CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This chapter is an executive summary of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the implementation of the University of California San Diego (UCSD) 2004 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Three specific projects proposed for implementation on the UCSD campus are also analyzed in this EIR: the Rady School of Management, the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) Expansion, and the Hopkins Parking Structure projects. The project level analyses for these projects are provided in Volume III of this EIR and executive summaries are provided for each project within their respective sections. Comments on the Draft EIR, consisting of Volumes I through III, are provided in Volume IV of this Final EIR. Volume IV also includes responses to those comments, a summary of revisions to the Draft EIR, and Monitoring Programs for the 2004 LRDP and the three separate projects. This chapter highlights the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the proposed 2004 LRDP, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section It also provides a brief description of the 2004 LRDP, project objectives, alternatives to the 2004 LRDP, and areas of controversy known to the University of California. In addition, this chapter provides tables summarizing: (1) the potential environmental impacts that would occur as the result of implementation of the 2004 LRDP; (2) the level of impact significance before mitigation; (3) the recommended mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts; and (4) the level of impact significance after mitigation measures are implemented. A table is also provided which compares the anticipated impacts of the 2004 LRDP with those of each project alternative. 2.1 OVERVIEW As required by CEQA, this EIR (1) assesses the potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of UCSD s proposed 2004 LRDP; (2) identifies potential feasible means of avoiding or substantially lessening significant adverse impacts; and (3) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed 2004 LRDP, including the required No Project Alternative. The Board of Regents of the University of California is the lead agency for the project evaluated in this EIR and as such has the principal responsibility for approving the proposed 2004 LRDP. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, this EIR is a Program EIR that evaluates the effects of the entire 2004 LRDP at a program level. This EIR will be used by The Regents of the University of California to evaluate the environmental implications of adopting the 2004 LRDP. Once certified, this EIR would also be used to tier subsequent environmental analyses for future UCSD development projects. September

2 2.0 Executive Summary 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The UCSD LRDP is a general land use plan to guide the physical development of the campus based on UCSD s academic, administrative, and support programs; projected student enrollment; campus population growth; and the anticipated space program and land uses. The Regents adopted the 1989 LRDP for UCSD as a guide for physical development and campus population growth through The 1989 LRDP projected an enrollment of approximately 26,050 students, and a need for approximately 15.9 million gross square feet (gsf) of development by the academic year. As of the academic year, the actual UCSD headcount enrollment was 23,000, which is approximately 3,050 students less than the 1989 LRDP projected estimate. Of the 15.9 million gsf originally projected and evaluated under the 1989 LRDP, approximately 10.1 million gsf have been developed as of academic year , resulting in a residual of approximately 5.8 million gsf. Although current enrollment and development have not yet reached the 1989 LRDP estimated projections, in accordance with the California Master Plan for Higher Education, which guarantees access to the University of California (UC) for the top 12.5 percent of California s public high school graduates and community college transfer students, the UCSD campus is anticipating increases in enrollment over the next decade. These projected increases in enrollment are based on the underlying demographic needs and, in the case of UCSD, are expected to result in demands that would exceed the growth levels analyzed in the 1989 LRDP EIR. Therefore, UCSD has prepared a new LRDP (the proposed 2004 LRDP) to plan for growth through academic year The proposed 2004 LRDP identifies institutional and development objectives, delineates campus land uses, and estimates the building capacity to support program expansion. The 2004 LRDP projects accommodating a regular academic year (i.e., the fall, winter, and spring quarters) headcount enrollment of 29,900 by the year The 2004 LRDP also projects accommodating a regular academic year total campus population (faculty, researchers, students, and staff) of 49,700 (instead of the 42,950 in the 1989 LRDP) and total development of 19,159,000 gsf throughout the campus by To ensure a framework for cohesive growth that addresses both functional and aesthetic objectives, the 2004 LRDP sets forth land use designations, as well as revised population, square footage, parking, and transportation parameters. Like the 1989 LRDP, the 2004 LRDP describes a physical vision of the long-term development of the campus. Under the proposed 2004 LRDP, the west campus would be more intensively developed with academic, housing, mixed use, sports and recreation, and general services uses. The east campus would be developed with medical, academic/science research park, academic/community-oriented, housing, and sports and recreation land uses. SIO would be mostly developed with academic, academic/ community-oriented, and housing uses. In addition, the majority of UCSD Park areas on the entire campus would not be developed under the 2004 LRDP. 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The fundamental project objectives for the 2004 LRDP are to: Provide a plan that will enable UCSD to grow in a manner that is consistent with the University of California s mission and commitment to excellence in teaching, research, and public service. Respond to projected demand for enrollment in the University of California by providing the capability to expand academic and non-academic programs to accommodate additional students, faculty, and staff at UCSD. Continue to maintain an appropriate ratio of faculty to students by accommodating faculty growth proportionate with anticipated enrollment increases. September

3 2.0 Executive Summary Improve the ratio of graduate students to undergraduate students by accommodating graduate student enrollment increases appropriate to meet the academic objectives of the campus. Continue to provide services such as student housing, parking, transportation, recreation, childcare, appropriate retail operations, and administrative support, necessary to support the auxiliary program objectives of the campus. Minimize impacts to environmental resources and preserve and enhance environmental resources when practicable. Maintain, expand, and support existing and future scientific and research opportunities and patient care services. Maintain academic excellence and serve as resource to the surrounding community, city, state, and nation. 2.4 IMPACT SUMMARY This EIR contain a discussion of the potential environmental effects from implementation of the proposed 2004 LRDP, including information related to existing site conditions, analyses of the type and magnitude of individual and cumulative environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts. In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the potential environmental effects of the proposed 2004 LRDP are analyzed for the following environmental issue areas: Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Air Quality Noise Biological Resource Population and Housing Cultural Resources Public Services Geology and Soils Recreation Hazards and Hazardous Materials Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Hydrology and Water Quality Utilities and Service Systems Tables 2-1 and 2-2, presented at the end of this section, provides a summary of the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the 2004 LRDP and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts. For each impact, Tables 2-1 and 2-2 identify the significance of the impact before mitigation, applicable mitigation measures, and the level of significance of the impact after the implementation of the mitigation measures. 2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE 2004 LRDP The following alternatives were analyzed in detail in the EIR and compared to the proposed 2004 LRDP. The objective of the alternatives analysis is to consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to foster informed decision-making and public participation. The LRDP alternatives include: Alternative 1: No Project. Under this alternative, the 1989 LRDP would remain as the applicable planning document for UCSD and, therefore, the No Project Alternative assumes that development on the campus could occur, but it would be in accordance with the 1989 LRDP. Alternative 2: No Campus Growth. Under this alternative, the UCSD campus would not substantially increase its population or gross square footage; therefore, no major new development projects would occur on campus. Because growth could not occur on campus, in order for UCSD to grow it could choose September

4 2.0 Executive Summary to develop off site or relocate programs to off-site locations. However, this off-campus growth was not considered as part of this alternative because it was too speculative. Alternative 3: Constrained Development. This alternative would attempt to achieve the same population and development gross square footage allocation as the 2004 LRDP, but would not allow the development to occur in any areas within scenic viewsheds or corridors, where sensitive biological resources have been identified, where sensitive cultural resources have been identified, or where hazardous materials contamination is know to or has potential to occur. This would reduce developable acreage by approximately 40 acres in varying locations for biological resources. In addition, two sites in the upper SIO area could not be developed due to cultural resources and redevelopment of SIO and University Center would be constrained. Alternative 4: Increased Campus Housing. Under this alternative, the goal for on-campus student housing would be increased from 50 percent to the total student population to 100 percent of the new student population, and housing could also be provided for some faculty and staff. The focus of this alternative would be to reduce traffic impacts. Detailed descriptions and an analysis of potential impacts of each alternative are presented in Chapter 6, Alternatives (in Volume I of this EIR). Table 2-3 presents a comparison of the environmental impacts of these alternatives to the potentially significant impacts that are expected to result from the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative would be the No Campus Growth Alternative which would avoid all environmental impacts associated with implementation of the 2004 LRDP but would also not achieve any of the project objectives. Excluding the No Project and No Campus Growth Alternatives, the Constrained Development Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce or avoid many of the environmental impacts resulting from campus development under the proposed 2004 LRDP. Specifically, the Constrained Development Alternative would reduce impacts associated with Aesthetics, Biological and Cultural Resources to below a level of significance. Impacts to Hazardous Materials and Hydrology and Water Quality would also be reduced, but not to below a level of significance. Impacts would remain similar to those identified for the proposed project for the issues of Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation, Traffic and Parking. In addition, all of the project objectives would be at least partially met as a result of implementation of the Constrained Development Alternative. 2.6 ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC This EIR addresses issues associated with the proposed project that are known to the lead agency or were raised by agencies or interested parties during the NOP public and agency review period, public scoping meetings, or during the Draft EIR public and agency review period. These issues are potential areas of known controversy and include: Visual and noise impacts from air traffic from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; Potential for hazardous wastes/substances to be located in the project area including asbestos-containing materials and soil/groundwater contamination; Availability of alternative modes of transportation including light rail transit, linkages to the Coaster, Super-loop flex-trolley system, bus transit improvements, bicycle-riding, and transit incentives; Campus population growth impacts to elementary and secondary schools in the area; Management and control of pollution from storm water runoff; September

5 2.0 Executive Summary Conservation of habitat, primarily Diegan coastal sage scrub; Impacts to UCSD Park areas, especially Eucalyptus Grove areas; UCSD student/staff parking on adjacent residential streets; Adequacy and cost of on-campus parking; Pedestrian safety, especially at the Torrey Pines Road and La Jolla Village Drive crossing; Public involvement in the planning process; Traffic, noise, air quality, and safety issues associated with campus development; Adequacy of the LRDP land use plan map; University compliance with City zoning regulations; Preservation of ocean vistas; On-campus UCSD buildings constructed adjacent to existing residential land uses; UCSD expansion into residential neighborhoods adjacent to the campus; Impacts to adjacent neighborhoods and businesses as a result of campus growth; Type of development to occur on the gliderport property and impacts to gliderport facility; Effects to off-campus traffic, especially on adjacent streets and in adjacent neighborhoods; Adequacy of on-campus student housing; Shared use of campus facilities by members of the community; Implementation of on-line courses and wireless infrastructure to reduce impacts associated with transportation, traffic, parking, population, and housing; Parking, noise, trash, air quality, and other impacts associated with the UCSD shuttle buses; Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1989 LRDP EIR; Scope of the traffic impact analysis; and Adequacy, feasibility, and implementation of mitigation measures for traffic impacts. Appendix A of this EIR includes comments received on the NOP and at the scoping meetings. Volume IV of the Final EIR contains comments received on the Draft EIR during the review period. September

6 2.0 Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank. September

7 Table 2-1. Environmental Impacts and Measures* Aesthetics Scenic Vistas and Visual Character and Quality Lighting and Glare 4.2 Air Quality Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan Consistency with Air Quality Standards Sensitive Receptors Objectionable Odors 4.3 Biological Resources Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Plant Species Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Animal Species Impact Implementation of the 2004 LRDP may potentially have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would have the potential to create new sources of substantial light or glare on campus or in the immediate vicinity, which could adversely affect day and nighttime views in this area. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would have potential to expose sensitive receptors to minimal increases in both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic pollutant concentrations. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is not likely to produce objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could have potential direct impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special status species with potential to occur on campus. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could have direct and indirect impacts on the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell s vireo, and other sensitive animal species, as well as raptor nests. S = Significant; = Less than Significant; = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable * Cumulative impacts and mitigation measure are summarized in Table 2-2. Before Measure(s) Review of design elements by UCSD Design Review Board (Aes-1A); and preserving and enhancing views with design features (Aes-1B). Nonreflective exteriors and glass (Aes-2A); direction and shielding of outdoor lighting (Aes-2B); orientation or shielding of vehicle headlights (Aes-2C). After Survey sites with appropriate habitat type for sensitive plant species if proposed for development and if no rare plant survey has been undertaken in the preceeding 5 years (Bio-1A); mitigation for indirect impacts (Bio-3E); water quality mitigation in Section 4.7; and air quality mitigation for fugitive dust in Section 4.2. Surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell s vireo, construction noise attenuation, and agency consultation (Bio-2A, -2B and -2C); and raptor nest surveys and avoidance (Bio-2D). SU

8 Biological Resources (continued) Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities Wetlands Local Applicable Policies Protecting Biological Resources 4.4 Cultural Resources Historical Resources Archaeological Resources Human Remains Paleontological Resources Impact Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could have direct and indirect impacts the following potentially sensitive natural communities: southern willow scrub, wetland, southern maritime chaparral, native grassland, southern coastal bluff scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, chaparral/eucalyptus woodland ecotone, and non-native grassland. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could have adverse direct and indirect impacts to federal jurisdictional wetlands. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is unlikely to result in conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in disturbance to significant or potentially significant historic resources associated with Camp Matthews; the Old Scripps Building, Director s House, Wood-frame Cottages, Ritter Hall, and other potentially historic SIO buildings; potentially historic UCSD buildings; and the Torrey Pines Gliderport. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in impacts to recorded archaeological resources and unrecorded subsurface archaeological resources resulting from land disturbance associated with project development under the 2004 LRDP. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in disturbance of human remains at sites CA-SDI-525/SDM-W-9E and CA-SDI /SDM-W-3683/UCLJ-M-7 and of potential human remains in unrecorded subsurface sites. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would not likely impact significant paleontological resources during construction activities. Table 2-1. (continued) S = Significant; = Less than Significant; = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable Before Measure(s) Survey sites (Bio-1A); avoidance and minimization during project design (Bio-3A); compensatory mitigation for impacted upland and wetland communities (Bio-3B and -3C); measures to reduce indirect construction impacts related to water quality, fugitive dust, and errant impacts (Bio-3D); measures to reduce indirect impacts following construction related to water quality, increased human activity, and lights (Bio-3E). Wetland delineation (Bio-4A); compensatory mitigation and reduction of indirect impacts (Bio-3B through -3E); and conformance with and receipt of all applicable permits. After Identification of resources in Area of Potential Effect (Cul-1A); evaluation of significance (Cul-1B); avoidance (Cul-1C); documentation and treatment (Cul-1D); location of CA-SDI (Cul-1E); testing for subsurface deposits at site CA-SDI- 8472A (Cul-1F); and coordinate with SHPO regarding Gliderport development (Cul-1G). Identification of resources in Area of Potential Effect and evaluation of significance (Cul-2A); avoidance (Cul-2B); documentation and treatment (Cul-2C); monitoring for unrecorded subsurface resources (Cul-2D) and monitoring procedures (Cul-2E). Identification of resources in Area of Potential Effect and evaluation of significance (Cul-2A); avoidance (Cul-2B); documentation and treatment (Cul-2C); and monitoring for unrecorded subsurface resources (Cul-2D and Cul-2E).

9 Geology and Soils Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss Soil Stability Expansive Soils 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials Accidental Releases Hazards to Nearby Schools Listed Hazardous Materials Sites Hazards from Nearby Airports Emergency Response And Evacuation Plans Impact The UCSD campus contains seismic hazards but compliance with the California Building Code and UC Seismic Policy would reduce seismic related hazards to people and structures. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in minimal amounts of increased erosion associated with construction activities. Loose or compressible soils may be found on campus; however, implementation of the 2004 LRDP is unlikely to expose people or structures to hazards associated with soil stability issues. Expansive soils may be found on campus; however, they are unlikely to pose a substantial hazard associated with implementation of the 2004 LRDP. The 2004 LRDP would result in increased transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that could pose a hazard to the public and environment but these activities are comprehensively managed by UCSD pursuant to state and federal law. The 2004 LRDP could result in increased transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; however, safeguards mandated by law would minimize impacts. Hazardous materials and waste would be handled within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school; however, the materials are not anticipated to occur in quantities significant enough to pose a risk to occupants of the school or the campus community. Closed and active hazardous material sites are located on campus that could pose a risk to construction workers and occupants. A historic burn ash site and storage tanks associated with Camp Matthews are recorded on the campus and could result in hazards. There is also the potential for unrecorded contamination to occur. Activities from MCAS Miramar and the Torrey Pines Gliderport pose minimal safety hazards to development on the campus LRDP construction-related road closures or detours could require alternate emergency response or evacuation routes on campus. Table 2-1. (continued) S = Significant; = Less than Significant; = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable Before Measure(s) After Assessment of the risk if the site is known for present or past contamination and remediation if risk exists (Haz-4A and -4B) and stoppage of construction activities if contamination is encountered and implementation of remedial activities (Haz-4C). Notification of emergency response providers (Haz-6A).

10 2-10 Impact 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (continued) Wildland Fires 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Site Drainage and Hydrology Water Quality Seiches, Tsunamis, and Mudflows 4.8 Land Use and Planning Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations Incompatibilities with Adjacent Land Uses 4.9 Noise Exposure to Permanent Ambient Noise Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise Exposure to Aircraft Noise Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Portions of the campus contain canyons with natural vegetation, which have minimal potential for large-scale wildland fires. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would have the potential to substantially alter drainages and hydrology which could increase runoff volumes resulting in flooding, exceedence of the existing storm water drainage system, and erosion. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would have the potential to generate pollutants during construction and post construction activities that could impact downstream water quality if not properly controlled. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could expose people or structures to tsunami, because of its coastal location, or mudflows, due to on-campus topography. However, exposure to both hazards is unlikely to be substantial. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is unlikely to result in inconsistencies with applicable land use plans, policies or regulation. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in minor incompatibilities between campus development and adjacent community land uses. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would increase traffic, construct new sensitive receptors, and result in new stationary noise sources which could substantially increase ambient noise levels or expose persons to noise in excess of standards. Construction activities associated with development occurring under the 2004 LRDP would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would expose people residing or working in the project area to noise from aircraft. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in increased vibration from construction activities. Table 2-1. (continued) S = Significant; = Less than Significant; = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable Before Measure(s) After Project specific drainage studies including implementation of site design and flow control if necessary (Hyd-1A); and a campus wide study for detention opportunities (Hyd-1B). Preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for construction sites less than one acre (Hyd-2A); and implementation of site design and treatment control design measures to reduce pollutants of concern in runoff (Hyd-2B). Review of design elements by UCSD Design Review Board (Aes-1A); Planning review for edges and connections (Lan-2A). Location of and mitigation for new and modified stationary noise sources (Noi-1A); and location of and monitoring and mitigation for new and modified noise sensitive land uses (Noi-1B). Construction noise mitigation program (Noi-2A). No mitigation is necessary. Construction mitigation program (Noi-4A).

11 Population and Housing Direct Inducement of Substantial Population Growth Indirect Inducement of Substantial Population Growth Displacement of Housing Displacement of People 4.11 Public Services Fire Protection Police Protection Public Schools 4.12 Recreation Deterioration of Parks and Recreational Facilities Construction of New Recreational Facilities Impact Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would result in little direct inducement to substantial population growth. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would result primarily in infill development with little to no indirect inducement of population growth. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in development on campus that displaces existing housing. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in development on and off campus that displaces people Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is not likely to result in increased demand for fire service that would require new facilities that could result in a significant physical impact to the environment. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is not likely to result in increased demand for police service that would require new facilities that could result in a significant physical impact to the environment. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could contribute to demand for local public schools, however, it is unlikely that new or altered school facilities would be necessary. The 2004 LRDP would increase campus population, which could increase use of on- and off- campus recreational facilities. However, substantial deterioration of the facilities is not anticipated. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would include construction and expansion of recreational facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Increases in Traffic Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial and which would also exceed level of service standards. Table 2-1. (continued) S = Significant; = Less than Significant; = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable Before Measure(s) After Applicable mitigation measures in other sections of this EIR. Traffic studies for parking structures (Tra-1A); traffic control plans for lane closures (Tra-1B); continued alternative transportation programs (Tra-1C); widening of roadway segments (Tra-1D through Tra-1F); and intersection improvements (Tra-1G through Tra-1L). SU

12 2-12 Impact 4.13 Transportation, Traffic, and Parking (continued) Parking Capacity Alternative Transportation Plans, Policies, and Programs 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Treatment New Water or Wastewater Facilities Impacts from New Storm Water Facilities Water Supply Availability Landfill Capacity Applicable Solid Waste Regulations Energy Consumption Telecommunication Facilities Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in increases to offcampus parking but is not likely to result in inadequate on-campus parking capacity. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is not likely to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could affect wastewater treatment by the City through increasing wastewater flows or altering wastewater quality. However, UCSD will comply with City of San Diego Industrial User Discharge permit requirements, which will avoid this impact. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would create additional demand for water and wastewater infrastructure, which would likely require development of some new facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would create additional runoff which would likely require development of new storm water facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would result in additional water demand, which could be accommodated by existing and projected entitlements. For development under the 2004 LRDP, solid waste disposal needs would be served by adequate existing and planned future landfill capacity in the County of San Diego. Development under the 2004 LRDP would not result in UCSD s failure to comply with relevant regulations regarding solid waste. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would create additional demand for energy which would likely require the development of new facilities, but would not result in the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary use of energy. Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would increase the need for wireless service and reliable networks to service the campus. Table 2-1. (continued) S = Significant; = Less than Significant; = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable Before Measure(s) Provision of adequate parking supply (Tra-2A). After Applicable mitigation measures in other sections of this EIR. Applicable mitigation measures in other resource section of this EIR. Applicable mitigation measures in other resource section of this EIR. Applicable mitigation measures in other resource section of this EIR

13 Table 2-2. Cumulative Impacts and Measures Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis of Cumulative Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Measures 2004 LRDP Considering 4.1 Aesthetics Degradation of views to scenic coastal areas Immediate vicinity of view corridor or viewshed. Potentially significant. Cumulatively considerable. measures Aes-1A and Aes-1B. Cumulatively considerable and potentially unavoidable. Regional light pollution on astronomical viewing activities. San Diego region. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. 4.2 Air Quality 2-13 Consistency with applicable air quality plan. Consistency with air quality standards. Sensitive receptors. Objectionable odors. 4.3 Biological Resources Regional loss of sensitive plants, animals, and vegetation communities. San Diego region airshed. San Diego region airshed. Significant. Cumulatively considerable. measures Air-CA and Air-CB, and other applicable measures. UCSD and surrounding vicinity. UCSD and surrounding vicinity. Varies depending on species or habitat. Geographic scope can be the entire area that the species or habitat is known to occur or the San Diego region. Cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. 4.4 Cultural Resources Regional loss of archeological resources. Varies depending on type of resource with potential to be impacted. Geographic scope can be the entire area that the resource has potential to occur. Potentially significant. Cumulatively considerable. measure Cul-2C and Cul-2E. Potentially unavoidable if human remains are impacted.

14 Cultural Resources (continued) Regional loss of historical resources. Regional loss of paleontological resources. 4.5 Geology and Soils Regional exposure of persons to the hazards of seismic ground shaking. Regional exposure of persons to other seismic related or geotechnical hazards. Erosion or loss of topsoil in affected watersheds due to development. 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Regional use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis Varies depending on type of resource with potential to be impacted. Geographic scope can be the entire area that the resource has potential to occur. Varies depending on type of resource with potential to be impacted. Geographic scope can be the entire area that the resource has potential to occur. Table 2-2. (continued) of Cumulative Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Measures San Diego region. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. San Diego region. Drainage basin or watershed. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Immediately surrounding area to San Diego region LRDP Considering Regional exposure of people to contaminated sites. Immediately surrounding area to San Diego region. Exposure of people and structures to wildland fires. Immediately surrounding area to San Diego region. Significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

15 Table 2-2. (continued) Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis of Cumulative Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Measures 2004 LRDP Considering 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Increases in storm water runoff within the watershed would contribute to downstream erosion problems. Drainage basin or watershed. Potentially significant. Cumulatively considerable. measure Hyd-1A. Not cumulatively considerable. Development within watershed increases pollutant sources that could adversely affect receiving waters. Drainage basin or watershed. Potentially significant. Cumulatively considerable. measures Hyd-2A and Hyd-2B. Not cumulatively considerable Land Use and Planning Inconsistencies with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. Incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. 4.9 Noise Consistency with Applicable Standards Transportation Noise Stationary Noise Adjacent communities and applicable land use planning areas. Adjacent communities and applicable land use planning areas. UCSD, adjacent communities, and affected roadways. UCSD, adjacent communities, and affected roadways. UCSD, adjacent communities, and affected roadways. Potentially significant. Cumulatively considerable. measures Aes-1A and Lan-3A. Not cumulatively considerable. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Construction Noise UCSD, adjacent communities, and affected roadways. Aircraft Noise. UCSD, adjacent communities, and affected roadways. Generation of Groundborne Vibration UCSD, adjacent communities, and affected roadways.

16 Population and Housing Incremental increase to the regional housing demand Public Services Increased need for fire protection services may require new facilities potentially resulting in adverse physical impacts. Increased need for police protection services may require new facilities potentially resulting in adverse physical impacts. There may be an increased need for new public schools, however planned facilities improvements have been and will continue to be undertaken Recreation Deterioration of Parks and Recreational Facilities Construction of New Recreational Facilities 4.13 Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Regional decreases in traffic level of service. Inadequate parking capacity in surrounding vicinity. Regional conflicts with alternative transportation plans and policies. Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis Table 2-2. (continued) of Cumulative Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Measures San Diego region. Significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Extent of area served by public services affected; therefore, the City of San Diego. Extent of area served by public services affected; therefore, the City of San Diego. Extent of area served by public services affected; therefore, the City of San Diego. UCSD and surrounding vicinity. UCSD and surrounding vicinity. UCSD, surrounding communities, and affected roadways. UCSD, surrounding communities, and affected roadways. UCSD, surrounding communities, and affected roadways. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Potentially significant Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Significant. Cumulatively considerable. measures Tra-1C through Tra-1L LRDP Considering Cumulatively considerable and unavoidable due to infeasibility of mitigation.

17 Table 2-2. (continued) Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis of Cumulative Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Measures 2004 LRDP Considering 4.14 Utilities and Service Systems Regional development could affect wastewater treatment capabilities. Extent of area served by utility, service system, or energy provider. Regional development could generate a cumulative demand for new water, wastewater or storm water facilities. Extent of area served by utility, service system, or energy provider. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable Regional development could generate cumulative demand beyond water supply availability Regional development could generate cumulative demand beyond available landfill capacity Regional development could generate cumulative demand causing increased energy consumption Regional development could generate a cumulative demand for new telecommunication facilities Extent of area served by utility, service system, or energy provider. Extent of area served by utility, service system, or energy provider. Extent of area served by utility, service system, or energy provider. Extent of area served by utility, service system, or energy provider. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

18 2.0 Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank. September

19 2.0 Executive Summary Table 2-3. Summary of Analysis for Alternatives to the 2004 LRDP 2004 LRDP Alternatives to the 2004 LRDP Areas with Potential for Significant Impacts under the 2004 LRDP or its Alternatives 4.1 Aesthetics Scenic Vistas and Visual Character and Quality SU* Lighting and Glare 4.2 Air Quality Cumulative impacts from PM 10 emissions SU 4.3 Biological Resources Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Plant & Animal Species Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities Wetlands 4.4 Cultural Resources Historical Resources Archeological Resources and Human Remains Cumulative Impacts to Human Remains SU 4.6 Hazardous Materials Listed Hazardous Materials Sites Construction-related Road Closure that Affect Emergency Response 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Site Drainage and Hydrology Water Quality 4.8 Land Use Incompatibilities with Adjacent Land Uses 4.9 Noise Exposure to Permanent Ambient Noise Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise 4.13 Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Increases in On-Campus Traffic Increases in Off-Campus Traffic SU Potential Temporary Decreases in Parking Alternative is likely to result in greater impacts to issue when compared to proposed project Alternative is likely to result in a similar impacts to issue when compared to proposed project Alternative is likely to result in less impacts to issue when compared to proposed project, however, impacts would still be significant before mitigation. Alternative is likely to result in less impacts to issue when compared to proposed project and impacts would likely be less than significant and not require mitigation. * Significant and unavoidable impacts would result in the SIO area of the campus only. In the west and east campus areas impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Potentially significant impact Less than significant impact SU Potentially significant and unavoidable impact Without With No Project No Campus Growth Constrained Development Increased Campus Housing September

20 2.0 Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank. September