Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

University of California San Francisco

Campus Planning University Advancement and Planning

FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

The Institute for Regeneration Medicine at UCSF University of California, San Francisco

State Clearinghouse No. 2008022027

Lead Agency: The University of California

Prepared by: UCSF Campus Planning 3333 California Street, Suite 11 San Francisco, CA 94143-0286

March 2008

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CAMPUS: SAN FRANCISCO

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project title:

Institute for Regeneration Medicine University of California San Francisco (UCSF)

2. Project location:

Parnassus Heights campus site City and County of San Francisco Latitude: 37 deg 45 min 46 sec North Longitude: 122 deg 27 min 27 sec West

3. Lead agency name:

University of California

4. Contact person and phone number:

UCSF Campus Planning 3333 California Street, Suite 11 San Francisco, CA 94143-0286 Attention: Michelle Schaefer, Environmental Coordinator (415) 476-2911 email: [email protected]

5. Custodian of the administrative record for this project (if different from response to item 3 above.):

UCSF Campus Planning

7. Identification of all applicable LRDP and project EIRs and address where a copy is available for inspection.

• Final Environmental Impact Report on the 1996 Long Range Development Plan (1996 LRDP and LRDP FEIR) certified by The Regents January 17, 1997 (State Clearinghouse Number 1995123032). • Final Environmental Impact Report on the Long Range Development Plan Amendment #2 – Hospital Replacement (LRDP Amendment #2 FEIR), certified by The Regents on March 17, 2005 (State Clearinghouse Number 2004072067). Copies of the 1996 LRDP FEIR and LRDP Amendment #2 FEIR are available at UCSF Campus Planning. (Note that LRDP Amendment #1 and LRDP Amendment #1 SEIR cover the development of UCSF Housing at the UCSF Mission Bay site and thus are not directly applicable to the proposed project.)

i J:\CEQA\IRM\Final Institute for Regeneration Medicine Mit Neg Deg.doc Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

I. INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION

The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) proposes to develop new research and instruction space at the Parnassus Heights campus site, in the City and County of San Francisco. This environmental analysis is an Initial Study for the proposed new construction of a total of approximately 80,000 gross square feet of research and instruction at Parnassus Heights. The purpose of this Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the analysis presented in this Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels; or following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or adoption of overriding considerations by The Regents for significant unavoidable impacts, the proposed project would not generate new significant unavoidable impacts. Mitigation measures are identified in this document and will be adopted in project approvals. Therefore, the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate.

A. UCSF Long Range Development Plan

Each campus of the University of California (University) is required to prepare a Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) that sets forth concepts, principles, and plans to guide future growth of that campus. The Board of Regents of the University of California (The Regents) adopted the 1996 LRDP, which outlines development proposals for the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) through the academic year 2011/12. Amendment #1 to the LRDP was adopted in 2002 to permit development of campus housing at the 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 with clinical care co-located with basic and translational research programs. The 1996 LRDP FEIR, the Amendment #1 SEIR, and the Amendment #2 EIR are collectively the “LRDP EIR.”

The proposed UCSF Institute for Regeneration Medicine project would construct a new one-story building that would step up in four segments along the contours of the slope adjacent to Medical Center Way with building heights of 20 to 45 feet above the roadway. The proposed building would contain laboratory research and support functions totaling approximately 71,100 gross square feet (gsf). The Institute for Regeneration Medicine building would consolidate and provide expansion for the programs in stem cell research and development currently occupying dispersed laboratory spaces at Parnassus Heights. It would provide a venue where research using non-registered stem cell lines can demonstrate clear separation from lines eligible for Federal funding. In addition, UCSF proposes to construct an Auditorium of about 8,000 gsf adjacent to the proposed Institute building that would provide replacement space for the Toland lecture hall in the seismically poor rated UC Hall. The Auditorium would be a freestanding structure and may be constructed on a separate schedule from the Institute building; however, for purposes of this analysis, both projects are evaluated together and constitute the “proposed project.”

The proposed project would provide space that is needed to support the University’s mission and to relocate functions out of seismically poor or obsolete structures at the Parnassus Heights campus site. The proposed project would implement a number of goals and objectives of the 1996 LRDP, and would specifically implement the LRDP proposal that identified the need for new research and teaching space in one or more new developments totaling up to 85,000 gsf at the Parnassus Heights site. The proposed project has been identified by the University as meeting that need. Thus, this Initial Study is “tiered” from the LRDP EIR. 1

1 The CEQA concept of “tiering” refers to the coverage of general environmental matters in broad program-level EIRs, with subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program.

1 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Although the proposed project site is identified as a future development site in the LRDP, its Functional Zone label is Logistical Support consistent with the former uses in the now demolished MR I & II buildings. Project approvals would include a minor amendment to the LRDP to change the Functional Zone on a 0.9- acre portion of the 1.9-acre project site to Instruction and Research to reflect the proposed building uses including research, academic / administrative office, and teaching / seminar space. In addition, the boundaries of the Mount Sutro open space reserve would be adjusted to exclude the area on the campus shelf between Medical Center Way and the Health Sciences Buildings (approximately 0.5 acre). In exchange, Buildings 4 and 5 in the Aldea San Miguel Housing are scheduled for demolition, and their footprints and surrounding aprons totaling approximately 0.5 acre would be included in the open space reserve.

B. Approvals Required

The University is the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The Regents is the University’s decision- making body for review and approval of the proposed project (including any Regents-delegated committee or official). Upon review and consideration of the environmental consequences of the proposed project, The Regents (including its delegates) will 1) consider for approval, the adoption of this Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2) consider approval to modify the 1976 Regents Resolution “Designation of Open Space Reserve – Attachment I” to remove approximately 0.5 acres (a portion of the project footprint) from the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve, and add an equivalent amount of land in the Aldea San Miguel housing parcel to the open space reserve; 3) consider approval to amend the 1996 LRDP “Parnassus Heights Site Map” to reflect the modification to the 1976 Regents Resolution; 4) consider approval of the minor amendment to adopt the revised Functional Zone designation illustrated in the 1996 LRDP “Parnassus Heights Functional Zones” graphic, to re-designate 0.9 acre from “Logistical Support” to “Instruction and Research;” and 5) consider approval of the design of the proposed Institute for Regeneration Medicine building.

C. Agency and Public Review

There are no responsible or trustee agencies that require review or adoption of this Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration is circulated for public and agency review from February 2, 2008 to March 3, 2008. Copies of the document are available at the address below and on line at http\\campusplanning.ucsf.edu. Reading copies are available at three area library branches: UCSF Kalmanovitz Library, 530 Parnassus Avenue; SF Public Library Sunset Branch, 1305 – 18th Avenue; and Park Branch, 1833 Page Street. All written comments about the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by 5:00 p.m. Monday, March 3, 2008 at:

[email protected] or Michelle Schaefer, Environmental Coordinator UCSF Campus Planning 3333 California Street, Suite 11 San Francisco, CA 94118 Mailing address: Box 0286 San Francisco, CA 94143-0286

2 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

D. Organization

The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration is organized into the following sections.

Section I. – Project Information: provides background information about the proposed project, including project location, lead agency, and contact information.

Section II. – Introduction and Organization: provides an overview of the document and its organization.

Section III. – Project Description: presents a description of the proposed project and nearby UCSF development.

Section IV. – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: identifies any environmental factors that were determined to cause potentially significant impacts, as indicated by the checklist.

Section V. – Determination: indicates environmental determination under CEQA.

Section VI. – Environmental Checklist: contains the Environmental Checklist form and analysis. The form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. This section contains standards of significance, followed by an explanation of all checklist answers, and impacts analysis. The checklist concludes with Mandatory Findings of Significance, and Fish / Game Fee Determination.

Section VII. – Summary of Mitigation Measures: discusses mitigation measures identified for the project as well as mitigation measures applicable to the project which were adopted as part of the 1996 LRDP and EIR.

3 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project site is located on the southern end of the developed area, or “shelf” at Parnassus Heights. The site is bounded by Medical Center Way to the South and Health Sciences East / West Towers to the North. The proposed project site contains numerous utility services and mechanical equipment, including underground fuel tanks that service the existing campus site. Most of the utilities would remain in place with the proposed Institute building elevated over the site. The proposed new structures would be connected to the Parnassus Central Utility Plant to provide steam for heating hot water, primary power, and chilled water.

A portion of the project site is classified under the LRDP as “Logistical Support”, and requires adoption of a minor LRDP Amendment to reclassify the site to “Instruction and Research.”

This site also requires a revision to the Regents recommendations of May 21, 1976 for Designation of Open Space Reserve, Alteration of Campus Boundaries, Commitment of Houses to Residential Use, Authorization to Negotiate Sale of Properties, and Commitment of Transportation Studies (hereafter “1976 Regents Resolution”). Specifically, the project would modify the 1976 Regents Resolution – Attachment I, showing the permanent open space boundaries. Adoption of the modified Attachment I would exclude the portion of the project site footprint that is within the boundaries of the Mount Sutro open space reserve. As illustrated in the revised graphic, space currently within the Aldea San Miguel Housing parcel would be designated for inclusion in the permanent open space reserve and would be permanent open space once the designated housing units are demolished.

A. Project Design

Institute for Regeneration Medicine: The Institute for Regeneration Medicine building would be designed to accommodate 25 Faculty Principal Investigators and about 205 associated laboratory staff and administrative staff. (Of the 230 faculty and staff to be associated with the proposed project, many are already currently working at Parnassus Heights but for purposes of this environmental review, all project population is considered to be new and in addition to existing population.) The research would be focused on Stem Cell investigations in 46,300 assignable square feet (asf), within a total of 71,100 gross square feet (gsf). (This results in a building efficiency of 65%.) The Institute building would provide modern biomedical research laboratories, core laboratories, offices, administrative functions, and supporting space. The proposed Institute building design is based upon a modular, open, and continuous lab scheme to facilitate interaction and maximize the flexibility that is required to meet the demands of interdisciplinary research within the building. The structure would include the following space types:

Lab Areas: Open floor lab planning of wet lab areas with modular benches, movable furniture, and utility poles to provide planning flexibility. Lab Support: The support program includes procedure rooms, equipment alcoves, environmental rooms, tissue culture rooms, sterilizer/glass wash rooms, dry dark room, acute surgery/holding suites, barrier procedure/holding suites, and other core labs. Shared support spaces and open lab zones would foster interaction and collaboration. Planning flexibility is anticipated through standardized layouts for typical room types. Office Space: Office suites would include academic and administrative offices providing a collegial and quiet work area outside the lab zone. The office suites would also incorporate shared functions, including: conference rooms, administrative support space, and an open interaction/break space.

4 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Building Support: Building support functions provided by this project would include loading dock, mechanical equipment rooms, materials handling, Environmental Health and Safety handling areas, data server rooms, and other building support spaces.

The Institute for Regeneration Medicine building would be supported by a steel space frame platform resting on seismic base isolators located at intervals on the site. This design would create a stepped building site on a steeply sloping hillside, and the space-frame geometry is expressed on the north elevation of the building. Localized drilled piers would limit foundation and construction site disturbance. The building would cantilever on the north side above the sloping terrain, adjacent to the Health Sciences buildings.

The proposed design of the long, horizontal Institute building, with steps up the slope of Medical Center Way, would relate to and respond to its hillside setting. The building would include “green” roof terraces as an environmental feature. The facade cladding would be primarily corrugated metal panels and would be accented with large spans of glazing along the south facade to provide open views to and from the lab areas and the open space reserve across Medical Center Way.

Auditorium: The proposed Auditorium facility would contain up to 225 seats in the main hall, along with two break-out or function rooms – one of which could be further divided for small groups. The building would be sited at ground level between Health Science West and the School of Nursing Building. The facade materials have not yet been confirmed but the exterior would likely be of metal panels similar to the Institute building. The Auditorium would provide replacement space for the Toland lecture hall in the UC Hall building.

Both developments under the proposed project would comply with the University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices. At a minimum, the Institute building and the auditorium would be designed to achieve UCSF Green Building Council’s baseline LEED Basic certification level. Items which would contribute to the Institute building’s sustainability include: small building footprint, natural daylighting, green roofs, right-sizing of equipment, 20% energy reduction from Title 24, low-emitting building materials, reduced site heat islands, water-efficient landscaping and plumbing fixtures, commissioning, minimal construction waste, use of only sustainable wood products, as well as enhanced indoor air quality and user controllability. The design of the Auditorium is in the preliminary stages but is expected to incorporate similar concepts, including energy reduction, low-emitting building materials and indoor air quality features.

B. Construction Schedule:

The Institute for Regeneration Building would be delivered under a construction design-build contract. The Design-Build Team Award is estimated to be in June 2008. Construction is planned to begin August 2008, and be completed within 24 months (August 2010).

5 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Source: UCSF, Campus Planning Figure 1 San Francisco Regional Map

6 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

*Revised per staff initiated text changes discussed on page 67.

Source: UCSF Campus Planning Figure 2 Parnassus Heights Location Map

7 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Figure 3 Source: UCSF Campus Planning Parnassus Heights Project Site

8 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Source: UCSF and Rafael Vinoly Architects Figure 4 Proposed Project Site Plan

X Revised per comment 6-1 discussed on page 74.

Source: UCSF and Rafael Vinoly Architects Figure 5 Rendering of Proposed Project From Medical Center Way

9 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Source: UCSF Campus Planning Figure 6 Proposed Revision to LRDP Figure 3 – Functional Zone Map

10 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

*Revised per staff initiated text changes discussed on page 67.

Source: UCSF Campus Planning Figure 7 Proposed Modified 1976 Regents Resolution Attachment I – Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve Existing Area of open space reserve

11 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

C. Parnassus Heights Space Ceiling

A total space limit or “ceiling” of 3.55 million gsf at Parnassus Heights was established in the 1976 Regents Resolution and incorporated into the 1976 LRDP. As described in the 1996 LRDP, a number of events that could not have been foreseen resulted in the campus going above the ceiling by about 3.8% as of December 1994. The 1996 LRDP contains a specific set of proposals for demolishing structures and constructing new replacement facilities that would result in decreasing the overage by half, or 1.8% above the ceiling by the end of the LRDP planning period in FY 2011/2012. With full implementation, the 1996 LRDP GSF Ceiling Commitment of 3.61 million would be reached. Since 1996, the campus has completed several of the identified space reduction projects, including demolition of seven structures totaling 58,000 gsf, and has constructed the Parnassus Services Building project totaling 86,000. (Although this represents an increase in square footage in the short term, fluctuations in the space overage prior to completing all 1996 LRDP proposals were anticipated in the LRDP and discussed in the LRDP EIR.)

As described above, the 80,000 gsf proposed project would be the fulfillment of the 1996 LRDP proposal for up to 85,000 gsf of new state-of-the-art research and teaching space to be located at Parnassus Heights. Construction of the Institute building project is proposed to begin in the 3rd Quarter of 2008 and be completed in the 3rd Quarter of 2010. In the same timeframe, the campus is also actively pursuing one of the major demolition projects, the decommissioning of UC Hall. Plans calls for the seismically poor structure to be vacated so that abatement of contamination and hazardous materials, such as asbestos, can be completed prior to demolition. The relocation plan for all UC Hall occupants will be finalized and the first of the occupant moves will begin by the 4th Quarter of 2008. Development of the 80,000 gsf proposed project in combination with implementation of the decommissioning and demolition of the 146,853 gsf UC Hall represents a net reduction of 66,853 gsf, and would be a milestone in reaching the 1996 LRDP GSF Ceiling Commitment.

D. Other UCSF Development

The following developments are discussed for informational purposes. They are separate projects independent of the proposed project. Each project has been analyzed in its respective CEQA documentation and provided for public review.

UCSF Mission Bay

Under the 1996 LRDP, UCSF acquired a major new site in the 300-acre Mission Bay neighborhood about one mile southeast of the downtown financial district. The 43-acre UCSF Mission Bay campus site is being developed in phases. Three research buildings are completed and occupied, as well as the Rutter Center and UCSF Mission Bay Housing. Parking structures and temporary parking lots are developed and in use. A research building on Block 17C, the Helen Diller Family Cancer Research Building, is under construction, and two others are in the planning stages. Under the LRDP, the 43-acre Mission Bay site would have 2.65 million gsf and a population of approximately 9,100 at buildout, by about 2020.

Hospital Replacement – UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay

The LRDP Amendment #2 and LRDP Amendment #2 EIR for hospital replacement discuss clinical planning at the three major campus sites: Parnassus Heights, Mission Bay, and Mount Zion. A preferred plan has been identified that proposes two major integrated campus sites (Mission Bay and Parnassus Heights) with clinical care co-located with basic and translational research programs. Initially at Mission Bay, UCSF would develop three contiguous specialty hospitals, with children’s, women’s and cancer programs, starting with inpatient capacity of 289 beds and expanding to 550 beds, together with outpatient medical offices, and support functions. The Mission Bay hospital site is an assemblage of blocks totaling

12 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

14.5 acres adjacent to the southern edge of the 43-acre UCSF Mission Bay, on the south side of 16th Street, at Third Street. UCSF has issued an initial study as of January 2008 and is in the process of preparing a Subsequent EIR on the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay project. The future phase of the preferred development plan (by 2030) would include a new hospital pavilion at Parnassus Heights. Existing medical center operations within Moffitt and Long Hospitals will continue at least through 2030.

654 Minnesota Street

The property at 654 Minnesota Street at the northwest corner of Minnesota and 19th Streets, contains an approximately 65,000 gross square foot (gsf) building and a parking lot. UCSF purchased the site in July 2005 for the purpose of renovating it to contain administrative offices and a data center. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 654 Minnesota Street renovation was adopted by the UCSF Chancellor in June 2007. Occupation of the building is expected to be completed by the 2nd Quarter of 2008.

2130 Third Street – The Pritzker Center at UCSF

The property at 2130 Third Street (also known as 2100 Third Street and 729 Tennessee Street), at the southwest corner of Third and 18th Streets, contains an approximately 36,000 gross square foot (gsf) building (formerly the Copenhagen Furniture retail store), and a parking lot. The site is being developed for, and may be donated to, UCSF by a private entity for future use as mental health clinical services and research programs devoted to infants, children, and adolescents. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Pritzker Center at UCSF was adopted by the Office of the President in December 2007.

1545 Divisadero Street – UCSF Mount Zion Medical Office Building and Osher Center for Integrative Medicine

The University has provided a ground lease to a private development team for the construction and delivery to UCSF of a 48,000 gsf medical office building. Upon completion, the project would house outpatient programs associated with the Medical Center and instruction, research and clinical space for the School of Medicine’s Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. The mission of the Osher Center is to combine conventional and alternative approaches to patient care to address all aspect of health and wellness. Construction of the project is anticipated to be complete by the 3rd Quarter of 2009. The Osher Center for Integrative Medicine EIR was certified in November 2005 and an Addendum to the EIR was certified in November 2007.

Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

VI. IMPACT QUESTIONS

The impact questions identified in this Section are the same as those in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, impact questions that relate to significance standards established in UCSF’s Long Range Development Plan Final EIR and LRDP Amendment #2 EIR (LRDP EIR) have been included. As discussed in this document, this Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration is a tiered document from the LRDP EIR and all applicable LRDP mitigation measures are included in the proposed project. Where appropriate, mitigation measures from the LRDP EIR that are modified to be specifically applicable to the proposed project are identified in the checklist discussion and summarized together at the end of this document. The purpose of this tiered Initial Study checklist is to identify and focus the environmental analysis for the proposed project on significant new environmental impacts, if any, that were not previously considered in the LRDP EIR.

The impact questions consist of two types: those that require a qualitative evaluation, and those that require a quantitative analysis. In general, the impact questions themselves constitute the standards of significance, and where applicable, additional explanation and/or quantitative thresholds are provided under the appropriate environmental topic.

1. AESTHETICS –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR Less than mitigation measures or adoption significant Impact of overriding considerations by with LRDP for which The Regents for significant Potentially EIR LRDP Less than unavoidable impacts, would the Significant Mitigation EIR is significant project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse 6 effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock 6 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 6 quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect 6 day or nighttime views in the area?

15 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

1. AESTHETICS –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR Less than mitigation measures or adoption significant Impact of overriding considerations by with LRDP for which The Regents for significant Potentially EIR LRDP Less than unavoidable impacts, would the Significant Mitigation EIR is significant project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact No Impact e) Exceed the LRDP EIR significance standard by substantially reducing sunlight or significantly increasing shadows in public open space 6 areas, or by increasing pedestrian-level wind speeds above the hazard level set forth in the San Francisco Planning Code?

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. On the topics of sunlight and shadow in public open space areas and pedestrian-level wind speeds, additional quantitative standards are applied to determine significance, as discussed below. The City and County of San Francisco limits the amount of new shading and wind effects that may be generated by new development. As a state entity, UCSF is not subject to the local ordinances that impose these requirements. However, UCSF uses them as the basis for evaluating the significance of shading and wind impacts.

San Francisco Planning Code Section 295 generally prohibits development above a height of 40 feet that would cause significant new shadow on open space under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset, at any time of the year. A project would have a significant effect if it would result in substantial new shadow on designated public open space under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission during these hours.

Generally, structures less than 100 feet tall are not of sufficient height to alter wind speeds at the ground level. Therefore, detailed wind analysis is typically not required for structures below this height. For projects that warrant detailed analysis, San Francisco Planning Code Section 148 establishes in certain districts of San Francisco wind speed criteria for the comfort and safety of pedestrians. Wind speeds in excess of 26 miles per hour (equivalent wind speed for a single hour of the year) are considered hazardous. Therefore, a project would have a significant effect if it would result in pedestrian-level wind speeds that exceed this hazard level. It is UCSF policy to review proposed construction designs and modify, as needed, proposed new structures such that pedestrian-level wind speeds would not reach hazardous levels.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts:

The LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the LRDP at Parnassus Heights would alter the appearance of the site as viewed from surrounding areas, and from within the site itself. Because the LRDP involves demolition of buildings and replacement with similar scale buildings, or demolition of others without replacement, this would be considered beneficial because the LRDP would result in more open

16 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine space and less intensive development/smaller scale buildings. The alteration of the appearance and character of Parnassus Heights would therefore have less than significant impacts on aesthetics.

To minimize light and glare from building materials, and to direct construction-related lighting away from residents, LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4L-2 and 4L-3 were adopted. Application of these mitigation measures in all LRDP projects at Parnassus Heights would ensure that impacts of light and glare and construction lighting would be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

1a) A scenic vista is a public view from existing parks, plazas, major roadways or other public areas, and gateway or panoramic views from areas generally available to the general public. Views from private residences and non-public areas are not considered to be scenic views because they are not available to the general public.

The local setting for the Parnassus Heights site is relatively unchanged from that discussed in the LRDP EIR. Parnassus Heights, the largest UCSF site in San Francisco, retains a distinct visual presence due to its design and natural character. Parnassus Heights occupies 107 acres on the northern slope of Mount Sutro, which descends over 800 feet from its summit to Parnassus Avenue and Irving and Carl Streets. Due to steep slopes, the developed portion of the campus is limited primarily to the lower slope and shelf of Mount Sutro, with the 61 acres remaining in an open space reserve. The developed portions of Parnassus Heights include: the Lower Campus Shelf, the Woods Parcel, and the Aldea Parcel. The Lower Campus Shelf is a 33-acre area on the lower hillside of Mount Sutro along the north and south sides of Parnassus Avenue. Campus buildings extend to Irving and Carl Streets to the north on the Lower Campus Shelf. The visual character of the Lower Campus Shelf is urban and institutional. Campus buildings are densely clustered and grouped by use. The largest and most visually prominent buildings are on the south side of Parnassus Avenue and range in height from 7 to 16 stories. These buildings include the Moffitt and Long Hospitals, Medical Science building, the Clinical Science building, and UC Hall. Projecting towers partially screen views of other large buildings behind them (e.g., Health Sciences East and West) and contrast with Mount Sutro’s forested slopes in the background. At street level, small courts and open spaces at the bases of buildings, some with driveways, are visible. The presence of large buildings along the south side of Parnassus Avenue creates a solid street wall that screens views of other buildings located behind them, such as the eight-story School of Nursing building located behind the Clinical Sciences and UC Hall buildings.

The Institute for Regeneration Medicine building would not be visible in any public views prior to the demolition of UC Hall. Once UC Hall is razed, the western-most segment of the building would be visible starting at the top of the Nursing building and the eighth floor of the Health Science West building, and rising two floor levels. Some of the view to Mount Sutro which may be available in this future condition could be foreshortened, but would not be eliminated by the Institute building. The building would extend as much as 100 feet into an approximately 250-foot “window” of Mount Sutro open space, but would preserve views from the northwest and would provide the desirable visual connection between Parnassus Avenue and the open space. In addition, a physical connection – a new stair – would be constructed under the Institute building connecting the terminus of Koret Way with Medical Center Way to the south. The new stair would be consistent with the Mount Sutro master planning objective to provide direct access between Parnassus Avenue and the open space reserve. With regard to the Auditorium, the structure would be sited at ground level and would not be visible from any public views. Because the development and operation of the proposed project would be visually similar to existing uses on and adjacent to the site, the proposed project would not

17 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

degrade scenic views from Golden Gate Park, or other public areas. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed project on scenic vistas would be less than significant.

1b) The project site is not in the vicinity of and not within view of a state scenic highway; therefore no impact would occur to scenic highway resources from development of the proposed project.

1c) Changes in Parnassus Heights’ visual setting would occur as a result of the implementation of the LRDP. With the addition of the proposed project and planned demolition of other structures at Parnassus, the resulting campus configuration could create new open space and allow deeper views into the campus site interior along the south side of Parnassus Avenue. As discussed above, although changes in appearance of the Parnassus site would be noticeable, the overall urban context of Parnassus Heights would remain and views to and from the site would be similar to existing uses. The proposed project design would follow the contours of the site and would be largely screened by larger buildings to the north. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual character or visual quality of the site and its surroundings. Thus, the effects of the proposed project would be less than significant.

1d) Lighting associated with the use of the building would be that of a typical office building. Any exterior lighting would be directed downward or onto the property itself. No lighting of the green roof is proposed. Nevertheless, Parnassus Heights is frequently subject to fog and low cloud cover that tend to increase light dispersion from campus buildings and glare can be generated from reflective building materials. The proposed project could increase the amount of light and glare in the area, and could cast additional light onto the slope across Medical Center Way. Therefore, the proposed project would incorporate LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure No. 4L-2, discussed on page 238 of the 1996 LRDP FEIR. Implementation of this measure, which requires UCSF to minimize light and glare from development through use of primary façade materials with low-glare potential and possibly landscaping, would reduce project light and glare to less-than-significant levels.

While nighttime construction activity is not anticipated in connection with the proposed project, the possibility of some activity at night cannot be ruled out at this time. Such construction could increase area flood lighting at night and could disturb nearby residential uses, a short-term significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4L-3, discussed on page 238 of the LRDP FEIR would reduce construction light and glare to less-than-significant levels.

1e) Shadow: There is no open space under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission at Parnassus Heights. With regard to the open space reserve, the proposed project would not rise more than 40 feet above the slope of Medical Center Way and would be sited to the north of the slope. The proposed project would not significantly increase shadows and would not create significant shading impacts.

Wind: The proposed project would be significantly lower than the height of adjacent existing buildings. Mechanical and rooftop appurtenances would not be of sufficient height or size to capture and redirect winds. Impacts of the proposed project related to the pedestrian-level wind environment would be less than significant.

18 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

LRDP EIR MTIGATION MEASURES

AESTHETICS 4L-2. Increased Light and Glare (Project). New Minimize light and glare from LRDP development at development at Parnassus Heights under the LRDP Parnassus Heights through the orientation of buildings, could have the potential to increase amounts of light and use of landscaping materials and use of primary facade glare in the area. materials with low-glare potential. Avoid use of glass and mirrored walls as primary building materials for facades. Configure exterior light fixtures to emphasize close spacing and lower intensity light. Light fixtures will utilize luminaires that direct light downward. 4L-3. Construction Night Lighting (Construction). Construction plans would include specifications for Construction of the LRDP improvements at Parnassus placing and directing any construction area or flood Heights could increase area flood lighting at night. lighting to minimize potential disturbances to adjacent residents.

X Revised per comment 6-1 discussed on page 75.

Source: UCSF and Rafael Vinoly Architects Illustrative View of Institute Building From Medical Center Way Looking North

19 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Source: UCSF and Rafael Vinoly Architects Illustrative View of Proposed Project from Saunders Court Looking South

Based on the above discussion, all potential visual quality, shadow or wind impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to aesthetic impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

20 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or Less than adoption of overriding significant with Impact for considerations by The Regents for Potentially LRDP EIR which LRDP Less than significant unavoidable impacts, Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the 6 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson 6 Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could 6 result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Standards of Significance The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts Parnassus Heights and its vicinity are urban in character and the campus site has been developed with University uses for over 100 years. Parnassus Heights is not on Farmland or otherwise in agricultural use. The topic of Agricultural Resources was focused out of the LRDP EIR as the potential effects of the LRDP proposals on agriculture was found to have no impact.

Discussion of Checklist Questions: 2 a/b/c) No significant impacts on agricultural resources would occur. All potential agricultural resources impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to agricultural impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

21 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or adoption of overriding Less than considerations by The significant with Impact for Regents for significant Potentially LRDP EIR which LRDP Less than unavoidable impacts, would Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 6 applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (e.g. induce mobile 6 source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions that would cause a violation of the CO ambient air quality standard)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state 6 ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 6 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 6 number of people?

22 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or adoption of overriding Less than considerations by The significant with Impact for Regents for significant Potentially LRDP EIR which LRDP Less than unavoidable impacts, would Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact f) Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by exposing receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions that (1) result in a cancer risk greater than ten cancer cases per one million 6 people exposed in a lifetime; or (2) for acute or chronic effects, result in concentrations of toxic air contaminant emissions with a Hazard Index of 1.0 or greater.

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. Regarding standards related to local air district plans under question b), the significance criteria established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is used to determine the significance of air quality impacts. A project would have a significant impact on air quality if the proposed development and uses would cause total criteria air pollutant emissions (i.e., from both stationary and mobile sources) to equal or exceed the following BAAQMD-defined thresholds:

Reactive organics 80 lb/day Nitrogen oxides 80 lb/day Particulate matter (PM10) 80 lb/day According to BAAQMD Guidelines, proposed projects would warrant carbon monoxide analysis if (1) vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 550 lb./day; (2) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; 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. A project would have a significant impact on air quality if the following threshold were exceeded:

Carbon monoxide (CO) 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours, and 20 ppm averaged over 1 hour

23 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

No standards of significance have been adopted by any regulatory agency with regard to toxic air emissions from mobile sources. However, a project would have a significant impact if toxic air emissions from mobile sources resulted in the health risks identified in impact question f), above.

According to the BAAQMD, project air quality impacts are considered cumulatively significant if • the project individually has a significant impact • the project is located in an area where the General Plan is inconsistent with the regional Clean Air Plan, and the quantified impact of the combined impacts of the project and past, present, and foreseeable future projects exceeds any significance threshold for project operations or the project causes city or county growth inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts:

The LRDP EIR concluded that demolition and construction activities proposed at Parnassus Heights under the LRDP would generate PM10 emissions which would exceed federal and/or state ambient air quality standards. Construction-related PM10 emissions would result in violations of that standard. To reduce major criteria pollutant emissions and comply with the air pollution control strategies developed by the BAAQMD, LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4D-1 was adopted. Application of this mitigation measures in all LRDP projects at Parnassus Heights would ensure that impacts of demolition and construction activities would be mitigated to less than significant levels. In 2006, the US EPA lowered the 24-hour standard for PM2.5 and will designate the attainments status of the Bay Area by the end of 2009. The potential impact of 2 PM2.5 emissions due to the proposed project is discussed in the checklist below.

The LRDP EIR analysis of vehicular and operational criteria pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants found that the health risk of sensitive receptors at and in the vicinity of Parnassus Heights would be less than significant. Full implementation of the proposals identified in the 1996 LRDP would result in a reduction of air pollutants and toxic air contaminant emissions.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

3a) The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is managed by the BAAQMD. As required by national and state air quality laws, the BAAQMD prepared the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and Triennial Assessment, as well as the San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard to address ozone non-attainment issues. The Bay Area is classified as nonattainment for state and national ozone standards and for state PM10 standards. No particulate matter plan has been prepared, nor is one required under state law. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan, including any BAAQMD guidelines. Therefore, impacts related to this topic would be less than significant.

3b/c) The construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts that cannot be mitigated with adopted LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures. The BAAQMD has established thresholds for projects requiring its review for potential air quality impacts. These thresholds are based on the minimum size projects, which the district considers capable of producing air quality problems due to vehicular emissions. Any project that would produce fewer than 2,000 vehicle trips per day would be below these thresholds for analysis. Approximately 230 faculty and staff would be associated with the proposed project. (Many of the faculty and staff that would work in the proposed project buildings are already currently working at Parnassus Heights but for purposes of this environmental review, all project population is considered to be new and in addition to

2 PM10 and PM2.5 refer to particulate matter of less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter, respectively.

24 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

existing population.) Thus, the proposed project would add about 460 total daily new vehicle trips to the area, which is below the BAAQMD threshold of analysis (see Impact Topic #15, Transportation/Traffic for traffic impact methodologies). The estimated 460 daily project-related vehicle trips would not exceed the following thresholds for detailed analysis of carbon monoxide concentrations: (1) vehicle emissions exceeding 550 lbs./day of carbon monoxide; (2) impact intersections operating at LOS D, E or F, or cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or (3) increase project-related traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or more for projects adding 100 or more vehicle trips per hour to any intersection in the area. The project would add fewer than 100 vehicle trips per hour to any intersection or street within the area, and thus would not require detailed carbon monoxide analysis. Therefore, air quality impacts resulting from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Construction activities at the project site would generate particulate matter emissions that have the potential to exceed ambient air quality standards. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4D-1, described on page 191 of the LRDP FEIR requires UCSF to include a condition in all construction contracts that the contractors reduce major criteria air pollutant emissions by complying with the air pollution control strategies developed by the BAAQMD for particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter (PM10).

Currently, the Bay Area is in non-attainment of state emission standards for annual levels of particulate matter of 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and is unrated for 24-hour levels. The BAAQMD has adopted a PM Implementation Schedule in which the district reviewed over 100 potential PM control measures to reduce emissions from new, modified and existing stationary, area and mobile sources. BAAQMD estimates that the PM2.5 portion of total PM accounts for approximately 60% of PM10 during the winter and approximately 45% during the rest of the year. Based on emissions inventory data, combustion activities such as construction/demolition, off-road engines and road dust have been identified as significant sources. The potential of the proposed project to create significant construction-related PM2.5 emissions would be mitigated through adoption of Mitigation Measure IRM-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4D-1 and IRM-1 would ensure that the proposed project would result in less-than-significant construction impacts.

As discussed above, operation and construction of the proposed project would not individually have a significant air quality impact with adopted mitigation measures. Considered together with future projects at Parnassus Heights and in the vicinity, such development would be considered infill development, with populations generally consistent with the 1996 LRDP, the San Francisco General Plan, and population forecasts in the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The proposed project’s contribution to the air quality exceedances would not be cumulatively considerable. Although the proposed project would generate vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the site, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase overall vehicular traffic in the larger area or result in an increase in air emissions that would contribute to the existing regional air quality violations. Because the area is well served by public transportation and UCSF would continue to provide bicycle storage, shuttle service and encourage alternative transportation, overall air emissions should be the same as or less than the emissions under existing conditions.

3d) Sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project would consist of residents and patients associated with the Medical Center. The nearest residences are to the east on Edgewood Road, to the west on Fifth Avenue and to the northwest on Third and Fourth Avenues. Moffitt and Long Hospital buildings are about 400 feet north of the project site but there are several intervening structures that are taller than the proposed Institute building. Potential air pollutants associated with the project would be below thresholds requiring analysis. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

25 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

3e) The proposed laboratory use would not generate unusual or strong odors. Chemical use within the laboratory would be in small quantities and would be ventilated by substantial mechanical means. Therefore, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a significant number of people.

3f) Operation of the proposed Institute building would require an additional chiller in the Parnassus Heights Central Utilities Plant and an emergency generator within the project structure. The proposed project would not create a substantial increase in research-based toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. Further, the occupancy of the Institute building is scheduled to coincide with the decommissioning and demolition of UC Hall and would represent a reduction in overall laboratory space at Parnassus Heights.

In the Bay Area, the approximate average lifetime cancer risk from exposure to ambient TAC’s (based on 2001 data) is 613 in one million, with 440 in a million of this risk due to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. Therefore, diesel particulate matter emissions represent about 72 percent of the current background TAC lifetime cancer risk in the Bay Area. The standard applied by BAAQMD for analysis of the contribution of individual development projects to this risk is ten in one million.

TAC emissions from Parnassus Heights, and the resulting health risk, were analyzed in the LRDP EIR, including the most recent 2005 LRDP Amendment #2 EIR. Based on a comprehensive health risk assessment in 1989 and subsequent updates, the theoretical cumulative total risk at Parnassus Heights was determined to be less than 7 in one million. Patient care, laboratory, and general building emissions accounted for approximately 2 in one million, of which the risk from all research laboratories at Parnassus Heights was estimated at 0.5 in one million. The Central Utilities Plant and the total of all emergency generators located on the campus site accounted for about 5 in one million risk. The addition of a central plant chiller and an emergency generator for the Institute building would result in a small increase in the total health risk at Parnassus but the risk would continue to be below the 10 in one million threshold. The long-term health risk at Parnassus Heights is projected to decrease by approximately 1 in one million as the LRDP proposals are fully implemented. In February 2004, the CARB adopted their Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (“Risk Reduction Plan”), which calls for retrofit standards for existing engines and more stringent emission standards for new engines. Full implementation of the Risk Reduction Plan for all covered emissions units will reduce diesel emissions in the year 2010 by 75 percent over the year 2000 levels, according to CARB estimates. In addition, the U.S. EPA has recently issued final rulemaking notices establishing more stringent federal emission standards for light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, non-road engines, and agricultural equipment. These rulemakings will phase in requirements to use cleaner burning EPA-certified diesel engines between 2004 and 2008. Implementation of the Risk Reduction Plan, as well as future potential U.S. EPA emission standards, will lead to continued reductions in TAC emissions.

AIR QUALITY

LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURE 4D-1. Air Pollutant Emissions (Construction). UCSF would require in all construction contracts for Demolition and construction activities proposed at the work at Parnassus Heights that the contractors reduce Parnassus Heights site under the LRDP would generate major criteria air pollutant emissions by complying with PM10 emissions which would exceed federal and/or state the air pollution control strategies developed by the ambient air quality standards. Construction-related BAAQMD. PM10 emissions would result in violations of that standard.

26 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE IRM-1. Air Pollutant Emissions (Construction). UCSF would require in all construction contracts for Demolition and construction activities proposed at the work at Parnassus Heights that the contractors reduce Parnassus Heights site under the LRDP would generate major criteria air pollutant emissions by complying with PM2.5 emissions which may exceed annual-levels of the air pollution control strategies developed by the state air quality standards. Construction-related PM2.5 BAAQMD, especially those related to PM2.5 emissions. emissions could result in violations of that standard.

Based on the above discussion, all potential air quality impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to air quality impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR Less than mitigation measures or adoption significant of overriding considerations by with LRDP Impact for The Regents for significant Potentially EIR which LRDP Less than unavoidable impacts, would the Significant Mitigation EIR is significant project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or 6 regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or 6 regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?

27 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR Less than mitigation measures or adoption significant of overriding considerations by with LRDP Impact for The Regents for significant Potentially EIR which LRDP Less than unavoidable impacts, would the Significant Mitigation EIR is significant project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not 6 limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with 6 established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local applicable policies protecting 6 biological resources? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 6 Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan? g) Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by damaging or removing 6 heritage or landmark trees or native oak trees of a diameter specified in a local ordinance?

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concluded that there is no evidence of existing sensitive habitat, sensitive species, significant natural native plant communities or wildlife habitat, including rare or endangered species on

28 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Parnassus Heights. This determination included the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve. The proposed LRDP demolition and building construction could not adversely affect sensitive habitat or species; therefore no impact would occur.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

4a–g) Implementation of the proposed project would not impact candidate, sensitive or special status species or their habitats; effect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; involve protected wetlands; interfere with movement or migration of any fish or wildlife species, or impede use of native wildlife nursery sites; conflict with any local applicable policies or conservation plans; or damage or remove heritage or landmark trees or native oak trees.

The proposed project would require the removal of several eucalyptus and a few redwood trees currently growing below Medical Center Way in the footprint of the Institute building. Tree removal would not be inconsistent with the Mount Sutro Management Plan, which calls for the removal of eucalyptus in this portion of the campus shelf. As feasible, new vegetation would be planted along the base of the building. Possible plant material includes bamboo, rhododendron and redwood trees or other tree species that can survive on the shady slope of the project site. Native and draught tolerant plants would be planted in the roof gardens, which would provide habitat for local birds, butterflies and insects. As part of the project, the boundaries of the open space reserve would be modified to exclude the western portion of the building footprint and to include Aldea housing footprints of Buildings 4 and 5. The total acreage of the open space reserve would continue to be 61 acres. Thus, no significant impacts on biological resources would occur.

Based on the above discussion, all potential biological resource impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to biological resource impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or Less than adoption of overriding significant with Impact for considerations by The Regents Potentially LRDP EIR which LRDP Less than for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 6 a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 6 an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

29 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or Less than adoption of overriding significant with Impact for considerations by The Regents Potentially LRDP EIR which LRDP Less than for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 6 resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 6 outside of formal cemeteries?

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. The significance standards for impact questions a) and b) are further explained and defined below.

Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5020.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) define a significant impact to historical resources as one that would materially impair the significance of an historical resource. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2), material impairment of a resource’s historic significance could result if the project would:

• Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register of Historic Resources; or

• Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to local ordinance or resolution (PRC Section 5020.1[k]), or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g) unless a preponderance of evidence establishes that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

• Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for its inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources, as determined by the lead agency.

Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines will be considered mitigated to a less-than-significant level, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3).

30 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) applies to effects on archaeological sites. Effects on non-unique archaeological resources are not considered significant. Regarding unique archaeological resources, lead agencies may require that reasonable efforts be made to permit such resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place or not left undisturbed, mitigation measures to protect such resources are required (PRC Section 21083.2(c)). Additionally, mitigation measures may be imposed to make provisions for archaeological sites accidentally discovered during construction. Generally, with the imposition of mitigation measures, effects on archaeological resources would be reduced to a level of non-significance.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR, including the 2005 Amendment #2 EIR, concluded that archaeological artifacts are unlikely to be discovered at Parnassus Heights; however, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 was adopted in order to implement procedures should archaeological resources be discovered during project construction. This mitigation measure is pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (b) – (f). Application of this mitigation measure in all LRDP projects at Parnassus Heights would ensure that impacts of cultural resources would be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

5a) The proposed project site is vacant. Construction of the proposed project would have no impact on historic, cultural or architectural resources of significance on a local, state or federal level.

5 b-d) The project site is located within the Parnassus Heights “shelf” where the ground has been repeatedly disturbed by building construction and mechanical installations. Previous studies and archival research conducted for the Parnassus site have not identified archaeological resources anywhere within the campus site or open space reserve. The proposed Institute building would be elevated and would not require significant excavation. The Auditorium would be at ground level but would be constructed within the footprint area of a former building demolished in the 1960s. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, described on page 4.3-19 of the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR requires UCSF to include a mitigation and recovery plan in the unlikely event that artifacts are discovered during construction. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on paleontological or archaeological resources or disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. There are no unique geologic features within the project area that could be affected by the proposed project.

LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURE

CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.3-1: Building construction, including excavation and If the discovery includes human remains, CEQA Guidelines grading associated with the proposed project, could cause 15064.5 (e)(1) shall be followed: substantial adverse changes to archaeological resources at the project sites. 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:

31 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

(A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and (B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: (1) The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. (2) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. (3) The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or (2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall re-bury 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.

Based on the above discussion, and the application of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 to the proposed project, all potential cultural resource impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to cultural resource impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

32 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or Less than adoption of overriding significant with Impact for considerations by The Regents Potentially LRDP EIR which LRDP for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation EIR is Less than No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient significant Impact Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or 6 based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground 6 shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including 6 liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 6 b) Result in substantial soil 6 erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and 6 potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code 6 (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

33 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concludes that buildings and infrastructure constructed in San Francisco could be subject to violent seismically-induced ground shaking and potential ground failures (landsliding, lateral spreading, settlement, etc.) during a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. Building sites at Parnassus Heights are susceptible to landslides and other ground failures. Parnassus Heights is located in the City of San Francisco’s Special Geologic Study Area for potential ground failure hazards and the California Geologic Survey (CGS) Seismic Hazard Zone for landsliding. All LRDP projects would be required to comply with the CGS Special Publication 117 for mitigating landslide hazards as well as Uniform Building Codes and Alquist Act requirements. The LRDP EIR found that compliance with these policies and requirements would reduce potential geology and soils impacts to less than significant levels.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

6a/c/d/f) Compliance with policies included as part of the 1996 LRDP, would reduce the potential ground failure impacts of the proposed project to a less-than significant level. The project site is not located within a potential tsunami run-up area, and is not subject to potential inundation due to reservoir failure. The project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, and no known

34 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

active fault exists on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Like the entire San Francisco Bay Area, however, the project site is subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake.

The University of California Policy on Seismic Safety establishes a rating system scale from the lowest rating of “Very Poor” to the highest rating of “Good.” The new buildings to be constructed under the proposed project would be designed to meet current seismic codes and would reduce seismic hazards for persons working at or visiting the project. This would have a beneficial effect on reducing potential seismic hazards at the Parnassus site by providing seismically good facilities for the employees and visitors associated with the proposed project.

6b/e) The proposed project would be designed to use the existing topography of the site and surrounding area, and would therefore not contribute to conditions which would cause erosion or loss of topsoil. The Institute building would be constructed on a steep slope and would be subject to landslides and soil erosion impacts from the hillside to the south. The Mount Sutro Management Plan outlines several initiatives for stabilizing the slope across Medical Center Way and UCSF is pursuing a number of projects and strategies to implement this plan. While the soils are capable of supporting septic or alternative water disposal systems, the area is supported by the City’s combined sewer system.

Based on the above discussion all potential geology and soils impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to geology and soils impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS –

35 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR Less than mitigation measures or significant adoption of overriding with LRDP Impact for considerations by The Regents Potentially EIR which LRDP Less than for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 6 substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 6 65962.5 ("Cortese List") and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or 6 public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a 6 safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response 6 plan or emergency evacuation plan?

36 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS –

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the LRDP at Parnassus Heights would result in use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste. Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 of the Amendment #2 EIR is a modification of the LRDP FEIR Mitigation Measures 12F 1 to 5 and adoption of this measure would reduce impacts of hazardous materials to less than significant levels.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

7a/b) Many operations at Parnassus Heights involve the use of hazardous chemicals, radioactive materials and biohazardous materials and result in the generation of hazardous waste. The proposed project would be expected to continue to use a wide range of chemical compounds and products. Handling and use of these hazardous materials and the disposal of the resulting waste products would be required to follow all applicable laws and regulations and would implement long established, comprehensive Environmental Health and Safety office programs to reduce the risks and hazards to workers. Implementation of these regulations and programs would reduce safety risks related to the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste as a result of the proposed project to a level of less than significant. LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 would be applied to the proposed project to further insure that no significant hazardous material impact would occur.

During the course of any construction project, there is the potential for construction workers to be exposed to building contaminants. Construction activities would involve the use of petroleum products, solvents, paints and other hazardous materials. The handling of these materials would be subject to regulation. Compliance with these requirements to properly handle and dispose of hazardous materials as part of construction would prevent a significant hazard to the public or the environment including upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

37 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

7c) The Parnassus Heights site is within one-quarter mile of public and private schools; however, the use and disposal of hazardous material would follow all applicable regulations and would not result in a substantial hazard to any area school. Implementation of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 would insure that no significant hazardous material impact would occur off site.

7d) The project is not a hazardous materials site on the “Cortese List,” and therefore would not pose a hazard to the public or the environment.

7e/f) The project site is not near an airport or airstrip, nor part of an airport land use plan, and would not pose a hazard for people residing or working in the area.

7g/h) The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Further, as it is not within or near wildlands, it would not expose people or structures to wildland fires.

LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURE

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.5-4: Operation of the new research facilities would generate UCSF shall implement hazardous waste handling, hazardous waste that could place an additional load on minimization, and disposal procedures consistent with safety hazardous waste management facilities. requirements and applicable laws and regulations. UCSF shall extend its existing hazardous waste minimization plan to include the proposed project. UCSF shall implement the operational controls required to comply with laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, monthly safety and compliance audits and training of staff. This would 1) allow efficient processing of wastes for shipment to treatment facilities or disposal, reducing the time that hazardous wastes are at the proposed project site, and 2) ensure that safety controls such as OSHA training, correct practices and safety equipment are in place. UCSF shall implement procedures to minimize increases in the long-lived radioactive waste generation. According to the California Department of Health Services Radiologic Health Branch, California, radiologic licenses should: 1) minimize the amount of low-level radioactive waste in possession and avoid accumulating waste that cannot be disposed promptly; 2) segregate for disposing radioactive wastes that are not subject to Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact regulations; 3) segregate waste that can be disposed of or reduced in volume by approved treatment methods; 4) segregate short-lived radioactive waste for decay; 5) consider recycling radioactive materials; 6) consider extended on-site storage of any remaining low- level radioactive waste; and 7) consider non-radioactive substitutes.

Based on the above discussion, and the application of Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 to the proposed project, all potential hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to hazardous materials impacts. The proposed project would not

38 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or Less than adoption of overriding significant with Impact for considerations by The Regents Potentially LRDP EIR which LRDP Less than for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6 requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 6 groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the 6 course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 6 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?

39 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or Less than adoption of overriding significant with Impact for considerations by The Regents Potentially LRDP EIR which LRDP Less than for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage 6 systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially 6 degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood 6 Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 6 would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving 6 flooding, including as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundate by seiche, tsunami, 6 or mudflow?

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concluded that there are no surface waterbodies or public water supplies in close proximity to the proposed project and no aquifers or groundwater recharge areas have been identified at the Parnassus Heights site. LRDP Mitigation Measure 4H1-1 was adopted to ensure that construction activities would not degrade water quality. This measure would be applied to the proposed project and adoption of this measure would reduce construction impacts on hydrology and water quality to less than significant levels.

40 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

8a/e/f) The proposed research, instruction and office uses would not generate significant sources of contamination. Thus, wastewater from the project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

The area is served by the City’s combined sewer system. The project is not expected to create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system, or otherwise degrade water quality.

Construction activities would not involve substantial grading or earth-moving activities that could affect water quality. However, there still remains the potential for construction material or pollutants to enter nearby storm drains, particularly during inclement weather. To ensure that construction activities would not degrade water quality, Mitigation Measure 4H1-1 of the LRDP FEIR would be implemented. This measure calls for the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, to include Best Management Practices to prevent construction material and pollutants from entering the wastewater stream. UCSF construction contracts would require contractors to implement the Plan. With implementation of this measure, impacts on water quality would be less than significant.

8b-d) The proposed project is an urban infill project on the fully developed Parnassus Heights site. Groundwater is not used at the site, and therefore the project would not alter or interfere with groundwater supplies or recharge. There are no plans to alter the drainage systems. The change in impervious surfaces resulting from development of the building would be minimized through the installation of a green roof as part of the Institute building project. Therefore, there would be no effects on existing drainage patterns.

8g-j) The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area, or near a levee or dam. The project would not affect inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURE HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4H1-1. Erosion and Sedimentation of the San Francisco UCSF would prepare a construction Storm Water Bay (Construction). Construction areas at Parnassus Pollution Prevention Plan that includes Best Heights may be subject to erosion, which could increase Management Practices to control stormwater quality on- sedimentation in the San Francisco Bay during wet site. UCSF’s construction contracts would require weather. contractors to implement the Plan. Implementation would reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant.

Based on the above discussion, and the application of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.H-1 to the proposed project, all potential hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to hydrology and water quality impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

41 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

9. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD Less than EIR and application of LRDP EIR significant mitigation measures or adoption of with LRDP Impact for overriding considerations by The Potentially EIR which LRDP Less than Regents for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact a) Physically divide an established 6 community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the LRDP, general plan, specific 6 plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 6 community conservation plan? d) Exceed an applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by being substantially incompatible with existing land uses, or by 6 substantially conflicting with use, density, height and bulk restrictions of local zoning, although UCSF is exempt from such restrictions?

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. In addition, local land use policies are of concern to UCSF planning efforts.

Pursuant to the University of California’s constitutional autonomy, development and uses on property owned or controlled by the University in furtherance of the educational mission of the University are not subject to local land use regulation. However, UCSF cooperates with local planning agencies to the extent possible in matters of mutual concern.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the LRDP proposals at Parnassus Heights would be consistent with local land use plans and adopted environmental goals and policies of the city. It further concluded that the physical changes proposed in the LRDP would be compatible with existing land uses and that proposed demolition and new construction projects would bring the square footage of the Parnassus Heights site to the LRDP GSF Space Commitment of 3,615,000 gross square feet, a reduction of half of the space ceiling overage that existed in 1996. All land use impacts were found to be less than significant.

42 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

9a) As part of the proposed project, a number of minor amendments and modifications would be recommended in order to update the LRDP to reflect the site location and functional land use of the project. In May 1976 The Regents approved a resolution to designate 58 acres of open space in Mount Sutro as a permanent open space reserve. Under the 1996 LRDP, a re-measurement of the boundaries calculated this area to be 61 acres. In addition, the 1996 LRDP proposed to add the building footprints of the “surge” building and the “woods” building to the open space reserve once these structures are demolished. Thus the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve is planned to have in excess of 61 acres when all LRDP projects are implemented. Under the proposed project, The Regents would consider approval of a modification of the 1976 Regents Resolution to remove approximately 0.5 acre of the IRM project site from the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve, and add approximately 0.5 acre of two building parcels at the Aldea San Miguel housing site to the Open Space Reserve, such that the total area of the open space reserve remains 61 acres. It is anticipated that Aldea building 4 would be demolished by 2009 and Aldea building 5 would be demolished by 2023. The Regents would also consider amending the 1996 LRDP Parnassus Heights site map to reflect the modifications to the Open Space Reserve.

A portion of the proposed Institute building is within a “Logistical Support” Functional Zone that reflects the use of the former buildings on site, now demolished. The Regents would consider a minor amendment to the Parnassus Heights Functional Zone map to re-designate 0.9 acre of the 1.9-acre Institute building site from “Logistical Support” to “Instruction and Research” (The remainder of the project site is already in the Instruction and Research functional zone.) The proposed project was otherwise anticipated and meets the objectives of the 1996 LRDP proposal for additional instruction and research space of up to 85,000 gsf at Parnassus Heights.

9b) The proposed project would provide consolidation and expansion space for instruction and research at Parnassus. The proposed project includes a new Auditorium that would replace the Toland auditorium in UC Hall. The project would be in support of the University’s mission and enable the planned demolition of UC Hall. The proposed project would implement major objectives of the LRDP. Other than the modifications and amendments described above, the project is compatible with and does not conflict with any adopted land use plans governing the site. Therefore, impacts would not be significant.

9c) The project is within a developed urban area that is not included in any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

9d) UCSF uses the City’s land use and zoning requirements as guidance in reviewing land use compatibility of its projects. The proposed Institute building site would be located mostly within a 65-D height and bulk district, with the Auditorium in a 130-D district. The Institute building would be stepped as a one- and two- story building following the contours of Medical Center Way and would be no more than 45 feet at its highest point from the roadway to the south. The north elevation of the building connects to the 220-F height district and would be at about half the elevation of the 16 story towers to the north.

As noted in the project description, the west portion of the building would be in the footprint of UCSF’s designated Mount Sutro open space reserve. This area is correspondingly zoned Open Space in the City’s height and bulk designation. As part of the project, the designation would be modified to remove the open space reserve within the project footprint and replace the noted Aldea housing footprints with an open space reserve designation when these housing demolitions are complete. This modification would update UCSF’s LRDP and for purposes of coordination

43 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

between UCSF and the City, the recommended changes to the land use and height district at the project site and at the Aldea site would be communicated to the Planning Department for incorporation in a future City zoning code update. The proposed project would not create a substantial conflict with existing local land use and zoning requirements.

Based on the above discussion, all potential land use impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to land use impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

10. MINERAL RESOURCES –

Standards of Significance The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts Parnassus Heights and its vicinity are urban in character. The location is not a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. The topic of Mineral Resources was focused out of the LRDP EIR as the potential effects of the LRDP proposals on mineral resources was found to have no impact.

Discussion of Checklist Questions: 10 a/b) No significant impacts on mineral resources would occur. All potential mineral resources impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to mineral impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

44 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

11. NOISE –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR Less than mitigation measures or significant adoption of overriding with LRDP Impact for considerations by The Regents Potentially EIR which LRDP Less than for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable 6 plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 6 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 6 above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project 6 vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or 6 public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people 6 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

45 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

11. NOISE –

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concluded that operational noise impacts of LRDP projects at Parnassus Heights would be less than significant. Construction noise impacts were found to be significant and even with adoption of Mitigation Measure 4E-1 of the LRDP EIR, the impact would remain a temporary but significant and unavoidable impact. The Regents adopted a finding of overriding considerations for this significant unavoidable impact.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

11 a-d) The proposed project could result in increased noise from construction activity, daily operation of the building, and increased traffic. Sensitive receptors to noise include patients to the Medical Center, the Lucia Child Care Study Center on the corner of Third and Parnassus Avenues, and residences located on all sides of the Parnassus Heights site.

Construction Noise

The proposed project would result in construction noise effects. Operation of several pieces of construction equipment simultaneously in proximity to each other could exceed 80 dBA at 100 feet. Construction noise, especially impact tools, could result in noise peaks that may disrupt nearby medical center facilities and residences by interfering with normal speech and concentration (above

46 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

exterior noise levels of 70 to 80 dBA).3 The effect would be limited in time, depending upon the phase and duration of construction activities. Overall construction activities would last approximately 24 months.

UCSF’s noise policies are guided by Sections 2907 and 2908 of Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code, which regulate 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 dBA when measured at a distance of 100 feet from such equipment, or an equivalent sound level at some other convenient distance.” Exemptions to this requirement include impact tools and equipment, pavement breakers, and jackhammers. The Ordinance 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.

In addition to the 80-dBA noise limit, Section 2908 prohibits any person, between the hours of 8:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day to erect, construct, demolish, excavate for, alter, or repair any building or structure if the noise level created is in excess of the ambient noise level by 5 dBA at the nearest property line unless by advance permit approval.

Construction-related noise levels at 50 feet range from about 76 to 85 dBA for most types of construction equipment with slightly higher levels of about 88 to 91 dBA for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. Such noise levels would be sporadic rather than continuous in nature because different types of construction equipment would be used throughout the construction process.

Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4E-1, described on page 198, of the LRDP FEIR would be incorporated into the proposed project. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce construction noise impacts. This measure requires construction contractors to minimize construction noise impacts by the following strategies: limiting construction hours, 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. In addition to implementing this mitigation measure, UCSF would consult with neighbors and further discuss and negotiate construction hours. As indicated in the LRDP EIR, these mitigations would not in all cases reduce impacts to less than significant levels and therefore a temporary but significant and unavoidable impact would result.

Considering the scale of proposed development, construction noise from the proposed project would not be expected to exceed the noise levels addressed by the San Francisco Police Code. This consideration, combined with the mitigation measure discussed above, ensures that the project noise effects would be temporary and thus would not result in significant construction noise impacts.

3 Noise peaks generated by construction equipment could result in temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) to persons in nearby buildings if the noise level in the interior of the building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA. A typical building can reduce noise levels by 20 to 25 dBA with the windows closed, although the actual noise attenuation may vary depending on building construction and design. Assuming a 20 to 25 dBA reduction with the windows closed, an exterior noise level of 70 to 80 dBA at receptors would maintain an acceptable interior noise environment for normal conversation.

47 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Operational and Traffic Noise

Operation of the proposed project would require an emergency generator, which would require testing no more than once per week for a period of about an hour. The emergency generator would incorporate sound muffling devices to reduce noise impacts. Therefore, operational noise impacts from the proposed project would not be significant.

Increased traffic noise levels are not noticeable to most people unless traffic volumes double in the area. Based on the traffic analysis for the proposed project, traffic volumes would not double on any corridor in the area as a result of the proposed project. Thus, the project would not result in a noticeable increase in noise levels related to project traffic.

11e/f) The project site is not located within an area subject to an airport land use plan, and is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive noise levels.

11g) The proposed project is in the interior of the Parnassus Heights site and would be of new construction, including new mechanical equipment. Thus, the project would not be expected to contribute to a 3dBA increase in the existing noise environment.

LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURE

NOISE

4E-1. Construction Noise (Construction). During UCSF would require construction contractors to construction, the noise generated from the construction minimize construction noise impacts by the following activities could exceed the maximum limits specified by strategies: local noise ordinances if unmitigated. Limit construction hours to between 7:00 a.m. and

8:00 p.m., 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. 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.

Based on the above discussion, and the application of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.E-1 to the proposed project, all potential noise impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The Regents made a finding of overriding considerations for the temporary but significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts that would result from implementation of LRDP projects at Parnassus Heights. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to noise impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts then the one adopted in The Regents findings, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

48 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

12. POPULATION AND HOUSING –

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. Population and housing changes, in and of themselves, are not normally considered to be significant impacts (substantial, adverse impacts on the physical environment) under CEQA, but CEQA does allow inclusion of these effects as indicators and influences on other impacts. Therefore, this section quantifies and describes the magnitude of such potential changes. The potentially significant physical environmental impacts associated with changes in population and housing are analyzed in other sections of this Initial Study (e.g. traffic, public services, air quality).

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the LRDP proposals would not result in any significant impacts related to UCSF employment, the average daily population at Parnassus Heights, and UCSF- controlled housing.

49 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

12 a/d) No housing is proposed as part of the project. The proposed project would introduce approximately 230 employees to the site; however, many employees associated with the proposed project would already be working at Parnassus Heights. Nonetheless, for purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that all of the employees would be new hires.

Based upon 2000 Census data, the City of San Francisco has about 775,000 residents and an estimated daytime population of about 945,500. Parnassus Heights has a daily employment population of about 8,800 and about 4,000 average daily patients and visitors. The proposed project occupancy of about 230 staff represents a modest increase to the existing daytime population at Parnassus Heights. The project would not induce substantial population growth given the type of uses proposed (open laboratory and offices), and given that it would be an infill development.

12 b/c) The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or substantial population groups.

Based on the above discussion, all potential population and housing impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to population and housing impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

13. PUBLIC SERVICES –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRDP EIR would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause Less than significant environmental impacts, significant in order to maintain acceptable with LRDP Impact for service ratios, response times or Potentially EIR which LRDP Less than other performance objectives for Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No any of the following public services: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact Fire protection? 6 Police protection? 6 Schools? 6 Parks? 6 Other public facilities? 6

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

50 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the LRDP proposals at Parnassus Heights would incrementally increase demand and use of public services in the area, namely fire and police protection and parks, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in the project area. No significant impacts were identified under the LRDP EIR.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

13a) The proposed project would incrementally increase demand and use of public services in the area, namely fire and police protection and parks, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in the project area. Operation of the proposed project would not be expected to have any measurable impact on public services that would require new facilities or services.

The project site receives fire protection services from the San Francisco Fire Department. The project would have less-than-significant impacts to the level of fire protection services and response times.

The UCSF Police Department (UCPD) provides police protection services for University of California properties and facilities that comprise UCSF. The UCPD operates two substations, one at Mission Bay and the other at Parnassus Heights. The project site is at Parnassus Heights and would be served by UCPD.

Impacts on schools would be minimal. Most children are enrolled in public schools based on the location of their residence. A population of 230 employees could generate demand for school services for as many as 8 children.4 There is sufficient capacity in current public school enrollment to provide for this conservative estimated demand.

There would be no impact to parks. The proposed project would be located adjacent to the passive open space of the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve and less than a mile from the active recreation opportunities of Golden Gate Park. Given that the increase in population would be small relative to the population in the area, and that a range of recreation facilities are available, the project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of recreation or park facilities, or require new construction or expansion of such facilities.

The proposed project would be undertaken in a developed urban area of San Francisco, where all public services are currently provided for; no need for any expansion of public service facilities is anticipated.

Based on the above discussion, all potential public services impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to public services impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

4 This is a conservative estimate based on a percentage of employees who have school-age children and who currently reside outside of San Francisco and therefore could potentially add to public school enrollment should they establish residency in San Francisco.

51 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

14. RECREATION –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of Less than LRDP EIR mitigation measures or significant adoption of overriding with LRDP Impact for considerations by The Regents for Potentially EIR which LRDP Less than significant unavoidable impacts, Significant Mitigation EIR is significant would the project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities 6 such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities 6 that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The topic of Recreation was focused out of the LRDP EIR as the potential effects of the LRDP proposals at Parnassus Heights on recreation was considered under Public Services – Parks and was found to have no impact.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

14 a/b) There is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to recreation impacts since adopting the LRDP EIR.

Based on the above discussion, all potential public services impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to recreation impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

52 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-- Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR Less than mitigation measures or significant adoption of overriding with LRDP Impact for considerations by The Regents Potentially EIR which Less than for significant unavoidable Significant Mitigation LRDP EIR significant No impacts, would the project: Impact Incorporated is Sufficient Impact Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial 6 increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion 6 management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic 6 levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous 6 intersections) or incompatible uses? e) Result in inadequate 6 emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking 6 capacity? g) Conflict with applicable policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative 6 transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

53 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic. In addition, this analysis also considers the project’s transit demand and the capacity of local area transit services as described below under Significance Criteria.

Regarding traffic increases discussed under impact question a), a substantial increase in traffic is one that would cause the corridor or intersection level of service to drop during the peak hour below acceptable levels of service based on local traffic standards, or would cause a corridor or intersection already operating at an unacceptable level of service to further deteriorate during the peak hour to an extent determined to be significant by local traffic standards.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The transportation section of the LRDP EIR was updated as of the 2005 Amendment #2 EIR and all traffic assessments were projected through 2025. The LRDP EIR concluded that the majority of study intersections would operate at LOS D or better through 2025. Those intersections operating at LOS E or F under existing conditions are forecast to remain at these levels of service and the impact of the LRDP proposals would generally be less than significant. In addition to the LRDP EIR analyses, a transportation study was undertaken for the proposed project and is presented below.

54 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

15a/b/f/g/i) A transportation study was undertaken for the proposed project and the analysis is summarized below.5 The transportation analysis considers issues related to vehicular traffic, transit, pedestrians, bicyclists and parking facilities and analyzes construction-related impacts associated with the proposed project.

Significance Criteria

The operating characteristics of intersections are described using 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 range from LOS A, which indicates free-flow conditions with little or no delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with extremely long delays. LOS D, which indicates increasingly unacceptable delays, is considered to be the minimum acceptable (“just tolerable”) level of service.

Regarding traffic impacts, a project is typically considered to have a significant effect on the environment under Existing plus Project conditions if: (1) the existing LOS would deteriorate from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level (from LOS D or better to LOS E or F); (2) the existing intersection LOS would deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F; or (3) if project-related traffic would represent five percent or greater of total intersection volume for an intersection already operating at LOS F. Under Cumulative 2025 conditions, for intersections that are operating at LOS E or F and where the project’s contribution to cumulative growth would be five percent or greater, the project contribution to the traffic volumes at the critical movements are evaluated. Based on this analysis, the project impact would be considered significant if it were determined that the project’s contribution to a critical movement would be five percent or greater.

Impacts on public transit would be considered significant if the project would generate transit demand that transit systems or projected transit service would not be able to accommodate.

In San Francisco, it is acknowledged that San Francisco General Plan policies emphasize the importance of public transit use and discourage the provision of facilities that encourage automobile use. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the creation of parking demand that cannot be met by existing or proposed parking facilities would not be considered a significant environmental effect in San Francisco.

Impact Methodology

Travel Demand

Project travel demand refers to the new vehicle, transit, and pedestrian trips generated by the proposed project. The transportation analysis is based on the proposed project size (Institute building and Auditorium) of about 80,000 gsf, and project population of about 230. (Many of the faculty and staff that would work in the proposed project buildings are already currently working at Parnassus Heights and all Auditorium users would already be on site, but for purposes of this environmental review, all project population is considered to be new and in addition to existing population.)

5 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., Traffic Impact Analysis for UCSF Parnassus Institute for Regeneration Medicine Building May 2007.

55 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

The project trip generation is the number of person-trips generated by the proposed use. The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated using data from prior UCSF surveys. The proposed project would generate about 460 daily person-trips.

“Mode choice” is the designation of person-trips to the various means that people use to travel, such as automobile, transit, walking, or other modes. Mode choice allocations were based on (1) the San Francisco Planning Department guidelines which are based on extensive surveys of travel behavior throughout San Francisco; and (2) past UCSF transportation surveys and analyses, and estimates of travel behavior of proposed project occupants.

Person trips generated by the proposed project were then assigned to travel modes to determine the number of vehicle, walk, and transit trips to and from the site. Of the approximately 460 daily person-trips that would be generated by the proposed project, about 215 trips would be daily vehicle trips.

The time period chosen for analysis of potential traffic impacts was the peak hour 5:00 p.m. to 6 p.m. 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 was chosen to reflect the worst-case scenario within a typical weekday. During the p.m. peak hour, the project would result in approximately 38 vehicle trips, 17 Muni trips, and 6 other transit trips.

Parking and Loading Demand

The parking demand generated by the proposed project is calculated by first dividing the daily vehicle trips in half, as each trip represents an arrival and departure trip. A peak parking demand rate (i.e. parking space turnover rate) is then applied. Based on these calculations, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate a peak parking demand for about 77 parking spaces during the weekday.

The proposed project would generate approximately 17 delivery/service vehicle trip per day. Peak loading demand is estimated at one loading space.

Cumulative Analysis

Cumulative traffic analysis is based on the countywide travel demand model, developed and maintained by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA). The model contains projections to the year 2025 and has been adjusted by the San Francisco Planning Department to account for revised forecasts of housing production and employment growth.

Traffic Impacts

Regional access to the project area is provided by Interstate 280 (I-280) and State Highway 1 along 19th Avenue, while local roadway access to the project site is provided via Parnassus Avenue and Medical Center Way. Parnassus Avenue is two-way, with one travel lane in each direction and parking on both sides of the street. Medical Center Way is a campus street with one lane in each direction, but no parking on either side.

56 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

The following ten study intersections are likely to be the most impacted by project-generated traffic:

a) Judah Street/7th Avenue b) Judah Street/6th Avenue c) Judah Street/Parnassus Avenue/5th Avenue d) Parnassus Avenue/4th Avenue e) Parnassus Avenue/3rd Avenue f) Parnassus Avenue/Hillway Avenue g) Parnassus Avenue/Medical Center Way h) Parnassus Avenue/Stanyan Street i) Irving Street/Carl Street/Arguello Boulevard j) Irving Street/2nd Avenue

Traffic counts were conducted at the ten study intersections in November 2006 and February 2007. Existing intersection operating conditions in the area were evaluated for the weekday p.m. peak traffic hour using intersection turning-movement data. Both signalized and unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology.6 For signalized intersections, this methodology determines the capacity of groupings of vehicle movements approaching the intersection. The LOS is based on average delay (in seconds per vehicle) for those various movements within the intersection. This analysis presents the combined weighted average delay and LOS for each study intersection. For unsignalized intersections, the average delay and LOS operating conditions were calculated by approach (e.g., northbound) and movement (e.g., northbound left-turn) for those movements subject to delay. As such, this section reports the operating conditions for unsignalized intersections for the worst approach.

Traffic impacts directly related to the proposed project were assessed under Existing plus Project and Cumulative (2025) conditions, the results of which are shown in the table below.

6 Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. As part of the Highway Capacity Manual methodology, adjustments are typically made to the capacity of each intersection to account for various factors that reduce the ability of the streets to accommodate vehicles (such as the number of pedestrians, vehicle types, lane widths, grades, on-street parking, and downstream queues). These adjustments are performed to ensure that the LOS analysis results reflect the operating conditions that are observed in the field.

57 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

PM PEAK-HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Existing + Traffic Existing Cumulative (2025) Control Proposed Project Intersection Device a Delay b LOS Delay b LOS Delay b LOS

Judah St./7th Ave. Signalized 29 C 29 C 60 E Judah St./6th Ave. AWS 25 C 26 D >50 F Judah St./Parnassus SSS >50 F >50 F >50 F Ave./5th Ave. Parnassus Ave./4th AWS 18 C 19 C 27 D Ave. Parnassus Ave./3rd SSS >50 F >50 F >50 F Ave. Parnassus SSS 25 C 25 C 28 D Ave./Hillway Ave. Parnassus Ave./Medical Center SSS 33 D 33 D 39 E Way Parnassus Signalized 13 B 14 B 18 B Ave./Stanyan St. Irving St./Carl SSS 14 B 15 B 17 B St./Arguello Blvd. Irving St./2nd Ave. AWS 9 A 10 A 11 B

a AWS = All-way stop controlled intersection. SSS = Side-street stop-controlled intersection. Signalized = Signal-controlled intersection. b Delay presented in seconds per vehicle (for overall intersection at signalized intersections, and for worst Stop-controlled approach at unsignalized intersections), using the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Edition. SOURCE: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. (2007)

As the table indicates, all study intersections under existing conditions operate acceptably at LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour, with the exception of two side-street stop-controlled intersections: Judah Street/Parnassus Avenue/5th Avenue, where the northbound approach currently operates at LOS F; and Parnassus Avenue/3rd Avenue, where the southbound approach currently operates at LOS F.

With the proposed project, delays are the same as or are only slightly increased at all intersections, with no change to the level of service from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS. The project’s contribution to traffic at Judah Street/Parnassus Avenue/5th Avenue and Parnassus Avenue/3rd Avenue would be less than five percent. The proposed project would not cause any intersections to degrade from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, and would not cause the side-street stop-controlled intersections operating at LOS F to meet peak hour traffic signal warrants. Therefore, project impacts on traffic would be less than significant.

58 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Under cumulative conditions in the year 2025, Judah Street/7th Avenue would operate at LOS E, and Judah Street/6th Avenue would operate at LOS F, due to cumulative growth in traffic in the area. These intersections would operate at these unacceptable levels in the year 2025 even without the project. The project’s contribution to the cumulative growth in traffic at each of these intersections would be less than five percent. Thus, the project’s impact on traffic at these intersections would be less than significant.

Under year 2025 conditions, Judah Street/Parnassus Avenue/5th Avenue would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F on the northbound approach; and Parnassus Avenue/3rd Avenue would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F on the southbound approach. In addition, Parnassus Avenue/Medical Center Way would operate at an unacceptable LOS E. However, traffic signal warrants would not be met at these side-street stop-controlled intersections, and although the project would contribute to cumulative growth by more than five percent, the project’s contribution to traffic at the critical movement of each of these intersections would be less than five percent. Thus, the project’s impact on traffic at these intersections would be less than significant.

For the reasons stated, traffic impacts associated with the proposed project and the project’s contribution to cumulative conditions would be less than significant.

Parking and Loading

The proposed project would generate a peak parking demand for about 77 parking spaces. No new parking spaces would be provided at Parnassus Heights due to the proposed project.

In January 2007, an on-street parking occupancy survey was conducted in the area bounded by Stanyan Street, Carl/Irving Street, 6th Avenue, and Kirkham Street. The survey was conducted midday (1 p.m. to 3 p.m.) and evening (7 p.m. to 9 p.m.), and found that approximately 90% of the on-street parking spaces were occupied during these times. Observations at the Millberry Union and Ambulatory Care Center garages indicate that both off-street facilities are approximately 90% occupied during midday. Other nearby off-street parking facilities include the Westside/Kirkham Street surface lot, and the Surge/Woods surface lot.

Given that parking facilities in the area are effectively at capacity, the project’s demand for parking might not be fully accommodated in the immediate vicinity. It is anticipated that new drivers may look elsewhere to park their vehicles, such as at the Kezar parking lot in Golden Gate Park, or may switch to alternative means of travel such as transit.

UCSF already implements a number of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to encourage alternative modes of travel and reduce the demand for parking, such as:

• An extensive shuttle system that connects the Parnassus campus site to all other campus sites and to San Francisco General Hospital, thereby reducing vehicle trips and demand for parking. • Transit passes on a pre-tax basis in order to encourage transit use. Several Muni lines are adjacent to the Parnassus campus, including the N-Judah Muni Metro line. • Vanpools and carpools • Carshare vehicles • Secure bicycle parking • Emergency ride home program

59 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Even with these TDM programs, however, some employees of and visitors to the project may utilize on- or off-street parking. Although UCSF recognizes that additional demand for parking may create greater inconvenience to surrounding businesses and residents, the increase in parking utilization would not be considered a significant environmental impact. Pursuant to the City of San Francisco’s “Transit First” policy, parking is considered a social issue and relates to quality of life and convenience, but is not an environmental issue. Parking conditions are not part of the physical environment and parking shortfalls are not considered to be an impact on the environment, unless the shortfall would result in secondary physical effects, such as traffic congestion.

UCSF supports the City’s Transit First policy, which encourages the use of public or alternative transportation. With the convenience of the UCSF shuttle and the availability of Muni service, it is expected that many drivers would find transit more convenient than driving and shift their mode of travel. Therefore, the project’s impact on parking would not be considered a significant environmental effect. In addition, the City of San Francisco does not consider an increase in parking demand that is not met by existing facilities or by the project to be a significant impact and does not consider it an environmental issue; this practice is also consistent with the City’s Transit First policy.

The project would create a peak demand for one loading space. The project provides a loading dock on the eastern end of the site, and therefore would meet loading demand. Thus, impacts with regard to loading would not be significant.

Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Conditions

The City of San Francisco’s Municipal Railway (Muni) operates rail and bus lines in the vicinity, including the N-Judah, 6-Parnassus, 43-Masonic, and 71 and 71L-Haight/Noriega lines. The proposed project would generate about 23 transit trips in the p.m. peak hour. Spread among the various transit lines and transit service providers, this small increase in transit trips would be accommodated by existing and planned transit service, which would have sufficient capacity.

Pedestrian and bicycle activity generated by the project would consist of about 110 walk trips and 20 bicycle trips per day, which would be accommodated by existing and planned pathways.

Construction Traffic and Parking

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would increase traffic, truck traffic, and parking demand by construction employees. These effects would be temporary for the duration of the construction period, about 24 months. The project would include implementation of LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 and a new Project-level Mitigation Measure IRM-2, requiring the development of a construction traffic and parking management plan, to ensure construction-related impacts are less than significant.

15c/d/e/h) The proposed project would not involve changes to air traffic patterns. There would be no change to emergency access. While the project site would be in the vicinity of the hospital’s main loading dock, there would be no particular hazards or project feature causing substantial conflict among pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Therefore, no significant impacts would result.

60 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURE TRANSPORTATION 4.11-1. Construction Traffic and Parking (Construction). The project would incorporate LRDP FEIR Building construction, including demolition, associated Mitigation Measure 4C-3 and LRDP Amendment with the proposed project could cause adverse impacts to #2 FEIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 to ensure that traffic flow, circulation and access as well as to transit, construction and/or demolition activities minimize pedestrian and parking conditions. parking demand and circulation obstruction. Pursuant to this measure, UCSF would require construction and/or demolition contractors to develop and implement construction traffic and parking management plans during demolition and/or construction activities. The plans would be developed in consultation with interested neighbors, and would be expected to include measures such as the following: • Develop a traffic management plan in consultation with the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic and Muni to minimize disruption due to lane closures. The plan should be consistent with the Regulations for Working in San Francisco Streets and Chapter 6 of the California Supplement to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. • Prepare an offsite parking plan for construction employees and subcontractor employees. The plan should consider an alternative for the contractor to provide shuttle service to/from designated remote parking lots. This plan would be incorporated into the construction contract between UCSF and the contractor. • Schedule heavy-truck deliveries with the construction project manager at least one day in advance. • Whenever possible, make deliveries using trucks of 40 feet maximum bumper-to-bumper length. • Whenever possible schedule heavy trucks deliveries to arrive at off-peak hours, outside of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Note any deliveries that cannot comply with the above requirements for heavy trucks on the schedule, and notify the UCSF construction project manager at least 48 hours in advance. The contractor may provide flagmen to direct traffic in those cases.

61 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURE IRM-2. Construction Traffic and Parking (Construction). • Prepare a transit use goal and plan for construction Construction of the proposed project could cause demand employees and subcontractor employees. The plan for construction parking spaces to significantly exceed the should consider an alternative for the contractor to designated supply of construction parking at Parnassus provide shuttle service to/from public Heights and could adversely impact traffic flow on transportation transfer nodes such as Caltrain and Medical Center Way including circulation, access and BART. This plan would be incorporated into the pedestrian safety along the roadway. construction contract between UCSF and the contractor. • Stage construction activities to avoid the need to close Medical Center Way. Should complete road closure be required, provide at least 72 hours notice to campus community and public and prepare detour routes and signage for drivers and pedestrians during the road closure.

Based on the above discussion, all potential transportation impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR or can be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of LRDP and project-specific mitigation measures. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to transportation impacts. Mitigation Measure 411-1 of the LRDP EIR as well as a project specific measure, IRM 2 would be applied to the proposed project in order the insure that the construction impacts on transportation would be mitigated to less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS –

62 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS –

Following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRPD EIR and application of LRDP EIR Less than mitigation measures or adoption significant of overriding considerations by with LRDP Impact for The Regents for significant Potentially EIR which LRDP Less than unavoidable impacts, would the Significant Mitigation EIR is significant No project: Impact Incorporated Sufficient Impact Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, 6 the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and 6 resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has 6 adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 6 accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes 6 and regulations related to solid waste? h) Result in the wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy (see 6 CEQA Statutes Section 21100(b)(3))? i) Exceed the applicable LRDP EIR standard of significance by requiring or resulting in the construction of new electrical 6 or natural gas facilities, which would cause significant environmental effects?

63 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS –

Standards of Significance

The impact questions above constitute the significance standards for this environmental topic.

Summary of LRDP EIR Impacts

The LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the LRDP projects would not have a significant effect on utilities, energy and service systems and no mitigation measures were required.

Discussion of Checklist Questions:

The project site is within an urban area that is served by utilities and public services, including water, electricity, and gas. The site is also served by the City’s combined sewer system and solid waste collection facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the use of water, electricity and gas at the project site, and would incrementally contribute waste to the City’s combined sewer system and Bay Area landfills.

16a-e) Water at the project site would be supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which serves all of San Francisco. The SFPUC has sufficient supply to meet the needs of the proposed project. The project site is served by the City’s combined sewer system, designed for the treatment and disposal of both wastewater and stormwater. The proposed project would increase water consumption and disposal at the site, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in the project area. The moderate size of the project would not require the new construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities. Thus, the project would not have significant impacts on water supplies or wastewater facilities.

16 f/g) Construction activities would incrementally contribute to solid waste flows to the Altamont landfill. In addition, daily building operations would generate solid waste. Again, given the moderate size of the project, the Altamont landfill would have adequate capacity to serve project demand. The project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste.

64 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

16 h-j) The project site is served by the Parnassus Central Utilities Plant and an additional chiller would be added to the Plant to serve the proposed project. Emergency power for the proposed project would be provided with a new emergency generator within the building. The project would comply with requirements of Title 24, and would not result in a wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy.

The proposed project would incrementally increase demand for and use of public utilities, but not in excess of amounts expected and provided for in the project area. The construction would be undertaken in a fully built- out urban area of San Francisco, where all utilities are currently provided for; no need for any expansion of public utility facilities is anticipated.

Based on the above discussion, all potential utilities, energy and service system impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR. The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to utilities, energy and service system impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and no additional analysis of this topic is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES FROM LRDP EIR

In addition to the mitigation measures identified in this document that apply directly to the proposed project, any other applicable mitigation measures from the LRDP EIR, including the 1996 LRDP FEIR and the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR are incorporated by reference and would be applied in the course of implementing the LRDP projects, including the proposed project.

65 Initial Study Institute for Regeneration Medicine

17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Potentially Less than Significant significant Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate 6 a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are 6 considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial 6 adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

18. Fish and Game Determination Based on consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends.

_X_ Yes (No Effect)

___ No (Pay fee)

66 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

VII STAFF-INITIATED TEXT CHANGES

The first page, Project Information, is modified to include the latitude and longitude coordinates of the project site under item 2. Project Location.

In addition, during the course of preparing the summary documents listing the approval actions that The Regents will be requested to consider adopting, UCSF made minor changes to the graphics which constitute the LRDP Amendments in order to clarify the approval actions:

Figure 2 on page 7 is revised to show the proposed project footprint and to show the proposed inclusion of Aldea Apartment Buildings 4 and 5 in the permanent open space reserve. The area to be removed from the open space designation is colored gray (to show the building) and has a dotted pattern. The area to be added to the open space is colored the same as the open space reserve and has a striped pattern.

Figure 7 on page 11 is revised to show a dotted pattern over the yellow-colored area to be removed from the open space designation, and a striped pattern over the orange-colored area to be added to the open space designation. The name of the graphic has been corrected be consistent with the May 1976 Regents Resolution: Attachment “1” has been changed to Attachment “I.”

The revised Figures 2 and 7 are marked with a * in the margin.

VIII COMMENTS & RESPONSES

This section contains the comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed Institute for Regeneration Medicine project at UCSF, and the responses to those comments. Comments were received during the public comment period from February 2, 2008 through March 3, 2008. The following table lists each commenter, the comment code, and the issue of each comment submitted in writing. In addition, a community meeting was held on February 5, 2008. Meeting Notes taken by UCSF staff are also included as comments on the project. Comments from e-mails are presented verbatim. Copies of the e-mails are provided at the end of this section.

Revisions made to figures or text that resulted from comments received are marked with an X in the margin.

COMMENTER INDEX

Comment Commenter Comment Type Code Issue Notes from UCSF 1. Community Meeting of UCSF Staff Notes, February February 5, 2008Notes 5, 2008 1-1 Building Air Circulation

1-2 Building Screen

1-3 Building Visibility

1-4 Trail Connector

67 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Comment Commenter Comment Type Code Issue

1-5 Roof Garden

1-6 Landscaping

1-7 Construction

1-8 UCSF Space Ceiling

2. Don Reigrod E-mail, February 5, 2008 2-1 UCSF Space Ceiling

3. JB Benna E-mail, February 6, 2008 3-1 Protect Open Space

4. Kevin Hart E-mail, February 6, 2008 4-1 Building Visibility

5. Paul Castleman E-mail, February 7, 2008 5-1 Medical Center Way Traffic Safety

5-2 Medical Center Way Traffic Counts

6. Craig Dawson E-mail, February 7, 2008 6-1 Renderings in Negative Declaration

6-2 Views from Site / Mount Sutro

6-3 Landscaping

6-4 Trail Connector

6-5 Medical Center Way Traffic Counts

6-6 Pedestrian Safety

6-7 Loading / Drop-off Access

7. Tag Cummings E-mail, February 7, 2008 7-1 UC Hall

8. Daniel Schneider E-mail, February 12, 2008 8-1 Building Visibility

9. Dona Crowder E-mail, February 12, 2008 9-1 Changes to Building Plans

10. Donald F. Robertson E-mail, February 14, 2008 10-1 Building Visibility

11. Joan Downey E-mail, February 23, 2008 11-1 Building Visibility

11-2 Demolition of Aldea Housing

11-3 Delivery/Service Loading

11-4 Transit First Policy

11-5 Disabled Access Department of Toxic E-mail / Letter of 12. Substances Control February 25, 2008 12-1 DTSC Recommendations

13. Pinky Kushner E-mail, February 26, 2008 13-1 Medical Center Way Traffic Counts

13-2 Exchange of Open Space

68 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Comment Commenter Comment Type Code Issue

13-3 Impact Analyses

Pinky Kushner E-mail / Letter of (Continued) March 1, 2008 13-4 UCSF Space Ceiling

13-5 Operational Noise

13-6 Building Visibility

13-7 Lighting

13-8 Bird Habitat / Open Space

13-9 Landscaping

13-10 Geology

13-11 Medical Center Way Construction Traffic

13-12 Medical Center Way Traffic Counts

13-13 Exchange of Open Space

13-14 Negative Declaration versus EIR Maryann Rainey, 14, RN, PNP E-mail, March 3, 2008 14-1 N Judah Connection to Mission Bay E-mail / Letter of 15. David Tornheim March 3, 2008 15-1 Demolition of UC Hall under CEQA

1. UCSF Institute for Regeneration Medicine Community Meeting Meeting Notes by UCSF Staff, February 5, 2008

1-1 Building Air Circulation: UCSF was asked to investigate how the air flow for the building will occur. The proposed ventilation system could be a potential obstacle to constructing a future service road between Medical Center Way and Kirkham/Koret Way if trucks would not be able to use that area because of diesel exhaust odor.

Response

UCSF has no active plans for constructing a service road connecting Medical Center Way and Kirkham/Koret Way. No road construction is proposed as part of the project. However, UCSF has studied ideas for improving service vehicle circulation within the campus and has identified a service road connection as a feasible improvement measure.

The proposed project is sited in a manner that would accommodate construction of a future service road in the area between the project and the Health Sciences towers to the north. If UCSF pursued development of the road, nuisance odors from diesel truck exhaust would be of concern for the surrounding buildings.

69 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

UCSF would continue to investigate and implement engineering solutions to minimize effects of diesel odor on all building ventilation systems, including that of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project ventilation system would not be an obstacle to constructing a future service road in this area. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

1-2 Building Screen: Concerns were raised about the need to deal creatively with the screen that will cover the lower portion of the building. UCSF was asked to develop a more aggressive plan that will make this area more aesthetically pleasing.

Response

Landscaping for the proposed project is discussed on page 29. New vegetation would be planted along the lower portion of the building, as feasible. Possible plant material includes bamboo, rhododendron and redwood trees or other tree species that can survive on the shady slope of the project site. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

UCSF will continue to work with the design-build team to refine all major elements of the design and will keep interested community members apprised of the design-build project milestones. As information to the reader, it is the opinion of the design team that the screen that would cover the lower portion of the building is both functional and a strong focal point of interest for the proposed project site design. The screen is an essential structural element of the proposed base isolated structural system. The initial design of the foundation called for conventional concrete support towers, which would have produced a heavy structure with extensive foundation and slope stabilization work needed. The current design, using a seismic base isolation structural system, is more environmentally sound because it results in significantly less site excavation, and can take advantage of light-weight, prefabricated structural building components, allowing less steel to be used in the building’s construction. The screen provides lateral strength and ties the seismic piers together while at the same time creating an important design element.

1-3 Building Visibility: UCSF was asked to develop renderings for how the building will look from the neighborhood.

Response

The future view of the proposed building from the neighborhood, after the demolition of UC Hall, is discussed on page 17. The Institute for Regeneration Medicine building would not be visible in any public views prior to the demolition of UC Hall. Once UC Hall is razed, the western-most segment of the building would be visible starting at the top of the Nursing building and the eighth floor of the Health Science West building, and rising two floor levels. Some of the view to Mount Sutro which may be available in this future condition could be foreshortened, but would not be eliminated by the Institute building. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

As information to the reader, a reconnaissance of the surrounding neighborhood found that the Institute building would be visible before the demolition of UC Hall from some street segments such as from the middle of the street on eastbound Irving Street, west of 9th Avenue. These views are not from within designated view corridors and are not considered to be public views when assessing visual quality effects. As illustrated in the visual rendering below, some of the view to Mount Sutro which is now available would be foreshortened but not eliminated by the proposed project. The visual effects in the rendering illustrate similar conclusions to the conclusions made in the analysis herein.

70 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

View of existing setting from Irving Street, west of 9th Avenue:

Rendering of Proposed Project from Irving Street west of 9th Avenue: (Note: The Belfry of the Seventh Avenue Presbyterian Church is artificially removed from the photo to fully illustrate the project rendering.)

71 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

1-4 Trail Connector: UCSF was asked to make the proposed new stair connection to Mount Sutro forest inviting and that it should not look like a “fire escape.”

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. For information to the reader, a new stair connection is proposed as part of the project to replace the existing stair that leads from Medical Center Way north to a pathway ultimately connecting to Saunders Court and surrounding core campus buildings. The design of the new stairway is only in preliminary planning stages. UCSF is committed to providing a replacement stair and welcomes suggestions for alternative designs or locations for the alignment in order to make a safe and convenient connection from the core campus to Medical Center Way.

1-5 Roof Garden: UCSF was asked to investigate the possibility of having public access to the green roof proposed for the building.

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. For information to the reader, public access to the green roof was not originally contemplated in the building design due to the potential security and safety concerns. Entrance to the building (and thus to the roof) is planned to be from the Health Sciences towers and would be restricted only to staff affiliated with the Institute building. However, UCSF agrees that even limited access (e.g. one of the four roof levels) would be a community amenity and as detailed planning by the design team proceeds, efforts will be made to solve access problems so that there may some form of public access to the green roof.

1-6 Landscaping: UCSF needs to ensure that the project has a robust landscaping plan. Geological [landslide] concerns were expressed and UCSF was asked to make sure that any trees removed would be replaced.

Response

Landscaping for the proposed project is discussed on page 29. Geological effects are discussed on page 35. The Institute building would be constructed on a steep slope and would be subject to landslides and soil erosion impacts from the hillside to the south. The Mount Sutro Management Plan outlines several initiatives for stabilizing the slope across Medical Center Way and UCSF is pursuing a number of projects and strategies to implement this plan. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

1-7 Construction: UCSF needs a plan for staging the construction crane so that access, particularly weekend pedestrian access, to Medical Center Way is safe and is not restricted.

Response

A construction management plan has not yet been completed for the proposed project; however, the location of the construction crane would most likely be on the project site just south of the Central Utilities Plant and west of Medical Center Way. Mitigation Measure “IRM2” would be adopted as a condition of the project approvals. The measure provides that if complete closure of Medical Center Way is required, at least 72 hours notice would be given to the campus community and the public. Detour routes and signage

72 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine for drivers and pedestrians would be required during the road closure. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

1-8 UCSF Space Ceiling: There was a general discussion of the timing of when the IRM building is complete versus when UC Hall is demolished. [UCSF staff responded during the meeting that UC Hall should be empty by the time the proposed project building opens in 2010 and UC Hall should be demolished within two years (2012). The project will include one year of hazard abatement such as asbestos and one year of actual demolition. UCSF carries the UC Hall project in its capital program budget in the category of infrastructure development projects, in order to complete the UC Hall demolition and site work.]

Response

In addition to the general response given at the meeting, see response to Comment 2-1 below.

2. Don Reigrod E-mail received February 5, 2008

2-1 UCSF Space Ceiling: My understanding from the past meetings is that before the 80,000 sq foot Regeneration structure is built they must first tear down the equivalent square footage (e.g., the hospital at the west end of campus). Is this consistent with your understanding?

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. For information to the reader, the relationship of the proposed project to the demolition of UC Hall is discussed on page 12. Since 1996, the campus has completed several of the identified space reduction projects, including demolition of seven structures totaling 58,000 gsf, and has constructed the Parnassus Services Building project totaling 86,000. (Although this represents an increase in square footage in the short term, fluctuations in the space overage prior to completing all 1996 LRDP proposals were anticipated in the LRDP and discussed in the LRDP EIR.)

Construction of the Institute building project is proposed to begin in the 3rd Quarter of 2008 and be completed in the 3rd Quarter of 2010. In the same timeframe, the campus is also actively pursuing one of the major demolition projects, the decommissioning of UC Hall. UC Hall should be empty by the time the proposed project building opens in 2010 and is planned to be demolished within two years (2012). Development of the 80,000 gsf proposed project in combination with implementation of the decommissioning and demolition of the 146,853 gsf UC Hall represents a net reduction of 66,853 gsf, and would be a milestone in reaching the 1996 LRDP GSF Ceiling Commitment.

3. JB Benna E-mail received February 6, 2008

3-1 Protect Open Space: Please Stop. This is a horrible idea. We need to protect the open spaces of our already congested city. These small refuges away from the congestion are all many of us have to escape. One building leads to another, and to another and slowly the open spaces are not longer open. I urge you to stop this. Please keep our sanctuary on Mt. Sutro. This is an official petition.

73 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. For information to the reader, the proposed exchange of open space within the permanent open space reserve is discussed on pages 2 and 4. The boundaries of the Mount Sutro open space reserve would be adjusted to exclude the approximately 0.5 acre area within the proposed project footprint in exchange for designating approximately 0.5 acre of the footprints for Buildings 4 and 5 in the Aldea San Miguel Housing to be included in the open space reserve.

4. Kevin Hart E-mail received February 6, 2008

4-1 Building Visibility: It will certainly be visible, especially after the old UCH is removed, but its height will be far shorter than that of the research towers in front of it; and what visibility the Regeneration Medicine Building achieves will improve our view of the campus, rather than detract from it.

Response

The comment expressing general support of the proposed project is noted. The visibility of the project from Irving Street is illustrated in the response to Comment 1-3.

5. Paul Castleman E-mail received February 7, 2008

5-1. Medical Center Way Traffic Safety: I am concerned that the proposed UCSF construction on Mount Sutro may increase an already dangerous situation. The new building's use may create more traffic (and therefore more danger) at the two places that existing walking trails cross Medical Center Way (the Fairy Gates/ North Ridge crossing, and the Woods Lot/ Historic Trail crossing). If so, there should be a stop sign, a crosswalk, or at the very least some signs warning drivers of possible pedestrian crossing. Even now the road is so curvy that the chance of a speeding car hitting a pedestrian is already worrisomely high.

Response

The potential traffic impacts of the project are described on pages 56-60. The proposed project would not generate a greater than 5% increase in traffic at any intersection in the campus area and would have a less than significant impact on transportation. The project would not generate a substantial amount of additional traffic on Medical Center Way because no parking or passenger loading areas would be developed for the building and the entrance to the structure would be from the Health Sciences towers via Parnassus Avenue. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

As part of the project, UCSF would develop a stair connection from the campus shelf to Medical Center Way and the North Ridge trail crossing. The design of the new stairway is in the preliminary stages and UCSF welcomes suggestions for enhancing pedestrian safety in this area. The project would not trigger a change the Woods Lot crossing but UCSF welcomes any recommendations for improving the crossing.

74 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

5-2 Medical Center Way Traffic Counts: I understand that parking for the new building would be on Parnassus, the possibility of increased traffic on this section of Medical Center Way leads me to request that you do a traffic count now so measures can be taken in the future if it should increase.

Response

In preparing the environmental analysis, directional roadway traffic volumes on Medical Center Way were collected for seven consecutive days, 24-hours per day, aggregated into 15-minute intervals. Traffic volumes were low even during peak travel periods. The traffic model included project-related vehicle traffic assigned to Medical Center Way and no noticeable effect on the existing volumes or change in the level of service at the intersection of Parnassus Avenue and Medical Center Way resulted. It can be noted that the traffic model used conservative estimates because no accommodations for passenger vehicles would be made at the project site and both parking lots with access from Medical Center Way are fully subscribed and carry waiting lists. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

6. Craig Dawson E-mail received February 7, 2008

6-1. Renderings in the Negative Declaration: Major confusion surrounding the images you used that I didn't catch right away, raise a good issue and lots of questions. The renderings on page 12 & 19 in the Neg Dec which are incorrect. It is of the old design and very misleading. The new design has a different roof configuration which includes stacks that are very apparent. The record needs to be set straight regarding these visuals sooner rather than later.

Response

Renderings on pages 9 and 19 are replaced with updated renderings and marked with an X. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

6-2 Views from Site / Mount Sutro: I feel that the building will have a substantial adverse effect on the current scenic vista. Although filtered by trees, the view from the corner in front of EH&S is one that is enjoyed by all passers by. Many hikers and cyclists use Medical Center Way and this is the only North West view one can see from any roadway on the UCSF property. Appropriate mitigation would be to provide rooftop access at the Western end of the building, replacing the lost vista.

Response

The western-most portion of the project site does have views to the north and west from between the eucalyptus trees but the views are not unique to the site and similar vantage points are available from other publicly accessible parts of the campus and other nearby elevated areas. Medical Center Way is not a scenic vista as defined by the significance criteria under CEQA. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review. With regard to access to the green roof, as noted in the comment and response under 1-5 above, UCSF agrees that some access to the proposed green roof would be a community amenity and will investigate the potential for some form of public access to the green roof.

75 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

6-3 Landscaping: The rendering on page 20 speaks to substantial visual degradation of the site. The mass of the building and combined skirt is equivalent to placing a battleship on the hill. It will permanently alter the character and quality of the site. Appropriate mitigation would be to continue thinking green and design a living screen that would make the building mass blend naturally into its surroundings. Think about using native plants to solve this problem.

Response

See the comment and response discussion under 1-2 above. The project proposes to use plant and tree species that can survive on the shady slope of the project site. UCSF will continue to work with the design- build team to refine all major elements of the design and will keep interested community members apprised of the design-build project milestones.

6-4 Trail Connector: The removal of the stairway that the Campus community and Inner Sunset neighbors currently use to access the Mt. Sutro Open Space Reserve is of concern. Many people use this access as a route from Kirkham and the Western end of Campus to avoid traveling through Campus buildings and congestion on their way up Mt. Sutro. Although the current plan calls for a replacement stairway to run around the West end of the new building, part of it looks suspended from a sheer cliff. The new stairway will be in the neighborhood of 5-7 stories at that location. Additionally it may be further impacted at that location by future construction at the proposed site. I strongly suggest that an alternative access point for both the University and the public be explored. This may mean that it originates on the Western slope near MR IV and the Vision Research parking lot and would terminate in the corner across from EH&S.

Response

See the comments and responses discussion under 1-4 above. UCSF will work with interested community members on the location and alignment of the replacement stairway.

6-5 Medical Center Way Traffic Counts: I note that their is no daily count of traffic along Medical Center Way, the only roadway that accesses the site. In order to measure future vehicle impact and to mitigate potential pedestrian safety concerns I feel that at this time it is imperative to establish baseline vehicular counts for all seven days of the week including hours between 6AM and 8PM along both upper and lower Medical Center Way.

Response

See the comments and responses discussion under 5-2 above.

6-6 Pedestrians: Currently I am aware of many pedestrians who walk in the roadway rather than behind the guardrails. I am aware that the majority of vehicles one observes exceed the posted speed limits and ignore the stop signs. Additionally this roadway has five pedestrian crossings including trailheads.

Response

See the comments and responses discussion under 5-1 above. As additional information to the reader, the road is posted 20 miles per hour (mph) and existing traffic controls include stop signs, speed bumps and marked crosswalks. In preparing this environmental review, seven-day traffic counts included calculations

76 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine of the speed of the vehicles recorded. The results showed that a total of three vehicles traveled 25 – 29 mph during the seven-day count period. No vehicles were recorded as traveling above 29 mph. About 17.5% of vehicles were calculated to be traveling 20 – 24 mph. Even with 82% of vehicle speeds calculated to be at or below 19 mph, UCSF understands the need to continue to control vehicle impacts and increase the safety of the roadway. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

6-7 Loading / Drop-off Access: If there is a back exit from the IRM building it becomes likely that it will become a site for employees to be dropped off or picked up from. If this happens it could increase the potential for congestion and pedestrian/vehicle conflict.

Response

The primary access to the building would be from the Health Science tower to the north, and the proposed project does not contemplate exits directly onto Medical Center Way to the south except for emergency exiting purposes. UCSF will work with building occupants as needed to insure that emergency exits are not used as back exits by employees. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

7. Tag Cummings E-mail received February 7, 2008

7-1 UC Hall: I looked through the plan and don't have a problem with the new building. I will be sad to see the UCH building go though- what will take its place?

Response

The comment in general support of the project is noted. The reuse of the UC Hall site will be the subject of a separate planning process in conjunction with the campus community and the public. This planning process would most likely begin in late 2008 or early 2009 and would be closely coordinated with the UCSF Community Advisory Group with opportunities for community input in a variety of different public venues.

8. Daniel Schneider E-mail received February 12, 2008

8-1 Building Visibility: In order to give my unconditional support of the building I would like to see a view of the new structure as it would be seen from across the city! How about a view from Grand View terrace ( Larsen Peak) at 15th and Noriega? That is the only true way to judge its impact. I looked over the plan - and I have to say I actually like the building and think it looks cool. In fact I would rather see the modern structure to the right of Med Center Way as you roll up than the ugly factory like conditions that exist now. Obviously with that said I would be highly upset if it was to high and blocked any of the wonderful view of Mt Sutro that one gets from any point throughout the city. It stays lower on the hill and more north facing that I was imagining, but I still have concerns over its height and impact of view since it was not very well depicted!

77 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Response

The comment expressing general support of the proposed project is noted. The visibility of the project is discussed in the comment and response under 1-3 above. As further information to the reader, a reconnaissance of the surrounding neighborhood, including Grand View Park concluded that from the northern-most portion of the park with the most extensive view of the campus, only the northern most portion of the top two floors and roof stacks of the Health Science West building are visible. The proposed project would extend south from the southern edge of Health Science West and its height would be well below the top stories of the tower; therefore, the Institute building would not be visible from Grand View Park. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

9. Dona Crowder E-mail received February 12, 2008

9-1 Changes to Building Plans: Our members [Twin Peaks Improvement Association] are concerned about the EIR for the project behind Clarendon... This building will be constructed behind and well up the hill from the current campus buildings on Medical Center Way. It is the new 71,000 gross square foot building on the Parnassus Campus. This will be the Institute for Regeneration Medicine, also known as the Stem Cell Research building. We understand that the building plans and site configuration have changed since the public was shown the preliminary design.

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. For information to the reader, UCSF first began planning for this project in 2006 and held two community meetings on the initial project design in February and March of 2007. The project site location and configuration are generally the same as first presented, but the current project extends an additional 100 feet to the west. The building plans initially called for a wider, two-story stepped structure with some laboratories split between the upper and lower floors. Under the currently proposed design, the building is longer, but narrower, and all laboratories are contiguous on one staggered level. The current design produces a higher building efficiency and reduced building volume when compared to the previous design. The changes to the building plans preserve the integrity of the original concept while improving key aspects of its engineering and architecture.

10. Donald F. Robertson E-mail received February 14, 2008

10-1 Building Visibility: I would like to express my personal support for this project. It is important that this building exist, that it be in San Francisco, and that it be on the UCSF campus. That said, I hope that it appears tall and thin, rather than short and squat.

Response

The comment expressing general support of the proposed project is noted. The visibility of the project is discussed in the comment and response under 1-3 above.

78 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

11. Joan Downey E-mail received February 23, 2008

11-1 Building Visibility: Please provide a visual of the views of the building from various viewpoints in the neighborhood after UC Hall is demolished.

Response

The visibility of the project is discussed in the comment and response under 1-3 above.

11-2 Demolition of Aldea Housing: If I remember correctly, the new Aldea housing units were built with the promise to the neighborhood that all of the old housing units would be demolished. That never happened. This document seems to imply that the demolition of Aldea Housing buildings 4 & 5 is being traded for open space lost with this project. Please clarify: is the demolition of buildings #4 & 5 a mitigation measure for building the new Aldea units, or building this project, or both?

Response

The relationship of the project to land use effects under the LRDP is discussed on page 43. The comment correctly notes that the five original Aldea apartments are to be demolished and there is no change in UCSF’s plans to carry out these demolitions. However, as part of the LRDP, UCSF identified a number of proposals for possible re-use of the demolished Aldea footprints, including a new child care center, and additional recreation facilities. The change under the project is that UCSF now proposes to place buildings 4 & 5 in the permanent open space reserve and no new development on the footprints would be permitted. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

11-3 Delivery / Service Loading: What will happen if more than one [delivery/service vehicle] shows up to unload at any one time. With your estimated 17 delivery/service vehicle trip per day, this is likely to happen.

Response

Delivery / Service Loading for the project is discussed in the Transportation section, page 56. The City of San Francisco Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines were used in projecting loading demand for the project, which for purposes of this environmental review includes both the Institute Building and the Auditorium. The methodology to calculate the number of deliveries and number of loading spaces includes factors such as: land use, delivery hours (e.g. 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), higher use in peak hours and average loading times. Using the methodology, one loading space would be recommended for the proposed project.

For information to the reader, average loading time for most types of delivery can be completed in 25 minutes or less; and many loading docks, including UCSF’s main loading and receiving area have a 30- minute rule where all service vehicles must arrive, load/unload and leave within 30 minutes. This 30- minute rule could be extended to the proposed project dock as needed so that delays to delivery vehicles arriving at the same time would be minimal. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

11-4 Transit First Policy: I agree that parking should not be an issue – IF – and only if, UCSF were serious about supporting the City’s Transit First policy. How can UCSF claim to support the City’s Transit First policy while providing shuttles to pick up employees when they park on San Francisco’s public streets

79 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine that are perceived to be out of range for them to walk? Two examples are the Clarendon area – a 15-20 minute walk, and the Kezar lot where spaces are reserved for UCSF – a 10 minute walk away? This encourages employees to drive and park on city streets and lots. So either UCSF must get serious about supporting the Transit First policy or address the parking issue of the additional employees.

Response

The parking demand resulting from the proposed project is discussed on pages 59 – 60. UCSF has one of the leading transportation demand management (TDM) programs in the State, and is able to divert more than 62% of its staff and more than 67% of its students/interns/residents from driving in single occupancy vehicles. Even with UCSF’s TDM program, some employees, students and visitors may utilize on- or off- street parking in the surrounding neighborhood. The increase in parking utilization would not be considered a significant environmental impact. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

11-5 Disabled Access: What is the access for the disabled?

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. For information to the reader, the access to the proposed project would be from the Health Sciences towers to the north. Disable access would be from Parnassus Avenue into any of the buildings on the south side of the street which are all interconnected and then to the eighth floor of the Health Sciences tower and south via a pedestrian bridge connection into the proposed Institute building. The access to the Auditorium has not been established but it would likely connect to the Health Sciences West and/or School of Nursing buildings at or near ground level.

12. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) E-mail / Letter received February 25, 2008

12-1 DTSC Recommendations: If demolition of old structures will occur, lead based paint and organochlorine pesticides from termiticide applications may be potential environmental concerns at the site. DTSC recommends that these environmental concerns be investigated and possibly mitigated, in accordance with DTSC's "Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of Lead From Lead-Based Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Termiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers, dated June 9, 2006.

The proposed project site includes existing underground fuel tanks; contaminants associated with the tanks may be an environmental concern at the site. DTSC recommends that these environmental concerns be investigated using DTSC's "Advisory — Active Soil Gas Investigations, dated January 2003" and DTSC's "Vapor Intrusion Guidance Document — Final Interim, dated December 15, 2004."

Since the project is school site related, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is invited to participate in DTSC's School Property Evaluation and Cleanup Program. If UCSF elects to proceed to conduct a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) at the site, it shall enter into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) with DTSC to oversee the preparation of the PEA. For additional information on the VCA Program, please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.gov.

80 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. Demolition of the former structures within a portion of the site footprint site has already occurred. Development of the proposed project would not require any further demolition and would have no effect on existing underground fuel tanks. The Parnassus Heights site was developed as a health sciences campus over 140 years ago and there are no known environmental concerns at the site which require a property evaluation and cleanup program. During construction and operation of the proposed project, UCSF would continue to work closely with all regulatory agencies, including DTSC, to implement all applicable laws and regulations and to implement long established, comprehensive programs of the UCSF Office Environmental Health and Safety.

13. Pinky Kushner Email received February 26, 2008

13-1 Medical Center Way Traffic Counts: We request a traffic study of Medical Center Way. We can easily imagine that construction and use of this building will put undue strain on the carrying capacity of Medical Center Way. We want a study of the problems. We also want assurance that this building will never necessitate making Medical Center Way wider, which will necessitate a cut into the hillside, that is, an incursion into the Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve.

Response

See the comments and responses discussions under 5-1, 5-2 and 6-6 above. Construction and operation of the proposed project does not require widening of Medical Center Way, and as noted above, the level of service on the roadway is adequate and UCSF has no need to modify Medical Center Way. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

13-2 Exchange of Open Space: We need a meaningful exchange of open space. The apartment buildings that are offered to be removed as an exchange we think were supposed to be torn down anyway as an exchange for the new apartment buildings that were put up within the Open Space Preserve. These buildings are not a fair exchange. A reasonable exchange will be the removal of the Surge and Woods buildings, which were to be demolished according to the Long Range Development Plan.

Response

See the comments and responses discussions under 3-1 and 11-2 above. Land Use and Planning issues are discussed on page 43. In May 1976 The Regents approved a resolution to designate 58 acres of open space in Mount Sutro as a permanent open space reserve. Under the 1996 LRDP, a re-measurement of the boundaries calculated this area to be 61 acres. As part of the proposed project, The Regents would consider approval of a modification of the 1976 Regents Resolution to remove approximately 0.5 acre of the IRM project site from the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve, and add approximately 0.5 acre of two building parcels at the Aldea San Miguel housing site to the Open Space Reserve, such that the total area of the open space reserve remains 61 acres. In addition, the 1996 LRDP proposed to add the building footprints of the “surge” building and the “woods” building to the open space reserve once these structures are demolished. Thus the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve is planned to have in excess of 61 acres when all LRDP projects are implemented. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

81 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

13-3 Impact Analyses: I am drafting comments to present to UCSF Planning. The below is a heading outline to give you some idea of where I will have comments. 1. Space ceiling, 2. Noise, 3. View shed, 4. Lighting, 5. Biology, 6. Habitat conservation, 7. Trees, 8. Unique geologic feature, 9. Transportation, 10. Traffic Some my comments are easy to accommodate. For instance, there is no table comparing the present and planned space allocations with Table 13 of the LRDP. Other comments are more difficult. As an example, I cannot find a section on noise, and yet the building will produce a significant amount of noise. Nor can I find a traffic analysis of Medical Center Way or a discussion of impacts onto that drive.

Response

The analysis herein contains discussions of all of the topics listed in the comment. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

Pinkey Kushner (Continued) E-mail / Letter received March 1, 2008

13.4 UCSF Space Ceiling: Explain more fully how this new building fits into the allowable space at the Parnassus Campus. Explain specifically how the space reductions by the dates FY 2011/2012 will be met. Explain all new construction since 1996. Is the Service Building the only construction? What about the new housing at Aldea? Explain which buildings have been removed. Address the item in [LRDP] Table 13 labeled “Demolish Obsolete Buildings”. Include the future of UC Hospital. These data are best presented in a table, along side Table 13 for comparison. An equitable mitigation for the construction of the proposed new building is the removal of the Woods and Surge buildings, as suggested in Table 13, not turning these sites into parking lots, but into open space, as mitigation for the open space being taken by the new stem cell building.

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. See the comments and responses discussions under 1-8, 2-1 and 11-2 above.

13-5 Operational Noise: Only construction noise is seriously discussed. A section on operational noise from new mechanical equipment for the new building needs to be added. The new building will undoubtedly have numerous exhaust fans and fans for temperature control. How has it been determined that the increase would be 3dBA? What levels of noise will this new mechanical equipment produce and how will this noise be shielded from the neighborhood, not only from the residential neighbors but also from the Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve. UCSF must commit to noise reduction not noise increases. The one sketch of the new building from the west indicates a large blank wall, the kind of structure that can amplify noise greatly. This wall is across from the HSW glass walls; glass walls are notorious in causing noise to bounce and even be amplified. This design was not developed in the LRDP’s EIR and thus could not have been discussed there. This design must be modified to mitigate potential noise from new mechanical equipment to avoid a megaphone effect. How will new mechanical equipment noises from the roof and elsewhere on the new building interact with other existing noise sources on the campus? A noise analysis must be performed before and after construction, from various vantage points, to make certain that total noise coming from the UCSF campus has not increased.

82 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Response

Operational noise effects are discussed on page 48. This document is tiered from the LRDP EIR. As described in the LRDP EIR, in connection with the Central Utilities Plant project in 1994, UCSF began investigating the future modifications of all UCSF noise sources at Parnassus Heights in an attempt to attain the limits established by the San Francisco Noise Ordinance at surrounding residential property lines. This would require that operational noise levels from UCSF activities at Parnassus Heights not exceed 50 dBA during the night and 55dBA during the day at residences closest to the Parnassus Heights boundary lines. UCSF established a three phase noise attenuation plan to ensure that the goal of meeting the Noise Ordinance limits could be achieved during the 1996 LRDP timeframe [2011/2012]. All three phases have now been implemented. They include 1) cataloging all existing rooftop equipment and conducting nighttime surveys of the boundary line of Parnassus Heights; 2) developing equipment standards for new equipment installation as well as specific recommendations for existing noise sources; and, 3) documenting a performance standard and calculation in the Facilities Design Guidelines to insure that no equipment installation causes an increase but rather contributes to continuing decreases in operational noise at Parnassus. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

13-6 Building Visibility: The western-most segment is the most significant view for Inner Sunset residents, visitors to Golden Gate Park, and even visitors to vantage points in the Presidio National Park. It is unclear from the above “250-foot ‘window’” whether this 250 includes the height of eucalyptus trees that have been established to be dying or is the height of the actual hill itself. Stating that this intrusion into the view shed is less than significant is not sufficient without providing any evidence. The evaluation must provide a mock-up of what this 250-foot window is, where it is, and where the land mass is versus where the trees are. Evaluations must be made from several vantage points, including Grandview Park, Strawberry Hill, and the observation deck of the de Young Museum tower. UCSF must commit to no degradation of view shed towards Mt. Sutro. The reverse view shed is also important: the view shed a hiker might have from the Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve towards the rest of the city. How is that view shed affected? UCSF must commit to no degradation of view shed from Mt. Sutro.

Response

See the comments and responses discussions under 1-3, 6-2 and 8-1 above. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

13-7 Lighting: This is a residential neighborhood, not a ‘typical’ commercial area. Mitigation measures must do more than reduce glare from construction materials and put light downward. Window coverings at night must be added to ensure that building use at night will not shed added light beyond the building footprint. Because this building in spite of all care for mitigations will still produce added light to the campus and its neighbors, other light mitigation measures are necessary, such as the reduction of light from other areas of the campus. In section on mitigation, change “possibly landscape” to “will include landscape”.

Response

The mitigation measure presented in the analysis is adequate to bring potential impacts to a less than significant level and the analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review. Most of the structure would be behind other campus structures and would not be visible to the surrounding

83 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine area; however, as plans for the design-build project are finalized, UCSF will investigate all feasible measures recommended in the comment.

13-8 Bird Habitat / Open Space: What about migrating birds? What about resident nesting birds? Need a biologist/bird specialist. Fish and Game has listed the red shouldered hawk, which is found on Mt. Sutro, on its watch list. Certainly, construction and the resulting building will affect birds. What will the mitigations be? Construction and use of this building will conflict with the Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve Plan, including increases in traffic on Medical Center Way. How will this impact be mitigated? A suggested mitigation will be to initiate some of the proposed projects in the Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve plan, for instance the redwood reforestation project to the northeast and the oak woodland project on the south slope. Alternatively, the habitat-working group for Mt. Sutro, headed by Craig Dawson, may identify other projects of greater priority. These additional projects will increase habitat and serve to mitigate the habitat insults of the proposed project. UCSF must commit to a viable increase in habitat elsewhere in the Preserve.

Response

As noted in the response to comment 13-2 above, the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve is planned to have in excess of 61 acres when all LRDP projects are implemented. Biological resources are discussed on page 29. There is no evidence of existing sensitive habitat, sensitive species, significant natural native plant communities or wildlife habitat, including rare or endangered species on Parnassus Heights. This determination included the Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve. The proposed project would not adversely affect sensitive habitat or species. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

13-9 Landscaping: Bamboo and rhododendron are not suitable mitigations. It is inappropriate to introduce invasive exotic species such as bamboo to the Mt. Sutro hillside. Likewise, cultivated rhododendron, which is now thought to have been the source for sudden oak death disease, is inappropriate. These specimens also need permanent watering, which may damage the hillside. [See geologic feature below.] Redwoods have been identified as to be removed. Redwoods and other shrubby natives are appropriate to be replanted around the building. Native plants propagated from Mt. Sutro stock can be obtained at the HANC Recycling Center. UCSF must commit to improving the plant stock in the Preserve, not degrading it.

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. As plans for the design-build project are finalized, UCSF will investigate feasible landscaping material including those recommended in the comment.

13-10 Geology: San Francisco is a town of hills, Telegraph Hill, Bernal Hill, Potrero Hill, Strawberry Hill. One of the most significant landmark hills is Mt. Sutro, a large part of which is the Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve. This hill is made up of relatively fragile chert outcrops, filled in with sandy soil. The hillsides are unstable and have been the sites of large slides. The Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve needs protection and consideration. Within this section of unique geologic features, the Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve needs to be discussed, and it needs to be determined how the hillsides will be protected during construction and afterwards. Any widening, now or in the future of Medical Center Way will cause irreparable harm to the geological features of Mt. Sutro. Discuss

84 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

the future of Medical Center Way. UCSF must make a commitment not to widen Medical Center Way.

Response

See the comments and responses discussions under 1-6 above. UCSF has no need to modify Medical Center Way. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

13-11 Medical Center Way Construction Traffic: The LRDP says that UCSF will “investigate [MUNI] pass subsidies for employees”. Now is the time to implement that commitment as timely and as an offset to the problems of construction traffic of the new building. Mitigation measure 4.11-1 states: “Prepare an offsite parking plan for construction employees and subcontractor employees. The plan should consider an alternative for the contractor to provide shuttle service to/from designated remote parking lots.” Change “should” to “will”. Add that deliveries will not be before 7 am and not after 9 pm.

Response

UCSF and MUNI have meetings and other communications as needed to discuss transit issues concerning UCSF, including proposals for providing discount passes to students and employees. MUNI is actively working with UCSF and other institutions on the feasibility of a student pass. However, to date MUNI is not able to accommodate a subsidized employee pass program.

The construction traffic plan to be prepared under Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 would be reviewed and approved by UCSF. The contractor must demonstrate that all measures were included or provide a reasonable explanation for meeting the requirements in an alternate way. Construction deliveries would not be accepted outside of the construction hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Although not expressly raised in the comment, it should be noted that construction hours would be negotiated with the contractor to minimize disruption to the campus community and the neighborhood. Very noisy work would only be performed between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Normal construction hours would end at 5:00 p.m.

13-12 Medical Center Way Traffic Counts: A traffic study of Medical Center Way is needed. The intersection of Parnassus and Medical Center Way is stated to have been included in traffic counts (no data provided), but a study of Medical Center Way itself must be performed. This study will be of traffic use on Medical Center Way presently, with projections for construction and post- construction times. Medical Center Way is quite narrow with hairpin curves. This study must include an analysis of mitigation alternatives: • closing one of the parking lots associated with Surge and Woods and how this closure(s) will mitigate traffic along Medical Center Way. • closing both of the Surge/Woods parking lots. • installing traffic restriction gates at both ends of Medical Center Way to limit through traffic along this narrow roadway to those vehicles with permission. This analysis will determine the best mitigations to control traffic along this roadway effectively. Above all, UCSF must commit to no increased use of Medical Center Way.

85 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Response

See the comments and responses discussions under 5-1, 5-2 and 6-6 above. The level of service on the roadway is adequate and UCSF has no need to modify Medical Center Way. Mitigation Measure “IRM2” would be adopted as a condition of the project approvals. The measure provides that if complete closure of Medical Center Way is required for construction purposes, at least 72 hours notice would be given to the campus community and the public. Detour routes and signage for drivers and pedestrians would be required during the road closure. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

13-13 Exchange of Open Space: The project proposes to give back open space taken for the project by putting two of the apartment buildings up at the Aldea Housing into the Open Space Preserve. New apartments were constructed near the existing Aldea Housing in the Open Space some years ago. As part of this construction project, in early 2000, UCSF committed to mitigating the addition of buildings at the Aldea Housing by removing 5 of the old apartment buildings, of which at least two and perhaps 3 or more were to be put into Recreation/Open Space. A letter from UCSF to the Community Advisory Group dated January, 2000, reads, “The sites targeted for open space will [even] have retaining walls removed (unless there are geologic or safety reasons for not removing the retaining walls), and will be planted to blend in with the forest.”

In this present project it appears that two of these same buildings at Aldea are proposed to be the ‘give-back’ for taking of open space for the new Regenerative Medicine building. It is just that land at the Aldea Housing to be given back to the open space, but another site must be identified to be given back to open space that has been taken for the proposed new stem cell building. The obvious choice is the combination of the Surge and Woods buildings, which are slated for removal in the LRDP (Table 13). 1) They are near-by the open space that is being taken. 2) Their removal will help balance the advancing development on the northern flank of Mt. Sutro. 3) These buildings are designated to be removed not as mitigation for further construction, but as part of the Regents’ space ceiling requirements.* Removing then now and returning their sites to open space is an appropriate mitigation for the taking that is proposed for the new stem cell building.

*A letter to “Neighbors” dated November, 1999, states that 5 older units at Aldea “will be demolished within five years [in order to meet] LRDP goals for reducing the overage….UCSF will commit in writing to this 5-year timeframe.” In another letter dated January, 2000, UCSF again stated that “the buildings [scheduled for removal at Aldea] will be demolished within five years….”

Response

See the comments and responses discussions under 11-2 and 13-2 above. The analysis herein remains adequate for the purposes of this environmental review.

13-14 Mitigated Negative Declaration versus EIR: The proposed stem cell building is of such size and potential impact on the campus as a whole and the Mt. Sutro Open Space Preserve that it deserves a full EIR, not a negative declaration. In support of a full EIR is the fact that the "Neg Dec" is itself almost long enough to be a full EIR. It would appear that the only reason to call this document a "Neg Dec" is to fast track the project. Fast tracking does not allow adequate public participation. Nor does holding a hearing on the evening of the California primary, which is what UCSF did for this project.

86 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Response

The potential impacts of the proposed project were fully examined in the LRDP EIR (the 1996 LRDP FEIR and the LRDP Amendment #2 EIR). The information and analysis in the LRDP EIR remains current and valid and there is no new information or change in circumstances with respect to project impacts. The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts, thus this Initial Study is tiered from the LRDP EIR and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. The project has not been on a "fast track." The project was first proposed in 2006 and UCSF held three meetings on this project in 2007, as well as several discussions with Community Advisory Group (CAG) members representing Parnassus. Over 2000 residents received notices about these public meetings including the notices of the February 5th community meeting. UCSF received no negative comments or concerns about the February 5th date prior to the meeting.

14. Maryann Rainey, RN, PNP E-mail received March 3, 2008

14-1 N-Judah Connection to Mission Bay: Related to the EIR, I strongly suggest that the N-Judah travel directly to Mission Bay, so that persons who go from UCSF campus to the Mission Bay campus do not have to transfer train lines. In my experience, transferring lines has been enormously time consuming. Additionally, I see no good reason to disrupt a logical commute from one campus to the other.

Response

The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the environmental analysis. For information to the reader, UCSF and MUNI have meetings and other communications as needed to discuss transit issues concerning UCSF, including proposals for providing direct MUNI connections between Parnassus Heights and Mission Bay. To date, MUNI is not able to accommodate UCSF’s suggestions for the extension of the N-Judah service Mission Bay.

15. David Tornheim E-mail / Letter received March 3, 2008

15-1 Demolition of UC Hall Under CEQA: I am writing to comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Institute for Regeneration Medicine at UCSF. My comments are as follows:

1. I am unclear whether UCSF is merely soliciting informal comments or now intends to adopt this Draft as a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The public is left in doubt as to UCSF’s intent. Under the CEQA procedures UCSF follows, it must issue a formal Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Since UCSF has not issued such a notice, it is neither fair nor lawful for UCSF to adopt this document based on the public notice to date. 2. So that I can keep abreast and timely comment, I request special notice of the issuance of any Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for this project and all further notices and determinations relating to this project. 3. The proposed project contemplates demolition of UC Hall and other buildings on the UCSF campus, including the Toland lecture hall within UC Hall, and plans to construct new Institute for Regeneration Medicine and an auditorium.

87 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

4. However, in the LRDP Amendment #2 Program EIR of March 17, 2005, UCSF recognized UC Hall as an historical resource and concluded that its demolition would result in a significant and unavoidable environmental impact. Therefore, the statement in the current Initial Study that the project would have no impact on a historical resource is not only incorrect, but also contradicted by the March 2005 EIR. 5. The certification that the proposed project, with mitigation measures incorporated, COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared by the University of California, San Francisco is, likewise, incorrect and contradicted by the March 2005 EIR. 6. As the March 2005 EIR recognizes, much more than a fair argument can be made that UC Hall is an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guideline 15064.5. UC Hall _ is a resource that has been recommended for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion A (resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage). Because UC Hall could be eligible for listing on the California Register, its demolition would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. _ (March 2005 EIR at 2-6 (Cultural Resources).) 7. More specifically, UC Hall is the oldest major building remaining on the UCSF campus and easily the most historically significant. It was constructed in 1917 as the University of California’s first teaching hospital and remains to this day a living monument to UC President Benjamin Ide Wheeler’s and Medical School Dean Herbert C. Moffitt’s vision of UCSF as the premier medical school it has become. 8. Master local architect Lewis Hobart designed UC Hall in the Beaux-Arts style. Hobart’s notable other works include Grace Cathedral, Steinhart Aquarium and the California Academy of Sciences, Mills Tower, Macys, the YWCA building at 620 Sutter Street, the Bohemian Club, and the Del Monte Hotel in Monterey. 9. _ UC Hall’s north elevation is the building’s most detailed, featuring a projecting concrete base, topped by four massive bays with pronounced, ornate cornices. Terra cotta detailing accents the north elevation with horizontal banding, festoons, medallions, figure sculptures, engaged pilasters, and cartouches. (March 2005 EIR at 4.3-8 to 4.3-9.) At the south elevation of the westernmost building wing, a two-story volume clad in pressed metal and filled with double-hung windows project out beyond the wall plane. Two eastern courtyards contain historic protruding stairwells clad in pressed metal and featuring wood double-hung casement, and hopper windows. (March 2005 EIR at 4.3-9.) 10. _ In the westernmost courtyard of UC Hall, is the single-story, semicircular Toland Hall auditorium structure. Within Toland Hall are a series of Depression-era murals painted by Bernard Zakhiem, a student of Diego Rivera, [completed] in 1938. These murals depict the history of medicine in California. Original skylights also remain in the auditorium, and the two surviving original interior stairwells feature marble treads and steel balustrades topped by a clear varnished wood handrail. (March 2005 EIR at 4.3-9.) 11. The Draft states that following review and consideration of the analysis presented in the LRDP EIR and application of LRDP EIR mitigation measures or adoption of overriding considerations by The Regents, the project would have no impact on a historical resource. (Draft at p. 29.) This is incorrect because, as noted above, the March 2005 EIR found demolition of the building to be a significant and unavoidable impact. Further, a Statement of Overriding Considerations cannot alone justify the demolition of the building unless and until mitigation measures and alternatives are identified and assessed, and supported infeasibility findings are made under Public Resources Code section 21081(a).

88 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

12. The March 2005 EIR was a program EIR that expressly excluded consideration of a new building in place of UC Hall: The new UC Hall Replacement New Instruction Building at Parnassus Heights, listed in the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) (2004a) prepared for this EIR, is no longer a part of this project. No project-level analysis of that action is included in this EIR. Because UCSF is currently considering many options for this replacement space, it is not certain that the project described in the IS/NOP will be developed. If and when such a project is selected, it would be evaluated under CEQA for the appropriate level of environmental review. (March 2005 EIR at p. 3- 2, emphasis added.) 13. Therefore, the current Draft is the first project-level CEQA analysis of the demolition and replacement of UC Hall. The Draft completely avoids the questions of the impact of demolition of UC Hall and of mitigation measures and alternatives, all of which must be addressed under CEQA. Tiering of the Initial Study does not permit sidestepping analysis of the impacts the current project will have on UC Hall. Meaningful analysis of these impacts, mitigations, and alternatives is required. In light of the findings in the March 2005 EIR, it appears virtually certain that an EIR will be required. For these reasons, I submit that the Draft is deficient and not in compliance with CEQA. Thank you for your consideration and anticipated response to these comments.

Response

The comment presents a thorough summary of the previous LRDP EIR analyses regarding the demolition of UC Hall. The planning for relocation of UC Hall occupants, and subsequent decommissioning and demolition of UC Hall is discussed for informational purposes in the project description of this environmental review. The context of this discussion is to inform reviewers that the campus is also actively pursuing one of the major demolition projects indentified in the LRDP, the decommissioning of UC Hall. UC Hall should be empty by the time the proposed Institute building project opens in 2010 and is planned to be demolished within two years (2012). However, this tiered Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the proposed action to approve the design of the Institute for Regeneration Medicine building. (Analysis of an 8,000 gross square foot Auditorium was also included; however, consideration of approvals for the latter project would occur at a later date.) The construction of this project is expected to proceed prior to the demolition of UC Hall and therefore, other than space ceiling commitments by the campus, is not reliant on the UC Hall demolition project.

The tiering of the environmental analysis for the Institute building and Auditorium project allowed the tiered Initial Study to rely on the LRDP EIR for: (1) a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas; (2) overall growth-related issues; (3) issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the LRDP EIR for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis; and (4) long-term cumulative impacts. The purpose of the tiered Initial Study was to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Institute building and Auditorium project with respect to the existing LRDP EIR analysis to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. On the basis of the Initial Study, UCSF issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 2, 2008 and as a state agency, the notice was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse.

As noted by the comment, UCSF prepared an EIR for the proposals identified by the 1996 LRDP and updated its analysis in an EIR for the 2005 LRDP Amendment #2. Both EIRs evaluated the decommissioning and demolition of UC Hall to occur within the LRDP timeframe of 2011/2012. UCSF is in the process of developing and implementing a relocation plan for the building’s occupants with the objective of emptying the building by 2010. The demolition of UC Hall is an adopted LRDP project which

89 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine has been previously analyzed in two EIRs. Therefore, under CEQA when the campus moves forward with project funding to decommission and demolish the structure, UCSF would evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the UC Hall demolition project with respect to the existing LRDP EIR analysis to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate.

*****************************

IX ORIGINAL COMMENTS

The comments presented in the responses to comments section above were excerpted from full-length correspondence submitted during the public review period. All e-mail and letters received are presented in their entirety on the pages following and are indexed to the Comment Table starting on page 67.

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 Comments & Responses Institute for Regeneration Medicine

X. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

As a result of the analysis presented in this Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration, two project- specific mitigation measures were identified under the topics of Air Quality and Transportation. A mitigation monitoring program identifying the implementation procedure and the unit for implementation for these two mitigation measures is presented below.

In addition, for the convenience of the decision makers and individuals responsible for implementing all mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project, the previously adopted LRDP EIR mitigation measures relevant to the proposed project are reprinted here.

117 March 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

INSTITUTE FOR REGENRATION MEDICINE MITGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

AIR QUALITY

IRM-1. Air Pollutant UCSF would require in all Require in construction Design-build Team Provide written verification Emissions (Construction). construction contracts for specifications that the and UCSF Project to Monitor regarding Demolition and construction work at Parnassus Heights contractor comply with the Manager, Capital compliance with this activities proposed at the that the contractors reduce requirements identified in this Projects Facilities measure. Parnassus Heights site under major criteria air pollutant mitigation. Work with Management the LRDP would generate emissions by complying with construction contractor to PM2.5 emissions which may the air pollution control ensure measures are exceed annual-levels of state strategies developed by the implemented. air quality standards. BAAQMD, especially those Construction-related PM2.5 related to PM2.5 emissions. emissions could result in This measure would reduce violations of that standard. impacts to less-than- significant levels.

TRANSPORTATION IRM-2. Construction Traffic Prepare a transit use goal and Require in construction Design-build Team Provide written verification and Parking (Construction). plan for construction specifications that the and UCSF Project to Monitor regarding Construction of the proposed employees and subcontractor contractor comply with the Manager, Capital compliance with this project could cause demand employees. The plan should requirements identified in this Projects Facilities measure. for construction parking consider an alternative for the mitigation. Work with Management spaces to significantly exceed contractor to provide shuttle construction contractor to the designated supply of service to/from public ensure measures are construction parking at transportation transfer nodes implemented. Parnassus Heights and could such as Caltrain and BART. adversely impact traffic flow This plan would be on Medical Center Way incorporated into the including circulation, access construction contract between and pedestrian safety along UCSF and the contractor. the roadway. Stage construction activities to avoid the need to close Medical Center Way. Should

118 March 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

complete road closure be required, provide at least 72 hours notice to campus community and public and prepare detour routes and signage for drivers and pedestrians during the road closure. . Implementation would reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant.

119 March 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

APPLICABLE MEASURES FROM THE ADOPTED LRDP EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

AESTHETICS

4L-2. Increased Light and Minimize light and glare from Ensure that construction Design-build Team Provide written verification Glare (Project). New LRDP development at Parnassus specifications include and UCSF Project to Monitor regarding development at Parnassus Heights through the orientation requirements that the selected Manager, Capital compliance with this Heights under the LRDP could have the potential to of buildings, use of landscaping primary facade materials have Projects Facilities measure. increase amounts of light materials and use of primary low-glare potential and do not Management and glare in the area. facade materials with low-glare call for extensive use of potential. Avoid use of glass mirrored glass. Design exterior and mirrored walls as primary light fixtures to emphasize close building materials for facades. spacing of low intensity light Configure exterior light fixtures sources directed downward. to emphasize close spacing and

lower intensity light. Light fixtures will utilize luminaires that direct light downward. This measure would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. 4L.-3. Construction Night Construction plans would Ensure that construction Design-build Team Provide written verification Lighting (Construction). include specifications for placing specifications include and UCSF Project to Monitor regarding Construction of the LRDP and directing any construction requirements that construction Manager, Capital compliance with this improvements at Parnassus area or flood lighting to flood lighting is placed with Projects Facilities measure. Report any night Heights could increase area minimize potential disturbances minimal disturbances to Management work requiring construction flood lighting at night. to adjacent residents. This residents. Ensure that lighting with brief measure would reduce impacts to construction contractor explanation of the reason for less-than-significant levels. implements measure if required. and duration of the work. (Note that UCSF must approve in advance any construction work past 8:00p.m.)

120 March 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

AIR QUALITY

4D-1. Air Pollutant UCSF would require in all Require in construction Design-build Team Provide written verification to Emissions (Construction). construction contracts for work specifications that the and UCSF Project Monitor regarding compliance Demolition and at Parnassus Heights that the contractor comply with the Manager, Capital with this measure. construction activities contractors reduce major requirements identified in this Projects Facilities proposed at the Parnassus criteria air pollutant emissions mitigation. Work with Management Heights site under the by complying with the air construction contractor to LRDP would generate pollution control strategies ensure measures are PM10 emissions which developed by the BAAQMD. implemented. would exceed federal This measure would reduce and/or state ambient air impacts to less-than-significant quality standards. levels. Construction-related PM10 emissions would result in violations of that standard.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3-1: Building If the discovery includes human Ensure that construction Design-build Team Provide written verification to construction, including remains, CEQA Guidelines specifications include this and UCSF Project Monitor regarding compliance excavation and grading 15064.5(e)(1) shall be followed. mitigation measure and that the Manager, Capital with this measure. associated with the This measure would reduce contractor complies with the Projects Facilities proposed project, could impacts to less-than-significant requirements identified in this Management cause substantial adverse levels. mitigation measure. changes to archaeological resources at the project sites.

121 March 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.5-4: Operation of the UCSF shall implement Extend the UCSF program for Office of Provide written verification to new research facilities hazardous waste handling hazardous waste handling, Environmental Monitor regarding compliance would generate hazardous minimization and disposal minimization and disposal, Health and Safety, with this measure. Provide waste that could place an procedures consistent with including implementation of all Chemical Safety copy of bi-annual Business Plan additional load on safety requirements and the measure identified in the Officer and inspection and State inspection hazardous waste applicable laws and regulations. mitigation measure. Radiation Safety to Monitor every other year. management facilities. UCSF shall extend its existing Officer.

hazardous waste minimization plan to include the proposed project. UCSF shall implement the operational controls required to comply with laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, monthly safety and compliance audits and training of staff. UCSF shall implement procedures to minimize increases in the long-lived radioactive waste generation. This measure would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

122 March 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4H1-1. Erosion and UCSF would prepare a Ensure that construction Design-build Team Provide written verification to Sedimentation of the San construction Storm Water specifications require that each and UCSF Project Monitor regarding compliance Francisco Bay Pollution Prevention Plan that bid package, involving activity Manager, Capital with this measure. (Construction). includes Best Management which could cause storm water Projects Facilities Construction areas at Practices to control stormwater pollution or increased Management Parnassus Heights may be quality on-site. UCSF’s sedimentation, include the subject to erosion, which construction contracts would mitigation measure. could increase require contractors to implement sedimentation in the San the Plan. Implementation would Francisco Bay during wet reduce the impact to a level that weather. is less than significant.

NOISE 4E-1. Construction Noise UCSF would require Require in construction Design-build Team Provide written verification to (Construction). During construction contractors to specifications that the and UCSF Project Monitor regarding compliance construction, the noise minimize construction noise contractor comply with the Manager, Capital with this measure. generated from the impacts by the following requirements identified in this Projects Facilities construction activities strategies: o Limit construction mitigation. Work with Management could exceed the maximum hours to between 7:00 a.m. and construction contractor to limits specified by local 8:00 p.m., unless night work is ensure measures are noise ordinances if reviewed and authorized by implemented. (Note: The unmitigated. UCSF. o Require use of Regents made a finding of construction equipment with overriding considerations for noise reduction devices, such as the temporary but significant mufflers which are in good and unavoidable construction condition. o Minimize the use noise impacts that would result of impact tools to the extent from implementation of LRDP possible. o Locate stationary projects at Parnassus Heights. construction noise sources away The project would not result in from residential areas, and new or substantially more require use of acoustic shielding severe significant impacts than with such equipment when the one addressed and accepted feasible and appropriate. in The Regents findings.)

123 March 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

TRANSPORTATION 4.11-1. Construction The project would incorporate Require in construction Design-build Team Provide written verification to Traffic and Parking LRDP FEIR Mitigation specifications that the and UCSF Project Monitor regarding compliance (Construction). Building Measure 4C-3 and LRDP contractor comply with the Manager, Capital with this measure. construction, including Amendment #2 FEIR requirements identified in this Projects Facilities demolition, associated with Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 to mitigation. Work with Management the proposed project could ensure that construction and/or construction contractor to cause adverse impacts to demolition activities minimize ensure measures are traffic flow, circulation and parking demand and circulation implemented. access as well as to transit, obstruction. Pursuant to this pedestrian and parking measure, UCSF would require conditions. construction and/or demolition contractors to develop and implement construction traffic and parking management plans during demolition and/or construction activities. The plans would be developed in consultation with interested neighbors, and would be expected to include measures such as the following: o Develop a traffic management plan in consultation with the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic and Muni to minimize disruption due to lane closures. The plan should be consistent with Regulations for Working in San Francisco Streets and Chapter 6 of the California Supplement to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

124 March 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Program Institute for Regeneration Medicine

Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsible Unit Report Mechanism

o Prepare an offsite parking plan for construction employees and subcontractor employees. The plan should consider an alternative for the contractor to provide shuttle service to/from designated remote parking lots. This plan would be incorporated into the construction contract between UCSF and the contractor. o Schedule heavy-truck deliveries with the construction project manager at least one day in advance. o Whenever possible, make deliveries using trucks of 40 feet maximum bumper-to-bumper length. o Whenever possible schedule heavy trucks deliveries to arrive at off-peak hours, outside of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Note any deliveries that cannot comply with the above requirements for heavy trucks on the schedule, and notify the UCSF construction project manager at least 48 hours in advance. The contractor may provide flagmen to direct traffic in those cases. . Implementation would reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant.

125