archaeological resources. Therefore, there was a potential for project construction to result in a significant

impact on subsurface archaeological resources. The analysis concluded that with the implementation of

project-level Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which includes archaeological testing at the site prior to

commencement of construction, the potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than

significant level. The analysis in Section 4.0 also revealed that the proposed project would not contribute

to potentially significant or significant cumulative impacts. In all other resource areas, as shown by the

analysis in the Initial Study, the project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Alternatives that would meet most of the project objectives and would avoid or reduce the project’s one

potentially impact were identified and analyzed in detail. Table 5.0-1, Summary Comparison of Project

Alternatives, presented at the end of this section, compares the alternatives to the proposed project

focusing on whether or not the alternative would avoid or reduce the project’s potentially significant

impact. The table also identifies significant impacts that would result from some of the proposed

alternatives but would not result from project implementation.

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

5.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

5.2.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Evaluated in Detail

This section discusses alternatives that were considered for the project but were not evaluated in detail

because they did not meet project objectives or were found to be infeasible for technical, environmental,

or social reasons.

Alternate Location on Post Street

This alternate site is located at 2375 Post Street, one block south of the project site on Post Street between

Divisadero and Broderick Streets. It is owned by the University and contains a building used for medical

records storage. By itself, the site is not large enough to accommodate a parking structure with about 200

spaces. However, it is adjacent to a privately owned parking lot which, if combined with the building site,

would provide a site that is large enough to accommodate a 228-space, four-story parking structure.

However, the owner of the adjacent site has been contacted by UCSF in the past and the owner has not

been willing to sell the site to the University.

As indicated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), “among factors that may be used to eliminate

alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the project objectives,

(ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.” As discussed above, the

development of the project at this alternate site would not be feasible because of the need to purchase the

adjacent parking lot from an unwilling seller. Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from

detailed consideration in this EIR.

Enhanced TDM Program

This alternative would seek to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the UCSF essential

healthcare providers as well as visitors and patients through the application of the UCSF Transportation

Demand Management (TDM) program such that the need for the proposed additional parking would be

eliminated. About 75 percent of the spaces in the proposed garage are planned for patients and visitors

and about 25 percent of the spaces would be reserved for UCSF essential healthcare providers. The UCSF

campus site has had an active and growing TDM program since 1971, which consists of the UCSF shuttle

system, vanpools, a commuter bus club, carpools, ride sharing (Zimride), carshare, an emergency ride

home program, bicycle parking, on-site transit pass sales, and pretax transit program. At present, about

65 percent of Mount Zion-based UCSF employees take alternative forms of transportation to work.

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

Because UCSF already has an extensive TDM program, determining what more can be done to reduce

single-occupant vehicle trips is a challenge. Nonetheless, UCSF continues to pursue additional TDM

measures on an ongoing basis. For example, UCSF adds bicycle racks to its facilities where feasible and

extends shuttle service to major building sites. UCSF is currently seeking to participate in a bike-share

pilot program proposed by the City of San Francisco by having UCSF pilot locations at its Mission Bay

and Parnassus Heights campus sites. The City’s $7 million program would involve 100 bicycle kiosks

throughout San Francisco holding 10 bicycles each.

An increase in the price of UCSF employee parking permits is another option to consider to reduce

parking demand. UCSF plans to continue its annual parking fee increase of 7 percent to 8 percent for the

foreseeable future as a component of the campus’ overall sustainability efforts and in support of the

City’s transit first policy.

Despite UCSF’s extensive TDM program, further enhancements to the TDM program would not be

sufficiently effective in reducing vehicle trips such that the need for the proposed parking structure is

eliminated. As described in Section 3.0, many patients and their attendants cannot use alternate

transportation due to mobility and health reasons, as well as the travel distances involved. Furthermore,

other than provide alternate transportation information to this population which the University does at

the present time and will continue to do, the University cannot control or alter the travel behavior of this

population.

Although the University has a greater ability to influence and guide the travel behavior of its employees,

many of the essential care providers at Mount Zion provide health care on a 24-hour/7-day basis, and

many essential care providers have responsibilities at multiple medical centers including the Veterans

Administration Hospital and SF General Hospital. Due to the nature of their work and the hours of work,

all of the essential healthcare providers cannot be expected to use public transit. Therefore, while UCSF

intends to continue expanding TDM efforts, further enhancements to the UCSF TDM program would not

eliminate the need for parking. Consequently, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed

consideration in this EIR.

5.2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

As noted earlier in this section, with the implementation of LRDP mitigation measures, which are

included in the proposed project, all of the project’s impacts, except the impact of project construction on

unknown archaeological resources, would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed project

would not contribute to potentially significant or significant cumulative impacts for the same reasons.

Therefore, the focus of this alternatives analysis is to determine whether the alternatives would eliminate

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

the project’s single potentially significant impact or further reduce less than significant impacts of the

proposed project and also to determine whether the alternative would result in a significant impact on a

resource area where the project would not result in a significant impact.

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

CEQA requires that a “No Project” alternative be considered. “No Project” is required to describe the

consequences of not approving the proposed project. With this alternative, the proposed project would

not be constructed at the project site. It should be noted that adoption of the No Project Alternative would

not necessarily preclude ultimate development of the project site with another use. The project site is

zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) by the City and County of San Francisco. This

land use designation provides for neighborhood commercial uses such as office, commercial and retail.

The project site is also within a 65-A height and bulk district (65-foot height limit; maximum bulk above a

height of 40 feet limited to 110 feet in length and 125 feet diagonal dimension). Given the size of the

project site, a comparable sized building or somewhat taller (up to 65 feet in height) building could be

built on the site.

Relationship to Project Objectives

Alternative 1 would not achieve any of the project objectives.

Comparative Analysis of Impacts

Aesthetics

There would be no impact related to aesthetics because the project would not be built on the site.

However, some development could occur on the project site. Depending on the size of the building that is

developed, there could be impacts similar to those of the proposed project associated with visual

character and light and glare or potentially greater visual impacts from the construction of a taller

building.

Air Quality

There would be no impact to air quality because the project would not be built on the site. However,

some development could occur on the project site, and there could be air quality impacts similar to those

of the proposed project from the construction and operation of that project or potentially greater air

quality impacts from the construction of a taller building.

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

Cultural Resources

There would be no impacts related to cultural resources because the project would not be built on the site.

However, some development could occur on the project site. As with the proposed project, there would

be a potentially significant impact to unknown archaeological resources and the same mitigation measure

would be required.


There would be no contribution to greenhouse gas emissions under this alternative because the project

would not be built on the site. However, some development could occur on the project site, and there

would likely be similar or greater greenhouse gas emission impacts from construction and operation of

that project.


There would be no need to amend the UCSF 1996 LRDP under this alternative because the project would

not be built on the site. However, some development could occur on the project site. Development on the

project site would be expected to adhere to zoning standards for the site, and no land use conflicts are

expected.

Noise

Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be built. Therefore, there would be no

impacts related to noise. However, the project site could be developed with other uses and construction

and operational noise impacts similar to or greater than those described for the proposed project could

occur from the construction of a similar or taller building.


There would be no impact related to transportation and traffic because the project would not be built on

the site. However, development similar to or greater than the proposed project could occur on the project

site and similar or potentially greater impacts, including cumulative impacts, could occur.

Summary

The No Project alternative would avoid all of the impacts of the proposed project. However, it is unlikely

that the site would remain undeveloped. Future development of the site that is consistent with the site

zoning would result in a similar sized or taller building at the project site and therefore all the impacts of

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

the proposed project, including the one potentially significant impact, would likely eventually occur

under this alternative.

Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative

This alternative would involve the development of a smaller parking garage at the proposed site. Under

this alternative, the number of spaces planned for UCSF essential healthcare providers (about 56) would

not be built, reducing the total number of proposed spaces to 172. With the reduction in the number of

spaces, the size of the parking structure would be reduced by 2 levels. The garage under this alternative

would be a total of about 41 feet in height with no below-grade parking and five above-grade parking

levels (Note that this alternative could also be configured as a five level structure, with one below-grade

level and four above-grade parking levels).


This alternative would achieve the project objectives with the exception of the following:






Aesthetics

The height of the proposed project would be reduced from six levels above ground to five levels above

ground under Alternative 2. With a height of 41 feet, the garage under this alternative would be a shorter

structure compared to the Russian Center and the UCSF medical office building that are adjacent to the

project site. All of the less than significant visual impacts of the proposed project would be further

reduced under this alternative.

Air Quality

All construction-related emissions under this alternative would be incrementally reduced as the amount

of construction activity on the project site and the length of construction would be reduced. The

operational emissions of this alternative would also be reduced as fewer vehicle trips would be associated

with this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would further reduce less than significant air quality

impacts of the proposed project.

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

Cultural Resources

The proposed project’s potentially significant impact on cultural resources would not be avoided under

this alternative. Absent a below-grade parking level, the extent of site excavation would be reduced;

however, excavation for the construction of the foundation and elevator shaft would still be required. As

with the proposed project, there would be a potentially significant impact to unknown archaeological

resources and the same mitigation measure would be required.


GHG emissions from project construction under the Reduced Project Alternative would be reduced as the

amount of construction activity on the project site and the length of construction would be reduced.

GHG emissions from during project operation would also be reduced as fewer vehicle trips would be

associated with this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would further reduce less than significant

greenhouse gas emission impacts of the proposed project.


Land use impacts under this alternative would be the same as under the proposed project. This

alternative would include the same proposed amendment to the 1996 LRDP to include the project site in

the Mount Zion campus site. Therefore, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts to

land use and planning, similar to the proposed project.

Noise

All construction-related noise and vibration under this alternative would be incrementally reduced as the

amount of construction activity on the project site and the length of construction would be reduced. The

operational emissions of this alternative would also be reduced as fewer vehicle trips would be associated

with this alternative. However, stationary noise due to the operation of the elevator and noise generated

by cars in the garage would remain substantially the same as the proposed project. Therefore, this

alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts, similar to the proposed project.


All construction-related traffic impacts under the Reduced Project Alternative would be incrementally

reduced as the amount of construction activity on the project site and the length of construction would be

reduced thus resulting in fewer truck and construction worker trips. Operational related traffic impacts

would also be reduced as fewer vehicle trips would be associated with this alternative. Therefore, this

alternative would further reduce the less than significant traffic impacts of the proposed project.

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

Summary

The Reduced Project alternative would further reduce all of the less than significant impacts of the

proposed project. However, it would not avoid the project’s one potentially significant impact on

unknown archaeological resources and the same mitigation measure would be required.

Alternative 3: Alternative Location on Main Hospital Block

This alternative would involve the construction of the parking structure on the Main Hospital block,

instead of at the project site. The new parking structure would be similar to the proposed project with one

below-grade parking level and six above-grade parking levels. The site would be on the east end of the

block at the corner of Scott and Sutter Streets, and would include the current site of the dialysis center

and Harold Brunn Institute. These buildings currently hold clinical, office, and support uses.

Land uses surrounding the east end of the Main Hospital block consist of medical and office uses

associated with the UCSF Mount Zion Medical Center, and private offices and residential uses. The

Hamilton Recreation center, a city-owned recreational facility, is located less than a block away on the

southeast corner of Post Street and Scott Street.


This alternative would achieve the project objectives with the exception of the following:



UCSF uses


Aesthetics

The area surrounding the east end of the Main Hospital block is densely developed with buildings

associated with the UCSF Mount Zion hospital. Buildings in the area range from three to eight stories.

The proposed six-level, 49-foot-tall parking structure would be similar in character and height to other

buildings in the Main Hospital block. Concerning light and glare impacts, the proposed garage under this

alternative would still be constructed with materials that are generally not highly reflective. In addition,

the proposed garage under this alternative would also implement LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4L-2,

which would require that design standards and guidelines for minimizing light and glare be followed,

and LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4L-3, which would require that construction plans include

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

specifications for placing and directing any construction area or flood lighting to minimize potential

disturbances to adjacent residents and businesses. Although the garage under this alternative would be

about one-half block northwest of the Hamilton Recreation Center, the garage would be only 49 feet high

and would not cast shadows that would extend to any part of the recreation center, including the playing

fields that are to the east of the recreation center building. Furthermore, any shadows cast by the garage

at this site towards the southeast would be intercepted by intervening buildings including the Hellman

Building and other non-UCSF buildings on Scott Street across from the Hellman Building. Therefore,

similar to the proposed project visual impacts under this alternative would be less than significant.

Air Quality

Emissions from construction traffic and construction equipment resulting from this alternative would be

greater than the proposed project as demolition of existing buildings on the east end of the Main Hospital

block would be required. In addition, more truck trips would be required to haul material off the

alternative site. As a result it is possible that construction-related emissions could exceed BAAQMD

significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, unlike the proposed project, this alternative

could result in a potentially significant impact during construction.

Operation of the proposed garage at the east end of the Main Hospital Block would involve the same air

emission sources as the same equipment would be required to operate the garage, and the same number

of vehicle trips would be associated with this alternative. Therefore, operational emissions of criteria

pollutants under this alternative would be similar to those estimated and reported in Section 4.2 for the

proposed project. Impacts from toxic air contaminants would also be similar and less than significant.

Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant air quality

impacts during operation.

Cultural Resources

Impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those under the proposed project

as there is a moderate possibility of encountering historic-period archaeological resources at all

redevelopment sites in the Mount Zion neighborhood and excavation of the below-grade parking level

would still be required. As with the proposed project, there would be a potentially significant impact to

unknown archaeological resources and the same mitigation measure would be required.

This alternative would require the demolition of two existing buildings. However, neither building was

determined to be a historic resource. Therefore, this alternative would not result in a significant impact on

historic resources.

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011


GHG emissions from project construction at the east end of the Main Hospital Block would be greater

than the proposed project as demolition of existing buildings on the east end of the Main Hospital block

would be required. However as with the proposed project, these emissions would be short term and

considered less than significant.

Operation of the proposed garage at the east end of the Main Hospital Block would involve the same

GHG sources as the same equipment would be required to operate the garage and the same number of

vehicle trips to the garage would be associated with this alternative. Therefore, the new GHG emissions

from the garage at this site would be comparable to those under the proposed project. However, if the

existing emissions associated with the two existing buildings on this alternate site are deducted (as these

emissions would be displaced), the net emissions under this alternative would be much lower than that

under the proposed project. The alternative would therefore further reduce the proposed project’s less

than significant GHG impact from operations.


This alternative would not include an amendment to the 1996 LRDP as this alternative site is located on

the Main Hospital Block which is covered by the 1996 LRDP. Additionally, there is no adopted functional

zone map for Mount Zion that would suggest a land use conflict with planned uses. Like the proposed

project, this alternative would not result in significant impact with regard to land use and planning.

Noise

Construction of the proposed project under this alternative would generate noise and vibration at the east

end of the Main Hospital Block. Construction noise would be temporary and intermittent. In addition,

development of the garage would be subject to LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4E1-1, which would

require construction contractors to minimize construction noise impacts. Vibration from construction

activities could disturb inpatients and affect nearby medical facilities, which could contain sensitive

equipment. Therefore, construction of the proposed project under this alternative could result in a

potentially significant impact related to construction-phase vibration and a project-level mitigation

measure would be required.

Operation of the proposed project under this alternative would generate noise at the east end of the Main

Hospital Block. The operational noise generated by this alternative would be the same as reported in

Section 4.6 for the proposed project as the number of vehicle trips would remain the same. In addition,

stationary noise due to the operation of the elevator and noise generated by cars in the garage would

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

remain the same as the proposed project. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative

would result in less than significant operational noise impacts.


Construction-related traffic impacts under the Main Hospital Block Alternative would be greater than the

proposed project as the amount of construction activity on the project site would increase and the length

of construction would lengthen due to the demolition of existing buildings on the east end of the Main

Hospital block.

Operational traffic impacts would be the same as the same number of vehicle trips would be associated

with the garage regardless of the project site. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, this alternative

would result in less than significant traffic impacts.

Summary

For most resource areas, this alternative would result in substantially the same impacts as the proposed

project. It would not avoid the project’s one potentially significant impact on unknown archaeological

resources and the same mitigation measure would be required. Due to its proximity to the main hospital

facilities, this alternative would result in a potentially significant vibration impact during construction

and a potentially significant impact during construction due to demolition emissions. All of these impacts

would not occur under the proposed project. All of these additional impacts would require

implementation of additional mitigation measures.

5.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

Table 5.0-1 presents a summary comparison of the alternatives with the proposed project with the

purpose of highlighting whether the alternatives would result in similar, greater, or lesser environmental

impacts than the proposed project.

The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed

project. This alternative would therefore be the environmentally superior alternative. It would, however,

not meet any of the proposed project’s objectives.

If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, State CEQA Guidelines

Section 15126(d) (2) requires that an EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative from amongst

the other alternatives evaluated in the EIR.

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

Of the other alternatives evaluated in this EIR, the Reduced Project alternative (Alternative 2) would be

considered the environmentally superior alternative as it would further reduce the less than significant

impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic. Impacts with regard to

cultural resources and land use and planning would remain the same, and in the case of cultural

resources, would require the same mitigation measures. It would, however, only meet some of the project

objectives.

5.0 Alternatives


1063.001 January 2011

Table 5.0-1

Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives

Mount Zion Garage Project Impact

Proposed Project

(Before Mitigation)

Alternative 1- No Project

Alternative

Alternative 2-Reduced

Project

Alternative 3-Alternative

Location on Main Hospital

Block

CUL-1 The project site is moderately sensitive for

subsurface archaeological resources. Project

excavation and grading could inadvertently

destroy subsurface archaeological resources.

Potentially Significant No impact

However, there would be a similar

potentially significant impact from

the construction of another building

at the project site.


Similar to the proposed project.



New Impact (related

to Alternative 3)

Project construction could generate short-term

emissions of fugitive dust and criteria air

pollutants that could adversely affect local air

quality in the vicinity of the construction site and

could exceed the BAAQMD construction

significance thresholds.


However, there could be a similar

less than significant impact from the

development of another project at the

proposed site.




Demolition of existing buildings

would result in an increase in

fugitive dust and emissions of

criteria pollutants.

New Impact (related

to Alternative 3)

Project construction activities could expose people

or sensitive equipment to excessive ground-borne

vibration levels.


However, there could be similar less

than significant impacts from the

development of another project at the

proposed site.




Vibration from construction

could affect nearby medical uses,

which could contain sensitive

equipment.


1063.001 January 2011

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that an Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) must include a discussion of the following topics:

Significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented

Significant Irreversible Changes which would be caused by the proposed project should it be

implemented

Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project

In addition, Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a brief statement of the reasons that

various possible effects of a project have been determined not to be significant and therefore, are not

evaluated in the EIR.

The following sections address each of these types of impacts based on the analyses included in Section

4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.

6.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS

As detailed in Section 4.0, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts

that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.

6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES

Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the extent to which a proposed

project would commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would be unable to

reverse. The State CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of irreversible changes that should be

considered.

Changes in Land Use which Commit Future Generations

The proposed project would not have irreversible impacts because as with the previous development at

the site, the proposed project could be removed in the future and the site redeveloped with other uses.

Furthermore, the project would not result in the conversion of any land that has not already been

disturbed and developed.

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations


1063.001 January 2011

Consumption of Natural, Nonrenewable Resources

Analysis of the degree to which a proposed project would consume nonrenewable resources includes

assessments of increased energy consumption, consumption of agricultural lands and loss of access to

mining reserves. Completion of the proposed project would irretrievably commit nonrenewable

resources to proposed garage construction and operation. Building materials and energy consumed as

part of the project would include, but would not be limited to, nonrenewable and limited resources such

as oil, gasoline, lumber, aggregate, water, and steel. Increased energy demands would result from

construction, lighting, heating and cooling from the transportation demand management office, and

transportation of people to and from the site.

As explained in the Initial Study, the proposed project site contains no areas used for agricultural

purposes or designated as agricultural land, nor does it contain any significant mineral deposits. As such,

the proposed project would not result in irreversible changes related to the consumption of those types of

resources.

Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents

As detailed in the Initial Study, the proposed project does not involve any on-site long term use of

hazardous materials. Although gasoline and motor oil, both hazardous materials, would be present in the

vehicles parked at the garage, the potential for a large release of these materials to the environment is

low.

6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS

This section evaluates the potential for growth inducement as a result of the proposed project

implementation. Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion

of the potential for a proposed project to foster economic or population growth, or the construction of

additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

The State CEQA Guidelines do not provide specific criteria for evaluating growth inducement and state

that it must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little

significance to the environment. Growth inducement is generally not quantified, but is instead evaluated

as either occurring, or not occurring, with implementation of a project. The identification of

growth-inducing impacts is generally informational, and mitigation of growth inducement is not

required by CEQA. It must be emphasized that the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR to “discuss

the ways” a project could be growth inducing and to “discuss the characteristics of some projects that

may encourage…activities that could significantly affect the environment.” However, the State CEQA



1063.001 January 2011

Guidelines do not require that an EIR predict or speculate specifically where such growth would occur, in

what form it would occur, or when it would occur.

For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would be considered growth inducing if it meets

either of the following criteria:

The project removes an obstacle to population growth (for example, through the expansion of public

services or utilities into an area that does not presently receive these services), or through the

provision of new access to an area, or a change in a restrictive zoning or General Plan land use

designation.

The project causes economic expansion and population growth through employment expansion,

and/or the construction of new housing.

Generally, growth-inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped

areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways,

or are projects that encourage premature or unplanned growth. An evaluation of the proposed project

and how it is related to these growth-inducing criteria is provided below.

Removal of an Obstacle to Population Growth

The proposed project is not expected to remove any obstacle to growth at the Mount Zion campus site.

The proposed project site is located adjacent to the Mount Zion campus site. The project site is already

fully served by infrastructure, including utilities, public services and pedestrian and vehicular access. As

described in the Initial Study prepared for this EIR, implementation of the project would not require an

expansion of wastewater treatment or conveyance facilities, water supply, solid waste, or other

infrastructure facilities that would provide capacity for future projects surrounding the project site. The

proposed utilities and infrastructure upgrades would be minimal and would serve only the project.

Therefore, the utility improvements included in the proposed project would enable a minor increase in

the Mount Zion campus site population (approximately two to three people), but would not induce

growth beyond that planned under the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the project would

not directly remove an obstacle to population growth.

Direct and Indirect Population and Employment Growth

The Population and Housing analysis included in the Initial Study concludes that the project would

increase the number of people working within the Mount Zion campus site by two or three persons but

would not induce substantial population growth in the City and County of San Francisco or elsewhere in

the region, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project would generate incidental, short-term



1063.001 January 2011

construction employment that would be filled by the labor force available in the greater Bay Area. In

summary, the proposed project would not result in growth inducing impacts.

6.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to briefly describe any potential environmental

effects that were determined not to be significant during the Initial Study and EIR scoping process and

were, therefore, not discussed in detail in the EIR. A discussion of these less than significant effects of the

proposed project on agricultural resources, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and

hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, public

services, recreation and utilities and service systems is presented in the Initial Study which is included in

Appendix 1.0. Other impacts found to be less than significant in the EIR are discussed in detail in Section

4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and summarized in Section 2.0,

Executive Summary.


1063.001 January 2011

7.0 REPORT PREPARATION

7.1 LEAD AGENCY

The Regents of the University of California

Susan Desmond-Hellmann, MD, MPH

Chancellor

Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Distinguished Professor

Authors

University of California, San Francisco

John Plotts, Senior Vice Chancellor, Finance and Administration

Lori Yamauchi, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Campus Planning

Kevin Beauchamp, Director, Physical Planning

Diane Wong, Senior Planner

University of California, Office of the President

Mary O’Keefe, Senior Planner

University of California, Office of the General Counsel

Elisabeth Gunther, Senior Counsel

Legal Counsel

Charles Olson, Esq. Sanger & Olson

7.2 EIR CONSULTANTS

Impact Sciences

555 12th Street, Suite 1650

Oakland, California 94607

Shabnam Barati, Managing Principal

Paul Stephenson, AICP, Project Manager

Alan Sako, Air Quality Manager

7.0 Report Preparation


1063.001 January 2011

Eric Bell, Air Quality Analyst

Ian Hillway, Publications Manager

Lisa Cuoco, Publications Coordinator

Brittanny O’Hanlon, Publications Editor

7.3 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

Adavant Consulting, José I. Farrán, P.E.

Environmental Impact Report UCSF Mount Zion Garage · elements to promote sustainability, including...

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Impact Report UCSF Mount Zion Garage · elements to promote sustainability, including...