amendments to the 1994 long range development plan … · development plan (1994 lrdp) and 1994...

12/21/01 1

AMENDMENTS TO THE 1994 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ANDREVISIONS AND UPDATES TO THE 1994 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(THROUGH NOVEMBER 2001)

This appendix consolidates and summarizes changes made to the 1994 UC Davis Long RangeDevelopment Plan (1994 LRDP) and 1994 LRDP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) sinceThe Board of Regents of the University of California (The Regents) adopted the 1994 LRDPand certified the 1994 LRDP EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 94022005) in September 1994.This appendix will facilitate agency and public review of environmental documents forprojects currently under consideration on the UC Davis campus (the campus). Please visit theUC Davis Environmental Review website for current information on the campus LRDP, LRDPEIR, and subsequent amending and revising documents(http://www.ormp.ucdavis.edu/environreview/).

The 1994 LRDP identified general types of campus development and designated land usecategories to support campus growth anticipated through 2005-06. Figure 1 of this appendixpresents a campus map with the land use designations for year 2005-06 identified in the 1994LRDP, as amended. Definitions of these land use designations are presented in pages 45through 47 of the 1994 LRDP.

The 1994 LRDP EIR is a Program EIR for the campus prepared pursuant to Section 15168 ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Title 14, California Code ofRegulations, Sections 15000 et seq. The 1994 LRDP EIR analyzed environmental impactsassociated with full implementation of uses and physical development proposed under the1994 LRDP and identified measures to mitigate those impacts. Environmental documents forcampus projects are tiered from the 1994 LRDP EIR in accordance with CEQA and Section15152 of the CEQA Guidelines. Tiering refers to using analyses from the 1994 LRDP EIR,where appropriate, to address environmental issues associated subsequent projects that areconsistent with the growth identified in the 1994 LRDP.

Amendments to the 1994 LRDP result when a campus project is approved that differs fromthe land use assumptions made in the 1994 LRDP. Amendments to the 1994 LRDP, discussedbelow in the section titled "Amendments to the 1994 LRDP," consist primarily of land usedesignation changes (presented in Figures 2 and 3 of this appendix), which in turn result inchanges to the location and quantity of campus resources. Amendments to the 1994 LRDPwere identified in the 1997 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Replacement Project EIR(State Clearinghouse Nos. 95123027 and 96072024), the 1997-98 Major Capital ImprovementProjects Supplemental EIR (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 97122016), the Center for theArts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Tiered InitialStudy and Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 98092016), the USDAWestern Human Nutrition Research Complex Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration (State Clearinghouse No. 99092060), and the Segundo Improvements Project(State Clearinghouse No. 2001092063).

The analysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR is reevaluated when projects differ fromassumptions used in the 1994 LRDP EIR and/or when new information affects earlierassessments. Revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR, discussed in the section below titled"Revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR," may include changes to impacts and mitigation measures,as well as changes to the analyses presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR. The 1994 LRDP EIR wasrevised and updated by the documents listed above, as well as by the Veterinary MedicineLaboratory and Equine Athletic Performance Laboratory Facilities Focused Tiered EIR (StateClearinghouse No. 2000022057).

80

113

0 1,500 3,000 4,500750Feet

1 inch equals 1,500 feet LRDP Land Use 2005/06

November 2001

Legend

Academic/Administrative High Density

Academic/Administrative Low Density

Academic/Administrative High Density Enterprise Reserve

Academic/Administrative Low Density Enterprise Reserve

Community Gardens

Formal Open Space

Housing

Open Space Reserve

Open Space Teaching and Research

Parking

PE/ICA Recreation

Support

Teaching and Research Fields

Figure 1

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125

Miles

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).California State Plane System, zone 2 in feet.

1. 19.3 acres converted from Teaching and Research Fields to Support as part of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement Project in March 1997.2. 139.5 acres of Teaching and Research added as part of the La Rue Student Housing Project in July 1998.3. 10.5 acres of Open Space Teaching and Research added as part of the La Rue Student Housing Project in July 1998.4. 15.2 acres converted from Teaching and Research Fields to High Density Academic and Administrative with potential Enterprise Opportunity as part of the I-80 Enterprise Reserve Project in July 1998.5. 11.3 acres converted from Open Space Reserve to Housing as part of the La Rue Student Housing Project in July 1998.6. 0.7 acres converted from Undeveloped Open Space to Parking as part of the La Rue Student Housing Project in July 1998.7. 5.4 acres converted from Teaching and Research Fields to Low Density Academic and Administrative as part of the Core Greenhouse Facility and Bowley Plant Sciences Teaching Center Project in July 1998.8. 8.5 acres converted from Teaching and Research Fields to Parking as part of the Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Project in November 1998.9. 1.7 acres converted from Parking to High Density Academic and Administrative as part of the Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Project in November 1998.

10. 4.6 acres converted from High Density Academic and Administrative to to High Density Academic and Administrative with Potential Enterprise Opportunity as part of the Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Project in November 1998.11. 1.1 acres converted from High Density Academic and Administrative to Formal Open Space as part of the Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Project in November 1998.12. 3.2 acres converted from Parking to High Density Academic and Administrative as part of the Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Project in November 1998.13. 8.5 acres converted from Support to Teaching and Research Fields as part of the Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Project in November 1998.14. 2.2 acres converted from Parking to High Density Academic and Administrative (March 2001 approval expected).15. 3.2 acres converted from PE/ICA Recreation to Housing as part of the Segundo Commons Replacement Project in November 2001.

80

113

2

3

1

4

8

5

7

13

10

129

15

14

6

11

Academic/Administrative High Density

Academic/Administrative Low Density

Academic/Administrative High Density Enterprise Reserve

Formal Open Space

Housing

Open Space Teaching and Research

Parking

Support

Teaching and Research Fields

0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750Feet

Figure 2Land Use Designation Changes

Since 1994 - Main Campus

November 2001

1 inch equals 1,500 feet

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).California State Plane System, zone 2 in feet.

COUNTY ROAD 31

RUSSELL

RO

AD

95A

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

20 acres converted from Academic andAdministrative Low Density to Teachingand Research Fields as part of the Core

Greenhouse Facility and Bowley PlantSciences Teaching Center Project in

July 1998.

City of DavisCity of Davis

Legend

Site of Land Use Change

Russell Ranch

See Detailed Map Above

0 1 2 3 40.5Miles

November 2001

Figure 3Land Use Designation ChangesSince 1994 - Russell Ranch

12/21/01 9

Copies of the 1994 LRDP and LRDP EIR and all documents that address amendment andrevisions are available for review during normal operating hours at the UC Davis Office ofResource Management and Planning, 376 Mrak Hall on the UC Davis campus; at Reserves inShields Library on the UC Davis campus; at the Yolo County Public Library, 315 E. 14thStreet, Davis; at the Vacaville Public Library, 1020 Ulatis Drive, Vacaville; and online athttp://www.ormp.ucdavis.edu/environreview/ (technical appendices are not available online).

AMENDMENTS TO THE 1994 LRDP

The 1994 LRDP is amended when a project is approved that differs from the land useassumptions made in the 1994 LRDP. Amendments to the 1994 LRDP discussed belowconsist primarily of land use designation changes (presented in Figures 2 and 3), with relatedchanges in the location and quantity of campus resources.

WWTP Replacement Project EIR

The 1994 LRDP anticipated the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant on a site inthe west campus, west of County Road 98 and adjacent to the campus landfill. As a result ofplanning and feasibility studies and public meetings, the site for the facility was relocated tothe south campus. The following amendments to the 1994 LRDP were identified in theWWTP Replacement Project EIR (DEIR published in October 1996, FEIR published in March1997) to address this change (Appendix G, March 1997 Amendment to the 1994 LRDP andRevisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR, of the WWTP Replacement Project FEIR):

• Change approximately 20 acres of land in the south campus designated as Teaching andResearch Fields to Support

• Use 20 to 30 acres of privately owned land in the south campus as a proposed replacementpasture

• Delete Plan Objective 5 on page 72 of the 1994 LRDP

The WWTP Replacement Project EIR identified the change of the 19.3-acre replacementWWTP site from the land use designation of Teaching and Research Fields to Support. TheWWTP replacement site is located in the south campus in Solano County, east of Old DavisRoad and just south of the Union Pacific railroad tracks (see Number 1 in Figure 2 of thisappendix).

Prior to construction of the replacement WWTP, the project's site was used as pasture by theCalifornia Center for Equine Health and Performance (CCEHP). The WWTP replacementproject included a mitigation measure to use approximately 20 to 30 acres of privately ownedagricultural land located east of the CCEHP Main Compound (which is located adjacent andeast of the replacement WWTP) as replacement pasture. The privately owned parcel wasacquired and designated as Teaching and Research Fields through the 1997-98 Major CapitalImprovements Project as part of a 150-acre addition to the south campus (discussed below).This addition is shown in Numbers 2 and 3 of Figure 2. In accordance with the WWTPReplacement Project EIR, a portion of this addition is used as CCEHP replacement pasture.

Support System Plan Objective 5 on page 72 of the 1994 LRDP stated:

5. New wastewater treatment plant site. Identify a location for the new wastewatertreatment plant north of the proposed landfill expansion. Test the viability of sharedenvironmental benefits for landfill and wastewater operations at this site, such as the

12/21/01 10

pooling of methane gas by-products from each facility to create an energy source, or usingsome of the new plant capacity to treat groundwater contaminated by leaching from theexisting landfill.

As a result of feasibility and planning studies, the replacement WWTP site was relocated fromthe west campus to the south campus. Support System Plan Objective 5, no longer relevant tothe campus, was deleted.

1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Project SEIR

The 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Project SEIR assessed the environmental impactsassociated with four projects: 1) the Plant and Environmental Sciences Replacement Facility,2) the Core Greenhouse Facility and Bowley Plant Science Teaching Center, 3) the La RueStudent Housing, and 4) the I-80 and West Campus Enterprise Reserves project. The MajorCapital Improvement Project SEIR (DEIR published in March 1998, FEIR published in July1998) identified the following amendments to the 1994 LRDP (Appendix A, ProposedAmendment to the 1994 LRDP and Revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR, of the 1997-98 MajorCapital Improvement Project Final SEIR):

• Change 5.4 acres of land designated as Teaching and Research Fields to Low DensityAcademic and Administrative at the Core Greenhouse Facility and Bowley GreenhouseCenter site

• Change 20 acres of prime farmland at the Russell Ranch from Academic andAdministrative Low Density land use designation to Teaching and Research Fields

• Change 9.6 acres of Open Space Reserve, 0.9 acres of Undeveloped Open Space, and 0.8acres of Physical Education/Intercollegiate Athletics/Recreation (PE/ICA/Recreation) toland designated as Housing at the La Rue Student Housing site

• Change 0.5 acres of Undeveloped Open Space and 0.2 acres of PE/ICA/Recreation to landdesignated as Parking located immediately south of the La Rue Student Housing site

• Add a 150-acre parcel of agricultural land to the south campus and designateTeaching/Research Fields and Open Space Teaching and Research uses within the parcel

• Change 15 acres of land designated as Teaching and Research Fields and 0.5 acre of landdesignated as Low Density Academic and Administrative to High Density Academic andAdministrative with potential Enterprise Opportunity as part of the I-80 Enterprise ReserveProject

To accommodate the Core Greenhouse Facility and Bowley Center project, the Major CapitalImprovement Project SEIR identified the change of approximately 5.4 acres of land designatedin the 1994 LRDP as Teaching and Research Fields to Low Density Academic andAdministrative. The Bowley Center site is located north of Hutchison Drive, west of La RueRoad, and south of Extension Center Drive (see Number 7 in Figure 2).

The Major Capital Improvement Project SEIR also identified the addition of a 150-acre parcelof agricultural land located adjacent to the south campus, east of the California Raptor Centerand north of Putah Creek. The addition was part of the private development partnership forthe La Rue Student Housing project. The developer received a ground lease to construct andoperate the housing and, in exchange, the campus received new on-campus student housingand the 150-acre parcel. The portion of this parcel north of the levee (approximately 139.5

12/21/01 11

acres) was designated as Teaching and Research Fields (see Number 2 in Figure 2), and theportion south of the levee (approximately 10.5 acres) was designated as Open Space Teachingand Research (see Number 3 in Figure 2).

To accommodate the La Rue Student Housing project (the Colleges at La Rue), an 11.3-acreparcel of land located west of La Rue Road and north of the Recreation Pool was converted toland designated as Housing. This parcel included 9.6 acres of land designated in the 1994LRDP as Open Space Reserve, 0.9 acres of Undeveloped Open Space, and 0.8 acres ofPE/ICA/Recreation (see Number 5 in Figure 2). In addition, 0.5 acre of land designated in the1994 LRDP as Undeveloped Open Space and 0.2 acre of land designated as PE/ICA/Recreationlocated immediately south of the La Rue Student Housing site were converted to Parking (seeNumber 6 in Figure 2).

Approximately 20 acres of prime farmland and 31 acres of ruderal/annual grassland habitatwere lost as part of the Core Greenhouse Facility and Bowley Center (5.4 acres of primefarmland and habitat), the La Rue Student Housing (9.6 acres of habitat), and the I-80Enterprise Reserve Addition (15 acres of prime farmland and habitat) projects. The 1997-98Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR identified project-specific Mitigation Measure 5.3-2to redesignate approximately 20 acres of prime farmland at the Russell Ranch from Academicand Administrative Low Density to Teaching and Research Fields. Figure 3 in this appendixdepicts this land use change.

As part of the I-80 Enterprise Reserve Project, approximately 15 acres of land designated asTeaching and Research Fields and 0.5 acre of land designated as Low Density Academic andAdministrative were changed to High Density Academic and Administrative with potentialEnterprise Opportunity. This approximately 15.5 parcel is located in the I-80 EnterpriseReserve, situated between I-80 and the Union Pacific railroad tracks (see Number 4 in Figure2).

Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadways and ParkingImprovements Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

The Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and ParkingImprovements Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (published inNovember 1998) identified the following land use designation changes to those recognized inthe 1994 LRDP (Section 2, Project Description, of the Tiered Initial Study):

• Change 8.5 acres in the south entry area from land designated as Teaching and ResearchFields to Parking

• Change 1.7 acres in the south entry area from land designated as Parking to High DensityAcademic and Administrative with Potential Enterprise Opportunity

• Add Potential Enterprise Opportunity to 3.5 acres of High Density Academic andAdministrative and 1.1 acres of Parking

• Change 1.1 acres in the south entry area from High Density Academic and Administrativeto Formal Open Space

• Change 3.2 acres in the south entry area from Parking to High Density Academic andAdministrative

• Change 8.5 acres in the west campus from Support to Teaching and Research Fields

12/21/01 12

To accommodate the South Entry Parking improvements, an 8.5-acre parcel located south of theCenter for the Arts Performance Hall was changed from land designated in the 1994 LRDP asTeaching and Research Fields to Parking (see Number 8 in Figure 2).

Southeast of the Center for the Arts Performance Hall site, a 1.7-acre parcel was changed from landdesignated as Parking to High Density Academic and Administrative with Potential EnterpriseOpportunity (see Number 9 in Figure 2). This land use designation change was made toaccommodate anticipated future south entry projects, such as an academic building with visitorinterest (like a visual arts museum).

The Potential Enterprise Opportunity land use designation was added to 3.5 acres ofAcademic and Administrative and 1.1 acres of Parking located south of the EnvironmentalHorticulture buildings (see Number 10 in Figure 2). This designation addition was made inanticipation of future south entry projects (such as an academic building and/or a Hotel andConference Center).

To accommodate an Entry Quad located south of the Buehler Alumni and Visitors Center, 1.1 acreswas changed from High Density Academic and Administrative to Formal Open Space (see Number11 in Figure 2).

To accommodate future academic and administrative uses, 3.2 acres west of the Center for the ArtsPerformance Hall was converted from Parking to High Density Academic and Administrative (seeNumber 12 in Figure 2).

Approximately 8.5 acres of agricultural land and ruderal/annual grassland habitat were converted toland designated as Parking as part of the project. The Initial Study identified project-specificMitigation Measure 6 to convert approximately 8.5 acres of agricultural land and ruderal/annualgrassland habitat in the west campus from land designated as Support to Teaching and ResearchFields (page 29 in the Initial Study). The parcel (Number 13 in Figure 2) is located west of CountyRoad 98 and north of the campus landfill.

Western Human Nutrition Research Center Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration

The Western Human Nutrition Research Center Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration (published in October 1999) identified the following land use designationrevision to the 1994 LRDP (Appendix A, Proposed Amendments to the 1994 LRDP andRevisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR, of the Tiered Initial Study):

• Change 2.2 acres from land designated as Parking to High Density Academic andAdministrative

This 2.2 acre parcel, located in the campus Health Sciences District north of Parking Lot 53(see Number 14 in Figure 2), was converted from land designated as Parking to High DensityAcademic and Administrative to accommodate the Western Human Nutrition ResearchCenter.

12/21/01 13

Segundo Housing Improvement Projects

The Segundo Housing Improvement Projects Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration (published in October 1999) identified the following land use designationrevision to the 1994 LRDP (Page 33, Project-Specific Mitigation Measure 1, of the TieredInitial Study):

• Change 3.2 acres from land designated as Physical Education, Intercollegiate Athletics, andRecreation to Housing

To accommodate the new Segundo dining commons, this 3.2 acre parcel, located south of theSegundo housing area and north of Parking Lot 25 (see Number 15 in Figure 2), wasconverted from land designated as Physical Education, Intercollegiate Athletics, andRecreation to Housing.

REVISIONS TO THE 1994 LRDP EIR

The environmental analysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR is reevaluated when projectsrequire changes to land use designations identified in the 1994 LRDP and/or when newlyobtained information affects earlier assessments. Revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR, discussedbelow, include some changes to impacts and mitigation measures associated with 1994 LRDPbuildout. Revisions also include updated analyses of certain impact areas.

WWTP Replacement Project EIR

Because the WWTP replacement was located on a site not anticipated in the 1994 LRDP, theWWTP Replacement Project EIR reevaluated relevant impacts identified in the 1994 LRDPEIR.

The WWTP Replacement Project EIR updated the 1994 LRDP EIR Land Use analysis to reflectthe project's land use designation changes, which are described above under Amendments tothe 1994 LRDP (Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning, of the WWTP Replacement ProjectDEIR).

The WWTP Replacement Project EIR identified the loss of an additional 20 acres of primeagricultural land and ruderal/annual grassland habitat over the amount identified in the 1994LRDP EIR analysis. As a result, the magnitude of 1994 LRDP EIR Land Use and BiologicalResources impacts increased (Sections 4.4, Biological Resources, and 4.6, Land Use andPlanning, of the DEIR; and Appendix G, March 1997 Amendment to the 1994 LRDP andRevisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR, of the FEIR). Land Use impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-5 wererevised to include 20 additional acres of lost prime farmland. These Land Use impacts werenot revised further in subsequent documents.

Biological Resources impacts 4.7-1 through 4.7-5 and 4.7-9 were revised to include 20additional acres of lost ruderal/annual grassland habitat. These Biological Resources impactswere further revised by the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR, discussedbelow. Current 1994 LRDP EIR impacts and mitigation measures, as revised by the WWTPReplacement Project EIR, the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR, theVeterinary Medicine Laboratory and Equine Athletic Performance Laboratory FacilitiesFocused Tiered EIR, and the USDA Western Human Nutrition Research Complex TieredInitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are presented in Table 1 of this appendix.Although the WWTP Replacement Project EIR updated the acreage quantities of 1994 LRDPEIR Land Use and Biological Resources impacts, the overall level of significance of theseimpacts did not change and the associated 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures remained thesame.

12/21/01 14

The WWTP Replacement Project EIR reevaluated the 1994 LRDP EIR's Hydrology and WaterQuality and Hazardous Materials and Public Safety impacts with regard to the new WWTPreplacement site (Sections 4.1, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.3, Hazardous Materialsand Public Safety, of the DEIR). In addition, the WWTP Replacement Project EIR reevaluatedAir Quality impacts in light of a new Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that included therelocation of the WWTP site, a decrease in the number of on-campus pathological wasteincinerators from two to one, and the use a flare to control emissions from the campus landfill(Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR). However, the analysis showed no changes to theoverall levels of significance associated with Hydrology and Water Quality, HazardousMaterials and Public Safety, or Air Quality impacts.

1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR

The 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR reevaluated relevant 1994 LRDP EIRanalyses to reflect the project's amendments to the 1994 LRDP and newly obtainedinformation.

The SEIR updated the 1994 LRDP EIR Land Use analysis to reflect the project's land usedesignation changes, which are described above under Amendments to the 1994 LRDP (LandUse and Planning Sections 5.3, 6.3, 7.3 and Appendix A of the Draft SEIR).

The 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR identified the loss of an additional 20acres of prime agricultural land and 31 acres of ruderal/annual grassland habitat over theamount assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as amended by the WWTP Replacement Project EIR(Bowley Center Sections 5.3 and 5.5, La Rue Student Housing Sections 6.3 and 6.5, and I-80Enterprise Reserve Sections 7.3 and 7.5 of the Draft SEIR). To mitigate this loss, thedocument identified a measure to redesignate 20 acres of prime farmland and ruderal/annualgrassland habitat at the Russell Ranch from Academic and Administrative Low Density toTeaching and Research Fields. As a result, the acreage of prime agricultural land identified in1994 LRDP EIR Land Use impacts (as revised by the WWTP Replacement Project EIR)remained the same (Impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-5). The lost ruderal/annual grassland habitatidentified in 1994 LRDP EIR Biological Resources impacts (as revised by the WWTPReplacement Project EIR) increased by 11 acres (Impacts 4.7-1 through 4.7-5 and 4.7-9)(Appendix A of the Final SEIR). Biological Resources Impacts 4.7-1 through 4.7-5 and 4.7-9have not been revised further in subsequent documents. Current 1994 LRDP EIR impacts andmitigation measures, as revised by the WWTP Replacement Project EIR, the 1997-98 MajorCapital Improvement Projects SEIR, the Veterinary Medicine Laboratory and Equine AthleticPerformance Laboratory Facilities Focused Tiered EIR, and the USDA Western HumanNutrition Research Complex Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration arepresented in Table 1 of this appendix.

The 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR added Mitigation Measure 6.5-3 tofurther reduce the magnitude of 1994 LRDP EIR impact 4.7-3, which identified thecumulative loss of burrowing owl nesting habitat (agricultural land and ruderal/annualgrassland habitat) due to campus-related development (Section 2 Summary of the Draft SEIR).Because the 1994 LRDP EIR included mitigation measures that reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level, the associated level of significance remained the same. The mitigationmeasure stated:

6.5-3 In addition to compensating for the loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat byconverting approximately 55 acres of orchards adjacent to Putah Creek andapproximately 85 acres of agricultural lands east of County Road 95 to suitable habitatas identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-5, the Campus shall also

12/21/01 15

include cover types suitable for burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat on thesetwo sites in proportion to the habitat lost.

This mitigation measure was further revised by the USDA Western Human Nutrition ResearchComplex Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (discussed below andpresented as 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-3 (d) in Table 1).

The 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR also included an updated analysis oftransportation and circulation impacts (Section 8, Cumulative Impacts, pages 8-15 through 8-34 of the Draft SEIR). The 1994 LRDP EIR analysis assumed that the Richards Boulevardundercrossing would be widened from two to four lanes by the year 2005. However, aftercertification of the 1994 LRDP EIR, the City of Davis decided through a vote of the citizens tomaintain the two-lane corridor. The transportation analysis used in the 1997-98 MajorImprovement Projects SEIR reflected the City's decision. The analysis also included morerecent traffic counts and assumed the construction of a Conference Center and Hotel on thecampus. The results of the analysis indicated that the operating performance of sevenintersections would violate level of service standards (decrease to Level of Service (LOS) E orF during a.m. or p.m. peak hours) under the cumulative scenario. These intersectionsincluded:

• California Avenue and Old Davis Road (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours)

• A Street and Old Davis Road (LOS E during the p.m. peak hour)

• B Street and First Street (LOS F during the a.m. peak hour)

• Richards Boulevard and First Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours)

• Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours)

• Richards Boulevard and I-80 Eastbound Ramps (LOS E during the a.m. peak hour andLOS F during the p.m. peak hour)

• Richards Boulevard and Research Park Drive (LOS F during the p.m. peak hour)

The 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Project SEIR revised 1994 LRDP EIR MitigationMeasure 4.3-1 (b) (including physical intersection and roadway improvements) to reflect theCity's decision and the new traffic data (Section 2, Summary, pages 2-72 and 2-73 of the FinalSEIR). The SEIR concluded that implementation of revised Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b)would reduce traffic impacts to less-than-significant levels at four of the seven intersectionslisted above, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable at Richards Boulevardsand I-80 Eastbound Ramp, Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive, and Richards Boulevard andFirst Street. The overall level of significance associated with the 1994 LRDP EIR Level ofService impact remained the same, significant and unavoidable.

Revised Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b), presented in Table 1 of this appendix, established thatOld Davis Road should be realigned and the intersection of Old Davis Road and CaliforniaAvenue should be reconstructed as shown in the 1994 LRDP (whereas the 1994 LRDP EIRmitigation measure included an option for intersection reconstruction at the originallocation). The revised mitigation measure also directed the addition of one additional lane atthe intersection of I-80 Eastbound Ramps and Richards Boulevard (as opposed to the twoadditional lanes identified by the original mitigation measure). The revised mitigationmeasure included new improvements at the following two intersections: First and B Streets(signalization); and Olive Drive and Richards Boulevard (widen the eastbound Olive Driveapproach to provide a right turn lane, a right turn/through lane, and a left turn lane). The

12/21/01 16

following improvements identified in the original mitigation measure, no longer necessary forLevel of Service improvements, were not included in the revised measure: convert theintersections of SR 113 southbound ramp and Hutchison Drive, SR 113 northbound ramp andHutchison Drive, Old Davis Road and I-80 westbound ramp, and Old Davis Road and I-80eastbound ramp to all-way stop control; and install traffic signals at the intersections of D andFirst Streets and Road 98 and Covell Boulevard. The revised mitigation measure kept thefollowing requirements: modify the intersection of Research Park Drive and Richards/CowellBoulevard to provide a through/left turn lane and a right turn lane; and monitor a.m. and p.m.peak hour traffic at critical intersections at least every three years. A mitigation measureidentified in the Veterinary Medicine Laboratory and Equine Athletic Performance LaboratoryTiered EIR (discussed below) is presented in Table 1 as 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure4.3-1 (b) (f).

The SEIR reevaluated cumulative air quality impacts to reflect the new traffic analysis and anew HRA that included additional laboratory space and new locations for laboratory space notassessed in earlier HRAs. In addition, the SEIR reevaluated cumulative noise impacts toreflect the new traffic analysis (Section 8 of the Draft SEIR). However, no revisions weremade to the Air Quality and Noise impacts, mitigation measures, or associated levels-of-significance presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking ImprovementsTiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

The Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and ParkingImprovements Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration updated the 1994LRDP EIR Land Use assessment to reflect the project's land use designation changes, whichare discussed above under Amendments to the 1994 LRDP (page 29 of the Initial Study).While the Initial Study identified the loss of 8.5 acres of prime farmland and ruderal/annualgrassland habitat not previously assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR (as updated by the WWTPReplacement Project EIR and the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects EIR), aproject-specific mitigation measure changed approximately 8.5 acres of land designated asSupport to Teaching and Research Fields (Number 13 in Figure 2). Therefore, the magnitudeof Land Use and Biological Resources impacts remained the same (pages 29-30 and 64 of theInitial Study). The Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway andParking Improvements Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration did notidentify any other revisions to 1994 LRDP EIR impacts or mitigation measures.

The USDA Western Human Nutrition Research Complex Tiered Initial Study and MitigatedNegative Declaration

The USDA Western Human Nutrition Research Complex Tiered Initial Study and MitigatedNegative Declaration updated the 1994 LRDP EIR Land Use assessment to reflect the project'sassociated land use designation change, which is discussed above under Amendments to the1994 LRDP (page 24 of the Initial Study). The Initial Study reevaluated cumulative AirQuality impacts based on the USDA Western Human Nutrition Research Center UpdatedHealth Risk Assessment of Air Emissions, which included the project's new sources (pages 45-46 of the Initial Study).

The Initial Study modified the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects MitigationMeasure 6.5-3, which reduced the magnitude but not the level of significance of 1994 LRDPEIR Impact 4.7-3 (discussed above). The measure was revised to provide more flexibility inproviding suitable burrowing owl nesting habitat land at the Russell Ranch (page 65 of theFinal Initial Study) and is identified as 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-3 (d) in Table1:

12/21/01 17

6.5-3 In addition to the compensation for the loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitatidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-5, the Campus shall alsoconvert either the approximately 55 acres of existing orchards adjacent to Putah Creekat the Russell Ranch, or a portion of the 85 acre designated habitat restoration andresearch area to cover type suitable for burrowing owl nesting habitat.

Although Land Use, Air Quality, and Biological Resources analyses presented in the 1994LRDP EIR were reevaluated, the USDA Western Human Nutrition Research Complex TieredInitial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration did not identify revisions to 1994 LRDP EIRimpacts, mitigation measures, or associated levels of significance.

Veterinary Medicine Laboratory and Equine Athletic Performance Laboratory FacilitiesFocused Tiered EIR

The Veterinary Medicine Laboratory and Equine Athletic Performance Laboratory FacilitiesFocused Tiered FEIR (DEIR published in April 2000, FEIR published in July 2000) furtherupdated the 1994 LRDP EIR transportation and circulation impact analysis (as updated in the1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR) to account for: 1) more recent refinedestimates of campus population growth in the Health Sciences District, 2) campus and City ofDavis infrastructure changes, and 3) updated methodology from the 1997 TransportationResearch Board's Highway Capacity Manual.

Conducted in May 2000, the new cumulative traffic study indicated that four analyzedintersections would be projected to exceed LOS standards under the cumulative scenario:

• Richards Boulevard and First Street (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peakhours)

• Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive (LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peakhours)

• Richards Boulevard and I-80 Eastbound ramps (LOS E during a.m. peak hourand LOS F during the p.m. peak hour

• Health Sciences Drive and Hutchison Drive (LOS F during the p.m. peakhour)

The LOS impacts at Richards Boulevard and First Street, Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive,and Richards Boulevard and I-80 Eastbound ramps, which were previously identified assignificant, were determined no longer relevant due to campus and City of Davisinfrastructure changes. The study found that the intersection of Hutchison Drive and HealthSciences Drive would violate level of service standards by operating at a LOS F during thep.m. peak hours. The study also identified that signalization of the affected intersectionwould be a viable mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 was adopted to reduce thisLOS impact to a less-than-significant level (Section 3, Changes to the Draft EIR, pages 3-1 and3-2 of the FEIR).

3.1-2 The campus will monitor traffic volumes at the Hutchison Drive and HealthSciences Drive intersections every three years. If and when signalization iswarranted based on traffic volumes, the campus will install a new traffic signal atthis location.

This mitigation measure is identified as 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b) (f) inTable 1.

12/21/01 18

Segundo Housing Improvement Projects Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration

The Segundo Housing Improvement Projects Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration updated the 1994 LRDP EIR Land Use assessment to reflect the project's land usedesignation change, which is discussed above under Amendments to the 1994 LRDP (and onpages 33-34 of the project's Tiered Initial Study). The Segundo Housing ImprovementProjects Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration did not identify any revisionsto 1994 LRDP EIR impacts or mitigation measures.

LS=Less than Significant N/A=Not Applicable PS=Potentially Significant S=Significant SU=Significant Unavoidable

TABLE 1. REVISED SUMMARY OF 1994 LRDP EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

(Updated March 2001)

Impacts Level ofSignificance

prior toMitigation

Mitigation Measures Level ofSignificanceafter/withMitigation

4.1 Land Use1

4.1-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in the permanentloss of 180 acres for prime farmland from the State Department ofConservation's inventory.

SU 4.1-1 None feasible to avoid net loss. SU

4.1-2 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in the loss ofagricultural production on or adjacent to the campus.

LS 4.1-2 None required. N/A

4.1-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in thedevelopment of land uses considered incompatible with adjacent uses onor off the Campus.


4.1-4 LRDP buildout could conflict with local land use Plans and Policies. LS 4.1-4 None required. N/A

4.1-5 Cumulative development allowed under the 1994 LRDP on the Campusand in the City of Davis could convert approximately 1,207 acres of primeagricultural lands to urban uses.

SU 4.1-5 None feasible to avoid net loss. SU

4.2 Population, Employment and Housing

4.2-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could conflict with thepopulation projections or housing policies set forth in the City of DavisGeneral Plan.


1 Land Use impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-5 were revised by the Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement Project EIR.

TABLE 1. REVISED SUMMARY OF 1994 LRDP EIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, Page 2(Updated March 2001)


4.3 Traffic, Circulation, and Parking2

4.3-1 Increases in traffic volumes in relationship to the capacity of the futuretransportation network would result in level of service standardviolations.

SU 4.3-1(a) The Campus shall continue to actively pursue a program of TransportationSystem Management (TSM) strategies to reduce reliance on travel to andfrom Campus by private automobile, particularly single-occupant peakperiod travel. As described in the Setting section, the Campus currently hasan extensive TSM program. TSM strategies include the development of acomprehensive bicycle circulation network, including a bicycle/pedestrianprecinct in core area of Central Campus; increased parking fees; transitplanning and subsidies; carpool and vanpool matching service, anddevelopment and incentive program; campus shuttle systems, includingshuttles to UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento and UC Berkeley,public awareness programs, park and ride lot identification, andtelecommuting.

SU

4.3-1(b) In cooperation with other responsible jurisdictions, the campus shallmonitor a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic operations at criticalintersections in the campus vicinity on a regular basis (at least everythree years). To the extent that TSM measures are successful, someroadway improvements may be avoided. Based upon the existing campusmode share and trip generation rates assumed in this analysis, thefollowing physical improvements are intended to reduce the magnitudeof this impact.

(a) Realign Old Davis Road as shown on the LRDP and reconstructthe intersection of Old Davis and California Avenue. Provideseparate right and left turn lanes on the California Avenueapproach and a separate left turn lane on the eastbound OldDavis Road approach and install a traffic signal. The realignmentwill extend to the intersection of Old Davis Road and A Street.

(b) At intersection of I-80 Eastbound Ramps and RichardsBoulevard, add an additional turn lane on the ramp approach tothe intersection, to provide a left turn lane, combined right andleft turn lane, and a right turn lane.

(c) Restripe the southbound Research Park Drive approach to theintersection with Richards Boulevard/Cowell Boulevard toprovide a combined through/left turn lane and a separateexclusive right turn lane.

(d) Signalize the intersection of First and B Streets.

(e) Widen out the eastbound Olive Drive approach to the 2 Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b) was revised by 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b) (f) was introduced by Veterinary Medicine Laboratory and Equine Athletic Performance

Facilities Focused Tiered EIR (Project Mitigation Measure 3.1-2).



intersection of Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive, to provide aright turn lane, combined right turn through lane, and a left turnlane.

(f) The campus will monitor traffic volumes at the Hutchison Drive andHealth Sciences Drive intersection every three years. If and whensignalization is warranted based on traffic volumes, the campus willinstall a new traffic signal at this location.

4.3-2 Growth in population levels in the core area of the Central Campus wouldresult in increased conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, and transitvehicles, causing increased congestion and safety problems.

S 4.3-2 On a continuous basis, through implementation of the 1994 LRDP, theCampus shall regularly monitor and document pedestrian and bicycle activityin the core area of the Central Campus. If the increased activity indicates apossible disruption in patterns of circulation, or congested or unsafeconditions, plans shall be developed and implemented to provide additionalpedestrian and bicycle facilities, such as widenings, new facilities, separationof bicycles and pedestrians, extension of the bicycle / pedestrian precinct, andbicycle parking facilities, in response to this increased activity. The Campusshall also continue its current studies of transit operations within the corearea, to investigate the ability to minimize conflicts with transit vehicleswithout substantially reducing the desirability of transit services. The resultsof the studies shall be documented, and shall include specific measures tolessen transit conflicts, if any. If the studies show an increase in transitconflicts, some or all of the recommended measures to reduce such conflictsshall be implemented.

LS

4.3-3 Growth in population levels in areas other than the core area of the CentralCampus would result in increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic in areaswhich may not have adequate facilities for these modes of travel, causingpotential safety problems and increased reliance on motorized modes.

S 4.3-3 The Campus shall implement appropriate pedestrian and bicycle facilities aspart of the development of specific projects on Campus under the 1994LRDP. To aid in this effort, a pedestrian and bicycle facility phasing plan shallbe developed to anticipate growth throughout the implementation of theLRDP. This plan will be regularly updated as specific projects proceedthrough the planning process. The Campus shall also develop minimumstandards of pedestrian and bicycle access to remote facilities, includingconsideration of motorized vehicle volumes, operating speeds, and pedestrianand bicycle volumes.

LS

4.3-4 Development of high intensity academic and administrative uses allowedunder the 1994 LRDP southeast of Old Davis Road would result insubstantial pedestrian and bicycle activity across Old Davis Road from thecore area.

S 4.3-4 Before development of substantial additional academic and administrativeuses southeast of Old Davis Road on the Central Campus, the Campus shallprovide adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities and/or implement all or partof the Old Davis Road Realignment in a manner which substantially reducesbicycle and pedestrian conflicts with the Loop Road.

LS



4.3-5 Growth in population associated with development allowed under the1994 LRDP, as well as the Campus TSM efforts, would increase demandfor transit services.

S 4.3-5 The Campus shall continue to support public transportation services, and willwork with the City and other agencies to implement increased transit servicesin response to evolving campus needs. Such increased services would includeimproved Unitrans terminal facilities to accommodate increased ridership,developing new Unitrans routes and schedules to more effectively servetravellers, and improved coordination with other transit providers and modesof travel.

LS

4.3-6 Growth in population associated with development allowed under the1994 LRDP could increase parking demand, if correspondingimprovements in mode share do not occur.

S 4.3-6 The Campus shall continue to actively pursue TSM strategies to reduceautomobile travel and parking demand. The Campus shall review individualprojects under the 1994 LRDP to determine the adequacy of availableparking. Additional parking shall be provided if it is determined that:

(a) the winter parking utilization rate is over 90 percent in the CentralCampus, Medical Sciences Complex, or major facilities on the West andSouth Campus;

(b) the project would eliminate existing parking and increase the projectedutilization rate by more than 85 percent without permitting adequatetime (usually 24 months) to implement a parking solution; or

(c) the project would require additional parking due to projectedpopulation growth and increase the utilization rate over 90 percent,unless decreases in projected parking demand are expected tosubstantially counteract this trend.

LS



4.4 Noise

4.4-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would cause temporaryincreases in indoor and outdoor noise levels due to demolition,earthmoving and general construction activities.

S 4.4-1 For projects determined to have the potential to significantly affect nearbysensitive receptors, the Campus shall include in all construction contracts oneor more of the following noise reduction measures:

(a) Construction activities that would impact sensitive receptors in the Cityof Davis and Campus residences shall be limited to the hours between7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. onweekends;

(b) Stationary equipment shall be placed to direct emitted noise away fromsensitive noise receptors or placed within a noise attenuating structure;

(c) If feasible, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located at least100 feet from occupied academic, administrative, and residential areas;

(d) The loudest construction activities, such as demolition, shall bescheduled, if feasible, during summer, Thanksgiving, winter, and springbreaks when fewer people would be disturbed by construction noise;

(e) Potentially affected academic, administrative, and residential areas shallbe informed by letter a week before the start of each construction,demolition, or grading operation;

LS

and

(f) Construction equipment shall be properly outfitted and maintained withnoise reduction devices to minimize construction-generated noise. Significant noise-generating construction equipment shall be shielded bynoise-attenuating buffers such as structures or truck trailers when within100 feet of occupied academic, administrative, and residential areas.

4.4-2 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in operationalnoise increases due to stationary and area noise sources.




4.4-3 Occupants in structures developed under the 1994 LRDP could beexposed to significant noise levels from traffic, railroad, or other sources.

S 4.4-3(a) Prior to final project approval, the Campus shall evaluate each projectproposed under the 1994 LRDP for potential exposure to noise levelsexceeding 60 Ldn.

and

4.4-3(b) If individual projects would be exposed to noise levels between 60 Ldn

and 70 Ldn, the Campus shall undertake, and implement therecommendations of, a detailed analysis of noise reduction featuresnecessary to achieve an interior noise level of 45 Ldn. It is anticipatedthat conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh airsupply systems or air conditioning, would normally achieve thenecessary noise attenuation.

or

LS

4.4-3(c) If individual projects would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 70Ldn, the Campus shall implement one or more of the following noisereduction measures:

(i) install setbacks, sound walls, berms and/or use noise-attenuating site design to reduce exterior noise levels to lessthan 60 Ldn for residential and/or adjacent residential land useson Campus;

(ii) install setbacks, sound walls, berms, and/or noise-attenuatingsite design to reduce exterior noise levels to less than 70 Ldn foracademic and administrative land uses and adjacent academicand administrative land uses on Campus; and/or

(iii) employ adequate construction noise attenuation materials orsite design for residential areas on Campus so that the interiornoise level is 45 Ldn or less.



4.4-4 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction withcumulative growth in the Davis area, would result in increased traffic andother noise sources which could expose people and structures on- and off-campus to significant cumulative noise levels.

SU 4.4-4(a) The Campus shall evaluate each project proposed under the 1994 LRDP forits potential to create, or contribute to, noise levels which would exceedState of California general plan guidelines on campus, Solano Countygeneral plan guidelines within Solano County, Yolo County general planguidelines within Yolo County, City of Davis general plan guidelineswithin Davis, or Cal OSHA standards.

4.4-4(b) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 (a) through (c).

SU

4.4-4(c) (i) The Noise Element of the City of Davis General Plan includes land usenoise compatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-3. It is withinthe jurisdiction of the City of Davis to implement the policies andstandards found in the Noise Element.

(ii) The Noise Element of the Yolo County General Plan includes land usenoise compatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-2. It is withinthe jurisdiction of Yolo County to implement the policies and standardsfound in the Noise Element.

(iii) The Noise Element of the Solano County General Plan includes land usenoise compatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-4. It is withinthe jurisdiction of Solano County to implement the policies andstandards found in the Noise Element.



4.5 Air Quality

4.5-1 Construction activities as part of development allowed under the 1994LRDP could result in short-term generation of dust (PM10).

SU 4.5-1 The Campus shall include in all construction contracts the followingmeasures to reduce fugitive dust impacts.

(a) All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or otheracceptable Yolo-Solano AQMD dust control agents during dustgenerating activities to reduce dust emissions. Additional watering oracceptable APCD dust control agents shall be applied during dryweather or windy days until dust emissions are not visible.

(b) Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be covered to reduce wind blowndust and spills.

(c) On dry days, dirt or debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept upimmediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused byvehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall becleaned daily of construction related dirt in dry weather.

(d) On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.

SU

4.5-2 Construction activities as part of development allowed under the 1994LRDP would result in short-term emissions of ozone precursors.




4.5-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would generate increasedlevels of CO, O3 precursors (ROC and NOX), visibility reducing particlesand PM10 emissions.

SU 4.5-3(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-5.

4.5-3(b) The Campus shall acquire permits for stationary and area sources asrequired by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.

4.5-3(c) The Campus shall continue to convert its existing vehicle fleet, wherefeasible, to alternative fuel sources.

SU

4.5-4 The 1994 LRDP would relocate existing odor sources, including theCampus Wastewater Treatment Plant and confined animal facilities, fromthe Central Campus.


4.5-5 Campus occupants and Davis area residents would be exposed to toxic aircontaminants emitted from uses on the Campus proposed under the 1994LRDP.


4.5-6 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction withcumulative development in the region, would increase criteria pollutantemissions.

SU 4.5-6(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-3 (a) and (b).

4.5-6(b) The Sacramento Air Basin includes a large number of jurisdictions, includingthe greater Sacramento metropolitan area. In the Basin, air quality isregulated by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District,YSAQMD, and a number of other Air Pollution Control Districts. Pursuant torules, regulations, and policies of those AQMDs and APCDs, as well asadopted general plans throughout the Basin, it is within the jurisdiction ofeach local government or district to take actions to ensure compliance withthe federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act.

SU

4.5-7 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction withcumulative development in the region, would result in cumulative COconcentrations at intersections which would increase, but not exceed Stateor federal air quality standards.


4.5-8 Development allowed under the 1984 LRDP, in conjunction withcumulative development in the Davis area, may generate unacceptablecumulative toxic air contaminant health risks. Inadequate methods existto assess the magnitude of this impact, and it is therefore considered toospeculative to determine the precise level of significance.

SU 4.5-8 None currently available. SU



4.6 Hazardous Materials and Public Safety

4.6-1 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP would lead to an increase in hazardouschemical use at UC Davis that could expose Campus occupants topotential health or safety risks.

PS 4.6-1(a) The Campus shall strengthen programs to improve compliance with thelaws and regulations applicable to the use of hazardous materials. Suchefforts would include specific steps aimed at improving health and safetyconditions by increasing the resources devoted to implementation of lawsand regulations regarding the use of hazardous materials. This increasewould support an improved, ongoing, satisfactory level of compliance. Specific actions would include, but would not be limited to, the following:

(i) Community Right-to-Know and Business Plan - Increasing theresources devoted to implementing Community Right-to-Know andBusiness Plan requirements, as needed, to supplement the existingprogram for the purpose of meeting current and future local, state,and federal data reporting requirements. This change would allowbetter tracking and reporting of non-radioactive chemical hazardousmaterials on campus, would provide critical information to on-campus and off-campus emergency response service providers incase of a chemical emergency, and would expand current safetytraining programs to minimize accident risks.

(ii) Injury and Illness Prevention, Chemical Hygiene, and EmergencyActions Plans -Increasing the resources and improving themechanisms needed (1) to finish developing these plans, and (2) toassure that these plans are adequately implemented and maintained,including training and emergency planning.

(iii) Waste Minimization - Establish the position of Waste MinimizationCoordinator to update the existing hazardous waste minimizationplan, to implement the revised plan, and to evaluate the feasibility ofother waste minimization programs such as waste minimizationthrough treatment and recycling.

LS

4.6-1(b) The Campus shall establish a self-audit mechanism and a reportingsystem to document the compliance status of campus departments andunits.

4.6-1(c) Biennial health and safety audits shall be conducted by individualsindependent of the Campus.



4.6-2 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP could lead to an increase in thegeneration of hazardous chemical waste at UC Davis that could exposecampus occupants to potential health or safety risks.

PS 4.6-2(a) Implement the following steps at the existing hazardous materialsaccumulation facility to reduce risks to health, safety, and theenvironment in the interim, before a new facility is built.

• Ventilation exhaust fans would be added to the flammable liquidstorage bin where non-Dot containers are accumulated prior topackaging. As an alternative, a Certified Industrial Hygienist wouldprepare a plan to ensure the safety of workers who would enter thestorage bin, and UC Davis would implement the plan. One elementof the plan could be to use supplied-air breathing apparatuses whenentering the cargo container. A worker exposure monitoringprogram would also be included in the plan.

LS

• As identified in Mitigation Measure No. 1, a Waste MinimizationCoordinator position would be established. The result would be agradual reduction in the volume of waste produced by existingfacilities and a reduction in the volume expected to be produced atnew facilities.

• An increase in resources (staff and funds) sufficient to improveoperational controls, including, but not limited to, monthly safetyand compliance audits and improved training at the facility. Thischange would (1) allow faster processing of wastes for shipment totreatment facilities or disposal, reducing the time hazardouschemical and radioactive wastes are on campus and (2) ensure thatsafety controls such as OSHA training, correct practices, and safetyequipment are in place.

4.6-2(b) The Campus shall complete and occupy the proposed EnvironmentalServices Facility and close the current environmental services facility.

4.6-2(c) The Campus shall manage hazardous waste generated by projects approvedunder the 1994 LRDP through a non-campus facility. These future wastesshall not be taken to the existing hazardous waste accumulation facility. Instead, after the wastes are collected by EH&S, an outside contractor shallpick up the wastes from the loading docks of the buildings where the wasteis produced and the contractor shall handle disposal.

4.6-2(d) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a), which would require the Campusto create a Waste Minimization Coordinator position to implement theCampus Hazardous Waste Minimization Plan.

4.6-3 Increased use of hazardous chemical materials related to cumulativedevelopment in the region would increase the number of people exposedto health hazards associated with such use.

SU 4.6-3 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c). SU



4.6-4 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction with other developmentin the region that generates hazardous chemical waste, could place anadditional load on hazardous waste management facilities.

SU 4.6-4(a) The Campus Waste Minimization Coordinator (to be established as part ofmitigation measure 4.6-1(a)), shall update and implement existinghazardous waste minimization plan. The updated plan shall addresshazardous waste generated by 1994 LRDP projects and shall specifyfeasible administrative and technical approaches to reduce the amount ofhazardous waste generated on campus.

4.6-4(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-2(a) through (c).

SU

4.6-5 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP could lead to an increase in radioactivematerial use at UC Davis, which could expose Campus occupants topotential health or safety risks.

PS 4.6-5(a) The Campus shall strengthen its health physics program commensuratelywith changes in the hazards associated with campus radioactive materialsuse.

4.6-5(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c).

LS

4.6-6 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP would lead to an increase in thegeneration of radioactive waste at UC Davis that could expose campusoccupants to potential health or safety risks.

PS 4.6-6(a) The Campus shall complete and occupy the proposed EnvironmentalServices Facility and close the current environmental services facility.

4.6-6(b) The Campus shall manage radioactive waste generated by projectsapproved under the 1994 LRDP through a non-campus facility. Thesefuture wastes shall not be taken to the existing hazardous wasteaccumulation facility. Instead, after the wastes are collected by EH&S, anoutside contractor shall pick up the wastes from the loading docks of thebuildings where the waste is produced and the contractor shall handledisposal.

4.6-6(c) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a), which would require the Campusto create a Waste Minimization Coordinator position to implement theCampus Hazardous Waste Minimization Plan.

4.6-6(d) The Campus shall prepare and implement a campus-wide radioactivewaste minimization plan that shall specify feasible programs to reducegeneration of low-level radioactive wastes and mixed wastes. To ensurethe plan shall be implemented, the Campus shall provide the resourcesrequired by the plan.

LS

4.6-7 Increased use of radioactive materials related to cumulative developmentin the region would increase the number of people exposed to healthhazards associated with the use of radioisotopes.

SU 4.6-7 Prior to occupying the first project approved following adoption of the1994 LRDP that involves the use of radioactive materials implementMitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c) and 4.6-5(a).

SU

4.6-8 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction with other developmentin the region that generates radioactive waste, would place an additionalload on radioactive waste management facilities.

SU 4.6-8 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) and 4.6-6(a) through (d). SU



4.6-9 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP could lead to an increase inbiohazardous materials use at UC Davis that could expose Campusoccupants to potential health or safety risks.

PS 4.6-9 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c). Injury and IllnessPrevention plans identified in elements of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a)(ii)would specifically focus on: minimizing skin penetration incidents andother exposure to biohazardous materials; proper disposal of biohazardousmaterials in the lab including proper use of sharps containers; and properoperation of autoclaves. Waste minimization plans identified in MitigationMeasure 4.6-1(a)(iii) would include elements to minimize generation ofbiohazardous (medical) waste. Self-audits and biennial independent auditsidentified in Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(b) and (c) will include audits of theuse and handling of biohazardous materials.

LS

4.6-10 The LRDP would increase the use of laboratory animals at UC Davis,thereby increasing the risk of animal bites, escapes, and diseasetransmission.

PS 4.6-10 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) though (c) Elements of theseInjury and Illness Prevention Plans identified Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a)(ii) specifically focus on minimizing the risk of animal bites anddisease transmission.

LS

4.6-11 Development under the 1994 LRDP could lead to an increase in thegeneration of medical (biohazardous) waste at UC Davis that could exposeCampus occupants to potential health or safety risks.

LS 4.6-11(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-9.

4.6-11(b) Prior to occupying any building approved under the LRDP where medicalwaste may be generated, the Campus will provide a building-specific planfor disposal of medical waste, including description of waste treatment, andotherwise comply with requirements of the California Medical WasteManagement Act applicable to the facility.

4.6-11(c) The Campus will continue its efforts to comply with all applicableprovisions of the California Medical Waste Management Act, and will workclosely with DHS to ensure satisfactory compliance.

LS

4.6-12 Increased use of biohazardous materials and research animals related tocumulative development in the region would increase the number ofpeople exposed to health hazards associated with such use.

SU 4.6-12 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-9 and 4.6-10. SU

4.6-13 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction with other developmentin the region that generates medical waste, would place an additional loadon available medical waste management facilities.


4.6-14 Increasing the campus population under the 1994 LRDP would increasethe number of individuals exposed to physical safety hazards on campus.

LS 4.6-14 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c). LS

4.6-15 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction with other developmentin the region, would increase the number of individuals exposed tophysical safety hazards.

LS 4.6-15 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c). LS



4.6-16 Construction activities under the 1994 LRDP could expose campusoccupants and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater.

PS 4.6-16(a) During the site selection process for each site to be developed under the1994 LRDP, the Campus shall determine the need to have the site andadjacent areas investigated for the presence of hazardous materials orwastes by completing a "due diligence checklist."

LS

4.6-16(b) In the event that site inspections find evidence of chemicalor radioactive contamination, waste discharges,underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or otherenvironmental impairment at locations to be developed or inthe project area, the Campus shall prepare a site remediationplan that shall (1) specify measures to be taken to protectworkers and the public from exposure to potential sitehazards and (2) certify that the proposed remediationmeasures would clean up the contaminants, dispose of thewastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal,state, and local requirements. Commencement of work inthe areas of potential hazard shall not proceed until the siteremediation plan has been completed. Depending on thenature of any contamination, appropriate agencies shall benotified (e.g., the CVRWQCB for groundwatercontamination and the DTSC for soil contamination [or theappropriate County Environmental Health Department]). Provisions of the site remediation plan would be adopted bythe Campus as part of future projects.

4.6-16(c) A site health and safety plan, in compliance with OSHA requirements, shallbe developed by the Campus and in place prior to commencing work onany contaminated sites.

4.6-17 Development of potentially contaminated sites on Campus as part of the1994 LRDP, in combination with other, adjacent development, could posecumulative health and safety threats to site workers and the public.

SU 4.6-17 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-16(a) through (c). SU



4.6-18 The demolition or renovation of buildings under the 1994 LRDP couldexpose campus occupants and construction workers to contaminatedbuilding materials.

PS 4.6-18(a) During the site selection process for each site to be developed under the1994 LRDP, the Campus shall determine the need to have existingbuildings on each site investigated for the presence of hazardous materialsor wastes by completing a "due diligence checklist."

If further investigation is warranted, the investigation shall be carried outby a Registered Environmental Assessor (i.e., a professional environmentalscientist or engineer registered in California) or a registered engineer. Theinvestigations shall be environmental audits, which shall include, atminimum, site inspections for hazardous materials, examination of historicrecords for evidence of hazardous materials use, interviews with campuspersonnel, and review of campus records for evidence of contamination.

LS

For each site audit, the qualified person shall prepare a report detailing theresults of the inspection and submit it to appropriate Campus offices. Thereport preparer shall either certify that the site is free of hazards,recommend further investigations, or recommend preparing a sitemitigation plan. After reviewing and accepting the report, reviewing officesshall submit it to the Planning and Budget Office (the office responsible forsite selection and environmental review on campus) with theirrecommendations. The Campus shall ensure that inspection reports arecompleted prior to excavation or construction at the development site.

4.6-18(b) In the event that site inspections find evidence of chemical or radioactivecontamination in buildings at sites to be developed, the Campus shallprepare a site remediation plan that shall (1) specify measures to be takento protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazardsand (2) certify that the proposed remediation measures would clean up thecontaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public health inaccordance with federal, state, and local requirements. Commencement ofwork in the areas of potential hazard shall not proceed until the siteremediation plan has been completed. Depending on the nature of anycontamination, appropriate governmental agencies shall be notified. Provisions of the site remediation plan would be adopted by the Campus aspart of future projects.

4.6-18(c) A site health and safety plan, in compliance with OSHA requirements, shallbe developed by the Campus and in place prior to commencing work onany contaminated sites.

4.6-19 Demolition or renovation of buildings under the 1994 LRDP, incombination with demolition or renovation related to other, adjacentdevelopment, could pose cumulative health and safety threats to siteworkers and the public.




4.6-20 Additional hazardous materials transported to, from, and among UC Davisfacilities as a result of development under the 1994 LRDP could exposepeople to potential health risks in the event of an accidental release.

LS 4.6-20(a) When transporting unwanted hazardous materials generated at new on-campus and off-campus facilities to the Campus Environmental ServicesFacility, the Campus shall use containers approved by the Department ofTransportation or in unbreakable secondary containment containers withlids that seal to prevent a release if tipped over.

4.6-20(b) The Campus shall reseal all containers opened at Environmental Healthand Safety or Central Stores prior to transporting them to campus users.

LS

4.6-21 Additional hazardous materials transported in the Davis region, includingto and from the Campus, could contribute to increased cumulative risk ofexposure of people to health risks due to an accidental release.


4.6-22 Increased campus operations using hazardous materials resulting fromdevelopment under the 1994 LRDP could exceed emergency responsecapabilities at UC Davis.

S 4.6-22(a) The Campus emergency response team shall be adequately trained andequipped to respond to hazardous materials emergencies prior tooccupancy of the first 1994 LRDP project approved that could requirehazardous materials emergency response capabilities. The Campus shallprovide sufficient resources to respond to a Level A hazardous materialsincident (the most hazardous level), in coordination with the City of Davisif necessary.

4.6-22(b) The Campus shall prepare (or update) safety planning documents inaccordance with applicable laws, regulations, and campus policies prior tooccupying facilities constructed under the 1994 LRDP. The Campus shallimplement safety training programs upon occupying each new building.

LS

4.6-22(c) Departments and Principal Investigators shall prepare Injury and IllnessPrevention Plans, Laboratory Chemical Hygiene Plans, and EmergencyAction Plans for all new buildings, as necessary. These plans would bereviewed and approved by the Campus for each department and eachPrincipal Investigator or Laboratory Director to be located at any particularnew building before the department or laboratory would be permitted tooccupy the new space.



4.6-22(d) The Campus shall address emergency planning and safety training for theoccupants of new buildings constructed under the 1994 LRDP by assigninga Building Safety Coordinator for each building. These staff wouldcoordinate emergency response planning and implementation efforts forthe building and implement required Cal/OSHA regulations related todeveloping an evacuation plan. For example, emergency drills would becoordinated such that all of the building's occupants would participate atthe same time, regardless of their departmental affiliation. The evacuationplan and emergency response plans would provide general guidelines andprocedures to be followed during emergencies and disasters. The planswould address the removal of occupants and the establishment oftemporary meeting areas in the event of an emergency. As part ofimplementing the plans, project occupants would be adequately trained toimplement the plans as well as all other required safety procedures.

4.6-22(e) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c).

4.6-23 The increased campus operations to be developed under the 1994 LRDP,in conjunction with anticipated growth in the City of Davis, couldcontribute to cumulative demand for emergency response capabilities inthe Davis area.

SU 4.6-23 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-22(a). SU

4.6-24 Hazardous materials used at facilities developed under the 1994 LRDPmay be inadvertently released to the sewer or disposed of with non-hazardous solid waste.

S 4.6-24(a) The Campus shall comply with the revised Waste Discharge Requirements,particularly the requirement to establish a Pretreatment Program.

4.6-24(b) The Campus shall provide the resources needed for implementing a wasteexclusion program.

LS



4.7 Biological Resources3

4.7-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in theconversion of approximately 231 acres of Agricultural Lands andAnnual/Ruderal Grassland to Campus-related development and couldresult in the loss of the special-status plant species listed in Table 4.7-1 oradded to the special-status plant list in the future.

PS 4.7-1(a) During the project planning phase, the Campus shall conduct a rare plantsurvey if the site was previously undeveloped. Surveys shall be conductedby qualified biologists in accordance with the most current DFG/USFWSguidelines or protocols and shall be conducted at the time of year when theplants in question are identifiable. (Identification periods are included inTable 4.7-1, however, survey timing for the various plant species isdependent in part on yearly rainfall patterns and is determined on a case-by-case basis).

4.7-1(b) Based on the results of the survey, prior to design approval, the Campus inconsultation with DFG and/or USFWS, shall determine whether the projectwould result in a significant impact to any special-status plant species. Evaluation of project impacts shall consider the following:

n The status of the species in question (e.g., officially listed by the Stateor Federal Endangered Species Acts, candidate species, CNPS list).

n The relative density and distribution of the on-site occurrence versustypical occurrences of the species in question.

n The habitat quality of the on-site occurrence relative to historic,current or potential distribution of the population.

LS

If these surveys reveal no occurrences of any species, or if the Campus inconsultation with DFG or USFWS determines that no significant impactson any special-status plant species would result from projectimplementation, then no further mitigation would be required.

Should one or more of special-status plant species occur on the project site,and a determination of significant impact be made, the following mitigationmeasure shall be required.

4.7-1(c) Prior to design approval, the Campus in consultation with the DFG and/orthe USFWS, shall prepare and implement a mitigation plan, in accordancewith any applicable State and/or Federal statutes or laws, that reducesimpacts to a less-than-significant level.

3 Biological Resources impacts 4.7-1 through 4.7-5 and 4.7-9 were revised by the Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement Project EIR and the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Project SEIR. Mitigation Measure

4.7-3(d) was introduced in the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR and revised in the USDA Western Human Nutrition Research Complex Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration(Project Mitigation Measure 6.5-3).



4.7-2 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in theconversion of approximately 231 acres of Agricultural Land andRuderal/Annual Grassland to Campus-related development and wouldresult in the loss of 231 acres of general wildlife habitat for resident andmigratory species.


4.7-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in theconversion of approximately 231 acres of Agricultural Land andRuderal/Annual Grassland habitat to Campus-related development andcould result in the loss of burrowing owl nesting habitat.

PS 4.7-3(a) The Campus shall continue to monitor the area around the MedicalSciences Complex for the presence or absence of burrowing owls.

4.7-3(b) The Campus, in consultation with the DFG, shall conduct a pre-construction breeding-season survey (approximately February 1 throughAugust 31) of proposed project sites during the same calendar year thatconstruction is planned to begin. The survey shall be conducted by aqualified biologist to determine if any burrowing owls are nesting on ordirectly adjacent to any proposed project site.

If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposed project,the results of the above survey shall be valid only for the season when it isconducted.

LS

4.7-3(c) During the construction stage, the Campus in consultation with the DFG,shall avoid all burrowing owl nest sites potentially disturbed by projectconstruction during the breeding season while the nest is occupied withadults and/or young. The occupied nest site shall be monitored by aqualified biologist to determine when the nest is no longer used. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a 300-foot to 500-footdiameter non-disturbance buffer zone around the nest site. Disturbance ofany nest sites shall only occur outside of the breeding season and when thenests are unoccupied based on monitoring by a DFG approved biologist. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporaryconstruction fencing.

Based on approval by DFG, pre-construction and pre-breeding seasonexclusion measures may be implemented to preclude burrowing owloccupation of the project site prior to project-related disturbance.

4.7-3(d) In addition to the compensation for the loss of Swainson's hawk foraginghabitat identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-5, theCampus shall also convert either the approximately 55 acres of existingorchards adjacent to Putah Creek at the Russell Ranch, or a portion ofthe 85 acre designated habitat restoration and research area to cover typesuitable for burrowing owl nesting habitat.



4.7-4 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in theconversion of approximately 231 acres of Agricultural Land andRuderal/Annual Grassland habitat to Campus-related developmentwhich could result in the loss of nesting habitat for raptors (birds-of-prey).

PS 4.7-4(a) The Campus shall conduct a pre-construction or pre-tree pruning orremoval survey of trees greater than 30-feet tall (proposed activity) duringthe raptor breeding-season (approximately March 1 through August 31). The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the samecalendar year that the proposed activity is planned to begin to determine ifany nesting birds-of-prey would be affected.

If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposed activity,the results of the above survey shall be valid only for the season when it isconducted.

LS

4.7-4(b) The Campus shall continue to conduct annual surveys to determine thelocation of nesting Swainson's hawks on the Campus. If nestingSwainson's hawks are found during the survey at a previously unknownlocation within one-half mile of a project site and not within 100 yards of apreviously documented site, the Campus shall, prior to projectconstruction, contact the California Department of Fish and Game todetermine the potential for disturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks andwill implement feasible changes in the construction schedule or otherappropriate adjustments to the project in response to the specificcircumstances.

If, after five years, a previously recorded nest site remains unoccupied by aSwainson's hawk, it will no longer be considered as a Swainson's hawk nestsite subject to this mitigation.

4.7-5 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in theconversion of approximately 231 acres of Agricultural Land andRuderal/Annual Grassland habitat to Campus-related developmentwhich would result in the loss of foraging habitat for the Swainson'shawk.

S 4.7-5 As Agricultural Land and Ruderal/Annual Grassland is converted toCampus development under the 1994 LRDP, the Campus will compensatefor the loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat at a 1:1 ratio of acres lostto acres preserved through the implementation of one or a combination ofthe following methods.

n Approximately 40 acres of Cropland habitat in the "C" tractadjacent to the Putah Creek Reserve on the West Campus willremain Campus agricultural research uses but will be under landuse restrictions that will ensure cropland cover types that aresuitable as Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. No incompatibleuses such as orchards, vineyard, or development will be allowed inthe areas set aside for Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. However,normal crop rotations may periodically result in unsuitable covertypes of annual crops.

LS



n Approximately 20 acres of land within the North Fork Cutoff thatcurrently support livestock enclosures will be restored to awoodland and grassland habitat.

n Approximately 55 acres of existing orchards adjacent to PutahCreek at the Russell Ranch will be removed, converted to a covertype suitable for Swainson's hawk foraging, and added to the PutahCreek Reserve.

n Approximately 85 acres at the Russell Ranch that have beendesignated as a habitat restoration and research area will includethe establishment of cover types that are suitable Swainson's hawkforaging habitat.

4.7-6 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in the potentialfailure of Swainson's hawk nesting efforts.

PS 4.7-6(a) The Campus shall conduct a pre-construction breeding season survey ofthe proposed project site, and within a one-half-mile radius of the site, todetermine the presence or absence of any nesting Swainson's hawks.

If any Swainson's hawks are nesting within a one-half-mile radius of theproject site, the Campus shall, in consultation with DFG, determine thepotential for disturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks and will implementfeasible changes in the construction schedule or other appropriateadjustments to the project in response to the specific circumstances.

LS

4.7-6(b) The Campus shall continue to conduct annual surveys to determine thelocation of nesting Swainson's hawks on and within ½-mile of the Campus. If nesting Swainson's hawks are found during the survey at a previouslyunknown location within one-half mile of a project site and not within 100yards of a previously documented site, the University shall, prior to projectconstruction, contact the California Department of Fish and Game todetermine the potential for disturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks andwill implement feasible changes in the construction schedule or otherappropriate adjustments to the project in response to the specificcircumstances.

If, after five years, a previously recorded nest site remains unoccupied by aSwainson's hawk, it will no longer be considered as a Swainson's hawk nestsite subject to this mitigation.



4.7-7 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in the loss ofpotential habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

PS 4.7-7 During the project design stage and as a condition of project approval, theCampus shall:

(a) Conduct a project-specific survey for all potential VELB habitat,including a stem count and an assessment of historic or current VELBuse;

(b) Avoid and protect all potential VELB habitat within a natural openspace area where feasible; and

(c) Where avoidance is infeasible, develop and implement a VELBmitigation plan in accordance with the most current USFWSmitigation guidelines for unavoidable take of VELB habitat pursuantto either Section 7 or Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered SpeciesAct.

LS

4.7-8 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in the loss oradverse modification of wetlands or other waters of the U.S. that fallunder the jurisdiction of the Corps and/or DFG.

PS 4.7-8(a) During the project design phase, the Campus shall conduct a wetlanddelineation of the project site. The wetland delineation shall be verified bythe Corps.

4.7-8(b) The Campus shall obtain an individual permit, written authorization underan existing nationwide permit, or a written response stating that no furtheraction is required, from the Corps prior to the filling or other adversemodification of any Corps' verified delineated wetland habitats.

4.7-8(c) The Campus shall submit an application for a Streambed AlterationAgreement to DFG at least 30 days prior to any alteration, filling, ormodification of the channel, bed, or bank of Putah Creek, South ForkPutah Creek, or any other natural drainage with a distinct channel.

LS

4.7-9 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would contribute 231 acres ofthe cumulative loss in the region of 1,258 acres of Agricultural Land andRuderal/Annual Grassland habitat for resident and migratory wildlifespecies.

SU 4.7-9(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7-1, 4.7-3, 4.7-4, 4.7-5, and 4.7-6.

4.7-9(b) The County of Yolo, when implementing the County-wide HabitatManagement Plan, should impose a 1:1 mitigation ratio of habitatpreserved to that converted on all development projects within theirjurisdiction that convert Agricultural Land and Annual Grassland habitat tourban development.

SU

4.7-10 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could contribute to thecumulative loss of valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat.

SU 4.7-10 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7-7 (a), (b), and (c). SU



4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.8-1 Development allowed the 1994 LRDP in the West Campus could belocated in the 100-year flood plain, exposing employees, students andvisitors to flood hazards.


4.8-2 New impervious surfaces associated with development allowed under the1994 LRDP would increase surface runoff, and could exceed existingdrainage capacity and result in localized flooding.

S 4.8-2(a) Prior to approval of final project design, the Campus shall prepare adetailed drainage study to evaluate each specific development projectunder the 1994 LRDP to determine if project runoff would exceed thecapacity of the existing campus storm drainage system.

4.8-2(b) If it is determined that existing drainage capacity would be exceeded, aspart of final project design the Campus shall design and implementnecessary and feasible improvements to minimize the occurrence oflocalized flooding. Such improvements could include, but would not belimited to the following:

(i) The expansion or modification of the existing storm drainagesystem. Site runoff could be controlled by upgrading the existingfacilities, such as the expansion, or installation of additional stormdrain lines, or pumps.

LS

(ii) Single-project detention or retention basins. Single-project peaksurface runoff flows could be limited in several ways, includingsmall on-site detention basins, rooftop ponding, temporaryflooding of parking areas, streets and gutters, landscaping designedto temporarily retain water, and gravel beds designed to collect andretain runoff.

(iii) Multi-project storm water detention or retention basins.

4.8-3 New impervious surface associated with development allowed under the1994 LRDP could reduce the potential for groundwater recharge.

S 4.8-3 The Campus shall incorporate where feasible as part of project design thefollowing measures, or equally effective measures, to maximize percolationand infiltration of precipitation into the underlying groundwater aquifers:

(a) the use of pervious paving material; or

(b) preservation and utilization of natural drainage areas.

LS



4.8-4 Increased siltation and sedimentation generated during constructionactivities associated with development allowed under the 1994 LRDPcould adversely affect receiving water quality.

S 4.8-4(a) If project construction includes the disturbance of five acres or more ofland, the Campus shall include in all construction contracts arequirement that Campus contractors file a Notice of Intent for coverageunder the State General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. Thecontractor shall comply with applicable permit requirements.

4.8-4(b) For construction operations which would disturb less than five acres ofland, the Campus shall include in all construction contracts arequirement that Campus contractors prepare and retain on the site anerosion control plan which would include a description of theconstruction site, erosion and sediment controls to be used, means ofwaste disposal, control of post-construction sediment and erosioncontrol measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls.

LS

Best Management Practices (BMPs) which could be implemented as partof an erosion control plan could include, but would not be limited to:

(i) reduction of the area and length of time that the site is clearedand graded;

(ii) revegetation/stabilization of cleared areas as soon aspossible;

(iii) implementation of comprehensive erosion, dust andsediment controls;

(iv) implementation of a program to control potentialconstruction activity pollutants such as cement mortar,paints and solvents, fuel and lubricating oils, pesticidesand herbicides;

(v) implementation of a hazardous material spill prevention,control and cleanup program.



4.8-5 Increased runoff from additional impervious surfaces associated withdevelopment allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in sedimentationand increased levels of urban contaminants which could adversely affectreceiving water quality.

S 4.8-5(a) The Campus shall ensure that project design includes a combination ofthe following Best Management Practice (BMPs), or equally effectivemeasures:

(i) Oil and grease separators shall be used to control roadway andparking lot contaminants.

(ii) Parking lots shall be cleaned and swept on a regular basis.

LS

(iii) Peak flow reduction and infiltration practices, such as grassswales, infiltration trenches and grass filter strips shall beincorporated.

(iv) Storm drain inlets shall be labeled to educate the public of theadverse impacts associated with dumping on receiving waters(i.e. "Don't dump! Drains to creek!").

(v) Landscape areas, including borders shall use warm seasongrasses and drought tolerant vegetation wherever feasible toreduce demand for irrigation and thereby reduce irrigationrunoff.

(vi) Efficient irrigation systems shall be installed in landscaped areasto minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the waterthat will reach the plant roots. Such irrigation systems includedrip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigationsystems.

4.8-5(b) The Campus shall ensure that confined animal facilities (including pensand corrals) are designed to prohibit discharge of storm water runoffinto the storm drainage system. All facilities shall be designed toinclude on site retention with a hook-up to the sanitary sewer, wherefeasible. The hook-up to the sanitary sewer shall be designed to pumpto the Campus Waste Water Treatment Plant during non-peak hours. When sewer hook-up is not feasible, then on site retention shall beprovided with a hook-up to a septic system. All animal facility drainagesystems shall be designed in compliance with California Code ofRegulations Title 23 Article 6.



4.8-6 Increased flows to the Campus Wastewater Treatment Plant due todevelopment allowed under the 1994 LRDP would generate increaseddischarge of treated effluent into the South Fork of Putah Creek whichcould adversely affect receiving water quality.

S 4.8-6(a) The Campus shall continue to monitor effluent discharge, incompliance with WDR Order No. 92-040, from the wastewatertreatment plant to identify any exceedances of established WDR effluentlimits.

4.8-6(b) If the effluent limits established in WDR Order No. 92-040 areexceeded, and action is required by the CVRWQCB, the Campus shallmake modifications to the pretreatment program to ensure compliancewith established effluent limits.

4.8-6(c) The Campus shall apply for and comply with any requirements of aNPDES WDRs for the proposed new wastewater treatment plant prior toplant operation.

LS

4.8-7 New impervious surfaces associated with development west of CountyRoad 98 and Russell Ranch, the City of Davis and Yolo County wouldcumulatively increase surface runoff and could exceed existing drainagecapacity in the Covell Drain and result in localized flooding.

S 4.8-7 Campus development west of County Road 98 shall incorporate single-or multi-project retention basins as part of final project design in orderto eliminate any drainage flows, resulting from project implementation,to the Covell Drain.

LS

4.8-8 Urban and agricultural development allowed under the 1994 LRDP in thePutah Creek watershed, including the Campus, could reduce receivingwater quality.

SU 4.8-8(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.8-4(a) and (b), 4.8-5(a) and (b) and4.8-6(a) through (c).

4.8-8(b) When the EPA adopts NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permitrequirements for small municipalities, local jurisdictions in the PutahCreek Watershed would apply for, obtain, and implement a NPDESMunicipal Storm Water Permit in accordance with EPA requirements.

4.8-8(c) Comprehensive Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans andmonitoring programs would be implemented by all storm waterdischargers associated with specified industrial and constructionactivities, in compliance with the State's General Permits. Such plansshall include Best Management Practices or equally effective measures.

SU

4.8-9 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in combination withcumulative development in the Lower Cache-Putah Groundwater Basin,would increase the amount of impervious surface and reduce groundwaterrecharge potential.

SU 4.8-9(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-3(a) and (b).

4.8-9(b) Jurisdictions in the Lower-Cache Putah Creek Groundwater Basinshould encourage development to be accomplished in a manner thatwould maximize percolation and infiltration of precipitation into theunderlying groundwater aquifers through the use of pervious pavingmaterials, cluster development, retention of natural drainage areas, andidentification and retention of flood plains and areas of high rechargepotential.

SU



4.9 Geotechnical Factors

4.9-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could expose people,structures and property to strong ground shaking and secondary seismiceffects from earthquakes in local or regional faults.

S 4.9-1(a) Prior to final design, the Campus shall review and approve all buildingplans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Title 24.

4.9-1(b) Prior to occupancy, the Campus shall review and approve final buildingdesigns for appropriate seismic safety provisions. Appropriate seismicsafety provisions shall include anchoring, bracing or restrainingnonstructural elements such as furniture, shelving or equipment.

LS

4.9-1(c) Each department required to maintain an Injury and Illness PreventionPlan (IIPP) shall incorporate appropriate seismic safety policies. As part ofeach Department's IIPP, earthquake preparedness drills shall be performedannually by building occupants.

4.9-1(d) Buildings currently identified in the UC Seismic Rehabilitation Plan 2000-01 as inadequately prepared to withstand seismic hazards shall continue tobe upgraded. The Campus shall continue to prepare an annual seismicreport identifying compliance with scheduled building upgrades. Thesebuildings include the Tercero Dining Hall, Veihmeyer Hall, Wyatt PavilionTheater, South Hall, Memorial Union, North Hall and Walker Hall. All ofthese structures were rated in poor to very poor seismic condition and arecurrently scheduled for rehabilitation.

4.9-2 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could expose people topotential hazards from structural damage caused by expansive soils in thedevelopment area.




4.9-3 Cumulative development, in conjunction with development allowed underthe 1994 LRDP, would increase the cumulative number of people livingand working in the Davis area who would be exposed to strong groundmotion and other potential seismic effects from earthquakes in local orregional faults.

SU 4.9-3(a) Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 (a) through (e).

4.9-3(b) City of Davis General Plan implementing and guiding policies for seismicsafety recommend that the City:

(i) continue to monitor studies of seismic activity in the region, andtake appropriate action if significant seismic hazards, includingearthquake faults, are discovered in the planning area; and

(ii) continue to update and enforce Building Code requirements forseismic and geologic safety.

SU

4.9-3(c) City of Davis General Plan implementing and guiding policies regardingexpansive soils recommend that the City:

(i) investigation and mitigation of geologic soils hazards, orlocation of development away from such hazards in order topreserve life and protect property;

(ii) require submission of a soils report for development sites wheresoils conditions are not well known;

(iii) require as a condition of approval of development, mitigation ofany soils hazards identified; and

(iv) require that areas of highly unstable soils, on whichconstruction cannot feasibly be made safe, be used for openspace, including greenbelts and parks. Require that site plansfor development delineate the hazardous areas, and show theproposed use of those areas as greenbelts or parks.



4.10 Cultural Resources

4.10-1 Excavation, grading and construction activities could damage or destroyburied cultural (prehistoric or historic) resources.

SU 4.10-1(a) Prior to project approval, the Campus shall determine the level ofarchaeological investigation that is appropriate for the project site. Thelevels are:

Minimum: in areas of known archaeological sensitivity (i.e., known sites),excavation less than 18" deep and in a relatively small area(e.g., routine maintenance and operations such repairingbroken facilities, a short trench for lawn irrigation, treeplanting, etc.); in other areas, excavation less than 36" deepand in a relatively small area.

Moderate: excavation below 36" and/or over a large area on any site thathas not been characterized and is not suspected to be a likelylocation for archaeological resources.

Intensive: excavation below 18" and/or over a large area on any site that iswithin 800' of the historic alignment of Putah Creek (prior to1880) or that is adjacent to a recorded archaeological site.

SU



4.10-1(b) For sites requiring minimum investigation, the following steps will betaken.

(i) Prior to disturbing the soil, contractors shall be notified that theyare required to watch for potential archaeological sites andartifacts and to notify the campus if anything is found. Inaddition, campus employees whose work involves routinelydisturbing the soil shall be trained to recognize evidence ofpotential archaeological sites and artifacts.

(ii) If resources are discovered during activities, all soil disturbingwork within 100' of the find shall cease. The resources shall beevaluated by a qualified archaeologist who will determine andadvise the campus on the potential for the activity to affect asignificant archaeological resource.

(iii) If the activity might affect a significant archaeological resource,consistent with CEQA and Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelinesaddressing archaeological impacts a plan for surveying theremainder of the site and conducting appropriate data recoveryand other mitigations shall be prepared and implemented usingthe services of a qualified archaeologist.

(iv) If human remains are found, the County coroner shall becontacted. The coroner shall contact the Native AmericanHeritage Commission, which shall notify the appropriatedescendant. The Campus shall coordinate re-interment ofNative American remains with the NAHC and the designateddescendant.



4.10-1(c) For sites requiring moderate level of investigation, the following stepsshall be taken.

(i) A surface survey shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologistprior to project approval.

(ii) If evidence of archeological resources are found, a qualifiedarchaeologist shall prepare and implement a plan for subsurfaceinvestigation of the site. The archaeologist shall determine andadvise the Campus on the potential for the project to affect asignificant archaeological resource. If the project might affect asignificant archaeological resource, the campus shall adopt anappropriate mitigation plan at the time of project approval. Iffeasible, the Campus shall consider avoidance at significantarchaeological sites as the preferred mitigation. At a minimum,data recovery at significant archaeological sites will beimplemented.

(iii) If evidence of archaeological resources is not found during thesurface survey, a qualified archaeologists shall be present duringexcavation and grading, as deemed necessary by thearchaeologist.

(iv) Steps (i) through (iv) of item (b) shall be implemented.

4.10-1(d) For sites requiring intensive investigation, the following steps shall betaken.

(i) A subsurface investigation shall be conducted by aqualified archaeologist, prior to project approval. Thearchaeologist shall determine and advise the Campuson the potential for the project to affect a significantarchaeological resource. If the project might affect asignificant archaeological resource, the campus shalladopt an appropriate mitigation plan at the time ofproject approval. If feasible, the Campus shallconsider avoidance at significant archaeological sitesas the preferred mitigation. At a minimum, datarecovery at significant archaeological sites will beimplemented.

(ii) A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading andexcavation, as deemed appropriate.

(iii) Steps (i) through (iv) of item (b) shall be implemented.



4.10-2 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could damage or destroyhistorical structures during construction and/or renovation activities.

S 4.10-2(a) Prior to altering a structure at least 45 years of age, the Campus shalldevelop a process for identifying its relative historic value. In addition toCEQA and other State guidelines, the process shall consider the role ofstructures in the history of the University system, the Campus and theregion.

4.10-2(b) If any existing structure on a proposed construction site is over 45 years ofage:

(i) the Campus shall use the process developed under Mitigation Measure4.10-2(a) to determine whether the structure is historically significant;

(ii) if historically significant, the building shall be preserved and reusedwhen feasible; and

(iii) if historically significant, and preservation and reuse cannot occur onsite, the historical building shall be moved to an area set aside by theCampus for historic buildings of the same era when physically andfinancially feasible.

(iv) If a historically significant structure is to undergo major renovation, orbe moved and/or destroyed the Campus shall produce a record of thebuilding similar to National Parks Scenic standards (HistoricalAmerican Building Surveys). A copy of the record shall be depositedwith the University Archives, Shields Library Special Collections.

LS

Adequate recordation would include, at a minimum, the following:

n the development of site-specific history and appropriatecontextual information regarding the particular resource; inaddition to archival research and comparative studies, this taskcould involve limited oral history collection;

n accurate mapping of the noted resources, scaled to indicate sizeand proportion of the structures;

n architectural descriptions of affected structures;

n photodocumentation of the designated resources, both in stilland video formats; and

n Recordation of measured architectural drawings, in the case ofspecifically designated buildings of higher architectural merit.



4.10-2(c) Prior to major renovation, moving or destroying a historically significantstructure, the Campus shall insure that historically significant artifactswithin the building and the surrounding area shall be recorded anddeposited with the appropriate museum.

4.10-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could damage or destroysignificant landscape features by excavation, grading and constructionactivities.

S 4.10-3(a) The Campus shall develop a process for identifying significant landscapefeatures. In addition to CEQA and other State guidelines, the process shallconsider the role of open spaces and heritage trees in the Campus and theregion, and the current condition and potential lifespan of the feature.

4.10-3(b) The Campus shall determine whether landscaping would be damaged ordestroyed. If landscaping would be damaged or destroyed, the Campusshall use the process developed under Mitigation Measure 4.10-3(a) todetermine whether the landscaping is significant. If feasible, significantlandscape features shall be preserved. If preservation cannot occur on thesite, the landscape features shall, if possible, be moved.

4.10-3(c) Prior to moving and/or destroying significant landscaping the Campus shallproduce a written and photographic record. A copy of the record shall bedeposited with the University Archives, Shields Library Special Collections.

LS

4.10-4 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could contribute to acumulative loss of prehistoric and historic resources in Yolo and SolanoCounties.

SU 4.10-4(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.10-1(a) through 4.10-1(d), 4.10-2(a)through (c) and 4.10-3(a) through (c).

4.10-4(b) The Yolo and Solano County General Plans and the City of Davis GeneralPlan contain policies which address the preservation of cultural resources. It is within the jurisdiction of these agencies to implement the General Planpolicies which encourage the protection and restoration of culturalresources.

SU



4.11 Visual Quality/Aesthetics

4.11-1 Structures built on the Central Campus under the 1994 LRDP could affectvalued elements of the Central Campus visual landscape identified in theLRDP.

PS 4.11-1(a) New structures in the Central Campus shall be designed to be compatiblewith those visual elements and policies identified in the LRDP.

4.11-1(b) Prior to approval of preliminary drawings, a Campus Design Review Boardshall determine that the designs are consistent with the LRDP and applicabledistrict planning guidelines for the district within which the new structurewill be located.

4.11-1(c) Prior to siting any new structure on the Central Campus, the Campus shallidentify major view corridors, taking into consideration the relationship ofthe view to each affected neighboring district.

4.11-1(d) The Campus Design Review Board shall review building designs to ensurethat structures are not within major view corridors, except for structuresthat are designed to protect critical views.

LS

4.11-2 Structures built under the 1994 LRDP could be incompatible with theexisting rural agricultural character of the South and West Campuses andRussell Ranch.

PS 4.11-2 The Campus Design Review Board shall review proposed structures on theSouth and West Campuses and Russell Ranch to ensure that the design,setbacks, screening and landscaping will achieve compatibility with thesurrounding environment.

LS

4.11-3 Development under the 1994 LRDP could disrupt long-distance viewsfrom the Campus and surrounding areas.


4.11-4 Structures built under the LRDP could create glare, artificial light, heatand shade, making the immediate area uncomfortable for people.

PS 4.11-4(a) Prior to design approval of the first structure approved following adoption ofthe 1994 LRDP, the Campus shall develop guidelines to minimizediscomfort from light, heat, and glare.

The guidelines could include, but would not be limited to, building surfaces,landscaping, orientation and exposure, and lighting.

4.11-4(b) Prior to design approval of any building, the Campus Design Review Boardshall assess the building design for compliance with the guidelinesdeveloped under Mitigation Measure 4.11-4(a).

LS

4.11-5 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction with otherdevelopment in the region, would contribute to a cumulative alteration ofthe rural character of Yolo and Solano Counties.

SU 4.11-5(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.11-2 and 4.11-4(a) and (b).

4.11-5(b) The City of Davis General Plan, Yolo County General Plan, and SolanoCounty General Plan contain policies that address the preservation andprotection of agricultural land. It is within the jurisdiction of these agenciesto implement the General Plan policies which support the conservation ofagricultural land and the prohibition of new development in designatedagricultural areas.

SU



4.12 Fire and Police Protection

4.12-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in a reduction ofthe level of fire protection service provided by the UC Davis FireDepartment.

S 4.12-1 The Campus shall implement one or more of the following measures inorder to maintain current level of fire protection services:

(a) hire additional firefighters and support staff as necessary to maintainthe existing ratio of 3.5 firefighters per 1,000,000 square feet ofbuilding area on the UC Davis Campus;

(b) add additional equipment or improve techniques to meet needs of fireprotection needs; or

(c) expand mutual aid assistance from adjacent jurisdictions.

LS

4.12-2 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in new buildingsand facilities in areas where water pressure may be low.

S 4.12-2 Prior to the construction of new buildings or facilities, the Campus shalldetermine the water pressure of the domestic/fire water system serving thesite. If the pressure is determined to be below the industry standard set forfire water flows, then the Campus shall upgrade the domestic/fire watersystem to provide the appropriate water pressure and flow to the proposedbuilding or facility site.

LS

4.12-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in a reduction ofthe level of police protection service provided by the UC Davis PoliceDepartment.

S 4.12-3 The Campus shall implement one or more of the following measures inorder to maintain current level of police protection services:

(a) hire additional sworn-officers and support staff as necessary tomaintain the existing ratio of 0.72 sworn-officers per 1,000 dailypopulation;

(b) add additional equipment or improve techniques to meet needs ofpolice protection needs; or

(c) expand mutual aid assistance from adjacent jurisdictions.

LS

4.12-4 Cumulative development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result indecreased level of service from City of Davis fire protection services.

SU 4.12-4(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 .

4.12-4(b) The General Plan describes how City of Davis ordinances and assessmentdistricts can ensure that the needed additional fire services and facilities areprovided in coordination with development. Furthermore, City of Davispolicy does not allow construction in new development areas until allnecessary public services (including water, fire hydrants, and roads meetingthe Fire Department's specifications) are in place. It is in the jurisdiction ofthe City of Davis to construct and staff fire stations, or increase efficiency asnecessary to provide all portions of the fire department's service area withfive-minute response capability as is indicated in the Davis General Plan.

SU



4.12-5 Cumulative development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result indecreased level of service from the City of Davis police protection services.

SU 4.12-5(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.12-3.

4.12-5(b) The Fiscal Analysis section of the Technical Supplement to the City of DavisGeneral Plan indicates how needed capital improvements and additionalpolice personnel may be funded. Funds to expand police services may beobtained through construction taxes and assessment fees imposed upon newresidential and commercial development in the City. In this way thefinancial burden for increased service would be placed on new residents,including incoming campus employees buying new homes in Davis, andstudents living off-campus in newly constructed rental units. It is within thejurisdiction of the City of Davis to hire additional police officers and supportstaff, or increase efficiency, as needed to maintain the existing level ofservice to the community as identified in the Davis General Plan.

SU

4.13 Community Services

4.13-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would generate a directincrease in the number of school age student in the DJUSD.


4.13-2 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would generate an indirectincrease in the number of school age student in the DJUSD.


4.13-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in increaseddemand for parks and recreational facilities.


4.13-4 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in increaseddemand for public library services.


4.13-5 Cumulative development of the Davis area would generate an increase inthe number of school age students in the DJUSD.

SU 4.13-5 The Fiscal Analysis section of the Technical Supplement to the City of DavisGeneral Plan describes the City's existing plans to construct schools neededin the future and illustrates how additional facilities could be funded. It iswithin the jurisdiction of the City of Davis and DJUSD to plan and constructnew school facilities in the Davis Planning Area, as indicated in the DavisGeneral Plan. As new areas of housing are developed in the Davis PlanningArea, the City of Davis would address resulting impacts to DJUSD schools.

SU

4.13-6 Cumulative buildout of the Davis area will increase the demand for parksand recreational facilities.


4.13-7 Cumulative buildout of the Davis area will increase the demand for libraryfacilities.




4.14 Utilities and Infrastructure

4.14-1 Development allowed under of the 1994 LRDP would directly increase thedemand for water supplied from the deep aquifer.

SU 4.14-1(a) The Campus shall ensure that each project is designed to include thefollowing domestic water conservation measures.

(i) Low-flow shower heads (2.0 gpm or less) shall be installed in allnew showers.

(ii) Toilets with low-water-use flush devices (with average savingsof 1 gallon per flush) shall be installed in all new facilities and existingfacilities should be retrofitted at a pace at least equal to newdevelopment.

4.14-1(b) The Campus shall review the feasibility of replacing single-pass coolingsystems with the use of treated wastewater for cooling purposes.

SU

4.14-2 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would directly increase thedemand for water from the domestic/fire water system on the UC DavisCampus.

S 4.14-2(a) Prior to final project design, the Campus shall review each project todetermine if existing water supplies are adequate. When determinednecessary, the Campus shall construct additional wells into the deepaquifer to meet existing and future domestic water demand.

4.14-2(b) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.14-1(a) and (b).

LS

4.14-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would directly increase thedemand for water from the shallow/intermediate aquifer.

LS 4.14-3(a) The Campus shall ensure that each project is designed to include thefollowing utility water conservation measures:

(i) landscape, where appropriate, with native, drought-resistantplants, drip irrigation systems;

(ii) apply heavy applications of mulch to landscaped areas to reduceevaporation; and

(iii) use treated wastewater for landscape irrigation where feasible.

LS

4.14-3(b) The Campus shall continue to monitor the groundwater elevations at itsexisting wells to ascertain whether any long-term storage depletion ofthe shallow/intermediate aquifer is due to UC Davis activities.

4.14-4 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would directly increase theamount of water demanded from the utility water system serving the UCDavis Campus.

S 4.14-4 The Campus shall review each project to determine if existing watersupply is adequate. When determined necessary, the Campus shalldevelop additional wells into the shallow/intermediate aquifer to meetthe water demands of the Campus utility water system.

LS

4.14-5 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in an indirectincrease in demand for water from the City of Davis Domestic WaterSystem.




4.14-6 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in a directincrease in the wastewater generated on the Campus.

S 4.14-6(a) Until the existing wastewater treatment plant is upgraded or replaced byfacilities with the capacity to treat loads expected from all contemplatedcampus development, the Campus shall review each project to ensurethat no new structures are constructed that would cause the wastewatertreatment plant to exceed its permitted capacity.

4.14-6(b) If implementation of the project would result in an increased load abovethe current capacity, the Campus shall employ measures to eitherincrease the plant's capacity or reduce the existing load, such that nopermit standards are exceeded. Possible strategies to increase the plant'scapacity or reduce the existing load could include the following:

(i) incrementally increasing the total suspended solids capacity atthe existing plant; or

(ii) reducing the volume of wastewater generated by existingfacilities through implementation of water conservation measures.

LS

4.14-7 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in an indirectincrease in the wastewater generated in the City of Davis.


4.14-8 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in a directincrease in the amount of solid waste generated by the Campus.


4.14-9 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in an indirectincrease in the amount of solid waste generated in the City of Davis.


4.14-10 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in a directincrease in demand for telecommunication services on the Campus.


4.14-11 Cumulative development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result inincreased demand for water from the deep aquifer.

SU 4.14-11 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.14-1(a) and (b). SU



4.14-12 Cumulative development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result inincreased demand for water from the shallow/intermediate aquifer in theDavis area.

LS 4.14-12(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.14-3(a) and 4.14-3(b).

4.14-12(b) The City of Davis has adopted the following policies which address thewater supply issue as development continues to occur in the Davisarea:

n The City will study the feasibility of importing surface water as asupplemental source for municipal use. (Policy 6.4-B)

n The City will manage groundwater resources so as to preserve bothquantity and quality. (Policy 6.4-D)

LS

n The City will evaluate and develop a program to encourage reuse oftreated wastewater. (Policy 6.4-F)

n The City will implement water-conserving landscaping practices inCity projects. (Policy 6.4-H)

n The City will develop a public-information program for citizens onwater-conserving practices including landscaping. (Policy 6.4-I)

n The City will, through the design process, encourage developers to usewater-conserving landscaping and require residential developers toinstall water-conserving landscaping for model homes. (Policy 6.4-J)

4.14-13 Cumulative development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result inincreased generation of wastewater in the Davis area.


4.14-14 Cumulative development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result inincreased generation of solid waste in the Davis area.


4.15 Energy

4.15-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would increase the demandfor and use of electricity, natural gas and related infrastructure.


4.15-2 Expansion of the campus under the 1994 LRDP, in addition to continueddevelopment in the PG&E and WAPA service areas, would increase thedemand for and use of electricity, natural gas and related infrastructure.


amendments to the 1994 long range development plan … · development plan (1994 lrdp) and 1994...

Documents