CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(1)

September 2004 UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR 2-1

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 Mitigation 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 15123. 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 O

VERVIEW

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.

(2)

2.0 Executive Summary

UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR September 2004 2-2

2.2 P

ROJECT

D

ESCRIPTION

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 2005-06. 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 2005-06 academic year. As of the 2002-03 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 2002-03, 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 2020-21. 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 2020-21. 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 2020-21.

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 P

ROJECT

O

BJECTIVES

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

(3)

•

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 I

MPACT

S

UMMARY

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 A

LTERNATIVES 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

(4)

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 I

SSUES

R

AISED BY THE

P

UBLIC

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;

(5)

•

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.

(6)

(7)

Table 2-1. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures*

Issue Impact Significance

Before

Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)

Significance After Mitigation 4.1 Aesthetics

Scenic Vistas and Visual Character and Quality

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.

PS Review of design elements by UCSD Design Review Board (Aes-1A); and preserving and enhancing views with design features (Aes-1B).

SU

Lighting and Glare 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.

PS Nonreflective exteriors and glass (Aes-2A); direction and shielding of outdoor lighting (Aes-2B); orientation or shielding of vehicle headlights (Aes-2C).

LS

4.2 Air Quality

Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is not anticipated to conflict

with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. LS No mitigation is required. LS Consistency with

Air Quality Standards

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

LS No mitigation is required. LS

Sensitive Receptors Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would have potential to expose sensitive receptors to minimal increases in both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic pollutant concentrations.

Objectionable

Odors Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is not likely to produce objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. LS No mitigation is required. LS

4.3 Biological Resources

Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Plant Species

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could have potential direct impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special status species with potential to occur on campus.

PS 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. LS Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Animal Species

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.

PS 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).

LS

S = Significant; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable * Cumulative impacts and mitigation measure are summarized in Table 2-2.

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(8)

Table 2-1. (continued)

Issue Impact Significance

Before

Significance After Mitigation

4.3 Biological Resources (continued)

Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural

Communities

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.

PS 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).

LS

Wetlands Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could have adverse direct and

indirect impacts to federal jurisdictional wetlands. PS Wetland delineation (Bio-4A); compensatory mitigation and reduction of indirect impacts (Bio-3B through -3E); and conformance with and receipt of all applicable permits.

LS

Local Applicable Policies Protecting Biological Resources

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is unlikely to result in conflicts

with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. LS No mitigation is required. LS

4.4 Cultural Resources

Historical

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.

PS 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 8467 (Cul-1E); testing for subsurface deposits at site CA-SDI-8472A (Cul-1F); and coordinate with SHPO regarding Gliderport development (Cul-1G).

LS

Archaeological

Resources Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in impactsrecorded archaeological resources and unrecorded subsurface to archaeological resources resulting from land disturbance associated with project development under the 2004 LRDP.

PS 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).

LS

Human Remains Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in disturbance of human remains at sites 525/SDM-W-9E and CA-SDI-11075/SDM-W-3683/UCLJ-M-7 and of potential human remains in unrecorded subsurface sites.

PS 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).

LS

Paleontological

Resources Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would not likely impact significant paleontological resources during construction activities. LS No mitigation is required. LS

S = Significant; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(9)

Table 2-1. (continued)

Issue Impact Significance

Before

Significance After Mitigation 4.5 Geology and Soils

Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards

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.

Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in minimal amounts of increased erosion associated with construction activities.

Soil Stability 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 Expansive soils may be found on campus; however, they are unlikely to pose a substantial hazard associated with implementation of the 2004 LRDP.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials

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.

Accidental Releases The 2004 LRDP could result in increased transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; however, safeguards mandated by law would minimize impacts.

Hazards to Nearby

Schools Hazardous materials and waste would be handled within one-quarter 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.

Listed Hazardous

Materials Sites 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.

PS 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).

LS

Hazards from

Nearby Airports Activities from MCAS Miramar and the Torrey Pines Gliderport pose minimal safety hazards to development on the campus. LS No mitigation is required. LS Emergency

Response And Evacuation Plans

2004 LRDP construction-related road closures or detours could require alternate emergency response or evacuation routes on campus.

PS Notification of emergency response providers (Haz-6A). LS

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(10)

Table 2-1. (continued)

Issue Impact Significance

Before

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (continued)

Wildland Fires Portions of the campus contain canyons with natural vegetation, which have minimal potential for large-scale wildland fires.

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

Site Drainage and Hydrology

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.

PS 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).

LS

Water Quality 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.

PS Preparation and implementation ofanerosion 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).

LS

Seiches, Tsunamis,

and Mudflows 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.

4.8 Land Use and Planning

Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is unlikely to result in inconsistencies with applicable land use plans, policies or regulation.

Incompatibilities with Adjacent Land Uses

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in minor incompatibilities between campus development and adjacent community land uses.

PS Review of design elements by UCSD Design Review Board

(Aes-1A); Planning review for edges and connections (Lan-2A). LS

4.9 Noise

Exposure to Permanent Ambient Noise

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.

PS 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).

LS

Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise

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.

PS Construction noise mitigation program

(Noi-2A). LS

Exposure to Aircraft Noise

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would expose people residing or working in the project area to noise from aircraft.

LS No mitigation is necessary. LS Excessive

Groundborne Vibration or Noise

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in increased

vibration from construction activities. PS Construction mitigation program (Noi-4A). LS

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(11)

Table 2-1. (continued)

Issue Impact Significance

Before

Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)

Significance After Mitigation 4.10 Population and Housing

Direct Inducement of Substantial Population Growth

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would result in little direct

inducement to substantial population growth. LS No mitigation is required. LS Indirect Inducement

of Substantial Population Growth

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would result primarily in infill development with little to no indirect inducement of population growth.

Displacement of

Housing Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in development on campus that displaces existing housing. LS No mitigation is required. LS Displacement of

People

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in development on and off campus that displaces people

4.11 Public Services

Fire Protection 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.

Police Protection 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.

Public Schools 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.

LS No mitigation is required. LS 4.12 Recreation Deterioration of Parks and Recreational Facilities

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.

Construction of New Recreational Facilities

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would include construction and expansion of recreational facilities that may have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

PS Applicable mitigation measures in other sections of this EIR. LS

4.13 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.

PS 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

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(12)

Table 2-1. (continued)

Issue Impact Significance

Before

Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)

4.13 Transportation, Traffic, and Parking (continued)

Parking Capacity Implementation of the 2004 LRDP could result in increases to off-campus parking but is not likely to result in inadequate on-off-campus parking capacity.

PS Provision of adequate parking supply

(Tra-2A). LS

Alternative Transportation Plans, Policies, and Programs

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP is not likely to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation.

4.14 Utilities and Service Systems

Wastewater

Treatment 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.

New Water or Wastewater Facilities

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.

PS Applicable mitigation measures in other sections of this EIR. LS

Impacts from New Storm Water Facilities

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.

PS Applicable mitigation measures in other resource section of this EIR.

LS

Water Supply Availability

Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would result in additional water demand, which could be accommodated by existing and projected entitlements.

Landfill Capacity 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.

Applicable Solid

Waste Regulations Development under the 2004 LRDP would not result in UCSD’s failure to comply with relevant regulations regarding solid waste. LS No mitigation is required. LS Energy

Consumption 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.

PS Applicable mitigation measures in other resource section of this

EIR. LS

Telecommunication

Facilities Implementation of the 2004 LRDP would increase the need for wireless service and reliable networks to service the campus. PS Applicable mitigation measures in other resource section of this EIR LS

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(13)

Table 2-2. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Issue Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis Significance of Cumulative

Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Mitigation Measures

2004 LRDP Significance Considering

Mitigation 4.1 Aesthetics

Degradation of views to scenic coastal areas

Immediate vicinity of view corridor or viewshed.

Potentially significant. Cumulatively considerable. Mitigation 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

Consistency with applicable air quality plan.

San Diego region airshed. Less than significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Consistency with air quality

standards.

San Diego region airshed. Significant. Cumulatively considerable. Mitigation measures Air-CA and Air-CB, and other applicable measures.

Cumulatively considerable and unavoidable.

Sensitive receptors. UCSD and surrounding

vicinity. Less than significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Objectionable odors. UCSD and surrounding

vicinity. Less than significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

4.3 Biological Resources

Regional loss of sensitive plants, animals, and vegetation communities.

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.

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. Mitigation measure Cul-2C and Cul-2E.

Potentially unavoidable if human remains are impacted.

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(14)

Table 2-2. (continued)

Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Mitigation Measures

Mitigation

4.4 Cultural Resources (continued)

Regional loss of historical

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.

Less than significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

Regional loss of paleontological 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.

4.5 Geology and Soils

Regional exposure of persons to the hazards of seismic ground shaking.

San Diego region. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

Regional exposure of persons to other seismic related or geotechnical hazards.

San Diego region. Less than significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

Erosion or loss of topsoil in affected watersheds due to development.

Drainage basin or watershed. Potentially significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Regional use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Immediately surrounding area to San Diego region.

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.

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(15)

Table 2-2. (continued)

Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Mitigation Measures

Mitigation 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. Mitigation 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. Mitigation measures

Hyd-2A and Hyd-2B. Not cumulatively considerable.

4.8 Land Use and Planning

Inconsistencies with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations.

Adjacent communities and applicable land use planning areas.

Incompatibilities with adjacent

land uses. Adjacent communities and applicable land use planning areas.

Potentially significant. Cumulatively considerable. Mitigation measures

Aes-1A and Lan-3A. Not cumulatively considerable.

4.9 Noise

Consistency with Applicable Standards

UCSD, adjacent

communities, and affected roadways.

Transportation Noise UCSD, adjacent

Stationary Noise UCSD, adjacent

Construction Noise UCSD, adjacent

Aircraft Noise. UCSD, adjacent

Generation of Groundborne Vibration

UCSD, adjacent

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(16)

Table 2-2. (continued)

Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Mitigation Measures

Mitigation 4.10 Population and Housing

Incremental increase to the regional housing demand.

San Diego region. Significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

4.11 Public Services

Increased need for fire protection services may require new facilities potentially resulting in adverse physical impacts.

Extent of area served by public services affected; therefore, the City of San Diego.

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.

4.12 Recreation

Deterioration of Parks and

Recreational Facilities UCSD and surrounding vicinity. Less than significant. Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Construction of New Recreational

Facilities

UCSD and surrounding vicinity.

Potentially significant Not cumulatively considerable. Not applicable. Not applicable.

4.13 Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Regional decreases in traffic level of service.

UCSD, surrounding communities, and affected roadways.

Significant. Cumulatively considerable. Mitigation measures Tra-1C through Tra-1L.

Cumulatively considerable and unavoidable due to infeasibility of mitigation. Inadequate parking capacity in

surrounding vicinity. UCSD, surrounding communities, and affected roadways.

Regional conflicts with alternative transportation plans and policies.

UCSD, surrounding communities, and affected roadways.

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(17)

Table 2-2. (continued)

Impact 2004 LRDP Contribution Mitigation Measures

Mitigation 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.

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

UCSD 2004 L

ong Range Developm

ent Plan Final EI

R

(18)

(19)

Table 2-3. Summary of Analysis for Alternatives to the 2004 LRDP

2004 LRDP Alternatives to the 2004 LRDP

Issue Areas with Potential for Significant Impacts under the 2004

LRDP or its Alternatives Witho

u t Mit igat ion With M itig a tio n No Projec t No Campus Gro w th

Constrained Development Increased Campus Housing

4.1 Aesthetics

Scenic Vistas and Visual Character and Quality PS SU* ▬ ○ ▼ ▲

Lighting and Glare PS LS ▼ ○ ▬ ▲

4.2 Air Quality

Cumulative impacts from PM10 emissions PS SU ▼ ○ ▼ ▼

4.3 Biological Resources

Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Plant & Animal Species PS LS ▬ ○ ○ ▲ Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities PS LS ▬ ○ ▼ ▲

Wetlands PS LS ▬ ○ ○ ▲

4.4 Cultural Resources

Historical Resources PS LS ▬ ○ ○ ▲

Archeological Resources and Human Remains PS LS ▬ ○ ▼ ▲ Cumulative Impacts to Human Remains PS SU ▬ ○ ○ ▲

4.6 Hazardous Materials

Listed Hazardous Materials Sites PS LS ▬ ○ ▼ ▬ Construction-related Road Closure that Affect Emergency Response PS LS ▬ ○ ▼ ▲

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

Site Drainage and Hydrology PS LS ▬ ○ ▼ ▲

Water Quality PS LS ▼ ○ ▼ ▲

4.8 Land Use

Incompatibilities with Adjacent Land Uses PS LS ▬ ○ ▲ ▲

4.9 Noise

Exposure to Permanent Ambient Noise PS LS ▼ ○ ▬ ▲

Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise PS LS ▼ ○ ▬ ▲

Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise PS LS ▼ ○ ▬ ▲

4.13 Transportation, Traffic, and Parking

Increases in On-Campus Traffic PS LS ▼ ○ ▬ ▬ Increases in Off-Campus Traffic PS SU ▼ ○ ▬ ▼ Potential Temporary Decreases in Parking PS LS ▬ ○ ▲ ▲

▲ 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.

PS Potentially significant impact LS Less than significant impact

(20)