EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section is an executive summary of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Health Sciences Graduate Student Housing project, prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This section highlights the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the proposed project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. It also provides a brief description of the proposed project, project objectives, alternatives to the proposed project, and areas of public interest known to the University of California. In addition, this section provides a table summarizing: (1) the potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of construction of the proposed project; (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 cumulative impacts table is included as well, which summarizes: (1) cumulative environmental impacts; (2) the significance of each cumulative impact; (3) the projects contribution to each impact; (4) recommended mitigation measures; and (5) significance of project impact considering mitigation. A third table that compares the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed project with each project alternative also is provided. Overview As required by CEQA, this EIR: (1) assesses the potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed Health Sciences Graduate Student Housing project; (2) identifies potential feasible means of avoiding or substantially lessening significant adverse impacts; and (3) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including the required No Project Alternative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, this EIR is a Tiered EIR that evaluates the effects of the proposed project as a part of all development previously analyzed under the 2004 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) EIR. This Tiered EIR will be used by The Board of Regents of the University of California (The Regents) to evaluate the environmental implications of developing the proposed project in relation to that already considered under the 2004 LRDP EIR. ES-1
Project Description The proposed Health Sciences Graduate Student Housing project would construct 225, two-bedroom units, one three-bedroom staff apartment unit; administrative offices; vending, laundry and mail services; meeting rooms; a workout room; custodial/maintenance space; a 26-foot wide service and emergency access road; and internal open space on the site. The site is approximately 3.7 acres located within the south-central portion of the UCSD main campus, where the majority of the Health Sciences Graduate Student Housing project site is composed of an existing surface parking lot (P608) and associated roads, located approximately 300 feet northwest of the La Jolla Village Drive/Villa La Jolla Drive intersection. Extending along the eastern site perimeter is the non-motorized pathway that links the campus to the pedestrian bridge over La Jolla Village Drive; the bridge abuts the southeast corner of the site and provides a connection with the off-campus commercial and residential community to the south. Shrub- and tree-covered undeveloped land west and northwest of the parking lot comprises the remainder of the site. The western wing of the residential building would contain nine levels, and rise approximately 85 feet above the finished grade. The eastern wing would contain seven levels and rise approximately 67 feet above finished grade. Residential units would be located on every floor of each wing; nine of the units on the first level would include a patio. The student residential units would contain two bedrooms, one and one-half bathroom, a kitchen, and living room space. Twelve of the 225 two-bedroom student units would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. One three-bedroom staff apartment would be included on the ninth level of the proposed building. The first level of the building would include a 68-space indoor bicycle storage room (to be accessible from both the building s exterior and the elevator lobby), and mechanical, electrical, janitorial and storage spaces (in addition to 15 residential units). The second level would house the building s reception area, administrative offices, mail room and a conference room, while the third level would house two additional small conference rooms off the lobby. A small fitness room, laundry room and meeting room (collectively, the amenity areas ) would be located on the fourth level of the western wing, adjacent to a green terrace off the third level. The conference and meeting rooms would provide centralized study/social spaces for the building s residents. The fifth through ninth levels of the building would house residential units and an occasional mechanical or electrical room. In total, the proposed residential building would encompass a total of approximately 250,000 gsf of building space. ES-2
Proposed site grading would be balanced on site and would involve approximately 7,500 cubic yards (cy) of both cut and fill. In an effort to bring sustainability into the construction and demolition process, a portion of project construction debris would be diverted from local landfills through recycling or appropriate reuse, as appropriate. All project staging areas, including contractor trailers, vehicle parking, erection/dismantle and equipment lay down, would occur within the boundaries of the project site. The proposed project would install connections to many of the existing utilities on campus or in the project area, including potable water, sewer, electrical power, storm drain, telecommunications and fiber optics. Open space on site primarily would be composed of a landscaped open space north and east of the building, with additional perimeter landscaping and trees. Additionally, the third-level terrace on the north end of the western wing would be landscaped and irrigated. A green roof, or terrace, is planned for this wing of the building, midway up the façade, below the interior amenity areas on the fourth level of the building. The proposed project would convert an impervious asphalt parking lot to a student housing site with extensive pervious, sustainable green space, providing both aesthetic and environmental enhancements. Hardscape elements associated with the project design guidelines and proposed site plan include architectural features (e.g., building materials and color schemes), circulation/access system amenities (e.g., pavement and pedestrian paths), and lighting/signage details, as well as site furnishings such as seating and benches, bicycle racks, trash enclosures and planters. Construction of the proposed project would extend over a period of approximately 23 months. All staging and lay-down areas for the proposed project would take place on the project site. An extensive commissioning process in which mechanical systems are tested and adjusted as necessary for maximum efficiency and optimization would be undertaken prior to project completion, to ensure the most sustainable operation of mechanical systems within the proposed project, thereby requiring less energy to operate the facility. The new housing units would be occupied by Summer 2011. ES-3
Project Objectives The fundamental project objectives for the proposed Health Sciences Graduate Student Housing project are to: Develop a 450-bed, quality, affordable on-campus graduate housing complex to increase the amount of on-campus housing opportunities for eligible UCSD graduate students without affecting existing housing supply. Develop graduate student housing and resident amenities in the School of Medicine neighborhood of campus where none currently exists. Advance the housing goals established in the 2004 LRDP, specifically the goal of housing 50 percent of the eligible student population in campus-owned facilities. Reduce traffic congestion within the community surrounding UCSD and promote alternative methods of transportation by providing increased on-campus housing. Incorporate sustainable design principles to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification, or higher, thereby reducing energy consumption and conserving natural resources and minimizing greenhouse gas production. Have an overall pedestrian orientation and augment the University s existing path system by providing good, clear pedestrian and bicycle connections to both on- and off-campus areas through existing campus circulation routes, thereby promoting increased use of alternative methods of transportation and less dependence on single-occupancy automotive transportation. Enhance UCSD s identity with the local community by creating an attractive residential community in the visually prominent location on the slope above La Jolla Village Drive, and taking advantage of existing landscape screening and the views offered from the site while arranging the buildings in a manner that blocks traffic noise generated by the local roads. Promote interaction among residents and other students through the provision of active exterior spaces, including a courtyard that is closed on three sides yet open to the north, making it private yet still open to the campus as a whole. ES-4
Impact Summary In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21068.5, this Tiered EIR focuses on the environmental effects of the proposed project that were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the 2004 UCSD LRDP EIR or that can be mitigated at a project level. Five environmental issue areas, including aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and global climate change, are addressed at an in-depth project level in this Tiered EIR. As described in Section 4.0, Other CEQA Considerations, of this Tiered EIR, mitigation measures identified in the 2004 LRDP EIR for biological resources; and transportation, traffic and parking would be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce impacts associated with these environmental issues to below a level of significance. This Tiered EIR relies on the analysis in the 2004 LRDP EIR for the remaining environmental issue topics, as the potential for impacts to these issue areas were determined to be consistent with analyses conducted in the 2004 LRDP EIR. For this reason, the remaining issue topics are not addressed in detail in this EIR but are presented in Section 4.0, Other CEQA Considerations, of this Tiered EIR. Table ES-1, presented at the end of this section, provides a summary of the environmental impacts that could result from development of the proposed project and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts. For each impact, Table ES-1 identifies the significance of the impact before mitigation, applicable mitigation measures, and the level of significance of the impact after implementation of the mitigation measures. Table ES-2 is a summary of cumulative impacts and mitigation. Table ES-3 provides a summary of the impacts that could result from development of each alternative, compared to the impacts that could result from the proposed project. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Four alternatives to the proposed project have been identified for further analysis in this Tiered EIR: No Project Alternative Reduced Massing Alternative Reduced Project Size Alternative Building Wing Position Swap Alternative ES-5
A summary description of these alternatives, their direct environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project and each alternative s ability to achieve the basic project objectives is provided. No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, none of the residential, parking and residential service uses would be developed on site. The project site would remain in its current undeveloped condition as a surface parking lot. The project site would still be identified for future academic use in the 2004 LRDP and could be developed with an academic building at some point in the future under this alternative. Impacts to the existing visual character would be lessened by this alternative; however, they would not be avoided altogether. The No Project Alternative would not avoid significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to interruption of emergency response plans/routes. The No Project Alternative would either continue to contribute to existing drainage and water quality conditions if the site is not redeveloped or conditions would be improved in the future in a manner similar to the proposed project. Because of student housing would not be constructed under the No Project Alternative, it would avoid potentially significant impacts related to the permanent exposure of noise-sensitive receptors. All other impacts would be similar to the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives identified in Section 2.0, Project Description, including advancing the 2004 LRDP goal of housing 50 percent of eligible students; reducing traffic congestion on and around UCSD by bringing students on campus; providing graduate student housing in the School of Medicine neighborhood and on UCSD s west campus, where none exists today; and incorporating architecture that evokes residential qualities through the use of human scale. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not eliminate the potential for future academic use on the project site (and associated environmental effects) pursuant to the 2004 LRDP. Reduced Massing Alternative The Reduced Massing Alternative would entail development of the proposed project but in a configuration that would reduce the height of the building, such that the building wings would conform to the lower-stature academic structures on campus (i.e., four to six stories) rather than the ES-6
taller housing buildings (i.e., seven to ten stories). This alternative would reduce the number of residential beds that could be built on site. Aesthetically, the Reduced Massing Alternative would reduce building heights and broaden their footprints and would change the visual character of the project site similar to that of the proposed project. The reduction in building wing heights would lessen the change in visual character experienced by motorists on public roads and residences near the campus by constructing a building that is lower in stature near the campus edge. The building would be screened more from public view by the trees that surround the project site on the eastern, western and southern sides of the site; however, the alternative would make the structures appear bulkier than the proposed project because the building footprint would cover more of the site and be set back less from the local roads and campus edge. Therefore, aesthetics impacts would not be significantly reduced or avoided by this alternative. The Reduced Massing Alternative would not avoid significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to interruption of emergency response plans/routes. Existing drainage and water quality conditions would be improved in the future under the Reduced Massing Alternative in a manner similar to the proposed project. Under the Reduced Massing Alternative, new sensitive receptors would be developed on site and people would be exposed to elevated transportation noise in excess of the campus standard, therefore, significant noise impacts would not be avoided. The Reduced Massing Alternative would achieve most of the basic project objectives related to the provision of housing on campus in the School of Medicine neighborhood, reducing traffic congestion within the local community, incorporating LEED design measures and enhancing UCSD s identity to off-campus areas. Unlike the proposed project, the broader building would not allow for clear pedestrian and bicycle connections to on- and off-campus areas, would not promote as much interaction among residents since the active exterior spaces, would reduce the number of proposed residential units (thus, would not meet UCSD s primary project objectives). Reduced Project Size Alternative Instead of constructing two wings, the Reduced Project Size Alternative would only involve the construction of one wing of the housing complex. If the 9-story, 150,000-square foot (sf) western wing is constructed, approximately 270 beds would be added to the campus. Alternatively, if the 7-story, 90,000-sf eastern wing is constructed, approximately 180 beds would be added to the ES-7
campus. Elimination of the western building wing under this alternative would not create as much of a change in visual character experienced by motorists on public roads and residences near the campus because the lower-stature eastern wing would be set back from La Jolla Village Drive and would not likely be visible to westbound motorists; conversely, if only the western wing were constructed under this alternative, the change in existing visual character would be similar to the proposed project. As such, no significant aesthetic impacts would be avoided by the Reduced Project Size Alternative. The Reduced Project Size Alternative would not avoid significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to interruption of emergency response plans/routes. Existing drainage and water quality conditions would be improved in the future under the Reduced Project Size Alternative in a manner similar to the proposed project. Under the Reduced Project Size Alternative, new sensitive receptors would be developed on site and people would be exposed to elevated transportation noise in excess of the campus standard. If only the eastern wing of the building were constructed under this alternative, the transportation noise impact would be less than for the western wing, but still greater than assumed for that wing under the proposed project as there would be no western wing to block the noise from La Jolla Village Drive. Therefore, significant noise impacts would not be avoided by this alternative. The Reduced Project Size Alternative would achieve some of the basic project objectives related to the provision of housing on campus in the School of Medicine neighborhood, reducing traffic congestion within the local community, incorporating LEED design measures, creating clear pedestrian and bicycle connections and enhancing UCSD s identity to off-campus areas. However, the smaller project size would not accomplish UCSD s goal of housing up to 50 percent of eligible students on campus and would force the campus to provide more beds elsewhere. It would also impact the project s ability to provide interior areas for the interaction of residents, by reducing space dedicated to meeting and conference rooms. Building Wing Position Swap Alternative Under this alternative, UCSD would swap the positions of the two proposed building wings, such that the taller 9-story western wing would be situated on the northern portion of the site, while the 7-story eastern wing would be placed along the southern edge of the site. The purpose of this alternative would be to mass the structure farther away from the campus edge and La Jolla Village Drive where ES-8
off-campus uses, such as the described residential and commercial development, occur. Aesthetically, the Building Wing Position Swap Alternative would shift the massing of the project building such that the taller of the wings is situated on the northern half of the site away from the edge of campus. Although the swap in building wing locations would place the taller wing of the building father from the off-campus community and La Jolla Village Drive, the 25-foot elevation difference between the building pads would nearly negate any aesthetic benefit gained from such a swap. A reduction in building height near the southern edge of campus would lessen the change in visual character experienced by motorists on public roads and residences near the campus by constructing the lowerstature wing closer to the road while stepping the massing of the taller wing away from the road; however, it would not be a substantial reduction in wing height since the eastern wing is only two floors less than the western wing and the building setback would be similar to the proposed project. Under the Building Wing Position Swap Alternative, both wings would be visible from eastbound La Jolla Village Drive and public areas south of the campus; accordingly, views of the project would not be substantially different under this alternative. The Building Wing Position Swap Alternative would not avoid significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to interruption of emergency response plans/routes. Existing drainage and water quality conditions would be improved in the future under the Building Wing Position Swap Alternative in a manner similar to the proposed project. Under the Building Wing Position Swap Alternative, new sensitive receptors would be developed on site and people would be exposed to elevated transportation noise in excess of the campus standard. The Building Wing Position Swap Alternative would achieve most of the basic project objectives related to the provision of housing on campus in the School of Medicine neighborhood, reducing traffic congestion within the local community, incorporating LEED design measures, providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages and creating a community for students. Repositioning of the building wings, however, would not enhance UCSD s identity with the local community because the alternative building arrangement would emphasize the visual prominence of the site and would not take full advantage of the landscape screening offered by the surrounding vegetated slopes. ES-9
Issues Raised During Project Scoping 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 Notice of Preparation (NOP) public/agency review period or public scoping meeting. Appendix A of this EIR includes comments received on the NOP and at the scoping meeting. These issues include: Project site is located in a portion of Camp Matthews. Concerns regarding unexploded ordnance and elevated levels of heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) recommends a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) be conducted Consideration of Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21659 and Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR), Part 77 requirements Contact appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS) for possible recorded sites within the project site Consideration and evaluation of cultural resources Consideration of aesthetics, including lighting effects (shadow and glare), wind tunnel effects, and building height/layout on project site Consideration of potential air quality impacts Consideration of potential hazards, including: evacuation routes and alternative access routes for emergencies Consideration of potential hydrology/water quality impacts and inclusion of LEED-inspired specifications that are used Consideration of potential noise impacts, including: comparison of noise levels during construction versus non-construction, hours/time of day of construction, and mitigation if needed Consideration of potential traffic impacts, including: traffic circulation and parking studies Consideration of potential effects on market rates for local rentals Consideration of alternatives ES-10
Issue Impact ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Aesthetics Scenic Vistas and Visual Character and Quality Lighting and Glare Hazards and Hazardous Materials Accidental Releases Public or Environmental Hazards from Activities in Listed Sites Hydrology and Water Quality Impairment or Interference with Emergency Plans Table ES-1 PROJECT-LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista nor would it substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Proposed project would not create a substantial new source of lighting or glare that would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Project construction could encounter munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) associated with historic small arms training at Camp Matthews. Project site is listed on the Cortese list by the DTSC due to the potential for MEC associated with historic military training at Camp Matthews. Implementation of UCSD policies and procedures in accordance with Haz-4B would avoid impacts. Construction of the proposed project could require the temporary lane closure of Villa La Jolla Drive during utility connections. Significance Before S = Significant; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable; N = No Impact Measure(s) Significance After LS No mitigation is required. LS PS 2004 LRDP EIR Measure Aes-2B LS LS No mitigation is required. LS LS No mitigation is required. LS PS 2004 LRDP EIR Measure Haz-6A. LS ES-11
Issue Hydrology and Water Quality (cont.) Site Drainage and Hydrology Water Quality Noise Exposure to Permanent Ambient Noise Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise Table ES-1 (cont.) PROJECT-LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Proposed project would incorporate a number of design measures related to hydrology and drainage alteration, pursuant to analysis and requirements identified in the campus-wide Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and project-specific hydrology/water quality reports. Such measures would ensure that existing runoff volumes/velocities and overall drainage patterns are retained, and would avoid or effectively reduce associated potential impacts related to flooding, storm drain system capacity and erosion/sedimentation. Proposed project would incorporate a number of best management practices (BMPs) related to potential shortand long-term water quality impacts, pursuant to analyses and requirements identified in the campus-wide SWMP and project-specific hydrology/water quality reports. These measures would ensure project conformance with applicable water quality standards and discharge requirements, and would avoid or effectively reduce associated potential shortand long-term impacts related to water quality. Proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels but would construct new sensitive receptors that could expose persons to transportation noise in excess of campus standards. Construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. Significance Before S = Significant; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable; N = No Impact Measure(s) Significance After LS No mitigation is required. LS LS No mitigation is required. LS PS 2004 LRDP EIR Measure Noi-1B. LS PS 2004 LRDP EIR Measure Noi-2A. LS ES-12
Table ES-1 (cont.) PROJECT-LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Issue Impact Significance Before EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT WITH LRDP EIR MITIGATION Biological Resources Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Increases in Traffic Implementation of the Health Sciences Graduate Student Housing project could have direct and indirect impacts to nesting raptors, which are considered sensitive and are protected under the Migratory Bird treaty Act (MBTA). Construction traffic associated with proposed project could result in the temporary closure of vehicle lanes in the project vicinity. S = Significant; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potential Significant; SU = Significant/Unavoidable; N = No Impact Measure(s) Significance After PS 2004 LRDP EIR Measure Bio-2D. LS PS 2004 LRDP EIR Measure Tra-1B. LS ES-13
Table ES-2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics Issue Degradation of views to scenic coastal areas Regional light pollution on astronomical viewing activities Air Quality Criteria pollutants Hazards and Hazardous Materials Regional exposure of people to contaminated sites Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis Immediate vicinity of view corridor or view shed Significance of Cumulative Impact Project Contribution Measures Less than Significant Not cumulatively considerable because project is not located in a scenic coastal area Not applicable Project Significance Considering Not applicable San Diego region Potentially significant Not cumulatively considerable Not applicable Not applicable San Diego region or the airshed for reactive pollutants and surrounding vicinity for non-reactive or less reactive pollutants Immediately surrounding area Significant Cumulatively considerable Air-1 and 2004 LRDP EIR Measure Air-CB Cumulatively considerable and unavoidable Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable Not applicable Not applicable Hydrology and Water Quality Increases in storm water runoff within the watershed that could contribute to downstream erosion problems Drainage basin or watershed Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable with project design features that reduce the existing cumulative impact Not applicable Not applicable Development within watershed increases pollutant sources that could adversely affect receiving waters Drainage basin or watershed Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable with project compliance with NPDES and SWPPP requirements Not applicable Not applicable ES-14
Table ES-2 (cont.) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Noise Issue Transportation Noise Stationary Noise Construction Noise Global Climate Change Generation of greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operations that would contribute to global climate change Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis UCSD and sensitive receptors in adjacent communities UCSD and sensitive receptors in adjacent communities Immediately surrounding area Significance of Cumulative Impact Project Contribution Measures Project Significance Considering Potentially significant Not cumulatively considerable Not applicable Not applicable Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable Not applicable Not applicable Less than significant Not cumulatively considerable Not applicable Not applicable Global Less than Significant Not cumulatively considerable Not applicable Not applicable ES-15
Issue Table ES-3 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Proposed Project Without Proposed Project After No Project Reduced Massing Reduced Project Size Building Wing Position Swap Aesthetics Scenic Vistas and Visual Character and Quality LS LS LS LS LS LS Lighting and Glare PS LS PS PS PS PS Hazards and Hazardous Materials Accidental Releases LS LS LS LS LS LS Public and Environmental Hazards LS LS LS LS LS LS Impairment or Interference of Emergency Response PS LS PS PS PS PS Plans Hydrology and Water Quality Site Drainage and Hydrology LS LS LS LS LS LS Water Quality LS LS LS LS LS LS Noise Exposure to Permanent Ambient Noise PS LS PS PS PS PS Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise PS LS PS PS PS PS PS=Potentially significant; LS=Less than significant; N=No impact. ES-16