Attachment 5

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION OF EIR IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE 2018 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO, LA JOLLA CAMPUS

I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

The University of California (“University”), as the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the proposed University of California, San Diego (“UC San Diego”) 2018 Long Range Development Plan, La Jolla Campus (“2018 LRDP” or “Project”). The 2018 LRDP will be implemented and guide future development of campus uses/improvements at the UC San Diego La Jolla campus. The Board of Regents of the University of California (“The Regents”) hereby certifies the Final EIR, issues these Findings and concurrently approves the LRDP.

The Final EIR, dated November 2018, was assigned State Clearinghouse Number 2016111019 by the Office of Planning and Research. The Final EIR consists of three volumes: Volume I, 2018 LRDP Final EIR; Volume II, Technical Appendices (A through L); and Volume III, Responses to Comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the 2018 LRDP. The Final EIR assesses the potential environmental effects of implementing the 2018 LRDP, identifies the means to eliminate or reduce potentially significant adverse impacts, and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. The Final EIR also responds to comments on the content and conclusions reached in the Draft EIR, explains revisions made to the text of the Draft EIR, and includes a MMRP that outlines the substance and timing of mitigation measures required for the Project. Collectively, the Draft and Final EIR, and the administrative record in support thereof, are referred to herein as the “EIR” or “Final EIR”.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21081 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15090, The Regents hereby certifies that it completed the following activities prior to approving the 2018 LRDP: The Regents has received the Final EIR; The Regents has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and received through public comments; and The Regents has considered all additional written and oral statements received prior to or at its public hearing on the Final EIR and on the 2018 LRDP. The Regents additionally certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.), and the University of California’s policies and procedures for the implementation of CEQA and that the Final EIR reflects the University’s independent judgment and analysis. The conclusions presented in these CEQA Findings are based on the Final EIR and all other evidence in the record of proceeding. UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 2 of 65

The Regents certifies that the Final EIR satisfies the requirements for a LRDP EIR prepared under PRC Section 21080.09 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15081.5(b). The findings set forth below pertain to the approval of the 2018 LRDP for the UC San Diego La Jolla campus (“2018 LRDP”). Future projects that further implement the 2018 LRDP will be considered for approval by the University or UC San Diego pursuant to the University’s bylaws, standing orders, policies, and delegations of authority. The CEQA analysis for those projects may be tiered from the Final EIR and may be based in whole or in part on the analysis contained within the Final EIR and within any additional project-level review required by CEQA pursuant to PRC Sections 21068.5 and 21093 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15385.

II. FINDINGS

Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR and all other information in the administrative record, The Regents hereby adopts the following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 2018 LRDP in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the University’s procedures for implementing CEQA. The Regents adopts these CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations in conjunction with its approval of the 2018 LRDP, as set forth in Section III, below.

A. Background and Project Description

UC San Diego’s La Jolla campus encompasses 1,158 acres and is composed of three distinct, but contiguous, geographical areas: the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (“SIO”) portion of the campus (178.7 acres), the West Campus (634.8 acres), and the East Campus (265.7 acres). Several non-continuous properties are also included in the campus LRDP, including the La Jolla del Sol housing complex (12 acres), surrounding beach properties consisting of the Audrey Geisel House and an adjacent coastal canyon and beachfront parcel (25.8 acres), the Gliderport, the Torrey Pines Center, and recently acquired Torrey Pines Court (41 acres). UC San Diego’s La Jolla campus is located adjacent to the communities of La Jolla and University City, within the northwest portion of the City of San Diego (“City”). The campus is surrounded by mostly urbanized land within the City, including scientific research uses to the north and northwest, a hospital complex and institutional uses to the northeast, residential development to the west and southwest, and a mix of institutional, commercial and residential uses to the south and east. The campus is also bisected by Interstate 5 (I-5) and separated from adjacent off-campus development by major public roadways.

Similar to its predecessor plans, the 2018 LRDP is a comprehensive physical land use plan and policy framework document that articulates long-term development strategies for achieving the academic, teaching, healthcare service, and research missions and responds to UC system initiatives. The plan’s growth assumptions are based on campus population projections and an understanding of campus needs and

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 3 of 65

goals. The LRDP is not a mandate for growth; development under the plan would occur over time based on campus needs and funding availability. Thus, the 2018 LRDP represents the long-term planning document for the UC San Diego campus, and it involves modifications to the previous land use plan established as part of the 2004 LRDP. The 2018 LRDP plans for projected campus growth up to approximately 27.8 million gross square feet (“GSF”) and a total campus population of 65,600 at the La Jolla campus by the 2035-2036 academic year, which is the approximate planning horizon established by the update wherein the campus can feasibly forecast its growth and align with regional plans. Under the 2018 LRDP, the campus projects a need to accommodate a total headcount of 42,400 enrolled students, as well as 2,200 faculty and 21,000 staff/researchers. To accommodate these population projections, the campus anticipates approximately 8.9 million GSF of net new development, including 3.3 million GSF for approximately 8,900 additional (net new) housing beds, through the 2018 LRDP planning horizon.

The 2018 LRDP proposes general types of campus development and land uses to support projected campus population growth and enable expanded and new program initiatives. The land use map for the 2018 LRDP is shown in Figure 2-3 of the Final EIR. Consistent with previous LRDPs, the land use plan of the 2018 LRDP describes functional land use categories that reflect those activities that would be predominant in any given area of campus. Predominant uses are the primary programs, facilities, and activities in a general geographic area. In addition, other associated or compatible uses are allowable within any given area defined by a predominant use. The 2018 LRDP identifies the following land use categories to support anticipated campus growth: Academic, Academic Mixed-Use, Community- Oriented, Academic Healthcare, Science Research, Housing, Administrative, General Services, Sports and Recreation, and Open Space Preserve. The Final EIR functions as a Program EIR for the potential overall enrollment and development proposed in the 2018 LRDP which is analyzed in Volume I of the Final EIR. The Final EIR is intended to be used as the environmental review for the implementation of the 2018 LRDP in accordance with CEQA requirements.

B. CEQA Environmental Review Process and Preparation of EIR

Preparation of the 2018 LRDP was accomplished under the auspices of the Campus/Community Planning Committee (“C/CPC”), which is advisory to the UC San Diego Chancellor. The C/CPC's membership includes representatives from the San Diego Division of the Academic Senate, representatives from six Vice Chancellorial areas (Academic Affairs, Business Affairs, Health Sciences, Marine Sciences, Resource Management and Planning, and Student Affairs), the UC San Diego Staff Association, the Associated Students, and the Graduate Student Association. In the course of developing the 2018 LRDP, the campus considered the following nine factors:

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 4 of 65

• Academic and non-academic program requirements; • Distribution of student enrollment across the academic programs; • Optimum rate of student and faculty growth; • Appropriate ratio of graduate students to undergraduate students; • UC San Diego’s unique characteristics in light of its history and culture; • Environmental resources; • Need for services such as student housing, parking, transportation, recreation, childcare, appropriate retail operations, and administrative support; • Opinions of campus constituency groups and community stakeholders; and • Needs and interests of the surrounding community, city, state, and nation.

Two open house events were held in May of 2017 to provide an opportunity for the community to learn more about the LRDP.

Monday, May 15, 2017 Lawrence Family Jewish Community Center Taubman Drama Workshop Room 4126 Executive Drive La Jolla, CA 92037

Tuesday, May 23, 2017 UC San Diego Price Center East Forum Room (4th Floor)

In addition to open house events held by UC San Diego Campus Planning Office their staff conducted the following outreach to obtain feedback from campus and community stakeholders:

• Regular Community Advisory Group (“CAG”) meetings – The CAG was formed so that representatives from the community could engage with campus administration on the 2018 LRDP. The meetings provided a forum for UC San Diego and the community to better understand each other’s priorities and improve the collective understanding of the campus’s future development. The campus convened 12 meetings with the CAG between August 2016 and May 2018. With input from the CAG, the Campus Planning Office drafted “Community Planning Goals” for inclusion in the 2018 LRDP.

• On-campus student workshops (open house style) were held at the Geisel Library on October 25, 2017 and November 8, 2017 to provide information about the LRDP and solicit feedback from students.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 5 of 65

• Presentations were made to various campus stakeholders, including student, academic, and administrative groups and committees.

• Online student surveys were conducted soliciting feedback on LRDP-related issues.

• The UC San Diego 2018 LRDP website was established to provide updates on the status of the planning effort and copies of the plan and CEQA documentation.

• Regular attendance and/or updates were provided to local community planning groups on the LRDP, outreach events, and campus planning topics:

o La Jolla Town Council o La Jolla Community Planning Association o La Jolla Shores Association o University Community Planning Group o University City Community Association • Meetings/coordination with federal, state and local agency representatives were held to obtain input on technical analyses conducted on the proposed 2018 LRDP EIR:

o California Coastal Commission (CCC) o California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) o California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) o City of San Diego o Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) o San Diego Unified School District o San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) o US Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) In response to its decision to prepare an EIR, UC San Diego staff prepared a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 addressing the scope and contents of the EIR. On November 4, 2016, the NOP was mailed to a distribution list consisting of the State Clearinghouse, responsible, trustee, and other relevant local, state, and federal agencies, and interested individuals. The NOP was also published in the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper and in the Guardian, the campus newspaper, and was made available electronically on the UC San Diego Campus Planning LRDP website. A 30-day comment period on the NOP commenced on November 5, 2016.

During the comment period, a scoping meeting was held at the UC San Diego Faculty Club on November 29, 2016 to solicit input from interested agencies, individuals, and organizations on the content of and topics for the EIR. The NOP, its publication

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 6 of 65

notice, and transcript from the scoping meeting are included in Volume II of the Final EIR. Verbal and written comments received during the scoping process have been taken into consideration during the preparation of the EIR. An outline of the issues noted during the scoping process is contained in the Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved discussion in the Executive Summary chapter of the EIR.

The following resource areas were determined to require detailed analysis as part of the EIR: aesthetics; air quality; cultural and tribal cultural resources; biological resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation/traffic; and utilities and service systems.

The Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 20161110198) was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the University’s policies and procedures for the implementation of CEQA. The analysis in the EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts for the 2018 LRDP even with implementation of mitigation measures:

• Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.2 - Exceedance of air quality standards related to NOX emissions during construction and PM10 emissions during operations;

• Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.3 - Cumulatively considerable net increase in NOX emissions during construction and PM10 emissions during operations;

• Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.5 - Exposure of sensitive receptors to construction and operational toxic air contaminant emissions;

• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.3.1 - Alteration of historical resources which causes a substantial change in their significance;

• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.4 - Cumulatively considerable loss of historical resources and Tribal Cultural Resources;

• Population and Housing Impact 3.11.3.1 - Direct and cumulatively considerable inducement of substantial population growth; and

• Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.3.1 - Cumulatively considerable exceedance of traffic level of service standards.

These potentially significant impacts and reasons that they are unavoidable are discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Section 3.11, Population and Housing, and Section 3.14, Transportation/Traffic, of Volume I of the Final EIR. In addition, direct population

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 7 of 65

and off-campus housing growth associated with the 2018 LRDP would be growth inducing to the region as discussed in Section 4.2, Growth Inducement, in Volume I of the Final EIR.

As further discussed in Section III of this document, because unavoidable significant adverse impacts would result from the 2018 LRDP, The Regents, as Lead Agency, must prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations before it can approve the 2018 LRDP.

On July 30, 2018, the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) and was released for public review establishing a 45-day review period concluding September 12, 2018. The Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the Draft EIR, was provided to approximately 38 public agencies, 5 elected officials, and over 200 organizations, NOP commenters, and individual community members that previously requested such notice; and was available on the UC San Diego campus (at the Campus Planning Office and Geisel library) and LRDP website, as well as four public libraries within the City. Additionally, the University held a public hearing at the UC San Diego Faculty Club on August 23, 2018, to provide an overview of the 2018 LRDP and Draft EIR conclusions and receive verbal comments on the Draft EIR. The public hearing notice was included in the NOA and was posted in the San Diego Union Tribune and on the LRDP website. The public hearing was attended by approximately 30 individuals (based on the sign-in sheet), including community members, faculty, students, and other interested individuals. Four of these individuals provided oral comments and one provided written comment at the hearing; a transcript of these oral comments along with responses to the comments is provided in Volume III of the Final EIR. The University also received 27 comment letters or e-mails during the public review period. Upon specific request, a total of 3 additional letters were also accepted after the review period ended.

The Final EIR contains all of the comment letters received during and after the public comment period, as well as a transcript of oral comments from the public hearing. The Final EIR also contains responses to those comments, which the University prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the University’s procedures for implementing CEQA. The Regents has reviewed the comments received and the responses thereto and finds that the Final EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to those comments.

C. Absence of Significant New Information

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. New information includes: (i) changes to the project; (ii) changes in the environmental setting; or (iii) additional data or other information. Section 15088.5

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 8 of 65

further provides that “[n]ew information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.”

Comments received on the Draft EIR expressed a range of CEQA and non-CEQA issues, as discussed in Volume III of the Final EIR. Each comment has been responded to in the Final EIR and none of the comments triggered the need to recirculate the Draft EIR based on the administrative record as a whole and the information in the Final EIR.

Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft and Final EIR, and in the administrative record, including all comments received, as well as the requirements under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and interpretive judicial authority regarding recirculation of draft EIRs, The Regents hereby finds that no significant new information was added to the Draft EIR after the public review period. The Regents specifically finds that: no new significant environmental impact would result from the 2018 LRDP or from the implementation of a mitigation measure; no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result, or if such an increase would result, the University has adopted mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; the University has not declined to adopt any feasible project alternative or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the 2018 LRDP; and the EIR is not so fundamentally and basically inadequate in nature that it precluded meaningful public review.

Having reviewed the information in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the entire administrative record, The Regents finds that no new significant information was added to the Final EIR following public review, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is therefore unnecessary and not required by Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

D. Differences of Opinion Regarding the Project’s Impacts

In making its determination to certify the Final EIR and to approve the Project, The Regents recognizes that the Project involves several controversial environmental issues and that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to these issues. Through its review of the Final EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, and the responses to comments, The Regents has acquired a comprehensive understanding of the scope of such technical and scientific opinion. This has enabled The Regents to make fully informed and thoroughly considered decisions after taking into account the various viewpoints on the important environmental issues involved in the Project’s implementation. Considering the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR and administrative record as a whole, The Regents finds that the Findings herein are based on substantial evidence

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 9 of 65

and a full appraisal of all viewpoints expressed throughout the CEQA review process, as well as other relevant information contained in the administrative record.

E. Environmental Impacts Summary – Impacts and Mitigation Measures

As required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the following section summarizes the direct and cumulative environmental impacts of the Project identified in the Final EIR and includes The Regents’ Findings regarding those impacts and any mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR, are adopted by The Regents, and incorporated as requirements of the Project. These Findings summarize the determinations of the Final EIR with respect to the Project’s impacts before and after mitigation and do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact considered in the Final EIR. Instead, the Findings provide a summary of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by The Regents, and state The Regents’ Findings regarding the significance of each impact with the adopted mitigation measures. The Final EIR and the record of proceedings contain a full explanation of each impact, mitigation measure, and the analysis that led The Regents to its conclusions on those impacts. These Findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR and the record of proceedings, which support the Final EIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s environmental impacts and mitigation measures. In making these Findings, The Regents ratifies, adopts, and incorporates by reference the Final EIR’s analysis, determinations, and conclusions relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings. The substantial evidence supporting these findings and conclusions, and are set forth in the Final EIR and the record of proceedings.

The Regents hereby adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval, the mitigation measures set forth in the Findings below to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as certain less- than-significant impacts. In adopting the mitigation measures described below, The Regents intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, except when such mitigation measures are specifically rejected or specifically modified by these Findings. Accordingly, in the event that a mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these Findings, that mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in the Findings. Additionally, in the event that the description of mitigation measures set forth below fails accurately to capture the substance of a given mitigation measure due to a clerical error (as distinct from specific and express modification by The Regents through these Findings), the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall govern.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 10 of 65

With respect to mitigation measures that were suggested in comments by the public or other public agencies but not included in the Final EIR, the responses to comments explain that the suggested mitigation measures either are already part of the 2018 LRDP and associated CEQA documentation or are infeasible, ineffectual or not required under the law (including CEQA) and thus not recommended for adoption for the reasons outlined in the responses to comments. The Regents hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the responses to comments and the record of proceeding as the basis for finding these suggested mitigation measures unnecessary or inappropriate for inclusion as Project requirements.

1. Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Related Mitigation Measures

Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, where the lead agency identifies significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the lead agency may nonetheless approve the project if it finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable significant environmental impacts. This finding of overriding considerations (also called the “Statement of Overriding Considerations”), as applicable to the 2018 LRDP, may be found in Section III, below.

The Final EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the approval of the Project. For a detailed description of these impacts and mitigation, please see the relevant sections of the Final EIR and MMRP.

a. Air Quality

Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in the construction and operation of new facilities whose emissions could violate air quality standard for PM and NOx or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Specifically, NOX emissions during construction and PM10 emissions during operations would be above levels stated in adopted significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact would be significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Implementation of dust control (Mitigation Measure AQ-2A) and use of off-road construction diesel engines that meet, at a minimum, the Tier 4 interim California Emissions Standards (Mitigation Measure AQ-2B) during Project construction activities would reduce PM10 and NOx emissions to less than significant levels. However, there are no

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 11 of 65

feasible mitigation measures to address operational mobile-source PM10 emissions because UC San Diego has no ability to control brake and tire emissions produced by vehicles accessing the campus. In addition, for construction NOX emissions, UC San Diego has no control over whether every contractor can locate and secure Tier 4 interim equipment because the San Diego region is currently experiencing an extremely competitive construction market with limited labor and equipment resources, so the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2B cannot be assured on every project under the 2018 LRDP. No feasible mitigation beyond these measures is available to reduce this impact to less than significant.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would cause construction of facilities that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Implementation of dust control and the use of off-road equipment that meets the Tier 4 interim standards would be required to reduce this impact, but would not reduce it to a less-than-significant level because the campus cannot control tire and brake emissions or assure that all construction projects on campus could locate and secure Tier 4 interim equipment. The implementation of these measures does not ensure that the significant impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. There are no other identified feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, implementation of the 2018 LRDP may result in an impact related to air quality that is significant and unavoidable. The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section III, below.

Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.3: Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in the construction and operation of new facilities whose emissions could violate air quality standard for PM and NOx or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Because implementation of the 2018 LRDP would exceed the project-level air quality significance thresholds for PM10 in the 2035 Scenario, a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment, long-term operational emissions associated with implementation of the 2018 LRDP would be cumulatively considerable. In addition, construction activities could also violate the NOX air quality significance threshold and the San Diego region is in nonattainment for ozone and has shown an overall trend of high VOC/NOX ratios; thus, the formation of ozone is limited by the quantity of NOX emissions. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulatively significant air quality impacts would be considerable and unavoidable.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 12 of 65

 Mitigation Measures: Implementation of mitigation Measures for dust control during construction activities (Mitigation Measure AQ-2A) and use of off-road construction diesel engines that meet, at a minimum, the Tier 4 interim California Emissions Standards (Mitigation Measure AQ-2B) would reduce PM10 and NOx emissions. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures to address operational mobile-source PM10 emissions because UC San Diego has no ability to control brake and tire emissions produced by vehicles accessing the campus and for construction NOX emissions UC San Diego has no control over whether every contractor can locate and secure Tier 4 interim equipment because the San Diego region is currently experiencing an extremely competitive construction market with limited labor and equipment resources. Therefore, no feasible mitigation beyond the mitigation measures identified in the EIR to reduce this cumulative impact to less than significant.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in a significant impact on the environment from air quality. Implementation of dust control and the use of off-road equipment that meets the Tier 4 interim standards would be required to reduce this impact, but would not reduce it to a less-than-significant level because the campus cannot control tire and brake emissions or assure that all construction projects on campus could locate and secure Tier 4 interim equipment. The implementation of these measures does not ensure that the significant impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. There are no other available feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP may result in an impact related to air quality that is significant and unavoidable. The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section III, below.

Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.5: Expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP could expose sensitive receptors on and off campus to toxic air contaminant emissions due to the combination of construction activities and operational mobile sources and on-campus stationary sources. Because emissions of toxic air contaminants would exceed established standards, this impact is considered significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2B, which would require the use Tier 4 interim construction equipment, would reduce the construction-related health risk associated with implementation of the 2018 LRDP. However, UC San Diego has no control over whether every

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 13 of 65

contractor can locate and secure Tier 4 interim equipment because the San Diego region is currently experiencing an extremely competitive construction market with limited labor and equipment resources. Therefore, UC San Diego would not be able to meet Mitigation Measure AQ-2B in full on all projects and even with its full implementation, significant toxic air contaminants impacts to sensitive receptors would still occur because they would be largely attributable to mobile source emissions in close proximity to sensitive receptors. No additional mitigation measures exist at this time that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation Measure AQ- 2B is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact, but not to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ-2B would reduce toxic air contaminant emissions during construction activities; however even with its full implementation significant toxic air contaminants impact would still occur because they would be largely attributable to mobile source emissions in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Despite a robust transportation demand management program which would minimize mobile sources, UC San Diego does not have an ability to directly control mobile source diesel PM emissions that contribute to the impact. The implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2B thus does not ensure that the significant impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. In addition, UC San Diego has no control over whether every contractor can locate and secure Tier 4 interim equipment because the San Diego region is currently experiencing an extremely competitive construction market with limited labor and equipment resources. There are no other available feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP may result in an impact related to sensitive receptors that is significant and unavoidable. The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the “Statement of Overriding Considerations” in Section III, below.

b. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.3.1: Alteration of historical resources that would cause substantial adverse changes in their significance.

The 2018 LRDP proposes general types of campus development to support projected campus population growth and to enable expanded and new program initiatives, including the renovation of some existing buildings. Projects associated

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 14 of 65

with the 2018 LRDP implementation have the potential to modify, alter or remove individual historical buildings and structures, some of which are also contributing members to historic districts. Whether these modifications and alterations would impact historical resources is project‐specific, and is dependent upon the nature and scope of the work that is being proposed. If a project associated with the 2018 LRDP proposes alterations or modifications to an individual historical resource and does not conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards), it must then be evaluated whether impacts to the resource’s historic significance can be mitigated. However, demolition of a historic resource is generally considered an unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Despite documentation and interpretation, demolition would still result in the historic resource being materially impaired. Because implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in 1.2 million gross square feet of building removals, including projects that would alter or demolish historic resources, districts and/or landscapes that may not meet the Standards, the Project impacts could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and a potentially significant impact could occur.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure Cul-1A requires UC San Diego to determine whether a project implemented under the 2018 LRDP may have a substantial adverse impact on a historical resource (individual resource, district, or landscape) and whether the project meets the Standards, as defined in 36 CFR Part 67.7. For projects involving historical resources that do not comply with the Standards, UC San Diego would implement Mitigation Measure Cul-1B and consider means of reducing the impact to a level of less than significant by redesigning the project or undertaking other measures deemed feasible and prudent. If a project undertaken as part of implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in the unavoidable demolition or alteration of a historical resource that cannot be mitigated through compliance with Mitigation Measure Cul-1A (Standards compliance) or Mitigation Measure Cul-1B (redesign), then UC San Diego shall prepare archival HABS or HALS Level I documentation in accordance with Mitigation Measure Cul-1C. In addition, UC San Diego will implement Mitigation Measure Cul-1D, which requires the campus to consider relocating the historical resource to an appropriate receiver site. Supplemental measures may also be applied, depending on the impacts, including the preparation of an interpretive plan for the UC San Diego La Jolla campus, a district/neighborhood, or a specific building/use focusing on its architectural and developmental legacy (Mitigation Measure Cul-1E); nomination of a resource that shares similar contextual qualities to the resource that is being significantly impacted to the NRHP or CRHR (Mitigation Measure Cul-1F); and/or salvage character‐defining features and materials for educational and interpretive purposes on campus, or for

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 15 of 65

reuse new construction on campus in a way that interprets and commemorates their original use and significance (i.e., Mitigation Measure Cul-1G). Although actions would be taken to record, evaluate, avoid, or otherwise treat the resource appropriately, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP may result in an impact related to demolition of historic structures that is significant and unavoidable.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would have the potential to alter historical resources in a way that could cause substantial adverse change in their significance. Mitigation Measures Cul- 1A through Cul-1G are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul-1C through Cul-1G will reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level, if a project under the 2018 LRDP cannot meet the Standards, in accordance with Mitigation Measures Cul-1A or Cul-1B, and the historic resource cannot be relocated to an appropriate receiver site. However, CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b)(2) notes that, in some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource will not mitigate the effects of demolition of that resource to a less-than-significant level because the historic resources would no longer exist. Therefore, because the potential for permanent loss of a historic resource or its integrity cannot be precluded, the Project’s impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. There are no other available feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP may result in an impact to historical resources that is significant and unavoidable. The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section III, below.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.4: Cumulatively Considerable Impact to Historical Resources.

Development and redevelopment of the San Diego region, including the UC San Diego La Jolla campus, have resulted in the removal or alteration of structures, buildings, districts, and/or landscapes constructed during the early settlement days of the region. Future development across San Diego County associated with population growth would continue this trend as infill development is encouraged, which could remove or alter additional historic structures on a project-by-project basis. A loss of historic resources at UC San Diego and in the San Diego region may continue to occur over time leading to a cumulatively significant impact. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in multiple historical resources being removed, which would contribute to the regional loss of historical resources and/or districts and a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 16 of 65

 Mitigation Measures: Compliance with the Mitigation Measures Cul-1A through 1G identified in the EIR would reduce project-level impacts to the collective resource base by requiring proper treatment and documentation of the affected resources, thereby reducing the 2018 LRDP’s contribution to cumulative impacts. However, it is possible that a historic building would need to be demolished or altered in such a way that it would no longer convey its historic significance. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative historic resource impacts within the San Diego region, state and/or nation would continue to be considerable, and the cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could contribute to cumulatively significant regional losses of historic resources and/or districts due to remodeling, construction and potential demolition activities to existing buildings and landscapes. Mitigation Measures Cul-1A through Cul-1G are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level when a historic resource is demolished. There are no other available feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul-1A through Cul-1G would involve complying with the Standards, or redesigning projects and providing documentation, relocation, interpretation, registration and/or salvage of resources, their application would not ensure that the significant impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP may result in a cumulative impact related to historic resources that is significant and unavoidable. The Regents finds this remaining cumulatively significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section III, below.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.4: Cumulatively Considerable Impact to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs).

On a regional level, the loss of TCRs may not be adequately mitigable through data recovery and collection, as their value may also lie in cultural mores and religious beliefs of the Kumeyaay. Therefore, the cumulative destruction of TCRs by construction and development within the historic boundaries of the Kumeyaay national territory, in particular resources associated with the cultural and physical remains of people whose descendants are living today, is considered a cumulatively significant impact which the 2018 LRDP’s contribution would be considerable.

 Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the 2018 LRDP has the potential for impacts to TCRs on the campus, impacts to these resources would be addressed through consultation with Native American tribes pursuant to PRC

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 17 of 65

Section 21084.3.2 as well as appropriate application of Mitigation Measures Cul-5A through Cul-5C. If UC San Diego determines that a construction project would have a significant impact on a TCR, the campus would try to feasibly implement Mitigation Measure Cul-5A to avoid and preserve the resources through project modifications, placement of protective fill and or other means of physical preservation in place. If the project cannot feasibly avoid disturbance of the TCR through compliance with Mitigation Measure Cul-5A, UC San Diego shall implement Mitigation Measure Cul-5B, which would require construction monitoring by a Native American tribal representative and proper treatment of any discoveries. In the event a TCR is removed from its original context, UC San Diego shall either repatriate or rebury the materials in accordance with Mitigation Measure Cul-5C. Because it is not always feasible to avoid these resources, however, the cumulative effects of past and present projects in the San Diego region could result in a potentially significant cumulative impact on TCRs and the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to TCRs has the potential to be considerable and be significant and unavoidable.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could contribute to cumulatively significant regional losses of historic resources and/or districts. Mitigation Measures Cul-5A through 5C are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce this cumulative impact, but not to a less- than-significant level. There are no other available feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul-5A through Cul-5C would involve redesigning projects, construction monitoring and repatriating of TCR materials, their application would not ensure that the cumulatively significant impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP may result in an impact related to loss of TCRs that is cumulatively significant and unavoidable. The Regents finds this remaining cumulatively significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the “Statement of Overriding Considerations” in Section III, below.

c. Population and Housing

Population and Housing Impact 3.11.3.1: Directly induce substantial population growth in the area.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in new undergraduate students from other counties in California, as well as from out-of-state and outside the U.S. In addition, Graduate and Masters’ students, Health Sciences students, faculty, and staff could also be from outside the San Diego region. Therefore, the proposed 2018

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 18 of 65

LRDP would directly induce substantial population growth by adding 11,350 people to the San Diego region by school year of 2035.

 Mitigation Measures: Because the 2018 LRDP includes campus population growth as an essential objective of the LRDP, no mitigation is feasible to avoid or reduce this impact. Therefore, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could generate student and employee growth causing a significant impact due to direct population growth which would be substantial within the San Diego region. Because the 2018 LRDP includes campus population growth as an essential objective of the LRDP, no mitigation is feasible to avoid or reduce this impact. Therefore, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in a population impact that is significant and unavoidable. The Regents finds this remaining significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section III, below.

d. Transportation/Traffic

Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.3.1: Cause a conflict with an applicable plan or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for performance of the circulation system.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would increase local and regional vehicle travel, which would contribute to unacceptable level of service (LOS) conditions at 43 impacted intersections, street segments, freeway ramps and freeway mainline segments in the City of San Diego community and state facilities used to access the campus resulting in cumulatively significant impacts.

 Mitigation Measures: Two mitigation options to reduce the 2018 LRDP’s contribution to significant cumulative transportation impacts were proposed in the Final EIR. For the first option, Mitigation Measure Tra-1-OPT1, UC San Diego would pay a proportionate share contribution toward the total cost of intersection, street segment, freeway mainline segment, and freeway ramp meter improvements to the City of San Diego and Caltrans to mitigate the 2018 LRDP’s contribution to Near-Term (Year 2025) and Long-Term (Year 2035) significant cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. The improvements would occur all 43 impacted locations (e.g., 22 intersections, nine street segments, six freeway mainline segments, and six freeway ramp meter locations). While the improvements, if implemented by the City of San Diego and Caltrans, would reduce several of the cumulative impacts there is no specific mitigation program established by City of San

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 19 of 65

Diego or Caltrans to fund and implement them at this time. Until a specific mitigation program is created by City of San Diego or Caltrans to accommodate proportionate contributions (from UC San Diego or others) toward implementation of the improvements, it was determined that is not legally feasible for UC San Diego to use Mitigation Measure Tra-1-OPT1 to reduce or avoid its cumulative contribution to the significant cumulative impacts at these locations.

Therefore, a second mitigation option, Mitigation Measure Tra-1A-OPT2, is presented in the Final EIR as the only feasible mitigation approach to reducing cumulative LOS impacts of the 2018 LRDP. Instead of contributing its proportionate share of the cost of improvements, this measure would require UC San Diego to fully fund and implement mitigating traffic improvements at a smaller subset of the impacted intersections, street segments, freeway mainline segments, and freeway ramp meters by working with the City of San Diego and Caltrans to 100 percent fund and install improvements in three phases over a five year period following approval of the 2018 LRDP. Compliance with Mitigation Measure Tra-1A-OPT2 requires UC San Diego to fully fund and install the identified improvements to impacted intersections within the Regents Road (from Health Sciences Drive to Regents Park Row) and La Jolla Village Drive (from Torrey Pines Road to Regents Road, and Genesee Avenue to I-805) transportation corridors, which will address impacted street segments, freeway mainline segments, and freeway ramp meters within those corridors adjacent to the campus. The improvements would entail designing and installing Adaptive Traffic Signal Controls and upgrade and/or repair of signal interconnect, communications, detection, and controller equipment at 14 intersections according to City of San Diego requirements to form cohesive well- functioning transportation corridors along Regents Road and La Jolla Village Drive; add Transit Priority Signal Controls for buses at six intersections on the La Jolla Village Drive corridor; implement high visibility crosswalks and intersection crossing markings for bicycles per City standards to reduce bicycle /vehicle conflicts at high activity locations; and install one new traffic signal at the intersection of La Jolla Village Drive / Gilman Drive EB Ramps, which serves as one of the main entrances to the campus and is a regional bicycle route. Although the improvements would occur on land that is not controlled by UC San Diego, the campus would work with the City of San Diego and Caltrans to obtain the necessary approvals and permits to install the listed improvements and ensure their implementation in the near-term. While Mitigation Measure Tra-1A-OPT2 would fully address impacts at 18 of the 43 impacted locations affected by traffic from the 2018 LRDP and because the improvements noted above are not on campus lands, UC San Diego cannot assure the implementation of the improvements unless or until they are permitted by the City of San Diego and Caltrans and thus are beyond

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 20 of 65

the control of UC San Diego. Because UC San Diego cannot guarantee implementation of the improvements and not all of the impacted locations would be improved, cumulatively significant and unavoidable impacts would remain.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would generate vehicle trips that would result in cumulatively significant impacts at intersections, street segments, freeway ramps and freeway mainline segments in the City of San Diego community and state facilities used to access the campus. Mitigation Measure Tra-1A-OPT2 is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of 2018 LRDP Mitigation Measure Tra-1A-OPT2 will directly improve conditions at 18 of the 43 impacted locations. However, even with the implementation of these corridor and intersection measures, the improvements would not occur on campus lands that UC San Diego has control over and UC San Diego cannot ensure their implementation unless or until they are approved by the City of San Diego and Caltrans. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure Tra-1A-OPT2 will not address all 43 of the impacted locations and cannot ensure that all significant impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. There are no other available feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP will result in an impact that is cumulatively significant and unavoidable. The Regents finds this remaining cumulatively significant impact to be acceptable because the benefits of the Project outweigh this and the other significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section III, below.

2. Issues for which the Project would have a Less-than- Significant Impact with Project-specific Mitigation Measures Incorporated

Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the following potentially significant impacts identified in the Final EIR will be reduced to less-than-significant impacts through the implementation of the mitigation measures hereby incorporated into the Project.

a. Aesthetics

Aesthetics Impact 3.1.3.1: Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would construct new campus development in a Visually Sensitive Zone in the SIO portion of campus and in the vicinity of several Key Vantage Points (“KVPs”) near SIO as well as on the main campus. Prior to development occurring in visually sensitive areas of the UC San Diego campus,

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 21 of 65

individual project(s) would undergo review by the campus Design Review Regents (“DRB”) to address whether the proposed design would affect sensitive resources (among other items). However, design details are not known at this time and it cannot be determined with certainty whether projects implemented under the 2018 would block or adversely affect scenic vistas. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure Aes-1 would mitigate potentially significant impacts to scenic vistas within or adjacent to any of the KVPs or the Visual Sensitive Zone on SIO identified in the Final EIR as discussed herein.

 Findings: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could significantly affect the existing scenic vistas through view blockage or changes in view accessibility. Mitigation Measure Aes-1 is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Aes-1 will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by ensuring that project designs maintain visual access to existing scenic vistas when determining building massing, roof lines, architectural treatments, landscaping and other design elements that influence views. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant aesthetics impacts to scenic vistas.

Aesthetics Impact 3.1.3.2: Degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would construct new campus development that could substantially degrade visual quality and character depending where on campus the future development would occur due to their alteration of natural topography, natural vegetation, and/or development character. Prior to development occurring on the UC San Diego campus and in particular within the Perimeter Development Zone (“PDZ”) that interfaces with off-campus communities, individual project(s) would undergo review by the campus DRB to address whether the proposed design would affect visual character or quality (among other items). However, design details are not known at this time and it cannot be determined with certainty whether projects implemented under the 2018 LRDP would adversely affect existing visual character on campus or in the adjacent communities. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Aes-2A and 2B will mitigate potentially significant visual character and quality impacts to the PDZ and in the SIO area of campus.

 Findings: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could significantly affect the existing visual character and quality of the campus and surrounding community. Mitigation Measures Aes-2A and Aes-2B are

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 22 of 65

hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Aes-2A and Aes-2B will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by ensuring that project designs take into consideration changes in visual landscape or character and incorporate specific design features along the facades of structures facing the public realm. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant aesthetics impacts due to scenic vistas.

Aesthetics Impact 3.1.3.3: New sources of substantial light or glare that could adversely affect views. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would introduce new sources of light and glare associated with new parking areas, structures and/or roads. Such lighting could contribute to indirect lighting/glare on adjacent land uses that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. This impact is considered potentially significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure Aes-3 will mitigate potentially significant light and glare impacts.

 Findings: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could significantly affect the aesthetics of the UC San Diego campus by introducing new sources of light and glare from vehicle headlights. Mitigation Measures Aes-3 is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Aes-3 will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by ensuring the use of barriers on parking areas, structure or roads to prevent vehicles from directing headlight glare into adjacent uses. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant aesthetic impacts due to light and glare.

b. Biological Resources

Biological Resources Impact 3.3.3.1: Impacts to candidate, sensitive or special status plant species. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in new development on undeveloped lands with the potential to support sensitive plant species on the UC San Diego campus. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Bio-1A through Bio-1C will mitigate potentially significant direct impacts to populations of sensitive plants, including the San Diego barrel cactus.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result a significant impacts to sensitive plant species known to occur on campus and, in particular, the San Diego barrel cactus. Mitigation Measures Bio-1A and Bio-1B, as well as Mitigation Measure Bio-3C (required under Impact 3.3.3.3), are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 23 of 65

Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1A and Bio- 1B will reduce this potentially significant impact to sensitive plants to less- than-significant impact by requiring updated plants surveys be conducted during the appropriate season, avoidance of the species when feasible, conservation of habitats that the species occur in accordance with Mitigation Measure Bio-3C, and salvage and translocation on impacted individuals, in the case of the San Diego barrel cactus. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts to sensitive plants.

Biological Resources Impact 3.3.3.2: Impacts to candidate, sensitive or special status animal species. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in new development on or adjacent to undeveloped lands containing sensitive habitats which could directly or through habitat modifications adversely affect sensitive animal species on the UC San Diego campus. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Bio-2A through Bio-2E, as well as Mitigation Measures Bio-3C, Bio-3D and Bio-3E, will mitigate potentially significant direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and nesting raptors or birds.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result a significant impact to the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and nesting raptors and bird species. Mitigation Measures Bio-2A through Bio-2E, as well as Mitigation Measures Bio-3C, Bio-3D and Bio- 3E (under Issue 3.3.3.3) are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio- 2A and Bio-2B will reduce potentially significant impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher to less-than-significant impact by requiring presence/absence surveys to determine if the species could be directly or indirectly impacted, engaging with the wildlife agencies if permits are required, preserving habitat to compensate for loss of gnatcatcher habitat, preventing habitat removal during the breeding season, and if coastal California gnatcatchers are within 500 feet of grading implementing construction noise reduction measures during the breeding season. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-2C will reduce potentially significant impacts to the least Bell’s vireo to less-than- significant impact by requiring presence/absence surveys to determine if the species could be directly or indirectly impacted, engaging with the wildlife agencies if permits are required, preserving habitat to compensate for loss of vireo habitat, preventing habitat removal during the breeding season, and if vireo are within 500 feet of grading implementing construction noise reduction measures during the breeding season. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-2D and Bio-2E will reduce potentially significant impacts to nesting raptors and birds to less-than-

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 24 of 65

significant impact by requiring pre-construction surveys for nests, avoiding construction during the breeding season if a nest is occupied or until it becomes inactive, and restricting clearing of vegetation during the breeding season. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio- 3A through Bio-3D will reduce potentially significant direct impacts to sensitive animal species associated with wetland habitats to less-than- significant impacts by ensuring that mapping is current and evaluating if there are any avoidance or minimization measures available during project planning and design; offsetting any direct habitat impacts through preservation, creation and/or enhancement in the Ecological Reserve on the UC San Diego campus or purchase in an approved off-campus wetland mitigation bank; and when wetland impacts occur requiring the preparation and implementation of a detailed restoration plan, subject to approval by the regulatory permitting agencies. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and nesting raptors and bird species.

Biological Resources Impact 3.3.3.3: Impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in new development on or adjacent to undeveloped lands which could directly or through habitat modifications adversely affect sensitive habitats on the UC San Diego campus. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Bio-3A through Bio-3M will mitigate potentially significant direct and indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, including southern willow scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in a significant impact to the sensitive vegetation communities, including riparian habitat. Mitigation Measures Bio-3B through Bio-3M are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-3A through Bio-3D will reduce potentially significant direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities to less-than-significant impacts by ensuring that mapping is current and evaluating if there are any avoidance or minimization measures available during project planning and design; offsetting any direct habitat impacts through preservation, creation and/or enhancement in the Ecological Reserve on the UC San Diego campus or purchase in an approved off-campus wetland mitigation bank; and when wetland impacts occur requiring the preparation and implementation of a detailed restoration plan, subject to approval by the regulatory permitting agencies. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-3E and Bio-3F will reduce potentially significant indirect construction phase impacts to sensitive vegetation communities to less-than-significant impact by hiring a biological

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 25 of 65

construction monitor to oversee that fencing is installed around the approved limits of disturbance, placing restrictions on construction activities near the edges of biologically sensitive areas; and observing site preparation and grading activities to verify and document mitigation compliance. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-3G through Bio-3M will reduce potentially significant indirect operational impacts to sensitive vegetation communities to less-than-significant impact by requiring projects to install tree species that are void of invasive insect species; controlling invasive plant species where brush management occurs; preventing invasive plant species from being used in landscaping adjacent to the Open Space Preserve; directing or shielding permanent lighting away from the Open Space Preserve; using Integrated Pest Management principles where runoff from landscaping enters the Open Space Preserve; installing signage and fencing to protect habitats from human intrusion; and maintaining stormwater facilities taking into consideration nearby sensitive habitats and bird breeding seasons. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts to sensitive habitats.

Biological Resources Impact 3.3.3.4: Impacts to federal jurisdictional wetlands. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in new development on or adjacent to undeveloped lands which could directly or through habitat modifications adversely affect wetlands on the UC San Diego campus. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure Bio-4A will mitigate potentially significant direct and indirect impacts to wetlands, including federal jurisdictional types.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in a significant impact to the wetlands. Mitigation Measure Bio-4A is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-4A will reduce potentially significant impacts to wetlands to less-than-significant impact by requiring a jurisdictional delineation; integrating avoidance and minimization measures during design; and complying with wetland permit conditions. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts to wetlands.

c. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.3.2: Impacts to archaeological resources. Future development associated with the 2018 LRDP could be located on land that contains known or unknown archaeological resources and ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This would be a potentially significant impact.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 26 of 65

 Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measures Cul-2A through Cul-2E would mitigate potentially significant impacts to known and unknown archaeological resources.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures Cul-2A through Cul-2E are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul-2A through Cul-2E will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by requiring projects involving grading on undeveloped land to comply with measures to evaluate, avoid, document and treat archaeological resource appropriately, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations, and conduct construction monitoring of grading activities to prevent damage or destruction of unknown resources. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant archeological impacts.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.3.3: Impacts to significant paleontological resources. Development on campus associated with the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could involve grading and excavation into geologic formations with a high potential to contain paleontological resources which could resulting in the destruction of fossil remains.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure Cul-3 would mitigate potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure Cul-3 is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Cul-3 will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by engaging in construction monitoring of grading activities in highly sensitive geologic formations to prevent damage or destruction of fossil resources. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant archeological impacts.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.3.4: Impacts to human remains. Construction and excavation activities associated with campus development could unearth previously undiscovered or unrecorded human remains, if they are present. The inadvertent destruction of human remains would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Cul-2D and Cul-2E would mitigate potentially significant impacts to human remains.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 27 of 65

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.3.5: Impacts to tribal cultural resources. Construction and excavation activities associated with campus development could disturb TCRs. If development is proposed that would affect identified TCRs, UC San Diego would enter into consultation with Native American tribes pursuant to PRC Section 21084.3.2 and significant impacts would be expected.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Cul-5A through Cul-5C would mitigate potentially significant impacts to TCRs.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in potentially significant impacts to undiscovered or unrecorded human remains. Mitigation Measures Cul-5A through Cul-5C are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Cul-5A will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact through the consultation with Native American tribes pursuant to PRC Section 21084.3.2 to determine avoidance and/or preservation methods. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Cul-5B will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by requiring construction monitoring by a Native American tribal representative and effective treatment should discoveries be made during monitoring. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Cul-5C will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by repatriating any discovered materials from the TCR to the tribe or reburial on the UC San Diego campus if requested by the tribe. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts to TCRs.

d. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact 3.6.3.1: Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may have a cumulatively significant impact on the

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 28 of 65

environment. Construction activities and the operation of stationary, mobile and area emissions sources associated with the 2018 LRDP would contribute GHG emissions that could be inconsistent with the emissions reductions targets specified for the state in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32, even with the UC system commitments to sustainability and campus-wide actions directed at minimizing GHG emissions. This would be a potentially significant impact.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures GHG-1A through GHG-1C would mitigate potentially significant cumulative impacts from GHG emissions.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in potentially significant impacts from GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures GHG-1A through GHG-1C are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1A will reduce this potentially significant impact through requiring the campus to decarbonize the cogeneration plant. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1B will reduce this potentially significant impact by integrating more electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure on campus which would reduce the need for vehicles powered by traditional fossil fuels. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1C will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by requiring UC San Diego to purchase carbon credits if annual monitoring demonstrates the campus’ trajectory for reduction GHG emissions is not consistent with the campus-wide reduction rates needed to achieve the state target GHG reduction rates. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause cumulatively significant GHG impacts.

e. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7.3.4: Activities located on a listed hazardous materials site creating a significant hazard to the public or environment. Implementation of projects under the 2018 LRDP could disturb closed and active hazardous material sites, including the former Camp Matthews is included on the Cortese List due to the potential for munitions debris or MEC associated with historic military training at Camp Matthews, that could pose a risk to construction workers and occupants. This would be a potentially significant impact.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Haz-4A through Haz-4C would mitigate potentially significant impacts from hazardous materials.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in potentially significant impacts from hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures Haz-4A through Haz-4C are hereby adopted and

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 29 of 65

incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Haz-4A and Haz-4B will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by consulting with UC San Diego EH&S to determine if there is the potential for contamination on a site and taking proper precautions, pursuant to applicable regulations, to remove or remediate the contamination during project construction. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-4C will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact by addressing undocumented contamination discovered during construction by engaging the regulatory agencies, investigating the hazardous material and taking appropriate action to remediate or remove the substance in accordance with applicable regulations under the oversight of the regulatory agency(ies). Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7.3.6: Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Implementation of projects under the 2018 LRDP could result in short-term, temporary impacts to street traffic because of roadway improvements and potential extension of construction activities into the right-of- way. This could result in a reduction in the number of lanes or temporary closure of certain street segments which may adversely affect emergency access and routes. Any such impacts would be limited to the construction period and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections. This would be a potentially significant impact.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure Haz-6 would mitigate potentially significant impacts from impairing emergency response or evacuation plans.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in a significant impact due to short-term, temporary construction impacts to street traffic affecting emergency access due to roadway improvements and potential extension of construction activities into the right-of-way. Mitigation Measure Haz-6 is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-6 will reduce this potentially significant impact due to conflicts with emergency access and routes by communicating proposed lane and road closures with the UC San Diego Fire Marshal and campus community at large, as well as local emergency services if necessary. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts due to conflicts with emergency response or evacuation plans.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 30 of 65

f. Noise

Noise Impact 3.10.3.1: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would increase vehicular traffic volumes and potentially cause noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) to be exposed to noise levels in excess of standards or locate new noise-sensitive land uses within close proximity to rail noise produced by the Mid-Coast Corridor trolley. New campus development could also result in new stationary sources of noise from new heating/ventilation/air conditioning units, modified or new utility plants, and/or ventilation from parking structures which could potentially cause NSLUs to be exposed to noise levels in excess of standards. Construction of new and renovated campus buildings and other facilities could temporarily expose nearby NSLUs to elevated (i.e., with respect to the background outdoor ambient sound environment) noise levels that, under the right conditions, might exceed standards and interfere with communication and create nuisances or distractions. As a result, operational noise produced by new campus facilities and construction activities and the placement of NSLUs near noise sources could result in the exceedance of established noise standards; this could result in a potentially significant impact.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Noi-1A through Noi-1F would mitigate potentially significant noise impacts related to new noise sources.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in a potentially significant impact due to operational and construction noise which may affect nearby NSLUs. Mitigation Measures Noi-1A through Noi-1F are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Noi-1A will reduce this potentially significant impact by ensuring NSLUS are sited to avoid vehicular traffic noise impacts and/or incorporate the proper noise reduction measures into the design to ensure compliance with noise standards. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Noi-1B will reduce this potentially significant impact by preventing rail noise impacts through siting NSLUs at a sufficient distance from the trolley line or incorporating the proper noise reduction measures into the design to ensure compliance with noise standards. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measures Noi-1C through Noi-1E will reduce this potentially significant impact by ensuring that adequate screening distances are used to prevent stationary source noise from impacting NSLUs or conducting a project-specific noise analysis and incorporating the noise reduction measures into the design. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Noi-1F will reduce this potentially significant impact by requiring setbacks between the construction noise source and sensitive receptors; using administrative controls, such as locating noisy activities away from NSLUS; and/or implementing notifications to reduce the

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 31 of 65

disruptive effects of temporary construction noise. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts due to operational or construction noise on sensitive receptors due to the exceedance of standards.

Noise Impact 3.10.3.2: Exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive groundborne vibration. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in new campus development that could expose vibration-sensitive land uses or equipment to operational vibration from the Mid-Coast Trolley line operations and construction-related equipment vibration.

 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures Noi-2A and Noi-2B would mitigate potentially significant vibration impacts.

 Finding: The Regents finds that the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could result in a significant impact from vibration. Mitigation Measures Noi-2A and Noi-2B are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Noi-2A will reduce this potentially significant impact due to rail line vibration by requiring a vibration analysis to determine appropriate building design features to be included in new structures. The Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure Noi-2B will reduce this potentially significant impact due to construction vibration by requiring a vibration mitigation program to identify measures to reduce vibration resulting from construction activities and conducting monitoring to confirm high impact activities so not cause disturbances to vibration-sensitive land uses or equipment. Therefore, the Project with mitigation will not cause significant impacts from ground-borne vibration.

3. Issues for which the Project would have a Less Than Significant Impact or No Impact.

The Final EIR found that the following impacts from the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would be less than significant without mitigation or no impact would occur at all, and no mitigation is proposed for these impacts:

a. Aesthetics

Aesthetics Impact 3.1.5: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

No unique trees or trees of significant nature, or unique rock outcroppings on the UC San Diego campus within the viewshed of the I-5, which is considered an Eligible State Scenic Highways – Not Designated. No historic building visible from I-5 would be physically damaged or otherwise impacted by future development under the

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 32 of 65

2018 LRDP. Therefore, any impacts to scenic resources visible from a state scenic highway would be less than significant on a project level.

b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact 4.1.1: Convert farmland to non- agricultural use or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

UC San Diego campus has been designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and Other Land in the San Diego County Important Farmland Map pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The UC is constitutionally exempt from local zoning and land use plan/element requirements and due to the specific tax-exempt status, land owned by the UC is not subject to Williamson Act contracts. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in impacts to agricultural resources because there are no soils on campus lands that are suitable for agricultural use that are being used for non-agricultural endeavors and no agricultural lands exist or would be converted within or adjacent to UC San Diego campus with implementation of the 2018 LRDP. This impact is considered less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact 4.1.1: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land; result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or other changes in the environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forestland.

UC San Diego campus includes approximately 42 acres of Historic Grove and approximately 56 acres of Urban Forest; both areas are part of the Open Space Preserve, but these areas do not support 10 percent over of any native tree species. They do not allow for management of one or more forest resources, including timber and aesthetics. The campus is an institutional use for public higher education and not an area managed for agricultural or forestry resources. This impact is considered less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

c. Air Quality

Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Because implementation of the 2018 LRDP would be consistent with the Smart Growth vision for the region and would result in less vehicle miles travelled (VMT) than the regional average, the proposed 2018 LRDP would not conflict with or

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 33 of 65

obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. As a result, this impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting in a CO hotspot.

The 2018 LRDP long-term traffic conditions would not result in or contribute to any exceedances of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards during the AM peak periods, even considering conservative assumptions. Therefore, no localized CO impacts would occur and the Project would not violate a standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As a result, this impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Air Quality Impact 3.2.5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not add any new odor sources, and any odors generated would be similar to existing odors associated with land uses in the area. The land uses associated with the proposed 2018 LRDP would be institutional, residential, academic, and commercial, which are consistent with existing campus uses and not typically large generators of odor emissions. As a result, this impact would be less than significant on a project level.

d. Biological Resources

Biological Resources Impact 3.3.5: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Except for the slope south of the Audrey Geisel House and surrounding beach properties that connects to Scripps Coastal Reserve and the City’s MHPA and is not proposed for development, the other areas containing blocks of habitat are separated from other wildlife habitat areas by surrounding development, and no wildlife corridor or linkage is present to connect these lands. Development of the proposed 2018 LRDP could impact a small portion of land near Skeleton Canyon; however, the impacts would be adjacent to Expedition Way and concentrated in eucalyptus woodland, and would not preclude wildlife movement within the canyon. As a result, there would be no impact on a project level.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 34 of 65

Biological Resources Impact 3.3.5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance.

UC San Diego is a part of the UC, a constitutionally created unit of the State of California that is not subject to municipal plans, policies, and regulations, such as County and City General Plans or local ordinances. During preparation of the 2018 LRDP EIR, UC San Diego voluntarily reviewed the LRDP for consistency with local policies and ordinances found in the City’s Land Development Code (2000), including the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations and the City Biology Guidelines (2012), and determined that there are no specific policies that address biological resources on UC San Diego. Therefore, no local policy conflicts would arise with implementation of the 2018 LRDP, and no impact would occur.

Biological Resources Impact 3.3.5: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

UC San Diego is not included within the City’s Multiple-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) nor is UC San Diego an enrolled agency in the NCCP Program. However, the MSCP was also taken into account during the preparation of the 2018 LRDP biological resources analysis due to its applicability to the surrounding region. The 2018 LRDP is not proposing development that would directly or indirectly affect the resources preserved on nearby City preserve lands. There are no direct wildlife corridors between the campus Open Space Preserve and city preserve lands as major roadways block these connections. Therefore, no impact to the City’s MSCP or the NCCP Program would occur.

e. Geology and Soils

Geology and Soils Impact 3.5.3.1: Potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of a rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides.

None of the faults at UC San Diego are considered -active; therefore, ground surface rupture is not likely to occur as a result of an earthquake or seismic event. UC San Diego routinely reviews all building plans for compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) and also follows the UC Policy on Seismic Safety that requires compliance with the CBC as well as independent review of structural seismic design of both new construction and remodeling projects. Due to the dense nature of the underlying formational materials and lack of near surface groundwater, the potential for liquefaction occurring is considered very low. Geotechnical investigations that address the potential for landslides are routinely performed for applicable projects and compliance with CBC as well as the UC Policy on Seismic

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 35 of 65

Safety would reduce hazards. For these reasons, the project would have a less-than- significant impact related to exposure of people or structures to seismic hazards on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 3.5.3.2: Potential to disturb soils and result in erosion or loss of topsoil.

All projects implemented under the 2018 LRDP would be required to comply with the UC San Diego Design Guidelines, which include the incorporation of low impact development and erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs), and UC San Diego’s Stormwater Management Program and other regulatory requirements, as needed to minimize erosion and topsoil loss. The result would be a less-than-significant impact due to soil erosion on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 3.5.3.3: Potential to locate facilities on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable and potentially result in a landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

Geotechnical investigations that are required in order to comply with the CBC address compressible soils, slope stability, and coastal bluffs, and compliance with CBC would reduce potential hazards. The result would be a less-than-significant impact due to unstable geology and soils on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 3.5.3.4: Potential for construction located on expansive soils.

For any development at UC San Diego under the 2018 LRDP, the UC Seismic Safety Policy would require compliance with the CBC, which includes provisions for construction on expansive soils. The result would be a less-than-significant impact due to expansive soils on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 3.5.5: Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.

UC San Diego is provided sanitary sewer service by the City of San Diego and no septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are used or anticipated to be associated with the implementation of the 2018 LRDP; therefore, no impact would occur.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 36 of 65

f. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7.3.1: Significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials.

The general types of hazardous materials is not expected to substantially change due to the 2018 LRDP. Laboratories and other facilities constructed as a result of implementation of the 2018 LRDP would continue to comply with all hazardous materials standards for UC San Diego and applicable regulations. Compliance with hazardous waste storage and transportation regulations, and continuation of the programs and controls currently in place to manage hazardous wastes and to detect inadvertent releases of hazardous materials to the sanitary sewer and/or landfill, as mandated by state and federal laws, would minimize the hazards to workers, the public, and the environment. UC San Diego policy requires that packaging of chemicals to be transported on public roads conforms with all legal requirements, including those of the USDOT, CHP, CDPH, and County of San Diego DEH, and to the guidelines of the International Civil Aeronautics Organization and the International Air Transport Association. Disposal of hazardous materials associated with existing campus building renovation and/or demolition under the proposed 2018 LRDP would occur in accordance with applicable campus health and safety practices and federal and state regulations. The result of these compliance measures would be a less-than-significant impact due to hazardous material on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7.3.2: Release of hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable accidents.

UC San Diego would continue to implement existing campus health and safety practices and comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Contractors for any future development associated with the 2018 LRDP would be required to follow the UC San Diego Solis Management Policy and Ammunitions Awareness Program in the event that munitions debris or MEC is inadvertently encountered. In the event that other potentially hazardous materials are encountered during construction or redevelopment, UC San Diego would conduct a comprehensive assessment of the situation in coordination with the appropriate regulatory authority and its Consolidated Emergency Response/Contingency Plan, which addresses the campus community’s planned response to various levels of man-made or natural emergency situations including the release of hazardous materials. The result of these precautions would be a less-than-significant impact due to hazardous materials on a project level and a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 37 of 65

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7.3.3: Result in activities that emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

While hazardous materials and waste could continue to be handled within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school as a result of implementation of the 2018 LRDP, and overall quantities may increase, these materials would still not exist in quantities significant enough to pose a risk to occupants of the school or the campus community. The campus would continue to comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes as well as existing campus programs, practices, and procedures would ensure there would be no risks associated with hazardous emissions or materials to primary or secondary schools in the area. The result of these precautions would be a less-than-significant impact due to release of hazardous materials on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7.3.5: Result in an aircraft safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

The campus is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip, but it is located within approximately three miles of MCAS Miramar and is adjacent to the Torrey Pines Gliderport. UC San Diego is not located within any APZs for MCAS Miramar and intermittent short-term use at the Gliderport is not a safety hazard because the gliders do not take-off or land over UC San Diego structures. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would result in a less-than-significant aircraft safety hazard on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 3.7.3.7: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Additional development of the campus could directly or indirectly expose people or structures to increased risks associated with wildland fires due to the open spaces that exist on and near the campus. UC San Diego would continue to implement brush management around buildings that are adjacent to undeveloped areas. The UC San Diego Fire Marshal and staff would continue to be responsible for campus-wide fire prevention and provide services such as plan review and construction inspections of new construction as well as alterations or renovations to existing buildings and facilities in accordance with current California building and fire codes. UC San Diego would continue to coordinate with the City of San Diego to construct a new fire station near the intersection of Genesee Avenue and North Torrey Pines Road that would serve the community and UC San Diego campus. The result of these precautions would be a less-than-significant impact due to exposure of people or structures to wildland fires on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 38 of 65

g. Hydrology and Water Quality

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8.3.1: Alteration of the existing drainage or hydrology of a site or area in a manner which would result in flooding, exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, or result in substantial erosion or siltation.

Land-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the 2018 LRDP and construction of new building foundations, roads, driveways, and trenches for utilities, could result in localized alteration of drainage patterns and temporarily increase erosion and sedimentation. All construction-related activities would be required to comply with UC San Diego’s Design Guidelines, Sustainability Policies, and NPDES Construction General Permit requirements to reduce the potential adverse effects on drainage/water quality associated with construction activities. Additional development can increase surface runoff rates by creating more impervious surfaces such as pavement and buildings where none were before. These alterations could also result in exceeding the existing capacity of storm water facilities if substantial drainage is rerouted or storm water flow or velocities are substantially increased. Compliance with the campus Design Guidelines, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and other regulatory requirements will be determined through project review and approvals. At a minimum, projects would maintain infrastructure system functions and incorporate mitigation to address any adverse impacts on infrastructure systems. The result of these measures would be a less- than-significant impact due to changes in runoff and erosion/siltation on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8.3.2: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed 2018 LRDP could result in an increase in potential discharges of pollutants to receiving waters, including waters designated as impaired. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP is not anticipated to change existing discharges into receiving waters, as regulated under individual and industrial NPDES permits. Individual project construction would have the potential to result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, which could have short-term impacts on surface water quality if they are washed off-site by storm water or non-storm water, or are blown or tracked off-site to areas susceptible to wash off by storm water or non-storm water. All construction projects would be required to comply with various UC San Diego guidelines and policies and Storm Water Management Program and other regulatory requirements related to storm water runoff to minimize the potential for pollutants to enter receiving waters. Projects on the UC San Diego campus are required to comply with the Construction General Permit requirements or campus Design Guidelines which

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 39 of 65

require them to reduce or eliminate discharges of pollutants to the storm drain conveyance system. With the continued implementation of UC San Diego Design Guidelines, policies, and regulatory requirements, less than significant impacts related to a potential violation of any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement would occur on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8.3.3: Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

The UC San Diego campus is not subject to inundation by seiche as this phenomenon is typically associated with land locked bodies of water, none of which occur near the campus. In the SIO portion of campus near the Pacific Ocean UC San Diego has an Emergency Action Plan that addresses the planned response in the event of a tsunami. Additionally, it is likely that if a tsunami did occur there would be sufficient notice to evacuate people from this relatively small area of concern. Inundation by mudflows across the developed portion of the majority of the campus is unlikely due to the urbanized location, and the fact that most of the campus is located on a relatively flat mesa well above open spaces. Low-lying areas of campus are vegetated and would not be developed under the 2018 LRDP, which makes it unlikely for inundation by mudflows to expose people or structures to significant risk. The 2018 LRDP would result in a less than significant impact regarding the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8.5: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

No removal of groundwater is proposed, as the project would use potable and recycled water supplied by the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department via existing and future lines on UC San Diego's campus. The City receives deliveries of imported water from the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) to satisfy potable water demand. Under the 2018 LRDP, the implementation of LID measures that promote, rather than interfere with, the infiltration of groundwater would be required for all larger development or redevelopment projects. No impacts would occur.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8.5: Place housing within a 100-year floor hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Floor Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 40 of 65

The campus (including SIO) is in Zone X, which is outside of the 100-year and 500- year flood hazard areas or any County-identified flood hazard areas. No impact would occur.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8.5: Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood floors.

The entire campus, including SIO, is located in Flood Zone X which is outside of the 100- and 500-year floodplains. Therefore, 2018 LRDP implementation would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3.8.5: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

The majority of the UC San Diego campus development is located on the Torrey Pines Mesa. No levees or dams are located in close proximity to the campus. It is extremely unlikely that dam or levee failure occurring at inland San Diego County locations, such as Miramar Lake or others, would have any effect on elevated campus lands located at the Pacific Coast. Flood flows emanating from inland areas would more likely travel to the coast via Los Peñasquitos Lagoon to the north or Rose Canyon to the south of campus lands. No impact would occur.

h. Land Use and Planning

Land Use and Planning Impact 3.9.3.1: Conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not conflict with existing land use, policies, or zoning because the UC is not subject to municipal regulations of surrounding local governments for uses on property owned or controlled by the UC that are in furtherance of the UC’s education purposes. Because the UC holds jurisdiction over campus-related projects, projects carried out by UC San Diego would be consistent with the 2018 LRDP. Therefore, impacts associated with land use, policies, or regulations would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning Impact 3.9.5: Physically divide an established community.

The San Diego community has developed around and, in part, in response to the campus. It is not currently anticipated that implementation of the 2018 LRDP would include any development outside of established campus properties or boundaries, and no incursion into, or division of, the surrounding residential communities is

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 41 of 65

anticipated. Therefore, implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.

Land Use and Planning Impact 3.9.5: Conflict with any applicable HCP or NCCP.

The UC San Diego campus is within the City of San Diego but is not included within the City's MSCP nor is UC San Diego an enrolled agency in the NCCP Program. Preserve areas designated by the City's MSCP are generally not on UC San Diego lands; however, the MHPA overlaps with a portion of the Audrey Geisel House and Beach Properties and it is adjacent to the Scripps Coastal Reserve. Since UC San Diego is not an enrolled agency, inclusion of lands that are mapped as MHPA on the Audrey Geisel House and Beach Properties does not constitute any obligation on the part of UC San Diego to comply with the City’s MSCP preservation goals or objectives. Connectivity between City preserve lands and Open Space Preserve on UC San Diego is limited, as various paved roads separate them. Additionally, there are no designated wildlife corridors that connect the Open Space Preserve lands on UC San Diego with off-campus MHPA lands. Therefore, implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not conflict with the any HCP or NCCP. No impact would occur.

i. Mineral Resources

Mineral Resources Impact 4.1.2: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Although the UC San Diego campus has been classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-1 and MRZ-3 in the City of San Diego General Plan, the UC is constitutionally exempt from local regulations and ordinances. Mineral resources do not occur on UC San Diego campus, which is an institutional use for public higher education and not an area slated for mineral resource development or extraction. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur.

j. Noise

Noise Impact 3.10.3.4: Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Emergency generator testing would produce temporary noise that would be temporarily audible to nearby listeners but would not be considered a durable adverse noise impact due to short duration, daytime occurrence and infrequency. Therefore, no impact would occur.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 42 of 65

Noise Impact 3.10.5: Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from a private air strip.

There are no private airstrips within two miles of the UC San Diego campus and no potential for a significant effect from such noise-producing sources would occur.

Noise Impact 3.10.5: Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from a public airport or public use airport.

The UC San Diego campus is currently subject to periodic overflights by civil and commercial aviation and is not located within the 60 dBA CNEL contour of any airport, including MCAS Miramar operations. Helicopter sorties associated with operations of the Jacobs Medical Center would continue unchanged in the future. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels generated by aircraft noise from a public or public use airport. Impacts would be less than significant.

k. Population and Housing

Population and Housing Impact 3.11.3.2: Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Under the 2018 LRDP, no housing would be permanently removed nor would any actions that would substantially displace people occur. Students may be displaced temporarily as a result of redevelopment or remodeling of UC San Diego housing facilities; however, it is likely that redevelopment and/or remodeling would occur over the summer months, when student and employee populations would be temporarily reduced. UC San Diego would monitor on-campus population and stagger opening of new housing facilities to correspond with any temporary decreases in housing availability such that the level of on-campus housing is maintained or increased year-to-year and does not decrease. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The impact would be less than significant.

l. Public Services

Public Services Impact 3.12.3.1: Significant physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities for fire protection.

Increased population and development under the 2018 LRDP could incrementally increase demand for fire services. However, the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not directly trigger the need for a new fire station beyond those already

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 43 of 65

planned to address the cumulative demand for fire protection facilities across the whole of the City of San Diego the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. The campus Fire Marshal would continue to review and approve all development plans to ensure adequate fire access, as well as fire prevention, for each new project in accordance with current California building and fire codes. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Public Services Impact 3.12.3.2: Significant physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities for police protection.

Increased population and development under the 2018 LRDP could increase demand for police services. However, implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not directly increase demand that would not result in the need for additional police protection facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Public Services Impact 3.12.3.3: Significant physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities for schools.

The increase in campus population that is expected to occur under the 2018 LRDP would result in an increased demand for schools. The San Diego Unified School District determined that the middle and high schools would be able to accommodate the growth, however, schools at the elementary level are at their full capacity. To address the growth, the school district indicated they would implement strategies to provide sufficient classroom space, such as limiting non-resident students and implementing attendance boundary changes. The increase demand would not result in the need for additional schools, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

m. Recreation

Recreation Impact 3.13.3.1: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

The increase in population under the 2018 LRDP would increase demand for recreation facilities. However, maintenance of existing on-campus recreation

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 44 of 65

facilities would be increased as needed, and new recreational facilities would be constructed on campus for both UC San Diego populations and the general public to use as part of the 2018 LRDP to off-set increases in demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Recreation Impact 3.13.3.2: Significant physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded recreational facilities.

Increased population and development under the 2018 LRDP could increase demand for recreation facilities. Any future construction of on-campus recreational projects under the 2018 LRDP would require CEQA review prior to project approval, and the physical impacts, if potentially significant, would be mitigated using measures outlined in the Final EIR. The demand for recreational facilities in the areas surrounding the UC San Diego campus is expected to be limited given the multitude of recreational opportunities provided on campus. Any environmental impacts resulting from construction of new or expanded off-campus recreational facilities would be required to undergo environmental review and mitigate any potentially significant impacts based on City policies. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in the construction of recreation facilities which could result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

n. Transportation/Traffic

Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.3.2: Cause substantial additional vehicle miles traveled that exceed the regional averages for that land use.

The current UC San Diego Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program lowers auto dependency and vehicles miles travelled (VMT) and the 2018 LRDP is expected to be lower than the regional and City VMT per capita averages in the future. The UC San Diego campus is within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor including the future Mid-Coast Trolley (i.e., light rail transit) service and existing bus routes and campus shuttle system; therefore, campus development implemented in accordance with the 2018 LRDP would occur within a transit priority area (TPA). For the resident and employee populations, the 2018 LRDP would not exceed a level of 15 percent below the region or City VMT per resident and per employee. The total campus population VMT under the 2018 LRDP would be less than 15 percent of the County of San Diego region-wide average for the campus/university land use type. In addition, the 2018 LRDP would be generally consistent with the regional transportation plan (RTP) and sustainable communities strategies (SCS) by SANDAG with regard to constructing housing near high frequency transit, being consistent with the planned land use for the campus property, and being

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 45 of 65

identified as a TPA in the plans. The 2018 LRDP would also promote the development of multimodal transportation networks, specifically bicycle and pedestrian networks, particularly as they connect to transit. Therefore, this VMT impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.3.3: Conflict with applicable policies, plans, or programs regarding safety or performance of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

The 2018 LRDP is consistency with the SANDAG RTP/SCS with regard to constructing housing near high frequency transit, being consistent with the planned land use for the campus property, and being identified as a TPA in the plans. The 2018 LRDP would also promote the development of multimodal transportation networks, specifically bicycle and pedestrian networks, particularly as they connect to transit. Under the 2018 LRDP, UC San Diego would continue to implement its current, comprehensive TDM program. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not conflict with applicable policies, plans, or programs regarding safety or performance of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.5: Change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks.

The UC San Diego campus is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip but is located within three miles of MCAS Miramar and is adjacent to the Torrey Pines Gliderport. UC San Diego is not located within any Accident Potential Zones (APZs) for MCAS Miramar and the intermittent short-term use at the Torrey Pines Gliderport is not considered a safety hazard to the campus and surrounding area as the gliders do not take-off or land over UC San Diego structures. Therefore, development associated with the proposed 2018 LRDP would not change existing air traffic volumes nor affect existing air traffic patterns in any measurable way. No impact would occur.

Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.5: Conflict with a congestion management plan, including level of service standards and travel demand measures for designated roads or highways.

The San Diego region, which includes UC San Diego, elected to be exempt from the state-mandated CMP in October of 2009. Therefore, implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not cause a conflict with the CMP, including level of service standards and travel demand measures for designated roads or highways. No impact would occur.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 46 of 65

Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.5: Increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

The UC San Diego campus is located in a largely urbanized area with no farming, rural, or other noncompatible uses. The UC San Diego campus roadway system is largely in place, with the exception of a second bridge crossing over I-5, currently under construction, which would complete the campus loop road system. The 2018 LRDP does not include plans to substantially change the campus circulation system or to change off-site circulation. Therefore, implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. No impact would occur.

Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.5: Result in inadequate emergency access.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP-related planned improvements would occur in areas that are currently provided access and would continue to include fire access consistent with applicable portions of the California Fire Code and in terms of meeting the City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department (SDFR)’s response times currently and upon completion of new fire station construction. Fire apparatus access throughout UC San Diego would continue to include roads that meet the code requirements for width, grade, clearance, turnouts, dead-end length, and turnarounds. When new development, redevelopment, or site improvements occur on campus, UC San Diego would amend the campus emergency access route map to ensure that adequate fire protection equipment access is maintained on campus at all times. In addition, the UC San Diego Fire Marshal would continue to meet with the City Deputy Fire Marshal as needed to review and revise site access plans to adequately serve the campus. Therefore, implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur.

o. Utilities, Service Systems and Energy

Utilities, Service Systems and Energy Impact 3.15.3.1: Exceedance of the City’s treatment capacity to serve the project’s projected demand.

Implementation of the proposed 2018 LRDP would result in increased wastewater flows that would not cause exceedance of regional treatment capacity because the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (“PLWTP”) would have more than adequate capacity to receive and treat wastewater from UC San Diego associated with implementation of the 2018 LRDP and water conservation efforts would further reduce flow rates from the campus in the future. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in the construction of new or expanded wastewater collection/treatment infrastructure beyond what has already been assumed, impacts related to the possible need for new/expanded facilities as result of the 2018 LRDP would be less than significant.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 47 of 65

Utilities, Service Systems and Energy Impact 3.15.3.2: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities which could cause significant environmental effects.

While the anticipated campus growth under the 2018 LRDP would require construction of new, relocated, and expanded potable and recycled water and wastewater infrastructure, including recommended improvements from the campus Water Study and Sewer Study, the majority of the new/expanded infrastructure would be constructed in existing roads or other developed areas of campus. Any environmental impacts resulting from construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to undergo environmental review and mitigate any potentially significant impacts in accordance with the 2018 LRDP Final EIR. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in the construction of water or wastewater facilities which could result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant on a project level.

Utilities, Service Systems and Energy Impact 3.15.3.3: Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities which could cause significant environmental effects.

While the anticipated campus growth under the 2018 LRDP would require construction of new, relocated, and expanded stormwater infrastructure, including recommended improvements from the campus Drainage Study, the majority of the new/expanded infrastructure would be constructed in existing roads or other developed areas of campus. Locations for potential regional storm water best management practices (“BMPs”) are identified in undeveloped areas of campus. These projects would be subject to subsequent review under CEQA prior to consideration for approval. Any environmental impacts resulting from construction of new or expanded facilities would be required to undergo environmental review and mitigate any potentially significant impacts in accordance with the 2018 LRDP Final EIR. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in the construction of stormwater facilities which could result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant on a project level.

Utilities, Service Systems and Energy 3.15.3.4: Result in insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or new or expanded entitlements are needed.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would generate an additional demand for water, but would not require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources, or result in the need for new or expanded entitlements. The water supply assessment (“WSA”) Report concludes that the water demand projections for the 2018 LRDP are accounted for in the regional water resource planning documents of the City, the Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (“MWD”). This impact would be less than significant on a project level and

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 48 of 65

result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Utilities, Service Systems and Energy Impact 3.15.3.5: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would increase solid waste generation at the campus. During pre-construction demolition, clearing/grubbing, and grading activities, the projects implemented under the 2018 LRDP would produce excavated soils, green waste, asphalt/concrete, and other construction and demolition waste. Operations of new, renovated and expanded facilities under the 2018 LRDP would contribute additional non-recyclable/non-reusable waste. The UC Sustainable Practices Policy has set the goal that the UC system would divert 75percent of its municipal solid waste from landfills by June 2012 with an ultimate goal of zero waste by 2020. Compliance with the UC Sustainable Practices Policy would continue to reduce landfill contributions, consistent with state regulations. Therefore, UC San Diego would assist the state and local agencies in achieving their applicable solid waste management and diversion goals outlined in the applicable regulations by setting aggressive goals and advancing its methods for reducing solid waste disposed of at the local landfill system. This impact would therefore be less than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Utilities, Service Systems and Energy Impact 3.15.3.6: Result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy

During construction, the projects implemented under the 2018 LRDP would result in an increase in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. New development under the 2018 LRDP would consume energy for several purposes including but not limited to building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting, electricity, and commercial equipment. Student, visitor, and faculty vehicle trips and fleet vehicle trips associated with growth under the 2018 LRDP would also be a source of energy consumption. Limitations on idling of construction vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Although the increased fuel consumption, and electricity, natural gas, and water use would result in associated increases in energy consumption, the overall operation of the 2018 LRDP, including UC San Diego’s numerous energy performance requirements, minimum of LEED Silver Certification for all new buildings, and 100 percent renewable energy strategy, would improve energy efficiency and consumption. The UC Sustainable Practices Policy requirements, LEED certification, and renewable energy strategy would further minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Thus, this impact would be less

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 49 of 65

than significant on a project level and result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact.

Utilities, Service Systems and Energy Impact 3.15.5: Solid waste in excess of State or local standards or the capacity of local infrastructure or negatively impact the provision of solid waste services or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

New campus development under the 2018 LRDP would increase the amount of construction and operational municipal solid waste generated on the UC San Diego campus. The City operates the local landfill system and can demonstrate it has more than 15 years of permitted landfill capacity at these facilities as required by the State’s Integrated Waste Management Act. Waste diversion at the campus would be expected to increase as more LEED-certified structures are built and more waste reduction programs are introduced, while landfill disposal rates would correspondingly decrease during the planning horizon of the 2018 LRDP. UC San Diego would help facilitate extending the lifespan on the City’s landfill system and not impair the regions solid waste reduction goals. Thus, implementation of the 2018 LRDP would not result in inadequate capacity of solid waste facilities in the region such that construction of a new landfill or expansion of an existing landfill would be necessary and less than significant impacts would occur.

 Finding: For all of the above impacts listed in this Section II.E.3, no finding is necessary pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(1) because the Project will not result in any potentially significant direct or indirect project or cumulative impacts on the environment; accordingly, no project-specific mitigation is required. Nevertheless, The Regents finds that all of the aforementioned environmental impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed or required.

F. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

PRC Section 21081.6 requires the lead agency, when making the findings required by PRC Section 21081(1)(a), to adopt a MMRP that incorporates all of the changes made to the project or any conditions of project approval adopted to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The University has prepared a MMRP that requires the University to monitor all of the mitigation measures adopted and made fully enforceable through these Findings and the approval of the 2018 LRDP. The Regents finds that the MMRP has been designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation requirements during project implementation.

The MMRP defines the responsibility and anticipated timing for implementation of mitigation measures within the University’s jurisdiction. The University will ensure the accomplishment of mitigation measures through administrative controls over

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 50 of 65

the Project’s implementation, and the University will monitor and enforce the implementation of mitigation measures through verification in periodic mitigation monitoring reports and through periodic inspections by appropriate University personnel. The MMRP for the 2018 LRDP is included in Volume III of the Final EIR.

G. Alternatives

In compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Section 5.0 of the Final EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the 2018 LRDP, including the No Project (2004 LRDP), Redevelopment/Infill Only, Increased Housing, and Reduced Project Alternatives followed by identification of an environmentally superior alternative. The EIR examined each alternative’s feasibility, ability to meet the Project objectives, and environmental impacts compared to the Project. In compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the alternatives analysis included an analysis of a no-project alternative and also identified the environmentally superior alternative.

Potential alternatives found to clearly not meet the CEQA standards for alternatives, including Reduced University Center Alternative and Alternative San Diego County Location for Additional Campus Growth, were rejected without further environmental review in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. The rationale and substantial evidence for rejecting these alternatives for consideration in detail in the EIR is set forth in the Draft EIR and the record of proceedings, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Brief summaries of the evaluated alternatives and findings regarding the alternatives follow the Project objectives section below.

1. Project Objectives

The Regents finds that the objectives for the 2018 LRDP are as described in Section 2.3 of Volume I of the Final EIR. The specific objectives of the 2018 LRDP are as follows:

i. Accommodate projected growth by providing approximately 8.9 million GSF of new facilities needed to expand academic and non-academic programs in support of the UC mission and its commitment to excellence in teaching, research and public service;

ii. Establish two new undergraduate colleges within the larger University setting in accordance with UC San Diego’s unique college system that provides undergraduate students with personalized academic services and close-knit intellectual and social environment outside of their academic department;

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 51 of 65

iii. Locate buildings on campus in accordance with the character, scale, and design goals expressed in the 1989 Master Plan, Neighborhood Planning Studies, previous LRDPs, and the LRDP’s guiding principles and its required elements;

iv. Site future development to allow for the co-location and strengthening of campus programs, facilities, and activities, to continue the exchange of ideas between academics and scientists, and to create synergy between shared resources and services;

v. Activate and enliven the campus through strategic mixed-use and transit- oriented development, improved public spaces, expanded campus services, and additional on-campus housing to facilitate a living-learning campus environment;

vi. Complete the redevelopment of the University Center on West Campus as a walkable “town center” featuring a mix of uses, urban densities, and pedestrian-activated ground floors, with connections to adjacent neighborhoods and the future light-rail transit station at Pepper Canyon;

vii. Provide housing for approximately 65 percent of the eligible student population by constructing new higher-density units and replacing aging low-density units while taking into account affordability, financial feasibility, physical site constraints, and campus character; viii. Develop new faculty and staff housing to provide affordable options and remain competitive with peer academic institutions in attracting top talent;

ix. Expand and enhance research and training facilities and core services at UC Health in support of the region’s only academic medical center;

x. Expand multi-modal connections and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to optimize trip reduction benefits of the light rail transit system, reduce automobile commuting, and coordinate with regional transportation programs;

xi. Minimize environmental impacts through sustainable development practices related to campus planning, building siting, design, construction and operations; and

xii. Recognize the importance of campus open spaces that form a balance with the built environment and continue to be responsible stewards of campus natural and biological resources.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 52 of 65

2. No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP)

Under this alternative, the 2004 LRDP would remain as the applicable planning document for UC San Diego and, therefore, the No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP) assumes that development on the campus could continue to occur, but it would be in accordance with the 2004 LRDP, which has met many of its growth parameters in terms of GSF and overall campus population. Specifically, the No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP) would allow for approximately 200,000 GSF of new campus construction and some additional campus population growth. However, because the developable area is generally the same, development planned by the No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP) would be less dense than that for the proposed 2018 LRDP.

As compared to the 2018 LRDP, the No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP) would result in greater potentially significant impacts to aesthetics and transportation/traffic (parking only) but would lessen the Project’s potentially significant impacts to air quality, cultural and tribal cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing and transportation/traffic. The No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP) would have similar impacts as the 2018 LRDP with regard to aesthetics (light and glare only), biological resources, cultural and tribal resources (archaeological resources and human remains only), hazards and hazardous materials.

Although the environmental impacts of the 2018 LRDP would be minimized, the No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP) would only accomplish some of the fundamental project objectives. The No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP) would not fulfill the objectives that relate to campus growth, housing, and response to UC demands and the objective related to expansion and enhancement of research and training facilities and core services at UC Health. Because growth would be limited, some expansion of multi-modal connections and TDM programs, along with co-location and expansion of campus programs and services that would have been implemented under the 2018 LRDP to fulfill these objectives may be limited or reprioritized.

Finding: For the reasons set forth above and more fully described in Final EIR and in the record of proceeding, the Regents finds that the No Project Alternative (2004 LRDP) is infeasible and fails to meet most of the basic project objectives. Therefore, the Regents declines to adopt this alternative pursuant to the standards in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

3. Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative

This alternative would be the same as the proposed 2018 LRDP (e.g., it would still provide 8.9 million GSF of net new development similar to the proposed 2018 LRDP) with the exception that it would only include redevelopment and infill projects on developed land. Thus, no undeveloped land would be directly impacted

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 53 of 65

under this alternative, which would lessen or avoid impacts to biological resources as well as cultural and tribal cultural resources. However, this would reduce developable acreage in varying locations, notably in SIO (where roughly half of the potential developable land area consists of undeveloped property). Development would likely still occur at a higher density to compensate for the loss of developable area; thus, buildings may have increased height and less open space between, within and around them. However, development and redevelopment in the SIO area of campus under this alternative would have to comply with the replacement structure limitations and new structure height restrictions contained in the May 2013 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between The Regents and the California Coastal Commission (CCC), which would limit on how campus facilities and academic space could occur in the SIO area in the future. By requiring the campus to avoid development of undeveloped land, this alternative could also limit co-location of research facilities and expansion of existing facilities (e.g., Birch Aquarium at SIO). In addition, the proposed housing (notably faculty and staff housing) at SIO would not be developed as planned under the proposed 2018 LRDP as such actions would be constrained to developed land.

As compared to the 2018 LRDP, the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative would lessen but not avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, biological resources (direct impacts), and cultural and tribal cultural resources. The Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative would have similar impacts as the 2018 LRDP with regard to air quality, cultural and tribal resources (i.e., archaeological resources, human remains and tribal cultural resources), greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing and transportation/traffic.

As the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative would result in the same campus growth and implement the same improvements as the 2018 LRDP, it would meet many of the 2018 LRDP objectives. However, given the restriction of new development to currently developed areas of the campus, there are a number of key project objectives (#i, #iii, #iv and #vii) this alternative would only partially meet. For example, this alternative would only partially meet Project Objective #i because the campus would not be able to fully accommodate the 760,000 GSF of academic, research, housing and utility buildings in the SIO portion of campus (roughly half of the potential developable land area in SIO consists of undeveloped property), which would limit the amount of development that could occur to support these programs in the vicinity of existing programs; the proposed housing (net 663 faculty and staff beds) at SIO would also not be developed as planned under the 2018 LRDP because the majority of the proposed housing would be located within undeveloped property; and the intensification of redevelopment would be limited due to the building areas and height restrictions of SIO and the design mitigation of the PDZ. In addition, this alternative would only be able to partially meet Project Objective #iii it would require denser or larger developments in other developed portions of the

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 54 of 65

campus to meet new housing needs, potentially resulting in inconsistency with the character, scale, design goals, and policies identified in the 1989 Master Plan, Neighborhood Planning Studies, previous LRDPs, and the LRDP’s guiding principles and its required elements. This alternative would also cause new development in the SIO area to be disproportionately limited as the majority of SIO is composed of undeveloped property that is currently identified for development in the SIO Neighborhood Planning Studies. Also, this alternative would only partially meet Project Objective #iv as it would prevent certain campus programs from expanding or co-locating uses (e.g., this alternative would not allow the co-location of research facilities or expansion at SIO and of the Birch Aquarium at SIO as such actions would be constrained to developed land). Lastly, this alternative would only partially meet Project Objective #viii because the proposed housing (notably faculty and staff housing) at SIO would not be developed as planned under the proposed 2018 LRDP as the majority of new faculty/staff housing would be located within undeveloped property at SIO.

Finding: For the reasons set forth above and more fully described in Final EIR and in the record of proceeding, the Regents finds that Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative is infeasible, fails to meet most of the basic project objectives or meets the basic objectives to a lesser extent than the 2018 LRDP, and would not substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the 2018 LRDP. Therefore, the Regents declines to adopt this alternative pursuant to the standards in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

4. Increased Housing Alternative

This alternative would be the same as the proposed 2018 LRDP with the exception that it would involve providing an additional 3,917 beds (equivalent to an additional 1.7 million GSF) to accommodate all new faculty and staff housing needs anticipated under the proposed 2018 LRDP. By eliminating the demand for off-campus housing, this alternative would reduce the proposed 2018 LRDP’s growth inducing impact and, would result in a greater trip reduction (i.e., an approximate 5,000-ADT reduction or 15 percent ADT reduction) as new faculty and staff would no longer need to commute to the campus. Thus, this alternative would include more development than the proposed 2018 LRDP (e.g., 10.6 million GSF compared to the 8.9 million GSF provided by the proposed 2018 LRDP), but would still occur within the same planned footprint as the proposed 2018 LRDP, which could result in denser campus development.

In addition, while the population growth would be the same as the proposed 2018 LRDP, the children of the faculty and staff would now be living on campus rather than in off-campus housing, which would create a slightly more intensive demand on parks and recreational facilities on campus. Also, the increased development and more faculty, staff, and their children living on campus than off campus would result in a slightly more intensive demand on fire, police protection, utilities, service

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 55 of 65

systems, and energy compared to the proposed 2018 LRDP. As compared to the 2018 LRDP, the Increased Housing Alternative would result in greater potentially significant impacts with regard to aesthetics, biological resources, and hazards and hazardous materials (i.e., emergency evacuation plans), but would lessen but not avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation/traffic, although it would not lessen those impacts to a substantial extent. The Increased Housing Alternative would have similar impacts as the 2018 LRDP with regard to cultural and tribal resources, hazards and hazardous materials (i.e., listed sites), noise, and population and housing.

The Increased Housing Alternative would be able to meet most of the proposed 2018 Objectives because it would provide the same services, amenities, and programs necessary to accommodate projected campus growth, with the exception that it would have a greater level of density in some areas of the campus to accommodate additional faculty and staff housing. However, the Increased Housing Alternative would only partially meet the project objectives (i.e., #vii and #xi) because the additional housing development would leave less land available for other campus development, thus creating physical site constraints. For example, the Increased Housing Alternative would only partially meet Project Objective #vii because, with the additional housing development, less land would be available for future non-housing (i.e., academic and community-oriented) development, thus creating physical site constraints to fully expanding the campus. In addition, this alternative would only partially meet Project Objective #xi as it would result in greater environmental impacts related to growth than the proposed 2018 LRDP (e.g., it would result in more intensive impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, recreation, public services [i.e., fire and police protection], utilities, service systems, and energy).

Finding: For the reasons set forth above and more fully described in Final EIR and in the record of proceeding, the Regents finds that Increased Housing Alternative is infeasible, fails to meet most of the basic project objectives or meets the basic objectives to a lesser extent than the 2018 LRDP, and would not substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the 2018 LRDP. Therefore, the Regents declines to adopt this alternative pursuant to the standards in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

5. Reduced Project Alternative

This alternative would be the same as the proposed 2018 LRDP with the exception that it would not allow the campus to build any more housing beds for future students, faculty or staff beyond what is being built in the near-term to help address the development intensity impacts associated with the proposed 2018 LRDP. Under this alternative, the campus would construct 5.6 million GSF of development compared to the 8.9 million GSF required under the proposed 2018 LRDP (thus, providing approximately 37 percent less GSF than the proposed 2018 LRDP). The development would occur within the same footprint as the proposed 2018 LRDP.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 56 of 65

Also, there would be the same student enrollment levels and academic uses, but instead of reducing ADTs by housing future students, faculty and staff on campus, the ADT would increase (by nearly 60 percent) because the 8,900 new housing beds anticipated under the proposed 2018 LRDP would not be constructed on campus. Instead the associated students, faculty and staff would reside off campus and commute from other areas in the region rather than living on campus.

As compared to the 2018 LRDP, the Reduced Project Alternative would lessen but not avoid the Project’s potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise (temporary sources only), although it would not lessen those impacts to a substantial extent. The Reduced Project Alternative would have similar impacts as the 2018 LRDP with regard to noise and population and housing.

Similar to the proposed 2018 LRDP, the Reduced Project Alternative would be able to meet objectives related to location and design of buildings; siting future development to allow for the co-location and strengthening of campus programs, facilities, and activities; redevelopment of the University Center; UC Health expansion; and recognition of the importance of campus open spaces; however, this alternative would not meet a number of key proposed 2018 LRDP objectives (i.e., #i, #ii, #v, #vii, #viii, #x) given the reduction in on-campus housing. Specifically, this alternative would not: provide up to approximately 8.9 million GSF of the new facilities needed to expand academic and non-academic programs; be able to add two new colleges; provide additional on-campus housing to facilitate a live-learning campus environment; provide housing for approximately 65 percent of the eligible student population; build more faculty and staff housing to remain competitive; and reduce automobile commuting. Specifically, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet a number of 2018 LRDP objectives given the reduction in on-campus housing. Specifically, this alternative would not provide up to approximately 8.9 million GSF of the new facilities needed to expand academic and non-academic programs (Project Objective #i); be able to add two new colleges (Project Objective #ii); provide additional on-campus housing (i.e., 8,900 proposed beds) to facilitate a live-learning campus environment (Project Objective #v); provide housing for approximately 65 percent of the eligible student population (Project Objective #vii); build more faculty and staff housing to remain competitive with similar institutions in the nation (Project Objective #viii); and reduce automobile commuting which would conflict with the vehicle reduction goals contained in the UC Sustainable Practices Policy (Project Objective #x).

Finding: For the reasons set forth above and more fully described in Final EIR and in the record of proceeding, The Regents find that the Reduced Project Alternative is infeasible, fails to meet most of the basic project objectives or meets the basic objectives to a lesser extent than the 2018 LRDP, and would not substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the 2018 LRDP. Therefore, the Regents declines to adopt this alternative pursuant to the standards in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 57 of 65

6. Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The impact of the respective alternatives is identified in Table 5-2 of the Final EIR, followed parenthetically by the comparison to the impact of the Project. The ability of the various alternatives to achieve the project objectives in also summarized in Table 5- 3 of the Final EIR. As shown in Section 4.3 of the Final EIR, there would be significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project. These impacts are related to air quality (direct and cumulative), cultural and tribal cultural resources (direct historic resources impacts and cumulative impacts to historic and tribal cultural resources), population and housing (population growth), and transportation/traffic (level of service). In addition, direct population growth and off-campus housing growth would be significantly growth inducing to the region. Each of the evaluated alternatives would result in lesser environmental impacts than the 2018 LRDP to some environmental resources and greater impacts to others. None of the alternatives presented would only reduce impacts associated with the 2018 LRDP and all of the alternatives would have similar impacts for certain topics.

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 [e][2], because the environmentally superior alternative was identified as the No Project Alternative, another environmentally superior alternative must be identified among the other alternatives considered. Comparing the four alternatives with the proposed 2018 LRDP, the greatest environmental impacts would result from the Increased Housing Alternative; thus, it would not be the environmentally superior alternative. However, the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative and the Reduced Project Alternative would both result in less environmental impacts than the proposed 2018 LRDP. Specifically, the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative would result in less impacts than the proposed 2018 LRDP related to aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural and tribal cultural resources (with the exception of historical resources, which would be a similar significant and unavoidable impact as the proposed 2018 LRDP, and paleontological resources, which would be a similar less than significant impact after mitigation). Furthermore, this alternative would not result in any greater impacts than the 2018 LRDP (just similar or less impacts). In comparison, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in less impacts than the proposed 2018 LRDP related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources (including historical resources and paleontological resources unlike the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative), hazards and hazardous materials, and noise (specifically, temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction). However, unlike the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in greater air quality, GHG

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 58 of 65

emissions, and traffic (LOS) impacts along with a new significant impact related to VMT compared to the proposed 2018 LRDP given the nearly 60 percent increase in ADT compared to the proposed 2018 LRDP. Therefore, of the alternatives analyzed, the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative would result in the least amount of environmental impacts and thus would be considered the environmentally superior alternative.

Finding: Based on the foregoing, the Regents finds that Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative and the Project each has varying levels of impacts on different environmental resources, as noted in the Findings above, and Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative is not superior to the Project for CEQA’s purposes. As described above in Section G.3, the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative will restrict new development to currently developed areas of the campus which will preclude the campus from achieving several of its key project objectives and only partially meeting other objectives, for the following reasons: 1) the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative will not fully accommodate academic and non-academic programs anticipated in the 2018 LRDP because it would prevent the co-location and strengthening of existing programs, facilities and activities in the SIO portion of campus where most of the undeveloped land occurs; 2) the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative will reduce the amount of affordable housing for faculty and staff preventing the campus from remaining competitive among its peer academic institutions in attracting top talent; and 3) the Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative will require denser and/or larger developments buildings that may have increased height and less open space between, within and around them to meet future housing and academic needs identified for the campus and the development will have the potential to conflict with the character, scale, design goals, and policies expressed in the 1989 Master Plan, Neighborhood Planning Studies, previous LRDPs, and the LRDP guiding principles and its required elements. The Regents further finds when compared to Redevelopment/Infill Only Alternative, the 2018 LRDP Project provides the best available and feasible balance between maximizing attainment of the Project objectives and minimizing significant environmental impacts, and the 2018 LRDP Project is the environmentally superior alternative among those options.

7. Alternatives Summary

In connection with certification of the Final EIR for the 2018 LRDP, The Regents certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR and the record of proceedings. The Regents finds that no new alternatives that would meet CEQA standards, are needed to constitute a reasonable range of alternatives in the EIR, or are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR have been identified. The Regents finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all potentially feasible alternatives in the Draft EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 59 of 65

attainment of some of the Project objectives. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR satisfies CEQA’s requirements to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives and the alternatives are not unduly limited or narrow. The Regents also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed and discussed in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Project.

Finding: The Regents certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR and in the administrative record. For the reasons set forth below, The Regents finds that the No Project (2004 LRDP), Redevelopment/Infill Only, Increased Housing, and Reduced Project Alternatives either fail to avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts (and in some cases increase those significant and unavoidable impacts), fail to meet most of the basic project objectives or meet the basic objectives to a lesser extent than the 2018 LRDP, or are “infeasible” as that term is broadly defined by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

As discussed above, the EIR has identified that some of the impacts of the 2018 LRDP remain significant following adoption and implementation of the LRDP policies and the Project-specific mitigation measures described in the Final EIR. Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions. The following section describes the benefits of the 2018 LRDP that outweigh its unavoidable adverse effects and provides the specific reasons for considering the 2018 LRDP acceptable even though significant impacts will result from development through its implementation:

A. Impacts That Remain Significant And Unavoidable

The 2018 LRDP results in the following significant and unavoidable impacts even with implementation of mitigation measures as described in Section II:

• Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.2 - Exceedance of air quality standards related to NOX emissions during construction and PM10 emissions during operations;

• Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.3 - Cumulatively considerable net increase in NOX emissions during construction and PM10 emissions during operations;

• Air Quality Impact 3.2.3.5 - Exposure of sensitive receptors to construction and operational toxic air contaminant emissions;

• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.3.1 - Alteration of historical resources which causes a substantial change in their significance;

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 60 of 65

• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 3.4.4 - Cumulatively considerable loss of historical resources and tribal cultural resources;

• Population and Housing Impact 3.11.3.1 - Direct and cumulatively considerable inducement of substantial population growth; and

• Transportation/Traffic Impact 3.14.3.1 - Cumulatively considerable exceedance of traffic level of service standards.

B. Overriding Considerations

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15093, The Regents has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The Regents has found that, for the reasons set forth below, the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s significant adverse environmental effects that the University cannot mitigate to less-than-significant levels. This Statement of Overriding Considerations is based on The Regents’ review of the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record.

The benefits of the Project include the following:

1. The 2018 LRDP provides 8,900 new affordable housing units to accommodate all of the projected student growth, as well as a portion of the existing unmet housing needs of students and faculty/staff, in a region that has a projected housing deficit and rising home prices (SANDAG 2013). Meeting the new demand for student housing plus providing housing for existing students and faculty/staff would increase the opportunities to live on campus which will enrich campus life, enhance student experiences, promote academic success, reduce commute times, and offset the housing shortfalls predicted in the San Diego region. On-campus housing would also help the campus be competitive with its peer institutions in facilitating recruitment of high quality faculty and staff. Under the 2018 LRDP, campus housing would increase from 42 percent of eligible students to over 60 percent.

2. The 2018 LRDP maximizes the development and redevelopment potential of the campus, allowing for expanded academic, student support, research, and public service facilities. Therefore, it expand its academic mission of excellence in teaching, research and public service, as well as the vision of the campus Strategic Plan to be a student-centered, research-focused, service-oriented public institution. The addition of two new undergraduate colleges will provide students the support and environment to excel at UC San

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 61 of 65

Diego. Similar to other UC institutions, UC San Diego will continue to disseminate research results and translate scientific discoveries into practical knowledge and technical innovations that will benefit California and the nation.

3. The 2018 LRDP assists the San Diego region’s only academic medical center in further developing an integrated health-care delivery network to efficiently serve patients and to continually provide demonstrably superior clinical care. UC San Diego Health has been recognized as among the best in the nation, second in the region and seventh in the state among adult hospitals by U.S. News and World Report (2018). Expansion of its healthcare facilities will enhance these standings within the region, state and nation.

4. The 2018 LRDP will help attain UC San Diego’s sustainability goals through incorporation of the UC Sustainable Practices Policy, UC Carbon Neutrality Initiative and smart growth principles into projects and future campus development. The campus housing expansion proposed in the 2018 LRDP will reduce regional commute traffic and associated climate impacts. In addition, its infill-oriented development plan presents a sustainable model that will maintain the compact nature of development on campus and conservation of the most sensitive environmental resources located on campus, including habitat for federally threatened species.

5. The 2018 LRDP promotes a denser campus near the University Center that takes advantage of the regional transit opportunities, such as the Mid-Coast trolley line, that will service the campus starting in 2021. By creating a town center in the University Center, the 2018 LRDP will provide the centralized services and “college town” atmosphere that is currently missing from the campus within walking distance of many campus neighborhoods and the trolley line.

6. The UC is charged, under the California Master Plan for Higher Education, with providing the opportunity for undergraduate education to those California’s who graduate in the top one-eighth of their high school class. The UC is also charged with admitting those students who complete coursework in the lower division transfer curriculum at community colleges and who meet minimum grade point average requirements. The UC serves as the state’s primary research agency and is the primary public institution in the state offering doctoral and certain professional degrees. The 2018 LRDP helps achieve these system-wide UC objectives by increasing the overall system capacity to serve the state’s eligible students and by maximizing the development and redevelopment potential of the

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 62 of 65

campus, allowing for an expansion in academic, research, and support facilities that will respond to projected increases in undergraduate and graduate students.

7. The 2018 LRDP will advance California’s economic, social and cultural development, which depends upon broad access to an educational system that prepares all of the state’s inhabitants for responsible citizenship and meaningful careers. Expanded academic programs will create a newly-educated workforce that will keep the state’s economy competitive, while the University Extension courses will provide continuing education to the San Diego workforce which will improve job skills and enhance quality of life. The campus has conferred degrees to over 185,000 students worldwide, including to residents of San Diego County, and the number will continue to grow under the 2018 LRDP.

8. The 2018 LRDP will allow for the development of approximately 9 million square feet of academic, administrative facilities and housing space to remedy existing and future space shortages, correct deficiencies and technological obsolescence in existing facilities, accommodate planned program direction in instruction, research and public service functions, and provide capacity for future program requirements.

9. The 2018 LRDP will constitute a significant economic benefit to the San Diego region and the state as a whole. UC San Diego has a significant economic impact on the area’s economy by producing over $32.4 billion in annual sales at companies based in San Diego County. The total economic impact of UC San Diego in the region is much greater than the sum of the direct expenditures made by UC San Diego and its affiliated organizations and populations. In Fiscal Year 2015- 16, UC San Diego’s expenditures totaled over $4.3 billion (2017 Annual Report). Each dollar spent locally by UC San Diego cycles through the area economy, generating additional income and employment.

10. Designated a Changemaker Campus by Asoka U for its role as a leader in social innovation education, UC San Diego is the first UC campus to be recognized. UC San Diego provides many indirect community contributions in the form of education, recreation, artistic, and cultural enrichment and social engagement to residents of the San Diego County area through such functions as extension courses, performing arts events, art exhibits, sporting events, education programs, conferences, workshops and volunteer initiatives. Faculty, staff and students contribute over three million community service

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 63 of 65

hours annually. As the 2018 LRDP is implemented, the level of these community engagement and service will grow.

11. The campus is the largest employer based in San Diego County with approximately 30,670 full and part-term academic and staff employees. These data are particularly significant because of the quality and diversity of the 7,200 new permanent jobs which will be created during the implementation of the 2018 LRDP.

12. The increased economic activity resulting from campus growth is also expected to result in secondary growth in non-University businesses in the San Diego area. There are 440 active UC San Diego–related companies in California providing 29,200 jobs. UC San Diego is 26th in the world for producing venture capital-backed business founders. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP will also provide construction employment as individual building projects are developed; in addition to 7,200 new faculty, staff, and research positions.

13. When compared to the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR (including the No Project Alternative), the 2018 LRDP provides the best available balance between maximizing attainment of the Project objectives and minimizing significant environmental impacts.

Finding: Considering all factors and the evidence in the EIR and other relevant documents and information in the administrative record, the Regents finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project listed above outweigh the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The Regents therefore finds that those significant adverse impacts are acceptable in the context of the overall Project benefits.

IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings for the 2018 LRDP (“Record of Proceedings”) consists all the documents and evidence relied upon by the University in preparing the proposed 2018 LRDP and the associated EIR, including but not limited to the following documents and other evidence:

• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) distributed on November 4, 2016;

• The EIR for the Project, including, without limitation, the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and all of its appendices;

• All studies, EIRs, maps, rules, regulations, guidelines, permits and other documents and materials incorporated by reference in any portion of the EIR;

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 64 of 65

• All written and oral public testimony presented during every noticed public meeting and public hearing for the Project, and all transcripts, audiotapes, videotapes and digital tapes thereof;

• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project;

• Matters of common knowledge, including but not limited to federal, state and local laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the University’s adopted CEQA Procedures and the University’s and UC’s San Diego’s adopted plans, policies and programs;

• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings and/or in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

• All materials not otherwise identified which are expressly required to be in the Record of Proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).

A. Custodian and Location of Records

The documents and other materials which constitute the Record of Proceedings are located at the Campus Planning Office, University of California, San Diego, Torrey Pines Center South, San Diego, CA 92093. Copies of those documents are have been and will be available upon request at the Campus Planning Office. This information is provided in compliance with PRC Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e).

V. SUMMARY

Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the administrative record, the Regents has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to the significant environmental effects of the 2018 LRDP and described in the Final EIR:

• Changes or alterations have been required for, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on the environment.

• Changes or alterations that are wholly or partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other public agency.

• Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible certain mitigation measures and alternatives.

Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, it is hereby determined that:

UC San Diego – 2018 LRDP, La Jolla Campus CEQA Findings – November 2018 Page 65 of 65

These Findings incorporate by reference in their entirety the text of the Final EIR prepared for the 2018 LRDP. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of the 2018 LRDP, related mitigation measures, and the basis for determining the significance of such impacts

All significant impacts on the environment due to the Project have been eliminated, or substantially lessened, where feasible.

The Project will result in significant and unavoidable environmental effects as described in Section II.E.1 above. These significant and unavoidable impacts are acceptable due to the factors described in the above Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in connection with the approval of the Project, as described above.

As described in Section II.G above, the alternatives evaluated in the EIR, are rejected as infeasible, failing to meet most of the basic project objectives or meeting the basic objectives to a lesser extent than the 2018 LRDP, and not substantially lessening the environmental impacts of the 2018 LRDP.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 requires the Lead Agency approving a Project to adopt a MMRP for changes to the Project that it adopts or makes a condition of Project approval in order to ensure compliance during Project implementation. The Regents adopts the MMRP for the 2018 LRDP and the specific mitigation measures will be monitored in conjunction with UC San Diego’s Final EIR MMRP process.

This determination reflects The Regents’ independent judgment and analysis.

VI. APPROVALS

Based on the foregoing and having considered all of the information in the record, The Regents takes the following actions and hereby:

1. Certifies the Environmental Impact Report.

2. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and makes a condition of approval the implementation of mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of UC San Diego.

3. Adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

4. Approves the UC San Diego, La Jolla Campus 2018 LRDP.