Пleri
SRI International
ECEIVE
NOV 21 2008
20080481 Volume 1 · November 2008
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR REPLACEMENT OF NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE SOUTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER,
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
Envirotechnical Program
Engineering & Systems Division
SRI International
Prepared for
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Project Planning & Management Division
Western Region, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., WC41
Bin C15700
Seattle, WA 98115-0070
and
University of California, San Diego
Physical Planning Office
9500 Gilman Drive, #0074
La Jolla, CA 92903-0074
Contract Number AB 133A05NC17971
Government Prime Contract Number GS-10F-0420P/899-1
State Clearinghouse Number 2008021053
SRI Project P16625
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
DEC 1 2000
TRAMOS
ZN
ZON
SRI
International
333 Ravenswood Avenue • Menlo Park, California 94025-3493 • 650.859.2000 • www.sri.com
L-L-L-L-T-L-HHHHHHHHHHH
L
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
a
Introduction
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is a line office of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is part of the United States (U.S.) Department of
Commerce. NMFS operates the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), located on the
campus of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (SIO) in La Jolla, California. SIO is part of the
University of California at San Diego (UCSD).
NMFS proposes to replace the existing SWFSC Headquarters facility with a modern and safe
facility. The preferred site for construction of the replacement facility is an undeveloped 3.3-acre
site located on the UCSD/SIO campus, which NOAA would obtain from UCSD via a long-term
lease.
To fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), NOAA and UCSD cooperated in the preparation of this
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), which analyzes the
potential environmental effects of replacing the existing SWFSC Headquarters facility. NOAA is
the NEPA lead agency and University of California (UC) is the CEQA lead agency for purposes
of this EIS/EIR.
EIS/EIR Scoping
NOAA and UCSD conducted formal scoping for this EIS/EIR from February 8 to March 20,
2008. A number of scoping inputs were received from government agencies and the public. This
Draft EIS/EIR addresses all substantive issues raised during the scoping period.
Purpose and Need
SWFSC is one of six regional fisheries science centers operated by NMFS. SWFSC includes the
following divisions: (1) Fisheries Resources, (2) Protected Resources, (3) Antarctic Ecosystem
Research, and (4) Information and Technology Services. The SWFSC Headquarters facility also
contains space occupied by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); both organizations are involved in fisheries
research and protection. The Center contains offices for scientists and management staff,
laboratories, seawater aquaria, a library, conference rooms, mechanical and electronic
workshops, and extensive computer and data communication facilities. SWFSC benefits from a
broad range of strategic and functional relationships with local research and education
organizations. Key among these relationships is interaction with UCSD/SIO. The existing
SWFSC facility is located on land leased from UCSD. SWFSC and UCSD/SIO strategically
share research facilities, staff, students, and faculty. The synergies are highly complementary and
cost efficient.
The existing SWFSC Headquarters facility is located at the edge of a 180-foot (ft.) eroding high
coastal bluff. The bluff is undergoing a natural retreat process due to erosion caused by wave and
tidal action, slumping, gullying, and block failure of the cliff face. Three of the four existing
buildings are within 25 ft. of the bluff edge and two of the buildings (Buildings B and C) are in
the process of being vacated by NOAA due to the safety hazard to occupants should the bluff fail
catastrophically. SWFSC buildings will continue to be threatened by ongoing coastal bluff
i
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
erosion and retreat. Additionally, the existing buildings are over 40 years old and do not meet
current seismic safety and building codes. For these reasons, NOAA proposes to replace the
existing SWFSC Headquarters with a new facility that is not subject to severe geologic hazards
and meets current code requirements.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The proposed action is construction and operation of a new roughly 124,000 square foot (sq. ft.)
building for SWFSC at a 3.3-acre undeveloped parcel on the UCSD/SIO campus, across La Jolla
Shores Drive from the existing SWFSC site. The proposed SWFSC facility would be designed
and constructed to obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver status,
thereby reducing the amount of energy and natural resources consumed during building
construction and operation. The new facility would contain about 124,000 sq. ft. of space for
offices, laboratories, and support functions and about 202 underground parking stalls. NOAA
plans to start construction of the new building in early spring 2010, and building occupancy is
expected to occur in 2012.
As a part of the proposed action, Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC would be
demolished, and Buildings A and D would be turned over to SIO for possible future occupancy
by SIO staff occupying crowded existing buildings at the SIO campus. UCSD/SIO projects that
up to 44 staffers currently occupying other space at the UCSD/SIO campus would be relocated to
Buildings A and D after NOAA vacates these buildings. Up to an additional 22 newly hired staff
could be stationed at renovated Buildings A and D. UCSD/SIO would renovate the two buildings
to meet current building and life safety, and seismic codes prior to occupying them. All occu-
pants of the existing SWFSC would relocate to the new SWFSC building in 2012, except the
IATTC, which would remain at the existing SWFSC until about 2017, and then move to the new
facility. NOAA would make about 7,100 sq. ft. of space at the new SWFSC physical plant
available for UCSD/SIO use for up to five years.
NOAA and UCSD considered the following alternative actions:
• Bluff stabilization
On-site redevelopment
On- and near-site redevelopment
Off-site development at SIO Deep Sea Drilling Site
Off-site development at UCSD Hillside Neighborhood Site
• Leased office and research space
Collocation of SWFSC with other existing NOAA facilities
Each of the alternatives is evaluated in Section 3.2 of this EIS/EIR, but all were eliminated from
further analysis. The no-action alternative is also evaluated in this EIS/EIR.
Environmental Setting, Consequences, and Mitigation
The proposed site for construction of a new SWFSC Headquarters facility is a 3.3-acre site on
a
the campus of UCSD/SIO within the community of La Jolla, which is part of the City of San
Diego. The existing SWFSC and the proposed replacement site are located in the designated
Coastal Management Zone. The new SWFSC would be located in an area designated by UCSD
for academic uses and would be consistent with policies contained in the UCSD 2004 Long
Range Development Plan (LRDP), which is the governing land use plan for the UCSD campus,
.
.
.
.
>
ii
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
including the existing and preferred SWFSC sites. The new SWFSC would be research-use
compatible with the LRDP and nearby land uses. NOAA plans to submit a Federal consistency
determination to the California Coastal Commission for review and concurrence.
a
The proposed SWFSC site is located outside earthquake fault hazards zones, but would be
subject to strong ground shaking and secondary seismic hazards during a major earthquake. The
structure would be designed and constructed in conformance with seismic safety standards of the
2007 California Building Code to mitigate seismic hazards. The proposed site is a stable hillside
with no evidence of accelerated erosion. NOAA would implement best management practices
during construction to minimize the potential for soil erosion.
Removal of Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC facility would eliminate the hazard to
building occupants and beach users from bluff failure. Under the no-action alternative, Buildings
B and C would not be removed and the hazards from bluff failure would not be mitigated.
NOAA contracted for preparation of a hydrologic study by licensed civil engineers. The study
found that development of the preferred site would create impervious surfaces and increase peak
storm runoff generated at the proposed site from the current 2.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) to
4.4 cfs during the 10-year storm. A substantial portion of this increased runoff would be retained
on-site and infiltrated into the soil. NOAA would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan implementing best management practices during construction and demolition activities to
prevent washing of pollutants into nearby drainages or the Pacific Ocean. After construction of
the new facility is complete, portions of the site not covered by buildings or pavement would be
landscaped using native species. The landscaped areas would include retention areas for storm
runoff, reducing the rate of storm water flow from the site and decreasing the potential for long-
term soil erosion. The new SWFSC would be connected to the City sewage system for disposal
of sewage.
SIO operates an existing seawater circulation system that supplies seawater for existing research
aquaria at the SWFSC and disposal of used seawater. The new SWFSC would be connected to
this system in order to obtain seawater for proposed on-site seawater aquaria and to dispose of
used seawater. In the unlikely event that seawater comes into contact with non-native species or
chemicals, that seawater would be discharged to the city sewage system for treatment and
disposal.
Construction of the new SWFSC facility at the preferred site would require clearing of 1.71 acres
of intact and disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.37 acre of eucalyptus woodlands, and
0.49 acre of urbanized vegetation. NOAA would preserve/restore Diegan coastal sage scrub
vegetation, which is considered a sensitive vegetation community by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and CDFG. At Skeleton Canyon Ecological Reserve of the UCSD Park on the
northeast portion of UCSD/SIO campus, the Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation would be
preserved/replaced at a ratio of 2:1 (area preserved/cleared area) to mitigate this impact. Diegan
coastal sage scrub vegetation is a habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Detailed surveys
conforming to USFWS and the CDFG protocols were conducted in 2006 and 2008 and failed to
find evidence of California gnatcatchers at the proposed site. Additionally, wetlands or wildlife
corridors do not occur at the proposed site or existing SWFSC site; no impacts to these resources
would result. To prevent disturbance to nesting raptors, a biologist would survey trees within
500 feet of the construction and demolition areas. If active nests are found, construction/
iii
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
demolition activities that may disturb the nests would be suspended until the nests are no long
active.
Construction and operation of the new SWFSC facility would generate a considerable number of
vehicle trips. These trips would add to the number of vehicles using local roads. Most of the road
segments and intersections in the area would operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better
during the AM and PM peak hours during the construction, demolition, and operation phases and
would continue to do so in Year 2030 with cumulative build-out of the area. The segment of La
Jolla Shores Drive between North Torrey Pines Road and Downwind Way would operate at
LOS E or F in Year 2030 with or without construction of the new SWFSC. The proposed
SWFSC would not contribute significantly to traffic congestion on the segment of La Jolla
Shores Drive north of the SWFSC driveway. The new SWFSC would have about 202 parking
stalls on-site, compared with 30 parking stalls at the existing SWFSC. This would reduce the
amount of overflow parking occurring on local streets, a beneficial impact.
Demolition activities to remove Buildings B and C would be staged in the courtyard at the
existing site within the boundaries of the existing 2.5-acre NOAA-owned property. Although not
accessible from the NOAA property, the beach at the base of the 180 ft. coastal bluff abutting the
NOAA property is used by the public for recreational purposes and by UCSD/SIO researchers
for scientific studies. A barrier would be installed at the bluff crest to prevent demolition debris
from falling over the bluff and onto the beach 180 ft. below the site. Public use of a small portion
of the beach at the base of the bluff may be temporarily restricted during the demolition period
for safety reasons; however, most of the beach would remain open for public use.
San Diego County is in attainment or unclassifiable for all National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, except for the eight-hour ozone standard. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx, an
ozone precursor) during the construction period would exceed the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) threshold of 50 tons/year, triggering the need for a Federal conformity deter-
mination. NOAA would prepare the Federal conformity determination and submit it to EPA.
NOAA would implement a number of measures to reduce construction/demolition emissions,
including
periodic watering of exposed soil to reduce dust,
periodic sweeping of streets in the area
limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and work areas to 15 miles per hour,
encouraging contractors to use alternative fuel vehicles and equipment,
limiting idling times to 10 minutes, and
promptly revegetating exposed areas after construction/demolition is complete.
The proposed SWFSC Headquarters facility would be designed and constructed to obtain LEED
Silver status and NOAA would implement a Transportation Demand Management System at
SWFSC to reduce the amount of vehicle trips by staff, minimizing direct and indirect emissions
of greenhouse gases (GHGs). While the project would contribute cumulatively to GHG
emissions, the project construction and/or operations would not individually or cumulatively
cause a significant change in the global climate, and would not hinder the ability of the State of
California to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions pursuant to State of California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).
HHHHHHHHHHHHHH
.
.
.
iv
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
.
Construction of the new SWFSC facility would intermittently generate loud noises over the two-
and-a-half year construction period. Demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing site would
also intermittently generate loud noise during the six-month demolition period. The loudest
construction and demolition noises would significantly, but temporarily, affect nearby academic
and residential uses. To mitigate this impact, construction and demolition activities would
conform to the UCSD construction noise abatement practices, including
ensuring that equipment and vehicles are equipped with noise reduction devices maintained in
good working order,
limiting the times of construction/demolition to normal working hours to prevent adverse
effects on nearby residential and academic uses,
locating loud construction/demolition activities and equipment away from the nearest
residential and academic uses, and
notifying neighbors in advance of planned construction/demolition activities.
Construction and demolition activities would also generate noticeable vibrations at nearby
academic buildings and residences, but no structural damage would result. To mitigate possible
disruption of potentially vibration-sensitive scientific research being conducted at the Keck
Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research, NOAA would have a specialist monitor vibrations
during construction to determine if they reach harmful levels and recommend measures to reduce
vibrations, if necessary. Noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant.
The SWFSC building would be constructed into the hillside and the roof would be lower in
elevation than La Jolla Shores Drive as it curves around the northern and eastern borders of the
preferred site. The building would not block views of the Pacific Ocean from La Jolla Shores
Drive. A substantial percentage of the roof area will be dedicated to a photovoltaic farm and a
smaller percentage would be a green roof planted with vegetation. This would soften the
appearance of the building when viewed by travelers on La Jolla Shores Drive looking
downward at the building. The proposed SWFSC would be consistent with policies of the Local
Coastal Program to protect ocean views. Exterior lighting at the SWFSC would conform to City,
County, and UCSD policies to prevent adverse effects of urban lighting on astronomical
observatories of the area. Visual impacts would be less than significant.
No structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for listing are located
at the preferred site or within the area of potential effect of the proposed action. A licensed
archaeologist performed a survey of the proposed site and identified a Native American
archaeological site that could be impacted by construction. NOAA plans to complete
significance testing at that site before start of the new SWFSC building construction. A Native
American monitor would be present for testing and construction excavation activities.
Construction of the new SWFSC facility would occur at an undeveloped site planned for
academic use by UCSD/SIO. The proposed action would be consistent with the local UCSD/SIO
neighborhood plan. No dislocation of persons or businesses would occur. No substantial increase
in employment or change in the nature and intensity of SWFSC operations would result.
Construction of the new SWFSC would not separate established neighborhoods, nor would it
create barriers to movement of persons and goods. Substantial minority or low-income
populations are not located in the area and would not be subject to disproportionately high and
adverse environmental effects.
V
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
no
a
The City of San Diego and local utility companies would provide necessary public services to
the new SWFSC. Because SWFSC would be relocated only a short distance from the existing
location and the staff size and intensity of activities would remain approximately the same,
significant change in demand for services or consumption of utilities would result. Effects on
population and housing demand would be negligible. Replacement of the SWFSC would result
in a modest and less than significant economic stimulus due to construction and demolition
expenditures. In the long-term, operation of the new SWFSC would result in negligible change in
economic activity compared with current SWFSC operations and would not induce growth in the
local area.
Based on an environmental due diligence assessment of the preferred site prepared for NOAA by
a registered environmental assessor, the proposed site does not contain contaminated soil or
groundwater or deposits of solid or hazardous waste. Construction of the new facility and
demolition and removal of Buildings B and C at the existing site would generate considerable
amounts of solid waste, which would be removed for recycling or disposal at local waste
management facilities.
Construction or demolition activities could require temporary restrictions on use of local roads.
To prevent interference with emergency response or evacuation, NOAA would notify the UCSD
Fire Marshal in advance of road or lane closures.
HE
.
Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
The following environmental impacts would result from implementation of the proposed action
or no-action alternative and would be significant, even after application of mitigation measures
identified in this EIS/EIR.
Proposed Action
Construction-period emissions of substantial amounts of NOx, an ozone precursor, in a
Federally designated ozone non-attainment area
• No-Action Alternative
Buildings B and C would remain at the existing SWFSC and would represent a hazard to
persons in the vicinity, including recreational users of Black's Beach at the base of the
bluff; this hazard would be due to the potential for catastrophic failure of the coastal bluff
on which these buildings are situated
The table that follows provides a summary of the level of significance of environmental impacts
expected to result from implementation of the proposed action and the no-action alternative.
HHHHHHHHHH
vi
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
No Action
N
S
Summary of Level of Significance of Potential Impacts
Issue
Proposed Action
Land Use/Coastal Zone Management
N
Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards
LSM
Drainage and Water Quality
LSM
Biological Resources and Wetlands
LSM
Transportation
LS
Recreational Resources
LS
Farmlands
N
N
ZD Z Zz o z
N
N
S
N
Air Quality
Construction Period
S
N
Zz
Operations
LS
N
Noise and Vibrations
Construction Period
LSM
N
LS
Operations
Visual Aesthetics
Historic and Cultural Resources
z z z
N
LS
N
Historic Resources
N
N
LSM
N
Archaeological Resources
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
LS
N
Public Services and Utilities
LS
Zz o ZZZZ
N
LSM
S
Population and Housing
Solid and Hazardous Waste
LS
N
Wild and Scenic Rivers
N
N
S = significant
LSM = less than significant after application of mitigation
LS = less than significant
N = no impact
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section
15126.6, require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative, and, if the no-
action alternative is environmentally superior, designation of environmentally superior among
alternatives other than no action. The no-action alternative is the environmentally superior
alternative. Considering alternatives other than no action, the proposed action is the
environmentally superior alternative.
Public Review and Comment
This Draft EIS/EIR will be circulated for review by Government agencies and members of the
public. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR will be made available by NOAA upon request and will be
placed in local public libraries. NOAA and UC will accept comments on this document during an
vii
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
official period lasting at least 45 days. NOAA and UC will include responses to all relevant
comments in the Final EIS/EIR. A legally required 30-day cooling off period must occur after
issuance of the Final EIS/EIR. After the 30-day period has elapsed, NOAA and UC will decide
on a course of action and will issue NEPA and CEQA decision documents. No construction or
demolition activities will occur prior to the issuance of the decision documents.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHE
viii
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
LIST OF FIGURES .....
xiii
LIST OF TABLES.........
xiv
CHART ............
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........
XV
1
1
1
INTRODUCTION ......
1.1 Background.......
1.2 National Environmental Policy Act and
California Environmental Policy Act Lead Agencies........
1.3 Public Notice of EIS/EIR Preparation and Scoping Process.
1.4 Public Review of EIS/EIR.
1
2
2
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
2 PURPOSE, NEED, AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 NMFS Mission.......
2.2 SWFSC Activities...
2.3 Scientific Collaboration by UCSD/SIO and SWFSC
2.4 SWFSC Facility Needs ......
2.5 NEPA Purpose and Need......
2.6 CEQA Project Objectives ....
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ......
3.1 Proposed Action.......
3.2 Alternatives to the Project.........
3.2.1 Range of Alternatives Considered
3.2.2 Finding..
3.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Analysis .....
3.3.1 No-Action Alternative
11
11
16
16
24
24
24
......
4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
4.1 Land Use and Coastal Zone Management ......
4.1.1 Setting
4.1.2 Impact-Proposed Action.......
4.1.3 Mitigation Proposed Action..
4.1.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative ......
4.1.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
4.2 Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards .....
4.2.1 Setting .
4.2.2 Impact Proposed Action.......
4.2.3 Mitigation—Proposed Action.......
4.2.4 Impact—No-Action Alternative ......
4.2.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
25
25
25
27
28
28
29
29
29
32
33
33
34
ix
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
-
34
34
37
40
43
43
43
43
45
46
47
47
47
47
49
56
57
57
57
57
58
59
59
59
4.3 Drainage and Water Quality
4.3.1 Setting .........
4.3.2 Impact-Proposed Action....
4.3.3 Mitigation Proposed Action......
4.3.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative ......
4.3.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
4.4 Biological Resources and Wetlands
4.4.1 Setting.
4.4.2 Impact Analysis—Proposed Action.......
4.4.3 Mitigation Proposed Action......
4.4.4 Impact—No-Action Alternative .....
4.4.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative ......
4.5 Transportation .......
4.5.1 Setting
4.5.2 Impact—Proposed Action....
4.5.3 Mitigation Proposed Action......
4.5.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative .....
4.5.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
4.6 Recreational Resources.
4.6.1 Setting
4.6.2 Impact—Proposed Action...
4.6.3 Mitigation Proposed Action..
4.6.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative..
4.6.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative ......
4.7 Farmlands...
4.7.1 Setting
4.7.2 Impact—Proposed Action.......
4.7.3 Mitigation - Proposed Action......
4.7.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
4.7.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
4.8 Air Quality ....
4.8.1 Setting
4.8.2 Impact—Proposed Action........
4.8.3 Mitigation Proposed Action......
4.8.4 Impact—No-Action Alternative .....
4.8.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
4.9 .
Noise and Vibration ......
4.9.1 Setting
4.9.2 Impact-Proposed Action.....
4.9.3 Mitigation Proposed Action......
4.9.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative.
4.9.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
4.10 Visual Aesthetics .....
4.10.1 Setting
4.10.2 Impact-Proposed Action...
4.10.3 Mitigation Proposed Action......
4.10.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative.
4.10.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
59
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
63
66
67
67
67
67
70
73
74
74
74
74
75
81
81
81
HHHHHHHHHHH
X
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources ......
4.11.1 Setting ........
4.11.2 Impact—Proposed Action...
4.11.3 Mitigation Proposed Action...
4.11.4 Impact—No-Action Alternative
4.11.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
4.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice........
4.12.1 Setting.
4.12.2 Impact—Proposed Action....
4.12.3 Mitigation Proposed Action...
4.12.4 Impact—No-Action Alternative ...
4.12.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
4.13 Public Services and Utilities
4.13.1 Setting
4.13.2 Impact-Proposed Action....
4.13.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action...
4.13.4 Impact—No-Action Alternative ...........
4.13.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
4.14 Population and Housing..
4.14.1 Setting
4.14.2 Impact—Proposed Action..
4.14.3 Mitigation Proposed Action..
4.14.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative ...
4.14.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
4.15 Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials .....
4.15.1 Setting
4.15.2 Impact Proposed Action.
4.15.3 Mitigation Proposed Action .........
4.15.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative .....
4.15.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
4.16 Wild and Scenic Rivers.....
4.16.1 Setting.
4.16.2 Impact-Proposed Action....
4.16.3 Mitigation Proposed Action...........
4.16.4 Impact—No-Action Alternative .....
4.16.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
5 OTHER CEQA AND NEPA CONSIDERATIONS......
5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts
81
81
83
84
85
85
85
85
86
87
87
87
87
87
89
90
90
90
90
90
90
91
91
91
91
91
92
93
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
88888
5.1.1 Proposed Action.....
5.1.2 No-Action Alternative .......
5.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .......
5.2.1 Proposed Action....
5.2.2 No-Action Alternative .....
5.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ....
5.3.1 Proposed Action......
5.3.2 No-Action Alternative ........
95
95
95
96
96
96
96
96
96
97
xi
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
5.4
Short-term and Long-term Environmental Goals
5.4.1 Proposed Action......
5.4.2 No-Action Alternative ...
97
97
97
6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS..
99
6.1 Proposed Action......
99
6.2 No-Action Alternative .....
99
7 CONCLUSION............
101
7.1 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts—Proposed Action ... 101
7.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts—Proposed Action ........
101
7.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts—No-Action Alternative ....... 101
7.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts—No-Action Alternative ............ 101
7.5 Environmentally Superior Action ........
101
8 ,
LIST OF PREPARERS.........
103
BIBLIOGRAPHY
105
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
xii
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
FIGURES
3
4
13
14
15
31
35
1 Aerial view of the existing SWFSC ...
2 Existing SWFSC and preferred site for replacement of SWFSC
3 Simulation of proposed SWFSC facility in aerial view
4 Building section of proposed SWFSC facility (east-west).
5 Building section of proposed SWFSC facility and vicinity (north-south)....
6 Soil types of existing and preferred sites.....
7 Existing drainage features of the preferred site for replacement of SWFSC ......
8 Landscape and drainage design of the proposed SWFSC facility..........
9 Intersections analyzed in the vicinity of the existing and proposed SWFSC sites ............
10 (a) Architectural rendering of proposed SWFSC facility—view from southwest.
(b) Architectural rendering of proposed SWFSC facility—view from west.........
11 View (looking west) of the Pacific Ocean and the proposed SWFSC facility
viewed from La Jolla Shores Drive east of the preferred site ....
12 Before and after views (looking west) from La Jolla Shores Drive
east of the preferred site
41
52
76
77
79
80
xiii
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
U
UT
IT
TABLES
43
48
49
51
54
56
61
1 Vegetation Communities at Preferred Site for SWFSC.........
2 Existing Street Segment Operations
3 Existing Intersection Operations.
4 Existing, Projected Near-term and Long-term Level of Service for Street Segments
5 Existing and Projected Near-term Level of Service for Intersections.
6 Construction Traffic ......
7 EPA Thresholds for Conformity Determination
8 Criteria Pollutants and GHG Emissions during Construction
9 Criteria Pollutants and GHG Emissions during Demolition .........
10 Ambient Noise Levels Measured 250 ft. Southeast of SWFSC Preferred Site..
11 Distance from Preferred Site to Noise Sensitive Receptors ....
12 Exterior Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors
with Attenuation due to Distance from Source ...
13 Interior Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors
with Attenuation due to Distance from Source ...
64
66
69
70
71
71
CHART
1 Year 2000 Census Data for Census Tract 83.12 San Diego, California.
86
7
xiv
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
ABBREVIATIONS
AB 32
ACM
ACTT
ADT
APE
BMP
CAAQS
CALCOFI
CARB
CCAA
CCC
State of California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
asbestos-containing material
acoustic calibration and test tank
average daily trips
area of potential effect
best management practices
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations
California Air Resources Board
California Clean Air Act
California Coastal Commission
Campus/Community Planning Committee
California Department of Fish and Game
Construction Emissions Management Plan
California Environmental Quality Act
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic feet per second
California Register of Historical Resources
community equivalent noise level
California Native Plant Society
carbon monoxide
C/CPC
CDFG
CEMP
CEQA
CFR
cfs
CRHR
CNEL
CNPS
CO
CO2
CWCP
dB
dBA
DRB
E.O.
EIR
carbon dioxide
California Wetlands Conservation Policy
decibel
A-weighted decibel
Design Review Board (UCSD)
Executive Order
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Statement
EMission FACtors
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Clean Air Act
Federal Endangered Species Act
Farmland Protection Policy Act
EIS
EMFAC
EPA
FCAA
FESA
FPPA
XV
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
ft.
.
GHG
gpm
HrE2
IATTC
kV
kW
LBP
LCP
LeD2
LEED
Leq
LOS
LRDP
MBTA
MSL
MSPPC
foot, feet
greenhouse gas
gallons per minute
Huerhuero loam, 15 to 30% slope, eroded
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
kilovolt(s)
kilowatt(s)
lead-based paint
Local Coastal Program
Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 15% slope, eroded
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
equivalent energy noise level
Level of Service
Long Range Development Plan
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mean sea level
Marine Sciences Physical Planning Committee
not applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Native American Heritage Commission
NOAA Administrative Order
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Notice of Intent
Notice of Preparation
nitrogen oxides
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Register of Historic Places
National Register Information System
operations and maintenance
n/a
NAAQS
NAHC
ELITILHHHHH
NAO
NEPA
NHPA
NMFS
NOAA
NOI
NOP
NOX
NPDES
NRCS
NRHP
NRIS
O&M
03
ozone
OPR
Office of Planning and Research
polychlorinated biphenyl
PCB
xvi
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
PM
PPV
PRC
RWQCB
SCIC
SDAPCD
particulate matter
peak particle velocity
Public Resources Code
Regional Water Quality Control Board
South Coastal Information Center
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
San Diego County Water Authority
San Diego Gas & Electric
State Historic Preservation Officer
Scripps Institute of Oceanography
State Implementation Plan
sulfur dioxide
SDCWA
SDG&E
SHPO
SIO
SIP
SO2
sq. ft.
square feet
SRP
SWFSC
SWPPP
SWRCB
TDMS
Science Research Park (UCSD)
Southwest Fisheries Science Center
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
State Water Resources Control Board
Transportation Demand Management System
United States
University of California
University of California at San Diego
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S.
UC
UCSD
USFWS
xvii
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
This page intentionally left blank.
THIHHHHHHHHHHHH
xviii
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is a line office of the National Oceanic and
a
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is part of the United States (U.S.) Department of
Commerce. NMFS operates six regional fisheries science centers, which conduct scientific
research into marine fisheries to assist in management and conservation of these resources.
NMFS operates the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), which conducts research into
fisheries and marine mammals of the Eastern Pacific and Antarctica for the protection and
management of these resources. SWFSC Headquarters is located on the campus of Scripps
Institute of Oceanography (SIO), which is part of University of California at San Diego (UCSD).
The UCSD/SIO campus is located in La Jolla, California. SWFSC Headquarters is housed in a
four-building physical plant built in the 1960s adjacent to a 180-foot (ft.) high coastal bluff.
Erosion has caused bluff retreat, which now represents a substantial hazard to two of the four
SWFSC buildings. Additionally, the existing SWFSC buildings are aging and do not meet
modern seismic and building codes. To address these issues, NMFS proposes to relocate SWFSC
Headquarters operations to a modern and safe facility.
1.2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT LEAD AGENCIES
Replacement of the SWFSC Headquarters facility would be a major Federal action subject to
procedural requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NOAA is the Federal
lead agency for implementing procedural requirements of NEPA, including preparation of this
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 2.5-acre real property containing the existing
SWFSC facility (see Figure 1) is owned by NOAA via a 99-year deed obtained from the
University of California (UC) for operation of SWFSC. If NOAA discontinues use of the
property, ownership will revert to UC. The preferred site for construction of a replacement
facility for SWFSC (Figure 2) is owned by UC, which would lease the land to NOAA. UC is a
State entity and lead agency for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), which requires environmental review of proposed State actions. UC has determined
that lease of land to NOAA for construction of the new SWFSC requires preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in conformance with CEQA requirements. As allowed by
both NEPA and CEQA, NOAA and UC are cooperating in preparation of a joint EIS/EIR
document conforming to requirements of both NEPA and CEQA. NOAA is the Federal lead
agency for NEPA purposes and UC is the State lead agency for CEQA purposes.
This EIS/EIR analyzes the potential for relocation of SWFSC to cause significant environmental
impacts to the human environment. This combined EIS/EIR has been prepared in conformance
with the following:
NEPA (42 U.S. Code 4321-4347)
Regulations implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA issued by the President's
Council on Environmental Quality (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR], Part 1500
et seq.)
.
.
1
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
.
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC) Section 21000 et seq.)
• State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.)
Input received during the formal EIS/EIR scoping process
O
1.3 PUBLIC NOTICE OF EIS/EIR PREPARATION AND SCOPING PROCESS
NEPA and CEQA regulations require that lead agencies provide advance notice to responsible
Government agencies and the public of the intent to prepare an EIS or EIR. To meet these
requirements, NOAA and UCSD/SIO published a Notice of Intent (NOI)/Notice of Preparation
(NOP) meeting NEPA and CEQA requirements in a number of sources:
California State Clearing House February 8, 2008
• Federal Register
February 11, 2008
• La Jolla Light
February 14, 2008
La Jolla Village News
February 14, 2008
San Diego Union Tribune February 16, 2008
The NOI/NOP announced the official EIS/EIR scoping period, which lasted from February 8 to
March 20, 2008. During this period, NOAA and UC held an official scoping meeting open to the
public and accepted oral and written comments as to environmental issues of concern, alternative
actions, and sources of environmental data. The Scoping Report, reprinted in Volume II of this
EIS/EIR, contains details of the scoping process. All scoping comments received by the lead
agencies have been addressed in this EIS/EIR.
.
.
1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT EISIEIR
NOAA and UC submitted this Draft EIS/EIR to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the California State Office of Planning and Research for review and comment, in
conformance with NEPA and CEQA implementing regulations. Copies of this document have
also been distributed to persons who participated in the EIS/EIR scoping process and have been
sent to local libraries to be made available to the public. NOAA and UC will accept comments
on this Draft EIS/EIR during an official comment period lasting at least 45 days. Official
responses to all pertinent comments received by the Government will be included in the Final
EIS/EIR. After completion of the Final EIS/EIR and a required 30-day “cooling off' period,
NOAA and UC will issue decision documents describing whether or not they will implement the
proposed action or another alternative.
2
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008

A = Building Name
La Jolla Shores Drive
La Jolla Shores Drive
EXISTING
SWFSC
FACILITIES
@
D
HO'L
l'on
Pacific Ocean
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Western Regional Center, Facilities and Logistics Division ( 2000)
FIGURE 1
AERIAL VIEW OF THE EXISTING SWFSC
w
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
NE SEE
ROA
DR
KEMABAL
326
Salk
institdte
DRIVE
72
A373
200
PINES
Round
Top
SAN DIEGO
TORREY
367
369
LANE
NORTH
NTV OF CALIE
SAN DIEGO
WT
FM 101
•WT
HHHHHHHH

SA
60
102
Вм)
3003
Tere
OF CALIFORNIA
EXISTING
SWFSC
FACILITIES
US FISHERY
OCEANOGRAPHY CENTER
PREFERRED
REPLACEMENT
SITE
300
Scripps
x 348
Вм
342
X359
20
26
BM
13
GILMAN
LANE
SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY
(UNIV OF CALIF)
Skeleton Canyon
XBM 246
4 LANE
50
LA JOLLA
300
349 A
ROAD
ha Foltesharentes Beach
OCASO
SHORES
Sind
tabLE ----
Torrey Pinesi
Sch
DR
ORIVE
DEL
Cliffridge
Park
ISCENICH
FREEWAY
BAY
Kellogg
Park
PASO
LA JOLLA
383
PRESTWICK
AVENIDA DEL
LA
PLAYA
1:20M2
BM
197
PASEO
DORADO
300
COLLA
SOURCE: USGS Del Mar, Calif. (1967, Photorevised 1975); La Jolla, Calif. (1967, Photorevised 1975)
T. 15 S., R. 4 W.
N
0
2000
4000 FEET (ft)
HH
FIGURE 2(a)
EXISTING SWFSC AND PREFERRED SITE FOR REPLACEMENT OF SWFSC
4
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
arms Rd
Giman

N Torrey Pines Rd
2005425
Eucalyptus Grove La
UCSD
Campus
Gaman Di
Inyaha Ln
Osler
La
PREFERRED
REPLACEMENT
SITE
La Jolla Shores Dr
Herbert York in
Poole St
N Torrey Pines Rd
Scholars or $
47 Sajous
Ellentown Rd
Mangel We
EXISTING
SWFSC
FACILITIES
Zon Way
Azul SI
La Jolla
Rovele Canosa
Shores of
La Jolla Village Dr
Gilman Dr
La Jolla Shores Or
Redwood Dr
Opejo 1031B0|018
Discovery Way
Shellback Way
Expedition Way
La Jolla Shores Dr
Biological Grade
La Jona Scenic Den
Upper
Mesa
Court
Torrey Pines Rd
Expedition
UCSD
Campus
Cliffridge Ave
Deep
Sea
Court
ito Desa
Nottingham PI
Downwind Way
Caminido Sueno
Robinhood Ln
Scripps Pier
Gilman Dr
Ave
Glenbrook Way
Discovery Way
Naga w
Birch Aquarium
at Scripps
La Jolla Scenic Dr N
Bordeaux
500 ft
200 m
wick in
unaway Dr
€2008 Gočgle - Map data 2008 NAVTEQT - Terms of Use
-
FIGURE 2(b)
EXISTING SWFSC AND PREFERRED SITE FOR REPLACEMENT OF SWFSC
5
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
HHHHHHHHHH H
This page intentionally left blank.
HH
6
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
2 PURPOSE, NEED, AND OBJECTIVES
1
2.1 NMFS MISSION
The 2003 NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan outlines the vision, mission, and strategic goals of
NMFS. NOAA has an obligation to conserve, protect, and manage living marine resources in a
way that ensures their continuation as functioning components of marine ecosystems, affords
economic opportunities, and enhances the quality of life for the American public. The primary
mission of NMFS is the “stewardship of living marine resources through science-based
conservation and management and the promotion of healthy ecosystems.” NMFS is responsible
for the management, conservation, and protection of living marine resources within the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone. NMFS also plays a supportive and advisory role in the management
of living marine resources in coastal areas under State jurisdiction, provides scientific and policy
leadership in the international arena, and implements international conservation and management
measures as appropriate.
To achieve its vision, NMFS conducts the following key activities:
Conducting high-quality scientific research
Communicating and collaborating with constituents
Partnering with other research and conservation organizations
Enforcing laws and regulations to conserve and protect fishery and marine mammals
.
O
resources
2.2 SWFSC ACTIVITIES
SWFSC conducts research involving fisheries and marine mammals throughout the Eastern
Pacific and Antarctic waters for the protection and management of these resources. SWFSC
Headquarters manages NMFS scientific research in the Southwest region. While conducting its
own research programs, the La Jolla Laboratory also oversees laboratories located in Pacific
Grove and Santa Cruz, California. Scientists at these research centers gather and analyze data on
living marine resources and their environment throughout the Pacific Ocean and Antarctic. Each
strategically located laboratory conducts marine biological, economic, and oceanographic
research on regional resources of the Pacific Ocean.
The La Jolla facility is the largest of the SWFSC laboratories and contains four divisions:
(1) Fisheries Resources, (2) Protected Resources, (3) Antarctic Ecosystem Research, and
(4) Information and Technology Services. The Center also provides office space for California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) staff who collaborate with NMFS staff in conducting
California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CALCOFI). The Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) is another entity housed at the Center. Together, SWFSC
and the IATTC conduct collaborative tuna population dynamic studies. The Center contains
offices for scientists and management staff, laboratories, seawater aquaria, a library, conference
rooms, mechanical and electronic workshops, and extensive computer and data communication
facilities.
7
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
a
2.3 SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION BY UCSDISIO AND SWFSC
SWFSC benefits from a broad range of strategic and functional relationships with local research
a
and education organizations. Key among these relationships is interaction with UCSD/SIO.
SWFSC's existing site is located on the campus of UCSD/SIO. The Center and UCSD/SIO
strategically share research facilities, staff, students, and faculty. The synergies are highly
complementary and cost efficient. SWFSC operates the world's most authoritative research
programs on cetaceans, whales, and dolphins to support various commissions and has a world-
class fish stock assessment capability used in support of U.S. fishery management. SIO is the
premier U.S. oceanographic institution in the Pacific and contributes its expertise to the shared
research in the areas of physical and chemical oceanic processes. For more than 40 years,
SWFSC and SIO have jointly benefited by sharing scientific expertise, laboratory space, research
equipment, library resources, storage space, seawater, and deployable physical assets such as the
UCSD motor pool and SIO and NOAA Marine and Aviation Operations vessels.
The scientific benefits of SWFSC's close working relationship with SIO cannot be overstated.
One example is the monitoring and assessment of fish stocks within the California current, a
primary part of the SWFSC mission, accomplished jointly with SIO. SIO has one of the world's
best oceanography research staffs, which focuses in large part on the California current. SWFSC,
with its relatively limited oceanographic capability, makes use of SIO staff and their research to
augment SWFSC oceanographic and environmental observation and research. This relationship
forms the foundation of NOAA's West Coast Observing System, or Pacific Ocean Observation
System.
Another example of collaboration is the 50-year-old CALCOFI program, which uses both
NOAA and SIO research ships, jointly staffed by SIO and SWFSC personnel, to conduct regular
surveys. This collaboration provides data necessary to support sound management of Pacific
ground and pelagic fisheries. Both SIO and SWFSC provide needed equipment on research
vessels for oceanic cruises that commonly have durations in excess of 90 sea days. Equipment is
staged at the nearby SIO ship berthing facility at Scripps Pier. This collaboration improves
staging and operating cost efficiency for NOAA ship operations support functions, which
originate from an SIO berth in San Diego Bay.
SWFSC also benefits from access to SIO graduate students, numbering anywhere between
10 and 20, who work on SWFSC research projects critical to the SWFSC mission. SWFSC staff
capabilities are strengthened by the interaction and collaboration with SIO staff; opportunities for
junior NOAA fisheries staff to pursue advanced degrees at SIO are exceptionally valuable.
Several SWFSC senior staff have adjunct positions at SIO, keeping their professional research
skills and knowledge on the cutting edge.
SWFSC's 40-year relationship with SIO has provided numerous mutual benefits not identified in
previous cost-benefit assessments. For example, SWFSC has highly specialized genetics and
micro-constituent laboratory equipment, which are routinely used by SIO. Conversely, SWFSC
regularly uses SIO specialized equipment and laboratory spaces rather than duplicate those
assets. The same collaboration applies to specialized SIO and SWFSC equipment taken to sea on
either SIO or NOAA vessels.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
8
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
2.4 SWFSC FACILITY NEEDS
In 2007, NOAA performed an assessment of current and future facility needs of SWFSC
[Delawie Wilkes Rodrigues, and Barker Architects, 2007). The Program Document identifies a
need for about 124,000 gross square feet (sq. ft.) of floor space for offices, laboratories, storage,
conferences and group gatherings, delivery/staging, seawater aquaria, and an acoustic calibration
and test tank. An additional 90,000 sq. ft. of parking space is necessary to provide 202 parking
stalls, located in an underground garage. This space would support the 283 staff working at the
existing SWFSC and accommodate a modest increase of up to 17 additional staff.
а
2.5 NEPA PURPOSE AND NEED
Section 5.04b1(b) of NAO 216-6 requires that Federal lead agencies include a discussion of
purpose and need for the proposed action in an EIS. This section fulfills that requirement.
The existing SWFSC Headquarters facility is at the edge of a 180 ft. eroding high coastal bluff.
The bluff is undergoing a natural retreat process due to erosion caused by wave and tidal action
and subsequent slumping, gullying, and block failure of the cliff face. The average rate of retreat
of the top of the bluff is approximately 1 ft. per year; however, incidences of cliff toppling occur
in discrete episodes often accelerated by El Niño events [Benumof, 2000). The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Seattle District (1999) states:
The SWFSC site is located in a seismically active area. Bedrock underlying the facility
is heavily jointed and faulted with many of the identified planes of weakness open, in
that they contain no infilling to bind the sides of the discontinuities together... The
primary slope weakening process agreed upon by all previous researchers is the basal
erosion of the cliff face by impinging ocean waves. Waves breaking directly on the
cliff loosen and break apart the weaker bedrock formation (Ardath Shale) forming the
toe of the geologic formation. The removed bedrock falls to the beach to form a talus
slope... Tidal and storm action eventually removes the talus deposit and the
oversteepened slope retreats in more dramatic fashion.
Three of the four existing buildings are within 25 ft. of the bluff edge and two of the buildings
(Buildings B and C) are being vacated by NOAA due to the safety hazard to occupants should
the bluff fail catastrophically. SWFSC buildings will continue to be threatened by ongoing
coastal bluff erosion and retreat.
Additionally, the existing buildings are over 40 years old and do not meet current seismic safety
and building codes. For these reasons, NOAA proposes to relocate SWFSC Headquarters to a
new facility that is not subject to severe geologic hazards and meets current code requirements.
Relocation of SWFSC Headquarters to a new facility is not intended to substantially increase the
size or intensity of operations, but to allow continuation of current activities in a safe manner.
2.6 CEQA PROJECT OBJECTIVES
UC proposes to facilitate development of a roughly 124,000 gross sq. ft. replacement facility for
NOAA SWFSC in San Diego by leasing land to NOAA for construction and operation of the
replacement facility. The proposed location of the project is at the SIO neighborhood at UCSD.
UC is the lead agency for the project under the CEQA. The UC Board of Regents will consider
approval of the project design and a long-term ground lease for the project site.
9
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) require that the EIR for the project contain a clear statement
of the project objectives. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of
the project. The following project objectives have been identified by UC:
Provide for a new SWFSC facility in the UCSD SIO neighborhood in proximity to other
buildings that share programmatic relationships with SWFSC, thereby promoting the
interaction and collaboration among SIO and SWFSC researchers and graduate students
• Provide a new facility with access to a seawater infrastructure system that minimizes
environmental disturbance
.
.
Foster continued collaboration between SIO and SWFSC by providing expansion space for
future program growth
Expand on-site parking opportunities for SWFSC in order to minimize parking impacts off-
site on City streets and in other UCSD parking lots
The objectives of the project are consistent with UCSD 2004 Long Range Development Plan
(LRDP), which serves as the land use plan for the physical development of the campus.
Specifically, the development of the SWFSC replacement project at UCSD would allow the
continuation of forty plus years of productive scientific collaboration between NOAA NMFS and
SIO, in addition to expanding and supporting existing and future scientific and research oppor-
tunities. The proposed project would also assist the University in its mission and commitment to
excellence in teaching, research, and public service, and by maintaining academic excellence,
would serve as a resource to the surrounding Community, City, State, and Nation.
E
10
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
1
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
1
1
a
1
1
1
1
1
3.1 PROPOSED ACTION
NOAA proposes to construct a new facility for SWFSC at an undeveloped 3.3-acre site across
La Jolla Shores Drive from the existing SWFSC site (see Figures 2(a) and 2(b) in Section 1). The
preferred site is on the campus of UCSD/SIO and administered by UC, which has tentatively
offered this site for NOAA use, pending completion of environmental review in conformance
with NEPA and CEQA. The preferred site is bounded on the west, north, and east by La Jolla
Shores Drive (which curves around the site in a horseshoe shape) and on the south by the Keck
Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research (which is part of UCSD/SIO), and UCSD Parking Lot
P014. This location is desirable because it is of sufficient size to allow construction of the
required SWFSC facilities and is in proximity to SIO research units, thereby promoting
continued collaboration among SIO and NOAA fisheries researchers. .
UC proposes to lease the preferred 3.3-acre site to NOAA for construction and operation of a
new physical facility for the SWFSC (see Figures 2(a) and 2(b) in Section 1). The lease would
have a base period of 55 years with two 5-year options that NOAA could exercise to extend the
lease period. NOAA would relocate activities at the existing SWFSC buildings to the new
facility after construction is completed, with the exception of the IATTC which would stay at the
existing SWFSC buildings for up to 65 months after construction of the new facility is
completed.
NOAA proposes to construct a roughly 124,000 sq. ft. building at the preferred site (Figures 3, 4,
and 5). A single building would have five levels that would be partially underground and built
into the hillside at the site to reduce the building's apparent height and bulk. The building would
be designed and constructed to meet U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Environmental
and Energy Design (LEED) Silver standards. The proposed SWFSC building would include the
following green building features:
Partial
green
roof planted with native vegetation
Shading of windows
Windows with low emissivity glass
Light-colored exterior
· Daylighting of work spaces
Bicycle parking and showers for staff use
Photovoltaic solar panels
Highly efficient lighting
High-efficiency boilers
Natural ventilation and ceiling fans
Roof insulation of R30 or greater
Water-conserving plumbing fixtures (for example, low-flow shower heads and waterless
urinals)
Retention of storm water on-site
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
11
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
.
• Native landscaping
Green building materials with recycled content and/or renewable source (for example,
structural steel with recycled content, fly ash in concrete, wood from certified sustainably
managed forests)
• Indoor furnishings that minimize off-gassing of chemicals
These features would reduce energy and water use, reduce consumption of natural resources by
using recycled instead of virgin materials, decrease generation of air and water pollutants, and
provide for a healthier working environment for staff.
The proposed building would contain areas for the following uses:
• Level 1: Underground parking and building support systems
• Level 2: Parking, common scientific support space, operations and maintenance (O&M)
space, and seawater tank
Level 3: Parking, O&M space, IATTC space, and seawater tank
• Level 4: Common scientific space and room for Antarctic Ecosystem, Protected Resources,
and Fisheries Resource Divisions
• Level 5: Director's offices, Information Technology offices, Fisheries Resource Division,
CDFG, and lunchroom
a
NOAA would grant a license to UC, allowing the University to occupy 7,100 usable sq. ft. at the
new facility for a period of up to 60 months after facility construction is complete.
As a part of the proposed action, NOAA would demolish Buildings B and C at the existing
SWFSC within 72 months after construction of the new facility is complete. Demolition would
consist of the following steps [Casper Company, 2005):
• Disconnect utilities
Stage equipment in courtyard area
Place silt fence around site, including along bluff crest
Remove asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) from buildings
Strip buildings down to concrete shell
Use ultra-high demolition excavator to break up and move concrete shells
Use second excavator to separate steel and process concrete
Use excavator with breaker to remove concrete foundations
Remove all debris and materials for off-site recycling or disposal at licensed facilities
Clean area
HHHHHHHHHHH
.
.
.
NOAA plans to repair any damages caused during demolition of Buildings B and C and contour
the ground surface at the demolition area to direct storm water away from the adjacent bluff,
thereby reducing the potential for erosion of the bluff top. Denuded areas would be seeded and/or
planted to establish drought-resistant vegetation.
12
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008

EXISTING KECK
CENTER FOR
OCEAN ATMOSPHERE
RESEARCH
PROPOSED
SWFSC
EXISTING
SWFSC
RE
HIIT"
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
FIGURE 3
SIMULATION OF PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY IN AERIAL VIEW
13
TOP OF BERM 290' 0'
280'-0"
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
LAB
LAB
DIRECTOR
249-0"
ORPHACE
PLAZA DECK
MULTI-PURPOSE
ORCE
O+M LIBRARY
PARKING
PARKING
PARKING
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
FIGURE 4
BUILDING SECTION OF PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY (EAST-WEST)
November 2008

14
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008

LA JOLLA SHORES DRIVE
KECK OAR YARD
PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY
KECK CENTER
NTV
B!
N
PPPP
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
FIGURE 5
BUILDING SECTION OF PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY AND VICINITY (NORTH-SOUTH)
15
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
After demolition and removal of Buildings B and C is complete, NOAA would transfer the
2.5-acre property and remaining two Buildings A and D to UC for possible reuse. UCSD/SIO
plans to move about 44 researchers from existing overcrowded buildings at the SIO campus into
the two buildings vacated by NOAA, provided that the two buildings can be economically
rehabilitated to meet current seismic and safety codes. An anticipated additional 22 new SIO
hires might be staffed in Buildings A and D.
The exterior design of the new facility would be consistent with design guidelines contained in
the UCSD LRDP. The facility design is being reviewed by two UCSD committees to ensure
conformance to the LRDP: Marine Sciences Physical Planning Committee (MSPPC) and
Campus/Community Planning Committee (C/CPC). The building would be set into the sloping
hillside at the site to minimize its visual presence. To external viewers, it would not appear as a
five-story building. The new building would provide 202 parking spaces under the building. The
building would be accessible via a drive connecting to La Jolla Shores Drive and to the Keck
Center parking lot to the south. The building would be designed to conform to LEED Silver
standards, thereby maximizing energy efficiency and environmental effects of the building.
Overall, the preferred site is expected to accommodate the desired SWFSC Headquarters
building program consistent with UCSD's 2004 LRDP. Further, location of the new SWFSC at
this preferred site would fulfill the purpose and need for this action. For these reasons,
construction of a new SWFSC at the preferred site is NOAA's preferred alternative and is
evaluated in detail in this EIS/EIR.
If NOAA decides to implement the proposed action, construction would start in 2010 and the
building would be ready for occupancy in 2012. Employees and operations at SWFSC and at
temporary leased offices in the area would be moved into the building, followed by demolition of
at-risk Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC plant.
The preferred site is designated as academic use in the UCSD 2004 LRDP (UCSD 2004a), and
the proposed SWFSC use would be consistent with that designation. UC and associated decision-
making bodies will be involved throughout development of the proposed project. The preferred
site is within the Coastal Zone and would require a coastal development permit from the
California Coastal Commission (CCC). Additionally, any access from La Jolla Shores Drive
would have to conform to the City of San Diego design guidelines and may require additional
permits from the City. Based on the impact analysis contained in this EIS/EIR, other than the
no-action alternative, the proposed action is the environmentally superior alternative.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHH
3.2
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
3.2.1 Range of Alternatives Considered
NOAA and UCSD have cooperated in exploring a broad range of alternatives to provide a
modern physical plant for SWFSC that is not subject to the severe geological hazards affecting
the current site. Alternatives considered included the following range of alternatives:
Redevelopment of the existing SWFSC site with or without structural bluff stabilization (see
Section 3.2.1.1)
Redevelopment of the existing SWFSC site and adjacent undeveloped land (see Sections
3.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.3)
16
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
Construction of a new SWFSC facility at alternative sites on the UCSD campus (that is, SIO
Deep Sea Drilling Site (see Section 3.2.1.4] or Hillside Neighborhood Site (see Section
3.2.1.5))
Relocation of SWFSC operations to leased space in the La Jolla area (see Section 3.2.1.6)
• Collocation of SWFSC operations with other NOAA activities (see Section 3.2.1.7)
Each of these potential alternative actions was compared to the purpose and need and objectives
described in Section 2 to determine the extent to which they would fulfill these requirements. In
addition, the potential alternative actions were evaluated for feasibility based on the criteria
contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6Consideration of Alternatives to the Proposed
Project. That section requires EIRs to include information on a reasonable range of alternatives,
including “...those that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, and
could avoid or lessen one or more of the significant effects.” Factors that may be applied to
determine feasibility include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure,
general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and site
availability (California Resources Agency, 2008). This section evaluates whether each of the
alternatives considered would meet the purpose and need for the proposed project identified by
NOAA. Based on this evaluation, the alternatives identified have been determined to be
infeasible; however, those alternatives that were determined by UCSD to feasibly attain some of
the objectives of the proposed project are evaluated in greater detail in Sections 3.2.1.1 through
3.2.1.7 under the subheadings “CEQA Impact Analysis and Ability to Meet Project Objectives”
to determine whether any of the alternatives could reduce or eliminate any significant impacts
associated with the project as proposed, despite failing to meet some of the objectives of the
project.
3.2.1.1 Bluff Stabilization
NOAA conducted a number of geotechnical studies to explore the potential for stabilizing the
bluff adjacent to the existing SWFSC buildings, thereby minimizing future erosion and
mitigating the bluff retreat hazard. Group Delta Consultants, Inc., prepared a conceptual design
for bluff stabilization [1999]. The conceptual design includes treatments for the upper, middle,
and lower bluffs. To stabilize the upper bluff, two shotcrete walls would be installed and tied into
bedrock with 120 ft. long rock bolts. The upper wall would be installed at elevations between
165 and 215 ft. above mean sea level (MSL) and the lower wall at 137 to 165 ft. MSL. A man-
made bench would be located between the two walls at roughly 165 ft. MSL elevation. The
upper and lower walls would be 430 ft. and 540 ft. in length, respectively. The middle bluff
would be left as is, although future treatment of this area might be necessary. The lower bluff is
subject to erosion from wave action. A 540 ft. long rock revetment would be placed at the base
of the bluff to armor the bluff against wave action. The revetment would consist of four-ton
stones underlain by one-half-ton stones. The revetment would be keyed to a depth of 2 ft. into
the bedrock platform in the tidal zone, which is part of the Scripps Coastal Reserve. Stabilization
of the bluff would remove the threat to existing Buildings B and C, allowing NOAA to safely
occupy those buildings into the future. As a result, SWFSC operations would continue without
disruption. However, this alternative would not provide for the additional space required by
SWFSC in the future.
a
The proposed shotcrete walls would be colored and textured to minimize visual contrast with the
natural bluff face. However, the walls would be quite large. Each wall would be 430 to 540 ft. in
17
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
length and 28+ ft. in height. Given their large sizes, the walls would be visually prominent and
highly visible from the beach. Additionally, the rock revetment would have significant visual and
physical impacts on the beach at the base of the bluff. The addition of a large revetment would
alter the physical and natural processes being studied at the UC Natural Reserve, adversely
affecting that ongoing long-term research. UC owns the bluff face and is opposed to this
alternative due to the level of environmental impacts that would result to the shoreline and
ongoing scientific studies. UC will not lease land required to implement this alternative to
NOAA.
a
This alternative is considered infeasible because the land necessary to implement this alternative
is not available. Additionally, this alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than
the proposed action due to interference with ongoing research at the UC Natural Reserve and
adverse aesthetic effects of the massive bluff stabilization structures. NOAA rejected this
alternative because it is infeasible and the level of environmental impact would be greater than
that for the proposed action.
CEQA Impact Analysis and Ability to Meet Project Objectives. This alternative would allow
SWFSC to remain at its existing location by stabilizing the bluff face; however, it would increase
biological resource impacts over the proposed project by substantially modifying natural habitats
on the bluff face and adjacent beach due to placement of shotcrete and a revetment associated
with the bluff stabilization efforts. Physical and natural processes would also be significantly
modified as a result of this alternative, potentially causing significant changes in the beach and
near shore coastal environments located at the base of the cliff. This alternative would also result
in much greater visual quality impacts than the proposed project, as a large portion of the bluff
would be completely transformed from a natural to a man-made appearance. Construction-
related air quality and traffic impacts would be somewhat less than the proposed project as there
would be less grading, although the stabilization of the bluff face would be a significant
engineering undertaking that would result in excessive noise and vibration events that could be
significant. This alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project to provide
(1) additional on-site parking opportunities in order to minimize parking impacts off-site and on
City streets; and (2) space for future program growth.
3.2.1.2 On-Site Redevelopment
NOAA analyzed the potential for redeveloping the existing 2.48-acre site to provide a new
facility for SWFSC. NOAA considered variants of this alternative, including (1) removal of all
existing structures and construction of a new Center, and (2) retaining one or two of the existing
buildings at least risk and building a new structure to supplement the space provided by the
retained buildings. Any retained or new buildings would need to be set back either 40 ft. or 60 ft.
from the top of the bluff to mitigate the hazard from ongoing bluff retreat. Based on average
bluff retreat rate of about 1 ft. per year [Benumof, 2000), a 60 ft. setback would provide up to
60 years of safety. This would limit the portion of the property available for construction of new
facilities. Existing Buildings A, B, and C are wholly or partially within the 60 ft. setback area
and would have to be removed. Existing Building D is outside the setback zone and could remain
in place, but retention of this building would constrain the design of new structures at this small
site. If Building D were retained, the maximum floor space that could be provided, considering
both Building D and new construction, would be about 63,500 sq. ft. If Building D were
removed, about 90,500 sq. ft. of floor space in a four-story building with 77 parking spaces could
18
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
be built on-site. This is insufficient to meet SWFSC needs for both floor space and parking.
Additionally, SWFSC operations would have to be temporarily relocated from the existing site
during construction, temporarily disrupting key research activities. Because this alternative
would fall far short of providing the required floor space needed to accommodate SWFSC
operations, it would not satisfy the need and objectives and is not considered feasible.
In regard to environmental effects, this alternative would generate similar levels of traffic during
the operation as the proposed action. However, compared with the proposed action, less earth
movement would be required; therefore, the amount of construction traffic would be reduced and
the amount of air emissions from construction vehicles and equipment would also be reduced.
Mature Torrey pine trees would have to be removed [SRI International, 2001]. NOAA has
rejected this alternative because it is considered infeasible.
CEQA Impact Analysis and Ability to Meet Project Objectives. This alternative would have
construction impacts (air, noise, traffic, vibration) that would be expected to be reduced as
compared with the proposed project due primarily to the fact that construction excavation would
be significantly reduced. Impacts to native biological resources would be reduced as well as
compared with the proposed project, as there is no native habitat on-site, although several
ornamental Torrey pine trees would be removed. However, this alternative would not meet the
programmed need of 124,000 gross sq. ft. of new space, and on-site parking (77 spaces) would
be reduced under this alternative as compared with the proposed project (202 spaces). Therefore,
this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project to provide (1) program
space for future program growth; and (2) adequate on-site parking opportunities in order to
minimize parking impacts off-site and on City streets to the extent that the proposed project
would.
up to
3.2.1.3 On- and Near-Site Redevelopment
An undeveloped hillside is located between the NOAA property and La Jolla Shores Drive. This
roughly 0.45-acre parcel is owned by UC. Because it is undeveloped and adjacent to existing
NOAA property, it could be added to NOAA property and would provide additional room for
construction of new facilities. It would also increase the flexibility of building layouts, easing
design constraints at the existing NOAA site. A 100,000 sq. ft. four-story structure with
95 parking spaces could be constructed on the combined properties. This design would include a
60 ft. setback from the bluff top to minimize geologic hazards (SRI International, 2001). The
addition of the 0.45-acre parcel would allow development of a larger structure with more parking
than the on-site redevelopment alternative; however, the facility would still fall short of fulfilling
SWFSC's future needs. Additionally, this alternative would require temporary relocation of
SWFSC operations during the demolition and construction periods. For these reasons, NOAA
considers this alternative infeasible.
This alternative would result in similar environmental effects as the proposed action, although
some impacts would differ in intensity. Operational traffic generation would be similar as for the
proposed action. Less earth movement would likely be needed, reducing the amount of air
pollutants emitted by haul trucks during construction of the new SWFSC. The UCSD 2004
LRDP designates the adjacent undeveloped parcel for Park use and a meander path is planned for
this area. SWFSC construction would be incompatible with the existing land use designation and
would preclude future construction of the meander path on that property. In contrast, the
proposed action would be compatible with land use designations and policies contained in the
19
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
UCSD 2004 LRDP. Overall, this alternative would result in less physical impacts to the
environment than the proposed action, but greater land use impacts. Due to the infeasibility of
this alternative and the expected level of environmental effect, NOAA has rejected this
alternative.
CEQA Impact Analysis and Ability to Meet Project Objectives. This alternative would have
construction impacts (air, noise, traffic, vibration) that would be expected to be similar as
compared with the proposed project due primarily to the fact that construction excavation of the
0.45-acre sloped area would be required. Impacts to native biological resources would be
reduced as compared with the proposed project, as there is no native habitat on the sloped area,
although several ornamental Torrey pine trees would be removed. This alternative would have a
land use inconsistency impact that the proposed project would not have, and an LRDP amend-
ment would be required to modify the designation of the 0.45-acre slope from UCSD Park Land
use to Academic use. This project alternative would also have the potential to impact views as
the four-story building would be built closer to La Jolla Shores Drive in an area characterized by
its scenic views of the ocean. In addition, this alternative would not meet the programmed need
of 124,000 gross sq. ft. of new space, and on-site parking would be reduced (95 spaces) as
compared with the proposed project (202 spaces). Therefore, this alternative would not meet the
objectives of the proposed project to provide (1) program space for future program growth; and
(2) adequate on-site parking opportunities in order to minimize parking impacts off-site and on
City streets to the extent that the proposed project would.
3.2.1.4 Off-Site Development at SIO Deep Sea Drilling Site
Deep Sea Drilling Site is a 1.25-acre area located on the east side of La Jolla Shores Drive within
the SIO campus, about 1,200 ft. south of the existing SWFSC buildings. This area contains a
complex of office, laboratory, and storage space supporting the Deep Sea Drilling Project. The
SIO Hillside Neighborhood Planning Study addresses redevelopment of this area and plans for
construction of 50,000 sq. ft. of office and research space (UCSD, 1994). About 30,000 sq. ft. of
new space could be made available to NOAA at this area. Existing Building D at SWFSC has
sufficient setback from the bluff and could be retained for continued use by NOAA, providing
23,500 sq. ft. of net space. Thus, the total amount of floor space would be about 53,500 sq. ft.,
which is much less than SWFSC requires. Additionally, the split of SWFSC activities between
the two locations would be inefficient. Because this alternative would fall far short of meeting
the needs and objectives set forth for replacement of the SWFSC, NOAA finds that this
alternative is infeasible.
CEQA Impact Analysis and Ability to Meet Project Objectives. This alternative would reduce
impacts associated with construction, however, it would require seawater to be extended to the
site. If the extension is from the south near the aquarium, biological resource impacts associated
with native habitat would occur. No visual quality or land use conflicts would be anticipated, and
due to the developed nature of this alternative site, archaeological resource concerns associated
with the proposed project would be expected to be reduced. Also, the project would not meet the
programmed need of 124,000 gross sq. ft. of new space, and parking would be limited to the 30
existing spaces at the existing site, as there is no room at the alternative site for SWFSC staff
parking. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project to
provide (1) access to seawater infrastructure that minimizes environmental impacts; (2) program
space for future program growth; and (3) adequate on-site parking opportunities in order to
20
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
IN
minimize parking impacts off-site and on City streets to the extent that the proposed project
would.
3.2.1.5 Off-Site Development at UCSD Hillside Neighborhood Site
The Hillside Neighborhood Site is a 5.3-acre area located about 1,000 ft. southeast of the existing
SWFSC buildings and is within the SIO campus. This area contains an existing saltwater tank
serving SIO. Construction in this area is constrained by an inferred trace of the Redwood Fault
and steep and potentially unstable slopes. The SIO Hillside Neighborhood Planning Study
(UCSD, 1994) envisions a village concept containing several low-rise buildings on either side of
the fault trace. Access to this area would be via a new drive connecting to Expedition Way. Total
development potential of this area is estimated at 100,000 sq. ft. However, about half the
building floor area would be required by SIO, leaving roughly 50,000 sq. ft. of floor space
available for NOAA use. Even if NOAA were to continue to occupy the unthreatened buildings
at the existing SWFSC site and build at Hillside Neighborhood Site, the total amount of space
would not meet SWFSC needs. Additionally, the split of SWFSC activities between the two
locations would be inefficient. Because this alternative would fall far short of meeting the needs
and objectives set forth for replacement of SWFSC, NOAA finds that this alternative is
infeasible.
CEQA Impact Analysis and Ability to Meet Project Objectives. The Hillside Neighborhood is
largely undeveloped. Development of the SWFSC building at this alternative site would require
significant grading, construction of an access roadway, and extension of utilities, including
seawater. For these reasons, impacts associated with construction (air, traffic, noise) would be
expected and would be similar to the proposed project. Because of the undeveloped nature of the
site, biological and archaeological resource impacts as well as potential impacts associated with
hydrology and water quality would be expected to be equivalent to the proposed project.
Vibration could be reduced over the proposed project as existing buildings in the area are not as
close in proximity. The site is designated as Academic in the UCSD 2004 LRDP and the site is
not in a sensitive viewshed, therefore, no impacts associated with land use or visual quality are
anticipated. Building program goals for space and parking would not be met completely on-site,
but use of Building D at the existing site in combination with new development at the alternative
site would allow parking and space goals to be increased, but not to the level of the program
goals associated with the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the
objectives of the proposed project to provide (1) access to seawater infrastructure that minimizes
environmental impacts; (2) program space for future program growth; and (3) adequate on-site
parking opportunities in order to minimize parking impacts off-site and on City streets to the
extent that the proposed project would.
3.2.1.6 Leased Office and Research Space
This alternative would involve leasing existing or planned office and research space in the
general vicinity of the UCSD and SIO campuses. Several research parks are present in the area:
one example is the UCSD Science Research Park (SRP) complex at the University's East
Campus. Leasing space within the Research Park requires a minimum commitment of about
70,000 gross sq. ft. and up to 130,000 gross sq. ft. could be potentially available. However, the
availability of space to lease is very limited and new construction on a leased parcel within the
SRP would likely be required. The location of the Park is over two miles east of SWFSC, east of
Interstate 5, near Regents Road and Eastgate Mall Drive. It is separate from SIO and does not
a
21
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
have direct access to seawater; however, a satellite seawater laboratory could remain in SWFSC
Building D. The split of SWFSC activities between the two locations would be inefficient and
the physical separation of SWFSC operations from the SIO campus would discourage scientific
collaboration.
Because SWFSC would relocate to SRP where all the infrastructure (with the exception of
seawater) is in place, this alternative would avoid most construction impacts, such as vegetation
removal, air emissions, noise and vibrations, vehicle and equipment traffic, and solid waste
generation. Remodeling of the leased space to meet the specialized needs of SWFSC would be
necessary and would result in minor construction impacts, which would be reduced in intensity
and duration compared with construction impacts expected to result from the proposed action
and would likely be less than significant. If new construction at SRP is required, construction
impacts would be similar in intensity to the proposed project. Other than emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOx), the proposed action would not result in significant construction impacts. Traffic
generation and demand for public utilities would be similar in intensity as for the proposed
action, but the location of these activities would be shifted to the UCSD East Campus.
Although this alternative would result in less environmental effects than the proposed action, it
would be detrimental to the ongoing SWFSC activities. Because this alternative would not meet
the purpose and need, NOAA rejected this alternative.
CEQA Impact Analysis and Ability to Meet Project Objectives. This alternative would reduce
construction-related impacts as compared with the proposed project because the infrastructure
and access to the SRP are already in place, and grading would be minimal. No native vegetation
or archeological resources are present due to the developed nature of the Park. Although the SRP
could accommodate the building program proposed and adequate parking could be obtained,
SRP is too far from the ocean for seawater to be extended. This lack of seawater would represent
a shortcoming in meeting the program needs of the SWFSC. In addition, the distance between
SIO and SWFSC staffs would hinder regular communications, joint teaching appointments, and
graduate student activities that occur today by virtue of the close proximity between the existing
facilities. It is expected that the increased distance would increase travel between the two sites
and thus add traffic to local roadways above that of the proposed project. Therefore. this
alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project to provide (1) a new SWFSC
facility in the UCSD/SIO neighborhood in proximity to other buildings that share programmatic
relationships with SWFSC, thereby promoting the interaction and collaboration between SIO and
SWFSC researchers and graduate students; and (2) access to seawater infrastructure.
3.2.1.7 Collocation of SWFSC with Other Existing NOAA Facilities
This alternative would involve relocation of SWFSC Headquarters to another existing NOAA
facility within or outside California. Key criteria considered are the potential for high-quality
collaboration in program areas critical to SWFSC management and staff, and the adequacy of
existing facilities and potential for future development of needed facilities. These issues were
evaluated in a technical study prepared by SRI International, reprinted as Appendix B in
Volume II of this EIS/EIR.
Existing SWFSC Headquarters is strategically located at the UCSD/SIO campus to benefit from
proximity to Pacific Ocean fisheries resources and SIO. Proximity to fisheries being studied
advances both the quality of the research and the efficiency with which it is conducted.
22
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
זיין,
a
Proximity to SIO continues the 40-year history of scientific collaboration between SIO and
SWFSC. These benefits are unlikely to be achieved to the same extent if SWFSC is relocated
outside the San Diego metropolitan area. Conversely, collocation with another existing NMFS
facility could result in cost savings through sharing of support costs.
Other coastal California sites with an NMFS presence and nearby marine research wet labora-
tories or aquaria were identified. The following existing California NMFS facilities were
considered for potential relocation of SWFSC: NMFS laboratories in Santa Cruz and Pacific
Grove, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary offices in Santa Barbara, and Glenn M.
Anderson Federal Building in Long Beach. The following locations outside California were also
considered: Western Regional Center in Seattle, Washington; Northwest Fisheries Science
Center in the Puget Sound area, Washington; Newport Research Station, Newport, Oregon; and
Pacific Regional Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. Each of these locations is over 50 miles from the
existing SWFSC Headquarters and, therefore, would result in substantial staff relocation costs.
New construction would be required to accommodate the relocated SWFSC at another NOAA
facility. Because the relocated SWFSC would be collocated with an existing NOAA research
facility, it should be compatible with nearby land uses. The size and type of new construction
would be similar to the construction required to implement the proposed action. Construction
impacts, such as vegetation removal, air emissions, noise and vibrations, vehicle and equipment
traffic, and solid waste generation, would have similar intensity as for the proposed action, but
would occur in a different area. The significance of these impacts would depend on local
conditions, but it is likely that these impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels, as
would be the case for the proposed action. Relocation of SWFSC outside the San Diego area
would result in increases in population and employment at the new location and decreases in the
San Diego area. As a consequence, demand for housing and public services would increase at the
new location and decrease in the San Diego area. However, the number of relocated jobs would
be modest, about 283, and would not be expected to significantly increase population or demand
for housing or public services at any of the relocation areas considered. The decrease in
population in the San Diego area would be insignificant compared with overall population of the
area.
The availability of adequate space at each of the NOAA activities considered for relocation of
the SWFSC locations is doubtful. Further, the movement of SWFSC away from La Jolla would
be detrimental to collaborative research with SIO. Because this alternative would not promote
SWFSC's long-term ability to fulfill its mission and would not satisfy the purpose and need,
NOAA rejected this alternative.
CEQA Impact Analysis and Ability to Meet Project Objectives. The environmental impacts
of collocating the SWFSC with other NOAA activities outside the San Diego area would be
dependant upon the site that would be selected, and is too speculative to discuss herein.
However, the selection of this alternative would end forty plus years of productive scientific
collaboration between NOAA NMFS and SIO, in addition to eliminating the existing and the
potential for future scientific and research opportunities. Also, jobs would be relocated out of the
La Jolla area. This alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project to provide
(1) a new SWFSC facility in the UCSD/SIO neighborhood in proximity to other buildings that
share programmatic relationships with SWFSC, thereby promoting the interaction and
collaboration between SIO and SWFSC researchers and graduate students; and (2) foster
23
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
continued collaboration between SIO and the SWFSC, by providing expansion space for future
program growth.
3.2.2 Finding
As discussed above, a reasonable range of potential alternatives to the proposed project was
evaluated. These alternatives may, in some cases, reduce environmental impacts associated with
the proposed project; however, each alternative fails to meet one or more of the key project
objectives.
The alternatives of constructing or leasing office and research space or collocating the SWFSC
with other NOAA activities outside the San Diego area are feasible, but would result in
substantial adverse effects on the ability of SWFSC to continue its scientific research into
fisheries of the temperate and sub-tropical eastern Pacific Ocean. The benefits of scientific
synergy with SIO would be largely forfeited due to the physical distance of the relocated
SWFSC from the SIO campus. Because these drawbacks would severely compromise key
project objectives, NOAA rejected these alternatives and did not carry them forward for detailed
analysis. Furthermore, based on a comparison of the potential environmental effects of the
alternatives with the effects of the proposed project as described in Section 3.2.1, none of the
alternatives would completely avoid the significant unmitigated air quality impacts of the
proposed project.
3.3
ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
3.3.1 No-Action Alternative
NEPA and CEQA Guidelines require analysis of the impacts of a “No-Action” alternative. Under
the No-Action alternative, no construction or demolition of buildings would occur. SWFSC
would continue to operate at its existing facilities for the foreseeable future. Buildings B and C
are unusable due to the extreme risk from bluff retreat, and are currently being vacated by
NOAA. Among the existing buildings at SWFSC, Buildings A and D are located sufficiently
distant from the crest of the bluff to be safe from future bluff retreat hazards. Thus, NOAA
would continue to occupy Buildings A and D in the long-term, but this would provide only a
fraction of the office, research, and administrative space required by SWFSC. Building D
contains saltwater aquaria, which is essential for ongoing research at SWFSC. The shortage of
space would severely constrain SWFSC research activities, which is unacceptable to NOAA.
Nonetheless, this alternative, along with NOAA's preferred action, is analyzed in detail in
Section 4 of this EIS/EIR as required by NEPA and CEQA.
24
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
This chapter describes the existing physical, natural, and regulatory setting of the existing and
proposed SWFSC sites and vicinities. A comprehensive range of issue areas are addressed and
for each issue area, one or more impacts are analyzed and the level of significance of each
impact is determined. This chapter lists specified impacts correlated to mitigation measures that
would reduce or eliminate the level of impact.
4.1
LAND USE AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
4.1.1 Setting
La Jolla Community Plan and UCSD 2004 LRDP. The existing SWFSC site and the preferred
site for relocation of SWFSC are both located in La Jolla, a community within the City of San
Diego. The community of La Jolla comprises approximately 5,718 acres of land within the north
coastal region of the City of San Diego (City of San Diego, 2004), including a large stretch of
Pacific Ocean shoreline. Land use within the community is
• 58% residential
• 19% roads
• 16% open space/parks
• 5% institutions/schools
• 2% commercial
a
The City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan contains a General Plan Map within the
Land Use Element of the plan. The General Plan Map indicates Regional or Citywide land uses
only. More detailed land use maps are included within the many community plans, which apply
to various communities within the City of San Diego. The La Jolla Community Plan and Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan covers portions of La Jolla outside the UCSD campus. The City
of San Diego approved the La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
in 2001. CCC approved the Local Coastal Program in 2004. Because UC is a State entity, it is
not subject to municipal land use and zoning requirements (UCSD, 2004a). However, UC
considers municipal planning principles to be an important guide for on-campus planning
(UCSD, 2004a). Municipal planning documents are also important because they address nearby
off-campus land uses to the north of the SIO campus. The La Jolla Community Plan does not
cover the UCSD campus or the existing and preferred sites for SWFSC. Off-campus land to the
north of the existing and preferred sites is planned for parks, open space, and very low residential
uses (zero to five dwelling units per acre).
The UCSD campus is owned by the State of California and covers 1,152 acres, divided into east,
west, and SIO campuses. The existing and preferred sites are within the SIO campus, which is
comprised of neighborhoods. The existing SWFSC site is in the SIO West neighborhood, and the
preferred site is located in the SIO Hillside neighborhood. Development of the UCSD/SIO
campus is generally guided by the University Community Plan (UCSD, 2000).
The existing and preferred SWFSC sites are planned for academic uses, described as classrooms,
class and research laboratories, and ancillary support facilities. The strips of undeveloped and
landscaped lands to the west, south, and east of the existing SWFSC buildings are designated as
25
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
restoration lands, described as areas disturbed by erosion, invasive vegetation, and past military
use, but which could be restored to enhance their value as natural ecosystem. The northern
boundary of the existing site is also the boundary of the SIO campus. To the north are single-
family residential and open space uses (UCSD, 2004a]. The existing and preferred SWFSC sites
are not located in the vicinity of an airport and are not subject to an airport land use plan.
The preferred site for SWFSC is wholly within the SIO campus. Restoration land is located to
the west, across La Jolla Shores Drive, and Grove Reserve is located to the north and east, also
across La Jolla Shores Drive. Grove Reserve is land affected by prior development. Future
development is restricted and efforts are to be made to eliminate buildings and restore eucalyptus
groves to enhance open space (UCSD, 2004a).
Coastal Management Zone. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act authorizes coastal
States to develop management plans for coastal areas. California's Federally approved Coastal
Program is administered by CCC, which approves Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) developed by
local entities. The UCSD 2004 LRDP is the governing LCP for the UCSD campus, including
both the existing and preferred SWFSC sites. UCSD has not submitted the LRDP to CCC for
approval. Instead, UCSD has submitted plans for individual projects within the coastal zone for
CCC review (UCSD, 2004b). The community of La Jolla also has an approved LCP, contained
in the La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, but this plan covers
only lands outside of the UCSD campus. (City of San Diego, 2004). La Jolla is a well-known
visitor location and has been designated a special community of Regional and Statewide
significance by CCC.
The CCC submitted a formal scoping letter stating that the proposed action would require
preparation of a Federal Consistency Determination and its submittal to the CCC for
concurrence. NOAA plans to meet this requirement.
Federal Requirements. The Public Buildings Amendments of 1988, Public Law 100 678,
requires Federal officials to follow nationally recognized building codes and permit normal
inspections by local building officials during construction, among other actions. NOAA would
conform to the requirements of Public Buildings Amendments of 1988, Public Law 100 678.
Standards of Significance. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed
action or an alternative action would have a significant impact on land use and coastal zone
management if response to any of the following questions is yes:
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative physically divide an
established community?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in land use
incompatibilities between SWFSC and adjacent campus and community land uses?
a
.
.
HHH
26
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
.
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative land use and planning impact considering past,
present, and probable future projects?
4.1.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1-Compatibility of Proposed SWFSC Facility with Existing and Planned Uses.
The proposed action would construct a new SWFSC Headquarters facility at an undeveloped site
planned for academic uses, which includes scientific research activities. The new SWFSC would
be for scientific research use and would support the academic mission of UCSD/SIO. The new
SWFSC would be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the area. Operation of the
new SWFSC would not adversely affect the Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research,
adjacent to the site on the south, or hinder restoration of lands to the west. The Grove Reserve
lands to the north and east also would not be adversely affected. The SWFSC design is being
reviewed by the UCSD Design Review Board (DRB) and UCSD Physical Planning Department
to ensure conformance to the UCSD 2004 LRDP. NOAA is actively participating in the meetings
of these two committees and will follow their design recommendations to the maximum extent
possible. The proposed SWFSC would be compatible with policies contained in the UCSD 2004
LRDP.
The proposed action would not displace existing development or physically divide an established
community and would be compatible with natural resource and habitat protection policies of the
UCSD 2004 LRDP. It would be compatible with nearby development, both on- and off-campus.
Traffic impacts would be minor and all roads and intersections in the area would continue to
operate at an acceptable level of service during the construction, demolition, and operation
phases of the action. Coastal access points and facilities would be unaffected.
The existing and preferred SWFSC sites are not located in the vicinity of an airport and are not
subject to an airport land use plan. Occupants of the new SWFSC or Buildings A and D at the
existing site would not be subject to adverse effects or hazards from aviation activities.
Implementation of the proposed action would not affect airport operations or aviation. Land use
impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 2—Compatibility of Proposed Demolition with Existing and Planned Uses. Demo-
lition of Buildings B and C at the existing site would open additional land for possible natural
restoration. UCSD would take possession of this land and may decide to pursue natural
restoration or alternatively may redevelop all or portions of this land for academic uses. (Because
Buildings A and D are farther from the bluff crest and not in immediate danger, it is expected
that they will be retained and turned over to UCSD/SIO one year after completion of the new
facility.) Existing restoration lands to the west, south, and east of the existing SWFSC would not
be physically disturbed during the demolition period. Restoration activities would not be
hindered or restricted by demolition of these two buildings. The residential uses to the north of
the existing site would be subject to potentially significant noise during the six-month demolition
period; that impact would be temporary. Measures to mitigate construction noise impacts are
listed in Section 4.9.3 of this EIS/EIR. In the long-term, no adverse effects to residential use
would result. Demolition impacts to nearby land uses would be less than significant.
Impact 3—Exposure of Persons to Natural Hazards. The relocation of SWFSC staff and
operations from the existing at-risk site to a new SWFSC would reduce the population exposed
27
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA, Volume I
November 2008
to geological hazard. The new SWFSC would be outside of earthquake fault zones and areas of
coastal erosion hazard. Thus, the proposed action would further the health and safety goals of the
UCSD 2004 LRDP. The existing at-risk buildings at the SWFSC would be demolished and
removed, reducing the risk of failure during bluff erosion. The remaining two buildings would be
rehabilitated to meet current life safety and building codes, reducing the risk to occupants.
Implementation of the proposed action would not result in a significant increase in exposure of
persons to hazards.
Impact 4—Effects on Coastal Access. Compared with the existing SWFSC facility, the new
SWFSC facility would have greatly increased parking, reducing the amount of overflow parking
on local streets. This would increase availability of parking spaces for public use by visitors to
the coast. Demolition of Buildings B and C would remove a possible hazard to the portion of
beach below these buildings. Thus, the proposed action would support the coastal access policies
of the UCSD 2004 LRDP. The nearest locations with public access to the beach are the concrete
ramp north of Scripps Pier and Summer Canyon Road, located 1,500 ft. south and 1,000 ft. north,
respectively, of the preferred site. No direct effects to existing coastal access points would result.
Impacts to costal access would be less than significant.
Impact 5—Impacts to Coastal Resources. Overall, the proposed action would be consistent
with applicable local land use and coastal zone management policies. NOAA would prepare a
Federal Consistency Determination to document this finding. Impacts to coastal resources would
be less than significant.
4.1.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Lan-1 NOAA will prepare a Federal Consistency Determination and submit it to CCC for
concurrence. (Impact 5)
Lan-2 The UCSD DRB and UCSD Physical Planning Department will review the SWFSC
design plans to evaluate the extent to which the proposed SWFSC would be integrated
into the campus neighborhood and would be compatible with nearby uses. The review
will evaluate edge effects, site connections to adjacent on- and off-campus land uses,
,
pedestrian and bicycle circulation, landscaping, and alternative transportation facilities
(for example, bike racks and shuttle stops). (Impact 1)
Lan-3 Demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC site would occur in a manner
that avoids disturbance of adjacent restoration lands. Staging of demolition activities,
parking of vehicles, and storage of supplies and equipment would occur at existing
developed areas at the property and not on restoration lands. (Impact 2)
HEEHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
4.1.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Impact 1-Compatibility with Existing and Planned Uses. No changes in existing or planned
land uses would result and physical division of an established community would not result. No
changes in coastal access or adverse effects on natural areas would result. The no-action
alternative would be consistent with the UCSD 2004 LRDP. Impacts to land uses would be less
than significant
Impact 2—Exposure of Persons to Natural Hazards. NOAA is vacating Buildings B and C
at the existing site, which will thereby eliminate the safety hazard to staff who work in those
buildings. However, the threat of sudden slope and building failure remains and could threaten
28
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
users of the adjacent beach at the foot of the bluff. That impact would be significant, even after
application of the mitigation measure listed below.
4.1.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
Lan-4 NOAA would continue to monitor the rate of bluff retreat for signs of accelerated
erosion that could undermine Buildings B and C. If deemed necessary, NOAA would
inform local authorities of potential hazards to beach users so that they could inform
beach users of the risk and/or limit access to the adjacent beach. (Impact 2)
a
4.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
4.2.1 Setting
The existing location of SWFSC and the preferred site for relocation of SWFSC are in the
Peninsular Ranges Physiographic province of Southern California (American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, 1968). The existing and proposed sites are located on a coastal bluff
comprised of siltstones, mudstones, shales, and sandstones of Eocene to Pleistocene epochs
(57.8 million to 10,000 years ago). These marine sedimentary layers have been uplifted by
tectonic forces associated with the San Andreas Fault system, which forms the boundary between
the Pacific and North American plates. A number of right lateral faults that cross the San Diego
area have influenced the morphology of the coastal bluffs of the area. Tectonic forces have
resulted in development of steeply dipping joints parallel to the shoreline, which promote erosion
[Benumof, 2000).
The existing SWFSC site is a 2.48-acre parcel at the crest of a steep coastal bluff rising about
200 ft. MSL. A natural dike comprised of andesite is present in the tidal zone at the base of the
bluff. Compared with the adjoining marine sediment layers, the andesite dike is relatively
resistant to erosion. Elevation of the existing NOAA parcel ranges from 168 ft. MSL at the
center of the western property boundary to 206 ft. MSL at the northeastern corner of the property
[Frank L. Hope & Associates, 1963). Wave action is eroding the base of the bluff, steepening the
bluff face and leading to slope failure in the form of landslides, slumps, rockfalls, and toppling of
blocks. Benumof (2000) estimated the average rate of bluff retreat at 0.72 to 1.05 ft. per year. In
contrast, Summit Technology and Kleinfelder, Inc. [1998] estimated the rate of bluff retreat at
0.4 ft. per year prior to 1954, increasing to 0.5 ft. per year after 1954. This erosion is episodic
and the rate varies greatly from year to year. Clay seams within the sedimentary layers are areas
of weakness, and failure often occurs along these seams (Benumof, 2000). Bluff retreat has also
resulted from slumping of soil and rock located at the upper portions of the bluff. This slumping
has been exacerbated by accumulation of perched groundwater in shallow soils at the top of the
bluff. Water used to irrigate landscaping is thought to have contributed to water buildup at the
bluff crest (Applied Consultants, 1989; Summit Technology and Kleinfelder, Inc., 1998). To
alleviate that situation, NOAA has installed and continues to operate a well to remove perched
groundwater at the existing SWFSC site.
Soil at the existing site consists of Huerhuero loam, 15 to 30% slope, eroded (HrE2). HrE2 soils
are deep with substantial clay content. Infiltration of rainfall is very slow and runoff is rapid in
areas of HrE2 soils. These soils are subject to shrink-swell behavior [Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 2004). The existing site is mostly covered with structures and paving;
the topography was leveled during construction. Slope gradients are modest except for the
|
П
П
1
7
7
29
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
uppermost portion of the bluff face, which is within NOAA property, and embankments along
La Jolla Shores Drive.
HHH
а
The preferred site is a 3.3-acre parcel located across La Jolla Shores Drive and about 500 ft. east
of the Pacific Ocean shoreline. The parcel is undeveloped and vegetated with grasses, forbs,
brush, and small trees. Elevations range from 213.9 ft. MSL at the southwest corner of the parcel
to 304.2 ft. MSL at the southeast corner. The site slopes downward from east to west at a fairly
uniform gradient of 25%. La Jolla Shores Drive curves around the western, northern, and eastern
boundaries of the parcel. A vegetated earthen berm is located on the parcel adjacent to La Jolla
Shores Drive and rises about 20 ft. above the adjacent roadbed. Soil consists of HrE2 in the
western half of the parcel and Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 15% slope, eroded (LeD2) on the
eastern half. Figure 6 shows location of soil types for existing and preferred sites. LeD2 is a deep
soil. Infiltration of rainfall is very slow and runoff is rapid. LeD2 is classified as potentially
supporting farmland of Statewide importance, although urban development precludes agriculture
in this area. Both LeD2 and HrE2 soils contain clay layers with Plasticity Indices ranging from
20 to 35 that render these soils subject to expansion, potentially resulting in damage to overlying
structures or pavement. Proper site preparation and building design can mitigate this hazard
[Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2004). There is no evidence of slope instability or
formation of substantial gullies at the preferred site.
The San Diego area is subject to severe seismic activity due to the presence of the San Andreas
Fault system. A number of regionally significant right-lateral faults occur in the area. According
to the California Division of Mines and Geology, the existing and preferred sites are not within
an earthquake fault zone. The closest fault zone occurs about 1.3 miles to the south (State of
California, 1991). However, both sites are subject to strong ground shaking and secondary
seismic hazards during a major earthquake. The existing site is subject to failure of the adjacent
bluff during a major seismic event. The potential for liquefaction at either site is low due to the
clay content of the soil and the relatively deep water table.
No extraction of minerals occurs at either of the sites and economically viable mineral deposits
are not expected to occur. The potential for future extraction of minerals is very low due to the
lack of known resources and the urban nature of the area.
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative 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?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative occur 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?
Would construction of the new SWFSC be located on expansive soils?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative geology and soils impact considering past, present, and
probable future projects?
30
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008

cr
CfB
1
TeF
1
EXISTING
SWFSC
FACILITIES
PREFERRED
REPLACEMENT
SITE
CfC
CbC
HIE2
LeD2
Cr
GaE
AtE2
CsC
Source: Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for San Diego County, CA,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service (6-16-2004)
N
0
400
800
Feet
FIGURE 6
SOIL TYPES OF EXISTING AND PREFERRED SITES
31
H
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
a
4.2.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1–Vegetation Clearing and Soil Erosion. Construction of a new SWFSC facility at
the preferred site would require clearing of vegetation over most of the site. The proposed
SWFSC would have the lowest level, below existing grade, and this level would include
seawater aquaria extending about 10 ft. below the floor elevation of the lowest level. Excavation
of large amounts of soil would be required to construct the facility. About 3.3 acres of soil,
including areas with steep slope gradients, would be exposed to wind and water erosion. Best
management practices (BMPs) to control erosion would be implemented during the construction
period to prevent concentrated flows of storm runoff across the site and retain soil on-site,
keeping the potential for soil erosion at this site low. Those measures will be detailed in a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required to obtain a discharge permit for construction
storm water.
The proposed new structure would be terraced into the hillside to minimize its visual bulk and
would cover the majority of the parcel. Expansive soils at the portions of the site to be covered
by buildings or pavement would be removed during excavation, eliminating this hazard. Excess
soil excavated to construct the new SWFSC would be removed for off-site disposal. After
construction of the new SWFSC is complete, the parcel would be mostly covered by structures
and pavement, which would protect soil from erosion. Exposed areas would be revegetated to
stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. The potential for long-term erosion at the parcel would be
low.
Demolition of existing Buildings B and C at SWFSC would expose about 0.5 acre of soil to wind
and water erosion. Given the proximity of the areas to the bluff, erosion hazards would be a
significant concern. To mitigate those hazards, exposed areas would be planted or seeded with
species typical of coastal sage scrub vegetation to promote establishment of vegetative cover,
which would minimize erosion. In addition, these areas would be graded so that storm water
runoff flows to the south and east and not westward over the crest of the bluff, which would
exacerbate the bluff retreat hazard. Demolition of Buildings B and C would result in less than
significant erosion effects.
Impact 2—Seismic and Bluff Retreat Hazards. The new SWFSC would be subject to seismic
hazards, including strong ground shaking during a major earthquake. The preferred site is not
within a fault zone and ground rupture is not expected. Additionally, the preferred site, although
sloping, is not subject to slope instability or liquefaction that could undermine the structure. To
mitigate seismic hazards, the proposed new SWFSC would be designed and built in conformance
with seismic safety requirements of the 2007 California Building Code.
Demolition machinery (for example, excavators that crush and break concrete) would cause
vibration; this equipment would be operated with care to minimize soil disturbance that might
exacerbate bluff instability. Buildings A and D are located 21 ft. and 113 ft., respectively, from
the edge of the bluff. Because existing Buildings A and D are farther from the bluff crest than
Buildings B and C, they are not in imminent danger from bluff retreat. It is expected that
Buildings A and D will be retained and occupied by UCSD/SIO staff.
The proposed action contains measures to mitigate geologic and seismic hazards to occupants
and visitors of the new SWFSC and Buildings A and D at the existing SWFSC, if occupied by
SIO. Existing Buildings B and C are considered at risk from bluff erosion, which represents a
32
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
hazard to building occupants and beach users at the base of the bluff. The two at-risk structures
would be demolished and removed, eliminating these geologic and seismic hazards to persons.
Seismic and bluff retreat hazards would be mitigated to less than significant levels.
Impact 3—Access to Mineral Resources. Construction of the proposed SWFSC at the
preferred site and removal of Buildings B and C at the existing site would not affect access to
mineral resources. No economically valuable mineral resources are known to occur at either
location (UCSD, 2004a). Construction of SWFSC would produce a surplus of clean soil that
would be removed from the construction site for reuse in the local area. Impacts to mineral
resources would be less than significant.
1
4.2.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Geo-1 NOAA would have a licensed engineer or engineering geologist prepare an SWPPP
containing BMPs to minimize soil erosion during construction of the new SWFSC and
removal of Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC. The BMPs would be imple-
mented during the construction and demolition period. Those measures will include
grading of the construction site to direct storm water to existing drainages and minimize
the length and velocity of overland flow, placement of silt fences or equivalent
sediment barriers at the boundaries of the construction/demolition areas, and covering
of stockpiles of earth materials when not in use. (Impact 1)
Geo-2 Denuded areas at the existing and preferred sites would be promptly covered with straw
mats or similar materials and seeded or planted in conformance with project landscape
plans to promote native revegetation after construction/demolition activities are
complete. (Impact 1)
Geo-3 Design and construction of the new SWFSC will conform to seismic safety standards of
the 2007 California Building Code. (Impact 2)
4.2.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Impact 1–Vegetation Clearing and Soil Erosion. Under this alternative, construction of a
new SWFSC would not occur. No clearing of vegetation would be required and no areas of
denuded soil would be exposed to wind and water erosion. No increase in soil erosion would
result.
1
1
1
1
.
Impact 2—Seismic and Bluff Retreat Hazards. The new SWFSC would meet stricter seismic
codes than the existing buildings it would replace. Thus, the increase in seismic safety provided
by the newly constructed SWFSC would not be achieved by this alternative.
NOAA would continue to occupy existing Buildings A and/or D at SWFSC. The existing
network of inclinometers and related sensors would continue in operation to provide advance
warning of potential dangerous conditions, allowing NOAA to take timely action to protect life
and property in case of potential slope failure.
Impact 3—Access to Mineral Resources. No impacts to mineral resources would result.
33
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
4.2.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
Geo-4 NOAA would maintain an up-to-date emergency response plan and would train
managers and staff to implement the plan as necessary. NOAA would continue to
operate the sensor network at the existing SWFSC to alert staff of dangerous geologic
conditions and ensure the safety of staff and visitors. (Impact 2)
4.3
DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY
4.3.1 Setting
Executive Order (E.0.) 11988 requires that Federal actions be located outside the 100-year
floodplain if practicable. The existing and preferred sites are both located in Zone X, outside the
100-year floodplain [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997).
The existing and preferred sites for SWFSC are located in the Scripps Hydrologic Area, which is
part of the 170 square mile Panasquitos Hydrologic Unit. The Unit drains to the Pacific Ocean
via intermittent short coastal drainages. The Pacific Ocean west of the Scripps Hydrologic Area
is part of the San Diego Marine Life Refuge, which the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) has designated an “Area of Special Biological Significance.” The California Ocean
Plan requires that all non-storm water discharges to the ocean be eliminated from the SIO
campus. The UCSD Storm Water Management Plan serves as a Water Quality Management
Plan, fulfilling requirements of the California Ocean Plan and includes a number of BMPs to
protect water quality [PBS&J, Inc., 2007).
]
Average precipitation at the SIO campus is about 10 inches per year. The existing and preferred
sites are drained by a combination of overland flow and storm drains that direct storm runoff into
a short, unnamed intermittent drainage that flows into the Pacific Ocean about 500 ft. southwest
of the existing SWFSC. That drainage is contained in a steeply sided canyon that crosses the
UCSD/SIO campus (PBS&J, Inc., 2007). (Also see the Hydrology Analysis Report in Volume II,
Technical Appendices.)
The existing SWFSC property contains several catch basins, which collect storm water from the
property. The catch basins are connected to a network of storm drains that discharge into a
concrete-lined spillway at the center of the western property boundary. The spillway empties into
a steep gully that flows southwestward into the intermittent drainage south of the property [Frank
L. Hope & Associates, 1963). At the site, NOAA has installed a groundwater well to remove
perched groundwater, which is thought to result from anthropogenic sources. The perched
groundwater is believed to contribute to instability of the coastal bluff (Summit Technology and
Kleinfelder, Inc., 1998).
The preferred site is an undeveloped 3.3-acre parcel. La Jolla Shores Drive and the adjacent
man-made berm form a drainage barrier that prevents storm runoff from the west, north, and east
from entering the parcel. Internally generated storm runoff generally flows east to west and north
to south across the property. A concrete-lined brow ditch at the southern boundary of the parcel
prevents storm water from flowing over the steep embankment separating the parcel from
developed portions of the campus to the south (see Figure 7). The brow ditch collects storm
runoff and empties into a catch basin near the southwestern corner of the parcel. The existing and
preferred sites are on elevated terrain and are not subject to flood hazards from coastal storm
surge, tsunamis, seiches, or flash floods.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
>
34
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla,
November 2008
ROS 1352
LOT 27
Id25
NO
FOUND YA
RON WTH DISC
STAPOD ZS 600
PER ROS NOVO
FONO CONCRETE MONUMENT
UTH LEAD Me & DISC STALPED OTY ENON
ACQUPTED AS STA NON 2+0852
PER ROSS 1182 & 1670
FOUND 3 RON
WTH DISC STAMPED ZS
PR ROS 10
FOUND 7 RON PIPE WITH DISC STAMPED RE 153° PER MAP 3014
ACCEPTED AS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 27
ANO A PONT ON THE NORTH UNE OF PUEBLO LOT 1290
P.QC
OLEGA DESA Phan
AND TOPOGRAPHIC
URVEY PLAT
APPRODATE
DIEGO ORANG
1
APPROXIMATE SI
PER ANY OF
DRAONG NO 10 NOTED
DU MONUMENT WTH DISC
RECORD ACCEPTED AS PONT ON
ESTING 5 BOE SHIER CASEMENT TO THE OTY OF SAN DIEGO
DRIVE
RECORDED MY 11, 1963 N BOOK 1950, PAGE 454
PPE UT DISC MARKED ZS 7019.
A DISC STARPD 23 7019°
TO THE SURFACE ENCOUNTERED
SC STAMPED ZS 7019° N TOP OF
OTHERWISE HOIR
DEED TO
CANON DWG NO. 11994-0
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RECORDED MAY 7, 1962
SFP NO 224754, OR
AS FILE NO. 77868, O.R.
W DIEGO STREET DEDICATION
1237&4
SUMBER 13. 1985 AS FP
ROS 16370
PURPOSES PER BOOK 712
VACATED PER ATY OF SAN
EOSTING 15º DE EASEMENT
LUTION NG 191517 DATED
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4, 1967
LY 14, 1967 AS DOCUMENT
AS RLE NO 136975
NDICATES PROPOSED
PROJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY
NDICATES CHAN LAK FENCE
ved? MOCAES DOS TING SPOT DEVA DON N FEET
U NDICATES DRIVENAY
NDICATES TRAFFIC SIGNAL
ASPH NOICATES ASPHALT
MOICA ES PRE WYORANT
NDICATES SION
NDICATES STREET & PADONG LOT UGHTS
NDICATES HAND HOLE
w MOICATES WATER METER
nung MOICATES MANYOLE
Sento MOICATES SENER MANHOLE
NDICATES STORM DRAN MAMOLE
MOICATES SEVER CLEAN-OT
MOICATES GAS VALVE
NDICATES WATER VALVE
NOICATES PARIONC METER
NDICATES TREES MOTOR SYRUBS
SCO
LUO
mo
EXISTING ROAD EASEMENT TO
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
RECORDED OCTOBER 29, 1963
AS FUE NO 193978
ENT
NDICATES TREN PLANTER BOX
ING
NDICATES EXISTING BULDING
PORTION OF
APN 344-090-07
THE CAUFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1901. 2016 G, 1991.35 EPOCH GRID
MD GP.S. STATION NO 666 PER RECORD OF SURVEY NO 14492 AS ALD AT
TOP OF CURE AT
END OF CURVE
21-227.65
ANCES GRD DISTANCE - GROUND DISTANCE COMBINED SCALE FACTOR.
866 IS 0.9999765. QUOTED BENSONGS FROM KERENCE MAPS/DEEDS MAY
70% OF CURE AT PEDESTRIAN RAP TRANSITION
El 220.05
0-07
WN DECO PAQE 1227 H-3
of QVETERES
Badd a SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHOUT DECIAL POINTS REPRESENT THAT DISTANCE TO
NE TANGENT ARVES
OCANON OR REYMON FOR UNDERGROND UTUTES OR OTHER FACUTESFANY,
O URUJNY LAES SHOWN HEREON NERE PLOTTED BASED ON RECORD PLANS MO MAPS
D UNES MAY VARY FROM LOCATIONS SHOWN AND MAY HAVE BEEN RENLIGNED SNOE
PED TO THE EXTENT THAT SURFACE FACUTES MERE OBSERVED NO SURVEVED.
TO DRY UNUTY COUP MES WHICH DO NOT REVEN RECORO URUTES ON THE
) GAS MO ELECTRIC UNES
SURVEY WHICH ARE MORE THAN 10 FEET FRON ME PROPERTY UNE, DXCEPT AS SHOW.
ETS AND CLEANOUTS ON THE SURECT PROPERTY WERE OBSERVED NO SURVEYED,
LAES AS UNRONOWN
AND PULSORES ON THE SUB-ECT PROPERTY WERE OBSERVED MND SURVEYED,
UNES IS UNOTOWN
EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF
S MO ASSIGNS NO UABUTY IS ASSUMED BY PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS FOR
TOP OF CURS AT PEDESTRIAN RAP TRANSI RON
-219. 2
1
EXOSTING 5 MIDE
SEHER EASEMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA RECORDED
OCTOBER 29, 1963
AS FRE NO 193979
583131
31649
2028 SONT
LA JOLLA SHORES DRIVE
TED ON THE SUB.ECT PROPERTY. DUE TO THE NUMBER MNO FREQUENCY OF THESE
TOP CANARY PRE REPORT ISSUED BY LANOAMERICA COMMOVIEALTH LMO HE COMPANY
ULY 142005
WWW IS THE CALFORNA COORDINATE SYSTEM 1984), ZONE 6, AS DETERMINED LOCALY
NUMENTS NO 66S AND NO 666 PER RECORD OF SURVEY NO 14492
D UPON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY DATED OCTOBER 2, 2005 NO HAS BEEN COMPLED
TOP OF CURE AT
PONT OF ARVE RETURN
EL -21.3.80
TOP OF OURS
2-219
DO TOPO CURE
FORNA
ADDRESS
MES, SOUTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER
MOS U JAL SHORES DRIVE
thi ca nu
EDGE OF PAVEVENT
-211.30
9.80
TOPO CURE AT DOOF AC BERU
2 - 211.74
PORTION OF
APN 344-090-07
INSTRATION
BENCHMARK
ATY OF SAN DECO BRASS PLUG AT THE NORTH CURS RETURN OF
PRESTIMEX DRIVE AND PRESTIMOX COURT
ELEVATION: 350 280 MSL DATUM (NGVO-29)
NOTE: NO VERTICAL DATU WAS SPECTO
POC USED CURRENT ATY OF SAN DIEGO DATUM
BAR WALK AT BAO CURE
EL-271.39
TOP OF OP 2.211.30
TODOS
QURO
El-208 82
BACK OF WALK
El-20871
TOP OF CURE
RETURN
INT
LY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY ORECHOV
OF THE LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT AT THE REQUEST OF THE US
CANIC MNO ATMOSPHERC AOMNISTRANON, N SEPTEMBER 2005
LAND
2C46
AT PONT OF CURSO
SURVEYON
D
NO 7010
te 0-0
PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS
Peringe Arrectemental Engineer Survey
Ser Dage. CAN
619 Tel
Oto
STATES
CORNER OF
9-28-2006
DATE
GARYL HUS 2019
REGISTRATION OPRES 08/30/2001
CALIFORNIA
35
November 2008
This page intentionally left blank.
HHHHHHH
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
SWFSC receives domestic water service from the City of San Diego. An on-site well is present
to prevent excess buildup of shallow groundwater, which could destabilize the site. The on-site
well does not supply domestic water. Seawater aquaria are present at SWFSC and receive
seawater from UCSD/SIO, which has an ocean intake located south of the SWFSC site. Seawater
is circulated through the aquaria and discharged back to the ocean.
SWFSC receives sewage service from the City. No septic systems or leach fields are present at
the existing site.
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative alter the existing drainage or hydrology of a site in a manner that would result in
flooding, exceed the capacity of storm watch drainage systems, or result in substantial erosion or
sedimentation?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative violate any water quality
standards or waste-discharge standards, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative 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 (for example,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in an exceedance of
Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) wastewater treatment requirements or the
City's treatment capacity to serve the project's projected demand?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, which
would cause adverse effects on the environment?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative hydrology and water quality impact considering past,
present, and probable future projects?
4.3.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1—Permitting Discharge of Storm Water from Construction and Demolition Sites.
Construction of the new SWFSC would disturb about 3.3 acres of land, exposing soil to wind
and water erosion. An additional 0.5 acre would be disturbed during demolition of Buildings B
and C. The total area of soil disturbance would be about 3.8 acres, which qualifies as a small
construction site. EPA regulations (Title 40 CFR Section 122) require a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge storm water from small con-
struction sites. In California, the SWRCB and the RWQCB administer the NPDES Program. In
1999, the SWRCB issued Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ, which contains the NPDES General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. The General Permit
applies to the proposed action and requires NOAA to complete the following:
37
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Prepare and implement an SWPPP containing BMPs to minimize soil erosion during the
construction and demolition periods
Submit an NOI and application fee to the SWRCB prior to the start of construction
Periodically inspect all BMPs and maintain devices in good working order
Submit a Notice of Termination to the SWRCB at the completion of construction/demolition
activities
.
a
This impact would be less than significant.
Impact 2–Increase in Impervious Surface and Runoff at Preferred Site. Construction of
SWFSC will increase the amount of impervious surfaces at the preferred site from none to about
65% of the site. This will increase the rate of storm runoff during the 10-year 6-hour storm event
from an existing 2.8 to 4.4 cubic feet per second (cfs). The new facility would include storm
water features to promote natural infiltration of storm water and retention of storm water on-site,
thereby reducing the rate at which runoff flows off-site to local storm drains. Existing storm
drains would be able to accommodate this mitigated runoff flow [PBS&J, Inc., 2007]. Section
4.3.3 recommends BMPs to be implemented during the construction period to prevent erosion of
soil.
The increase in impervious surfaces at the site would reduce the amount of uncovered land at the
preferred site that contributes to groundwater recharge. This would be offset by the drainage
design features that would retain storm water on-site and promote infiltration of storm water into
the soil. Additionally, the removal of nearby Buildings B and C at the existing site would
decrease the area of impervious surfaces and promote infiltration of storm water. The proposed
SWFSC would receive water service from the City of San Diego and would not include
groundwater wells. No adverse effects on groundwater levels or recharge of aquifers would
result.
Changes in runoff rates and effects to the quality of storm water flowing off the site would be
less than significant.
Impact 3—Decrease in Impervious Surfaces and Runoff at Existing SWFSC Site.
Demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC site will reduce the percentage of the
site covered by impervious surfaces, thereby promoting infiltration of storm water and reducing
runoff rates. The rate of storm runoff during the 10-year 6-hour storm event will decrease from
an existing 4.4 cfs to 4.0 cfs. This impact would be less than significant (PBS&J, Inc., 2007).
Impact 4-Flood Hazards. The preferred site is not within a 100-year floodplain and is not
subject to flood hazards. The proposed action would be consistent with policies contained in
E.O. 11988.
Impact 5—Water Quality Effects of Storm Runoff. Potential pollutants that would be used at
the construction site include eroded soil, construction materials, fuels, lubricants, asphalt and
concrete, cleaning and finishing chemicals, paints, vegetative matter, fertilizers, pesticides, and
herbicides. During construction of SWFSC, NOAA would require construction contractors to
adhere to the BMPs contained in the SWPPP, including requirements for proper handling and
storage of potential pollutants to prevent contamination of storm water, periodic inspection of
drainage and erosion control measures, maintenance and repair of measures as necessary to
maintain proper functioning throughout the construction period, installation of supplemental
38
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
a
measures if original measures prove inadequate, and maintenance of inspection records.
Implementation of the SWPPP will minimize the potential for contamination of storm runoff or
transport of pollutants to off-site water bodies. Construction effects on water quality would not
be less than significant.
After construction, the new SWFSC would receive sanitary sewer service from the City of San
Diego. No septic systems would be installed on-site and no adverse effects on water quality
would result. Water quality impacts during operation of the new SWFSC would be less than
significant
Impact 6—Use and Discharge of Seawater. Seawater is currently used in the research aquaria
at the existing SWFSC and would also be required for the research aquaria planned for the
relocated SWFSC. SIO currently provides seawater to SWFSC through underground pipelines
connecting between SIO and SWFSC. The average flow rate is 50 gallons per minute. Seawater
is stored in an existing 15,000-gallon settling and storage tank located at the corner of La Jolla
Shores Drive and La Jolla Shores Lane. That tank would be retained for use by the new SWFSC
and pipes would be extended under La Jolla Shores Drive to the relocated SWFSC. The volume
of seawater contained in seawater aquaria at the new SWFSC would be the same as at the
existing SWFSC. The new SWFSC facility would include an acoustic calibration and test tank
(ACTT) filled with seawater, which would be a new tank and not a replacement tank as the
existing SWFSC facility does not contain an ACTT. The ACTT would be used to test and
calibrate research equipment and for the most part would not contain fish or marine mammals.
Therefore, the seawater in the ACTT would circulate in a closed loop and would not require
continuous replacement as is the case for the seawater aquaria. After initial filling of the ACTT,
the amount of seawater used at the new SWFSC facility would be the same as at the existing
facility and the existing average flow rate of 50 gallons per minute (gpm) would not change
[Donahue, 2008a). However, SIO may operate the seawater aquaria at the SWFSC when it
assumes possession of Building D. In this case, the overall demand for seawater, considering use
at both the existing and new sites, would double to 100 gpm. This potential increase in the
amount of seawater extracted from the Pacific Ocean would be less than significant.
After use at SWFSC, seawater would be either returned to SIO (as currently occurs) for
discharge to the ocean or discharged to the sanitary sewage system. Seawater coming into
contact with only native fish and not subject to chemical treatment would be returned to SIO for
ocean discharge. Seawater coming into contact with non-native fish, marine mammals, or
chemicals would be discharged to the City sanitary sewage system (Donahue, 2008b). The
amount and quality of used seawater returned by SWFSC would not change. However, if SIO
continues operation of the existing seawater aquaria, and the amount of used seawater discharged
to the ocean by SIO also would roughly double. Because the returned seawater would not be
contaminated through exposure to non-native fish or contact with chemicals, this impact would
be less than significant.
Impact 7—Water Quality Effects of Material Use at SWFSC. Regulated materials and
chemicals used at SWFSC would be stored in secure areas that are protected from precipitation
and used in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. Solid and hazardous wastes
would be properly labeled and removed for off-site disposal. Operation of the new SWFSC
would not result in significant potential for contamination of groundwater. Impacts to drainage
and water quality would be less than significant.
39
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
4.3.3 Mitigation Proposed Action
Hyd-1 NOAA will prepare an SWPPP and submit required notices of intent and termination to
the RWQCB. The following BMPs will be incorporated into the SWPPP and
implemented during and after construction and demolition activities:
The area of land disturbance will be kept to a minimum and existing vegetative
cover will be retained as much as possible.
Disturbed areas will be stabilized with temporary placement of woven mesh or
netting until vegetation becomes established.
Controls (silt fences, hay bales, and so on) will be placed at the perimeters of the
construction and demolition areas.
The sites will be sloped and graded to direct runoff away from steep hillsides or
denuded areas.
Disturbed areas will be replanted with native coastal sage scrub vegetation
(Impacts 1 and 2)
Hyd-2 The new SWFSC will incorporate the design features listed below to retain storm water
on-site, thereby mitigating any increase in storm runoff rates (see Figure 8):
Landscaping using native species will be planted adjacent to foundations to reduce
the velocity of runoff flow and prevent erosion.
Storm water from roofs will be directed to water retention areas.
A new drainage trough will help to further reduce the projected increase in runoff.
Permeable pavement will be used where appropriate for walkways and parking
FFFFFTTTTTTTT
areas.
Hyd-3
Hyd-4
(Impacts 2 and 5)
All storm drain inlets and catch basins at the SWFSC site will be marked with
prohibitive language and/or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping per UCSD
standards. (Impact 5)
Outdoor storage areas for materials that may affect water quality will be covered and
protected by secondary containment. (Impact 7)
All trash container areas will be enclosed to prevent off-site transport of trash and
drainage will be directed to the sanitary sewer system or the covered containers to
prevent exposure of trash to precipitation. (Impact 7)
Hyd-5
40
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
1
NOPOSED
CURVA
scuons
POSED
RU
TIDURY
EXSTINC TREES
SPECIES AND LOCATION
EXISTING
THO
MATIVE COASTAL CHAPARRAL HYDROSEED
(SEED MIX TO BE DETERMINED)
FASTING BERAS VEGETATION TO BE PRESERVED
(REMOVAL OF WON-NATIES AND POSSIBLE SUPPLEMENTAL NATNE PLAIMINGS)
DOSEN TOREY PRES
10 SIRED
SEO BULDOG
CONESS
"SINGSORION
NESEMAD
PROPOSED
MEANDER
PATH
PLANT LEGEND
MIUTATD
SANE
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMIAON NAMIC
SLZC/SPACHIG
BAŞING THEYNES
TORPSED
TREES:
STORVALSER
RETATION AREAS
CORONETE
SEDE REG
BRIST
-TERASE
PRIUS TORAL YANA
TORREY PINE
36° BOX PER PLAN
LONISS-
BUKA
-OCCOMPOSED CANTE
104 INSONO
SORIS VENCER
PLATANLS RACEHOSA
CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
38 BOX PER PLAN
-POTOMOTORY
PA TREES
SHRUBS SUCH AS:
RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA
RHUS OVATA
LEMONADFBERY
SUGARBUSH
5 GAI. PER PLAN
5 GAL PER PLAN
ENTRY PLANTER
RHUS LAURRIA
LAUREL SUMAC
5 GAL. PER PLAN
HETEROBELES A BUTİFOLJA
TOYON
5 GAL. PER PLAN
LA JOLLA SHORES DRIVE
ARTEHAESIA CALIFORNICA
BACCHARIS PILULARES
ENCELIA CALIFORNICA
COASTAL SAGEBRUSH
COYOTE BUSH
BUSH SUNFLOWER
1 GAL PER PLAN
1 GAL, PER PLAN
1 GAL. PER PLAN
2000
MUHLENBC AGIA RIGENS
CAREX PRAECRAOL.IS
DEER GRASS
FIELD SCOGE
1 GAL PER PLANI
1 GAL. PER PLAN
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
FIGURE 8
LANDSCAPE AND DRAINAGE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY (Page 1 of 2)

41
"
LA ALA SRESORT
SCRIPPS MEANDER AT TOP OF
EX STING BERM
APPROX. 290 ELEV.
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
S DEWALK
(PUBLIC RGHT OF WAY)
RAISED PLANTER BETEEN
RETAINING WALLS
LEVEL 279
LA JOLLA SHORES DRIVE
VEGETATED SWALE AT BASE OF
SLOPE
EXISTING COASTAL CHAPARRAL VEGETATION TO BE
PRESERVED ON NORTH AND EAST SLOPES OF EXISTING
BEAM. NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE SPECIES TO BE
REMOVED
LEVEL 264
--
NATIVE COASTAL CHAPARRAL REVEGETATION ON
DISTURBED SLOPES SOUTH AND WEST OF EXSTING
BERM
LEVEL 249
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
November 2008
FIGURE 8
LANDSCAPE AND DRAINAGE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY (Page 2 of 2)
1
1
1
S
-
0
1
11

42
-
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
4.3.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
No new construction and no demolition of existing buildings would occur. No changes in runoff
rates, drainage patterns, or increase in soil erosion would result. Hydrologic and water quality
effects would be less than significant.
4.3.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS
4.4.1 Setting
Description of Existing and Preferred Sites. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of
1973 protects plants and animals in danger of extinction and Section 9 of the Act prohibits taking
of these species. Take is the act of harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding,
killing, trapping, or collecting Federally listed species. Harming a Federally listed species
includes injuring or destroying individuals of the species or modifying the habitat of the listed
species. Effects are considered significant if adverse impacts to species listed under the FESA, or
to its habitats, are considered significant. Species located in California are also protected under
the California Endangered Species Act, administered by CDFG. CDFG Code, Sections 3511,
4700, 5050, and 5515, protects certain species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish.
Plant and animal species not listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or CDFG are
protected pursuant to Section 15380(b) of CEQA, if they are considered rare or endangered. The
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects listed bird species from direct harm.
A biological survey of the preferred site was undertaken in early 2008 and the results are
reported in a Biological Technical Report (reprinted in Volume II, Technical Appendices). The
biological study identified vegetation, species, land uses, and sensitive resources at or near the
preferred SWFSC site. Sensitive resources are unique, limited in distribution, and are valued
habitat areas or vegetation communities. The preferred site is a 3.3-acre, mostly undeveloped
property containing disturbed and undisturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation, eucalyptus
trees, and urbanized landscaping (see Table 1).
Table 1
Vegetation Communities at Preferred Site for SWFSC
Acres
1.63
Vegetation Community
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Disturbed
Urbanized
0.08
0.49
Disturbed Habitat
0.73
Eucalyptus Woodlands
0.37
Diegan coastal sage scrub is a sensitive vegetation community comprised of low, soft-woody
shrubs, which grow up to about three feet in height. Many plants in this community are
facultative drought-deciduous. USFWS and CDFG consider both disturbed and intact Diegan
coastal sage scrub as a sensitive vegetation community because this community typically
supports sensitive plant and animal species. This vegetation community is potential habitat for
43
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). The coastal California
gnatcatcher is a small gray songbird listed as threatened under the FESA.
Disturbed habitat is that which has been significantly altered by construction or other land-
clearing activities, and the species composition and site conditions are not characteristic of the
disturbed phase of a plant association. Tall eucalyptus trees at or near the site are potential
nesting habitat for raptors. California boxthorn (Lycium californicum) was observed at the
preferred site and is listed by California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as a List 4, “watch list
species.” List 4 species are neither endangered nor rare [PBS&J, Inc., 2008]. Urbanized
vegetation typically consists of non-native landscape and/or garden plantings that have been
planted in association with buildings, roads, or other development.
One sensitive plant species was observed at the preferred site and one was observed near, but
outside the boundary of the preferred site. California boxthorn was observed at the preferred site
and is listed by CNPS as a List 4, “watch list species.” San Diego sea dahlia (Coreopsis
maritima), which is a CNPS List 2.2 species, was found to occur just south of the project site.
List 2 species are defined as those species that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California,
but are more common elsewhere. E.O. 13112, Invasive Species, requires Federal agencies, such
as NOAA, to prevent the introduction of invasive species, monitor and control the spread of
invasive species, and provide for restoration of native species.
During February and March 2008, surveys conforming to USFWS and CDFG protocols were
conducted at the preferred site for the coastal California gnatcatcher. No gnatcatchers were
detected within or adjacent to the preferred site. These results are consistent with the findings of
a previous gnatcatcher survey conducted in 2006, which also failed to find gnatcatchers at the
preferred site. Gnatcatcher surveys are considered valid for a period of one year.
Wetlands are protected under Federal E.O. 11990 and under the California Wetlands
Conservation Policy (CWCP) (August 23, 1993). Wetlands are not present at the existing
SWFSC site or the preferred site.
Wildlife habitat connecting two or more large wildlife habitat areas is referred to as a wildlife
movement corridor. Because most nearby lands are developed and only a small, discontinuous
area of open space adjoins the preferred site, the preferred site is not considered to be a wildlife
corridor.
The existing SWFSC site is developed with small areas of landscaping. The existing site does not
provide suitable habitat for rare or endangered species.
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative result in a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
a
plant or animal species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status plant?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a substantial adverse
effect on riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations by the CDFG or USFWS?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a substantial adverse
effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act?
Htttttttttttt
>
а
a
44
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative conflict with any
local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
a
1
1
]
]
រ
]
]
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative biological resources impact considering past, present,
or probable future projects?
4.4.2 Impact Analysis–Proposed Action
Impact 1–Vegetation Clearing and Habitat Removal. Construction of the new SWFSC at the
preferred site would require vegetation clearing from most of the 3.3-acre site. Vegetation to be
cleared would include roughly 1.71 acres of intact and disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub,
0.37 acre of eucalyptus woodlands, and 0.49 acre of urbanized vegetation. Disturbed and intact
coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive vegetation community by USFWS and CDFG. With
mitigation, removal of this sensitive vegetation community would be less than significant.
California boxthorn occurs at nine locations at the preferred site and some of these plants would
be removed. Because this species is not considered rare or endangered, impacts to the California
boxthorn would be less than significant [PBS&J, Inc., 2008]. San Diego sea dahlia occurs off the
preferred site, but near the southern boundary of the site. These plants do not have to be removed
for construction but could be accidentally crushed or destroyed by movement of construction
vehicles or equipment. With mitigation, impacts to California boxthorn and San Diego sea dahlia
would be less than significant.
After construction of the new SWFSC building is complete, NOAA plans to landscape the
unbuilt portions of the preferred site with native plant species (see Figure 8 in Section 4.3.3).
Native plants installed by NOAA would replace the existing vegetation at the preferred site,
which includes both non-native and native species. The eucalyptus trees at the preferred site are
not native to the U.S. However, NOAA would retain the eucalyptus trees outside the building
footprint because they provide potential nesting habitat for raptors. Other than the eucalyptus
trees, non-native vegetation would be removed and replaced with native species. The proposed
action would be consistent with policies contained in E.O. 13112. Native plant species to be used
for landscaping would include Torrey pine, California sycamore, lemonadeberry, sugerbush,
laurel sumac, toyon, coastal sagebrush, coyote bush, bush sunflower, deer grass, and field sage.
Exposed slopes would be hydroseeded with native coastal chaparral mixture.
Demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC would result in removal of small
amounts of landscaping. Removal of this urbanized vegetation would be a less than significant
impact.
Impact 2–Impacts to Wildlife During Construction of the Proposed SWFSC Facility. No
sensitive animal species were observed at the preferred site and there is a low potential of their
occurring at the site. Therefore, direct impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant.
The loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher would add to
cumulative reduction in habitat in the region. This would be mitigated by the permanent
preservation of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat at the UCSD Ecological Preserve in nearby
Skeleton Canyon. The preserved habitat would be at least twice the area of the removed habitat.
I
45
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Raptors are protected under the MBTA and CDFG Code Section 3503.5. The MBTA protects
birds but not their habitat. Construction of the new SWFSC would remove roughly 0.37 acre of
eucalyptus woodland, which provides potential nesting sites for raptors. To mitigate that impact,
existing eucalyptus trees at the preferred site would be retained to the maximum extent possible.
In addition, a qualified biologist would conduct a pre-construction survey for raptor nests during
the raptor nesting season (generally February 1 through August 31). The survey would cover
trees suitable for raptor nesting at or within 500 ft. of the preferred site. With application of
mitigation, impact would be less than significant.
Impact 3—Impacts to Wildlife during Demolition and Removal of the Existing SWFSC
Buildings B and C. If demolition activities would occur during the raptor nesting season,
February 1 through August 31, raptor surveys would also be performed within 500 ft. of
Buildings B and C and demolition activities would be restricted to prevent disturbance of active
raptor nests. With application of mitigation, impact would be less than significant.
Impact 4—Effects on Wetlands. The proposed action would not impact wetlands protected by
E.O. 11990 and CWCP, since wetlands are not present at the existing or preferred sites. The
proposed project would also not impact wildlife movement corridors since the preferred site is
not a corridor [PBS&J, Inc., 2008].
4.4.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
NOAA would implement the following mitigation measures to mitigate impacts to biological
resources:
Bio-1 NOAA would develop a habitat mitigation plan, preserving Diegan coastal sage scrub
vegetation at Skeleton Canyon on the UCSD/SIO campus at a 2:1 ratio to removed
habitat (location of Skeleton Canyon is shown in Figure 2(a) in Section 1). Between
1.37 and 1.71 acres of this vegetation would be removed, resulting in a need to
preserve/restore between 2.74 and 3.42 acres. (Impact 1)
Bio-2 To prevent damage or destruction of San Diego sea dahlia plants occurring south of the
preferred site, those plants would be fenced and posted prior to the start of construction
and construction workers would be directed to avoid harming those plants. Alterna-
tively, these plants could be relocated to a protected nearby area prior to the start of
construction. (Impact 1)
Bio-3 Additional coastal California gnatcatcher surveys would be conducted at the preferred
site prior to start of SWFSC construction. If the gnatcatcher is found to occupy the
Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation at the preferred site, removal of that vegetation
would not occur during the February 1 through August 31 breeding season. (Impact 2)
Bio-4 If coastal California gnatcatchers are not observed at the preferred site but are observed
within 500 ft. of the preferred site, construction noise would be limited so that it does
not exceed equivalent energy noise level 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) per hour
during the gnatcatcher breeding season. (Impact 2)
Bio-5 A qualified biologist would conduct raptor nest surveys within 500 ft. of the preferred
site prior to start of construction and during the raptor breeding season, February 1
through August 31. If active raptor nests are observed, construction activities within
46
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
500 ft. of the nests would be suspended until the biologist determines that the nests are
no longer active. (Impact 2)
Bio-6 If demolition activities at the existing SWFSC site are expected during the raptor
breeding season, February 1 through August 31, a qualified biologist would conduct
raptor nest surveys within 500 ft. of the existing site prior to start of demolition
activities. If active raptor nests are observed, demolition activities within 500 ft. of the
nests would be suspended until the biologist determines that the nests are no longer
active. (Impact 3)
4.4.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, proposed construction of the new SWFSC building or
demolition of Buildings B and C would not occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts to
biological resources.
4.4.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.5
TRANSPORTATION
4.5.1 Setting
The existing SWFSC is accessed by a two-lane driveway connecting to La Jolla Shores Drive.
The driveway approach is controlled by a stop sign and the La Jolla Shores Drive approaches are
uncontrolled. There are about 30 parking stalls at the SWFSC site, a number of which are
assigned to specific NOAA staff. This amount of parking is inadequate and staff and visitor
vehicles regularly park on nearby streets, primarily La Jolla Shores Drive and La Jolla Shores
Lane. The preferred site is undeveloped and lacks road access, although Shellback Way is
adjacent to the southern boundary of the site and La Jolla Shores Drive is adjacent to the western,
northern, and eastern boundaries of the site.
Roads of concern in proximity to the existing and preferred SWFSC sites include Expedition
Way, Downwind Way, Shellback Way, North Torrey Pines Road, and La Jolla Shores Drive.
Expedition Way, Downwind Way, and Shellback Way are paved two-lane unclassified local
roadways. La Jolla Shores Drive is a paved two-lane modified collector. North Torrey Pines
Road is a paved four-lane major street.
LLG, Inc. prepared a detailed traffic report for the proposed action and performed analysis of the
Level of Service (LOS) of a number of intersections and road segments in the vicinity of the
existing SWFSC site and preferred replacement site (see Technical Appendix E in Volume II).
LLG, Inc. completed traffic counts at 10 road segments and 10 intersections while UCSD was in
session during the week of April 7. Additional counts were conducted during August 2008 to
account for summer traffic conditions. Because the summer time counts were about 10% higher
than the academic year counts, the summer counts were used to analyze existing and projected
operations of the road segments and intersections in the vicinity of the preferred site. The
existing traffic volumes at each of these segments are below their daily capacity (see Table 2).
For each road segment, existing daily LOS is D or better, which is considered acceptable.
47
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
Table 2
Existing Street Segment Operations
Daily
Capacity | Existing
Street Segment
(LOS E) ADT
N. Torrey Pines Road
Expedition Way to Torrey Pines Road
40,000 27,360
La Jolla Shores Drive
LOS
C
15,000
с
8,720
8,640
8,440
15,000
15,000
15,000
С
Union
с
10,760
D
8,000
3,500
B
N. Torrey Pines Road to SWFSC Driveway
SWFSC Driveway to Biological Grade
Shellback Way to Downwind Way
Downwind Way to La Jolla Parkway
Expedition Way
N. Torrey Pines Road to Downwind Way
Downwind Way
East of La Jolla Shores Drive
West of Expedition Way
Shellback Way
East of La Jolla Shores Drive
North of Downwind Way
2,960
B
8,000
8,000
3,050
B
2,200
320
с
2,200
440
С
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
LLG, Inc. also conducted traffic counts during the AM and PM peak hours at 10 intersections in
the vicinity of the existing and proposed SWFSC sites. Table 3 gives the existing LOS for these
intersections. All of these intersections operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak
hours, which is considered acceptable. Although the intersection of La Jolla Shores Drive and
Downwind Way operates at LOS A during peak hours, motorists turning left from westbound
Downwind Way onto La Jolla Shores Drive experience delays. This turning movement operates
at LOS B with 15.7 seconds of delay during the AM peak hour and LOS E with 36.7 seconds of
delay during the PM peak hour.
LLG, Inc. compared vehicular accident rates for the segment of La Jolla Shores Drive between
Biological Grade and Downwind Way to national averages for two-lane urban roads. The
accident rate of this segment is well below the national average for similarly sized roads in urban
environment.
48
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Table 3
Existing Intersection Operations
Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Intersection
Average Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
23.6
LOS
AM
С
1. N. Torrey Pines Road / La Jolla Shores Drive
Signal
PM
29.0
С
AM
16.8
B
2. N. Torrey Pines Road / Expedition Way
Signal
PM
25.6
C
AM
10.3
B
3. La Jolla Shores Drive / Existing SWFSC
Driveway
Two-Way
Stop
PM
13.9
B
AM
10.8
B
]
]
4. La Jolla Shores Drive / Biological Grade
Two-Way
Stop
PM
12.8
B
AM
10.3
B
5. La Jolla Shores Drive / Shellback Way
Two-Way
Stop
PM
10.3
B
AM
7.4
A
6. Shellback Way / Project Driveway
Two-Way
Stop
PM
7.3
A
AM
2.6
A
7. La Jolla Shores Drive / Downwind Way
One-Way
Stop
PM
5.9
A
AM
9.5
А
8. Downwind Way/ Shellback Way
One-Way
Stop
PM
10.0
A
AM
7.3
A
9. Downwind Way / Expedition Way
Two-Way
Stop
PM
8.1
A
AM
33.6
С
10. La Jolla Shores Drive / La Jolla Parkway
Two-Way
Stop
PM
46.7
D
1
1
1
了
​1
1
1
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed project cause a substantial
increase in traffic?
Would implementation of the proposed project result in inadequate parking capacity?
Would implementation of the proposed project conflict with applicable policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation (for example, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Would implementation of the proposed project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
4.5.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1-Traffic Generation during Operation of the Proposed SWFSC Facility. The
proposed SWFSC would be designed to accommodate a net increase of 17 staff, in addition to
the current staffing of 283. An additional roughly 66 UCSD/SIO staff, expected to be comprised
two-thirds of staff relocated from existing overcrowded SIO buildings and one-third of new
hires, may occupy Buildings A and D after NOAA turns these buildings over to UC. This would
result in a modest increase in trip generation. The new SWFSC would generate about
1
1
49
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
ttt
992 average daily trips (ADT), including 45 inbound/15 outbound trips during the AM peak hour
and 15 inbound/125 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. As a worst-case analysis, the
traffic study assumed that all of the trips generated at the SWFSC would be new trips (that is, no
offset for relocation of staff from the existing to the new SWFSC facility) during analysis of
traffic flow on Shellback Way and Downwind Way and intersections on these two streets. This is
warranted because all of these trips would be new to the area east of La Jolla Shores Drive where
these two streets are located.
1
However, for street segments and intersections other than Downwind Way and Shellback Way, it
is appropriate to include an offset for trips generated by the existing SWFSC. For road segments
and intersections other than Downwind Way and Shellback Way, the road and intersection
operations analysis is based on net trips. Net trips generation is based on 84,000 sq. ft. of new
space (124,000 sq. ft. at the new SWFSC minus the 40,000 sq. ft. to be demolished at Buildings
B and C. Net trip generation would be 672 ADT), including 97 inbound/11 outbound trips during
the AM peak hour and 9 inbound/85 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.
Vehicular access to the new SWFSC would be from Shellback Way, which would provide access
to the local road network. The projected increase in vehicle trips would add to cumulative
increases from build-out of the local area. Cumulative analysis is based on 13 identified
development projects, which are planned at UCSD or in the vicinity, but have not yet begun to
generate traffic. The traffic study also uses Year 2030 as a planning horizon to evaluate long-
term traffic impacts, consistent with City of San Diego transportation planning policies. The
2030 traffic projections are consistent with estimates of future traffic volumes contained in the
UCSD 2004 LRDP EIR. Table 4 shows the expected change in operations of street segments
based on cumulative development conditions in the near-term and Year 2030 conditions in the
long-term. LOS for these street segments will not change in the near-term and all road segments
would continue to operate at LOS D or better.
In Year 2030, the segment of La Jolla Shores Drive between North Torrey Pines Road and
La Jolla Parkway is projected to operate at LOS E or F with or without the addition of project
traffic. All other road segments studied would operate at LOS D or better in 2030, with or
without project traffic. The proposed action would cause the segment of La Jolla Shores Drive
between Shellback Way and Downwind Way to go from LOS E to LOS F. However, because the
proposed action would contribute less than 1% to the change in volume to capacity ratio (the
standard of significance is 2% or greater), this would not be a significant impact.
Intersections with and without signals were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions
and using the 2000 Highway Capacity manual for vehicle delay input. All of the intersections
analyzed (see Figure 9) will continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak
hours (see Table 5). LOS would decrease during either the AM or PM peak hours at intersections
2 and 8. However, these impacts would be less than significant because these intersections would
continue to operate at LOS D or better. Although the intersection of La Jolla Shores Drive and
Downwind Way operates at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours, motorists turning left
from westbound Downwind Way onto La Jolla Shores Drive would experience delays. Under
the cumulative plus project scenario, this turning movement would operate at LOS C with
16.2 seconds of delay during the AM peak hour and LOS E with 39.1 seconds of delay during
the PM peak hour.
а
50
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Table 4
Existing, Projected Near-term and Long-term Level of Service for Street Segments
Near-term
(Existing +
Cumulative +
Proposed
Project) LOS
Existing
LOS
Long-term
(Projected Year
2030 + Proposed
Year 2030 Project) LOS
Street Segment
N. Torrey Pines Road
Expedition Way to
Torrey Pines Road
C
с
D
D
La Jolla Shores Drive
N. Torrey Pines Road
to Existing SWFSC
С
с
E
E
Driveway
Existing SWFSC
Driveway to Biological
Grade
C
C
с
с
E
F
D
D
F
F
B
с
B
B
Shellback Way to
Downwind Way
Downwind Way to La
Jolla Parkway
Expedition Way
N. Torrey Pines Road
to Downwind Way
Downwind Way
East of La Jolla
Shores Drive
West of Expedition
Way
Shellback Way
East of La Jolla
Shores Drive
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
с
с
с
с
с
North of Downwind
Way
с
с
с
с
51
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Genesee Ave
Intersections Analyzed
1 N. Torrey Pines Road/La Jolla Shores Drive
2 N. Torrey Pines Road/Expedition Way
10 La Jolla Shores Drive/La Jolla Parkway
(remaining intersections on page 2)
N Torrey Pines Rot
Scripps Memorial
Hospital La Jolla
Dog pela
Genesee
PREFERRED
REPLACEMENT
SITE
University of
Califomia-San
Diego
San Diego Fwy
Ucsd Thornton
Hospital
Mandel w
Eastgab
City Par
EXISTING
SWFSC
FACILITIES
La Jolla
La Jota Village Dr
Village
28B
Expedition Way
Doyle
Commu
Park
281
HIIHTEETH

Via La Jon
010 loganuo
Vallentos
vad
OUVIA
Avenida de la playa
Gilman
Paseo Dorado
Ellen Scripps
Browning Park
(10)
iego Fwy.
La Jolla Pim
Prospect St
Porrey Pines Rd
coast Birds
Regents Rd
La Jolla
La Jolla
Park
Jolla
2000 ft
Recreation
Center
1 km
Easter
Cross008 Google - Map data ©2008 NAVTEQ Terms of Use R
FIGURE 9
INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED IN THE VICINITY OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED
SWFSC SITES (Page 1 of 2)
52
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA, Volume I
November 2008

EXISTING
SWFSC
FACILITIES
La Jolla Shores
Shores Dr
Intersections Analyzed
(3) La Jolla Shores Drive/SWFSC Driveway
4 La Jolla Shores Drive/Biological Grade Driveway
5 La Jolla Shores Drive/Shellback Way
6 Shellback Way/Project Driveway
(7) La Jolla Shores Drive/Downwind Way
8 Downwind Way/Shellback Way
9 Downwind Way/Expedition Way
bila
3
PREFERRED
REPLACEMENT
SITE
4
5
pgical Grade
Shellback Way
La Jolla
Shores Dr
logica
Grade
La Jolla Shores Dr
Shellback Way
Downwind way
8
INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED IN THE VICINITY OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED
SWFSC SITES (Page 2 of 2)
Downwind Way
Blological Grade
Expedition Way
Scripps Pier
Scripps Pier
La Jolla Shores Dr
Naga Way
200 ft
100 m
Disc
Discover
Birch Aquarium
at Scripps
©2008 Google - Map data ©2008 NAVTEQT - Terms of Use
FIGURE 9
1
53
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Table 5
Existing and Projected Near-term Level of Service for Intersections
Existing +
Cumulative
Projects +
Proposed
Project LOS
Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing
LOS
Intersection
AM
с
С
1. N. Torrey Pines Road / La Jolla Shores Drive
Signal
PM
с
С
AM
B
2. N. Torrey Pines Road / Expedition Way
Signal
UU
PM
с
AM
B
3. La Jolla Shores Drive / SWFSC Driveway
One-Way
Stop
PM
B
AM
B
B
4. La Jolla Shores Drive / Biological Grade Driveway
One-Way
Stop
PM
B
B
AM
B
B
5. La Jolla Shores Drive / Shellback Way
One-Way
Stop
PM
B
B
AM
A
А
6. Shellback Way / Project Driveway
One-Way
Stop
PM
A
A
AM
A
А.
7. La Jolla Shores Drive / Downwind Way
One-Way
Stop
PM
A
A
AM
A
A
8. Downwind Way / Shellback Way
One-Way
Stop
I
PM
A
B
AM
A
A
9. Downwind Way / Expedition Way
All-Way
Stop
PM
A
А
AM
с
с
10. La Jolla Shores Drive / La Jolla Parkway
Signal
PM
D
D
54
HH
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
!)
1
1
ਹੈ।
a
UCSD plans to remove the current prohibition on left turns from westbound Shellback Way onto
La Jolla Shores Drive, which is a holdover from a previous construction project and is no longer
necessary. This would allow traffic leaving the new SWFSC to access southbound La Jolla
Shores Drive without passing through the Downwind Way/La Jolla Shores Drive intersection.
This would prevent adverse effects on the level of delay experienced by motorists turning left
from Downwind Way onto southbound La Jolla Shores Drive.
An existing center two-way left turn lane is present on La Jolla Shores Drive at its intersection
with Shellback Way. This lane would be used by motorists traveling north on La Jolla Shores
Drive and turning left into Biological Grade and by motorists traveling south on La Jolla Shores
Drive and turning left into Shellback Way, creating the potential for conflicts and congestion.
UCSD would monitor that situation and if necessary would consider prohibiting the southbound
left turn onto Shellback Way. Operational traffic impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 2—Parking Availability. UCSD has established a standard of 0.41 parking space per
capita for the campus (UCSD, 2004b). The SWFSC would have a maximum of 300 staff
working on-site, which would result in a need for 123 parking spaces at the proposed SWFSC
to meet UCSD parking standards. The plans for the new SWFSC at the preferred site include
202 underground parking stalls, which would exceed the UCSD parking standard by 64%.
On-site parking at the new SWFSC facility would be adequate to serve NOAA staff, authorized
visitors, and six Government-owned vehicles that would parked on-site. The SWFSC at the
existing site includes 30 stalls available to NOAA staff and the public. The proposed action
would result in a net increase in parking spaces for the SWFSC of 172 stalls, which would
decrease the overflow of parking demand onto streets in the local vicinity. The recommendation
to paint the La Jolla Shores Drive curb red for 100 ft. south of Shellback Way would eliminate
four on-street parking spots. This would slightly reduce the net increase in parking stalls from
172 to 168.
Only NOAA staff and authorized visitors would be allowed to park in the underground garage at
the new SWFSC facility. The general public and UCSD staff and students (unless conducting
authorized business with NOAA) would not be allowed to park in the SWFSC garage. UCSD
Parking Lot 014 abuts the southern boundary of the preferred site and provides permit parking
for staff, students, and visitors to the Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research. Use of lot
P014 requires the purchase of a parking permit from UCSD and NOAA staff would not be
expected to use lot P014. Effects on parking supply and availability would be beneficial and less
than significant.
Impact 3—Construction Period Impacts to Traffic. Construction of the new SWFSC at the
preferred site will generate traffic over a roughly 2.5 year time period. There are no current large
construction projects in progress at SIO. Trucks and workers will be generating on-site and off-
site traffic as workers commute to and from the preferred site and as haul trips are generated.
Construction of the new SWFSC facility would occur over about 2.5 years and the largest
number of trips would be generated during site preparation. During site preparation, haul trucks
would remove about 127,000 cubic yards of soil from the preferred site. If tandem trucks are
used to haul dirt, about 12,700 round trips by haul trucks would be required. Site preparation is
expected to last about five months.
55
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Construction traffic would range from a high of 928 ADT during site preparation to a low of
296 ADT during concrete pouring (Table 6). These estimates assume that each tandem haul truck
is the equivalent of four automobiles. Because traffic generated during construction would be
less than operational traffic generation, construction of the new SWFSC would not significantly
affect operation of local road segments or intersections.
Table 6
Construction Traffic
Construction Phase
Duration
ADT
Phase 1: Grading
5 months
928
Phase 2: Concrete Pours
2 months
296
Phase 3: Building Structures
18 months
360
Construction plans detailing work zones and route closures/transitions will be prepared prior to
start of construction to reduce any impacts to commuters. Construction plans will include
designation of access routes to and from the preferred site to reduce the potential disruption to
the existing Keck Center buildings.
Impact 4–Traffic Impacts Resulting from Demolition of Buildings B and C. Demolition of
Buildings B and C at the existing site would generate less daily traffic than construction;
therefore, the demolition traffic would result in less than significant impacts on local streets and
intersections. Staging of demolition equipment and material storage would occur within the
boundaries of the existing NOAA property. No adjacent properties would be occupied during the
demolition period and no closures or restrictions of local roads would be required.
Impact 5—Impacts to Air Traffic. The existing and preferred sites are not located in proximity
to an airport and are not subject to an airport land use plan. No changes in air traffic volumes or
flight paths would result. Impacts to air traffic would be less than significant.
ttttttttttttttt
4.5.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Tra-1 To improve the flow of traffic and reduce safety hazards to local motorists, bicyclists,
and pedestrians, NOAA and UCSD would cooperate in implementing the following
mitigation measures:
Add an additional 50 to 100 ft. red curb to northbound La Jolla Shores Drive south
of Shellback Way.
Widen the Shellback Way approach to the intersection with La Jolla Shores Drive to
accommodate 20 ft. wide east- and west-bound traffic lanes and a 12 ft. wide
median.
Remove existing sign prohibiting left turns from eastbound Shellback Way onto
southbound La Jolla Shores Drive.
Install bollard seats on Shellback Way near right angle turn south of the preferred
site. This will allow bollards to be placed diverting traffic when the portion of
Shellback Way in front of the Keck Center is used to stage large equipment, which
occurs infrequently.
(Impact 1)
56
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA--Volume I
November 2008
U
J
3
1
Tra-2 NOAA would prepare a traffic control plan covering the construction/demolition
periods for review by UCSD. The traffic control plan would address lane and/or road
closures, emergency access and egress, efficient traffic circulation, and use of flaggers
to control traffic and avoid conflicts. The plan would include recommendations, such as
signage, detours, and temporary traffic controls. The plan would prohibit construction
vehicles from using Downwind Way or the north-south oriented section of Shellback
Way (which passes in from of the Keck Center, Nierenberg Hall, Speiss Hall, and
associated service yards). (Impacts 3 and 4)
4.5.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Impact 1–Traffic Generation. Under the no-action alternative, the proposed construction of the
new SWFSC building would not occur. There would be no changes to the existing traffic
generation, LOS, or parking demand. Therefore, no transportation-related impacts would occur.
4.5.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, there would be no impacts to transportation. Therefore, no
mitigation is warranted.
4.6
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
1
1
1
4.6.1 Setting
The mission of SWFSC is to conduct high quality fisheries research. The existing SWFSC
facilities have a courtyard area open to the public; however, recreational opportunities are not
present at the existing site. The western boundary of the existing NOAA property generally
coincides with the crest of the coastal bluff face. UCSD owns most of the bluff face. The beach
at the base of the bluff is open for public recreational use; however, due to the steep slope of the
bluff face, there is no access to the beach from the NOAA property. Beach access is available at
several points from the UCSD/SIO campus south of the NOAA property. The closest beach
access point to the south is north of Scripps Pier, about 1,500 ft. from the preferred site. The
closest beach access point to the north is at Summer Canyon Road, about 1,000 ft. north (City of
San Diego, 2004). From the UCSD/SIO campus access points, it is a modest walk to the portion
of the beach located between the NOAA property and the Pacific Ocean. The beach is open to
public use and provides recreational opportunities typical of an ocean beach, such as swimming,
surfing, and sunbathing.
The preferred site is an undeveloped 3.3-acre parcel planned for academic uses. No recreation
improvements are present at the preferred site. An unimproved path crosses the site, connecting
between La Jolla Shores Drive and the Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research parking
lot, and is used informally for walking and possibly bicycling.
In order to meet the broad range of recreational and leisure needs of the UCSD students, faculty,
and staff, opportunities for recreation can be found throughout the UCSD campus, including
indoor and outdoor facilities. The UCSD LRDP outlines goals, policies, and strategies to address
the future preservation, use, and development of land within the University community. The
recreation goals outlined in the Plan are as follows:
Provide a system of population-based parks to meet the community's needs for outdoor
recreation
57
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
tt
Develop a linkage system, referred to as a ladder by UCSD, connecting recreational and
natural open space areas throughout the community
The UCSD LRDP plans for a 70% increase to 578,000 sq. ft. in the amount of recreational
facilities on campus to accommodate future growth. UCSD has an integrated system of open
spaces, known collectively as the UCSD Park. Portions of the UCSD Park are located north and
east of the preferred site, across La Jolla Shores Drive. These park areas are generally used for
low intensity recreational purposes, such as walking, bicycling, and wildlife observation (UCSD,
2004a).
The La Jolla Community Plan outlines goals, policies, and strategies that address the future
preservation, use, and development of land within La Jolla, including development of land for
public services, including parks. The recreation goal outlined in the Plan is to encourage the
maximum use of all existing community facilities; in particular, the public parks, beaches,
recreational areas, bikeways, museums, and public schools, in order to enhance the recreational
opportunities for all visitors and residents in La Jolla.
Public parking is available along La Jolla Shores Drive, and coastal access points, including
stairs descending to the beach, are available at the Scripps campus (City of San Diego, 2004).
Standards of Significance. Would the proposed action or no-action alternative increase the use
of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Would implementation of the proposed project or no-action alternative involve the construction
of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulatively physical impact to recreational facilities considering
past, present, and probable future projects?
4.6.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 14 Increased Demand for Recreational Facilities. The number of staff employed at
the new SWFSC would initially be the same as at the current SWFSC. The building would be
designed to accommodate a modest growth of up to 17 new employees, a 6% increase, in the
long-term. This level of increase would have negligible effect on demand for recreational
resources. The new SWFSC would include indoor break areas and outdoor plazas where
recreational activities may occur, but would not include facilities dedicated to recreational
activities. Changes in demand for recreational facilities would be less than significant.
Impact 2–Impacts to Meander Path. A segment of the UCSD meander path crosses the
preferred site. This path would be removed during construction of the proposed SWFSC facility.
No other recreational facilities would be physically disrupted by construction. Prior to operation
of the new SWFSC, the existing path will be replaced by an improved meandering path that is to
be constructed with decomposed granite on the preferred site to the north and east of the new
facility. The removal of the path during the construction period would not significantly decrease
recreational opportunities. In the long-term, the new path would fully replace the existing
meander path and impacts would be less than significant.
a
Tittttt
58
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
U
]
1
Impact 3—Impacts of Demolition Activities to Recreation. Demolition activities to remove
Buildings B and C at the existing site would occur within the boundaries of the existing NOAA-
owned property. All staging and storage of materials would occur at the NOAA property.
Although beach access from the UCSD/SIO campus would not be blocked, it is likely that use of
the portion of the beach closest to the NOAA property would be restricted during portions of the
demolition period for safety reasons. The demolition period would have an estimated duration of
six months, and the loudest activities would occur intermittently. Demolition noise would be a
temporary annoyance to beach users but would not prevent use and enjoyment of the beach
during the demolition period. Demolition period impacts to recreational resources would be less
than significant
4.6.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Rec - 1 The existing meander path at the preferred site would be replaced with a path of similar
quality and the public would be allowed to use the replacement path.
4.6.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Impact 1–Physical Effects to Public Beach. No construction or demolition activities would
occur and there would be no change in demand for recreational resources or direct effects on
recreational facilities. Indirectly, Buildings B and C would remain precariously at the top of the
coastal bluff. Large-scale bluff failure could occur during an earthquake or storm and undermine
those buildings, causing portions of the buildings to slide down the steep slope and onto the
beach. This hazard may require restrictions on use of the adjacent beach. The physical presence
of building debris on the beach could limit recreational use until the debris is removed by
humans or wave action. Although it would affect only a small portion of the beach for a
temporary period, this impact could be significant.
1
1
1
4.6.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
Rec-1 NOAA would continue to monitor the rate of bluff retreat and signs of accelerating
ground and building failure, such as increase tilting and expansion of tension cracks, at
Buildings B and C. If warranted, NOAA would inform local authorities of the need to
take measures to protect beach users. (Impact I)
4.7
FARMLANDS
4.7.1 Setting
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) sets forth Federal policies to prevent the unneces-
sary conversion of land to non-agricultural use. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
regulations at 7 CFR Part 658, Farmland Protection Policy Act, are designed to implement those
policies. Soil at the existing site is mapped as HrE2, which does not support prime farmland,
farmland of Statewide or local importance, or unique farmland. Soils at the preferred site include
HrE2 and LeD2 soils. LeD2 soil could potentially support farmland of Statewide importance
[Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2004). There is no Williamson Act contract for the
preferred site or for any other portion of the campus governing the protection of land for
farmland.
Regulations at 7 CFR Part 658.2(a) exclude lands already in urban use, committed to urban
development, or water storage from definition as farmland. Local land uses and zoning do not
59
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
apply to UC. The existing SWFSC site and preferred site are designated by UC for urban land
uses, specifically academic uses (UCSD, 2004a).
Standards of Significance. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use?
Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
4.7.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1-Conversion of Farmland to Non-agricultural Use. The preferred site is not in
agricultural use. Because the preferred site is committed to urban use, it is not subject to FPPA
regulations and filing of a farmland conversion impact rating form (Form AD-1006) with the
NRCS would not be required. No impacts to farmlands would occur.
4.7.3 Mitigation Proposed Action
None required.
4.7.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, proposed construction of the new SWFSC building would not
occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts to important farmlands.
ttttttttttttttttt
-
4.7.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.8
AIR QUALITY
4.8.1 Setting
Regulatory Framework and Attainment Status. The existing and preferred SWFSC sites are
in San Diego County Air Basin. Air quality in San Diego County is regulated by U.S. EPA,
California Air Resources Board (CARB), and San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(SDAPCD) under authority of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1970 and the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 and 1990. EPA is responsible for implementing national air quality
programs. The FCAA requires that each State have an air quality control plan referred to as the
State Implementation Plan (SIP), which describes the strategies and control measures the State
will use to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CARB has prepared
and submitted an SIP to EPA. SIPs are designed to bring non-attaining areas into conformity
with Federal air quality standards. States have the option to add other pollutants, require more
stringent compliance, or include different exposure periods. The State of California has a
Federally approved SIP, which details policies and regulations to protect and improve air quality
in California. CARB is responsible for implementing the SIP and California Clean Air Act
(CCAA) of 1988 requirements, and also for oversight and monitoring local air districts. The
SDAPCD is the local air district for San Diego County primarily responsible for maintaining air
quality conditions for the County, ensuring National and State air quality standards are met.
Pursuant to the FCAA, EPA established NAAQS on the basis of human health and welfare
criteria for six criteria pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment.
>
60
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
>
1
Criteria air pollutants and stationary pollutants are used to measure and regulate air quality.
A stationary source is a stationary object, such as a power plant, gas station, incinerator, or house
that emits pollutants.
EPA and CARB regulate six pollutants of greatest concern, known as criteria pollutants (ozone
[O3], carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxides (NOx], sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter
[PM] with diameters in microns of 10 and 2.5 [PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and lead), as
indicators of air quality. Ozone is a photochemical oxidant and the primary component of smog.
Ozone is formed through a series of chemical reactions between O3 precursors (reactive organic
gases and NOx) driven by sunlight. Motor vehicles are a major source of emission of O3
precursors. PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of vehicle emissions (diesel vehicles) and fugitive dust.
Major sources of PM10 include fugitive dust emissions from ground-disturbing activities such as
construction [EPA, 2004). PM2.5 can deposit deep in the lungs and contain substances that are
particularly harmful to human health. The NAAQS and the California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS) establish limits for these criteria pollutants.
The FCAA and the CCAA set deadlines for attainment of NAAQS and CAAQS. Areas of the
State are classified by EPA and CARB as attainment, non-attainment, maintenance, or unclas-
sified for the various criteria pollutants. An attainment designation for an area indicates that the
area has met the standard for the given pollutant. A non-attainment designation indicates that a
measured pollutant concentration violated the standard. Maintenance areas are those that were
recently in violation but are now in attainment. An unclassified designation indicates that the
data are incomplete and do not support designation of either attainment or non-attainment. The
NAAQS attainment status designations for the SDAPCD are shown in Table 7. San Diego
County is classified as being in non-attainment of NAARS for 03 (eight hours) and in attainment
or unclassified for all other NAAQS [SDAPCD, 2005). The clean air strategy of the SDAPCD
includes, but is not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards.
1
1
>
Table 7
EPA Thresholds for Conformity Determination
Tons per
Criteria
Pollutant
Status of San Diego County
Year
PM2.5
Attainment
n/a*
PM 10
Unclassifiable
n/a
50
Ozone (8 hour)
Lead
Serious Non-attainment
Attainment
n/a
SO2
Attainment
n/a
CO
Attainment
n/a
Attainment
n/a
NOX
*n/a (not applicable)
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.853, Applicability, require a conformity determination for Federal
transit and highway projects and other Federal actions located in designated non-attainment areas
if they exceed thresholds for amount of emissions established by EPA. Construction and opera-
tion of the new SWFSC is a Federal action subject to conformity requirements. The attainment
status of San Diego County for NAAQS is shown above in Table 7. Areas that comply with
61
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
national standards but fail to meet more stringent State of California air quality standards are not
subject to Federal conformity requirements [CARB, 2005).
For a number of air pollutants, the State of California has adopted CAAQS, which differ from
the NAAQS. For some pollutants, the CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding Federal
standards. In addition, CAAQS cover air pollutants not included in the NAARS, including
sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particulates. San Diego County is classified as
in attainment or unclassified in regard to CAAQS for CO, nitrogen dioxide, SO2, lead, sulfates,
hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particulates. The County is in serious non-attainment of
State standards for 03 (one hour), and non-attainment of State standards for PM2.s and PM10
[SDAPCD, 2005; CARB, 2008].
Existing Sources of Air Emissions. The existing SWFSC generates air emissions primarily
from operation of Government and commute vehicles. Vehicle emissions include PM2.5, PM10,
NOx, CO, and SO2. In addition, the existing SWFSC has a backup diesel generator with capacity
of 175 kilowatts (kW), which supplies electric power in case of failure of primary power. The
generator burns natural gas and operates infrequently for backup and maintenance purposes only.
Air pollutants emitted by the standby generator during its infrequent operation include PM2.5,
PM10, NOx, CO, and SO2. The existing SWFSC site is completely covered by buildings, paved
parking lots and walkways, and landscaping. There is very little exposed soil, and fugitive dust
emissions are minimal.
>
Other than fugitive dust stirred up by wind, there are no sources of air emissions at the preferred
site.
Greenhouse Gases Global Climate Change. Global climate change is an important
environmental concern. Scientific studies have recorded a trend of steadily increased average
temperatures at the earth's surface over the last few decades. While climatic oscillations (that is,
the ice age) have occurred on earth in the past, the current warming trend has been correlated
with changes in the composition of the earth's atmosphere. Emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) from anthropogenic (man-made) sources have increased greatly since the start of the
industrial revolution about 400 years ago. As a result, concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere
have increased dramatically.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), CO, NOx, PM, methane, and water vapor, are considered to be GHGs.
Burning of fossil fuels created by the transportation and energy sectors of the economy are the
largest sources of GHG emissions in California (CEC, 2005]. GHGs remain in the atmosphere
and block the radiation of heat from the earth to space, trapping that energy in the lower
atmosphere and earth's surface. As a result, the earth's surface is warming, resulting in a number
of adverse consequences. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
projects that a concentration of GHGs of 400 to 450 parts per million carbon-dioxide equivalent
would cause a rise in average global temperature of 2 °C. Higher concentrations of GHGs would
result in greater global warming. Potential impacts of global warming include melting of polar
ice caps and mountain glaciers, rising sea level, increased incidence of severe weather, spread of
tropical diseases to temperate areas, worsened air quality, and stress on ecosystems. In
California, the potential for decreased snow pack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and faster
melting of the snow pack could threaten water supplies, which are heavily dependent on the
meltwater from the Sierra snowpack.
ttttt
a
62
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
.
3
3
a
EPA Region 9 submitted a scoping letter recommending that the EIS/EIR identify the potential
impacts to and from climate change and any specific mitigation measures needed to (1) protect
the project from the effects of climate change, (2) reduce the project's adverse air quality effects,
and (3) promote pollution prevention or environmental stewardship (EPA, 2008a). Further, the
Federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, State of California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), and the State of California E.O. S-3-05 [EPA, 2008a] also
require consideration of impacts of the project regarding emissions of GHGs and climate change.
CECA regulations require analysis of climate change. Senate Bill 97 requires the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to draft CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of GHG
emissions or the effects of GHG emissions by 2009 and to adopt these guidelines by 2010. OPR
is currently drafting these guidelines.
CARB is in charge of monitoring and regulating sources of GHG emissions that cause global
warming pursuant to the AB 32. Under Assembly Bill 32, CARB is required to set regulations
designed to reduce California GHG emissions to 1990 rates by 2020. To date, CARB and
SDAPCD have not established policies, procedures, or thresholds for analysis of impacts from
emissions of GHG in CEQA documents (CAPCOA, 2008]. One approach for decreasing
emissions of GHGs is the design and construction of new buildings in conformance with
stringent energy efficiency standards. LEED is a certification program for design and operation
of green buildings for sustainable site development, emphasizing water and energy savings.
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative result in a conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have the potential to
expose sensitive receptors to minimal increases in both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
pollutant increases?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative produce objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative air quality impact considering past, present, and
probable future projects?
Does the project impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed
in or developed to implement AB 32?
Does the project result in GHG emissions that would hinder or delay the ability of the campus to
meet the UC climate change goals contained in the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices?
4.8.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1-Emissions of Air Pollutants during Construction of the Proposed SWFSC.
Construction would involve site preparation (including excavation and removal of about 127,000
cubic yards of soil from the preferred site), pouring of concrete, and erection and finishing of the
new SWFSC building and grounds. During the site preparation and concrete pour phases, about
63
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
64 trips by heavy trucks and equipment and 40 trips by workers' private vehicles are expected
daily. During the building erection and finishing phases, 40 truck trips and 200 trips by worker
vehicles would occur each day (LLG, 2008]. Trucks, equipment, and vehicles would emit air
pollutants including criteria pollutants (that is, NOx [an ozone precursor], PM2.5, and PM10) and
GHGs. Earthmoving activities, dirt/debris pushing operations, grading, storage pile creation,
truck dumping, and wind entrainment of dust from temporary dirt piles and exposed soil would
add to PM2.5 and PM10 emitted by internal combustion engines in vehicles and equipment.
Construction is anticipated to occur during 2010 through 2012. Construction emissions of criteria
pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, and NOx) and GHGs would vary during each phase of construction.
Table 8 shows the estimated air emissions from all sources (vehicle operations and fugitive dust)
during each year of SWFSC construction activity. CARB’s EMission FACtors (EMFAC) 2007
model was used to quantify exhaust emissions from vehicles and EPA's AB-42 Methodology
was used to calculate fugitive dust emissions.
Table 8
Criteria Pollutants and GHG Emissions during Construction
Pollutant
Emissions (tons/year)
PM2.5
10.4 to 28.5
PM 10
10.4 to 32.4
NO, (Ozone Precursor)
265.82 to 349.3
CO2
2.61 to 5.34
tttttttttttttttttt
х
Emissions of NO, during the construction period would exceed EPA threshold of 50 tons/year,
triggering the need for a Federal conformity determination. NOAA would prepare the Federal
a
conformity determination and submit it to EPA. Construction-period emissions of substantial
amounts of NOx, an ozone precursor, in an ozone non-attainment area would be a significant
impact. Additional NOx emissions would cumulatively add to formation of ozone, making it
more difficult for San Diego County to meet NAAQS for ozone. This would be a significant
impact.
Emissions of PM during construction activities would contribute to overall PM emission in the
San Diego County air basin. The County is classified as in attainment of Federal NAAQS for
PM2.5 and PM10, but is in non-attainment of the stricter State CAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10.
Construction-period emissions of PM2.s and PM10 could add to the violation of State PM2.5 and
PM10 standards and would make it more difficult for the County to meet those standards in the
near future (that is, during the roughly 2.5-year construction period). To minimize emissions of
PM during construction of the new SWFSC, NOAA would prepare and implement a Construc-
a
tion Emissions Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP would describe BMPs to reduce
emissions of air pollutants, including PM. With application of the BMPs contained in the CEMP,
construction-period emissions of PM would be less than significant.
Impact 2-Emissions of Air Pollutants During SWFSC Operation. Staff will be moved into
the new SWFSC in 2012 with no substantial change in staffing. In the long-term, the new
SWFSC building may accommodate up to 17 additional staff (a 6% increase over existing
staffing). During operation of the new SWFSC, up to 17 additional employees would be
commuting to and from work at the new facility, generating a minor increase in vehicle trips
64
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
attributable to SWFSC. Those additional trips would result in a slight increase in emissions of
criteria pollutants and GHGs. The slight increase in GHG emissions would be offset by the
measures to be implemented pursuant to California Executive Order S01-07, issued by the Office
of the Governor on January 18, 2007. This order establishes a Statewide goal of reducing the
carbon intensity of California transportation fuels by 10% by 2020 and requires development of a
low carbon fuel standard for California.
a
The new SWFSC would contain a standby generator with a capacity of up to 1,000 kW, which
would be larger than the existing 175 kW standby generator at SWFSC. The new generator
would be fueled by either natural gas or diesel. The standby generator would operate only during
failure of primary power and for maintenance purposes. Total hours of operation for the existing
and proposed standby generator are estimated at 200 per year. Given the relatively small size of
the generator and its limited hours of operation, emissions of air pollutants would be minimal.
SDAPCD regulates the installation and operation of electric generators that have an engine
capacity exceeding 50 brake-horsepower (SDAPCD, 2008]. The proposed standby generator at
the SWFSC would exceed that threshold. NOAA would be required to obtain authority to install
and an operating permit for the standby generator from SDAPCD. NOAA would obtain those
approvals and abide by any permit conditions.
The proposed SWFSC would use green building techniques to reduce emissions of GHG during
building operation. The proposed SWFSC would incorporate a number of design measures to
increase energy efficiency and obtain LEED status (see Section 3.1). This approach is consistent
with the goals of AB 32 and would comply with climate change goals established by UC and
contained in the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices.
Climate change is a result of the cumulative effect of worldwide emissions of GHGs. The
proposed GHG emission reduction strategy would minimize the GHG emissions from the project
to levels that are not cumulatively considerable. The proposed action would not result in
emissions of GHGs that are individually or cumulatively significant.
Fertilizers are high in nitrogen content and can release NOx to the atmosphere. To reduce the
need for fertilizers, the new SWFSC would be landscaped with native plants that are well
adapted to the local climate and soil conditions.
SWFSC does not undertake activities that would produce objectionable odors. Emissions of
criteria air pollutants and GHGs during operation of the new SWFSC would be less than
significant.
Impact 3-Emissions of Air Pollutants during Demolition of Buildings B and C. Demolition
of the existing SWFSC Buildings B and C would occur after the new SWFSC is fully occupied.
During demolition of Buildings B and C, crews would operate equipment on-site and haul
recyclable materials and debris to local waste handling centers and landfills. This would include
stripping of ACMs from Buildings B and C prior to demolition of the two buildings. Demolition
would require fewer trips and a smaller crew of workers than construction (60 vehicle trips per
day are assumed). The demolition period is expected to last for three to six months. During that
period, trucks would haul materials and debris to local landfills and material handling facilities,
heavy equipment would operate on-site, and workers would use private vehicles to commute to
and from the demolition site. These activities would emit criteria pollutants and GHGs. Table 9
shows the total quantity of air pollutants that would be emitted during the demolition period.
a
65
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
CARB's EMFAC 2007 model was used to quantify exhaust emissions from vehicles and EPA's
AB-42 Methodology was used to calculate fugitive dust emissions. NOx emissions would not
exceed the EPA thresholds and a Federal conformity determination would not be required for the
demolition period. Demolition impacts on air quality would be less than significant.
Table 9
Criteria Pollutants and GHG Emissions during Demolition
Pollutant
Emissions (tons/year)
0.02
0.02
PM2.5
PM10
NOx (Ozone Precursor)
CO2
24.8
0.75
During demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC, particulate matter would be
generated during dismantling of the buildings and loading of materials into haul trucks.
Additionally, operation of equipment and vehicles would generate criteria pollutants and GHGs.
Demolition activities would generate small amounts of air pollutants. Except for emissions of
GHGs, which would be cumulatively significant, air quality impacts would be less than
significant.
4.8.3 Mitigation—Proposed Action
Air-1 To comply with Federal regulations at 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, NOAA would prepare a
Federal conformity determination and submit it to EPA for approval. (Impact 1)
Air-2 NOAA would request that construction and demolition contractors implement
SmartWay Truck Efficiency and anti-idling practices to reduce the amount and effects
of GHG emissions during the construction and demolition periods. These practices
include retrofitting heavy duty trucks (trucks/trailers) and vehicles used during
construction with the best available “SmartWay Transport” and/or CARB-approved
technology to reduce GHG. These technologies work by reducing aerodynamic drag
and rolling resistance by using cab roof fairings, cab side gap fairings, cab side skirts,
and on the trailer side, trailer side skirts, gap fairings, and trailer tail; and using single
wide tires or low-rolling resistance tires and automatic tire inflation systems on both the
tractor and the trailer. (Impacts 1 and 3)
Air-3 NOAA would prepare and implement CEMP measures during the construction and
demolition periods. The CEMP would identify detailed measures to minimize
emissions of dust and other air pollutants, such as
• stabilization of unpaved roads at the construction and demolition sites using water,
chemical dust suppressants, and/or other stabilization techniques;
pre-soaking and/or periodic sprinkling of areas to be cleared of vegetated and/or
graded areas with water;
periodic sweeping of streets surrounding the construction and demolition sites, to
minimize dust emissions;
limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and areas to 15 mph;
III
66
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
.
.
prompt revegetation of areas of exposed soil as soon as construction/demolition
activities are completed;
• encouragement by NOAA for contractors to use alternate fuels and retrofit existing
engines in construction equipment, to the extent that equipment is available and cost
effective;
limiting idling time of construction and demolition equipment to 10 minutes when
not in use; and
specify that contracts for construction of the new SWFSC facility and demolition of
Buildings B and C at the existing facility will require medium- and large-size
construction fleets to comply with CARB regulations for in-use off-road diesel
vehicles (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Article 4.8,
Section 2449).
(Impacts 1 and 3)
Air-4 NOAA would obtain authority to install and an operating permit from SDAPCD for the
standby generator at the new SWFSC. The permits would include detailed conditions to
ensure that the generator operates at peak efficiency, minimizing emissions of air
pollutants. (Impact 2)
Air-5 The new SWFSC would meet LEED Silver standards for energy efficiency and
environmental sustainability. (Impact 2)
Air-6 SWFSC would implement a Transportation Demand Management System (TDMS) to
reduce the amount of vehicle trips by staff. The TDMS would identify opportunities
(for example, vanpools, public transit, bicycling) for alternatives to single-occupancy
cars and assist staff in employing those alternatives. (Impact 2)
Air-7 SWFSC would include facilities to support bicycle commuters, including convenient
racks for securing bicycles, and showers for use by bicycle-commuting staff. (Impact 2)
4.8.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the proposed construction of the new SWFSC building or
demolition of Buildings B and C would not occur. Therefore, there would be no increase in
emissions of air pollutants or impacts to air quality.
4.8.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.9
NOISE AND VIBRATION
4.9.1 Setting
Noise. This section describes current noise levels at the existing and preferred sites for SWFSC,
sources of noise in the vicinity of these sites, and guidelines and regulations for human exposure
to noise. Noise varies in both frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). Pitch is determined by
the number of individual sound waves impinging on the receptor per period, generally measured
in cycles per second. Deep pitch (bass) results from a lower number of cycles, and high pitch
(treble) results from a higher number of cycles (UCSD, 2004a).
a
67
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
ttttttt
.
.
Loudness is a result of amplitude or the size of the noise waves. The standard unit used to
measure noise amplitude is the decibel (dB). For purposes of measuring human perception and
response to noise, the dBA is typically used because it assigns weights to different frequency
bands based on the sensitivity of the human ear. Humans generally cannot perceive changes in
noise levels less than 3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise level is perceptible by most people. A
10 dBA increase in noise level is perceived by humans as doubling in loudness (UCSD, 2004a).
The loudness or decibel level of sound decreases with increasing distance from the source of the
noise. Sound from a point source (for example, a piece of construction equipment) decreases by
6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. Sound from a linear source (for example, a
highway) decreases by 3 dBA with each doubling of distance. The nature of the environment
affects the degree of attenuation, with relatively less attenuation occurring in a hard environment
where concrete and structures predominate, and greater attenuation occurring in a vegetated
environment (UCSD, 2004a).
Noise descriptors are used to describe the effects of community noise on people. There are three
commonly used noise descriptors:
Equivalent Energy Noise Level (Leq)—the average acoustic energy content of noise
Day Night Average Sound Level—24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA penalty added to
nighttime noise (occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM)
Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL)24-hour average Leq with 5 dBA penalty
added to evening noise (7:00 to 10:00 PM) and a 10 dBA penalty added to nighttime noise
a
(occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM)
The primary effects of noise on human activity come from interference with speech and sleep.
According to EPA, an Leq of 45 dBA or below in the interior of a residence will not interfere
with speech recognition. EPA, Federal Aviation Administration, and U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development consider interior noise levels of 45 Leq suitable for residences.
Typical residential construction provides 25 dBA of noise attenuation with windows closed,
although the level of attenuation will vary with the type of building materials and quality of
construction, and nature of the exterior noise (UCSD, 2004a).
Noise at the SIO campus is generated by human activities (for example, conversations, outdoor
recreation, band practice), the ocean, building sources (for example, heating and ventilation
equipment, water pumps), construction activity, movement of vehicles on local roads, and
aircraft overflights. La Jolla Shores Drive is the primary source of surface transportation noise at
the existing and preferred sites for SWFSC. Traffic noise levels were measured on the segment
of La Jolla Shores Drive between La Jolla Farms Road and Downwind Way at 66 dBA CNEL in
2004. No airports are within two miles of the SIO campus and the existing and preferred sites are
not within the 60 dBA CNEL contour for an airport. A heliport is located at Scripps Memorial
Hospital, about 1.75 miles northeast of the preferred site. Aircraft occasionally fly overhead and
generate minimal and sporadic noise at ground level (UCSD, 2004a).
Ambient sound levels were measured in 2003 at a location about 250 ft. southeast of the
preferred SWFSC site and 1,000 ft. southeast of the existing site. The noise measurements, made
at a distance of 50 ft. from La Jolla Shores Drive, are shown in Table 10.
ttttt
68
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
Table 10
Ambient Noise Levels Measured 250 ft. Southeast of SWFSC Preferred Site
Time of Day
Leq Noise Level
1:00 to 2:00 PM
54.7 dBA
7:00 to 8:00 PM
53.9 dBA
11:10 PM to 12:00 Midnight
50.8 dBA
The Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 directed EPA to develop guidelines for human exposure
to noise. EPA prepared guidelines for community noise levels based on land use category. For
residential uses, exterior community noise levels of 55 dBA and interior levels of 45 dBA are
considered acceptable. California Department of Health Services guidelines for acceptable
community noise classify CNEL below 60 dBA acceptable for low-density residential use and
below 65 dBA as acceptable for high-density residential use (UCSD, 2004a).
NOAA and UCSD are sovereign Federal and State agencies, respectively, and not subject to
local ordinances. However, City of San Diego noise regulations are informative. Exterior noise
levels of 65 dBA CNEL are considered compatible with residences, schools, and other noise-
sensitive uses. City ordinance also covers construction noise. Construction or demolition
activities that cause disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise are prohibited between the hours of
7:00 PM and 7:00 AM and on Sundays and legal holidays (except Columbus Day and
Washington's Birthday). Construction activity cannot cause an average sound level at a
residential property exceeding 75 dB during the 12-hour period from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
(UCSD, 2004a).
Vibrations. Vibration results from movements of waves through solid material. Ground-borne
vibrations propagate from the source through the ground to structures. Ground-borne vibrations
can result from movement of large vehicles (for example, construction equipment, trains),
earthquakes, operation of plate compacts and generators, and haul trucks emptying soil loads.
Frequency measures the number of oscillations per unit of time. The normal frequency range of
ground-borne vibrations is 1 to 200 hertz. Human perception of vibrations is measured by peak
particle velocity (PPV) using units of inches per second. The California Department of Trans-
portation considers the lower PPV threshold for human perception of vibration as 0.006 inch per
second. Most people find continuous vibrations of 0.010 inch per second annoying. The Federal
Transit Administration and the Federal Railway Administration published guidelines containing
a lower threshold of 0.2 inch per second for vibrations that may cause architectural damage to
conventional structures (UCSD, 2004a).
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative result in a substantial and permanent increase in ambient noise levels or expose
people to noise in excess of standards?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from aircraft?
>
a
69
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA, Volume I
November 2008
a
>
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in exposure of
persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative noise impact considering past, present, and probable
future projects?
4.9.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1–Construction Noise. Construction of the new SWFSC at the preferred site would
occur over a period of about two-and-a-half years. During that period, construction activities and
equipment would generate noise. At a distance of 50 ft., earthmoving equipment (such as front-
loaders, backhoes, tractors, scrapers, graders, pavers, trucks) would generate noise levels of 73 to
95 dBA. Equipment used to handle and move building materials (such as concrete mixers,
concrete pumps, cranes) would generate noise levels of 75 to 88 dBA. Generators and com-
pressors would generate noise levels of 71 to 85 dBA. Impact equipment (such as pneumatic
wrenches, jack hammers, pile drivers) would generate the loudest noise levels of 81 to 104 dBA.
Construction activities would occur primarily during normal working hours on weekdays and
Saturdays. Limited off-hour work may occur.
Construction activities generating the loudest noise would occur sporadically during the
construction period. The average noise level at the boundary of the construction site would not
be expected to exceed 75 dB during the period from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on a given work day.
The distance from the preferred site to the nearest sensitive receptor and the resulting attenuation
of construction noise due to distance is given in Table 11.
ttttttttttt
Table 11
Distance from Preferred Site to Noise Sensitive Receptors
Distance
and Direction
Attenuation of Construction
Noise with Distance
Receptor
180 ft. north
18 dBA
Private Residence
Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research
Coast Apartments
60 ft. south
6 dBA
850 ft. east
30 dBA
Based on typical noise levels produced by each type of construction activity and equipment and
the amount of attenuation shown in Table 11, the expected level of exterior noise at each
sensitive receptor can be calculated; Table 12 shows those levels. Table 13 shows interior noise
levels, based on 25 dBA of structural attenuation. It is important to note that these are instan-
taneous noise levels that would occur sporadically while construction is in progress and are not
comparable to CNEL.
70
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Table 12
Exterior Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors
with Attenuation due to Distance from Source
Handling
Building
Materials
Generators
and
Compressors
Impact
Equipment
Receptor
Earthmoving
Private Residence
55 to 77 dBA
57 to 70 dBA
53 to 67 dBA
63 to 86 dBA
67 to 89 dBA
69 to 82 dBA
65 to 79 dBA
75 to 98 dBA
Keck Center for Ocean
Atmospheric Research
Coast Apartments
43 to 65 dBA
45 to 58 dBA
41 to 55 dBA
51 to 74 dBA
Table 13
Interior Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors
with Attenuation due to Distance from Source
Handling
Building
Materials
Receptor
Earthmoving
Generators
and
Compressors
28 to 42 dBA
Impact
Equipment
38 to 61 dBA
Private Residence
30 to 52 dBA
32 to 45 dBA
42 to 64 dBA
44 to 57 dBA
40 to 54 dBA
Keck Center for Ocean
Atmospheric Research
Coast Apartments
a 5
50 to 73 dBA
18 to 40 dBA
20 to 33 dBA
16 to 30 dBA
26 to 49 dBA
1
1
3
1
The projected level of noise generated by individual construction activities could interfere with
interior and exterior activities at the private residence north of the preferred site and at the Keck
Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research. Although construction noise events would be inter-
mittent during the roughly two-year construction period, construction noise could be a significant
impact. To reduce construction noise levels and mitigate impacts to sensitive receptors, NOAA
would implement noise abatement measures set forth in the UCSD 2004 LRDP EIR, including
limiting the time of day and days on which the loudest construction activities could occur and
mandating use of noise control devices on construction vehicles and equipment. These measures
would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 2–Operational Noise. Activities at SWFSC would be typical of a university environ-
ment. Operation of the new SWFSC would not generate unusual or excessive noise. Noise levels
would not change substantially from those measured on campus in 2004. The new SWFSC
would generate a small increase in traffic due to the potential 6% increase in number of
employees as compared with the existing SWFSC. Additionally, traffic would be redistributed on
streets in the vicinity of the preferred site. The increase in traffic volume on local streets due to
cumulative build-out of the area and development of the new SWFSC would be no more tha
17.6% on any affected roadways, which would not result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise
levels. Noise impacts during operation of SWFSC would not be significant.
Impact 3—Demolition Noise. Demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing site would
require use of heavy equipment and trucks. No use of explosives is proposed. Impact equipment
would be used and would intermittently generate noise levels of 81 to 104 dBA. The nearest
sensitive receptor is a private residence located 160 ft. north of Building B. At that distance,
1
J
I
71
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
demolition noise would attenuate by about 9 dB, resulting in exterior noise levels of 72 to
95 dBA. The residential structure (with windows closed) would provide an additional 25 dBA of
attenuation, reducing interior noise levels to 47 to 70 dBA. These noise levels could interfere
with normal communication. Although demolition noise events would be intermittent during the
roughly six-month demolition period, demolition noise could be a significant impact. To mitigate
this potentially significant impact, construction noise abatement measures contained in the
UCSD 2004 LRDP EIR would be applied to demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing
SWFSC. These measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 4Construction Vibrations. The PPV of vibrations decreases with distance from the
source. It is not expected that driving of piles or use of impact hammers or drop balls would be
required to construct the new SWFSC. Therefore, operation of trucks and large bulldozers would
generate the greatest vibrations. Vibrations generated by these sources would have an estimated
intensity of 0.006 PPV at a distance of 200 ft. and persons within 200 ft. of the preferred site may
notice the vibrations. Vibration intensity would be 0.01 PPV at 100 ft. from the source, and
persons within this distance may be annoyed. Vibration intensity of 0.2 PPV, which could cause
architectural damage, would be limited to within 20 ft. from the source (UCSD, 2004a).
The only occupied structures within the area potentially affected by construction vibrations are
the closest residence to the preferred site, 180 ft. north, and the Keck Center for Ocean
Atmospheric Research, 60 ft. south. The occupants of the residence may perceive vibrations but
should not be annoyed. The Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research is 60 ft. from the
preferred site. Vibrations could annoy occupants of that building, but would not damage the
building. However, scientific research performed at the Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric
Research could be sensitive to vibrations of lower intensities than those that annoy persons or
cause structural damage. This impact could potentially be significant, depending on the nature of
the affected scientific activities. To mitigate potential vibration impacts to Keck Center activities,
NOAA would develop and implement a construction vibration minimization plan in collabora-
tion with UCSD Environmental Planning and Facility Design and Construction Departments.
The plan would include monitoring of construction vibration levels to ensure that they do not
increase to harmful levels.
>
tttttttttt
>
Impact 5—Demolition Vibrations. Demolition and removal of Buildings B and C at the existing
SWFSC may require use of a pavement breaker and/or drop ball. Vibrations generated by these
sources would have an estimated intensity of 0.2 PPV at 40 ft., 0.01 PPV at 300 ft., and 0.006
PPV at 400 ft. (UCSD, 2004a). Other than Buildings A and D, which would not be demolished,
the closest occupied structure is the residence located 160 ft. north of Building B. At that
distance, vibrations would be of sufficient intensity to annoy occupants of the residence, but
would not be expected to cause structural damage. Vibrations generated by demolition activities
would be less than significant. The existing site for SWFSC is located about 60 ft. from the Keck
Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research, which houses a number of scientific research activities
that may be more sensitive to vibrations than buildings or persons. The Keck Center for Ocean
Atmospheric Research is located about 600 ft. from the demolition work area. Vibrations tend to
dissipate rapidly with distance. Due to the distances involved, it is unlikely that vibrations would
have an adverse effect on vibration-sensitive scientific activities at the Keck Center.
Impact 6—Operational Vibrations. SWFSC would not contain equipment or house activities
that would generate significant vibrations. Operational traffic would intermittently cause minor
a
72
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
short-lived vibrations that may be perceptible to occupants of SWFSC and nearby structures, but
those vibrations would be similar to vibrations caused by existing traffic in the area and would
not be harmful to persons or structures. No significant vibration effects would result during
operation of SWFSC.
.
4.9.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Noi-1 NOAA would require construction and demolition contractors to comply with the
construction noise abatement measures contained in the UCSD 2004 LRDP EIR, which
are listed below.
Construction or demolition activities would be implemented in a manner that
prevents the 12-hour average sound level from exceeding 75 dBA between 7:00 AM
and 7:00 PM on Monday through Saturday at the following noise sensitive land
uses: residences located north of the existing and preferred SWFSC sites and the
Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research.
Construction and demolition vehicles and equipment would be properly outfitted
with manufacturer-recommended noise-reduction devices maintained in good
working order.
• Stationary construction and demolition equipment, such as generators, pumps, and
batch plants, would be located as far as possible (at least 100 ft.) from the residences
located north of the existing and preferred SWFSC sites and the Keck Center for
Ocean Atmospheric Research.
Laydown and staging areas for construction and demolition activities would be
located as far as feasible from the residences located north of the existing and
preferred SWFSC site and the Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research.
Residents of houses located north of the existing and preferred SWFSC site and
occupants of the Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research would be informed
at least two weeks prior to the start of SWFSC construction or demolition of
Buildings B and C.
Loud construction activity such as jackhammering, concrete sawing, asphalt
removal, pile driving, and large-scale grading operations occurring within 100 ft. of
an academic building will not be scheduled during any finals week of classes to the
extent feasible.
Loud construction activity such as jackhammering, concrete sawing, asphalt
removal, pile driving, and large-scale grading operations occurring within 100 ft. of
an academic building will be scheduled during holidays, class breaks, and/or
summer session to the extent feasible.
Loud construction activity located within 100 ft. of a residential building will be
'a
restricted to occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through
Friday.
(Impacts 1 and 3)
Noi-2 NOAA would have a person qualified in construction noise and vibration assessment
prepare construction and demolition vibration mitigation plans, which would be
reviewed for adequacy by the UCSD Environmental Planning and Facility Design and
.
.
.
73
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
Construction Departments. The plans will describe measures to reduce construction and
demolition vibrations to the maximum extent possible. Vibration monitoring will be
performed during construction activities occurring in proximity to the Keck Center to
establish the maximum level of vibration. If vibrations reach levels that disrupt research
activities being performed at the Center, alternative work methods and/or equipment
would be employed to reduce vibration levels to non-harmful levels. (Impact 4)
4.9.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
No construction or demolition activities would occur and no new traffic would be generated. No
changes in the existing noise or vibration environment would result.
4.9.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.10
VISUAL AESTHETICS
4.10.1 Setting
The existing SWFSC facility consists of four three- to four-story buildings constructed in the mid
1960s. The buildings are connected and surround an interior courtyard. The buildings have bare
concrete façades with prominent balconies and open-air walkways on each level on all sides of
the buildings. These buildings are similar in height and bulk to other large buildings on the SIO
campus.
Views of the buildings are available primarily from La Jolla Shores Drive, a two-lane paved
arterial street located east of the buildings. La Jolla Shores Drive is fairly steep and climbs
upward from south to north as it passes the existing SWFSC. The entrance drive to SWFSC
curves sharply and descends into the NOAA site. SWFSC buildings are set back roughly 200 ft.
from La Jolla Shores Drive. To the south of the SWFSC site, northbound motorists, bicyclists,
and pedestrians on La Jolla Shores Drive obtain partially obstructed views of SWFSC buildings,
due to intervening SIO buildings and mature trees and landscaping. Because of the sharp curve
of the entrance drive, clear views of SWFSC buildings are generally not available from the
intersection of the entrance drive with La Jolla Shores Drive. To the north of SWFSC, La Jolla
Shores Drive continues to climb uphill and makes a broad “ess” curve, turning to the east, to the
south, and then back east and northward. An earthen berm on the southern shoulder of the road
prevents southbound travelers from seeing to the south and east until they clear the “ess” curve
and are almost adjacent to SWFSC.
The existing SWFSC buildings are located at the crest of a 180 ft. high coastal bluff. Due to the
steepness of the bluff, views of the buildings are difficult to obtain from the relatively narrow
beach at the base of the bluff. Persons boating or surfing on the Pacific Ocean west of the
SWFSC site would see the existing SWFSC building at the crest of the bluff. Because the bluff is
about three times taller than the buildings, the buildings would appear as subdued visual
elements at the top of the bluff.
The preferred site is undeveloped and vegetated with a mixture of trees, brush, and low ground
cover. The site is within a visually sensitive zone as sweeping views of the Pacific Ocean are
available from the site and vicinity (UCSD, 2004b). La Jolla Shores Drive curves around the site
and abuts the northern and eastern site boundaries. The SIO campus and the Pacific Ocean are
74
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
a
the dominant visual elements for southbound travelers on La Jolla Shores Drive as they pass the
preferred site. Because the preferred site is lower in elevation than La Jolla Shores Drive, and
blocked from view by roadside trees and an earthen berm, the preferred site is a minor visual
element in these views. The preferred site is much more prominent to northbound travelers on
La Jolla Shores Drive, who view it as an undeveloped and vegetated hillside rising to their right.
The LCP states that “La Jolla is a community of significant visual resources.” La Jolla Shores
Drive in the vicinity of the SIO campus is classified as a road from which coastal waters are
visible and the viewshed from this segment of road is considered an important visual resource
[City of San Diego Planning Department, 2008].
The City and County of San Diego have adopted light pollution or “dark sky” policies to protect
astronomical observations that occur in the area, UCSD has similarly developed outdoor lighting
polices to prevent unnecessary nighttime lighting; UCSD lighting design guidelines recommend
exterior lighting with emissions characteristics that allow filtering by astronomical observatories
(UCSD, 2004b).
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or surroundings?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative create a new source of
light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative aesthetic impact considering past, present, and
probable future projects?
4.10.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1–Addition of New Visual Feature to Viewshed. Construction of a new SWFSC at
the preferred site would add a prominent visual element to the viewshed of La Jolla Shores
Drive. The existing undeveloped hillside at the preferred site would be replaced with a multi-
story institutional building, continuing the existing line of development on the east side of La
Jolla Shores Drive. Figures 10(a) and 10(b) show an aerial view of the new SWFSC viewed from
the southwest and a ground-level view of SWFSC viewed looking to the east from La Jolla
Shores Drive. The SWFSC facility will be highly visible to travelers on La Jolla Shores Drive. It
would appear as a three-story institutional building abutting the roadway, with large windows
and a covered open-air balcony as prominent features. The building would have a complex
articulated appearance, adding visual interest. The entrance to the building would face southward
and would be clearly visible from the road. Sidewalks along La Jolla Shores Drive would
connect to a large plaza in front of the main building entrance, which would be adorned with a
ground-level NOAA logo set in a low stone façade. Covered parking would be located under-
ground and would not be visible from La Jolla Shores Drive. The existing drive providing access
to the parking lot in front of the Keck Center for Ocean Atmospheric Research would be
improved to provide vehicular access to the building. Native trees would be planted along
La Jolla Shores Drive and will soften the view over time as they grow in size.
a
a
75
LABSI
OFFICES
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
PLAZA
DECK
PUBLIC
SPACES
PARKINGI
RECEIVING
MAIN
ENTRY
La Jolla Shores Drive
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
FIGURE 10(a) ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING OF PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY -- VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST
November 2008
મ
મય

76
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008

La Jolla Shores Drive
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
FIGURE 10(b) ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING OF PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY — VIEW FROM WEST
77
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
TIT
The new SWFSC would be a large institutional structure located on the campus of UCSD/SIO.
The exterior design of the new facility would be consistent with design guidelines contained in
the UCSD 2004LRDP. The SWFSC design is being reviewed by two UCSD committees to
ensure conformance to the UCSD 2004 LRDP: MSPPC and C/CPC. NOAA is actively
participating in the meetings of these two committees and will follow their design recom-
mendations to the maximum extent possible. The new SWFSC would have a light-colored stone
and glass exterior, which would differentiate it from the many buildings on the campus with dark
or natural wood façades. Compared with the adjacent Keck Center building, it would be similar
in height but wider and much closer to La Jolla Shores Drive. The building would be set into a
relatively steep hillside, reducing its apparent bulk. The new SWFSC would be distinctive and
visually prominent, but would not be excessive in size compared with other structures on
campus, or appear out of place in this setting. These impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 2-Blocking of Ocean Views. The SWFSC building would be constructed into the
hillside and the roof would be lower in elevation than La Jolla Shores Drive as it curves around
the northern and eastern borders of the preferred site. The building would not block views of the
Pacific Ocean from La Jolla Shores Drive (see Figures 11 and 12). A substantial percentage of
the roof area would be a green roof covered by vegetation. This would soften the appearance of
the building when viewed by travelers on La Jolla Shores Drive looking downward at the
building. The proposed SWFSC would be consistent with policies of the LCP to protect ocean
views. Effects on ocean views would be less than significant.
Impact 3—Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting at the new SWFSC would enhance security and
safety. The lights would be visible primarily from La Jolla Shores Drive and the Keck Center
and parking lot south of the preferred site, which are not considered light-sensitive. Residential
properties to the north of the preferred site are uphill from the site and shielded by trees and
brush at the site boundary, which would be preserved. Lighting pointed at La Jolla Shores Drive
could be an irritant to motorists. Light emissions would not be expected to impinge on the
segment of La Jolla Shores Drive and nearby residential properties north of the site. However,
exterior lights would be pointed downward and/or shielded as necessary if excessive light does
leave the property. Provided that exterior lights at the new SWFSC comply with UCSD Outdoor
Lighting Policy and UCSD Outdoor Lighting Design Guidelines, impacts would be less than
significant.
Impact 4—Removal of Existing Visual Features. Demolition and removal of Buildings B and
C at the existing SWFSC would remove two large visual elements. However, when viewed from
La Jolla Shores Drive, Buildings B and C are mostly behind Buildings A and D, which will be
retained. Thus, removal of Buildings B and C would have little effect on views from La Jolla
Shores Drive. In views from the Pacific Ocean, the removal of Buildings B and C from the bluff
top would reduce the visual prominence of the existing SWFSC. Building A has its longitudinal
axis perpendicular to the shoreline; therefore, only a relatively small end façade would be visible
to ocean-going viewers. Of the four existing buildings, Building D is the farthest from the bluff
crest and would generally not be visible to viewers on the ocean. Building D would also be
screened by trees in the current interior courtyard, which would be opened to outside views by
removal of Building B. Some of those trees may be removed during demolition of Buildings B
and C, but NOAA would retain as many as possible. These impacts would be less than
significant.
78
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008

PROPOSED
SWFSC
BUILDING
EXISTING KECK
CENTER FOR
OCEAN ATMOSPHERE
RESEARCH
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
FIGURE 11
VIEW (LOOKING WEST) OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN AND THE PROPOSED SWFSC FACILITY VIEWED FROM LA JOLLA SHORES DRIVE
EAST OF THE PREFERRED SITE
79
BEFORE
EXISTING KECK
CENTER FOR
OCEAN ATMOSPHERE
RESEARCH
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
80
AFTER
EXISTING KECK
CENTER FOR
OCEAN ATMOSPHERE
RESEARCH
PROPOSED
SWFSC
FACILITY
Source: Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker Architects (June 2008)
FIGURE 12
BEFORE AND AFTER VIEWS (LOOKING WEST) FROM LA JOLLA SHORES DRIVE EAST OF THE PREFERRED SITE
November 2008
H 111HHHHHHH1
TIL


Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
4.10.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Vis-1 The proposed SWFSC would undergo design review by UCSD DRB and UCSD
Physical Planning Department to ensure that the visual features of the new SWFSC are
consistent with UCSD design policies. The design review process will evaluate
building mass and form, building proportion, roof profile, architectural detail and
fenestration, texture, color, type and quality of building materials, landscaping, and
other elements as deemed necessary. (Impact 1)
Vis -2 Existing large vegetation (that is, trees and large shrubs) at the preferred site would be
retained as much as possible to provide visual screening for the new SWFSC building.
(Impact 1)
Vis-3 The proposed SWFSC would be located in a visually sensitive zone. To minimize glare
generated by reflective building elements, exterior surfaces would be comprised of non-
reflective materials to the maximum extent possible and windows would use non-
mirrored window glass (that is, high technology and/or low emissivity glass).
(Impact 1)
Vis-4 Trees would be planted along the western boundary of the new SWFSC site, between
the new building and La Jolla Shores Drive, providing visual screening of the new
SWFSC building. (Impact 1)
Vis-5 Exterior lights on the new building would be shielded and/or pointed downward as
necessary to minimize the amount of light spilling onto residential properties to the
north. Additionally, low intensity lighting would be used wherever possible and lights
would be directed to illuminate the specific feature to be lit and shielded to prevent
spillover of light onto unintended areas. SWFSC exterior lighting plans would be
reviewed by the UCSD DRB to ensure that they comply with the UCSD Outdoor
Lighting Policy and the UCSD Outdoor Lighting Design Guideline. (Impact 3)
Vis-6 Existing mature trees at the existing SWFSC would be retained to the maximum extent
feasible during demolition of Buildings B and C. (Impact 4)
4.10.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
No construction or demolition of buildings would result. No changes in the visual setting would
result.
4.10.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.11
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Setting
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) requires
Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic places and to seek comments
from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. Section 106 requirements are set forth in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic
and Cultural Properties. Additional NOAA compliance procedures for managing places of
cultural, historical, and scientific importance are laid out in NAO 216-6. In consideration of
81
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
NOAA's requirements under NHPA Section 106, places listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) at or near the preferred and current SWFSC sites,
were identified in a cultural survey (Hector, 2008a). The State of California requires evaluations
of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources within the State per California PRC
Section 5020. The California Registry of Historical Resources (CRHR) is maintained by the
SHPO and contains resources listed on the NRHP.
The preferred site is located on sloped terrain, reducing the potential for cultural resources to be
found; however, UCSD determined in its 2004 LRDP EIR that there are known cultural
resources within SIO property. Therefore, ASM Affiliates was contracted by SRI International to
conduct a Phase I Cultural Survey for the preferred and existing sites. Phase I Cultural Survey
results and historical database searches are outlined in Cultural Resource Report for Proposed
NOAA SWFSC Relocation (Hector, 2008a) in conformance with NHPA, NEPA, and CEQA. A
records search covering the area within 0.25 mi of the preferred and existing SWFSC sites was
conducted at the National Register Information System (NRIS) and the South Coastal
Information Center (SCIC). In addition, a Sacred Lands search request was submitted to the
Native American Heritage Commission.
SIO was established in 1903 as the San Diego Marine Biological Institution at the Coronado
Boat House. In 1905, the Institution purchased 170 acres at La Jolla Cove to be used for
constructing a permanent facility. The George H. Scripps Laboratory, designed by noted San
Diego architect Irving Gill, was completed in 1910 and is listed on the NRHP. The laboratory
building represents the first permanent structure of any of the shore side marine biological
stations in the western hemisphere and is an architectural landmark—one of the first monolithic
concrete buildings (Shor et al., 1979). The UCSD 2004LRDP EIR identified several other
structures at the UCSD/SIO campus that may be historic. The Director's House was built in 1914
by Prof. William E. Ritter, the first director of the SIO. Twelve wood-framed cottages were built
in 1915 and 1916 and four of those cottages are still standing, located about 400 ft. southwest of
the preferred site for the new SWFSC. Ritter Hall, the Driving Facility, and Service Yard
Buildings were built between 1930 and 1950 and are still standing. These structures range in
distance from 800 to 1,500 ft. from the preferred site (UCSD, 2004b).
Many archeological sites were identified near the preferred site and remain important evidence
for the antiquity of the human occupation along the west coast of North America. A records
search of the SCIC on January 10, 2007, found four listed cultural sites in the general vicinity of
the preferred site: SDI-525, SDI-8471, SDI-11019, and SDI-11075. The SDI-525 site is the
closest of the four to the preferred site across Torrey Pines Road. SDI-525 has been dated at
7,500 to 5,500 years before present and is strongly associated with early Archaic Period human
occupation along the southern California coast. Human burials and postholes were identified at
SDI-525 in previous cultural surveys.
Field investigations, consisting of above-ground surface inspections for archaeological features
or artifacts, were conducted for the preferred and existing sites. ASM Affiliates concluded “no
cultural artifacts or features were found” at the existing site. A 20 meter long by 5 meter wide
archaeological site, CA-DI-18610, occurs at the northern portion of the preferred site. CA-DI-
18610 is comprised of fire-affected sandstone and five pieces of weathered chione shell. Without
further studies, there is insufficient information to make a recommendation concerning whether
site CA-DI-18610 meets the National or California Register eligibility criteria (Hector, 2008a).
>
11.11
82
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
a
The Archaic Period is associated with chione shell found at this archaeological site. The
archaeological site may meet criteria C and 4 for listing on the National and California Registers
of Historic Places, respectively, however further evaluation will also be needed to make this
determination [Hector, 2008a).
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, or an
archaeological resource?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative cultural resources impact considering past, present,
and probable future projects?
4.11.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1–Impacts to Historic or Potentially Historic Structures. The area of potential effect
(APE) to historic or cultural resources includes the existing and preferred SWFSC sites and lands
within a 0.25 mi radius. No historic or potentially historic structures are located at the preferred
or existing SWFSC sites. The closest off-site structures are the four cottages built between 1915
and 1916. Construction and operation of the SWFSC would not physically affect any of those
cottages. Existing SIO building structures and mature trees are located between the preferred site
and these cottages, and would completely or nearly completely block views of the new SWFSC
facility from the cottages and vice versa. Indirect visual effects would be negligible. Scripps,
Director's House, Ritter Hall, and the Driving Facility and Service Yard Buildings are located
farther from the preferred site and the existing SWFSC site than the cottages. Intervening
buildings and trees would block views of these structures from the new SWFSC and vice versa.
No effects to these historic or potentially historic structures would result. Although several
structures listed or eligible for listing under the Federal and California Registers are located
within the APE for the proposed action (that is, located within 0.25 mile), the proposed action
will not directly or indirectly impact any of these structures. Existing Buildings B and C at the
SWFSC would be demolished. These buildings were built less than 50 years ago and are not
considered eligible for listing on the Federal or California Registers. Impacts to historic or
potentially historic structures would be less than significant.
Impact 2–Impacts to Archaeological Resources. Construction of the new SWFSC, including
grading and other ground-disturbing activities, at the preferred site has the potential to harm or
destroy artifacts found at archaeological site CA-DI-18610, which may be eligible for listing in
the Federal and California Registers under criteria C and 4, respectively. CA-DI-18610 is in the
APE. CA-DI-18610 was discovered and identified for possible eligibility in the field survey
conducted by ASM Affiliates. In order to determine eligibility, further studies need to be
conducted to determine the “integrity, artifact quantity and diversity” (Hector, 2008a). NOAA
will have a qualified archaeologist fully investigate the archaeological features at the preferred
site. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that human remains could be uncovered during excavation
activities for the new SWFSC. If human remains are found, NOAA and UCSD would comply
with State requirements contained in PRC 5097.98.
83
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
ttttt
No archaeological sites are known to occur at the existing SWFSC site. Based on the developed
nature of the site, it is unlikely that intact archaeological resources are present, No impacts to
archaeological resources are expected to result from demolition of Buildings B and C.
4.11.3 Mitigation—Proposed Action
NOAA will implement the following mitigation measures suggested in the ASM Affiliates
Cultural Resources Report (Hector, January 2008a):
Cul-1 To investigate the significance of archaeological site CA-DI-18610 at the preferred site,
NOAA would hire a qualified archaeologist to prepare a treatment plan for archaeo-
logical testing. The treatment plan would be submitted to the California SHPO for
review and approval prior to implementation. The treatment plan would identify the
APE, taking into consideration the horizontal and vertical extent of proposed ground-
disturbing construction activities. The plan will describe how archaeological data would
be scientifically collected and how these data will be used to address important research
issues. A Native American would monitor subsurface excavation and grading activities.
(Impact 2)
Cul-2 NOAA would hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct testing of archaeological site
CA-DI-18610. Testing would consist of systematic excavation of the sample area to
determine the integrity and vertical and horizontal extent of the deposit, the quality and
diversity of artifacts, and the potential for human remains. Standard hand-excavated
1 meter by 1 meter test units would be used during the archaeological test phase. These
units would be excavated in 10-centimeter levels (unless cultural stratigraphy is
identified). Hand tools would consist of shovels, picks, trowels, brushes, and probes.
All soil would be passed through a 1/8-inch mesh screen (or a smaller screen if column
samples are taken and processed), using a water screening technique. The units would
be excavated until sterile soils or the underlying geological formation is reached. If
sterile soils are encountered, an auger or bore would be used to excavate a hole in the
middle of each unit to ensure that buried cultural deposits are located beneath the sterile
soil. Following completion of the test excavation, all cultural materials will be washed,
catalogued, and analyzed. Information from the test phase will be used to determine site
integrity. A report describing the test phase would be prepared. (Impact 2)
Cul-3 If archaeological site CA-DI-18610 is recommended as eligible for the NRHP or the
CRHR, data recovery would occur. The data recovery phase would be based on results
of the test phase, and will focus on recovering archaeological data sufficient to mitigate
the destruction of all or a portion of the archaeological site within the APE. (Impact 2)
Cul-4 NOAA and UCSD will comply with PRC 5097.98 in the case where human remains are
found. Any uncovered human remains would be treated with respect. This code section
requires that excavations cease if potential human remains are uncovered and the
County Medical Examiner/Coroner be notified. The Coroner must contact the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will contact the
most likely descendant to determine the appropriate manner of handling the remains.
(Impact 2)
Cul-5 NOAA would fund permanent curation at the San Diego Archaeological Center for the
artifacts found at archaeological site CA-DI-18610. (Impact 2)
PRIR
PR.
84
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
Cul-6 Native American monitors would be on-site during all ground disturbing activities in
the construction phase of the project, keeping daily logs and preparing a monitoring
report at the conclusion of each phase. Ground-disturbing activities include installation
of underground utility lines, landscaping, and paving. (Impact 2)
Cul-7 If human remains are uncovered during any phase of the proposed action, soil
associated with the remains should not be removed from the area. (Impact 2)
Therefore, with mitigation measures in place, there would be no impacts to site CA-DI-18610.
4.11.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, proposed construction of the new SWFSC building would not
occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts to historic and cultural resources.
4.11.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, no ground disturbing activities (that is, construction) would
occur. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted.
4.12
SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
4.12.1 Setting
The existing and preferred SWFSC sites are located in Census Tract 83.12 in the community of
La Jolla, which is part of the City of San Diego in San Diego County, California. According to
2000 U.S. Census, San Diego County had a population of about 2.8 million persons and Census
Tract 83.12 had a population of 3,890 persons (see Chart 1). Average household sizes are 2.83
and 2.33 persons in the County and Tract, respectively. Census Tract 83.12 has a per capita that
is nearly triple that of the County as a whole. The percentage of minorities, unemployed persons,
and persons living in poverty are lower in Census Tract 83.12 than in the County as a whole
[U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).
E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations, requires Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse environmental or human health effects on minority
populations and low income populations. Federal agencies, programs, and policies should not
exclude people and populations of people based on race, color, or nationality from Federal
activities or benefits of such activities. Minority communities and low income communities must
also have access to public information on matters related to human health and the environment
[President, 1994).
85
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
Chart 1. Year 2000 Census Data for Census Tract 83.12 San Diego, California
San Diego
Census Tract 83.12
2,813,833
33.5%
rrrrrrrrrr

994,677
12.2%
12.4%
5.6%
7.1%
4.7%
3,890
1,686
$22,926
$67,654
Persons
Households
Per Capita
% Minority*
% Unemployed
% h Poverty
=
* Minority = persons of Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native
Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, or other (non white) race.
4.12.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1—Impacts to Minority and Disadvantaged Populations and Environmental
Justice. Construction of the new SWFSC would occur at an undeveloped site planned for
academic use by UCSD/SIO. No dislocation of persons or businesses would occur. Scientific
research activities conducted at the existing SWFSC would be moved to the new SWFSC and
would continue; those activities would be compatible with nearby uses. No substantial increase
in employment or change in the nature and intensity of SWFSC operations would result.
Construction of the new SWFSC would not separate established neighborhoods, nor would it
create barriers to movement of persons and goods. Substantial minority or low income
populations are not located in the area and would not be subject to disproportionately high and
adverse environmental effects.
Demolition of Buildings B and C would occur after the new SWFSC is occupied. These
buildings would be stripped of potentially hazardous materials, such as ACMs and LBP, prior to
final demolition. Explosives would not be used during the demolition, and creation of large
amounts of dust is not expected. Demolition activities would not result in emissions of hazardous
air pollutants that could adversely affect neighboring populations.
Socioeconomic impacts would not be significant.
86
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA--Volume I
November 2008
4.12.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
None required.
4.12.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
No socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts would result.
4.12.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.13
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
1
]
2
1
4.13.1 Setting
The UCSD Police Department provides law enforcement services for the UCSD campus.
However, the City of San Diego Police Department provides law enforcement services for the
existing SWFSC. The City Police Department also provides support to the UCSD Police upon
request (UCSD, 2004a).
The City of San Diego Fire Department is responsible for fighting fires on the UCSD campus.
UCSD has a Fire Marshal who implements fire safety, warning, and prevention programs,
including building and plans inspections (UCSD, 2004a).
The San Diego Unified School District operates public elementary, middle, and secondary
schools serving the La Jolla area. The school nearest to the existing and preferred sites is the
Elkhorn Elementary School, located at 2235 Elkhorn Road, approximately two miles to the south
(UCSD, 2004a).
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) provides electric and natural gas service to the existing
SWFSC. SDG&E transmission grid also delivers electricity to the campus via 69 kilovolt (kV)
transmission lines connecting to the east campus substation. From that substation, power steps
down to 12 kV for distribution throughout the campus (UCSD, 2004a).
SWFSC consumed 986,000 kilowatt hours of electricity during 2007. The existing SWFSC is
equipped with a standby generator fueled by natural gas. The standby generator provides electric
power during loss of primary power. It is also operated periodically for maintenance purposes.
The total hours of operation of the standby generator is estimated at less than 200 per year.
The existing SWFSC uses natural gas for space and water heating. SDG&E provides natural gas
to the SWFSC from existing gas mains serving the local area.
The City of San Diego Water Utilities Service Department, a member of the San Diego County
Water Authority (SDCWA), provides water service to SWFSC and UCSD. SDCWA receives
approximately 90% of its water from the Colorado River via the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. The remaining 10% of water is supplied by local resources of surface and
groundwater. The Miramar Reservoir and filtration plant distributes water to the local distri-
bution system via 16- and 18-inch water mains. Within SIO are two metered connections, the
Upper Vault and the Lower Vault, which connect to the 30-inch City main (UCSD, 2004a).
The City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department provides wastewater treatment
services for SWFSC and UCSD. Wastewater from the UCSD campus is collected by four major
trunk sewer lines. Wastewater generated on the SIO campus flows into the Rose Canyon Trunk
1
1
1
)
1
87
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
.
Sewer through three on-campus connections, and is then transported for treatment at the Point
Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant uses
chemically assisted primary treatment, which removes about 80% of solids before discharge of
the treated wastewater to the Pacific Ocean. Sludge remaining after treatment is disposed of via
aerobic and anaerobic digestion, and wet sludge is disposed of at landfills or is used for soil
treatment. For irrigation purposes, UCSD uses recycled water that has undergone tertiary
treatment (UCSD, 2004a] However, use of treated wastewater to irrigate landscaping can lead to
potentially harmful accumulation of salts in soil. Therefore, the amount of irrigation needed at
the SIO campus is being reduced through conversion of landscaping to plants with low water
usage, including coastal sage scrub vegetation (Ingram, 2008).
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 contains performance requirements for
Federal buildings. The Act sets a goal of 30% reduction in energy use, compared with 2005
consumption, for Federal buildings. This goal is to be achieved by 2015. One method for
reducing energy use and increasing energy efficiency is incorporation of LEED principles into
building design.
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative result in a substantial impact to public services or compromise the ability of service
providers to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in increased
consumption of electricity, natural gas, or water, or increased generation of wastewater that
would exceed the capacity of service providers or result in a need to expand or construct
substantial new generation, transportation, or treatment facilities?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative require or result in the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in insufficient water
supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in failure to comply
with Federal, State, and Local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative require or result in
construction or expansion of electrical, natural gas, chilled water, or steam facilities or result in
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative require or result in the
construction or expansion of the telecommunications facilities?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative public services impact considering past, present, and
probable future projects?
a
ti
88
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
}
1
3
4.13.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1-Increase in Employment and Effects on Demand for Schools, Water
Consumption, and Sewage Generation. The number of employees working at SWFSC would
stay the same in the short-term and may increase by 17 employees, or 6%, in the long-term. SIO
may occupy Buildings A and D at the existing SWFSC after NOAA relocates staff to the new
SWFSC building. SIO staff occupying Buildings A and D would include staff relocated from
elsewhere on the SIO campus to alleviate overcrowding and new SIO hires representing a slight
increase (for example, 22 new SIO staff) in overall campus employment or population. A modest
economic stimulus to the local economy would result from construction and demolition expen-
ditures, which would be temporary and small compared with the size of the local economy. Little
change in the local population would result, and changes in demand for police services and
enrollment in local public schools would be negligible. Similarly, consumption of water and
generation of water would be unchanged. Effects on public services, water supplies, and
wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.
Impact 2—Effects on Demand for Police and Fire Protection Services. The City of San
Diego would be expected to provide police and fire protection services for the new SWFSC.
Relocation of SWFSC to the preferred site would result in a modest increase in floor space
compared with the existing SWFSC. About 100,000 sq. ft. of floor space is present at the
existing SWFSC and the new SWFSC would have about 124,000 sq. ft. of floor space. About
40,000 sq. ft. of floor space would be removed by demolition of Buildings B and C, resulting in a
net increase of about 84,000 sq. ft. of floor space requiring police and fire protection services.
However, the new SWFSC would conform to current life safety, seismic safety, and fire
protection codes contained in the 2007 California Building Code, which would be an improve-
ment over the structures to be replaced. Increase in demand for police and fire services would be
mitigated by adherence to the current codes, which contain requirements for fire prevention,
notification of occupants, and fire resistant design and construction measures. According to the
UCSD 2004 LRDP EIR, proposed campus-wide improvements are not expected to increase
demand at the multiple fire stations that serve the campus to a level that would require new
facilities or substantial alterations to existing facilities (UCSD, 2004a). The minor increase in
floor space resulting from construction of the new SWFSC would be a small fraction of the
amount of floor space envisioned in the LRDP and would not result in a need to construct new
police or fire stations, expand existing stations, or add police or fire-protection staff. The
proposed action would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to public services.
Impact 3—Consumption of Energy and Fuels. SDG&E would provide electric and gas
service to the new SWFSC, which would be designed in conformance with LEED principles to
increase energy efficiency and reduce consumption of electricity and natural gas. The building
would be designed and constructed to achieve LEED Silver status, which would help in meeting
the goal contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Because electric and
gas consumption are expected to be no greater compared with existing consumption, there would
be no need to increase electric generation capacity or expand natural gas transmission capacity.
Impacts to energy supplies would be less than significant.
1
2
1
)
.
89
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
C
4.13.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Ser-1 NOAA would submit design plans for the new SWFSC to the UCSD Fire Marshal for
review and comment, and would revise the plans if feasible to address comments
received from the Fire Marshal. (Impact 2)
4.13.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
No construction or demolition would occur. No change in population or demand for public
services, including education, police, and fire protection services, would result. Consumption of
water, electricity, and natural gas and generation of wastewater would be unchanged. Impacts to
public services and utilities would be less than significant.
4.13.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.14
POPULATION AND HOUSING
tttttt
4.14.1 Setting
The existing SWFSC site and the preferred site for relocation of SWFSC are both on the campus
of UCSD/SIO, within the community of La Jolla, which is part of the City of San Diego. San
Diego is within San Diego County. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, San Diego County has a
total population of 2,813,833 persons living in 994,677 households. The existing and preferred
sites are in Census Tract 83.12, which includes the UCSD/SIO campus and residential areas to
the north and south of the campus. The Tract had a population of 3,890 persons residing in
473 households in Year 2000. There are no housing units at the existing SWFSC site or the
preferred site. Total employment in the County and Tract were 1,328,893 and 1,719,
respectively, in Year 2000.
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative displace substantial
numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a cumulative population and housing impact, considering past,
present, and probable future projects?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
4.14.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1-Impacts to Population Growth and Housing Demand. Relocation of SWFSC to
the preferred site would not result in removal of existing housing units or creation of new
housing. Employment at SWFSC would be unchanged as a result of the relocation. The new
SWFSC would be designed to accommodate up to 17 additional employees, which would result
in a 6% increase in employment at SWFSC. This increase in employment would occur in the
long-term and would be insignificant compared with total employment in the County and Tract.
a
90
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
a
The existing and preferred sites are very close to one another and current SWFSC employees
would not have to change their residence to work at the new SWFSC. Based on average
household size in the County of 2.83, 17 new employees would have families comprising
48
persons. Even if all of these employees and their families were new to the area, the influx of
48 persons would not significantly affect the population of La Jolla, San Diego City, or the
County. Increased demand for housing would be less than significant.
The proposed action would relocate the work spaces for about 283 existing SWFSC workers
about 400 ft. across La Jolla Shores Drive to a new building and potentially accommodate a 6%
increase in workers in the long-term. No substantial change in the population of the area would
result. Construction of the new SWFSC facility would not be expected to obstruct local
evacuation routes or interfere with the ability of emergency service providers to respond to
incidents. However, it is possible that closures of roads or travel lanes may be required for short
periods during construction of the new SWFSC. The UCSD Fire Marshal would be notified in
advance of the road or lane closure to ensure that it does not hinder access by emergency service
providers. Impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.
4.14.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Pop-1
In the event that the construction of the SWFSC requires closure of a road or traffic
a
lane, NOAA would notify the UCSD Fire Marshal of the planned closure. If determined
necessary by the UCSD Fire Marshal, local emergency service providers would be
notified by the Fire Marshal of the closure. (Impact 1)
4.14.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
SWFSC would not be relocated to the preferred site. SWFSC operations would continue to occur
at the existing site in La Jolla. The number of employees working at SWFSC woul be
expected to change. No impacts to population or local demand for housing would result.
4.14.5 Mitigation-No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.15
SOLID WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.15.1 Setting
SWFSC stores and uses a variety of hazardous materials in its operations, including compressed
air, carbon dioxide, diesel fuel, helium gas, isopropyl alcohol, nitrogen, oxygen, photo
processing fixer, ethidium bromide waste, and laboratory waste chemicals. San Diego County
monitors the use, storage, disposal, or recycling of these materials and conducts periodic
inspection of SWFSC. One underground storage tank for oil, with a capacity of 2,500 gallons, is
present at the existing SWFSC. Solid waste at the existing SWFSC site is collected for off-site
disposal. SRI International prepared a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the existing
and preferred sites in conformance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard
1527-05 (SRI International, 2006).
A professional inspection was performed at the existing SWFSC site to determine the presence
of ACMs, LBP, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The findings and recommendations are
summarized below.
91
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
.
.
a
ACMs were identified in various building components at the existing SWFSC.
Several surfaces within buildings at the existing SWFSC site were found to contain LBP with
lead concentrations exceeding thresholds adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and California Department of Health Services.
PCBs were not found at the existing SWFSC site.
No evidence was uncovered of current or past disposal of hazardous or solid wastes at the
preferred SWFSC site. No buildings or other structures are present at the preferred site and there
is little potential for ACMs, LBP, PCBs, or other hazardous materials to be present at the site.
Therefore, contaminated soil or groundwater or deposits of solid or hazardous waste does not
exist at the proposed site.
Standards of Significance. Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action
alternative result in a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in the release of
hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable accidents?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative result in activities on a
listed hazardous materials site creating a significant hazard to the public or environment?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative impair implementation of
or physically impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative be served by a landfill
with insufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste disposal needs?
Would implementation of the proposed action or no-action alternative have cumulatively
considerable contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impact considering
past, present, and probable future projects?
4.15.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Impact 1-Generation of Solid/Hazardous Waste by Construction Activities. Construction
of the new SWFSC would generate solid wastes typical of commercial or institutional
construction, including scraps of lumber, piping, wiring, sheetrock, glass, metal, and so on.
Waste materials will be collected for off-site transport and recycling or disposal. Impacts to solid
waste and hazardous materials during SWFSC operations would be less than significant.
Impact 2—Generation of Solid/Hazardous Waste during SWFSC Operation. Operation of
the new SWFSC would generate solid and hazardous wastes that are similar in composition and
volume to the waste stream currently generated by the existing SWFSC. Like today's waste,
future waste would be removed from the site for recycling or proper disposal. The facility will
dispose of hazardous materials, such as those generated from the facility's laboratories,
tttttttttttttttttt
92
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA--Volume I
November 2008
following regulations of U.S. EPA and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (see
Appendix A in Volume II). Impacts to solid waste and hazardous materials during SWFSC
operations would be less than significant.
Impact 3—Generation of Solid/Hazardous Waste by Demolition Activities. The Casper
Company prepared a Demolition Work Plan for dismantling and removal of Buildings B and C
at SWFSC (Casper Company, 2005). Demolition of the two SWFSC buildings would proceed in
stages. ACM and LBP would be identified and removed prior to dismantlement of Buildings B
and C. These hazardous materials would be transported off-site for recycling or proper disposal.
The demolition work plan specifies the following phases:
1. Soft Interior Demolition-Remove carpets, tiles, ceiling systems, and millwork; remove and
separate insulation and air ducts.
2. Soft Exterior Demolition-Remove air conditioning units, exterior metal grating, and roofing
materials; remove and process organic materials and glass.
3. Hazardous Material Abatement Interior Remove ACM and LBP.
4. Hard Demolition Interior-Remove and separate interior materials down to shell and establish
unobstructed access.
5. Hard Demolition Exterior-Demolish buildings and foundations; separate rebar for recycling
and process concrete to 2 ft. maximum pieces; excavate and remove caissons to 5 ft. below
grade; use spoils to backfill excavations.
Large amounts of solid waste would also be generated during demolition activities. Those wastes
will be transported to the following landfills and recycling centers:
Vulcan Materials San Diego
Lakeside Landfill
Pacific Steel
Miramar Landfill
Miramar Recycling
Solid wastes would be recycled to the maximum extent practical and hazardous wastes would be
removed for off-site disposal at a licensed disposal facility. The existing and preferred sites are
not designated as hazardous material sites. There are no public schools or airports within two
miles of the sites. The hazard of wildland fire exists at both the preferred and existing sites.
Relocation of SWFSC to the preferred site would not increase wildland fire hazards or impair
emergency evacuations or response plans. Impacts to solid waste and hazardous materials during
demolition activities would be less than significant.
4.15.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
SW-1 Removal of ACMs during demolition of Buildings B and C would be performed by an
asbestos abatement contractor licensed by the California Division of Safety and Health.
Removal of ACMs conforms to applicable regulations of the Division. (Impact 3)
SW-2 Loose and peeling LBP of Buildings B and C would be removed and remaining paint
stabilized prior to demolition activity. (Impact 3)
93
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA—Volume I
November 2008
4.15.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
No construction or demolition activities would occur. No new waste streams would be created
and no change in the rate of solid and hazardous waste generation during operation of SWFSC
would result.
4.15.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
None required.
4.16
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
4.16.1 Setting
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 protects free flowing rivers of the U.S. These rivers are
protected under the Act by prohibiting water resource projects from adversely impacting values
of the river: protecting outstanding natural, cultural, or recreational values; maintaining water
quality; and implementing river management plans for these specific rivers. The nearest river
protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 is Sespe Creek, located approximately
160 miles north from the proposed project (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2008).
4.16.2 Impact-Proposed Action
Due to its distance to Sespe Creek, implementation of the proposed project will have no impact
on Sespe Creek or any other designated wild and scenic rivers.
4.16.3 Mitigation-Proposed Action
Since there are no impacts to Sespe Creek or any other wild and scenic rivers, no mitigation
measures are warranted.
tttttttttttttt
4.16.4 Impact-No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, proposed construction of the new SWFSC building would not
occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts to wild and scenic rivers from the no-action
alternative.
4.16.5 Mitigation—No-Action Alternative
None required.
94
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
5 OTHER CEQA AND NEPA CONSIDERATIONS
5.1
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
1
1
1
5.1.1 Proposed Action
Construction of the new SWFSC and demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC
site would not increase the demand for construction or demolition workers in the area. Many
construction projects already occur on the University (and are planned to occur in the future, as
anticipated in the UCSD 2004 LRDP) and within the County of San Diego. Therefore, the
proposed action's construction and demolition phases would not foster population growth.
Relocation of SWFSC to the preferred site would have little direct economic impact. The cost to
construct and furnish the new SWFSC facility, move SWFSC occupants and equipment into the
new building, and demolish and remove Buildings B and C at the existing site are estimated at
$78.9 million in current dollars [Feiner, 2008]. These expenditures would provide an economic
boost to the local economy. The expenditures would be spread over a period of at least three
years; therefore, average annual expenditures during the construction and demolition periods
would be about $26.3 million per year in current dollars. Based on U.S. Census statistics for
2000, the annual gross domestic product of San Diego County was about $62.7 billion. Thus, the
new economic activity generated by relocation of SWFSC to the preferred site would represent a
0.04% increase in economic activity in the County. The multiplier effect would increase the level
of benefit as suppliers and workers would respend their revenues and salaries at local businesses.
Even considering the multiplier effect, expenditures by NOAA for constructing and furnishing
the new SWFSC, moving into the new structure, and demolition of Buildings B and C, would be
less than significant.
The new SWFSC, if constructed at the preferred site, would be located a short distance from the
existing SWFSC and would operate with about the same number of employees. With a small
increase in staff (17 new staff) at the new SWFSC projected in the future, impacts to population
growth from the operation of the new SWFSC would be less than significant.
Operation of the new Center would not generate new demand (that is, in addition to ongoing
existing expenditures) for ancillary and support services and would not be expected to change the
patterns of expenditures by the Government or employees. The new SWFSC would continue to
perform the same scientific research activities as it currently does, and operation at the preferred
site would not result in increased economic stimulus or induce substantial economic growth in
the local area.
UCSD/SIO and SWFSC collaborate in performing scientific research. The synergy provided by
the cooperation between the two organizations promotes the conduct of fisheries and oceano-
graphic science in the San Diego area. Undoubtedly, the local economy benefits from the
presence of a robust scientific community, which attracts highly educated and skilled persons to
the area and promotes development of new businesses. This cooperation would continue and the
indirect benefits to the local economy from a scientific nucleus would continue into the future.
T
a
>
1
1
1
1
95
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
5.1.2 No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, no construction or demolition would occur and construction/
demolition expenditures would not boost the local economy. Buildings B and C at the existing
site are being vacated and the staff and operations moved to temporary leased space in La Jolla.
If the entire operations of SWFSC were moved to leased space for 30 years, the net present value
of lease payments is estimated at $243.11 million [Feiner, 2008), an average of $8.1 million per
year. These lease payments would represent less than 0.02% of the annual gross domestic
product of San Diego County. The resulting economic boost would be insignificant and would
not induce substantial growth in the local area.
5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The following environmental impacts would result from implementation of the proposed action
or no-action alternative and would be significant, even after application of mitigation measures
identified in this EIS/EIR.
5.2.1 Proposed Action
During the construction of the new SWSFC, equipment and vehicles would emit significant
amounts of NOx (an ozone precursor) within a Federally designated ozone non-attainment area,
requiring preparation of a Federal conformity determination
a
5.2.2 No-Action Alternative
Buildings B and C would remain at the existing SWFSC and would represent a hazard to persons
in the vicinity due to the potential for catastrophic failure of the coastal bluff on which these
buildings are situated.
1
5.3
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
5.3.1 Proposed Action
Construction of the new SWFSC would use a considerable amount of building materials.
Construction equipment, supply trucks, and the like, would consume gasoline and diesel fuels.
These resources would be irreversibly consumed during the construction of the new SWFSC.
Demolition of Buildings B and C at the existing site would also irreversibly consume gasoline
and diesel fuel. To the maximum extent possible, materials removed during demolition action
would be recycled. The demolition plan calls for separation from general debris and recycling of
the following materials: steel, glass, ceramics, and organic material.
The preferred site is a 3.3-acre undeveloped parcel containing 1.63 acres of coastal sage scrub
vegetation and 0.73 acre of disturbed habitat. Construction of SWFSC would result in permanent
removal of this undisturbed and disturbed habitat. To mitigate this habitat loss, NOAA and
UCSD will implement the requirement of the UCSD 2004 LRDP EIR and preserve an area of
coastal scrub shrub vegetation on campus equal to twice the area of habitat removed. The
ecological value of the preserved area will replace the lost value at the SWFSC preferred site,
thereby mitigating the irreversible removal of habitat.
The new SWFSC would be about 24% larger in gross floor space than the existing Center.
However, it would be designed and constructed in conformance with LEED principles to
promote efficiency in energy and water use. It is expected that the new SWFSC will consume
a
tt
96
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
2
less energy and domestic water than the existing Center. The new SWFSC would also generate
less wastewater. BMPs would be incorporated to retain storm runoff water on-site, mitigating the
increase in runoff rates caused by development of the 3.3-acre site. Because the new Center
would be very near the existing Center, the length of commute, delivery, and visitor vehicle trips
would not change compared with the present. The staff employed at the Center would remain
about the same, therefore the number of vehicle trips would not change. Compared with current
use, consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel for transportation uses would not change during
operation of the new SWFSC.
1
5.3.2 No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would not result in commitment of resources (for example, building
materials and fuel) for construction of a new SWFSC. However, the existing Center will not be
usable in the long-term; thus, SWFSC operation would either be moved to leased space or
collocated with other NOAA facilities on the west coast of the U.S. In either case, SWFSC staff
would be located farther from UCSD and the research ships docked at SIO. It is likely that
SWFSC would occupy floor space similar to current floor space, and consumption of building
energy and domestic water would be similar to current consumption. However, travel by SWFSC
staff may increase, with a resulting increase in transportation fuel use.
a
5.4
SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
1
1
5.4.1 Proposed Action
The proposed action would further the short-term environmental goals of both NOAA and
UCSD by providing a replacement facility for the existing SWFSC that is not subject to the
geologic hazards threatening the existing facility. Less than significant environmental effects in
the areas of traffic, noise, vibration, and air emissions would result in the short-term (that is,
during the construction period for the new facility and demolition of Buildings B and C). The
effects would be mitigated through application of measures consistent with the UCSD 2004
LRDP EIR. In the long-term, the proposed action would incorporate LEED design standards and
sustainability features to minimize energy consumption and environmental impacts on the
surrounding environment. Examples of sustainability features include a partial green roof, solar
panels, and storm water retention areas on-site. The sustainability features built into the proposed
SWFSC facility would be consistent with long-range environmental goals of NOAA and UCSD.
Thus, the proposed action would achieve both long-term and short-term environmental goals and
would not achieve one at the expense of the other.
5.4.2 No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would not achieve the purposes and objectives of NOAA and UCSD.
Buildings B and C at the existing SWFSC would not be demolished and would remain
unoccupied. In the short-term, southwest fisheries research conducted by NOAA would suffer
from the division of staff among Buildings A and D and relatively distant leased office and
research space. This arrangement is inefficient and hinders the ability of NOAA to conduct
.
fisheries research and to collaborate with UCSD/SIO researchers. Compared with the proposed
action, the no-action alternative would avoid the short-term environmental effects that would
result from construction of the new SWFSC facility and demolition of Buildings B and C.
However, those impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels if the proposed action
97
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
is implemented. In the long-term, Buildings B and C would remain a threat to the beach at the
base of the bluff, which could be impacted by slope failure causing structural materials to slide
onto the beach. Additionally, continued use of Buildings A and D at the existing SWFSC facility
(without seismic and code upgrades) would not further the long-range goal of environmentally
sustainable development and work places established by NOAA and UCSD. Thus, the no-action
alternative would not achieve long-term environmental goals.
tttttttttt
98
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1
7
6.1 PROPOSED ACTION
Cumulative impacts are changes in the environment that result from the combined effects of the
proposed action or alternatives and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future (that is,
probable) actions, no matter which agencies implement the action. For purposes of this EIS/EIR,
the environmental setting describes the environmental effects of past human actions. In most
topic areas addressed in this EIS/EIR, build-out of the UCSD 2004 LRDP is the basis for
identifying foreseeable future development activity within the local area which would be affected
by implementation of the proposed action or alternatives. For the transportation analysis,
cumulative traffic levels are derived by adding traffic generated by the proposed action to
projections of local traffic levels in 2030 prepared by the Association of San Diego Area
Governments. Cumulative impacts are addressed in each topic area in Section 4 herein. The
proposed action would result in the following considerable environmental effects that would be
cumulatively significant:
Emissions of NOx, an ozone precursor, in a Federally designated non-attainment area for
ozone during construction of the new SWFSC
This EIS/EIR includes measures that would mitigate this cumulative effect, but those measures
would not be expected to reduce impact levels below standards of significance.
a
6.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Implementation of the no-action alternative would result in minimal environmental effects. The
most substantial impact would be the ongoing hazard to the beach west of the existing SWFSC
site due to the presence of Buildings B and C at the crest of the unstable, eroding bluff. That
hazard would be a potentially significant individual impact, but it would not add to a cumulative
significant impact caused by past, present, or probable future projects.
1
99
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
This page intentionally left blank.
ttttttttttttttt
100
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
7 CONCLUSION
This section lists significant environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the
proposed action or no-action alternative and would be either unavoidable or irreversible. NEPA
and CEQA regulations require this consideration.
7.1 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-PROPOSED
ACTION
Construction-period emissions of significant amounts of NOx (an ozone precursor) within a
Federally designated ozone non-attainment area, requiring preparation of a Federal conformity
determination.
.
7.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-PROPOSED ACTION
Removal of 1.71 acres of undisturbed and disturbed Diegan scrub shrub vegetation at the
preferred site, which will add to cumulative reduction of this vegetation community in the San
Diego area. The cumulative effect would be offset by the permanent preservation of Diegan
scrub shrub habitat at Skeleton Canyon on the UCSD campus.
Consumption of building materials and fuels during construction of the new SWFSC and
demolition of existing Buildings B and C.
7.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-NO-ACTION
ALTERNATIVE
Ongoing potential for catastrophic slope failure to deposit debris from Buildings B and Conto
the beach.
.
7.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS-NO-ACTION
ALTERNATIVE
• None.
7.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ACTION
Based on the impact analysis contained in this EIS/EIR, the no-action alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative. Considering alternatives other than the no-action
alternative, the proposed action is the environmentally superior alternative.
101
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
This page intentionally left blank.
102
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
8 LIST OF PREPARERS
This EIS/EIR was prepared by SRI International, Menlo Park, California, under contract to
NOAA. The following staff from SRI International contributed to this EIS/EIR:
Marcia Allen, M.A., University of California, Davis; B.A., University of California, Santa
Cruz; 25 years experience in technical publications development and management. Ms. Allen
served as technical editor for this EIS/EIR.
.
Patricia L. Burns, M.B.A., Santa Clara University, California; B.A., English and education,
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; over 33 years professional and management
experience. Ms. Burns served as Project Supervisor and technical reviewer for this EIS/EIR.
Anne Elston, B.S., biology with an emphasis in marine science, University of California,
Santa Cruz; over two years experience analyzing resource impact data, including marine
fishery and desert ecosystem data. Ms. Elston conducted resource analysis research for this
EIS/EIR.
>
.
Linda Hawke-Gerrans, A.A., technical illustration, College of San Mateo, California; 35 years
experience in technical illustration and 13 years experience in geographic information
systems. Ms. Hawke-Gerrans served as illustrator and geographic analyst for this EIS/EIR.
• James Manitakos, Jr., J.D., law, Peninsula University College of Law; M.A., geology,
University of California at Berkeley; B.A., geology and economics, Williams College,
Williamstown, Massachusetts; certificate in hazardous materials management, University of
California at Santa Cruz Extension; California Registered Environmental Assessor 1-07047;
25 years experience in environmental impact assessment and project management.
Mr. Manitakos served as Project Leader for this EIS/EIR.
Lynn Pazar, B.S., business administration, State University of New York College at Fredonia,
New York; over 20 years experience in administrative and project coordination. Ms. Pazar
served as report coordinator for this EIS/EIR.
• Christine Stensig, B.S., business management with minor in communication, College of Notre
Dame (now University of Note Dame de Namur), Belmont, California; over 30 years
experience in publications management, technical editing, and desktop publishing.
Ms. Stensig served as technical editor for this EIS/EIR.
The following technical reports were prepared by subcontractors and were used in the
preparation of this EIS/EIR:
Hydrology Analysis Report for Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) Relocation, La Jolla, California
Ann E. Redington, B.S., environmental engineering, San Diego State University; B.S.,
ornamental horticulture, University of Illinois; California Professional Engineer, License
Number 69329; six years professional experience performing environmental/hydrologic
studies. Ms. Redington served as author for the Hydrology Analysis Report.
Jennifer R. Bileck, M.E., environmental engineering, B.S., environmental engineering,
Old Dominion University; California Professional Engineer, License Number 69606;
.
103
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
.
>
seven years experience in water, wastewater, and storm water planning, and design and
construction of utilities, including water mains, wastewater gravity and force mains for
new, rehabilitation, and expansion projects. Ms. Bileck served as author for the Hydrology
Analysis Report.
Biological Technical Report for the Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) Relocation
Kate Gentles, M.S., environmental science and management, University of California,
Santa Barbara; B.A., biology, University of San Diego; over three years experience in
environmental studies in which she has served as Project Manager and Assistant Project
Manager in the preparation of documents for compliance with CEQA and NEPA.
Ms. Gentles prepared the Biological Technical Report, and assisted with the
presence/absence survey reports for the threatened California gnatcatcher.
Jim Rocks, M.S., biological sciences, Southern Illinois University; over nine years
biological experience in southern California, primarily in San Diego County. Mr. Rocks
served as lead biologist for this project, conducting field surveys, presence/absence
surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher, and reviewed the Biological Technical
Report and focused survey reports.
Traffic Impact Analysis, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, San Diego, California
Jose Nunez, Transportation Planner II, preparer
John P. Keating, P.E., Principal, supervisor
Cultural Resources Report for Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) Relocation, University of California at
San Diego, La Jolla, California
Susan Hector, Ph.D., identification of special activity areas at Late Prehistoric sites in San
Diego County, University of California, Los Angeles; over 30 years experience in the
prehistory and history of southern California, working with Local, State, and Federal
agencies on CEQA and NHPA compliance projects. Dr. Hector is Principal Investigator
and author of the Cultural Resources Report.
Michelle Dalope, attended San Diego State University, majoring in anthropology.
Ms. Dalope is an Associate Archaeologist and conducted the field survey for the Cultural
Resources Report. She has nine years experience.
P
ttttttttt
104
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA--Volume I
November 2008
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Pacific Southwest Region Geological Highway
Map, California-Nevada (1968).
Applied Consultants, Geologic Reconnaissance of Recent Rock Falls West of the Southwest
Fisheries Science Center Building, La Jolla, California (December 12, 1989).
Benumof, Benjamin T., Geologic Investigations Report of the Proposed Redevelopment of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (August 2000).
California Resources Agency, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, http://ceres.ca.gov
/topic/env_law/CEQA/guidelines/ (Accessed September 23, 2008).
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association), CEQA and Climate Change,
January 2008.
CARB, Transportation Conformity in a Nutshell (March 17, 2005).
CARB, Proposed Early Action to Mitigate Climate Change in California (April 20, 2007), p. 10.
CARB, Area Designation Maps / State and National, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
(accessed September 23, 2008).
Casper Company, Demolition Work Plan, Job: Southwest Division Bureau of Yards and Docks
Selective Demolition (July 27, 2005).
CEC (California Energy Commission), Global climate change: In support of the 2005 integrated
energy policy report (CEC-600-2005-007) (June 2005).
City of San Diego, La Jolla Community Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (2004).
City of San Diego Planning Department, Multiple Species Conservation Program
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/mscp/ (accessed May 6, 2008).
Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey
Guidelines (February 18, 1997).
Delawie Wilkes Rodrigues, and Barker Architects, Facility Program Documentation for La Jolla
Lab Consolidation Project at Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA (June 8,
2007).
Donahue, Meghan, Director of Administrative and Information Services, SWFSC, email to SRI
International (March 27, 2008a).
Donahue, Meghan, Director of Administrative and Information Services, SWFSC, email to SRI
International (April 14, 2008).
Dunne, T. and Leopold, L, Water in Environmental Planning (1978).
EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Volume I of II (October 2004).
105
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
EPA, Region 9 Scoping Response Letter (March 19, 2008a).
EPA Region 9, http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/defn.html#stationarysource (accessed
May 12, 2008b).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Diego, California, and
Incorporated Areas (June 19, 1997).
Feiner, Lance, La Jolla NPV Full Requirement (March 28, 2008).
Frank L. Hope & Associates, Construction of Laboratory Building for the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, San Diego, CA (February 21, 1963).
Group Delta Consultants, Inc., Concept-Level Design for Coastal Bluff Stabilization, National
Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California
(October 11, 1999).
Hector, Susan, Cultural Resource Report for Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) Relocation, University
of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California (January 2008a).
Hector, Susan, email from ASM Affiliates, SWFSC Cultural Survey (April 23, 2008b).
Hendrix, Michael and Cori Wilson, Alternative Approaches to Analyzing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents, June 29, 2007.
Ingram, Camilla, UCSD/SIO Planning Office, email to Mark Eberling, NOAA (July 29, 2008).
LLG (Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers), Traffic Impact Analysis Southwest Fisheries
Science Center San Diego, California (May 12, 2008).
National Park Service. NRIS Historic Properties Map, http://www.nr.nps.gov/NRISGEO
(accessed April 18, 2008).
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, http://www.rivers.gov/ (accessed April 22, 2008).
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Diego County Area, California,
Tabular Data Version (June 16, 2004).
PBS&J, Inc., Hydrologic Analysis Report for Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) Relocation, La Jolla,
California (January 2007).
PBS&J, Inc., Biological Technical Report for the Proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) (March 26, 2008).
President, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
income Populations,” Executive Order 12898; 59 Federal Register 7629 (February 11, 1994).
Rocks, Jim. Letter to Ms. Sandra Marquez, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Summary Report
of Focused, Protocol-Level Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica) Surveys (March 26, 2008).
SanGIS Map, http://www.sangis.org/ (accessed May 6, 2008).
mttttttttttt
ttttt
106
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA–Volume I
November 2008
SDAPCD (County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District), Attainment Status Fact Sheet,
July 2005.
SDAPCD, Regulation XIV, Appendix A - Insignificant Units,
www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SD/CURHTML/APPEND-A.htm (accessed September 23, 2008).
Shor, George, et al., The George H. Scripps Memorial Marine Biological Laboratory of Scripps
Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego (October, 1979).
SRI International, Definition of Alternatives: Future of the National Marine Fisheries Science
Center, La Jolla, California (October 2001).
SRI International, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Existing Southwest Fisheries Science
Center Site and Preferred University of California Site, San Diego, California (January
2006).
State of California, Special Studies Zone, La Jolla Quadrangle, Official Map (November 1,
1991).
Summit Technology and Kleinfelder, Inc. Geologic, Geotechnical, and Structural Engineering
Evaluation Report for Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California (April 1998).
UCSD, SIO Hillside Neighborhood Planning Study (1994).
UCSD, University Community Plan (2000).
UCSD, 2004 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) (2004a).
UCSD, 2004 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Environmental Impact Report (May
2004b).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, Technical Evaluation and Review of Coastal
Bluff Stability Study, National Marine Fisheries Service Science Center, La Jolla, California
(February 1999).
U.S. Census Bureau's American Fact Finder, http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed October 19,
2004).
107
Draft EIS/EIR for Relocation of NOAA SWFSC, La Jolla, CA-Volume I
November 2008
This page intentionally left blank.
LLULUHHHHHHHHHH
108
1
3 5556 038 326237
1
1
1
3
1
1