ADDENDUM #4 TO THE UCSF 2014 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Transcription

1 University of California San Francisco Real Estate, Planning, & Capital Programs ADDENDUM #4 TO THE UCSF 2014 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Joan and Sanford I. Weill Neurosciences Building on Mission Bay Block 23A & Site Utility Loop Connection Lead Agency The University of California Prepared by UCSF Campus Planning 654 Minnesota Street San Francisco, CA April 28, 2017

2 I. Project Information 1. Project Title: UCSF Mission Bay The Joan and Sanford I. Weill Neurosciences Building on Block 23A and Site Utility Loop Connection 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: The Regents of the University of California 1111 Franklin Street Oakland, California Contact Person and Phone Number: Diane Wong Principal Planner, Environmental Coordinator UCSF Campus Planning (415) Project Location: UCSF Mission Bay Campus Site, Block 23A 5. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: See contact person listed above 6. Custodian of the Administrative Record for this Project: 7. Identification of all applicable LRDP and Prior Environmental Documents: Same as above UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR certified by the Regents on November 20, 2014 (State Clearinghouse Number )

3 Introduction II. Introduction This Addendum #4 to the University of California San Francisco (UC San Francisco or UCSF) 2014 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2014 LRDP EIR)1 discusses the proposed Joan and Sanford I. Weill Neurosciences Building ( Weill Neurosciences Building, or the proposed project ) on Block 23A at the UCSF Mission Bay campus site, relative to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is a research building as discussed in the 2014 LRDP and analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Specifically, the proposed building would provide a primary home for a new Neurosciences Institute, with bench laboratory research programs in neurology, psychiatry and other neurosciences as well as desktop research, clinical service, and clinical research space; a vivarium; and other necessary support spaces for various campus research units currently distributed at multiple sites including the Parnassus Heights campus site and elsewhere on the Mission Bay campus site. The proposed project includes the development of utilities infrastructure to connect the proposed building and Byers Hall to the existing Preliminary Utilities Plant on Block 16B (the Mission Bay Block 23A Site Utility Loop Connection). This Addendum reaffirms the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP Final EIR relative to the proposed project. Background In November 2014, the UC Board of Regents (the Regents ) approved the UCSF 2014 LRDP following certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR. The 2014 LRDP is a comprehensive land use plan and policy document that guides the physical development and future uses of the campus. The 2014 LRDP accommodates increases in enrollment and academic and research activities at UCSF to meet its projected educational, clinical, and research demand through the year 2035, the LRDP horizon. It contains functional zone maps for each of UCSF s main campus sites that illustrate the general locations of proposed uses, and that guide future decisions regarding where to locate buildings and other facilities. The 2014 LRDP also includes proposals identifying the approach to fulfilling campus site-specific objectives described in the 2014 LRDP. Some important features of the 2014 LRDP include plans to: accommodate growth in clinical care, research programs and student enrollment, address seismically compromised buildings, optimize the use of existing campus sites and existing space, increase on-campus housing, consolidate leased sites, continue to expand alternative transportation options, continue to work with neighbors to address potential community concerns that may arise as a result of UCSF s physical development, improve usable open space on campus, as well as enhance the public realm (i.e. public streets/sidewalks) adjacent to campus, and 1 UCSF 2014 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, November

4 Introduction limit greenhouse gas emissions through a comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction strategy. The 60.1-acre UCSF Mission Bay campus site is generally bound by Mission Bay Boulevard South to the north, Owens Street to the west, Mariposa Street to the south, and Illinois and Third streets to the east. UCSF s Mission Bay campus site consists of three distinct areas for planning purposes. The North Campus comprises the original 42.3 acres north of Sixteenth Street and includes research buildings, campus housing, and a campus community center; the South Campus comprises the 14 acres south of Sixteenth acquired for the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay; and the East Campus consists of 3.8 acres of vacant land east of Third Street. The 2014 LRDP EIR included analysis of proposed new buildings at the UCSF Mission Bay campus site intended to meet needs for additional research, office, housing and clinical space. The proposed Weill Neurosciences Building on Block 23A (including utility connections), as well as other proposed facilities throughout the campus were analyzed at a program level under CEQA in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Purpose of the Addendum This Addendum is intended to serve two purposes. First, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, this document analyzes the potential environmental effects that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project to determine, under the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, whether any proposed changes to the project or changes in circumstances under which the proposed project would be implemented could cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not previously examined in the 2014 LRDP EIR. If no new significant or substantially more severe impacts would occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required, CEQA Section provides that the proposed project can be approved by the Regents (or its designee) without preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Second, this document makes minor technical changes and additions to the analysis contained in the 2014 LRDP EIR to analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project. The proposed project was analyzed at a program level in the 2014 LRDP EIR (see Table 1-1 in the 2014 LRDP EIR). Subsequent to the adoption and certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, additional project-level details were developed, but these additional projectlevel details do not require any major revisions to the 2014 LRDP EIR analysis. Pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR could be used by the lead agency if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. For the reasons set forth herein, the environmental analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project falls within the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section for the preparation of an addendum to the 2014 LRDP EIR.2 This Addendum determines that the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not examined in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Program level mitigation measures that were identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR and that would be applicable to the proposed project would be implemented and enforced as part of the project approval. Those mitigation measures are identified beginning in Section VII of this document, and they will be included in a project mitigation monitoring and reporting program that would be adopted as part of project approval. 2 CEQA Guidelines Section relies upon the criteria of Section

5 Introduction Organization of Addendum This document is organized into the following sections: Section I Project Information: provides summary data about the proposed project Section II Introduction: provides an overview of environmental documentation, 2014 LRDP background, the purpose of the Addendum, and the organization of the Addendum. Section III Project Location and Description: presents a description of the proposed project, discusses consistency with the 2014 LRDP, and describes approvals required Section IV Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: identifies any environmental factors using the CEQA checklist. Section V Determination: indicates what, if any, additional environmental documentation is required for the proposed project. Section VI - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: evaluates whether the proposed project would result in significant environmental impacts that are new or substantially more severe than those significant impacts identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. This section briefly summarizes under each topic area the conclusion of the earlier environmental analysis, including references to applicable mitigation measures. If the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts, then an Addendum may be prepared pursuant to CEQA Sections and Section VII Mitigation Measures: summarizes 2014 LRDP EIR mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project. 4

6 Project Location and Description III. Project Location and Description Project Description The UCSF Mission Bay North Campus is comprised of Blocks 14 through 25 bounded by Mission Bay Boulevard South to the north, Third Street to the east, Sixteenth Street to the south, and Owens Street to the west (see Figure 1 Project Location, and Figure 2 Mission Bay Campus Site). The 2014 LRDP envisioned development of the North Campus with approximately 1.45 million gross square feet (gsf) of additional space beyond the 2.19 million gsf of space existing on the North Campus at the time of preparation of the 2014 LRDP. No buildings have yet been approved or constructed as part of the growth planned for the Mission Bay North Campus; as such, all 1.45 million gsf remain available to be developed. Weill Neurosciences Building The proposed Weill Neurosciences Building on Block 23A would be about 274,000 gsf, six stories, and about 94 feet in height. As discussed above, the proposed building would provide a primary home for a new Neurosciences Institute, with bench laboratory research programs in neurology, psychiatry and other neurosciences as well as desktop research, clinical service, and clinical research space; a vivarium; and other necessary support spaces for various campus research units currently distributed at multiple sites including the Parnassus Heights campus site and elsewhere on the Mission Bay campus site. The proposed project would be part of a complex of neuroscience facilities in Mission Bay. The Sandler Neurosciences Center, completed in 2012 on Block 19A, includes wet laboratories headed by principal investigators focused on neuro-inflammation research from the Department of Neurology, the Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases (IND), and the Center for Integrative Neuroscience (CIN). The Sandler Neurosciences Center, along with nearby Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Hall (Block 19B), makes Mission Bay one of the largest neuroscience complexes in the world. However, additional space for neuroscience research is needed to provide for expanded research programs and capture advances in the field, which cannot be accommodated in these existing facilities. In addition, multiple Neurology clinics, currently located in leased spaces at the Mount Zion campus site and 1500 Owens Street (adjacent to the Mission Bay campus site), are inadequate to accommodate both current demands and projected growth for such clinical services and clinical research. The key drivers for this project are demand for psychiatry basic science research space; demand for neurology and neuroscience research space; the co-location of psychiatry and neurosciences research and proximity to Department of Psychiatry administration (planned at 2130 Third Street); and the need to release existing space at Parnassus Heights, Mount Zion, and 1500 Owens Street for ambulatory care services. In total, the planned program consists of about 65,800 gsf of wet laboratory space; about 86,000 gsf of office/dry laboratory space; about 84,200 gsf of clinical/imaging space; about 21,000 gsf for a vivarium; and about 17,000 gsf of building support and a small amount of retail. 5

7 Project Location and Description Project Site Source: UCSF Figure 1 Project Location 6

8 Project Location and Description Source: UCSF Figure 2 Mission Bay Campus Site 7

9 Project Location and Description The proposed project would include the construction of a 274,000 gsf (208,000 asf) building on Block 23A of the UCSF Mission Bay North Campus, as well as site improvements, including infrastructure and landscaping. The proposed project would generate an average daily population of about 1,550 persons, comprised of about 920 faculty, researchers, staff and students; about 330 outpatients per day; and about 300 visitors per day. The proposed project would involve the removal of the existing temporary surface parking lot on Block 23A containing about 200 parking spaces. As part of a separate project, the displaced surface parking on Block 23A would be replaced by development of temporary surface parking on Block 14, along with temporary contractor parking on Blocks 15 and 16, and temporary shuttle parking on Block 18, all previously analyzed for CEQA compliance in a Note to File dated September 13, The proposed design of the Weill Neurosciences Building on Block 23A is intended to create a building that is aesthetically pleasing, fiscally and environmentally responsible, and an enhancement to the campus core around Koret Quad. The building will also provide a welcoming environment for patients and visitors to the clinical spaces within the research building. The proposed six-story building is designed with a two-story base of clinical services that would be inset from the 4-story research and clinical floors above (see Figure 3, Site Plan and Figure 4, Project Site and Landscape Plan). A large entry hall would face Fourth Street to form a U-shaped floor plan. The first two floors would include a glazed façade designed to welcome and provide a covered plaza area. A covered patient drop-off area would be provided along Campus Way. At the sixth floor, the building would be further articulated to create a dynamic façade to Fourth Street (see Figures 5 and 6, conceptual renderings as viewed from the Northwest and Southwest along Fourth Street). This upper floor would be wrapped in a screen that seeks to unify the design while providing privacy and solar control to reduce heat gain and glare. The sixth floor would include an outdoor event space that offers views of the campus and city beyond for visitors and building occupants. Architectural cast-in-place concrete would express the building s structural skeleton. This treatment would be carried through on the east façade along a paseo, where the building s shear walls would become the exterior wall to create a unified and holistic design expression of the building s service zones in contrast to the glazed facades of staff, faculty, and public areas. Building access would be accommodated at various locations to accommodate a variety of needs: a Main (West) Entrance for building occupants, patients and visitors; a South Entrance for patient drop-off; and an East Entrance for staff and building services. The site is accessible by car, public transportation, and UCSF shuttle. UCSF parking is available at the adjacent Third Street Garage as well as at other locations on the Mission Bay North and South campuses. The UCSF shuttle bus stop is located on Fourth Street in front of the building site. A passenger car drop off zone is planned along Campus Way with building access from the south. The design would be flexible to allow for possible valet service support. Bicycle parking is available at multiple locations on the Mission Bay campus 3 The Note to File dated September 13, 2016 is available at UCSF Campus Planning, 654 Minnesota Street, San Francisco, CA

10 Project Location and Description Source: Mark Cavagnero Associates Figure 3 Site Plan Source: Mark Cavagnero Associates Figure 4 Project Site & Landscape Plan 9

11 Project Location and Description Source: Mark Cavagnero Associates Figure 5 View from Northwest on Fourth Street Source: Mark Cavagnero Associates Figure 6 View from Southwest on Fourth Street 10

12 Project Location and Description site, including in the adjacent Third Street Garage, other campus parking structures and lots, and throughout the grounds of the campus. The proposed Block 23A project is in conformance with the UCSF Physical Design Framework, as amended in July The Project furthers the Universal Planning and Design Principles, Mission Bay Strategies, and Utilities Objectives/Actions. In support of the Physical Design Framework, the Project will welcome the community; ensure connectivity to and within the campus; improve campus cohesiveness; create space to promote collegiality; and lead through conservation and sustainability. The project would achieve LEED Silver and would employ sustainable strategies as described below. This project will comply with the University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices. As required by this policy, the Project will adopt the principles of energy efficiency and sustainability to the fullest extent possible, consistent with budgetary constraints and regulatory and programmatic requirements, and achieve a minimum USGBC LEED Silver rating (Version 4). The policy also includes goals to reach climate neutrality from scope 1 and 2 sources by 2025; and to reach climate neutrality from specific scope 3 sources by 2050 or sooner.4 The proposed project would not conflict with the ability of UCSF to achieve these targets. UCSF is currently in the process of updating its Climate Action Plan to reflect the measures it will implement to achieve carbon neutrality by The proposed project would incorporate many sustainable features. Some items that are to be considered include: Daylighting optimization for lighting reductions Smart controllers, sensors, and design schemes for lighting energy reductions Low-energy LED lighting design High-performance glazing High-performance envelope thermal insulation Light-reflecting materials/finishes to reduce heat island effect Energy-efficient building systems Storm-water management design High-efficiency HVAC equipment and system design Low-flow plumbing fixtures and showers for domestic water reductions Construction Waste Management: Solid waste disposal reduction by diversion of 75 percent of construction waste from landfills VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) emissions reduction by use of low-voc products Drought-tolerant landscape materials Water reduction through smart reclaimed water irrigation controls and low-flow emitters Enhanced building commissioning for optimal energy performance Bicycle parking Advanced Energy Metering 4 As defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from owned or controlled sources. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy. Scope 3 emissions are other indirect emissions such as emissions from employee commuting, business travel, and third-party distribution and production. 11

13 Project Location and Description This project will comply with the University of California Seismic Safety Policy including independent structural engineering peer review. Approximately 12 poplar trees abutting the Third Street Garage on the east side of the project would be removed as part of the project. This area east of the proposed research building would include a paseo and landscaping. The proposed project may also involve the removal of a street tree along the Fourth Street frontage. The project would involve the use of a tower crane during construction. Due to the proximity of the project to UCSF s helipad to the south (located on the roof of the Gateway Medical Building), the location and height of tower crane was designed to ensure that there would be no penetration of the approved flight paths for the helipad. Nonetheless, a Crane Safety Plan will be prepared and implemented to ensure crane operations are safely coordinated with helipad operations; and to ensure the cranes are properly marked and lighted for improved visibility at night. Pursuant to the University of California s constitutional autonomy, development and uses on property owned or leased by the University that are in furtherance of the University s educational purposes are not subject to local land use regulation. However, UCSF views local land use policies as planning guidelines for its proposed developments. In addition, the UCSF Mission Bay Campus Master Plan and Design Guidelines (CMPDG) and the UCSF Physical Design Framework provide guidance for the physical development of the Mission Bay campus site. The proposed project construction would begin around June 2017 and be completed by about February Site Utility Loop Connection Development of the Weill Neurosciences Building on Block 23A would involve a proposed utility loop to connect the proposed building and Byers Hall to the existing Preliminary Utility Plant on Block 16B. Currently, the 23A site is only served by telecommunications and fire water utilities. The utility loop connection includes the installation or relocation of a number of utilities surrounding the Block 23A site, including storm drain, sanitary sewer, fire water, domestic water, telecommunications and electrical pathways, chilled water, steam, and condensate. Utility lines would be extended from connections south of Rock Hall to Byers Hall and to the proposed Weill Neurosciences Building (see Figure 7, Site Utility Loop). 12

14 Project Location and Description Source: Mark Cavagnero Associates Figure 7 Site Utility Loop While construction activities associated with utility line installation at the Mission Bay campus site were not explicitly discussed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, it was assumed that such lines would be necessary as part of the development and operation of proposed buildings. Utility installation along the eastern portion of Koret Quad (along the west side of Fourth Street) would require temporary removal of groundcover landscaping. In addition, approximately 50 to 60 trees would be removed from this area, comprised of about 50 Canary Island Pine trees, 10 Sycamore trees and 2 Sequoia trees. Trees may be stored for replanting. Following utility line installation, groundcover landscaping would be restored. Trees surviving the storage process would be replanted. However, there are no plans to plant to the current tree density given overcrowded tree conditions in this location. The proposed utility loop construction would begin around summer 2017 and be complete about spring

15 Project Location and Description Relationship to the UCSF 2014 LRDP Consistency with the 2014 LRDP At the time the 2014 LRDP was being prepared, the UCSF Mission Bay campus site consisted of about 3 million gsf, including Mission Hall on the North Campus and Phase 1 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay (excluding the cancer outpatient building, now known as the Precision Cancer Medicine Building) on the South Campus. As both buildings were under construction (though not yet occupied), they were considered part of existing (2015) conditions. The 2014 LRDP proposed about 2.1 million gsf of additional space above existing conditions at Mission Bay, over the course of the 2014 LRDP to horizon year 2035 not including Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay. However, the 2014 LRDP EIR included in its analysis Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay by year As such, the 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed about 2.9 million gsf of growth above existing conditions at the Mission Bay campus site (see Table 1, Summary of Growth Planned Under 2014 LRDP EIR for the Mission Bay Campus Site). In November 2014, the 2014 LRDP EIR was certified and the 2014 LRDP was approved. Mission Bay Campus Site TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF GROWTH PLANNED UNDER 2014 LRDP EIR FOR THE MISSION BAY CAMPUS SITE Existing gsf 1 LRDP EIR 2015 Planned Growth 2 LRDP EIR Total gsf LRDP EIR 2035 Horizon North Campus 2,191,500 1,450,300 3,641,800 South Campus Phase 1 869, , ,500 South Campus Phase , ,500 East Campus 0 500, ,000 Total gsf 3,060,500 2,868,300 5,928,800 Population 9,760 12,140 21,900 1 Existing gsf assumed in the 2014 LRDP EIR for 2015 includes Mission Hall on the North Campus, which was completed in 2014, and Phase 1 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay on the South Campus (excluding the Precision Cancer Medicine Building), which was completed in Although the 2014 LRDP assumed Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay (i.e. the South Campus) would occur after the LRDP horizon year of 2035, the 2014 LRDP EIR assumed Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay would be developed by 2035 and therefore is included in this summary. The proposed project is consistent with UCSF s 2014 LRDP. The 2014 LRDP assumed for Block 23A the development of a 232,200-gsf research building of about 85 feet in height (excluding rooftop mechanical equipment). Although the proposed research building for Block 23A about 274,000 gsf and 94 feet in height (excluding mechanical equipment) would be slightly larger and taller than assumed in the 2014 LRDP and analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, the project would still be within the overall 1.4 million gsf of growth planned for the North Campus, and well within the 2.9 million gsf of growth planned for the Mission Bay campus site (see Table 2, Status of Growth Planned Under 2014 LRDP EIR for the Mission Bay Campus Site). The building height of 94 feet would be within the range of building heights planned for the Mission Bay campus site. 14

16 Project Location and Description TABLE 2 STATUS OF GROWTH PLANNED UNDER 2014 LRDP EIR FOR THE MISSION BAY CAMPUS SITE Mission Bay Campus Site Planned Growth Approved/Developed gsf Under 2014 LRDP Proposed Project gsf Growth Remaining North Campus 1,450, ,000 1,176,300 South Campus Phase 1 124, , South Campus Phase 2 793, ,350 Total South Campus 918, , ,350 East Campus 500, , ,000 Total gsf 2,868, , ,000 2,071,650 Population 12,140 4,110 1,550 6,480 1 Precision Cancer Medicine Building, approved March Mission Bay Block 33 Phase 1, approved January 2017 The proposed project would consist of about 274,000 gsf, or about 9 percent of the 2.9 million gsf projected growth analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR. With development of the proposed project, about 1.18 million gsf of development entitlement would remain on the North Campus and about 2.08 million development entitlement would remain on the Mission Bay campus site. The existing UCSF population at the Mission Bay campus site in 2015 was estimated at 9,760 persons. The 2014 LRDP EIR projected that by the LRDP horizon year of 2035, the population at the Mission Bay campus site would be approximately 21,900 persons, resulting in an anticipated growth of about 12,140 persons between 2015 and Two projects on the Mission Bay campus site have been approved since approval of the 2014 LRDP: the Mission Bay Block 33 project with an estimated population of about 2,200 persons, and the Precision Cancer Medicine Building with an estimated population of about 1,910 persons. The proposed project is estimated to have a population of about 1,550 persons (staff, patients and visitors), or about 13 percent of the projected population growth under the LRDP. The remaining population growth anticipated at Mission Bay in the 2014 LRDP EIR would be about 6,480 persons (see Table 3, Mission Bay Existing and Projected Population). TABLE 3 MISSION BAY EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION Existing (2015) Projected Population at LRDP Horizon (2035) 1 Growth Population Associated with Other Projects Approved Under 2014 LRDP Proposed Project Remaining Estimated Population 9,760 21,900 12,140 4,110 1,550 6,480 1 Includes population projected for Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay (i.e. South Campus). 15

17 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The proposed project is located within the Instruction and Research functional zone and therefore the proposed research use would be consistent with the functional zone designation identified in the LRDP. Discretionary Approvals Action by the Regents (including any Regents delegated committee or official): Approve budget and design Action by Other Agencies: None IV. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the modified projects involving at least one impact that is a Potentially New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance As discussed in Section VI, none of the environmental factors that were analyzed for this modified project would have an impact that would be a Potentially New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Therefore, none of the boxes above has been checked. 16

18 Determination V. Determination This Addendum was prepared to discuss any new information, changes to the proposed project or circumstances under which the proposed project would be implemented that may affect the prior environmental analysis prepared for the 2014 LRDP EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) discusses the use of a program EIR with later activities, and states that if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. CEQA Guidelines Section calls for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration if certain conditions have been met. These conditions include: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise or reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. UCSF has evaluated the proposed project relative to these conditions, and has determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration need not be prepared because: a) The project proposes the construction of a research building of about 274,000 gsf. While it would be larger than what was originally analyzed for the Block 23A site, the proposed building would be within the 1.45 million gsf of growth analyzed on the North Campus in the 2014 LRDP EIR. No new 17

19 Determination significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant environmental effects would occur. b) Since the 2014 LRDP EIR was certified, additional projects have been proposed in the vicinity of the Mission Bay campus site by UCSF and by others. For example, since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, the following have occurred: UCSF opened Phase 1 of its Medical Center at Mission Bay (excluding the Outpatient Building, now known as the Precision Cancer Medicine Building), in February 2015, which was the subject of an EIR certified in September UCSF s acquisition of Blocks 33 and 34 in Mission Bay was completed in 2015; potential uses were analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR. In January 2017, the Regents approved the design and construction of a 343,000 gsf research and clinical building on Block 33, which was analyzed in an addendum to the LRDP EIR (Addendum #2) UCSF approved the development of the Precision Cancer Medicine Building in March 2017 to complete Phase 1 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay. The building was analyzed in an addendum to the LRDP EIR (Addendum #3). UCSF proposed a student housing development at 566, 590 and 600 Minnesota Street, which is being analyzed in a project-level EIR. UCSF proposed the UCSF Child, Teen and Family Center and the UCSF Department of Psychiatry Building at 2130 Third Street, which is being analyzed in a project-level EIR. The City of San Francisco approved the Golden State Warriors Mixed-Use and Event Center complex on Blocks in Mission Bay, following certification of the Final EIR in November The San Francisco Giants proposed a mixed-use development ( Mission Rock ) comprised of housing, office space, retail, open space, and parking on the site of its existing surface parking lot at Seawall Lot 337. The project is currently undergoing environmental review. Forest City proposed a mixed-use development ( Pier 70 ) comprising housing, office, retail, manufacturing, creative uses and arts, and parking on a 35-acre site located at Pier 70. The project is currently undergoing environmental review. A Draft EIR was published in December Orton Development is rehabilitating the 20 th Street Historic Buildings ( Pier 70 Historic Core ) for proposed production, distribution and repair (PDR), office, restaurant and open space uses. The proposed project is anticipated to be completed in Other residential and mixed developments in the vicinity have been proposed, completed, or are under construction. 18

20 Determination Each of the above projects received or will receive environmental review prior to approval. The 2014 LRDP EIR and Golden State Warriors EIR analyses covered any potential cumulative impacts that might occur as a result of the development of the projects along with cumulative growth in the area. The cumulative impact analysis in the 2014 LRDP EIR took into account known or reasonably foreseeable projects, which included UCSF projects that were underway at the Mission Bay campus sites, projects in the Mission Bay Redevelopment Plan (North and South), and the proposed Golden State Warriors Event Center Project. The upcoming 566, 590 & 600 Minnesota Street EIR and 2130 Third Street EIR each will address cumulative impacts, as will the San Francisco Giants Mission Rock and Pier 70 EIR. As noted previously, the majority of the Phase 1 Medical Center at Mission Bay (except for the Precision Cancer Medicine Building) opened in February No substantial changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed project is undertaken have occurred that have not already been accounted for or will be accounted for in updated analyses for the Mission Bay campus site and for projects in the vicinity. As the proposed project is consistent with the analysis in the 2014 LRDP EIR, the proposed project would not cause new cumulative significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts previously found to be cumulatively significant impacts. The additional projects listed above that have been proposed in the vicinity of the Mission Bay campus site by UCSF and by others do not change the significance of impacts as previously analyzed. The proposed project would not require new mitigation measures or result in mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR and adopted by the Regents in November Based on the above, none of the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR has been met. The proposed project would not cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not previously examined in the 2014 LRDP EIR, nor would the proposed project require new mitigation measures, other than those previously identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the modified project would be undertaken that would require major revisions in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Thus, CEQA Guidelines Section provides that the modified project can be approved by the University without preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. No further environmental documentation is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and preparation of an addendum to the 2014 LRDP EIR is appropriate pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines. Findings consistent with this determination will be prepared. 19

21 Evaluation of Environmental Effects VI. Evaluation of Environmental Effects Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a suggested format to use when preparing an environmental document. Additionally, impact questions that relate to significance standards established in UCSF s LRDP EIR have been included. The checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the modified project to determine whether the proposed changes to the project or changes in circumstances under which the project would be implemented would alter the conclusions contained in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The form identifies the following category: Potential New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impact. Yes applies where the modified project would result in a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact; and No applies where the proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact. As noted in Section V. Determination, no new or substantially more severe significant impact would result and all evaluation topics result in checking the No category. However, some additional analysis is provided to highlight the changes to the proposed project or changes in circumstances under which the project would be implemented. As discussed in this document, relevant and required mitigation measures in the LRDP EIR are included. Where appropriate, mitigation measures have been identified and summarized at the end of this document. 20

22 Evaluation of Environmental Effects 1. Aesthetics Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Additional Projectlevel Impact Analysis Required Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Earlier Environmental Document Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e) Exceed the LRDP EIR significance standard by substantially reducing sunlight or significantly increasing shadows in public open space areas, or by increasing pedestrian-level wind speeds above the hazard level set forth in the San Francisco Planning Code? 2014 LRDP EIR Analysis The 2014 LRDP EIR analyzed aesthetics impacts associated with campus growth and development, including impacts related to shadow and wind, and concluded the following relative to the UCSF Mission Bay campus site: a) Effects on a scenic vista: Less than Significant; No Mitigation required (per LRDP Initial Study). b) Damage to scenic resources: No impact; No Mitigation required (per LRDP Initial Study). c) The Mission Bay campus site is located within the 303-acre Mission Bay Redevelopment Area in the Mission Bay neighborhood, north of the Potrero Hill and Dogpatch neighborhoods. It is a relatively flat area, characterized primarily by man-made visual landmarks, including the elevated Interstate 280 highway to the west. The proposed project is located on the North Campus, which is just north of Sixteenth Street and is bifurcated by Fourth Street. The visual environment on the campus site is dominated largely by campus buildings and the proposed project would be consistent and compatible with this development pattern. As concluded in the 2014 LRDP, although changes in appearance at the Mission Bay campus site would be noticeable, new buildings would be built in accordance with UCSF s Mission Bay Campus Master Plan and Design Guidelines (CMPDG), and would be consistent with the 2014 LRDP s Community Planning Principles regarding Building and Public Realm Design. Because the proposed buildings in the LRDP would be visually similar to existing buildings on the campus site, they would not substantially degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, effects on visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be Less than Significant; No Mitigation required. 21

23 Evaluation of Environmental Effects d) Although construction operations are generally expected to take place during the day, some activities could be conducted at night to reduce noise, vibration or other effects on adjacent daytime uses. The 2014 LRDP EIR concluded that during construction, new sources of substantial light or glare would be Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP-1 requiring a condition in construction contracts that flood or area lighting for construction activities be placed and directed so as to avoid potential disturbances to adjacent residences or other uses. Development at the Mission Bay campus site could increase ambient light levels due to light dispersion from the new buildings. However, as noted in the 2014 LRDP, by employing appropriate design standards and minimizing the quantity of reflective material used in new construction, light and glare impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels. During operations, new sources of substantial light or glare: Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP-2 that would minimize light and glare resulting from new buildings through the orientation of the building, use of landscaping materials and choice of primary façade materials. e) Prior wind tunnel tests for the proposed UCSF Mission Bay buildings have demonstrated that existing wind conditions within the Mission Bay campus site have improved over time as planned buildings have been constructed in accordance with the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Area Plan Design for Development. Given the current understanding of wind conditions at the Mission Bay campus site due to actual development in accordance with the Design for Development, which allows for buildings greater than 100 feet in height, the 2014 LRDP EIR concluded that buildings over 100 feet shall be evaluated by an expert to determine the potential to cause a wind hazard. Therefore, streetlevel wind hazards to pedestrians would be Less than Significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP -3, requiring building projects proposed to exceed 100 feet in height to be evaluated by qualified wind consultant, possibly leading to wind tunnel testing and implementing feasible means of eliminating or reducing wind hazards. Shadows on public open space areas: Less than Significant. Cumulative aesthetic affects: Less than Significant; No mitigation required. Discussion of Project Impacts a,c) The proposed building height and bulk would be consistent with the overall appearance of the Mission Bay North Campus. As discussed above, although the proposed Weill Neurosciences Building on Block 23A about 274,000 gsf and 94 feet in height (excluding mechanical equipment) would be slightly larger and taller than the building assumed in the 2014 LRDP and analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR, the project would still be within the overall 1.4 million gsf of growth planned for the North Campus, and well within the 2.9 million gsf of growth planned for the Mission Bay campus site. The building height of 94 feet, plus rooftop mechanical equipment approximately 20 feet in height, would be within the range of building heights planned for the Mission Bay campus site. The proposed utility loop would be located below grade and would not be visible above ground. For these reasons, impacts 22

24 Evaluation of Environmental Effects related to scenic vistas, visual character or quality, and shadows would continue to be less than significant. b) The Initial Study for the 2014 LRDP EIR determined that there would be no impacts to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The proposed project would not change these conclusions. d) The proposed project would continue to comply with the 2014 LRDP EIR mitigation measures (AES- LRDP-1 and AES-LRDP-2) noted above regarding light and glare during construction and during project operations. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. e) As stated above, the proposed project would be generally consistent with 2014 LRDP EIR assumptions regarding height and buildings massing, and therefore project impacts related to shadows would continue to be less than significant. Koret Quad, the central campus open space, is directly across the street from the project site and therefore would be partially cast in shade by the proposed research building during the morning hours. However, the nominal difference in height between the proposed project and the building assumed in the LRPD EIR would have negligible impact on the shading of Koret Quad. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP-3, a wind tunnel study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of the proposed design on pedestrian level wind speeds.5 The analysis concluded that development of the proposed project would reduce the number of existing wind speeds that meet or exceed the hazard criterion of 26 miles per hour averaged for a full hour for any hour of the year. The number of existing hazardous wind speed locations would be reduced from four to two. Only one exceedance of the hazard criterion would remain under cumulative conditions when nearby campus buildings are completed, i.e. the Precision Cancer Medicine Building and Phase 2 of the Medical Center at Mission Bay on the South Campus; development on Blocks 33 and 34 on the East Campus; Block 25B on the North Campus; and the Golden State Warriors Event Center and Mixed-Use Development project on Blocks No new locations for hazardous wind speeds would be created. Based on the above, potential wind impacts under the cumulative scenario is considered less than significant. For the reasons stated, aesthetics impacts of the proposed project, including shadows and wind, would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR. 5 CPP, Pedestrian-Level Winds Report: Mitigation Measure AES-LRDP-3, Wind Tunnel Tests for Weill Institute for Neuroscience, January 9, 2017; and CPP, Assessment of Design Revision on Pedestrian Level Winds, Weill Institute for Neuroscience, March 2,

25 Evaluation of Environmental Effects 2. Agriculture and Forest Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Additional Projectlevel Impact Analysis Required Project Impact Adequately Addressed in Earlier Environmental Document Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 2014 LRDP EIR Analysis a-e) The Initial Study for the 2014 LRDP EIR determined that there would be no impacts to agriculture and forest resources. Discussion of Project Impacts a-e) The proposed project would not change the conclusions of the 2014 LRDP EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines. 24