I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR FOR AMENDMENT # 2 TO THE LRDP

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT #2, HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR FOR AMENDMENT # 2 TO THE LRDP Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15090, the Board of Regents of the University of California ( The Regents ) hereby certifies that the University of California, San Francisco ( San Francisco campus ) Long Range Development Plan ( LRDP ) Amendment #2, Hospital Replacement Program (the Project ) Final Environmental Impact Report ( Final EIR ) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( CEQA ) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. (the CEQA Guidelines ). The Final EIR has been assigned State Clearinghouse No The Regents further certifies that the Final EIR was presented to The Regents, and that The Regents has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the certifications in this Section I, the Findings in Section II, below and approving the Project, as set forth in Section III, below. The Regents hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the University of California (the University ). The conclusions presented in these Findings are based upon the Final EIR and other evidence in the administrative record. II. FINDINGS The following Findings are hereby adopted by The Regents as required by Public Resources Code Sections 21081, , , and 21090, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and 15093, in conjunction with the approval of the Project, which is set forth in Section III, below. The Regents is certifying the Final EIR for the LRDP Amendment #2. Because the University is the lead agency for the LRDP Amendment #2 and subsequent San Francisco campus developments, the Final EIR is intended to be the basis for compliance with CEQA for each of the possible discretionary actions by other state and local agencies that may be necessary to carry out the LRDP Amendment #2. In this action, The Regents is certifying the Final EIR and approving the LRDP Amendment #2. Approvals of future projects contemplated by the LRDP Amendment #2 will be made by The Regents and/or University officials delegated such authority pursuant to the Standing Orders and Bylaws of the University, as applicable, in accordance with and based upon the analysis in the Final EIR, supplemented as necessary. Having received, reviewed and considered the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record, which is herein incorporated into these Findings by reference, The Regents hereby adopts the following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the LRDP Amendment #2 in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the University s procedures for implementing CEQA. The Regents certifies that its Findings are

2 Page 2 based on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings, concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR, and are supported by substantial evidence. The Regents adopts these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations in conjunction with its approval as set forth in Section III, below. A. Environmental Review Process 1. History of the LRDP On January 17, 1997, The Regents certified the LRDP FEIR in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the University of California Procedures for Implementation of CEQA, and adopted the LRDP. Both the LRDP and the LRDP FEIR analyzed the potential development of a major new San Francisco campus site containing up to 2,650,000 gross square feet ( gsf ), excluding parking, at one of three possible sites in the Bay Area, including Mission Bay in San Francisco. For Mission Bay, the LRDP FEIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with developing approximately 43 acres of UCSF uses anywhere within the 303-acre Mission Bay site. The LRDP FEIR analyzed the overall effects of growth and facility development for the San Francisco campus through the year , with full buildout under the LRDP assumed to occur by the year The LRDP FEIR identified measures to mitigate, to the extent feasible, the significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with growth of the San Francisco campus under the LRDP. In addition, following extensive public review, in 1998, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency ( SFRA ) and the City adopted two redevelopment plans for the entire 303-acre Mission Bay area (the Mission Bay North Plan and the Mission Bay South Plan). The North Plan calls for the development of housing and retail space. The South Plan calls for housing, retail, a hotel, commercial/industrial uses, and the new San Francisco campus site. These Plans replaced the SFRA and City s 1990 Mission Bay Plan that was evaluated in the Mission Bay Final Environmental Impact Report ( Mission Bay FEIR ). The Mission Bay SEIR evaluates the environmental effects of the Mission Bay North and South Plans and is a subsequent EIR to the Mission Bay FEIR. It was jointly certified by SFRA and the City on October 14, 1998, and the North and South Plans were adopted on November 2, The LRDP Amendment #1 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( SEIR ) was prepared for the construction and operation of approximately 400,000 gsf of residential and local-serving retail uses and approximately 120,000 gsf of parking use at the Mission Bay site to substitute for other uses previously approved in the LRDP for that campus site, in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the University of California Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. The Regents certified the LRDP Amendment #1 SEIR and adopted the LRDP Amendment #1 on January 17, Where appropriate, the Final EIR incorporates by reference the LRDP Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No ), which was certified by The Regents on January 17, 1997, in connection with its approval of the LRDP and the Mission Bay Subsequent

3 Page 3 Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No ), which was certified by the City and County of San Francisco and SFRA on October 14, Where information from those prior EIR s is incorporated in the Final EIR, they are specifically mentioned and the information from the prior EIR s is briefly summarized. These prior EIRs are generally used to describe the existing setting at the various San Francisco campus sites and hospital replacement scenarios. 2. Development of LRDP Amendment #2 All inpatient facilities in California, including those in the San Francisco campus Medical Center at Parnassus Heights and Mount Zion, are subject to the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act (Senate Bill 1953) which imposes deadlines for new state-mandated seismic and life safety standards. At the time of the San Francisco campus LRDP approval by The Regents in January 1997, no major improvements to, or replacements of hospital facilities were considered. The Medical Center s activities, including those at Moffitt/Long Hospital, were assumed to remain generally in their then-current locations, configurations and sizes. In addition, from November 1997 to April 2000, The Regents leased Moffitt/Long Hospital, Mount Zion Hospital and other facilities of the Medical Center to the joint public corporation formed with Stanford University. The Board of Regents was not involved in physical planning or compliance with seismic requirements for these facilities under Senate Bill (SB) 1953 during this time. Since the return of Medical Center operations to The Regents in 2000, comprehensive future facility planning has been underway, leading to this proposed LRDP Amendment #2. The San Francisco campus conducted an extensive, four-year planning process to determine how to best replace the Medical Center s aging and seismically-deficient inpatient facilities at Parnassus Heights and Mount Zion in a manner that would be consistent with the long-term vision for the academic and clinical enterprise of the campus. This planning process was guided by a broad cross-section of faculty and staff in two sequential campus committees, and involved campus-wide participation including the Academic Senate, as well as external community participation through the campus Community Advisory Group. The resulting LRDP Amendment #2 explores options for the replacement of Mount Zion Hospital by December 31, 2012 and identifies a range of possible replacement scenarios for inpatient services currently in the Moffitt portion of Moffitt/Long Hospital at Parnassus Heights which must be decommissioned by December 31, The campus determined that 650 beds are needed to meet core hospital program needs and fiscal feasibility criteria. The long range scenario assumes that the campus will proceed with construction of a new hospital of 210 beds on property to be acquired at Mission Bay (with a remaining site capacity for up to 650 beds) while continuing to operate Moffitt/Long Hospital with up to approximately 600 beds until 2030, when Moffitt would be decommissioned. After 2030, about 400 beds would be assumed to operate at Parnassus Heights.

4 Page 4 3. Preparation of the EIR Pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and University procedures for implementation of CEQA, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the proposed LRDP Amendment #2 for Hospital Replacement (State Clearinghouse No ). The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study ( IS ) was circulated from July 13 through August 11, A public scoping meeting was held July 28, The Draft EIR was prepared and circulated to the public, responsible agencies and to the State Clearinghouse for a 45-day review period between November 30, 2004 and January 14, Seven written letters/ comments were received on the Draft EIR. A public hearing was held on January 10, Four speakers testified at the hearing. A copy of the written and oral comments received during the public review period and responses are included in the Final EIR. The comments mainly concern the potential site selection of the Mission Bay South parcel, representing an expansion of property under control by The Regents for the San Francisco campus. The EIR evaluated the hospital replacement program of 650 beds at a program level. There were four site scenarios for meeting the 650-bed program alone or in combination which were evaluated at an equal level of detail. While the EIR was in preparation, the San Francisco campus developed its recommendations for three integrated specialty hospitals of about 210 beds during the LRDP timeframe, while continuing to operate Moffitt/Long Hospital with about 600 beds. Project-level approvals of this recommendation will be brought to The Regents at a future date. Included in the project description is a feasibility analysis for providing a helipad for helicopter access to the Medical Center. Due to the location and topography at Mission Bay, it was concluded that a helipad is feasible were the Mission Bay South or Mission Bay North sites to be developed. Additional project-level CEQA review would be required prior to approving a helipad site. 4. Absence of Significant New Information CEQA Guidelines Section requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. New information includes: (i) changes to the project; (ii) changes in the environmental setting; or (iii) additional data or other information. Section further provides that [n]ew information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project s proponents have declined to implement. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR.

5 Page 5 Having reviewed the information contained in the Final EIR and in the administrative record, including the comments on the Draft EIR and the Responses to Comments, as well as the requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section and interpretive judicial authority regarding recirculation of draft EIR s, The Regents hereby finds that no new significant information was added to the EIR following public review and thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required by CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does not involve any new or more severe environmental impacts or indicate that the Draft EIR was in any way inadequate or conclusory. B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following section summarizes the environmental impacts of the Project, and includes the Findings of The Regents as to those impacts, as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of The Regents regarding the environmental impacts of the Project, Mitigation Measures, alternatives to the Project and the Mitigation Measures proposed by the Final EIR and adopted by The Regents as conditions of approval. These Findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about Project impacts before and after mitigation and do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these Findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by The Regents, and state The Regents Findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted Mitigation Measures. A full explanation of these environmental Findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these Findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR s determinations regarding Mitigation Measures and the Project s impacts. In making these Findings, The Regents ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR in these Findings, and ratifies, adopts and incorporates in these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to Mitigation Measures and environmental impacts, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings. As set forth in Part III, below, The Regents adopts and incorporates as conditions of approval, the Mitigation Measures set forth in these Findings to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts. In adopting these Mitigation Measures, The Regents intends to adopt each of the Mitigation Measures proposed in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a Mitigation Measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from these Findings, said Mitigation Measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the Findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of the Mitigation Measures set forth below fail to accurately reflect the Mitigation Measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the Mitigation Measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the Mitigation Measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these Findings.

6 Page 6 The Regents are adopting all Mitigation Measures described in the Final EIR even though the Project will be implemented in two phases: the LRDP Phase (through 2012) and the Future Phase (through 2030). Although the Mitigation Measures for the Future Phase could be modified or augmented in connection with environmental review of the San Francisco campus next LRDP, development under the Hospital Replacement Program could occur more rapidly than anticipated in the Final EIR. In that case, the Mitigation Measures for the Future Phase would mitigate the impacts resulting from any accelerated development. 1. Aesthetics a) Impact AES 4.1-1: New hospital development at any of the sites could increase light and glare which could affect nighttime views at the selected site and in its vicinity. (All scenarios and sites) Mitigation Measure AES 4.1-1: Minimize light and glare from new hospital development through the orientation of buildings, use of landscaping materials, and choice of primary facade materials. Design standards and guidelines to minimize light and glare would be adopted for the new hospital development, including: Reflective metal walls and mirrored glass walls shall not be used as primary building materials for facades. Installation of illuminated building signage shall strive to be consistent with City Planning Code sign requirements and/or Mission Bay design guidelines. Exterior light fixtures shall be configured to emphasize close spacing and lower intensity light. Light fixtures shall use luminaries that direct the cone of light downward. (Modified from LRDP FEIR Mitigation Measure 12LI-3 for the LRDP and Future Phases) of Mitigation Measure AES would ensure that the Project would not create new sources of light and glare that could affect nighttime views at the selected site and its vicinity, and thus this impact would be less than significant. b) Impact AES 4.1-2: Construction of a new hospital could result in flood lighting at any of the sites during nighttime construction activities. (All scenarios and sites) Mitigation Measures AES 4.1-2: UCSF would require a condition in construction contracts that flood or area lighting for construction activities be placed and directed so as to avoid potential disturbances to adjacent residences or other uses. (Modified from LRDP Mitigation Measure 12L1-4 for the LRDP and Future Phases) of Mitigation Measure AES would ensure that construction of a new hospital would

7 Page 7 not result in flood lighting disturbing adjacent residences or other uses, and thus this impact would be less than significant. c) Impact AES 4.1-3: Construction of a new hospital could result in increased shadow on open space at or adjacent to the two proposed hospital locations. However, none of the sites are within designated San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission (SFRP) lands. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that construction of a new hospital would not cause shadow on open space within designated San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission lands; therefore no mitigation is required. d) Impact AES 4.1-4: Construction and operation of a hospital at the Mission Bay South site could substantially degrade the visual quality of the Mission Bay campus site or its surroundings. (Mission Bay South scenario) Mitigation Measure AES 4.1-4: Extend to the CMPDG to the Mission Bay South site or develop Mission Bay South site land use designations and design guidelines that apply 1996 LRDP goals and objectives for visual quality, protection of view corridors, creation of open space, and compatibility with the surrounding area. Implementation of this measure would avoid a substantial degradation of the visual quality due to the Mission Bay South site development. (Identified by this EIR for the LRDP and Future Phases) of Mitigation Measure AES would ensure that construction and operation of a hospital at the Mission Bay South site would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site or its surroundings, and thus this impact would be less than significant. e) Impact AES 4.1-5: Construction and operation of a hospital at the Mission Bay North site could substantially degrade the visual quality of the Mission Bay campus site or its surroundings. (Mission Bay North scenario) Mitigation Measure AES 4.1-5: UCSF shall develop additional guidelines under the CMPDG specific to hospital design to avoid potential degradation of the visual quality of the UCSF site or its surroundings. When a specific hospital design for the North site is available, project-specific environmental review shall be conducted on potential visual quality impacts such as spanning 5th Street with the hospital building. If displaced research uses were to be relocated to the Mission Bay South site, UCSF shall extend the CMPDG to that site to develop Mission Bay South site and use designations and design guidelines as described in Mitigation Measure AES (Identified by this EIR for the LRDP Phase) of Mitigation Measure AES would ensure that construction and operation of a hospital at the Mission Bay North site would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site or its surroundings, and thus this impact would be less than significant.

8 Page 8 f) Impact AES 4.1-6: Operation of a hospital at Mission Bay North or South could include a helicopter landing site ( helipad ), which would introduce lighting that would be noticeable after dark. (Mission Bay North and South scenarios) Mitigation Measure AES 4.1-6: UCSF shall develop a helipad design plan to minimize light and glare, including: Lamp wattage shall be minimized to the extent allowed by Federal Aviation Administration requirements. Lighting shall be activated remotely as needed by an approaching helicopter pilot or by staff meeting an incoming flight to the extent allowed by Federal Aviation Administration requirements. Project-specific environmental review shall be conducted on potential light and glare impacts when more specific hospital designs for either the North or South sites are available. (Identified by this EIR for the LRDP and Future Phases) of Mitigation Measure AES would ensure that a helicopter landing site operated at a hospital at the Mission Bay North or South sites would not introduce lighting that would be noticeable after dark, and thus this impact would be less than significant. g) Impact AES 4.1-7: A hospital building on the Mission Bay North site could exceed an LRDP standard of significance by increasing pedestrian-level wind speeds above the hazard level set forth in the San Francisco Planning Code. (Mission Bay North scenario) Mitigation Measure AES 4.1-7: A new hospital over 100 feet in height on the Mission Bay North site would be wind tested to verify compliance with the City of San Francisco s 26 mph hazardous wind criteria. If preliminary wind testing indicates that pedestrian-level winds would exceed the 26 mph hazard criteria, UCSF shall redesign the hospital, to the extent feasible, to reduce or eliminate hazardous pedestrian-level wind effects. (Identified by this EIR for the LRDP Phase) of Mitigation Measure AES would ensure that a hospital building on the Mission Bay North site would not increase pedestrian-level wind speeds above the hazard level set forth in the San Francisco Planning Code, and thus this impact would be less than significant. h) Impact AES 4.1-8: Under the Parnassus Heights East scenario, demolition of LPPI, and construction of a new hospital pavilion on the eastern side of the Parnassus Heights campus site would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site or its surroundings. (Parnassus Heights East scenario)

9 Page 9 FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that demolition of LPPI, and construction of a new hospital pavilion on the eastern side of the Parnassus Heights campus would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site or its surroundings; therefore no mitigation is required. i) Impact AES 4.1-9: Under the Parnassus Heights West scenario, demolition of UC Hall, the Laboratory of Radiobiology, and other buildings, and construction of a new hospital on the western side of the Parnassus Heights campus would alter the visual character of the campus. Together with subsequent demolition of Moffitt and Long Hospitals to meet space ceiling goals, these actions would not substantially degrade the visual character of the campus site or its surroundings. (Parnassus Heights West scenario) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that demolition of UC Hall, the Laboratory of Radiobiology, and other buildings, and construction of a new hospital on the western side of the Parnassus Heights campus together with subsequent demolition of Moffitt and Long Hospitals would not substantially degrade the visual character of the campus site or its surroundings; therefore no mitigation is required. j) Cumulative Impact AES : Implementation of the Hospital Replacement Program would result in cumulative visual and aesthetic effects. of the Project at the Mission Bay or Parnassus Heights sites would not cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to visual and aesthetic effects; therefore no mitigation is required. 2. Air Quality a) Impact AIR 4.2-1: Construction and operation of replacement hospital facilities would generate vehicular, stationary source, and helicopter-related emissions (depending on scenario) that would contribute to regional air pollution. (All scenarios and sites) Mitigation Measure AIR 4.2-1: UCSF shall continue its existing Transportation Demand Management programs to promote shuttle services, ride-sharing, and bicycle programs to reduce the number of trips at its campus sites. These transit options divert trips from single occupancy vehicles and would thus reduce impacts of vehicular trips generated by the project. (Modified from LRDP FEIR Mitigation Measures 12D4-2 for the LRDP and Future Phase) of Mitigation Measure AIR would reduce impacts of vehicular trips generated by construction and operation of the Project, but would not reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level, and thus this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project

10 Page 10 for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section II.F of these Findings. b) Impact AIR 4.2-2: Demolition and construction activities associated with the hospital construction would generate fugitive dust and criteria pollutant emissions that could adversely affect local air quality. (All scenarios and sites) Mitigation Measure AIR 4.2-2: During construction, UCSF shall require the construction contractor to implement the appropriate level of BAAQMD s dust control procedures for all construction sites. UCSF shall include this requirement in all construction contracts. This mitigates this impact to less than significant. (Modified from LRDP FEIR Mitigation Measure 12D1-1 for the LRDP and Future Phase) of Mitigation Measure AIR would ensure that demolition and construction activities associated with Project construction would not generate fugitive dust and criteria pollutant emissions that could adversely affect local air quality, and thus this impact would be less than significant. c) Impact AIR 4.2-3: Operational stationary-source and vehicular TAC emissions. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that operation of the Project would not result in stationary source and vehicular TAC emissions in excess of significant standards; therefore no mitigation is required. d) Impact AIR 4.2-4: Operation of a helipad at the Mission Bay North or South sites could adversely affect the local air quality due to helicopter emissions. (Mission Bay North and South scenarios) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that operation of a helipad at the Mission Bay North or South sites would not result in helicopter emissions in excess of significant standards; therefore no mitigation is required. e) Cumulative Impact AIR 4.2-5: Vehicular traffic generated by construction and operation of a 400-bed or 650-bed hospital and associated facilities, in conjunction with traffic generated from concurrent LRDP projects at each campus site, plus non-ucsf projects, would result in criteria pollutant emissions that would have a significant cumulative impact on the ambient air quality. Mitigation Measure AIR 4.2-5: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR of Mitigation Measure AIR would reduce criteria pollutant emissions generated by vehicular traffic from construction and operation of the Project but would not reduce these

11 Page 11 emissions to less-than-significant levels, and thus this impact remains significant and unavoidable. However, The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section II.F of these Findings. f) Cumulative Impact AIR 4.2-6: Operational TAC emissions from a 400 bed or 650-bed hospital, along with TAC emissions from other planned development, other UCSF sites, and San Francisco in general, could lead to a cumulative air quality impact. FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that operational TAC emissions from the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable air quality impact; therefore no mitigation is required. 3. Cultural Resources a) Impact CUL 4.3-1: Building construction, including excavation and grading associated with the proposed project, could cause substantial adverse changes to archaeological resources at the project sites. (All scenarios and sites) Mitigation Measure CUL 4.3-1: Should an archaeological artifact be discovered at the Parnassus Heights or Mission Bay sites during project construction and excavation, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (f), provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction should be instituted. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and UCSF shall consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find (per Public Resource Code Section , Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 and/or Public Resource Code in the event of a unique archaeological find). If any find is determined to be significant and will be adversely affected by the project, representatives of UCSF and the qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation (per CEQA Guidelines (b) and Public Resource Code ). All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documented by the qualified archaeologist according to current professional standards (Per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716)). If the discovery includes human remains, CEQA Guidelines (e)(1) shall be followed: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken: (1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

12 Page 12 a. The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and b. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American: (1) The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. (2) The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. (3) The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section , or (2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. a. The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission. b. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or c. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. (Identified by this EIR for the LRDP and Future Phase) of Mitigation Measure CUL would ensure that building construction associated with the Project would not cause substantial adverse effects to archaeological resources at the Project sites, and thus this impact would be less than significant. b) Impact CUL 4.3-2: The LRDP amendment could result in the demolition of multiple buildings at the Mission Bay and Parnassus Heights campus sites. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the impact of demolition of multiple buildings at the Mission Bay or Parnassus Heights campus sites resulting from the proposed Project would be less than significant; therefore no mitigation is required.

13 Page 13 c) Impact CUL 4.3-3: Implementation of the LRDP amendment could result in the demolition of UC Hall, which would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (Parnassus Heights East and West scenarios) Mitigation Measure CUL 4.3-3: Three actions (documentation, interpretation, and preservation) would be implemented as mitigation for the demolition of UC Hall. Documentation. UC Hall shall be documented using the Historic American Building Survey standards prior to its demolition. Documentation, as well as the interpretation and preservation efforts described below, would only partially mitigate the loss of historically significant buildings, and would not reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. Interpretation. In addition to documentation of historic resources, UCSF shall prepare a coordinated interpretive plan that accurately depicts the historic significance of UC Hall to the general public. Preservation. The Depression-era murals in UC Hall s Toland Hall shall be removed from UC Hall and conserved at an appropriate facility. (Identified by this EIR for the LRDP Phase). of Mitigation Measure CUL would reduce the impact associated with demolition of UC Hall, but not to a less-than-significant level and therefore this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section II.F of these Findings. d) Cumulative Impact CUL 4.3-4: Implementation of the LRDP amendment could result in the demolition of one historic resource that could combine with other impacts to historic resources, resulting in cumulative impacts to cultural resources. of the Project would not result in impacts to cultural resources that are cumulatively considerable; therefore no mitigation is required. 4. Geology and Soils a) Impact GEO 4.4-1: Demolition, excavation and construction activities for new hospital facilities at Mission Bay and Parnassus Heights could increase soil erosion and sedimentation by wind or water. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that demolition, excavation and construction activities for the Project could increase soil erosion and

14 Page 14 sedimentation by wind or water, but this impact would be less than significant; therefore no mitigation is required. b) Impact GEO 4.4-2: In the event of a major earthquake in the region, seismic ground shaking could potentially injure people and cause collapse or structural damage to new hospital structures at Mission Bay and Parnassus Heights. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that compliance with policies included in the LRDP would ensure that seismic ground shaking would not injure people or cause collapse or structural damage to new hospital structures; therefore no mitigation is required. c) Impact GEO 4.4-3: New buildings would be constructed to meet current seismic codes and would reduce seismic hazards for persons working at or visiting those buildings at all campus sites. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that new buildings would be constructed to meet current seismic codes and would reduce seismic hazards for persons working at or visiting those buildings at all campus sites; this would be a beneficial impact and no mitigation is required. d) Impact GEO 4.4-4: In the event of a major earthquake in the region, seismic ground shaking could expose people and property to liquefaction and earthquake-induced settlement at Mission Bay. (Mission Bay North and South scenarios) Mitigation Measure GEO 4.4-4: A site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation shall be completed based on the proposed project design and shall provide engineering recommendations for mitigation of liquefiable soils, in accordance with the California Geological Survey s Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards (CGS Special Publication 117, 1997). These geotechnical recommendations shall be incorporated into the final design of the project. (Identified by this EIR for the LRDP Phase) of Mitigation Measure GEO would ensure that seismic ground shaking would not expose people or property to liquefaction and earthquake-induced settlement at Mission Bay; therefore no mitigation is required. e) Impact GEO 4.4-5: In the event of a tsunami, the Mission Bay site could become temporarily inundated. (Mission Bay North and South scenarios) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the potential for the Mission Bay site to become temporarily inundated in the event of a tsunami would be a less-than-significant impact; therefore no mitigation is required.

15 Page 15 f) Impact GEO 4.4-6: Closing of inpatient units at Moffitt Hospital by 2030 and construction of new hospital facilities would reduce seismic hazards for persons working at or visiting those sites. (Parnassus Heights East and West scenarios) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the closing of inpatient units at Moffitt Hospital by 2030 and construction of new hospital facilities would reduce seismic hazards for persons working at or visiting those sites; this would be a beneficial impact and no mitigation is required. g) Impact GEO 4.4-7: Violent seismically induced ground shaking during a major earthquake could lead to potential ground failure (landsliding) at Parnassus Heights. Such landsliding could endanger staff and visitors and damage buildings and infrastructure. (Parnassus Heights East and West scenarios) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that compliance with policies included in the LRDP would ensure that the potential landsliding at Parnassus Heights would not endanger staff and visitors and damage buildings and infrastructure; therefore no mitigation is required. h) Impact GEO 4.4-8: New hospital buildings and infrastructure located on loose soil or fill would be subject to landsliding, if the soils became saturated by groundwater or runoff or during a seismic event. (Parnassus Heights East and West scenarios) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that compliance with policies included in the LRDP would ensure that the potential for landsliding at Parnassus Heights, if the soils became saturated by groundwater or runoff or during a seismic event, would be less than significant; therefore no mitigation is required. i) Cumulative Impact GEO 4.4-9: The development proposed as part of the project, when combined with other foreseeable development in the vicinity, could result in cumulative impacts with respect to exposing additional people to geologic and seismic hazards. FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable development in the vicinity, would not result in a significant cumulative geology or soil impact; therefore no mitigation is required. 5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Impact HAZ 4.5-1: Demolition or renovation of existing structures that contain hazardous building materials, such as lead-based paint, asbestos, and PCBs could expose workers to those hazardous materials and would generate hazardous waste. (All scenarios and sites)

16 Page 16 FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the potential for demolition and renovation of existing structures to expose workers to hazardous materials and to generate hazardous waste would be a less-than-significant impact; therefore no mitigation is required. b) Impact HAZ 4.5-2: Construction of the new hospital facilities would include the use of hazardous materials which could pose health or safety risks for workers and the surrounding community. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the health and safety risks for workers in the surrounding community resulting from construction of hospital facilities would be a less-than-significant impact; therefore no mitigation is required. c) Impact HAZ 4.5-3: Operation of the new hospital facilities would result in the transportation, use, and storage of hazardous chemicals, radioactive materials, biohazardous materials, and wastes which could present health or safety risks for patients, proposed project occupants and the community. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that potential health and safety risks for patients, Project occupants and the community resulting from the operation of new hospitals would be a less-than-significant impact; therefore no mitigation is required. d) Impact HAZ 4.5-4: Operation of the new hospital facilities would generate hazardous waste that could place an additional load on hazardous waste management facilities. (All scenarios and sites) Mitigation Measure HAZ 4.5-4: UCSF shall implement hazardous waste handling, minimization, and disposal procedures at any chosen site for hospital replacement consistent with safety requirements and applicable laws and regulations. UCSF shall extend its existing hazardous waste minimization plan to include any chosen site for hospital replacement. UCSF shall implement the operational controls required to comply with laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, monthly safety and compliance audits and training of staff at any chosen site for hospital replacement. This would 1) allow efficient processing of wastes for shipment to treatment facilities or disposal, reducing the time that hazardous wastes are at a chosen hospital replacement site, and 2) ensure that safety controls such as OSHA training, correct practices and safety equipment are in place.

17 Page 17 UCSF shall implement procedures to minimize increases in the long-lived radioactive waste generation. According to the California Department of Health Services Radiologic Health Branch, California, radiologic licenses should: 1) minimize the amount of low-level radioactive waste in possession and avoid accumulating waste that cannot be disposed promptly; 2) segregate for disposing radioactive wastes that are not subject to Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact regulations; 3) segregate waste that can be disposed of or reduced in volume by approved treatment methods; 4) segregate short-lived radioactive waste for decay; 5) consider recycling radioactive materials; 6) consider extended on-site storage of any remaining low-level radioactive waste; and 7) consider non-radioactive substitutes. (Modified Measure from LRDP FEIR Mitigation Measure 12F1-3) of Mitigation Measure HAZ would ensure that operation of new hospital facilities would not generate hazardous waste that would place an additional load on hazardous waste management facilities, and thus this impact would be less than significant. e) Impact HAZ 4.5-5: Demolition and construction activities could expose construction workers, the public, the environment, and future employees and patients to hazards associated with soil and groundwater contamination. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that potential exposure of constructions workers, the public, the environment and future employees and patients to hazards associated with soil and groundwater contamination would be a lessthan-significant impact; therefore no mitigation is required. f) Impact HAZ 4.5-6: Soil and groundwater contamination at the Mission Bay North and South sites could expose construction workers, the public, and the environment to hazards associated with soil and groundwater contamination. (Mission Bay North and South scenarios) Mitigation Measure HAZ 4.5-6: UCSF shall develop a RMP for Parcel X-3 if it is acquired or extend the 1999 RMP to Parcel X-3, if feasible.

18 Page 18 of Mitigation Measure HAZ would ensure that construction workers, the public and the environment would not be exposed to hazards associated with soil and groundwater contamination, and thus this impact would be less than significant. g) Impact HAZ 4.5-7: The operation of a 250-, 400-, or 650-bed hospital at Mission Bay could include the construction and operation of a helipad. Helicopter flight traffic could present physical safety risks for hospital employees, patients, visitors, and the surrounding community. (Mission Bay North and South scenarios) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that potential physical safety risks for hospital employees, patients, visitors and the surrounding community resulting from helicopter flight traffic would be a less-than-significant impact; therefore no mitigation is required. h) Cumulative Impact HAZ 4.5-8: The cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts from project construction and operation at one or more campus sites as part of the project, when combined with other foreseeable development in the vicinity of the campus sites by the end of the LRDP Phase or the Future Phase, could be cumulatively considerable. FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the Project s contribution to hazards or hazardous materials impacts would not be cumulatively considerable; therefore no mitigation is required. 6. Hydrology and Water Quality a) Impact HYD 4.6-1: Demolition of hospitals or other buildings and construction of new hospital buildings in either the LRDP or Future Phases could result in soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation of stormwater runoff or an increase in stormwater pollutants associated with construction-related hazardous materials or contamination from dewatering activities. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that the potential for soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation of stormwater runoff, or an increase in stormwater pollutants associated with construction-related hazardous materials or contamination from dewatering activities resulting from demolition and construction activities would be a less-than-significant impact; therefore no mitigation is required. b) Impact HYD 4.6-2: Operation of hospital facilities in either the LRDP or Future Phases could adversely affect regional stormwater quality by increasing pollutant or sediment concentrations in stormwater runoff following the completion of construction activities. (All scenarios and sites) FINDING: For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, The Regents finds that potential adverse effects on regional stormwater quality from increased pollutant or sediment

19 Page 19 concentrations in stormwater runoff from operation of hospital facilities would be a lessthan-significant impact; therefore no mitigation is required. c) Impact HYD 4.6-3: Construction of new hospital buildings at the Mission Bay North or South sites by the LRDP Phase or Future Phases could result in hydrology and water quality impacts at Mission Bay. (Mission Bay North and South scenarios) Mitigation Measure HYD 4.6-3: UCSF shall adopt Mitigation Measures K.2, K.3 and K.4 of the Mission Bay Subsequent EIR as follows: K2. Participate in the City s existing Water Pollution Prevention Program. Facilitate implementation of the City s Water Pollution Prevention Program by providing and installing wastewater sampling ports in any building anticipated to have a potentially significant discharge of pollutants to the sanitary sewer, as determined by the Water Pollution Prevention Program of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission s Bureau of Environmental Regulation and Management, and in locations as determined by the Water Pollution Prevention Program. This mitigation measure could be implemented by including the Water Pollution Prevention Program in the review process, as each individual construction is proposed. The Water Pollution Prevention Program would review each project, determine if one or more sampling ports should be installed in a particular building, and specify the location of the sampling port(s). K3. Design and construct sewer improvements such that potential flows to the City s combined sewer system from the project do not contribute to an increase in the annual overflow volume as projected by the Bayside Planning Model by providing increased storage in oversized pipes, centralized storage facilities, smaller dispersed storage facilities, or detention basins, or through other means to reduce or delay stormwater discharges to the City system. K4. Implement alternative technologies or use other means to reduce settleable solids and floatable materials in stormwater discharges to China Basin Channel to levels equivalent to, or better than, City-treated combined sewer overflows. Such alternatives technologies could include one or more of the following: biofilter system, vortex sediment system, catch basin filters, and/or additional source control measures to remove particulates from streets and parking lots. (Identified by this EIR for the LRDP and Future Phase) of Mitigation Measure HYD would ensure that construction of new hospital buildings at the Mission Bay North or South sites would not create significant hydrology and water quality impacts, and thus this impact would be less than significant. d) Cumulative Impact HYD 4.6-4: The proposed hospital developments at the Mission Bay or Parnassus Heights sites under the Hospital Replacement Program, when combined with