surewest telecommunications tower project at uc davis

SUREWESTTELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER

PROJECT AT UC DAVIS

Tiered Initial Study•

Negative Declaration

State Clearinghouse No. 2002052133

Prepared By:

OFFICE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

University of CaliforniaOne Shields Avenue

376 Mrak HallDavis, California 95616

•

July 2002

Contact: A. Sidney England, Environmental Planner(530) 752-2432

SUREWEST TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER PROJECT AT UC DAVIS

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures...................................................................................................................... ii

I. PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 1

II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL.................................................................. 4

Introduction...............................................................................................................................4

Scope of the Tiered Initial Study................................................................................................5

Public and Agency Review .........................................................................................................6

Organization of the Tiered Initial Study ....................................................................................6

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................... 8

UC Davis ....................................................................................................................................8

Project Overview........................................................................................................................8

Construction Schedule and Staging .........................................................................................19

Project Approvals .....................................................................................................................19

IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE LRDP .................................................................................... 20

1994 LRDP Scope of Development ..........................................................................................20

1994 LRDP Land Use Designation ...........................................................................................20

1994 LRDP Population Projections..........................................................................................21

Cumulative Analyses................................................................................................................23

V. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED............................................. 25

VI. DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................ 26

VII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................ 27

Introduction.............................................................................................................................27

1. Land Use and Planning .......................................................................................................28

2. Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................................32

3. Population and Housing .....................................................................................................35

4. Transportation/Circulation ..................................................................................................38

5. Noise ...................................................................................................................................45

6. Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................50

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................57

8. Biological Resources............................................................................................................67


- ii -

9. Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................78

10. Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................87

11. Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................92

12. Cultural Resources............................................................................................................94

13. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................100

14. Public Services ................................................................................................................105

15. Recreation .......................................................................................................................110

16. Utilities and Service Systems...........................................................................................112

17. Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................117

18. Fish and Game Determination ........................................................................................118

VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .......................................................... 119

IX. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 130

X. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED ..................................................................... 131

XI. REPORT PREPARERS...................................................................................................... 131

APPENDIX A. Amendments to the 1994 Long Range Development Plan and Revisions tothe 1994 Long Range Development Plan Environmental Impact Report (throughMarch 2002)

APPENDIX B. Negative Declaration

APPENDIX C. Cumulative Impacts Analysis - Focus on Potential Environmental EffectsAssociated with Projected Student Enrollment Increases through 2014-15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Estimated and Projected Campus Population....................................................................21

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Regional Location ................................................................................................................9

Figure 2. Project Location.................................................................................................................10

Figure 3. Proposed Telecommunications Tower Site Plan................................................................12

Figure 4. Proposed Controlled Environment Facility Site Plan ........................................................13

Figure 5. Existing UC Davis Cell Tower ...........................................................................................16


- 1 -

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA July 23, 2002

CAMPUS: Davis

I. PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project title: SureWest Telecommunications Tower Project at UC Davis

2. Project location: University of California, DavisYolo and Solano Counties

3. Lead agency name and address: Office of Resource Management and PlanningUniversity of CaliforniaOne Shields Avenue376 Mrak HallDavis, CA 95616

4. Project sponsor’s name and address: See Item 3

5. Contact person and phone number: A. Sidney EnglandEnvironmental Planner(530) 752-2432

6. Location of the administrative record for this project: See Item 3.

7. Identification of previous EIRs relied upon for tiering purposes (including all applicable LRDPand project EIRs) and address where a copy is available for inspection:

This environmental analysis is tiered from the 1994 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP)Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 94022005), as updated andrevised by a number of subsequent documents (listed below). These documents are availablefor review during normal operating hours at the UC Davis Office of Resource Management andPlanning, 376 Mrak Hall on the UC Davis campus; at Reserves in Shields Library on the UCDavis campus; at the Yolo County Public Library, 315 E. 14th Street, Davis; at the VacavillePublic Library, 1020 Ulatis Drive, Vacaville; and online athttp://www.ormp.ucdavis.edu/environreview/ (technical appendices are not available online).Hereafter, reference to the 1994 LRDP EIR includes the 1994 LRDP EIR as revised by thedocuments listed below.

Revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR identified in subsequent environmental review documents aresummarized in the list below. Appendix A of this Tiered Initial Study includes furtherinformation about the changes to the 1994 LRDP and LRDP EIR since original publication.


- 2 -

• Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Replacement Project EIR (State Clearinghouse Nos.95123027 and 96072024):

• Updated 1994 LRDP EIR analysis to reflect changes to land use designations presentedin the 1994 LRDP (Section 4.6 of the WWTP Replacement Project Draft EIR).

• Identified the loss of an additional 20 acres of prime agricultural land andruderal/annual grassland habitat over the amount identified in the 1994 LRDP EIRanalysis and increased the magnitude of land use and biological resource impactsassociated with this loss (Sections 4.4 and 4.6 of the WWTP Replacement Project DraftEIR, and Appendix G of the Final EIR).

• Reevaluated cumulative 1994 LRDP EIR Hydrology and Water Quality, HazardousMaterials and Public Safety, and Air Quality impacts (Sections 4.1, 4.3, and 4.3 of theDraft EIR).

• 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects Supplemental EIR (SEIR) (StateClearinghouse No. 97122016):

• Updated 1994 LRDP EIR analysis to reflect changes to land use designations presentedin the 1994 LRDP (Sections 5.3, 6.3, and 7.3 of the Draft SEIR).

• Identified the loss of an additional 20 acres of prime agricultural land and 31 acres ofruderal/annual grassland habitat over the amount identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Tomitigate this loss, identified measure to redesignate 20 acres of prime farmland andruderal/annual grassland habitat at the Russell Ranch from land designated asAcademic and Administrative Low Density to Teaching and Research Fields (Sections5.3, 5.5, 6.3, 6.5, 7.3, and 7.5 of the Draft SEIR).

• Identified the loss of 11 acres of ruderal/annual grassland habitat over the amountidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR analysis and increased the magnitude of biologicalresource impacts associated with this loss (Appendix A of the Final SEIR).

• Included project-specific mitigation measure to reduce the magnitude, but not the levelof significance, of the cumulative impact on burrowing owl nesting habitat (Section 2of the Draft SEIR).

• Included updated transportation and circulation analysis to assess a new traffic surveyand the decision by the City of Davis not to expand the Richards Boulevardundercrossing from two to four lanes. Revised 1994 LRDP EIR transportationMitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b) to account for the new traffic information (Section 8 ofthe Draft SEIR).

• Reevaluated cumulative air quality and noise impacts (Section 8 of the Draft SEIR).


- 3 -

• Center for the Arts Performance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking ImprovementsTiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No.98092016):

• Updated 1994 LRDP EIR analysis to reflect changes to land use designations presentedin the 1994 LRDP (page 29 of the Initial Study).

• Identified the loss of 8.5 acres of prime farmland and ruderal/annual grassland habitatover the amount assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR. To mitigate this loss, identifiedmeasure to redesignate 8.5 acres of prime farmland and ruderal/annual grasslandhabitat designated as Support to Teaching and Research Fields (pages 29-30 and 60 ofthe Initial Study).

• USDA Western Human Nutrition Research Complex Tiered Initial Study and MitigatedNegative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 99092060):

• Updated the 1994 LRDP EIR analysis to reflect changes to land use designationspresented in the 1994 LRDP (pages 24 and 25 of the Initial Study).

• Revised a project-specific mitigation measure presented in the 1997-98 Major CapitalImprovement Projects SEIR that reduced the magnitude, but not the level ofsignificance, of the cumulative impact on burrowing owl nesting habitat (page 65 ofthe Initial Study).

• Veterinary Medicine Laboratory and Equine Athletic Performance Laboratory FacilitiesFocused Tiered EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2000022057):

• Further updated the 1994 LRDP EIR cumulative transportation and circulation impactanalysis to account for more accurate estimates of campus population growth in theHealth Sciences District. The updated analysis identified that the intersection ofHutchison Drive and Health Sciences Drive would exceed level of service standards.Included a mitigation measure to reduce the impact at this intersection to a less-than-significant level (Section 3 of the Final EIR).

• Segundo Housing Improvement Projects Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2001092063):

• Updated the 1994 LRDP EIR analysis to reflect changes to the land use designationspresented in the 1994 LRDP (pages 33 to 35 of the Initial Study).

• Conference Center, Hotel, and Graduate School of Management Building Focused TieredEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001082067):

• Updated the 1994 LRDP EIR analysis to reflect changes to the land use designationspresented in the 1994 LRDP (Appendix A of the Final EIR).


- 4 -

II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL

INTRODUCTION

This environmental analysis is a Tiered Initial Study for the proposed SureWest TelecommunicationsTower Project at UC Davis (proposed project). The environmental analysis for the proposed projectis tiered from the UC Davis 1994 LRDP EIR in accordance with Sections 15152 and 15168 of theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21094.The 1994 LRDP EIR is a Program EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines(Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.). The 1994 LRDP EIR analyzed fullimplementation of uses and physical development proposed under the 1994 LRDP through the year2005-06 and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse project and cumulative impactsassociated with that growth.

The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the coverage of general environmental matters in broadprogram-level EIRs, with subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects thatimplement the program. This environmental document incorporates by reference the discussions inthe 1994 LRDP EIR (the Program EIR) and concentrates on project-specific issues. CEQA and theCEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays andexcessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documentsby eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the Program EIR and byincorporating those analyses by reference.

Section 15168(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides for simplifying the task of preparingenvironmental documents on later parts of the program by incorporating by reference factors thatapply to the program as a whole. Where an EIR has been prepared or certified for a program or plan,the environmental review for a later activity consistent with the program or plan should be limited toeffects that were not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR or that are susceptible to substantialreduction or avoidance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152[d]).

Accordingly, the tiering of the environmental analysis for the proposed project allows this TieredInitial Study to rely on the 1994 LRDP EIR for the following:

• a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topicareas;

• overall growth-related issues to 2005-06;

• issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the 1994 LRDP EIR for which there isno significant new information or change in circumstances that would require furtheranalysis; and

• cumulative impacts assessment.

The purpose of this Tiered Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of theproject with respect to the 1994 LRDP EIR to determine what level of additional environmental


- 5 -

review, if any, is appropriate. Based on the analysis contained in this Tiered Initial Study, one of thefollowing determinations will be made:

• the project is exempt from CEQA;

• the project incrementally contributes to, but does not exceed, environmental impactspreviously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, no additional mitigation measures arerequired, and preparation of Findings consistent with this determination isappropriate;

• the project would result in new impacts that were not previously identified in the1994 LRDP EIR, but there is no substantial evidence that such new impacts may havea significant effect on the environment and preparation of a Negative Declaration isappropriate;

• the project would result in new potentially significant impacts that were notpreviously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, but proposed project-specific mitigationmeasures would reduce such impacts to a point where clearly no significant effectswould occur and there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated mayhave a significant effect on the environment, and preparation of a Mitigated NegativeDeclaration is appropriate; or

• the project would result in new significant environmental impacts not previouslyidentified in the LRDP EIR, and preparation of a tiered EIR is appropriate.

Mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and adopted by the University of California(the University) that apply to the proposed project will be required to be implemented as part of theproject.

SCOPE OF THE TIERED INITIAL STUDY

Based on the analysis presented in this Tiered Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposedproject would not result in any potentially significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures or are notsufficiently addressed by the 1994 LRDP EIR. The analysis contained in this Tiered Initial Studyconcludes that the proposed project would result in the following categories of impacts, dependingon the environmental issue involved: no impact; less-than-significant impact; less-than-significantimpact with the incorporation of 1994 LRDP EIR; or contribute to a significant unavoidable impactthat was adequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR for which no new mitigation measures areavailable and no new analysis is proposed. The preparation of a Negative Declaration is appropriate(the Negative Declaration is presented in Appendix B).

Since none of the conditions described in CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of asubsequent EIR have occurred, this Tiered Initial Study includes only minor technical changes oradditions to the analysis set forth in the 1994 LRDP EIR. The analysis presented in this documentdoes not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment analyzed in the1994 LRDP EIR.


- 6 -

PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW

The Draft Tiered Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the proposed project were circulated forpublic and agency review from May 29, 2002 to June 28, 2002. Copies of the Draft Tiered InitialStudy were made available during normal operating hours at the UC Davis Office of ResourceManagement and Planning, 376 Mrak Hall on the UC Davis campus; at Reserves in Shields Library onthe UC Davis campus; at the Yolo County Public Library, 315 E. 14th Street, Davis; at the VacavillePublic Library, 1020 Ulatis Drive, Vacaville; and online athttp://www.ormp.ucdavis.edu/environreview/. Copies of the 1994 LRDP, 1994 LRDP EIR, WWTPReplacement Project EIR, 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR, Center for the ArtsTiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, USDA Western Human Nutrition ResearchCenter Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Veterinary Medicine Laboratoryand Equine Athletic Performance Laboratory Facility Tiered EIR, the Segundo Housing ImprovementProjects Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Conference Center, Hotel,and Graduate School of Management Building Focused Tiered EIR were also made available at theselocations.

Comments on this Draft Tiered Initial Study were e-mailed to [email protected] and sentto:

John A. MeyerVice Chancellor - Resource Managment and PlanningUniversity of CaliforniaOne Shields Avenue376 Mrak HallDavis, CA 95616

ORGANIZATION OF THE TIERED INITIAL STUDY

This Tiered Initial Study is organized into the following sections.

Section I - Project Information: provides summary background information about the proposedproject, including project location, lead agency, and contact information.

Section II - Environmental Review and Approval: includes a summary of the Tiered Initial Study'srelationship to the 1994 LRDP EIR, the scope of the Tiered Initial Study, public and agency reviewinformation, and an overview of the document's organization.

Section III - Project Description: includes the description of the proposed project.

Section IV - Consistency with the 1994 LRDP: describes the consistency of the proposed projectwith the 1994 LRDP and 1994 LRDP EIR.

Section V - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: identifies which environmental factors weredetermined to be a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the Tiered EnvironmentalChecklist.


- 7 -

Section VI - Determination: indicates whether impacts associated with the proposed project aresignificant, and what, if any, additional environmental documentation is required.

Section VII - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: contains the Tiered Environmental Checklistform for each resource area. The checklist is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmentalimpacts of the proposed project with respect to the 1994 LRDP EIR. The checklist identifiespotential project effects as follows: (1) new potentially significant project impacts that were notadequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR, or previously identified significant impacts for whichnew feasible mitigation measures are available; (2) new less-than-significant impacts with mitigationincorporated; (3) environmental impacts of the project that were adequately analyzed and mitigatedin the 1994 LRDP EIR; (4) less-than-significant impacts; and (5) effects that would not result in anyadverse environmental impact.

This section also contains an explanation of all checklist answers and recommended mitigationmeasures.

Section VIII - Comments and Responses to Comments: presents comment letters received duringthe public and agency review period and responses to these comments.

Section IX References: lists references used in the preparation of this report.

Section X - Agencies and Persons Consulted: provides the names of individuals contacted inpreparation of this document.

Section XI - Report Preparers: lists the names of individuals involved in the preparation of thisreport.

Appendix A - Amendments to the 1994 LRDP and Revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR: summarizesamendments to the 1994 LRDP and revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR through March 2002.

Appendix B - Negative Declaration: presents the Negative Declaration for the project.

Appendix C - Cumulative Impacts Analysis - Focus on Potential Environmental Effects Associatedwith Projected Student Enrollment Increases through 2014-15: serves to inform the publicconcerning all that is currently known about the campus' potential growth through 2014-15.


- 8 -

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

UC DAVIS

The 5,300-acre UC Davis campus (the campus) is located in Yolo and Solano Counties approximately72 miles northeast of San Francisco, 15 miles west of the City of Sacramento, and adjacent to the Cityof Davis (see Figure 1). The campus, in general, is comprised of four campus units: the centralcampus, the south campus, the west campus, and Russell Ranch (see Figure 3-2, Regional and LocalSetting, on page 3-5 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR). The "main campus" refers to the central, south,and west campus units, excluding Russell Ranch. Most of the academic and extracurricular activitiesoccur within the central campus. The central campus is bounded approximately by RussellBoulevard to the north, State Route 113 (SR 113) to the west, Interstate 80 (I-80) and the UnionPacific Railroad tracks to the south, and A Street to the east. The south campus is located south of I-80 and north of the South Fork of Putah Creek. The west campus is bounded by SR 113 to the east,Putah Creek to the south, Russell Boulevard to the north, and extends approximately one-half milewest of County Road 98. The south and west campus units are contiguous with the central campusand are used primarily for field teaching and research. The 1,590-acre Russell Ranch portion of thecampus lies to the west, separated from the west campus by approximately one and one-half miles ofprivately owned agricultural land. Russell Ranch was acquired by the campus in 1990 and isintended for use in large-scale agricultural and environmental research and the study of sustainableagricultural practices. Russell Ranch is bordered roughly by County Road 96 on the east, PutahCreek on the south, Covell Boulevard on the north, and Russell Boulevard on the west and northwest.In addition, UC Davis owns several buildings in Research Park, located in the City of Davis south ofI-80.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

UC Davis proposes to partner with SureWest, a Roseville, California based telecommunicationscompany, to exchange rights to use UC Davis property (on which SureWest would construct andoperate telecommunications facilities) for regional fiber optic connections. The proposed projectincludes the construction and operation of a 155-foot tall SureWest telecommunications tower withancillary structures in the west campus, on a site located northwest of Garrod Drive and adjacent andeast of the existing 150-foot tall UC Davis telecommunications tower. The project also includesconstruction of a single-story, 336 square-foot SureWest Controlled Environment Facility (CEF) inthe south campus, on a site located west of Old Davis Road. An approximately 200-foot long conduitwould be installed to connect the proposed SureWest telecommunications tower to the existing UCDavis telecommunications tower facility located adjacent and to the west. An approximately 750-footlong telecommunications conduit would be installed to connect the proposed CEF to an existingSureWest conduit located south near the intersection of Old Davis Road and the Union PacificRailroad Tracks.

In exchange for this use of University land, SureWest would provide high-speed data networkinterconnection service through existing conduits between the UC Davis campus and the UC DavisMedical Center (UCDMC) in Sacramento, California, and between the UC Davis campus and the UCDavis McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center (MNRC) in Sacramento, California.


- 11 -

Project Sites

The proposed SureWest telecommunications tower and ancillary structures would be located on anapproximately 0.3 acre site in the west campus northwest of Garrod Drive, adjacent and east of theexisting 150-foot tall UC Davis telecommunications tower, and approximately 500 feet northwest ofthe 150-foot tall Charter Communications tower (see Figures 2 and 3). The site is primarily fallowagricultural land and is surrounded by teaching and research fields to the north, Garrod Drivefollowed by the North Fork Cutoff (the currently isolated and dry channel of the historical NorthFork of Putah Creek) to the east and south, and the UC Davis telecommunications tower and supportstructures followed by the Environmental Services Facility to the west.

The proposed SureWest CEF would be located on an approximately 0.06 acre site in the southcampus located west of Old Davis Road and approximately 500 feet north of the Plant Pathologyresearch facilities (see Figure 4). The site is fallow agricultural land, and is bordered to the north andwest by fallow teaching and research fields, to the south by a dirt road followed by teaching andresearch fields, and to the east by the UC Davis CEF. A telecommunications conduit would beinstalled from the proposed SureWest CEF, across Old Davis Road to the east, and south along theeast side of Old Davis Road to an existing SureWest conduit located near the intersection of OldDavis Road and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks.

The proposed telecommunications tower site is designated in the 1994 LRDP for Academic andAdministrative Low Density and the proposed CEF site is designated for Academic andAdministrative High Density Enterprise Reserve. As discussed further in Section IV, the projectwould be consistent with these land use designations.

Project Background and Need

UC Davis is working with the Corporation for Educational Network Initiatives in California (CENIC)to develop an Optical Network Infrastructure model for the State of California. This model involvesCENIC's acquisition and use of dedicated high-speed fiber optic cable or wavelength service acrossCalifornia via both coastal and Central Valley routes. Several metropolitan area network rings wouldbe developed off these statewide connections, providing access points for remote sites. UC Davis,UCDMC, and the California State University system have jointly developed an existing networkcollocation facility at 1107 9th Street in Sacramento to secure Sacramento as a location for a keymetropolitan ring.

UC Davis and the UCDMC are currently connected by a PacBell DS3 (45 mega bytes per second) dataconnection. Due to increased video conferencing and other data communication between UC Davisand the UCDMC, the campuses have exceeded their current data connection. The MNRC currentlyhas a very slow speed data connection to the campus. Higher-speed network connections wouldgreatly benefit research efforts and general operations at UC Davis, UCDMC, and the MNRC.

The network collocation facility at 1107 9th Street, Sacramento would facilitate these needed networkinterconnections by serving as a hub between links. The UCDMC has already coordinated with avariety of vendors and organizations to connect fiber optic cable from its facility to the 9th Streetcollocation hub. To complete the UC Davis/UCDMC link, UC Davis must connect fiber optic cablefrom campus to the 9th Street facility. To complete the UC Davis/MNRC connection, both MNRC andUC Davis would need to connect to the 9th Street facility. SureWest already has a conduit betweenthe MNRC and the 9th Street facility.


- 14 -

Traditionally, such fiber optic cable connections would require purchase of a "dark fiber" or opticalwavelength from a limited number of infrastructure providers or payment of a monthly lease fee for acarrier's higher speed service. These traditional connection methods would cost several milliondollars over the life of the connection.

To avoid this traditional high expense, UC Davis recently identified an opportunity wherebySureWest would ensure the UC Davis/UCDMC and UC Davis/MNRC fiber optic cableinterconnections, and UC Davis would provide SureWest with facility space on campus. SureWest isthe appropriate carrier for this type of arrangement because the company has large amounts of fiberoptic cable within Sacramento, already has a conduit between MNRC to the 9th Street facility, and hasa conduit traversing along the UPRR tracks from Sacramento to Davis.

SureWest will provide UC Davis with the following:

• 12 strands of single mode fiber optic cable connection from 1107 9th Street, Sacramento, to theUC Davis Network Operations Center (NOC) located on the main campus in the Telecombuilding north of the Tercero student-housing complex and east of the Central Heating andCooling Plant. This fiber optic connection would be installed through existing SureWest and UCDavis conduits from Sacramento to the south campus near the UPRR tracks, through a proposednew conduit to the new SureWest CEF building (Figure 2), and through an existing campusconduit to the UC Davis NOC building.

• A small access box to the fiber optic cable at the corner of Cousteau and 2nd Street in Davis so thatUC Davis could connect its leased building on Cousteau to the fiber at some point in the future.

• An OC-12 (600 mega bytes per second) fiber optic cable connection from the MNRC facility to1107 9th Street (the fiber would be installed through an existing conduit).

UC Davis will provide SureWest with the following:

• Rights to use land and to build and operate a telecommunications tower facility in the westcampus.

• Rights to use land and to build and operate a CEF in the south campus adjacent to the UC DavisCEF.

• Trenching right of way on UC Davis land to lay conduit from a SureWest conduit located near theintersection of Old Davis Road and the UPRR tracks to the proposed CEF, and from the UC DavisArea Distribution Frame (ADF) (located in the hut northwest of the UC Davistelecommunications tower) east to the proposed SureWest tower location.

• Space in the existing campus conduit between the UC Davis CEF located west of Old Davis roadin the south campus and the UC Davis NOC.

• Up to two racks for equipment storage in the UC Davis NOC, and up to one rack at the CENICSacramento Wide Area Network hub located at 1107 9th Street, Sacramento;


- 15 -

• Right to use two pairs of fiber optic cable (4 strands) from the UC Davis NOC to the proposedtelecommunications tower site, and space to place backboard (wall-mounted equipment used toconnect telephone wires) within the UC Davis ADF.

• Right to place three side-mounted PCS antennas (approximately 9 inches by 5 feet in size) on oneUCDMC building in Sacramento.

• Right to use the existing UC Davis conduit under the Sacramento River from the intersection ofBurcut and the Water Treatment access road in Sacramento to the corner of B and 3rd Street inWest Sacramento.

The proposed project would allow SureWest to meet licensed coverage requirements by improvingwireless coverage in and around UC Davis, the City of Davis, and along portions of SR 113 and I-80.SureWest has reviewed wireless communications facilities in the area and has identified that there areno facilities within a five-mile radius that can accommodate the proposed wireless communicationsequipment.

Project Objectives

The following summarizes the specific objectives of the proposed project:

• Provide high-speed, cost effective data connection between UC Davis and the UCDMC;

• Upgrade data connection between UC Davis and the MNRC;

• Locate proposed telecommunications tower near existing towers but avoid interference withexisting tower equipment; and

• Locate proposed Controlled Environment Facility in proximity to the existing SureWest conduittraversing along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.

Project Elements

Telecommunications Tower

The proposed SureWest telecommunications tower and support structures would be located on anapproximately 0.3 acre site in the west campus east of the existing UC Davis telecommunicationstower and northwest of the existing Charter telecommunications tower (see Figure 3). The latticetelecommunications tower would be 155 feet tall and would have a top strobe and side lighting asspecified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal CommunicationsCommission (FCC). The appearance of the tower would closely resemble the existing, adjacent UCDavis lattice telecommunications tower, presented in Figure 5.


- 17 -

The proposed tower would be supported by a foundation consisting of several concrete pads, and atotal of six equipment shelters/pads would eventually be constructed near the base of the facility tosupport SureWest and additional carriers. SureWest radio equipment required to operate thecommunications tower would be located in cabinets mounted on a 12-foot by 14-foot concrete pad,and SureWest fiber optic cable, microwave, and other related equipment would be located in a 12-foot by 28-foot prefabricated equipment shelter. The tower would be capable of supporting up tothree additional carriers (besides SureWest). Three additional 12-foot by 16-foot equipment padsand one additional 12-foor by 20-foot equipment shelter would accommodate these future carriers.

Upon completion, the SureWest telecommunications tower facility would be operated 24 hours perday, year round. The site would not be staffed, but it would be visited once or twice per month forgeneral servicing and maintenance.

Utilities

As described below, the proposed telecommunications tower would require telecommunications andelectricity connections, and storm drainage would percolate on-site and drain off the site:

• A telecommunications conduit would be installed from the UC Davis ADF (located at the base ofthe UC Davis telecommunications tower) east to the SureWest tower area.

• The proposed SureWest telecommunications tower facility would connect to the campuselectrical system at a transformer servicing the UC Davis telecommunications tower. Theexisting 225 KVA transformer would be upgraded to a 500 KVA unit to adequately serve bothtelecommunication tower facilities. An emergency diesel generator could be installed at thefacility in the future to provide electricity during emergency power outages.

• A lining of geo fabric covered with crushed rock would be placed on the site to allow stormwaterrunoff to be contained on the site and run off the site as the existing grade allows.

Access and Parking Improvements

A permanent fence would enclose the site, and a double gate would accommodate entry to the site offthe side road located to the west of the site. This side road also provides access to the existing UCDavis telecommunications tower facility. Parking for maintenance personnel would be provided onthe site.

Landscaping

The proposed SureWest telecommunications tower facility would be set back from Garrod Drive byten feet. Existing vegetation along the northern side of Garrod Drive would provide some screeningfor the facility. No additional landscaping would be provided.

Controlled Environment Facility

The approximately 12-foot by 28-foot (336 gross square feet) single-story SureWest CEF would beconstructed on an approximately 0.06 acre site located directly west of the existing UC Davis CEF in


- 18 -

the south campus, west of Old Davis Road (see Figure 4). The proposed CEF would be a modularbuilding.

The CEF would be a temperature-controlled facility that would house fiber optic equipment. Thisfiber optic equipment would support telecommunications services to the UC Davis campus andbandwidth transport to the proposed SureWest telecommunications tower. The facility would not bestaffed, but would be visited occasionally for upgrades and maintenance. The CEF wouldaccommodate minimum storage, because maintenance and upgrade equipment and parts would bebrought to the site as needed.

Utilities

As described below, the proposed CEF would require telecommunications and electricity utilityconnections, and storm drainage would percolate on-site and drain off the site:

• Additional telecommunications fiber optic cables would be pulled through the existing UC Davisconduit that connects the UC Davis CEF to the UC Davis NOC in the central campus. Conduitwould be installed to connect the proposed SureWest CEF to the existing UC Davis CEF, therebylinking the SureWest CEF and the UC Davis NOC. Telecommunications conduit would also beinstalled to connect the proposed SureWest CEF to an existing SureWest conduit that is locatednear the intersection of Old Davis Road and the UPRR tracks.

• Electricity to the CEF would be provided via an extension of the campus electrical system froman existing transformer located southeast of the UC Davis CEF.

• The area immediately surrounding the CEF would be covered with crushed rock, which wouldallow stormwater runoff to be contained on the site and run off the site as the existing gradeallows.

Access and Parking Improvements

The west side of the fence encircling the UC Davis CEF would be removed, and the fence would beextended to encircle both the existing and proposed CEFs. The existing access to the UC Davis CEFoff Old Davis Road would provide access to both buildings. Parking for maintenance personnelwould be provided within the fenced area.

Landscaping

The proposed SureWest CEF would be screened from Old Davis Road by the existing UC Davis CEFand existing vegetation. No additional landscaping would be provided.

Population

The proposed project would not contribute any additional campus employees or students.


- 19 -

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND STAGING

Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over an approximately 90-day periodstarting in late summer, 2002 and ending in fall, 2002. Construction staging and contractor parkingfor the telecommunications tower would occur on site. Construction staging and contractor parkingfor the CEF would occur within the fence that would encircle both the UC Davis and SureWest CEFs.

PROJECT APPROVALS

As a public agency principally responsible for approving and inspecting the proposed project, theUniversity of California is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for reviewing andcertifying the adequacy of the environmental document and approving the proposed project.Approval for this project has been delegated to the campus by The Regents and will be considered bythe Vice Chancellor of Resource Management and Planning and the Facilities and EnterpriseCoordination committee in July 2002. The FAA would review the tower portion of the project forapproval prior to construction.


- 20 -

IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE LRDP

In order to determine the project’s consistency with the 1994 LRDP and 1994 LRDP EIR, thefollowing questions must be answered:

• Is the proposed project included in the scope of the development projected in the1994 LRDP?

• Is the proposed location of the project in an area designated for this type of use in the1994 LRDP?

• Are changes to campus population that would result from the proposed projectincluded within the scope of the 1994 LRDP population projections?

• Are the objectives of the proposed project consistent with the objectives adopted forthe 1994 LRDP?

• Is the proposed project within the scope of the cumulative analysis in the 1994 LRDPEIR?

The following discussion describes the proposed project’s relationship to development projections,population projections, land use designations, and objectives contained in the 1994 LRDP and theproject’s consistency with each of these items. Appendix A summarizes the amendments to the 1994LRDP and the revisions and updates to the 1994 LRDP EIR since original publication.

1994 LRDP SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT

The proposed telecommunications tower site is designated in the 1994 LRDP for 'Academic andAdministrative Low Density' and the proposed CEF site is designated for 'Academic andAdministrative High Density Enterprise Reserve'. The 1994 LRDP projected development of 1.75million assignable square feet (asf) through 2005-06 for high and low density academic andadministrative land uses. The 1994 LRDP assumed total academic and administrative asf in 2005-06would be 6,495,740. As of March 2002, approximately 5,885,349 academic and administrative asfwas built or approved. The proposed project would not add academic and administrative asf to thecampus, therefore, it would not exceed the scope of development projected in the 1994 LRDP.

1994 LRDP LAND USE DESIGNATION

The approximately 0.3-acre site proposed for development of the SureWest telecommunicationstower and accessory structures is designated in the 1994 LRDP for 'Academic and Administrative LowDensity' uses. This land use category (as described on page 46 of the 1994 LRDP) provides for spaceto conduct the instruction and research mission of the University (such as classrooms; researchlaboratories and research support areas; faculty, student, and staff offices; and libraries). Buildings inthis designation are typically no more than one story tall, resulting in a low concentration of people.The UC Davis telecommunications tower, located adjacent and west of the proposed SureWest towersite, is also designated for 'Academic and Administrative Low Density' uses. Although located onland designated for 'Support,' the existing Charter telecommunications tower and the UC DavisWater Tower No. 2 are also located in the vicinity of the proposed tower site (see Figure 2). The


- 21 -

proposed SureWest tower would serve as part of an agreement that would greatly benefit academicand administrative functions, would not conflict with adjacent uses, and would be consistent with thelow population density nature of the designation. Therefore, the proposed project would beconsistent with the 'Academic and Administrative Low Density' designation.

The approximately 0.06-acre site proposed for development of the SureWest CEF building isdesignated in the 1994 LRDP for 'Academic and Administrative High Density Enterprise Reserve'uses. This land use category (as described on pages 45-46 of the 1994 LRDP) provides for space toconduct the instruction and research mission of the University (such as classrooms; researchlaboratories and research support areas; faculty, student, and staff offices; and libraries), and anaverage height for new buildings of four stories. The 'Enterprise Reserve' overlay signifies thatcampus development in this area will primarily be financed in cooperation with public or privateorganizations external to the campus. The UC Davis CEF, located adjacent and east of the proposedSureWest CEF site, is also designated for 'Academic and Administrative High Density EnterpriseReserve'. The proposed CEF would be primarily financed in cooperation with a private company,would serve as part of an agreement that would greatly benefit academic and administrativefunctions, and would not conflict with adjacent uses. Therefore, the proposed project would beconsistent with the 'Academic and Administrative High Density Enterprise Reserve' designation.

1994 LRDP POPULATION PROJECTIONS

The on-campus population anticipated under the 1994 LRDP for 2005-06 is 38,630 (26,000 studentsand 12,630 faculty and staff) (see Table 1). The 1999-00 on-campus population estimate was 32,775(22,887 students and 9,888 faculty and staff). Recently built and approved projects would bring thistotal to approximately 34,843 (23,605 students and 11,238 staff). The proposed project wouldcontribute no new campus employees or students. Therefore, the project would not exceedpopulation projections assumed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

TABLE 1. ESTIMATED AND PROJECTED CAMPUS POPULATION

Population 1992-93Estimate3

1999-00Estimate4

1994 LRDPProjected Growth5

2005-06Projection5

Students1 21,060 22,887 + 3,113 26,000

Faculty and Staff2 9,550 9,888 + 2,742 12,630

Total Population 30,610 32,775 + 5,855 38,630

1 Off-campus student population not counted in this total. Approximately 570 students are located at the UC Davis MedicalComplex, Sacramento Campus, and an additional 280 students are enrolled elsewhere at other UC Davis affiliated facilities.Therefore, accounting for the off-campus student population, total UC Davis enrollment in 2005-06 will be 26,850.

2 Includes faculty and staff located on the central, west, and south campus units, Russell Ranch, and at campus facilities in the City ofDavis sphere of influence.

3 Base year for 1994 LRDP EIR analysis. Source: UC Davis 1994 LRDP EIR.4 Source: UC Davis 2001a.5 Projected 1994 LRDP growth and buildout. Source: UC Davis 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 22 -

1994 LRDP Objectives

The purpose of the 1994 LRDP is to guide campus land use and development in response to projectedpopulation growth and the changing nature of academic programs. The 1994 LRDP responds toprojected growth in the campus population by:

• providing new instructional space and classrooms required to serve the anticipatedgrowth in student population,

• providing expanded instruction and research space projected for the biologicalsciences, agricultural sciences, physical sciences, and veterinary medicine, and

• providing flexibility for significant expansions in response to future academicmissions.

In addition, the 1994 LRDP contains specific objectives that are of relevance to the proposed project,including:

Northern California. Continue to utilize the campus as a site for academic partnerships withthe public and private sector, taking advantage of UC Davis' location in Northern Californiaand proximity to the State Capitol. [Regional and Local Setting Objective, page 12 of the 1994LRDP.]

Cluster new development. Cluster new development identified for the West and South Campus withexisting development (infill), or on the edges of agricultural areas, to retain larger, more useable blocksof agricultural land. [Soils Objective, page 26 of the 1994 LRDP.]

Telecommunications. Promote the development of high-speed communications infrastructure forintra- and inter-campus communications to support cutting-edge research and instruction, and enablealternate work sites. [Developed Resources Objective, page 26 of the 1994 LRDP.]

The proposed agreement with SureWest would exchange use of campus land for telecommunicationscapabilities. The location of the campus is a central part of this agreement, consistent with the"Northern California" Regional and Local Setting objective.

The project would develop a SureWest telecommunications tower facility in the west campusadjacent to the UC Davis telecommunications tower facility, and it would develop a SureWest CEF inthe south campus adjacent to the UC Davis CEF. This grouping of development is consistent withthe "cluster new development" Soils objective.

The project would enable the development of high-speed communication connections between UCDavis and UCDMC and UC Davis and the MNRC, consistent with the "telecommunications"Developed Resources Objective.


- 23 -

CUMULATIVE ANALYSES

1994 LRDP EIR Cumulative Impact Analysis

The 1994 LRDP EIR contained cumulative impact analyses for the projected buildout of the 1994LRDP. The cumulative context in the 1994 LRDP EIR varied depending on the nature of the issuebeing studied. Cumulative effects were classified by either natural resources boundaries (i.e.,biological resources, hydrology, geology, and air quality); or by population growth and associateddevelopment within the City of Davis and Yolo and Solano counties (i.e., public and communityservices, transportation, hazardous materials, noise, aesthetics, and cultural resources). Thecumulative impact analysis for each environmental issue in the EIR was defined based on thecumulative context that best defined the geographic extent of the possible cumulative effect (seeSection 5.2, Cumulative Impacts, of the 1994 LRDP EIR).

The proposed project includes construction and operation of a telecommunications tower and a CEFbuilding. As discussed above, the proposed project is within the scope of development andpopulation assumed in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project incrementallycontributes to, but does not exceed, the cumulative impact evaluation presented in the 1994 LRDPEIR, as revised.

The technical discussions in the Tiered Initial Study Environmental Checklist, attached hereto,conclude that the proposed project would:

• not contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts identified in the1994 LRDP EIR related to loss of prime agricultural land (Item 2a), toxic airemissions (Item 6b, c, d), use and disposal of radioactive materials (Item 7 a, b), useand disposal of biohazardous materials (Item 7a, b), loss of valley elderberry longhornbeetle habitat (Item 8a);

• incrementally contribute to, but not exceed, significant and unavoidable impactsidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR related to intersection level of service (Item 4b),increased noise sources (Item 5a, c), construction air pollutants (Item 6b), criteria airemissions (Item 6b, c), use and disposal of hazardous materials (Item 7a, b),development on potentially contaminated sites (Item 7d), demand for emergencyresponse (Item 7g), loss of ruderal/annual grassland (Item 8a), receiving water quality(Item 9a), groundwater recharge (Item 9b), seismic effects (Item 10a), loss of culturalresources (Item 12b, d), loss of rural character (Item 13b, d); and

• incrementally contribute to, but not exceed, less-than-significant cumulative impactsidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR related to carbon monoxide emissions (Item 6b, c),and demand for electricity (Item 16h).

Adequacy of the 1994 LRDP EIR through 2005-06

As presented in Appendix C of this document, the campus has updated projections for campusgrowth through 2005-06 based on information provided by the University regarding enrollmentgrowth and based on reasonably foreseeable campus projects. Based on the analysis in Appendix C,the campus has concluded that, because development and the environmental effects associated with


- 24 -

projected increases in the campus population through 2005-06 will be within the parametersassumed in the 1994 LRDP, the cumulative impacts of growth through 2005-06 have been adequatelyaddressed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Environmental Effects through 2014-15

The University has recently determined that enrollment throughout the University system willincrease by approximately 60,000 to 70,000 students within the next 10 to 15 years. This growth inenrollment is related to projected demographic changes that are expected to increase the demand fora college education in California. UC Davis is currently considering how it should plan toaccommodate the campus' share of this enrollment growth. The campus' share of this growth couldbring the three-quarter average on-campus student population to approximately 29,500 by 2014-15.The 1994 LRDP already assumed 26,000 of these students. This anticipated enrollment growth andassociated increases in employees and facility construction for 2014-15 would surpass theassumptions identified in the 1994 LRDP for 2005-06 and evaluated in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Thecampus will prepare a new LRDP to identify the changes required to accommodate anticipatedgrowth, and the campus will prepare an EIR to assess the environmental impacts of such changes. Itis anticipated that The Regents will review and consider approval of the updated LRDP and its EIR inthe fall of 2003.

To the extent that growth and physical development anticipated for 2014-15 were not considered inthe 1994 LRDP EIR, additional environmental effects that were not previously identified may occur.However, it would be speculative to determine or analyze these effects now because mostcomponents of the next LRDP are not currently known. Nevertheless, the campus has prepared aCumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document, that serves to inform thepublic concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potential growth through 2014-15.


- 25 -

V. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving atleast one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on thefollowing pages.

o Land Use/Planning o Hazards & HazardousMaterials

o Aesthetics

o Agricultural Resources o Biological Resources o Public Services

o Population/Housing o Hydrology/Water Quality o Recreation

o Transportation/Traffic o Geology/Soils o Utilities/Service Systems

o Noise o Mineral Resources o Mandatory Findings ofSignificance

o Air Quality o Cultural Resources

Based on the analysis presented in this Tiered Initial Study, it has been determined that for allresource areas, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that cannot bemitigated to a less-than-significant level or are not sufficiently addressed by the 1994 LRDP EIR, asrevised. This Tiered Initial Study has concluded that the project would incrementally contribute to,but not exceed, certain significant impacts previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, and that forsuch impacts, no new mitigation measures, other than those previously identified in the 1994 LRDPEIR, are required. Therefore, preparation of a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The NegativeDeclaration is presented in Appendix B of this document.


- 26 -

VI. DETERMINATION

Pursuant to Sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Tiered Initial Study has been prepared toevaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in relation to the programmaticenvironmental analysis contained in the 1994 LRDP EIR. On the basis of the evaluation that follows, I find that:

___ The proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the general exemption (CEQA Guidelines,15061(b)(3)), a statutory exemption, and/or a categorical exemption, and that if a categoricalexemption, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply. A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION will beprepared.

___ Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project may incrementallycontribute to, but will not exceed, the significant environmental impacts previously identified in the1994 LRDP EIR, and the project will otherwise result in no new significant environmental impacts.Further, having been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the 1994 LRDP EIR, no new mitigationmeasures, other than those previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, are required. FINDINGSconsistent with this determination will be prepared.

X The proposed project may incrementally contribute to, but will not exceed, significant environmentalimpacts previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Further, the proposed project will result in no newsignificant impacts other than those previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. However, the projectwill have environmental impacts not previously addressed in the 1994 LRDP EIR, but there is nosubstantial evidence that such impacts may have a significant impact on the environment. No newmitigation measures, other than those previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, are required. ANEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (The Negative Declaration is presented in Appendix B.)

The proposed project may incrementally contribute to, but not exceed, certain significant cumulativeimpacts previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, and that for such impacts, no new mitigationmeasures, other than those previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, are required. In addition, theproject may result in a potentially significant impact not previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR,but a proposed project specific mitigation measure would reduce the effect of such impact to a pointthat clearly no significant impact would occur. On the basis of the Tiered Initial Study andimplementation of all proposed project specific mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidencethat the project as mitigated may have a significant effect on the environment. A MITIGATEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

___ The proposed project may incrementally contribute to, but will not exceed, certain significantenvironmental impacts previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. For such impacts, no newmitigation measures, other than those previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, are required and areincorporated by reference. Further, there is substantial evidence that the project may result in asignificant environmental impact that was not previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, and/or willexacerbate a significant environmental impact previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. AnEnvironmental Impact Report will be prepared that addresses the new impacts not previously identifiedin the 1994 LRDP EIR and supplements the 1994 LRDP EIR.

July 19, 2002 ______________________________________Date John A. Meyer

Vice Chancellor - Resource Management and Planning


- 27 -

VII. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impactsof the proposed project with respect to the 1994 LRDP EIR. The checklist identifies potential projecteffects as follows:

(1) Potentially Significant Impact: An effect that is substantial based on significance criteria. Ifthere are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries in the checklist form, an EIR isrequired.

(2) Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An effect that, with the incorporation ofmitigation measures, is reduced from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less ThanSignificant Impact.” The Tiered Initial Study includes mitigation measures and brieflyexplains how these measures reduce the associated effect to a less-than-significant level.

(3) Impact for which LRDP/Program EIR is Sufficient: An effect that was adequately addressedand mitigated to the extent feasible in the 1994 LRDP EIR (the Program EIR).

(4) Less than Significant Impact: No significant impacts, only less-than-significant impacts, willresult.

(5) No Impact: The project does not create an impact in the category.

Environmental impacts of the proposed project that are determined in this Tiered Initial Study tohave been adequately analyzed and mitigated in the 1994 LRDP EIR generally fall into one of twogeneral categories: (1) impacts that were determined to be less-than-significant after theimplementation of mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, and (2) impacts consideredsignificant and unavoidable in the 1994 LRDP EIR. No further analysis is required for impacts withinthe first category since the 1994 LRDP EIR and associated mitigation measures would reduce project-level impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the1994 LRDP EIR include: (a) impacts identified as significant for some projects, but which would notbe significant in relation to the proposed project; and (b) impacts that are significant on a cumulativelevel but not at a project level, for which the 1994 LRDP EIR fully addresses the cumulative impacts.The following resource discussions provide specific reasons for concluding that the 1994 LRDP EIRadequately analyzes the impacts of the proposed project.

Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is also provided in the following resourcediscussions. Included in each discussion is a summary of relevant setting information and 1994LRDP EIR impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project.


- 28 -

1. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Background

The 5,300 acre UC Davis campus, in general, is comprised of four campus units: the central campus,the south campus, the west campus, and Russell Ranch (see Figure 3-2, Regional and Local Setting,on page 3-5 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR). The 1994 LRDP designated land uses on campus includingAcademic and Administrative (High and Low Density); Support; Housing; Physical Education,Intercollegiate Athletics, and Recreation (PE/ICA/Recreation); Teaching and Research Fields; OpenSpace (Formal, Reserve, and Teaching/Research); Parking; Community Gardens; Commercial; andEnterprise Reserve.

The approximately 0.3-acre site proposed for development of the SureWest telecommunicationstower facility is designated in the 1994 LRDP for 'Academic and Administrative Low Density' uses.The approximately 0.06 acre site proposed for development of the SureWest CEF building isdesignated in the 1994 LRDP for 'Academic and Administrative High Density Enterprise Reserve'uses. These land use designations are defined in the 1994 LRDP as follows:

Academic and Administrative High Density Enterprise Reserve: This land use categoryincludes space for conducting the instruction and research mission of the University ofCalifornia. Classrooms; research laboratories and research support areas; faculty, student andstaff offices; and libraries make up the majority of this space. Also included is space forstudent activities, museums, administrative offices, meeting rooms, and space for publicservice activities linked to UC Davis. The high density designation includes existingbuildings up to nine stories, and an average height for new buildings of four stories. TheEnterprise Reserve overlay signifies that campus development in these areas would primarilybe financed in cooperation with public or private organizations external to the campus. Usesinclude affiliated research, faculty housing, commercial activity, office support, recreationalopportunities, open space amenities, and cultural facilities.

Academic and Administrative Low Density: The low density designation for academic andadministrative uses includes the same range of activities as the high density category, butbuildings are typically no more than one story. The lower buildings, and the fact that muchof the low density academic area includes teaching and research support uses such asgreenhouses, result in a lower concentration of people at these sites.

The 1994 LRDP projected development of 1.75 million assignable square feet (asf) through 2005-06for high and low density academic and administrative land uses. The 1994 LRDP assumed totalacademic and administrative asf in 2005-06 would be 6,495,740. As of March 2002, approximately5,885,349 academic and administrative asf has been built or approved.

1994 LRDP EIR Standards of Significance

The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to land use planningsignificant if planned growth would:


- 29 -

• propose uses that would conflict with locally adopted city or county planningpolicies; or

• propose uses that would be incompatible with adjacent uses and that would beconsidered a nuisance because the proposed use would (a) cause adjacent land uses tomake extensive operational adjustments that would reduce the efficiency oreffectiveness of the land uses, or (b) otherwise significantly adversely affect theefficiency, effectiveness, or productivity of the land uses.

1994 LRDP EIR Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impacts of campus growth through 2005-06 on land use and planning were evaluated in Section 4.1(Land Use) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. No significant land use and planning impacts wereidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Land use impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-5 in the 1994 LRDP EIR addressthe loss of prime farmland. Due to revisions to the CEQA guidelines since 1994, these impacts arecurrently addressed in the Environmental Checklist section titled “Agricultural Resources.” The1994 LRDP EIR land use and planning analysis was updated to reflect land use designation changesin the WWTP Replacement Project EIR (Chapter 4.6 of the Draft EIR), the 1997-98 Major CapitalImprovement Projects SEIR (Sections 5.3, 6.3, and 7.3 of the Draft SEIR), the Center for the ArtsPerformance Hall and South Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Tiered Initial Study andMitigated Negative Declaration (page 29 of the Initial Study), and the USDA Western HumanNutrition Research Complex Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (pages 45-46 ofthe Initial Study). Appendix A of this Initial Study summarizes updates and revisions to the 1994LRDP EIR. No new land use and planning impacts were identified as a result of these updates. Theproposed project is within the scope of the land use and planning analyses presented in thesedocuments. The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C ofthis document, that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about thecampus' potential growth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through2014-15 is not anticipated to introduce any new cumulative land use and planning impacts or requireany new mitigation measures. However, the campus will reexamine potential cumulative land useand planning impacts and any new mitigation measures that may be required during the LRDPupdate process.

LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

PotentiallySignificant

Impact

Less-than-significant

with MitigationIncorporated

Impact forwhich LRDP/

Program EIR isSufficient


ImpactNo Impact

a) Physically divide an establishedcommunity?

o o o o g


- 30 -

LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

b) Conflict with any applicable land useplan, policy, or regulation of anagency with jurisdiction over theproject (including, but not limited tothe LRDP, general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoningordinance) adopted for the purposeof avoiding or mitigating anenvironmental effect?

o o o o g

c) Conflict with any applicable habitatconservation plan or naturalcommunity conservation plan?

o o o o g

d) Conflict with any designatedadjacent existing or future land useson or off-campus?

o o o o g

e) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o o o g

Discussion

a) The proposed project would not physically divide a community. The proposed SureWesttelecommunications tower and support structures would be located in the west campus north andwest of Garrod Drive, adjacent and east of the existing 150-foot tall UC Davistelecommunications tower, and south of agricultural land (see Figure 3). The proposed SureWestCEF would be located south and east of fallow agricultural land, north of a dirt road followed byfallow agricultural land, and west of the UC Davis CEF. The project would not separate land useactivities currently taking place in the region. No impact would occur.

b) The proposed telecommunications tower site is designated in the 1994 LRDP for Academic andAdministrative Low Density and the proposed CEF site is designated for Academic andAdministrative High Density Enterprise Reserve. As discussed further in Section IV, the projectwould be consistent with these land use designations, and therefore would not conflict with theapplicable land use plan for the campus.

The proposed project would be located in the Davis Planning Area shown on the City of DavisGeneral Plan. Although the University of California is exempt from local plans, policies, andzoning regulations, it is campus policy to cooperate with the general plans and land use policiesof the City of Davis and Solano and Yolo Counties. The 1994 LRDP Draft EIR includes relevantpolicies and goals from the City of Davis and Counties of Solano and Yolo General Plans on pages4.1-25 through 4.1-27. The 1987 City of Davis General Plan was updated in May 2001. Theproposed project would not conflict with the updated City of Davis General Plan or the GeneralPlans for the Counties of Solano and Yolo. Accordingly, no impact would occur.


- 31 -

c) The proposed telecommunications tower and CEF sites are currently fallow agricultural land. Abiological survey of the sites did not identify any special status species (May & Associates 2002).The project sites are not included in any conservation plan and therefore would not conflict withany applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan land usedesignation. No impact would occur.

d) The proposed project would not impact other existing or future adjacent land uses. Theproposed telecommunications tower would be located adjacent and east of the existing UC Davistelecommunications tower and approximately 500-feet northwest of the existing Chartertelecommunications tower. The proposed tower would be designed and operated to eliminate thepossibility of interference with existing cell tower transmissions. In addition, a 30-day notice wassubmitted to all carriers associated with the adjacent UC Davis tower, and no notification of anypossible interference has been received. The proposed telecommunications tower facility wouldnot conflict with the teaching and research field uses to the north or Garrod Drive to the southand east. There are no other future land uses planned adjacent to the proposed tower site. Theproposed CEF would be sited adjacent and west of the UC Davis CEF, north of a field accessroad, and south and east of fallow agricultural land. The CEF would not conflict with theseexisting adjacent uses. The proposed CEF site is currently designated for 'High Density Academicand Administrative Enterprise Reserve.' The proposed CEF would be a modular building thatcould be relocated to accommodate the design of the future enterprise reserve development.Therefore, no impact would occur.

e) The standards of significance for land use and planning that were used in the preparation of the1994 LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with the landuse and planning questions in the current CEQA Environmental Checklist. Based on thediscussion presented above, the proposed project would not exceed the standards of significanceidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. No impact would occur.

Summary

The proposed project would not result in any new or significant land use and planning impacts. The1994 LRDP EIR did not identify any significant impacts that are currently categorized in the CEQAGuidelines as land use and planning impacts.


- 32 -

2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Background

The campus includes land designated by the State Department of Conservation as Prime Farmlandprimarily in the west campus, south campus, Russell Ranch and a small portion of the central campus(see Figure 4.1-5 on page 4.1-30 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR).


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to agricultural resourcessignificant if campus or regional growth would:

• propose uses that would convert or cause the conversion of Prime Farmland (asdefined by the State Department of Conservation) to non-agricultural uses or cancelor cause the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts; or

• propose uses that would impair the agricultural productivity of prime agriculturalland.


The significant impact identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR that is relevant to the proposed project ispresented in the following table. Impact 4.1-1 was identified as significant and unavoidable becauseno feasible mitigation measures were identified. Impacts of campus growth through 2005-06 onagricultural resources were addressed in Section 4.1 (Land Use) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR.Cumulative impacts on agricultural resources were reevaluated in the WWTP Replacement ProjectEIR, and agricultural resource impacts were revised to account for the loss of additional primefarmland not previously assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR (Appendix G of the Final EIR). Both the1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR and the Center for the Arts Performance Hall andSouth Entry Roadway and Parking Improvements Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration identified losses of prime farmland over the amount assessed in the 1994 LRDP.However, these projects included measures to mitigate the impact on agricultural resources to a less-than-significant level (Appendix A of the Final SEIR, and pages 29-30 and 64 of the Initial Study).Appendix A of this document summarizes updates and revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR. Theproposed project is within the scope of the agricultural resource analysis presented in the 1994 LRDPEIR, as reevaluated and revised in subsequent documents.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 woulddevelop farmland that was not previously assumed for development under the 1994 LRDP. Thecumulative impacts associated with cumulative loss of farmland are anticipated to remain significantand unavoidable. While the campus has not yet been able to identify feasible measures to mitigatethe permanent conversion of prime farmland to a less-than-significant level, this impact and anyfeasible mitigation will be studied as part of the next LRDP process.


- 33 -

LRDP EIR IMPACT Level ofSignificance Prior

to Mitigation

Level ofSignificanceAfter/WithMitigation

4.1-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in the permanentloss of 160 acres for prime farmland from the State Department ofConservation's inventory.

SU SU

Levels of Significance: SU = Significant and Unavoidable; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; LS = Less than Significant

The proposed project is evaluated in the checklist below.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact

Less ThanSignificant





ImpactNo Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, UniqueFarmland, or Farmland of StatewideImportance (Farmland), as shown onthe maps prepared pursuant to theFarmland Mapping and MonitoringProgram of the California ResourcesAgency, to non-agricultural use?

o o g o o

b) Conflict with existing zoning foragricultural use, or a Williamson Actcontract?

o o o o g

c) Involve other changes in the existingenvironment which, due to theirlocation or nature, could result inconversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

o o o o g

d) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o o o g

Discussion

a) The approximately 0.06-acre CEF site is designated as 'Prime Farmland' by the State of CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation on the Yolo and Solano Counties Important Farmland Map shown inFigure 4.1-5 of the 1994 LRDP EIR. This category applies to land with the best combination ofphysical and chemical features for the production of agricultural crops. The project site is verysmall, is currently out of agricultural production, and is immediately adjacent to a developed site(the UC Davis CEF). The 1994 LRDP EIR considered loss of prime agricultural land significantand unavoidable due to lack of feasible mitigation. The proposed project would contribute to,but would not exceed, loss of prime agricultural land identified under the 1994 LRDP as


- 34 -

amended. This significant and unavoidable impact was adequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDPEIR and fully addressed by the Findings and Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regentsin connection with its approval of the 1994 LRDP and certification of the 1994 LRDP EIR. Asdiscussed in Appendix C, this impact is anticipated to remain significant and unavoidablethrough 2014-15. Given growth through 2014-15, agricultural land not previously identified forconversion in the 1994 LRDP EIR could be developed. The availability of feasible mitigationmeasures will be investigated as part of the LRDP update process

The approximately 0.3-acre telecommunications tower site is designated as 'Urban and Built-UpLand'. This category applies to land occupied by structures or infrastructure.

b) No Williamson Act contracts exist on campus. In addition, although the project sites are locatedin agricultural areas, both sites are not currently used for agricultural production anddevelopment of the sites would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. No impactwould occur.

c) The project sites are located on fallow agricultural land. Implementation of the proposed projectwould not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, and no impact wouldoccur.

d) Standards of significance for agriculture resources impacts that were used in preparation of the1994 LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with theagricultural resources questions in the current CEQA Environmental Checklist. Based on thediscussion presented above, the proposed project would not exceed the standards of significanceidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would not result in new significant impacts related toagriculture resources that were not previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and subsequentdocuments. Since the project would not result in the loss of farmland, no impact would occur.

Summary

The proposed project would not result in new or significant agriculture resources impacts that havenot already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 35 -

3. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Background

The campus population consists of students, faculty, and staff. Current and projected campuspopulation figures are presented in Table 1 of this Tiered Initial Study. Increased population growthon campus would also result in growth in the City of Davis. The increased population attributed toUC Davis is assumed to be included in the population projections adopted by the City of DavisGeneral Plan.

The campus maintains a policy to house all freshman who wish to live on campus and the 1994LRDP includes a goal to provide housing for 25 percent of enrollment. Recently completed studenthousing projects on the campus include the Primero Grove Apartments and the Colleges at La Rue.UC Davis also provides on-campus family housing (Solano Park, Orchard Park, and Russell Park) andfaculty and staff housing (Aggie Village).


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to population and housingsignificant if campus or regional growth would:

• induce substantial growth or concentration of population;

• displace a large number of people; or

• conflict with the housing and population projections and policies set forth in the Cityof Davis General Plan.


Impacts of campus growth through 2005-06 on population and housing issues were addressed inSection 4.2 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. No significant population or housing impacts wereidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR or subsequent documents. The proposed project is within the scopeof the population and housing analysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR. The campus has prepared aCumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document, that serves to inform thepublic concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potential growth through 2014-15.As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 would exceed campus populationprojections assumed under the 1994 LRDP. However, this growth is not anticipated to result in anynew cumulative population and housing impacts or require any new mitigation measures. Thecampus will reexamine potential cumulative population and housing impacts and any new mitigationmeasures that may be required during the LRDP update process.


- 36 -

POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Cumulatively exceed 1994 LRDPcampus population projections?

o o o o g

b) Induce substantial populationgrowth in an area, either directly (forexample, by proposing new homesand businesses) or indirectly (forexample, through extension of roadsor other infrastructure)?

o o o o g

c) Displace substantial numbers ofpeople and/or existing housing,necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere?

o o o o g

d) Conflict with the populationprojections or housing policies setforth in the City of Davis GeneralPlan?

o o o o g

e) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o o o g

Discussion

a) As discussed in Section IV and shown in Table 1, the recent population estimate (from 1999-2000) for campus faculty, staff, and students is 32,775 (22,887 students and 9,888 faculty andstaff). Projected buildout presented in the 1994 LRDP for year 2005-06 is 38,630 (26,000students and 12,630 faculty and staff).

The proposed project would contribute no new campus employees and no new students. Noimpact would occur.

b) The proposed project would contribute no new campus employees or students. The additionalcommunications infrastructure provided by the project would not induce population growth oncampus or in the City of Davis. No impact would occur.

c) The project sites are not designated for housing, nor do they include any existing housingfacilities. In addition, the proposed project would not necessitate the construction ofreplacement housing due to displacement of people. Therefore, no impact would occur.

d) Implementation of the proposed project would not add new employees or new students to thecampus. Therefore, no impact would occur.


- 37 -

e) Standards of significance for population and housing impacts that were used in preparation of the1994 LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with thepopulation and housing questions in the current CEQA Environmental Checklist. Based on thediscussion presented above, the proposed project would not exceed the standards of significanceidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would not result in new significant impacts related topopulation and housing that were not previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR. No impactwould occur.

Summary

The proposed project would not result in new or significant population and housing impacts thathave not already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 38 -

4. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION

Background

Regional roadway access to the campus and the City of Davis is provided primarily by I-80 and SR113. Access to the campus from the City of Davis is provided primarily from A Street, B Street, FirstStreet, and Russell Boulevard. On campus, the major element of the central campus roadway systemis the Loop Road System, which encircles academic and administrative uses. Inside the loop, generalmotor vehicle access is either prohibited or limited to specific destinations, with through trafficeliminated. The Loop Road System consists of Russell Boulevard, A Street, Old Davis Road,California Avenue and La Rue Road. Access to and from the central campus and the west campus isprovided primarily by Hutchison Drive and Russell Boulevard. Access to and from the centralcampus and the south campus is provided primarily by Old Davis Road. Access to and from RussellRanch is provided by Russell Boulevard.

Parking, bicycle paths, and transit service are provided throughout the campus. Parking and bicyclepaths are concentrated on the core of the central campus. Figure 3-8 on page 3-18 of the 1994 LRDPDraft EIR depicts major parking areas and roadways.


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to transportation/circulationsignificant if campus or regional growth would:

• result in Level of Service (LOS) for roadways within the City of Davis and the centralcampus of LOS “D” for existing roadways and LOS “C” for new roadways;

• result in LOS for County roadways of LOS “C”;

• result in LOS for I-80 of LOS “E”;

• result in LOS for SR 113 of LOS “D”;

• result in disruption to existing patterns of pedestrian and bicycle circulation,including the effects of congestion and unsafe conditions, and/or result in new useswhich would create demand for bicycle and pedestrian travel without appropriatefacilities;

• result in disruption to the provision of transit services, including making transit safe,and/or result in demands for transit services which are not satisfied as part of theproject or a known plan;

• result in an increase in winter parking utilization over 90 percent on the CentralCampus, Medical Sciences Complex, and/or major facilities of the West and SouthCampuses;


- 39 -

• result in the elimination of existing parking and increases in the projected utilizationrate over 85 percent without permitting adequate time (usually 24 months) toimplement a parking solution (to campus construction standards); or

• require additional parking and result in an increase in the utilization rate over 90percent, unless decreases in projected campus parking demand are expected tosubstantially counteract this trend.

These LOS standards are based, in part, on the standards of the City of Davis that were current in1994. In the City of Davis General Plan Update adopted in May 2001, the City has included thefollowing new LOS standards:

• Unless preempted by the County Congestion Management Plan, LOS “E” forautomobiles is sufficient for arterials and collectors during peak traffic hours.

• LOS “F” is acceptable in the Core Area (generally downtown area of the City).

Although the new City standards are less stringent than the 1994 LRDP EIR standards, the1994 LRDP EIR standards are utilized in this document to provide a more conservative analysis (i.e.,to overestimate impacts).


Impacts of campus growth through 2005-06 on transportation and circulation were evaluated inSection 4.3 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. The 1997-98 Major Capital Improvements Projects SEIRupdated the 1994 LRDP EIR traffic analysis and revised 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(Section 8 of the Draft SEIR). The Veterinary Medicine Laboratory and Equine Athletic PerformanceLaboratory Facilities Focused Tiered EIR further updated the 1994 LRDP EIR transportation andcirculation analysis and included a project-specific mitigation measure to reduce an identified impact(identified as 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b) (f)) (Section 3 of the Final VeterinaryMedicine Laboratory and Equine Athletic Performance Laboratory Facilities Focused Tiered EIR).Appendix A in this Initial Study presents further information on revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR.

A significant impact identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as revised, that is relevant to the proposedproject is presented in the following table. The levels of significance before and after application ofmitigation measures are also presented. The proposed project is within the scope of the analysispresented in the 1994 LRDP EIR as updated and revised in subsequent documents. Please note that1994 LRDP Impact 4.3-1 includes mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significantlevel. However, this impact was identified as significant and unavoidable because the University ofCalifornia could not guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure because it falls within otherjurisdictions to enforce and monitor.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 would likelycause elements of the roadway system that were not previously addressed in the 1994 LRDP EIR to


- 40 -

operate at levels that would exceed the campus' standards of significance. Transportation andcirculation mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR would be updated in the next LRDPEIR to mitigate these new exceedances. However, growth through 2014-15 is not anticipated toresult in any new cumulative transportation and circulation impacts. The campus will reexaminepotential cumulative transportation and circulation impacts and any new mitigation measures thatmay be required during the LRDP update process.


to Mitigation


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


Mitigation measures in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as updated by the 1997-98 Major Capital ImprovementProjects SEIR (revised Mitigation Measure 4.3-1) and the Veterinary Medicine Laboratory and EquineAthletic Performance Laboratory Facilities Focused Tiered EIR (included a mitigation measureidentified as 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (b) (f)), which are applicable to the proposedproject and that will be required as part of project implementation include the following:

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(a) - The campus shall continue to actively pursue a programof Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies to reduce reliance on travel to and fromcampus by private automobile, particularly single-occupant peak period travel. As described inthe Setting section, the campus currently has an extensive TSM program. TSM strategies includethe development of a comprehensive bicycle circulation network, including a bicycle/pedestrianprecinct in core area of Central Campus; increased parking fees; transit planning and subsidies;carpool and vanpool matching service, and development and incentive program; campus shuttlesystems, including shuttles to UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento and UC Berkeley, publicawareness programs, park and ride lot identification, and telecommuting.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) - In cooperation with other responsible jurisdictions, thecampus shall monitor a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic operations at critical intersections in thecampus vicinity on a regular basis (at least every three years). To the extent that TSM measuresare successful, some roadway improvements may be avoided. Based upon the existing campusmode share and trip generation rates assumed in this analysis, the following physicalimprovements are intended to reduce the magnitude of this impact.

(a) Realign Old Davis Road as shown on the LRDP and reconstruct the intersection ofOld Davis and California Avenue. Provide separate right and left turn lanes on theCalifornia Avenue approach and a separate left turn lane on the eastbound Old DavisRoad approach and install a traffic signal. The realignment will extend to theintersection of Old Davis Road and A Street.

(b) At the intersection of I-80 Eastbound Ramps and Richards Boulevard, add anadditional turn lane on the ramp approach to the intersection, to provide a left turnlane, combined right and left turn lane, and a right turn lane.


- 41 -

(c) Restripe the southbound Research Park Drive approach to the intersection withRichards Boulevard/Cowell Boulevard to provide a combined through/left turn laneand a separate exclusive right turn lane.

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

(e) Widen the eastbound Olive Drive approach to the intersection of Richards Boulevardand Olive Drive, to provide a right turn lane, combined right turn and through lane,and a left turn lane.

(f) The campus will monitor traffic volumes at the Hutchison Drive and Health SciencesDrive intersection every three years. If and when signalization is warranted based ontraffic volumes, the campus will install a new traffic signal at this location.

Mitigation measures listed above are incorporated into the proposed project, and the proposedproject as mitigated is evaluated in the checklist below.

TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Cause an increase in traffic that issubstantial in relation to the existingtraffic load and capacity of the streetsystem (i.e., result in a substantialincrease in either the number ofvehicle trips, the volume to capacityratio on roads, or congestion atintersections)?

o o g o o

b) Exceed, either individually orcumulatively, a level of servicestandard established by the countycongestion management agency fordesignated roads or highways?

o o g o o

c) Result in a change in air trafficpatterns, including either an increasein traffic levels or a change inlocation that results in substantialsafety risks?

o o o g o

d) Substantially increase hazards due toa design feature (e.g., sharp curves ordangerous intersections) orincompatible uses (e.g., farmequipment)?

o o o o g


- 42 -

TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

e) Result in inadequate emergencyaccess? o o o o g

f) Result in inadequate parkingcapacity on campus? o o o o g

g) Conflict with applicable policies,plans, or programs supportingalternative transportation (e.g., busturnouts, bicycle racks)?

o o o o g

h) Increased pedestrian and bicycletraffic in areas which may not haveadequate facilities for these modes oftravel

o o o o g

i) Increased conflict between bicyclists,pedestrians, and transit vehicles,causing increased congestion andsafety problems?

o o o o g

j) Increased demand for transitservices? o o o o g

k) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o g o o

Discussion

a,b) During construction, traffic to and from the tower site and the CEF site would be limited toconstruction vehicles, and approximately four to six construction vehicles would be on the siteseach day. During operation of the proposed project, up to two maintenance vehicles wouldaccess the sites per month. Vehicles are expected to access the telecommunications tower site viaSR 113 to Hutchison to Garrod Road and access the CEF site from I-80 to Old Davis Road.

The cumulative transportation effects of refined 1994 LRDP growth projections indicate that thefollowing six intersections are anticipated to exceed 1994 LRDP EIR LOS standards through2005-06 (DKS 2001):

• Richards Boulevard and First Street,• Richards Boulevard and Olive Drive,• Richards Boulevard and I-80 Eastbound Ramp,• Richards Boulevard and Research Park Drive,• California Avenue and Realigned Old Davis Road, and• Health Sciences Drive and Hutchison Drive.


- 43 -

Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(b) [a] and [f], proposed in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as revised, wouldreduce cumulative on-campus impacts (at California Avenue/Realigned Old Davis Road and atHealth Sciences Drive/Hutchison Drive) to less-than-significant levels. However, 1994 LRDP EIRImpact 4.3-1 was considered significant and unavoidable because the University could notguarantee the feasibility and/or implementation of intersection improvements (identified inMitigation Measure 4.3-1) that fall within other jurisdictions to implement.

The roadways and intersections used to access the proposed project sites would experienceminimal increases to traffic volumes. The expected roadway increases of two vehicles per monthare negligible in terms of traffic modeling and can not be quantified using traditional peak hourtraffic impact analysis. Continued compliance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a)and (b) would ensure that no new impacts related to increased vehicle trips other than thosepreviously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as revised, would occur. However, 1994 LRDP EIRImpact 4.3-1 was considered significant and unavoidable because the University could notguarantee the feasibility and/or implementation of intersection improvements (identified inMitigation Measure 4.3-1) that fall within other jurisdictions to implement. This impact wasadequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed in the Findings and OverridingConsiderations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1994 LRDP and itscertification of the 1994 LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C, this impact is anticipated toremain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15. Given growth through 2014-15,intersections not previously addressed in the 1994 LRDP EIR could experience LOS exceedances,and portions of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 would be updated to reflect this. The availability ofadditional feasible mitigation measures will be investigated as part of the LRDP update process.

c) The proposed project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns or an increase in airtraffic levels. The UC Davis campus airport, located approximately 1/2 mile to the west, is theclosest airport to the proposed telecommunications tower site. The proposed tower wouldintroduce similar airport operating constraints as the two existing telecommunications towers oncampus: the 150-foot tall UC Davis telecommunications tower located approximately 90 feet tothe west, and the 150-foot tall Charter Communications tower located approximately 500 feet tothe southeast. The proposed telecommunications tower would fully comply with all FAAstandards and requirements, and FAA would inspect and approve the tower. Therefore, theimpact would be less-than-significant.

d) The proposed project would have no effect on the design of transportation facilities. No impactwould occur.

e) The location and design of the project would allow adequate emergency access. The projectwould not eliminate or impede access to any existing uses. No impact would occur.

f,g,h,i,j) The proposed project would not affect campus parking, bus, pedestrian, or bicycle use. Noimpact would occur.

k) Standards of significance for transportation/circulation impacts that were used in preparation ofthe 1994 LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with thetransportation/traffic questions in the current Environmental Checklist. As discussed above, with


- 44 -

the incorporation of relevant 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures, the proposed project wouldnot exceed the standards of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would not result innew significant impacts related to transportation/circulation that were not previously analyzed inthe 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

Mitigation measure 4.3-1 from the 1994 LRDP EIR, as updated and revised, is incorporated into theproposed project. The proposed project would not result in new or significant transportation andcirculation impacts that have not already been adequately addressed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 45 -

5. NOISE

Background

The primary source of noise on- and off- campus is vehicle noise from roads and highways (I-80, SR113, and local and regional roads), and freight and Amtrak trains using the Union Pacific (formerlySouthern Pacific) railroad line. Aviation traffic, originating in the local area from the UniversityAirport and Yolo County Airport, also adds to the ambient noise levels.

The Day-night Sound Level (Ldn) is a standard measure of noise impacts. This measure describes areceptor's cumulative noise exposure from all noise levels over a 24-hour period (values for noiselevels between 10 PM and 7 AM are weighted to account for nighttime sensitivity). The 1994 LRDPEIR identified that 1993 noise levels modeled along local and regional roadways ranged from as lowas 56 Ldn along County Road 32 at Russell Ranch to 76 Ldn at 100 feet from the centerline of I-80between SR 113 and Russell Boulevard. Measurements of sound levels taken from acoustical studiesperformed between 1987 and 1993 indicated higher measured noise levels were generally near busyroadways or sports fields (while in use).

The proposed project sites currently experience low levels of noise from nearby roadways, theUniversity Airport (near the proposed telecommunications tower site), the UPRR tracks (near theproposed CEF site), and occasional agricultural equipment. The proposed project would not includeregular noise producing activities and would not include new employees based at the sites.


For the 1994 LRDP EIR, the State of California, Solano County, Yolo County, City of Davis, and the UCCEQA noise elements and/or guidelines were reviewed. The State of California and the UC CEQA noiseguidelines do not have specific exterior noise levels, standards, or laws. The only numerical guidancethat exists is the State of California published general plan guidelines for preparing county and cityGeneral Plan Noise Elements. In the absence of other numerical guidance for determining significance,these State of California general plan guidelines are used as the standards of significance for noiseimpacts on the campus. Solano County, Yolo County, and the City of Davis general plan guidelines andordinances are used as the standards of significance for noise impacts within Solano County, YoloCounty, and the City of Davis jurisdictions, respectively. The environmental analysis in the 1994LRDP EIR considered a noise impact significant if campus or regional growth would:

• cause substantial construction-related short-term noise level increases on the campus,in Yolo County or in Solano County that would disturb or interfere with nearby noise-sensitive uses or exceed the City of Davis Noise Ordinance for receptors in the City ofDavis. Such noise-sensitive uses include off-campus residences, campus housing, andhigh and low density academic and administrative facilities; or


- 46 -

• substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas by 5 dBA duringproject operation, or cause noise levels to exceed normally acceptable levels as definedby the State of California General Plan Noise Element guidelines for receptors on thecampus, Solano County General Plan guidelines for receptors off-campus within SolanoCounty, Yolo County General Plan guidelines for receptors off-campus within YoloCounty, City of Davis General Plan guidelines for receptors off-campus within Davis, orCal OSHA standards.

Generally, construction-related short-term noise level effects on less noise-sensitive uses, such asteaching/research fields, support services, athletic facilities, open space areas, parking lots, andcommercial areas, were not considered significant because construction noise is temporary and theseless sensitive activities can continue with minimal disturbance.


Significant noise-related impacts identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR that are relevant to the proposedproject are presented in the following table. The levels of significance before and after application ofmitigation measures, as identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, are also presented in the table. Impacts ofcampus growth through year 2005-06 on noise were addressed in Section 4.4 of the 1994 LRDP EIR.Cumulative noise impacts were reevaluated in the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIRbut no changes were made to the 1994 LRDP EIR impacts or mitigation measures (Section 8 of theDraft Supplemental 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR). The proposed project iswithin the scope of the analysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR as reevaluated in the 1997-98 SEIR.Please note that cumulative regional impact 4.4-4 included mitigation measures to reduce the impactto a less-than-significant level. However, this impact was identified as significant and unavoidablebecause the University of California could not guarantee implementation of 1994 LRDP EIRMitigation Measure 4.4-4(c), which is not within the jurisdiction of the University to enforce andmonitor.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 wouldincrease cumulative noise levels. However, this growth is not anticipated to result in any newcumulative noise impacts. The campus will reexamine potential cumulative noise impacts and anynew mitigation measures that may be required during the LRDP update process.


- 47 -


to Mitigation

Level ofSignificanceafter/withMitigation

4.4-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would cause temporary increasesin indoor and outdoor noise levels due to demolition, earthmoving and generalconstruction activities.

S LS

4.4-4 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction with cumulativegrowth in the Davis area, would result in increased traffic and other noisesources which could expose people and structures on- and off-campus tosignificant cumulative noise levels.

SU SU


Mitigation measures in the LRDP EIR that are applicable to the proposed project and will be requiredas part of project implementation include the following:

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(a) - The campus shall evaluate each project proposed under the1994 LRDP for its potential to create, or contribute to, noise levels which would exceed State ofCalifornia general plan guidelines on campus, Solano County general plan guidelines within SolanoCounty, Yolo County general plan guidelines within Yolo County, City of Davis general planguidelines within Davis, or Cal OSHA standards.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(b) - Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 (a) and (b).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(c)

(i) The Noise Element of the City of Davis General Plan includes land use noisecompatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-3. It is within the jurisdiction of theCity of Davis to implement the policies and standards found in the Noise Element.

(ii) The Noise Element of the Yolo County General Plan includes land use noisecompatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-2. It is within the jurisdiction of YoloCounty to implement the policies and standards found in the Noise Element.

(iii) The Noise Element of the Solano County General Plan includes land use noisecompatibility standards, as depicted in Figure 4.4-4. It is within the jurisdiction ofSolano County to implement the policies and standards found in the Noise Element.

The mitigation measures listed above are incorporated into the proposed project, and the proposedproject, as mitigated, is evaluated in the checklist below.


- 48 -

NOISE

Would the project result in:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generationof noise levels in excess of standardsestablished in any applicable plan ornoise ordinance, or applicablestandards of other agencies?

o o g o o

b) Exposure of persons to or generationof excessive groundborne vibrationor groundborne noise levels?

o o o o g

c) A substantial permanent increase inambient noise levels in the projectvicinity above levels existing withoutthe project?

o o g o o

d) A substantial temporary or periodicincrease in ambient noise levels inthe project vicinity above levelsexisting without the project?

o o g o o

e) For a project located within anairport land use plan or, where sucha plan has not been adopted, withintwo miles of a public airport orpublic use airport, would the projectexpose people residing or working inthe project area to excessive noiselevels?

o o o o g

f) For a project within the vicinity of aprivate air strip, would the projectexpose people residing or working inthe project area to excessive noiselevels?

o o o o g

g) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o o o g

Discussion

a,c,d) Noise generation at the proposed project sites would take place using standard constructionequipment and practices. The construction noise producing activities are expected to include sitegrading, foundation excavation, and concrete pouring. The project would not generatesignificant noise during regular operating conditions. An emergency electricity generatorpowered by a diesel engine may be installed at the proposed telecommunications tower site at


- 49 -

some time in the future to operate during power outages. The generator would be equipped witha standard muffler. Due to the infrequent use of the operating generator and the distancesbetween the generator and other uses, no impact from site noise is expected. No mitigation isrequired.

The 1994 LRDP EIR concluded that cumulative growth under the 1994 LRDP would result inincreased traffic and other noise sources that could expose people to significant noise levels(Impact 4.4-4). This cumulative impact was considered significant and unavoidable. Althoughcontinued implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.4-4 (a) through (c) wouldreduce the magnitude of this cumulative impact, the impact would remain significant andunavoidable because Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 (c) falls outside the University of California’sjurisdiction to enforce and monitor. The proposed project would contribute to, but not exceed,increased noise levels identified under the 1994 LRDP. This significant and unavoidable impactwas adequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed by the Findings andOverriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1994LRDP and certification of the 1994 LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C, this impact isanticipated to remain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15. The availability of additionalfeasible mitigation measures will be investigated as part of the LRDP update process.

b) The proposed project is not expected to produce any groundborne vibration beyond theperimeter of the site. No impact would occur.

e,f) The proposed project would not be located within the campus airport noise contours identified inthe 1994 LRDP EIR. In addition, during operation, the proposed project sites would not bestaffed (they would be visited up to twice monthly for general maintenance). No impact wouldoccur.

g) Standards of significance for noise impacts that were used in preparation of the 1994 LRDP EIRare presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with the noise questions inthe current Environmental Checklist. As discussed above, with the implementation of 1994LRDP EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not exceed the standards ofsignificance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would not result in new significant impactsrelated to noise that were not previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-4 (a) through (c) are incorporated as part of theproposed project. The proposed project would not result in new or significant noise impacts thathave not already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 50 -

6. AIR QUALITY

Background

The campus is located within the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD), which islocated within the boundaries of the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. As described on pages 4.5-6 and4.5-7 of the 1994 LRDP EIR, the YSAQMD is in nonattainment of the state and federal standards forozone (O3) and of the standards for particulate matter (PM10). The YSAQMD is in attainment of thestate and federal standards for carbon monoxide (CO).

Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added standards in recognition of increasedconcern over particulate matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) or less in diameter. According to informationprovided by the EPA, designations for the new PM2.5 standards by the EPA will begin in the year 2002with attainment plans due by 2005 for regions that violate the standards. PM2.5 measurements havebeen conducted as of February 1999, but it is too soon to determine if the YSAQMD is in attainmentunder the new federal PM2.5 standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local airdistricts in California have developed a PM2.5 monitoring network plan, but to date, no data has beencollected.

The YSAQMD and the CARB maintain several monitoring sites in Yolo County. Data from amonitoring site on the campus (gathered from 1995-97) showed violations of state ozone standardsin each of the three years reported. Based on results of computer modeling of 10 congestedintersections in the vicinity of the campus, seven of the intersections indicated CO concentrationsabove state standards.

The major odor emission source on campus is animal waste associated with confined animalfacilities. Other sources on campus include the wastewater treatment plant, motor vehicles, and thecampus landfill.


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to air quality significant ifcampus or regional growth would:

• cause or contribute substantially to existing or projected violations of state or federalcriteria air pollutant standards;

• result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

• result in exposure of sensitive receptors to unpleasant odors.

For the purposes of the 1994 LRDP EIR, a "substantial contribution" to the regional pollutant load wasdefined as the new production of 550 pounds per day (lbs/day) of CO, and/or 82 lbs/day of ROC, NOx,SOx, and PM10.


- 51 -


Significant impacts identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR that are relevant to the proposed project arepresented in the following table. The levels of significance before and after application of mitigationmeasures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR are also presented in the table. Impact 4.5-1 would eitherbe less then significant after mitigation or remain significant and unavoidable depending on theproject in question. Impacts of campus growth through 2005-06 on air quality were evaluated inSection 4.5 (Air Quality) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. Cumulative air quality impacts werereevaluated in Section 4.2 of the WWTP Replacement Project Draft EIR and in Section 8 of the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects Draft SEIR. However, no changes were made to impacts ormitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Appendix A of this Initial Study discussesrevisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR in further detail. The proposed project is within the scope of the airquality analysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR and reevaluated in these subsequent documents.Please note that cumulative regional impact 4.5-6 included mitigation measures to reduce the impactto a less-than-significant level. However, this impact was identified as significant and unavoidablebecause the University of California can not guarantee the implementation of the mitigation measuresthat fall within other jurisdictions to enforce and monitor.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 wouldcontribute to air quality impacts. However, this growth is not anticipated to result in any newcumulative air quality impacts. The validity of conclusions drawn regarding Toxic Air Contaminantswill be reassessed during the LRDP update process. The campus will also reexamine other potentialair quality impacts and any new mitigation measures that may be required during the LRDP updateprocess.


to Mitigation


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

SU LS/SU

4.5-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would generate increased levelsof CO, O3 precursors (ROC and NOX), visibility reducing particles and PM10

emissions.

SU SU

4.5-6 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction with cumulativedevelopment in the region, would increase criteria pollutant emissions. SU SU


Mitigation measures in the LRDP EIR that are applicable to the proposed project and that will berequired as part of project implementation include the following:


- 52 -

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 – The campus shall include in all constructioncontracts the following measures to reduce fugitive dust impacts.

(a) All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other acceptableYolo-Solano AQMD dust control agents during dust generating activities to reducedust emissions. Additional watering or acceptable APCD [air pollution controldistrict] dust control agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days untildust emissions are not visible.

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

(c) On dry days, dirt or debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediatelyto reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approachroutes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction related dirt in dryweather.

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

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-3(a) – Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-5. (Seethe Transportation/Circulation section of this document for these mitigation measures.Mitigation measure 4.3-5 is implemented by the campus on an on-going basis.)

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-3(b) – The campus shall acquire permits for stationary andarea sources as required by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-6(a) – Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-3 (a) and (b).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-6(b) – The Sacramento Air Basin includes a large number ofjurisdictions, including the greater Sacramento metropolitan area. In the Basin, air quality isregulated by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, YSAQMD, and anumber of other Air Pollution Control Districts. Pursuant to rules, regulations, and policies ofthose AQMDs and APCDs, as well as adopted general plans throughout the Basin, it is within thejurisdiction of each local government or district to take actions to ensure compliance with thefederal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act.



- 53 -

AIR QUALITY

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Conflict with or obstructimplementation of the applicable airquality plan?

o o o o g

b) Violate any air quality standard orcontribute substantially to anexisting or projected air qualityviolation?

During Construction: o o g o o

During Operation: o o o go

c) Result in a cumulativelyconsiderable net increase of anycriteria pollutant for which theproject region is non-attainmentunder an applicable federal or stateambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions thatexceed quantitative thresholds forozone precursors)?

o o g o o

d) Expose sensitive receptors tosubstantial pollutantconcentrations?

o o g o o

e) Create objectionable odors affectinga substantial number of people? o o o o g

f) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o g o o

Discussion

a) As required by the California Clean Air Act, the YSAQMD has published an Air QualityAttainment Plan (AQAP) in order to attempt to bring the YSAQMD into compliance with thefederal and state ambient air quality standards. Because the YSAQMD is not in compliance withozone standards, the AQAP addresses emissions for ozone precursors (volatile organiccompounds and nitrogen oxides). The YSAQMD is also in non-attainment for state standardsregarding PM10, but AQAPs are currently not required to address this pollutant.

As discussed on page 4.5-7 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR with updated information on page 5.7-3of the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects Draft SEIR, a Sacramento Area Regional


- 54 -

Ozone Attainment Plan was submitted to the EPA in November 1994. The 1994 attainment planhas been reviewed and approved. This plan was required to demonstrate that the federal ozonestandard would be achieved in the Sacramento region by 1999. Attainment could not bedemonstrated for the Sacramento region, and a new plan to attain the standard by 2005 must besubmitted in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act. This plan will not contain additionalmeasures that would apply to the proposed project. The proposed project would not conflictwith or obstruct implementation of the AQAP. No impact would occur.

b,c,d) Construction

The proposed project would include grading, trenching and excavation activities. As describedon page 4.5-18 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR:

Construction-related activities would generate “fugitive dust” from earthmoving, excavation,demolition, and grading. The term “fugitive dust” refers to particulate matter emitted from anopen area (i.e. not through a stack or an exhaust vent), due to human activities or by the forcesof wind acting on exposed material such as soil or storage piles. Particulate (dust) emissionswould vary with the level and type of activity, silt content and moisture of the soil andprevailing weather.

Sensitive receptors on campus (defined on page 4.5-16 of the 1994 LRDP EIR) include studentand family housing complexes, day care centers, and recreational uses. There are no sensitivereceptors in the vicinity of the proposed project sites. Fugitive dust generated by project-relatedconstruction activities could cause violations of the state and federal PM10 standards at times, andwould contribute to significant PM10 emissions previously identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR(Impact 4.5-1). This construction impact would be temporary and short-term. As indicated bythe 1994 LRDP EIR on page 4.5-18, the region is in non-attainment for PM10, and the YSAQMDwould therefore require the implementation of dust suppression techniques to minimize dustemissions during construction.

Implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 (a) through (d), included in theproposed project, would minimize project PM10 emissions to a less-than-significant level andwould ensure that construction activities associated with the proposed project would not result innew impacts relating to construction air quality beyond those previously identified in the 1994LRDP EIR. The proposed project would contribute to, but not exceed, cumulative constructionair quality impacts identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. This significant and unavoidable impact wasadequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed by the Findings and OverridingConsiderations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1994 LRDP andcertification of the 1994 LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C, this impact is anticipated toremain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15. The availability of additional feasiblemitigation measures will be investigated as part of the LRDP update process.

The 1994 LRDP EIR determined that construction activities would also result in short-termemissions of ozone (O3) precursors. These precursors specifically include Reactive OrganicCompounds (ROC) from paint, and ROC and nitrogen oxides (NOx) exhaust emissions frompowered construction equipment and motor vehicles. The transport of construction workers,materials, and equipment could generate an incremental increase in vehicle trips. A maximum of


- 55 -

four to six construction vehicles per day are expected on the project sites over the 90-dayconstruction period. Although the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which includes theproject sites, is in non-attainment of both federal and state O3 standards, the construction vehicletrips generated by the proposed project would be minimal and would occur during a limitedperiod of time so the long-term impacts of the temporary increase in ROC and NOx would benegligible. This impact is further discussed on page 4.5-19 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR:

Given the potential for construction under the 1994 LRDP and the fact that O3 formation isdependent on a complex interaction of atmospheric and meteorological factors over a relativelylarge physical area (such as an air basin), short-term emissions of O3 precursors would not beexpected to lead to a violation of ambient air quality standards for O3 in the campus vicinity.While these emissions would contribute (temporarily) to the non-attainment status of YoloCounty for O3, they would likely represent less than the stationary source emission thresholdsand, thus, are considered less-than-significant.

Operation

The proposed project would install communication infrastructure at two sites. Normal operationof the equipment would have no effect on air quality. The project may also include theinstallation of an emergency electricity generator at the proposed telecommunications tower site.If the proposed project includes an emergency generator, the new generator would be added tothe campus Title V permit. The emergency generator would require application for Authority toConstruct (ATC) with YSAQMD prior to installation. The ATC process would include a NewSource Review and a review of the Best Available Technologies (BACT). Once this ATC isgranted and the equipment installed, a Permit to Operate (PTO) would be obtained fromYSAQMD. Emergency Reduction Credits are not required for equipment used only inemergencies, such as back-up generators. Emissions due to the infrequent emergency use of thebackup generator would be less-than-significant.

The proposed project would generate a minor increase in vehicle trips associated with theproposed sites (maintenance vehicles would access the sites approximately two times per month).Increased vehicle trips would contribute to increased levels of CO. The 1994 LRDP identifiedincreased levels of CO, ozone precursors (NOx, ROC), visibility-reducing particles, andparticulate matter resulting from development under the 1994 LRDP as a significant andunavoidable impact because established significance thresholds would be exceeded (Impact 4.5-3). The proposed project would incrementally contribute to, but would not exceed, this impactpreviously identified and adequately addressed in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Implementation of the1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 (a) and (b), included in the proposed project, wouldreduce criteria pollutant emissions associated with increased vehicle trips, but due to limiteddata, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. This significant and unavoidableimpact was addressed in the Findings and Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents inconnection with its approval of the 1994 LRDP and certification of the 1994 LRDP EIR and nofurther mitigation is required. As discussed in Appendix C, this impact is anticipated to remainsignificant and unavoidable through 2014-15. The availability of additional feasible mitigationmeasures will be investigated as part of the LRDP update process.

The 1994 LRDP EIR recognized that criteria pollutant emissions associated with campusdevelopment in conjunction with those associated with cumulative development in the region


- 56 -

would result in a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact 4.5-6). This is due to the fact thatthe actions of other jurisdictions are not within the control of the campus. Although 1994 LRDPMitigation Measures 4.5-6 (a) and (b) would be implemented as part of the proposed project, thisimpact would remain significant and unavoidable because implementation of Mitigation Measure4.5-6 (b) is not within the jurisdiction of the University to enforce and monitor. The project’sindividual contribution to this previously analyzed impact would be limited due to the smallnumber of additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. This impact wasadequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed in the Findings and OverridingConsiderations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1994 LRDP EIRand certification of the 1994 LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C, this impact is anticipated toremain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15. The availability of additional feasiblemitigation measures will be investigated as part of the LRDP update process.

In addition, the 1994 LRDP EIR concluded that development under the 1994 LRDP inconjunction with cumulative development in the region would increase CO concentrations atintersections. This impact was considered to be less-than-significant because CO is an attainmentpollutant in the SVAB. No mitigation was required. The proposed project would contribute to,but not exceed, increased CO emissions identified under the 1994 LRDP because it is consistentwith approved development. This impact would, therefore, remain less-than-significant.

e) The proposed project would not generate additional objectionable odors on campus and would notexpose users to existing objectionable odors. No impact would occur.

f) Standards of significance for air quality impacts that were used in preparation of the 1994 LRDPEIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with the air qualityquestions in the current Environmental Checklist. As discussed above, with the implementationof applicable 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not exceed thestandards of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would not result in new significantimpacts related to noise that were not previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

The proposed project would incorporate 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5-1, 4.5-3 (a) and(b), and 4.5-6 (a) and (b). The project would not result in new or significant air quality impacts thathave not already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 57 -

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Background

UC Davis uses many materials, some of which are considered hazardous, during the course of dailyoperations. Such hazardous materials include many chemical reagents, solvents, radioisotopes, fuels,paints, cleansers, pesticides, herbicides, and biohazards that are used in activities such as laboratoryresearch, building and grounds maintenance, vehicle maintenance, agricultural applications, fine arts,and clinical veterinary medicine. The use of hazardous materials on campus generates hazardousbyproducts that must eventually be handled and disposed of as hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastesare generated at campus locations where hazardous materials are used, including research andteaching laboratories, maintenance facilities, agricultural operations, art studios, and the healthsciences and veterinary medicine complexes. Research and teaching activities produce most of thehazardous waste generated annually by the campus. Because campus hazardous materials use isprimarily associated with teaching and research laboratory activities, the 1994 LRDP EIR assumedthat activities involving the use of hazardous materials would increase in proportion to the increasein instruction and research space, an increase of about 41 percent.

Since adoption of the 1994 LRDP, the campus has implemented several 1994 LRDP EIR mitigationmeasures identified to mitigate the use and generation of hazardous chemicals associated withcampus growth. In conformance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-2(b), 4.6-4(b), and4.6-6(a), a new handling facility for campus hazardous wastes (the Environmental Services Facility)has been constructed and is currently operational, and the old facility is in the process of beingclosed. The new facility currently operates at about 40 percent of its capacity. In conformance with1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a)(iii), 4.6-2(d), and 4.6-6(c), the Waste MinimizationCoordinator was established in 1994 and a hazardous waste minimization plan was prepared. Inconformance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(b) and (c), the campus also conductsbiennial audits by a third party to document the compliance status of campus departments and units.


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to hazardous materialsand/or public safety significant if campus or regional growth would:

• create a substantial potential health or safety hazard due to risk of upset (accidents);

• interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans;

• involve the use, production, or disposal of materials in a manner that poses a hazardto people, or to animal or plant populations in the area affected;

• expose employees to working situations that exceed health standards; or

• violate applicable laws intended to protect human health and safety.


Significant impacts identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR that are relevant to the proposed project arepresented in the following table. The levels of significance before and after application of mitigation


- 58 -

measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR are also presented. Impacts of campus growth throughyear 2005-06 related to hazardous materials are addressed in Section 4.6 (Hazardous Materials andPublic Safety) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. Cumulative hazardous materials and public safetyimpacts were reevaluated in the WWTP Replacement Project EIR (Chapter 4.3 of the WWTPReplacement Project Draft EIR), but no changes were made to the impacts, mitigation measures, orlevels of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Appendix A in this Initial Study summarizesupdates and revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR. The proposed project is within the scope of thehazardous materials and public safety analysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as reevaluated in theWWTP Replacement Project EIR. Please note that cumulative impacts 4.6-3, 4.6-4, and 4.6-23include mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, these impactswere identified as significant and unavoidable because the University of California can not guaranteeimplementation of mitigation measures that fall within other jurisdictions to enforce and monitor.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 would likelyincrease hazardous materials use beyond that anticipated under the 1994 LRDP. However, thisgrowth is not anticipated to result in any new cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts.Hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR will beupdated in the next LRDP EIR to reflect current waste management practices. The campus will alsoreexamine potential cumulative hazard and hazardous materials impacts and any new mitigationmeasures that may be required during the LRDP update process.


to Mitigation


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

PS LS

4.6-2 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP could lead to an increase in the generationof hazardous chemical waste at UC Davis that could expose campus occupantsto potential health or safety risks.

PS LS

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

SU SU

4.6-4 Implementation of the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction with other development inthe region that generates hazardous chemical waste, could place an additionalload on hazardous waste management facilities.

SU SU

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

PS LS

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

S LS


- 59 -


to Mitigation


4.6-23 The increased campus operations to be developed under the 1994 LRDP, inconjunction with anticipated growth in the City of Davis, could contribute tocumulative demand for emergency response capabilities in the Davis area.

SU SU

4.6-24 Hazardous materials used at facilities developed under the 1994 LRDP may beinadvertently released to the sewer or disposed of with non-hazardous solidwaste.

S LS


Mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, which are applicable to the proposed projectand that will be required as part of project implementation, include the following:

• 1994 LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a) - The campus shall strengthen programs to improvecompliance with the laws and regulations applicable to the use of hazardous materials. Suchefforts would include specific steps aimed at improving health and safety conditions by increasingthe resources devoted to implementation of laws and regulations regarding the use of hazardousmaterials. This increase would support an improved, ongoing, satisfactory level of compliance.Specific actions would include, but would not be limited to, the following1:

(i) Community Right-to-Know and Business Plan - Increasing the resources devoted toimplementing Community Right-to-Know and Business Plan requirements, as needed,to supplement the existing program for the purpose of meeting current and futurelocal, state, and federal data reporting requirements. This change would allow bettertracking and reporting of non-radioactive chemical hazardous materials on campus,would provide critical information to on-campus and off-campus emergency responseservice providers in case of a chemical emergency, and would expand current safetytraining programs to minimize accident risks.

(ii) Injury and Illness Prevention, Chemical Hygiene, and Emergency Actions Plans -Increasing the resources and improving the mechanisms needed (1) to finishdeveloping these plans, and (2) to assure that these plans are adequately implementedand maintained, including training and emergency planning.

(iii) Waste Minimization - Establish the position of Waste Minimization Coordinator toupdate the existing hazardous waste minimization plan, to implement the revised plan,and to evaluate the feasibility of other waste minimization programs such as wasteminimization through treatment and recycling.2

1 Since 1994, Injury and Illness Prevention, Chemical Hygiene, and Emergency Action Plans have been developed for the campus.

2 Due to recent regulatory changes and the nature of waste generated on campus, the campus has been exempt from the state's wasteminimization plan requirements since July 2000 and currently implements a modified waste minimization plan.


- 60 -

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) - The campus shall establish a self-audit mechanism anda reporting system to document the compliance status of campus departments and units.3

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(c) - Biennial health and safety audits shall be conducted byindividuals independent of the campus.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-2(d) – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a), which wouldrequire the campus to create a Waste Minimization Coordinator position to implement thecampus Hazardous Waste Minimization Plan.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 – Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-4(a) – The campus Waste Minimization Coordinator (to beestablished as part of mitigation measure 4.6-1(a)), shall update and implement existinghazardous waste minimization plan. The updated plan shall address hazardous waste generatedby 1994 LRDP projects and shall specify feasible administrative and technical approaches toreduce the amount of hazardous waste generated on campus.4

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-16(a) – During the site selection process for each site to bedeveloped under the 1994 LRDP, the campus shall determine the need to have the site and adjacentareas investigated for the presence of hazardous materials or wastes by completing a "due diligencechecklist."

If further investigation is warranted, the investigation shall be carried out by a RegisteredEnvironmental Assessor (i.e., a professional environmental scientist or engineer registered inCalifornia) or a registered engineer. The investigations shall be environmental audits, which shallinclude, at minimum, site inspections for hazardous materials, examination of historic records forevidence of hazardous materials use, interviews with campus personnel, and review of campusrecords for evidence of contamination.

For each site audit, the qualified person shall prepare a report detailing the results of theinspection and submit it to appropriate campus offices. The report preparer shall either certifythat the site is free of hazards, recommend further investigations, or recommend preparing a sitemitigation plan. After reviewing and accepting the report, reviewing offices shall submit it to theOffice of Resource Managment and Planning (the office responsible for site selection andenvironmental review on campus) with their recommendations. The campus shall ensure thatinspection reports are completed prior to excavation or construction at the development site.

3 The campus established a Chemical Inventory System in 1998 and a Certified Unified Program Agency Self-Audit Program in 1995.

4 Due to recent regulatory changes and the nature of waste generated on campus, the campus has been exempt from the state's wasteminimization plan requirements since July 2000 and currently implements a modified waste minimization plan.


- 61 -

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-22(a) – The campus emergency response team shall beadequately trained and equipped to respond to hazardous materials emergencies prior to occupancyof the first 1994 LRDP project approved that could require hazardous materials emergency responsecapabilities. The campus shall provide sufficient resources to respond to a Level A hazardousmaterials incident (the most hazardous level), in coordination with the City of Davis if necessary.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-22(b) – The campus shall prepare (or update) safety planningdocuments in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and campus policies prior to occupyingfacilities constructed under the 1994 LRDP. The campus shall implement safety training programsupon occupying each new building.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-22(c) – Departments and Principal Investigators shall prepareInjury and Illness Prevention Plans, Laboratory Chemical Hygiene Plans, and Emergency ActionPlans for all new buildings, as necessary. These plans would be reviewed and approved by thecampus for each department and each Principal Investigator or Laboratory Director to be located atany particular new building before the department or laboratory would be permitted to occupy thenew space.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-22(d) – The campus shall address emergency planning andsafety training for the occupants of new buildings constructed under the 1994 LRDP by assigning aBuilding Safety Coordinator for each building. These staff would coordinate emergency responseplanning and implementation efforts for the building and implement required Cal/OSHA regulationsrelated to developing an evacuation plan. For example, emergency drills would be coordinated suchthat all of the building's occupants would participate at the same time, regardless of theirdepartmental affiliation. The evacuation plan and emergency response plans would provide generalguidelines and procedures to be followed during emergencies and disasters. The plans wouldaddress the removal of occupants and the establishment of temporary meeting areas in the event ofan emergency. As part of implementing the plans, project occupants would be adequately trained toimplement the plans as well as all other required safety procedures.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-22(e) – Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through (c).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-23 – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-22(a).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-24(a) – The campus shall comply with the revised WasteDischarge Requirements, particularly the requirement to establish a Pretreatment Program.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-24(b) – The campus shall provide the resources needed forimplementing a waste exclusion program.



- 62 -

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to thepublic or the environment throughthe routine transport of hazardousmaterials?

o o g o o

b) Create a significant hazard to thepublic or the environment throughreasonably foreseeable upset andaccident conditions involving therelease of hazardous materials intothe environment?

o o g o o

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handlehazardous or acutely hazardousmaterials, substances, or wastewithin one-quarter mile of anexisting or proposed school?

o o o o g

d) Be located on a site which isincluded on a list of hazardousmaterials sites compiled pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65962.5and, as a result, would it create asignificant hazard to the public orthe environment?

o o o o g

e) For a project located within anairport land use plan or, where sucha plan has not been adopted, withintwo miles of a public airport orpublic use airport, would the projectresult in a safety hazard for peopleresiding or working in the projectarea?

o o o g o

f) For a project within the vicinity of aprivate airstrip, would the projectresult in a safety hazard for peopleresiding or working in the projectarea?

o o o g o

g) Impair implementation of orphysically interfere with an adoptedemergency response plan oremergency evacuation plan?

o o g o o


- 63 -

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

h) Expose people or structures to asignificant risk of loss, injury ordeath involving wildland fires,including where wildlands areadjacent to urbanized areas or whereresidences are intermixed withwildlands?

o o o o g

i) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o g o o

Discussion

a,b) Construction

Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of various products that couldcontain materials classified as hazardous (including solvents, adhesives, cements, paints, cleaningagents, and degreasers). Fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, would also be used in heavyequipment and other construction vehicles. The use and storage of these products is subject toapplicable hazardous materials regulations, as discussed on pages 4.6-4 through 4.6-7 and inAppendix E of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR, and contract specifications would also contain specificprovisions regarding the use of these products and compliance with applicable regulations andstandards. Contract specifications would also require surfaces be placed under constructionstaging areas to protect soil and groundwater from contamination associated with inadvertentspills or leaks.

Operation

During operation of the proposed project, small quantities of household-type cleaners would beused in general maintenance. The use of cleaning products containing hazardous chemicalmaterials already occurs on campus, and the amounts used for the proposed project would besimilar to existing operation and maintenance activities.


- 64 -

The 1994 LRDP EIR identified increased use of hazardous chemicals and increased generation ofhazardous chemical waste as potentially significant impacts (Impacts 4.6-1 and 4.6-2). Theproposed project's contribution to these impacts is well within the scope assessed in the 1994LRDP EIR. As discussed in the Background section of this checklist item, the campus hasimplemented 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-2(b), 4.6-4(b), and 4.6-6(a) byconstructing the new Environmental Services Facility. In conformance with 1994 LRDP EIRMitigation Measures 4.6-1(a)(iii), 4.6-2(d), and 4.6-6(c), the Waste Minimization Coordinatorwas established (in 1994) and a hazardous waste minimization plan was prepared. The campuscurrently implements a modified waste management program due to the campus' exemption fromthe state's waste minimization plan requirements since July 2000. Continued implementation of1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(b) and (c) (biennial audits by a third party todocument the compliance status of campus departments and units) and implementation of 1994LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 (a) (i) and (ii) (increasing Community Right-to Know andInjury and Prevention efforts), incorporated into the proposed project, would reduce theseimpacts to less-than-significant levels.

The 1994 LRDP EIR also identified that hazardous materials used at facilities developed under the1994 LRDP could be inadvertently released to the sewer or disposed of with non-hazardous solidwaste (Impact 4.6-24). Continued implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-24 (a) and (b), ensuring compliance with Waste Discharge Requirements and a waste exclusionprogram, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Cumulative impacts resulting from increased use of hazardous chemicals and increasedgeneration of hazardous chemical waste in the region were identified as significant andunavoidable in the 1994 LRDP EIR (Impacts 4.6-3 and 4.6-4). Continued implementation of1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-3 and 4.6-4 (a) would reduce the magnitude of theseimpacts, but they would remain significant and unavoidable because chemical use off-campus isoutside the jurisdiction of the University to regulate. These impacts were adequately analyzed inthe 1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed in the Findings and Overriding Considerations adoptedby The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1994 LRDP and its certification of the 1994LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C, this impact is anticipated to remain significant andunavoidable through 2014-15. The availability of additional feasible mitigation measures will beinvestigated as part of the LRDP update process.

Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields

The proposed telecommunication tower would emit a high radiofrequency (RF) field. However,the tower would comply with the FCC's limits for human exposure to RF emissions. FCC limitsare designed to "protect the public health with a very large margin of safety" (FCC 2000). Theselimits have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The impact of radiofrequency emissions associated with the project isconsidered less-than-significant.

Site Contamination

The 1994 LRDP EIR identified the potential for soil or groundwater contamination as a result ofpast uses in areas that could be developed under the 1994 LRDP. Construction of projects in


- 65 -

such locations could expose campus occupants and construction workers to contaminated soil orgroundwater (Impact 4.6-16). Exposure to hazardous materials in contaminated soil orgroundwater could cause various short- or long-term health effects in persons exposed to thecontamination. Work at locations that are contaminated with hazardous materials could poseadverse health and safety risks for workers or the public if the contaminants are not identifiedand properly managed. Figure 4.6-1 on page 4.6-28 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR identifiedon-campus locations requiring further investigation for soil and groundwater contamination.

Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.6-16(a), the campus coordinated Phase 1A Preliminary SiteAssessment Due Diligence Reports for the proposed project sites. These assessments includedsite reconnaissance, reviews of historical aerial photos, and discussions with campus sources(URS 2002a and URS 2002b). Both the telecommunications tower and CEF sites have beenhistorically vacant or used for agricultural land since at least 1937, and no recognizedenvironmental conditions were identified on the subject sites. Therefore, the proposed projectsites would not expose persons to existing hazardous materials or waste contamination.

c) The proposed telecommunications tower and CEF would not be constructed within one-quartermile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur.

d) The proposed project sites are not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiledpursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur.

e, f) There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the proposed project. The University Airport is apublic use airport designed to accommodate aircraft up to 12,500 pounds, which includes mostsingle-engine and some light twin-engine planes. According to the 1994 LRDP EIR, although theUniversity Airport, as a university-owned facility, is outside the jurisdiction of the local AirportLand Use commission, future land use compatibility guidelines to attenuate noise, height andsafety impacts based on the FAA requirements have been prepared by the Sacramento AreaCouncil of Governments. The proposed CEF site is located in the south campus, over one milesoutheast of the University Airport. The proposed 155-foot tall telecommunications tower wouldbe located approximately 1/2 mile west of the University Airport. The tower would introducesimilar airport operating constraints as the two existing telecommunication towers on campus:the 150-foot tall UC Davis telecommunications tower adjacent to the west, and the 150-foot tallCharter Communications tower located approximately 1/8 mile to the south. The proposedtelecommunications tower would fully comply with all FAA standards and requirements, andFAA will inspect and approve the tower. Therefore, impacts associated with safety hazardsrelated to the airport would be less than significant.

g) As discussed in Item 4e of this Environmental Checklist, the location and design of the proposedproject would allow adequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would not interfere withan adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The 1994 LRDP EIRconcluded that increased campus operations using hazardous materials resulting fromdevelopment allowed under the 1994 LRDP could exceed emergency response capabilities at UCDavis (Impact 4.6-22). Continued compliance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-22(a) through (e), incorporated into the proposed project, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.


- 66 -

The 1994 LRDP EIR identified that increased campus operations allowed under the 1994 LRDP,in conjunction with anticipated growth in the City of Davis, could contribute to cumulativedemand for emergency response capabilities in the Davis area (Impact 4.6-23). Although 1994LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-23, incorporated as part of the proposed project, was identifiedto reduce the significance of the cumulative impact, the impact would remain significant andunavoidable because the University could not guarantee that the City of Davis and Yolo Countywould reach a Mutual Aid Agreement to provide first-response both in the campus and in theCity and County. The proposed project would contribute to, but not exceed, impacts associatedwith increased demand for emergency response identified under the 1994 LRDP. This significantand unavoidable impact was adequately evaluated in the 1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed bythe Findings and Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with itsapproval of the 1994 LRDP and certification of the 1994 LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C,this impact is anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15. Theavailability of additional feasible mitigation measures will be investigated as part of the LRDPupdate process.

h) The proposed project sites currently consist of undeveloped, fallow agricultural land and do notcontain, nor are they surrounded by, large amounts of flammable brush, grass, or trees.Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not increase the existing wildland firehazard, and no impact would occur.

i) Standards of significance for hazards and hazardous materials impacts that were used inpreparation of the 1994 LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards areconsistent with the hazards and hazardous materials questions in the current EnvironmentalChecklist. As discussed above, with the incorporation of relevant 1994 LRDP EIR mitigationmeasures, the proposed project would not exceed the standards of significance identified in the1994 LRDP EIR and would not result in new significant impacts related to hazards and hazardousmaterials that were not previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 (a) through (c); 4.6-2 (d); 4.6-3; 4.6-4 (a); 4.6-16 (a); 4.6-22 (a) through (e); 4.6-23; and 4.6-24 (a) and (b) would be implemented as part of the proposedproject. The proposed project would not result in new or significant hazards and hazardous materialsimpacts that have not already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 67 -

8. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Background

The campus is located in a region composed primarily of agricultural lands that include remnantriparian (streamside) and urban areas. Habitat types found on the campus are discussed in the 1994LRDP EIR on pages 4.7-2 to 4.7-8 and are illustrated in Figure 4.7-1 on page 4.7-3. The proposedproject sites are currently undeveloped. The 1994 LRDP EIR identified the proposedtelecommunications tower site as cropland/pasture agricultural habitat and the CEF site asorchard/vineyard habitat. However, both sites are not currently in agricultural production andconsist primarily of ruderal grassland habitat (May & Associates 2002).

Ruderal grassland habitat on campus is found along the edges of roads and fields, vacant uncultivatedareas, and along the levee banks and upland flood plain of Putah Creek. This habitat type is a resultof regular past or current disturbance from agricultural practices, road and levee maintenance, andproximity to roads and buildings. It typically occurs as open treeless grassland composed primarilyof annual plant species. However, since the early 1900s, no large areas of grassland remain oncampus due to extensive amounts of cultivation and development.

The composition of the ruderal grassland habitat consists largely of non-native introduced annualgrasses. Because of the aggressive nature of these introduced plants, they have become naturalized asthe dominant species and have excluded the growth of native perennial grassland species thatoccurred prior to settlement and cultivation of the area. Grassland edges along fields and roadsprovide food, cover, and movement corridors for resident and migratory wildlife species. Smallmammals, reptiles, and birds can be found in this habitat type. The burrowing owl, a state Species ofSpecial Concern, is perhaps the most notable wildlife species that has been observed nesting andforaging in ruderal/annual grassland on campus.

Special-status species such as state and federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species arediscussed in the 1994 LRDP EIR on pages 4.7-8 through 4-7-18. Potential special-status species thatmight be found on the campus are presented in Tables 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 of the 1994 LRDP EIR. Thespecial-status species discussed below may potentially occur on the proposed project sites.

Special-Status Plants

The project sites are previously disturbed areas, consisting primarily of disturbed ruderal/annualgrassland habitat. No special-status plant species or potential habitat for special-status plant specieswere observed during plant surveys conducted on the proposed project sites (May & Associates2002).

Special-Status Animals

Three special-status animals may potentially occur on the proposed project sites: burrowing owl,Swainson's Hawk, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

Burrowing Owl: The burrowing owl is fully protected against take pursuant to Section 3503.5 of theCalifornia Fish and Game Code and is a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Species of


- 68 -

Special Concern. The burrowing owl is also designated a Migratory Nongame Bird of ManagementConcern by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Burrowing owls are small birds with therelatively unique habits of being active during the day as well as in the evening, and of nestingunderground. They typically use burrow systems formerly occupied by ground squirrels or otherlarge burrow-dwelling rodents. Their diet is usually dominated by insects, but may also includesmall mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Burrowing owls generally forage in open fields withrelatively sparse, short vegetation; their foraging ability is disrupted by dense, tall vegetation. Theclosest known nesting burrowing owls near the telecommunications tower site are located over 1/2mile to the west at the University Airport. The closest known nesting burrowing owls near the CEFsite are located over 1/2 mile to the southeast at the UC Davis Raptor Research Center.

Swainson's Hawk: The Swainson's hawk is listed as a threatened species under the CaliforniaEndangered Species Act and is also fully protected against take pursuant to Section 3503.5 of theCalifornia Fish and Game Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Swainson's hawk is arelatively large bird-of-prey that typically nests in large trees in riparian corridors as well as inisolated trees in or adjacent to agricultural fields in the Central Valley. However, in the City of Davisand on the central campus, these hawks also nest in the large trees among buildings, roads, anddwellings.

This species forages in open grassland habitats and has adjusted to foraging in certain types ofagricultural lands. The value of foraging habitat can be affected by a variety of characteristics,including density and availability of prey, proximity to disturbing features, and distance to nestingterritories. Published information indicates these raptors typically forage within a 10-mile radius ofnest sites, but they may travel up to 18 miles from a nest site in search of suitable foraging habitatand available prey. Formal studies have shown that Swainson's hawks will spend the majority offoraging time in close proximity to the nest site when high quality foraging habitat (measured by theabundance and availability of prey) is present.

Six nest sites used by Swainson's hawks since 1990 are within 1/2 mile of the proposedtelecommunications tower site. All of these sites are located along the North Fork Cutoff of theformer Putah Creek channel. The closest nest site is located approximately 1,200 feet southwest ofthe proposed tower site. Several nest sites are within 1/2 mile of the CEF site, but most of these areeither on the central campus north of the elevated portion of I-80 or are nearly 1/2 mile away alongthe South Fork of Putah Creek. One nest site is located closer to the proposed CEF site,approximately 1,200 feet to the north at the intersection of Old Davis Road and I-80.

The ruderal/annual grassland habitat on the project sites is considered potential Swainson's hawkforaging habitat.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB): The VELB is listed as a threatened species under thefederal Endangered Species Act. This species requires its host plant, the Mexican elderberry shrub,for its complete life cycle. The USFWS considers all elderberry shrubs within the historic range ofVELB (the Central Valley and foothills up to 2,000 feet) as potential habitat for this species.Elderberry plants are located in the vicinity, but not within 100 feet, of the proposed project sites(May & Associates 2002).


- 69 -


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to biological resourcessignificant if campus or regional growth would:

• result in substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the native flora orfauna, including candidate species and CDFG "Species of Special Concern" fromconversion of existing habitat to urban uses or disturbance of areas currently supportingsuch species;

• result in the "take" (defined as kill, harm, or harass) of any listed threatened orendangered species or the habitat of such species;

• result in the substantial reduction in acres of habitat (including wetlands) of native fish,wildlife, or plants;

• interfere substantially (creation of barriers to the free movement between habitats bothlocally and regionally) with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlifespecies; or

• be in conflict with existing state or federal natural resource protection laws, policies, orguidelines.


Impacts of campus growth through 2005-06 on biological resources are addressed in Section 4.7(Biological Resources) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. The WWTP Replacement Project EIR and the1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects SEIR identified the loss of additional ruderal/annualgrassland habitat over the amount assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and revised the magnitude ofassociated impacts, 1994 LRDP EIR Impacts 4.7-1, 4.7-5, and 4.7-9 (Appendix G of the WWTPReplacement Project Final EIR and Section 8 of the 1997-98 Draft SEIR). The 1997-98 Major CapitalImprovement Projects SEIR, as revised by the Western Human Nutrition Center Tiered Initial Studyand Mitigated Negative Declaration, presented a measure (identified as 1994 LRDP EIR MitigationMeasure 4.7-3(d)) to mitigate the cumulative impact on burrowing owl nesting habitat (Section 2 ofthe 1997-98 Draft SEIR, page 65 of the Initial Study). Appendix A of this document discussesrevisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR in further detail. Significant impacts on biological resourcesidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as revised, that are relevant to the proposed project are presented inthe following table. The levels of significance before and after application of mitigation measuresidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, as revised, are also presented in the table. The proposed project iswithin the scope of the analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR as updated in subsequent documents.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 would likelydevelop additional habitat that was not previously anticipated under the 1994 LRDP. However, thisdevelopment is not anticipated to result in any new cumulative biological resources impacts. Thecampus will reexamine potential cumulative biological resources impacts and the availability ofadditional feasible mitigation measures during the LRDP update process.


- 70 -


to Mitigation


4.7-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in the conversionof approximately 231 acres of Agricultural Lands and Annual/RuderalGrassland to Campus-related development and could result in the loss of thespecial-status plant species listed in Table 4.7-1 or added to the special-statusplant list in the future.1

PS LS

4.7-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in the conversion ofapproximately 231 acres of Agricultural Land and Ruderal/Annual Grasslandhabitat to Campus-related development and could result in the loss ofburrowing owl nesting habitat.1

PS LS

4.7-4 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in the conversionof approximately 231 acres of Agricultural Land and Ruderal/AnnualGrassland habitat to Campus-related development which could result in theloss of nesting habitat for raptors (birds-of-prey).1

PS LS

4.7-5 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would result in the conversionof approximately 231 acres of Agricultural Land and Ruderal/AnnualGrassland habitat to Campus-related development which would result in theloss of foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk.1

S LS

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

PS 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.1

SU SU


1 As revised by the WWTP Replacement Project EIR and the 1997-98 Major Capital Improvements Project SEIR (summarized inAppendix A of this document).

Mitigation measures in the 1994 LRDP EIR that are applicable to the proposed project and that willbe required as part of project implementation include the following:

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-1(a) – During the project planning phase, the Campus shallconduct a rare plant survey if the site was previously undeveloped. Surveys shall be conducted byqualified biologists in accordance with the most current CDFG/USFWS guidelines or protocolsand shall be conducted at the time of year when the plants in question are identifiable.(Identification periods are included in Table 4.7-1, however, survey timing for the various plantspecies is dependent in part on yearly rainfall patterns and is determined on a case-by-case basis.)

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-1(b) – Based on the results of the survey, prior to designapproval, the Campus in consultation with CDFG and/or USFWS, shall determine whether theproject would result in a significant impact to any special-status plant species. Evaluation ofproject impacts shall consider the following:


- 71 -

• The status of the species in question (e.g., officially listed by the State or FederalEndangered Species Acts, candidate species, CNPS list).

• The relative density and distribution of the on-site occurrence versus typicaloccurrences of the species in question.

• The habitat quality of the on-site occurrence relative to historic, current or potentialdistribution of the population.

If these surveys reveal no occurrences of any species, or if the Campus in consultationwith CDFG or USFWS determines that no significant impacts on any special-statusplant species would result from project implementation, then no further mitigationwould be required.

Should one or more of special-status plant species occur on the project site, and adetermination of significant impact be made, the following mitigation measure shall berequired.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-3(d) – In addition to the compensation for the loss of Swainson’shawk foraging habitat identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-5, the Campus shallalso convert either the approximately 55 acres of existing orchards adjacent to Putah Creek at theRussell Ranch or a portion of the 85 acres designated habitat restoration and research area to covertype suitable for burrowing owl nesting habitat.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-4(a) – The Campus shall conduct a pre-construction or pre-treepruning or removal survey of trees greater than 30-feet tall (proposed activity) during the raptorbreeding-season (approximately March 1 through August 31). The survey shall be conducted by aqualified biologist during the same calendar year that the proposed activity is planned to begin todetermine if any nesting birds-of-prey would be affected.

If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposed activity, the results of the abovesurvey shall be valid only for the season when it is conducted.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-4(b) – The Campus shall continue to conduct annual surveys todetermine the location of nesting Swainson's hawks on the Campus. If nesting Swainson's hawksare found during the survey at a previously unknown location within one-half mile of a project siteand not within 100 yards of a previously documented site, the Campus shall, prior to projectconstruction, contact the California Department of Fish and Game to determine the potential fordisturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks and will implement feasible changes in the constructionschedule or other appropriate adjustments to the project in response to the specific circumstances.

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

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-5 – As Agricultural Land and Ruderal/Annual Grassland isconverted to Campus development under the 1994 LRDP, the Campus will compensate for the loss


- 72 -

of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat at a 1:1 ratio of acres lost to acres preserved through theimplementation of one or a combination of the following methods.

• Approximately 40 acres of Cropland habitat in the "C" tract adjacent to the Putah CreekReserve on the West Campus will remain Campus agricultural research uses but will beunder land use restrictions that will ensure cropland cover types that are suitable asSwainson's hawk foraging habitat. No incompatible uses such as orchards, vineyard, ordevelopment will be allowed in the areas set aside for Swainson's hawk foraging habitat.However, normal crop rotations may periodically result in unsuitable cover types ofannual crops.

• Approximately 20 acres of land within the North Fork Cutoff that currently supportlivestock enclosures will be restored to a woodland and grassland habitat.

• Approximately 55 acres of existing orchards adjacent to Putah Creek at the RussellRanch will be removed, converted to a cover type suitable for Swainson's hawk foraging,and added to the Putah Creek Reserve.

• Approximately 85 acres at the Russell Ranch that have been designated as a habitatrestoration and research area will include the establishment of cover types that aresuitable Swainson's hawk foraging habitat.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-6(a) – The campus shall conduct a pre-construction breedingseason survey of the 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 the project site, the Campusshall, in consultation with DFG, determine the potential for disturbance to nesting Swainson'shawks and will implement feasible changes in the construction schedule or other appropriateadjustments to the project in response to the specific circumstances.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-6 (b) – The campus shall continue to conduct annual surveys todetermine the location of nesting Swainson's hawks on and within ½-mile of the campus. If nestingSwainson's hawks are found during the survey at a previously unknown location within one-halfmile of a project site and not within 100 yards of a previously documented site, the University shall,prior to project construction, contact the California Department of Fish and Game to determine thepotential for disturbance to nesting Swainson's hawks and will implement feasible changes in theconstruction schedule or other appropriate adjustments to the project in response to the specificcircumstances.

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

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-7 – During the project design stage and as a condition of projectapproval, the campus shall:

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


- 73 -

(b) Avoid and protect all potential VELB habitat within a natural open space area wherefeasible; and

(c) Where avoidance is infeasible, develop and implement a VELB mitigation plan inaccordance with the most current USFWS mitigation guidelines for unavoidable takeof VELB habitat pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10(a) of the FederalEndangered Species Act.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-9(a) – Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7-1, 4.7-3, 4.7-4, 4.7-5,and 4.7-6.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-9(b) – The County of Yolo, when implementing the County-wideHabitat Management Plan, should impose a 1:1 mitigation ratio of habitat preserved to thatconverted on all development projects within their jurisdiction that convert Agricultural Land andAnnual Grassland habitat to urban development.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.7-10 – Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7-7 (a), (b), and (c).


BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitatmodifications, on any speciesidentified as a candidate, sensitive, orspecial status species in local orregional plans, policies, orregulations, or by the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game orU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

o o n o o

b) Have a substantial adverse effect onany riparian habitat or othersensitive natural communityidentified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by theCalifornia Department of Fish andGame or US Fish and WildlifeService?

o o o o n


- 74 -

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

c) Have a substantial adverse effect onfederally protected wetlands asdefined by Section 404 of the CleanWater Act (including, but notlimited to, marsh, vernal pool,coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, orother means?

o o o o n

d) Interfere substantially with themovement of any native resident ormigratory fish or wildlife species orwith established native resident ormigratory wildlife corridors, orimpede the use of native wildlifenursery sites?

o o o n o

e) Conflict with any local applicablepolicies protecting biologicalresources?

o o o o n

f) Conflict with the provisions of anadopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community ConservationPlan, or other applicable habitatconservation plan?

o o o o n

g) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o n o o

Discussion

a) Special-status species are addressed in the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR on page 4.7-8. For the purposesof the 1994 LRDP EIR, special-status species were defined as those taxa that are listed asthreatened or endangered under either the California or Federal Endangered Species Acts, speciesthat are candidates for either state or federal listing, and species afforded protection under theFish and Game Code of California. Also included as special-status species are CDFG Species ofSpecial Concern.

Plants

The 1994 LRDP EIR identified that development of ruderal/annual grassland habitat could resultin the loss of specials-status plant species (Impact 4.7-1). Consistent with 1994 LRDP EIRMitigation Measure 4.7-1(a), biological surveys were conducted on the proposed project sites todetermine the impacts of the proposed project. No special-status plant species or potential


- 75 -

habitat for special-status plant species were observed on or adjacent to the proposed project sites(May & Associates 2002). The project sites are previously disturbed areas, consisting primarilyof disturbed ruderal grassland. The flora on the proposed telecommunications tower site consistsprimarily of space agricultural weeds, including shepard's purse, bindweed, and filaree. The floraon the CEF site consists of non-native plants, including filaree, shepard's purse, red maids,milkthistle, brome, and fiddleneck. The proposed CEF telecommunications line (that wouldconnect the CEF to a SureWest conduit located to the south near the UPRR tracks) is adjacent toplanted black walnuts and landscaped trees and hedges. Therefore, 1994 LRDP EIR MitigationMeasures 4.7-1(b) and (c) are not required.

Wildlife

Burrowing Owl

Although the project sites include ruderal grassland habitat, which is considered suitable foraginghabitat for burrowing owls, no burrowing owls or burrows were observed on or near the sitesduring biological surveys (May & Associates 2002). The closest known nesting burrowing owlsnear the telecommunications tower site are located over 1/2 mile to the west at the UniversityAirport. The closest known nesting burrowing owls near the CEF site are located over 1/2 mileto the southeast. No impact would occur.

The 1994 LRDP EIR identified that development allowed under the 1994 LRDP would contributeto the cumulative loss of ruderal/annual grassland habitat in the region (Impact 4.7-9). Although1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.7-9(a) and 4.7-9(b) would be incorporated as part of theproposed project, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable becauseimplementation of Mitigation Measure of 4.7-9(b) is outside the jurisdiction of the campus toenforce and monitor. This significant and unavoidable impact was adequately analyzed in the1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed by the Findings and Overriding Considerations adopted byThe Regents in connection with its approval of the 1994 LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C,this impact is anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15. Theavailability of additional feasible mitigation measures will be investigated as part of the LRDPupdate process.

Swainson’s Hawk

The occurrence of the Swainson's hawk in and around the campus is well documented. Surveysfor Swainson's hawk nests on the campus and within one-half mile of the central campus havebeen conducted annually since 1990. The results of these surveys documented over 50 differentnest trees on or adjacent to the campus during that period. Most of the Swainson's hawk nestsare located in the Putah Creek riparian corridor. No active Swainson's hawk nesting sites wereobserved on or near the sites during biological surveys (May & Associates 2002). The closestknown nest to the proposed telecommunications tower site is located approximately 1,200 feetsouthwest of the site, and the closest known nest site to the proposed CEF is locatedapproximately 1,200 feet north.

The proposed project would develop a total of approximately 0.36 acre of ruderal grassland,which is potential Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. Development of this Swainson's hawk


- 76 -

habitat was assumed in the 1994 LRDP, and impacts were evaluated in the 1994 LRDP EIR (1994LRDP EIR Impacts 4.7-5, 4-7-6, and 4.7-9). The 1994 LRDP EIR identified mitigation measure4.7-5 to reduce impacts on Swainson's hawk foraging habitat to a less-than-significant level. Thismitigation measure, incorporated as part of the project, compensates for the loss of agriculturalland and ruderal/annual grassland habitat at a 1:1 ratio of acres lost to acres preserved.

The black walnut trees along Old Davis Road are considered suitable Swainson's hawk nestingtrees, although no active Swainson's hawk nests were found during biologist field surveys (May &Associates 2002). Swainson's hawks that nest in the area are accustomed to a variety of humanactivities, such as agricultural operations and vehicle traffic. Therefore, small constructionactivities associated with construction of the CEF and trenching route would probably not resultin a substantial disturbance to Swainson's hawks unless hawks were nesting in close proximity tothe construction activity. Prior to construction, in compliance with 1994 LRDP EIR MitigationMeasure 4.7-4(a), the black walnut trees along Old Davis Road would be surveyed for the presenceof nesting Swainson's hawks. If no nesting hawks are identified, construction would begin asscheduled. If nesting hawks are identified, the campus would work with CDFG to determineappropriate adjustments to the project or construction of the CEF and associated trenchingwould occur after the Swainson's hawk nesting season (after March through August). Therefore,this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level and no further mitigation isrequired.

Valley Elderberry

No elderberry plants are located on or adjacent to the project sites. Therefore, no impact wouldoccur.

Migratory Birds

Because telecommunications towers can present potential impediments to migratory birds, theproposed project would voluntarily comply with the USFWS Interim Guidelines forRecommendations on Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, andDecommissioning (USFWS 2000), as summarized in the following list. Therefore, potentialimpacts on migratory birds would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

• SureWest has reviewed wireless communications facilities in the area and has identified thatthere are no facilities within a five-mile radius that can accommodate the proposed wirelesscommunications equipment.

• The proposed tower would be less than 199 feet in height and would not require guy wires.

• The proposed tower would be sited within an existing cluster of towers (adjacent to the UCDavis telecommunications tower and near the Charter telecommunications tower). Thetower would not be sited in or near wetlands or other known bird concentration areas, inknown migratory or daily movement flyways, in habitat of threatened or endangered species,or in areas with a high incidence of fog, mist, and low ceilings.

• Due to FAA regulations, the proposed tower would require lighting. However, to reduce birdattraction, tower lighting of a minimum number, intensity, and number of flashes per minuteas allowed by the FAA would be used.


- 77 -

• The proposed tower would accommodate antennas for additional users (other than SureWest)to reduce the number of towers needed in the future.

• Security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment would be down-shielded to keeplight within the boundaries of the site.

b) The proposed project sites consist primarily of non-native grassland and are not consideredriparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, no impact would occur.

c) There are no streams, ponds, or wetlands on the proposed project sites. No impact would occur.

d) The project sites support disturbed ruderal grassland habitat and are surrounded by agriculturalland and development. There are no streams, ponds, or wetlands on the sites. Due to the type ofhabitat on the sites and the uses on adjacent lands, development on the site would notsubstantially interfere with movement of wildlife or fish or impede the use of nursery sites.

Telecommunications towers present potential impediments to migratory birds. However, asdiscussed in Item 8(a) above, the proposed project would voluntarily comply with USFWSguidelines for communication towers. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

e) The proposed project would not remove any trees and therefore would not conflict with any localapplicable policies protecting biological resources. No impact would occur.

f) As discussed in Item 1c, the proposed project sites are not included in any conservation plans andtherefore would not conflict with any policies, ordinances, or adopted habitat conservation plans.No impact would occur.

g) Standards of significance for biological resources impacts that were used in preparation of the1994 LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with thebiological resources questions in the current Environmental Checklist. As discussed above, withthe incorporation of 1994 LRDP EIR and project-specific mitigation measures, the proposedproject would not exceed the standards of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR andwould not result in new significant impacts related to biological resources that were notpreviously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.7-1(a) and (b), 4.7-3(d), 4.7-4(a) and (b), 4.7-5, 4.7-6(a) and(b), 4.7-7, 4.7-9(a) and (b), and 4.7-10 will be implemented as part of the project. The proposedproject would not result in new or significant biological resource impacts that have not already beenadequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 78 -

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Background

Putah Creek, the principal stream course in the Davis region, flows along the southern boundary ofthe Russell Ranch property and the west campus. The entire flow of Putah Creek is diverted to theSouth Fork of Putah Creek west of the I-80/SR 113 intersection. The historical North Fork of PutahCreek (currently the Arboretum Waterway) is east of SR 113 on the central campus and is separatedfrom its former channel by levees, SR 113, the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, and I-80. The 100-yearflood plain in the campus is generally located along the North Fork, South Fork, and historical NorthFork channels. A portion of the west campus along County Road 98 is also subject to inundationduring a 100-year storm event and is designated as a flood hazard zone by the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) (see Figure 4.8-2 on page 4.8-4 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR).

The South Fork of Putah Creek receives treated effluent discharge from the new campus WastewaterTreatment Plant. The plant, which began operation in March 2000, is more reliable to operate thanthe outdated treatment system that was in use when the 1994 LRDP and 1994 LRDP EIR wereprepared.

Stormwater runoff from the proposed telecommunications tower site currently percolates into the soilor drains to the North Fork Cutoff. Stormwater that reaches the North Fork Cutoff forms a pond atthe east end of the streambed near SR 113. A stand pipe allows flows resulting from a storm greaterthan a 25-year event to flow from the North Fork Cutoff through a siphon under SR 113 to thepumping forebay in the central campus, where stormwater is pumped to the South Fork of PutahCreek. Stormwater runoff from the proposed CEF site currently percolates on the site or flows to theSouth Fork of Putah Creek in the vicinity of the Raptor Center. Putah Creek, the principal streamcourse in the Davis region, flows along the southern boundary of the Russell Ranch property and thewest campus. The entire flow of Putah Creek is diverted to the South Fork of Putah Creek west ofthe I-80/SR 113 intersection.

The campus is underlain by the Lower Cache-Putah Basin, which is divided by relatively impervioussoil layers into shallow/intermediate and deep aquifers. Domestic and fire water for the campus isdrawn from wells in the deep aquifer (located up to 1,500 feet below the ground surface). Utilitywater is used primarily for landscape irrigation and is drawn from wells in the shallow/intermediateaquifer (200 to 600 feet below the ground surface). Groundwater underlying the campus is generallyhigh in mineral content and is considered good quality for agricultural use and adequate quality formunicipal use.


The environmental analysis provided in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to hydrology andwater quality significant if campus or regional growth would:

• expose faculty, staff, students or visitors to flood hazards by being locatedwithin the 100-year flood plain as defined by the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency;


- 79 -

• result in substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rateand amount of surface runoff which cause existing drainage capacity to beexceeded;

• substantially interfere with groundwater recharge; or

• substantially degrade surface and/or groundwater quality due to increases insediments, erosion and contaminants generated by construction and/orimplementation of the 1994 LRDP.


Significant impacts identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR that are relevant to the proposed project arepresented in the following table. The levels of significance before and after application of mitigationmeasures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR are also presented. Impacts of campus growth throughyear 2005-06 on hydrology and water quality were addressed in Sections 4.8 (Hydrology and WaterQuality) and 4.14 (Utilities and Infrastructure) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. Cumulative hydrologyand water quality impacts were reevaluated in the WWTP Replacement Project EIR, but no changeswere made to the 1994 LRDP EIR impacts, mitigation measures, or levels of significance. Updatesand revisions to the 1994 LRDP EIR are summarized in Appendix A of this document. The proposedproject is within the scope of the analysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR as reevaluated in theWWTP Replacement Project EIR. Please note that cumulative regional impacts 4.8-8 and 4.8-9include mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels. However, theseimpacts are identified as significant and unavoidable because the University of California can notguarantee implementation of a mitigation measure that is not within its jurisdiction to enforce andmonitor.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 would likelyincrease water use and sources of water pollution beyond levels previously anticipated under the1994 LRDP. However, campus growth through 2014-15 is not anticipated to result in any newcumulative hydrology and water quality resource impacts. The campus will reexamine potentialcumulative hydrology and water quality impacts and the availability of additional feasible mitigationmeasures during the LRDP update process.


to Mitigation


4.8-2 New impervious surfaces associated with development allowed under the 1994LRDP would increase surface runoff, and could exceed existing drainagecapacity and result in localized flooding.

S LS

4.8-3 New impervious surface associated with development allowed under the 1994LRDP could reduce the potential for groundwater recharge.

S LS

4.8-4 Increased siltation and sedimentation generated during construction activitiesassociated with development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could adverselyaffect receiving water quality.

S LS


- 80 -


to Mitigation


4.8-5 Increased runoff from additional impervious surfaces associated withdevelopment allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in sedimentation andincreased levels of urban contaminants that could adversely affect receivingwater quality.

S LS

4.8-8 Urban and agricultural development allowed under the 1994 LRDP in thePutah Creek watershed, including the campus, could reduce receiving waterquality.

SU SU

4.8-9 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in combination with cumulativedevelopment in the Lower Cache-Putah Groundwater Basin, would increasethe amount of impervious surface and reduce groundwater recharge potential.

SU SU



• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-2(a) – Prior to approval of final project design, the campusshall prepare detailed drainage study to evaluate each specific development project under the1994 LRDP to determine if project runoff would exceed the capacity of the existing campus stormdrainage system.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-3 – The campus shall incorporate where feasible as part ofproject design the following measures, or equally effective measures, to maximize percolation andinfiltration of precipitation into the underlying groundwater aquifers:

(a) the use of pervious paving material; or(b) preservation and utilization of natural drainage areas.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-4(a) – If project construction includes the disturbance of fiveacres or more of land, the campus shall include in all construction contracts a requirement thatcampus contractors file a Notice of Intent for coverage under the State General ConstructionActivity Storm Water Permit. The contractor shall comply with applicable permit requirements. 5

The 1994 LRDP EIR further states: Compliance with the Permit would require theimplementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs include schedules ofactivities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management

5 Due to a recent agreement with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the campus has filed for coverage under the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System state-wide General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated withConstruction Activity. As opposed to the storm water permitting procedures for construction activities included in 1994 LRDP EIRMitigation Measures 4.8-4(a) and (b), the campus must now by law submit New Construction Project Information Forms and prepareand implement project-specific storm water pollution prevention plan for all construction projects on campus (regardless ofconstruction site size). This new construction storm water permitting procedure complies with the intent of those outlined in 1994LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-8(a).


- 81 -

practices to prevent or reduce pollution (i.e. straw bale dikes, silt fences, sediment traps,or similar methods)

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(a) – The campus shall ensure that project designincludes a combination of the following Best Management Practices (BMPs), or equallyeffective measures:

(i) Reduction of the area and length of time that the site is cleared and graded.

(ii) Revegetation/stabilization of cleared areas as soon as possible.

(iii) Peak flow reduction and infiltration practices, such as grass swales,infiltration trenches and grass filter strips shall be incorporated.

(iv) Storm drain inlets shall be labeled to educate the public of the adverseimpacts associated with dumping in receiving waters (i.e. “Don’t dump!Drains to creek”).

(v) Landscape areas, including borders shall use warm season grasses anddrought tolerant vegetation wherever feasible to reduce demand for irrigationand thereby reducing irrigation runoff.

(vi) Efficient irrigation shall be installed in landscaped areas to minimize runoffand evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots. Suchirrigation systems include drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, andautomatic irrigation systems.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-8(a) – Implement Mitigation Measures 4.8-4(a) and(b), 4.8-5(a) and (b) and 4.8-6(a) through (c).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-8(b) – When the EPA adopts NPDES Municipal StormWater Permit requirements for small municipalities, local jurisdictions in the PutahCreek Watershed would apply for, obtain, and implement a NPDES Municipal StormWater Permit in accordance with EPA requirements.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-8(c) – Comprehensive Storm Water PollutionPrevention Plans and monitoring programs would be implemented by all storm waterdischargers associated with specific industrial and construction activities, in compliancewith the State's General Permits. Such plans shall include Best Management Practices orequally effective measures.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-9(a) – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-3(a) and (b).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-9(b) – Jurisdictions in the Lower-Cache Putah CreekGroundwater Basin should encourage development to be accomplished in a manner thatwould maximize percolation and infiltration of precipitation into the underlyinggroundwater aquifers through the use of pervious paving materials, cluster development,


- 82 -

retention of natural drainage areas, and identification and retention of flood plains andareas of high recharge potential.


HYDROLOGY AND WATERQUALITY

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Violate any water quality standardsor waste discharge requirements?

o o n o o

b) Substantially deplete groundwatersupplies or interfere substantiallywith groundwater recharge such thatthere would be a net deficit inaquifer volume or a lowering of thelocal groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate of pre-existingnearby wells would drop to a levelwhich would not support existingland uses or planned uses for whichpermits have been granted)?

o o n o o

c) Substantially alter the existingdrainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, in amanner which would result insubstantial erosion or siltation on- oroff-site?

o o o o n

d) Substantially alter the existingdrainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, orsubstantially increase the rate oramount of surface runoff in amanner, which would result inflooding on- or off-site?

o o o n o

e) Create or contribute runoff waterwhich would exceed the capacity ofexisting or planned stormwaterdrainage systems or providesubstantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?

o o n o o

f) Otherwise substantially degradewater quality?

o o n o o


- 83 -

HYDROLOGY AND WATERQUALITY

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

g) Place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area as mapped on afederal Flood Hazard Boundary orFlood Insurance Rate Map or otherflood hazard delineation map?

o o o o n

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazardarea structures, which would impedeor redirect flood flows?

o o o o n

i) Expose people or structures to asignificant risk of loss, injury ordeath involving flooding, includingflooding as a result of the failure of alevee or dam?

o o o n o

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, ormudflow?

o o o o n

k) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o n o o

Discussion

a) During construction and operation, the project sites would continue to drain to the samelocations they currently do (which is discussed in the Background section of this resourcesection).

Construction

Construction of the proposed project would include temporary earth disturbing activities, such asgrading and excavation, which could result in increased rates of soil erosion leading to increasedsediment loads in stormwater runoff. This would adversely affect receiving water quality. Soilsunderlying the project sites (Yolo and Reiff series) are characterized as having minimum erosionpotential (see Figure 4.9-1 on page 4.9-6 of the 1994 LRDP EIR and the discussion under Items10b and 10c of this checklist).

A total of approximately 0.36 acre would be graded for preparation of the proposed project sites.The 1994 LRDP EIR identified that construction activities associated with development allowedunder the 1994 LRDP could increase siltation and sedimentation and adversely affect receivingwater quality (Impact 4.8-4). However, due to the small amount of land that would be gradedand the low erosion potential of soils on the project sites, the potential for construction-relatedwater quality impacts is minimal. Construction activity associated with the proposed projectwould be covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) state-wideGeneral Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. As part of a


- 84 -

recent agreement with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the campus hasfiled for coverage under the General Permit for the entire Davis campus. As part of this permit,the project's contractor would prepare and implement a project-specific Storm Water PollutionPrevention Plan for construction activities associated with the proposed project. This wouldfurther reduce potential construction-related surface water quality impacts to less-than-significantlevels.

Operation

The proposed project would not directly discharge wastewater, nor would it indirectly provide forgrowth that would increase wastewater discharges.

Less than 0.36 acre of new impervious surfaces would be created by the proposed project. Thiswould minimally increase the volume of surface water runoff, which could contribute toincreased sediment and urban contaminant loads in the Arboretum Waterway and Putah Creek.The primary sources of stormwater pollution associated with the proposed project would be oil,grease, heavy metals, and sediments from the proposed graveled access/parking areas on theproject sites.

The 1994 LRDP EIR identified that increased runoff from additional impervious surfacesassociated with development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in sedimentation andincreased levels of urban contaminants in receiving water (Impact 4.8-5). 1994 LRDP EIRMitigation Measure 4.8-5(a), incorporated as part of the proposed project, would reduce theproject's operational impact on receiving waters to a less-than-significant level. This measureensures that project design would include a combination of stormwater-related BMPs.

The 1994 LRDP EIR concluded that cumulative effects of urban and agricultural development inthe Putah Creek Watershed could reduce receiving water quality of Putah Creek (Impact 4.8-8).1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.8-8 (a) through (c) were identified to reduce this impactto a less-than-significant level, but the impact is considered significant and unavoidable becausethe University of California can not guarantee implementation of 4.8-8 (b), which falls withinother jurisdictions to enforce and monitor. The proposed project would contribute to, but notexceed, the cumulative urban development identified in the 1994 LRDP. This significant andunavoidable impact was adequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed by theFindings and Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approvalof the LRDP EIR, as amended. As discussed in Appendix C, this impact is anticipated to remainsignificant and unavoidable through 2014-15. The availability of additional feasible mitigationmeasures will be investigated as part of the LRDP update process.

b) The campus is underlain by the Lower Cache-Putah Basin, which is divided by relativelyimpervious soil layers into shallow/intermediate and deep aquifers. Both aquifers are usedregionally for domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial uses with wells being sunk todepths from 50 to 1,500 feet below the ground surface. The proposed project would not connectto campus water distribution systems or increase demand for water from the deep or shallowaquifers.


- 85 -

Less than 0.36 acre of impervious surfaces would be created by the proposed project. This smalladdition would not lead to a measurable reduction in aquifer recharge. However, the 1994 LRDPEIR concluded that the increase in impervious surface associated with development allowedunder the 1994 LRDP could reduce the potential for groundwater recharge (Impact 4.8-3).Implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-3, incorporated as part of the project,would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. An effort would be made to minimizeimpervious surfaces during project design. Linings of geo fabric covered with crushed rockwould be placed on the proposed project sites to allow stormwater to be contained and percolateon the sites and run off the sites as the existing grade allows. No further mitigation is required.

The 1994 LRDP EIR concluded that development allowed under the 1994 LRDP, in conjunctionwith other regional development in the Lower Cache-Putah Creek Groundwater Basin, wouldincrease the amount of impervious surface coverage and reduce groundwater recharge potential(Impact 4.8-9). Although Mitigation Measures 4.8-9 (a) and (b), incorporated into the proposedproject, would reduce the magnitude this impact, the impact would remain significant andunavoidable because the University of California cannot guarantee implementation of 1994 LRDPEIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-9 (b), which is not within the jurisdiction of the University toenforce and monitor. The proposed project would contribute to, but not exceed, the increase inimpervious surface cover identified under the 1994 LRDP. This significant and unavoidableimpact was adequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and addressed by the Findings andOverriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1994LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C, this impact is anticipated to remain significant andunavoidable through 2014-15. The availability of additional feasible mitigation measures will beinvestigated as part of the LRDP update process.

c) Stormwater runoff from the proposed project sites discharges to the South Fork of Putah Creek.The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern and would not result insignificant erosion or siltation on- or off- site (as discussed in Item 9a, above). Therefore, noimpact would occur.

d) As described in Item 9a, above, the proposed project would result in a minimal increase insurface runoff associated with a minor increase in increased impervious surfaces. The increase insurface runoff associated with the proposed project would not result in an increase in the totalamount of surface runoff over that anticipated and evaluated in the 1994 LRDP EIR and wouldnot result in flooding on- or off- site. The impact is less-than-significant. Impacts to the campusdrainage system capacity are evaluated in Item 9e, below.

e) The 1994 LRDP EIR identified that new impervious surfaces associated with developmentallowed under the 1994 LRDP would increase surface runoff, which could exceed existingdrainage capacity and result in localized flooding (Impact 4.8-2). Linings of geo fabric coveredwith crushed rock would be placed on the proposed project sites to allow stormwater to becontained and percolate on the sites and run off the sites as the existing grade allows. Incompliance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.8-2 (a), incorporated into the proposedproject, the storm drainage capacity serving the project sites will be evaluated to determineadequacy for serving the proposed project. Therefore, the impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.


- 86 -

f) Potential sources of water quality degradation resulting from the proposed project are discussedin Item 9a, above.

g, h) The proposed project sites are located outside a 100-year flood plain, as defined by the FederalEmergency Management Agency (see 1994 LRDP Draft EIR Figure 4.8-2). Furthermore, theproposed project does not involve construction of housing. Consequently, the project would notexpose people or property to water-related hazards associated with the 100-year flood plain. Noimpact would occur.

i) The proposed project sites are not located near a levee or dam and would not be subject to risk offlooding due to failure of one of these structures. The campus is located approximately 23 milesdownstream of Monticello Dam (forming Lake Berryessa) and the Putah Creek Diversion Dam.An inundation study prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation showed that, in the case of adam breach, the project site (as well as the campus and the City of Davis) would be inundatedunder a maximum of 3 to 9 feet of water approximately 3.5 to 4 hours following the breach(USBR 1998). However, the probability of such a release is far less than one in one million(USBR 2000). Furthermore, as of June 2000, the integrity of Monticello Dam was determined tobe in satisfactory condition and the dam exhibited no unusual cracks, seeps, or deformations.Therefore, exposure to inundation as a result of dam failure would be less-than-significant and nomitigation is required.

j) The proposed project would not be located in an area subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.The project sites are flat and are not located in close proximity to any large water bodies.Therefore, no impact would occur.

k) Standards of significance for hydrology and water quality impacts that were used in preparationof the 1994 LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent withthe hydrology and water quality questions in the current Environmental Checklist. As discussedabove, with the incorporation of relevant 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, the proposedproject would not exceed the standards of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR andwould not result in new significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality that were notpreviously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.8-2 (a), 4.8-3, 4.8-4 (a), 4.8-5 (a), 4.8-8 (a) through (c), and4.8-9(a) and (b) would be incorporated as part of the project. The proposed project would not resultin new or significant hydrology and water quality impacts that have not already been adequatelyassessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 87 -

10. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Background

The campus is located within 100 miles of a number of fault zones. However, neither the campus northe City of Davis is located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. The East Valley fault,located approximately beneath Russell Ranch, is a subsurface, inferred fault that has not created anysurface rupture. No other known faults traverse the campus. According to the Preliminary Map ofMaximum Expectable Earthquake Intensity in California, the campus is located in a "moderate"severity zone. The University of California has adopted a Seismic Safety Policy, which requires theidentification and correction of potential earthquake hazards in existing structures and requiresdesigns for new building structures that avoid seismic hazards.

Soil conditions on the campus include dense subsurface soils, low groundwater levels and flattopography, suggesting that secondary seismic effects, such as liquefaction, are unlikely. Moderate tohigh shrink-swell potential is found in all underlying soils, which can cause damage to foundations andother structures. Soils underlying the campus are shown in Figure 4.9-1 on page 4.9-6 of the 1994LRDP Draft EIR. Soil descriptions and constraints are described on pages 4.9-5 through 4.9-9 of the1994 LRDP Draft EIR.


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered a geotechnical impact significant ifcampus or regional growth would:

• expose people, structures or property to major seismic hazards such as groundshakingor liquefaction; or

• expose people, structures or property to damage from soil hazards such as shrink-swellpotential or low soil strength.


Impacts of campus growth through 2005-06 related to geotechnical factors and soils are addressed inSection 4.9 (Geotechnical Factors) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. Significant impacts identified in the1994 LRDP EIR that are relevant to the proposed project are presented in the following table. Thelevels of significance before and after application of mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDPEIR are also presented in the table. The proposed project is within the scope of the geotechnicalanalysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR. The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis,presented as Appendix C of this document, that serves to inform the public concerning all that iscurrently known about the campus' potential growth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis,campus growth through 2014-15 would likely increase the number of people and structures exposedto potential geology and soils hazards. However, campus growth through 2014-15 is not anticipatedto result in any new cumulative geology and soils impacts. The campus will reexamine potentialcumulative geology and soils impacts and the availability of additional feasible mitigation measuresduring the LRDP update process.


- 88 -


to Mitigation


4.9-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could expose people, structuresand property to strong ground shaking and secondary seismic effects fromearthquakes in local or regional faults.

S LS



• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(a) – Prior to final design, the campus shall review and approveall building plans for compliance with the Uniform Building Code and Title 24.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(b) – Prior to occupancy, the campus shall review and approvefinal building designs for appropriate seismic safety provisions. Appropriate seismic safetyprovisions shall include anchoring, bracing or restraining nonstructural elements such as furniture,shelving or equipment.


GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Expose people or structures topotential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury, ordeath involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquakefault, as delineated on the mostrecent Alquist-Priolo EarthquakeFault Zoning Map issued by theState Geologist for the area orbased on other substantialevidence of a known fault?

o o o o n

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? o o n o o

iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?

o o n o o

iv) Landslides? o o o o n


- 89 -

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

b) Result in substantial soil erosion orthe loss of topsoil?

o o n o o

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soilthat is unstable, or that wouldbecome unstable as a result of theproject, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateralspreading, subsidence, liquefactionor collapse?

o o o n o

d) Be located on expansive soil, asdefined in Table 18-1-B of theUniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life orproperty?

o o n o o

e) Have soils incapable of adequatelysupporting the use of septic tanks oralternative wastewater disposalsystems where sewers are notavailable for the disposal ofwastewater?

o o o o n

f) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o n o o

Discussion

a) (i) The campus is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Table 4.9-2 on page4.9-3 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR lists selected regional faults. As described on page 4.9-2 of the1994 LRDP Draft EIR, the closest known active fault mapped by the United States GeologicalSurvey is the Dunnigan Hill fault located approximately 12 miles northwest of the main campus.The closest branches of the seismically active San Andreas fault system are the Green Valley (32miles southwest) and the Rodgers Creek (47 miles southwest) faults. The San Andreas fault islocated approximately 67 miles to the southwest. Consequently, the proposed project would notexpose people to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquakefault. No impact would occur.

a) (ii,iii) Seismic groundshaking is discussed on page 4.9-2 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR:

According to the Preliminary Map of Maximum Expectable Earthquake Intensity in California,prepared by the California Department of Mines and Geology, the campus is located in a“moderate” severity zone, representing a probable maximum earthquake intensity of VII orVIII on the Modified Mercali Scale which corresponds to an earthquake measuring 6.0 to 6.9


- 90 -

on the Richter Scale…Effects of groundshaking during such an event could include structuraldamage to stucco, masonry walls, and chimneys exposing people to the associated risks offalling objects and building collapse.

The 1994 LRDP Draft EIR further states on page 4.9-4 that “some soil conditions on the campusinclude deep subsurface soils, low groundwater levels and flat topography, suggesting thatsecondary seismic effects, such as liquefaction, are unlikely. Typically [though], the soilsdeposited in the Central Valley consist of loose alluvial deposits and could be susceptible toliquefaction.” Pursuant to the 1994 LRDP EIR (page 4.9-4 of the LRDP Draft EIR), localized soilassessments would be performed for the proposed project site and would further identify site-specific liquefaction potential.

The proposed project involves the construction of a telecommunications tower facility in the westcampus and a small CEF building in the south campus. Both facilities would not be occupied andwould not induce growth in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would expose structures,but not occupants, to groundshaking and secondary seismic effects from earthquakes. The 1994LRDP EIR identified that development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could expose people,structures, and property to strong groundshaking and secondary seismic effects (Impact 4.9-1).1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 (a) and (b), incorporated into the proposed project,would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures wouldensure that the proposed building is designed and constructed in compliance with applicableCalifornia Uniform Building Code (CUBC) Zone 4 and Title 24 standards, and that seismic safetyprovisions and policies are maintained. No further mitigation is required.

a)(iv) The proposed project sites and surrounding areas are characterized by flat topography andtherefore would not be subject to landslides. No impact would occur.

b) The proposed project sites are underlain by Yolo and Reiff Series soils (see Figure 4.9-1 in the1994 LRDP Draft EIR). These soils, found on alluvial fans, exhibit moderately rapidpermeability, very slow runoff, minimal hazard of erosion, and moderate to high shrink-swellpotential.

The proposed project would involve grading, trenching, and excavation activities. Suchearthmoving activities could result in increased rates of erosion during construction. Theproposed project would also minimally increase impervious surfaces, increasing runoff from theproject sites and potentially increasing rates of erosion. However, the erosion hazard of soilsunder the proposed project sites is minimal. In addition, the proposed project would be designedto ensure that potential adverse effects related to soil constraints would be minimized to themaximum feasible extent in accordance with applicable CUBC requirements. 1994 LRDP EIRMitigation Measures 4.8-4 (a), 4.8-5 (a), and 4.8-8 (a) through (c), incorporated into theproposed project (as discussed in Item 9 - Hydrology and Water Quality), would further reduceerosion hazards associated with the proposed project. Therefore, impacts of substantial soilerosion or loss of topsoil would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

c) Lateral spreading, liquefaction potential, or other unstable soil conditions have not beenidentified as development constraints on campus. The proposed project site is not located on soilor strata that are unstable (see discussion in Item 10b, above). Subsidence due to groundwater


- 91 -

withdrawal has been identified at a few locations in Yolo County; however, none of the locationsare at or near the campus (Yolo County Community Development Department 1983). Further,the 1994 LRDP EIR did not identify impacts associated with subsidence. Although no significantadverse geologic or soil conditions are anticipated, in compliance with the CUBC, a site-specificgeotechnical study would be performed by a registered geologist or engineering geologist prior toproject design (as noted on page 4.9-10 in the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR). Recommendationspresented in the geotechnical study would be implemented in the design and construction of theproposed project to account for any identified hazards. The proposed project is therefore notanticipated to result in any new or significant impacts that have not already been evaluated in the1994 LRDP EIR. This impact is considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.

d) As described in Item 10b, above, soils under the proposed project site are characterized as havingmoderate to high shrink-swell (expansion) potential, which could result in structural damage.The 1994 LRDP EIR concluded that impacts related to development on expansive soils would beless-than-significant, because all development would be required to comply with the CUBC forbuilding design and construction. The proposed project would also incorporate MitigationMeasure 4.9-1(a), requiring review of facility design to ensure compliance with the CUBC.Therefore, potential adverse effects associated with expansive soils or other geotechnicalconstraints of the proposed project site would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

e) The proposed project does not involve the installation or use of septic tanks or alternativewastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

f) Standards of significance for geology and soils impacts that were used in preparation of the 1994LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with the geologyand soils questions in the current Environmental Checklist. Based on the discussion presentedabove, with the incorporation of 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, the proposed projectwould not exceed the standards of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would notresult in new significant impacts related to geology and soils that were not previously analyzed inthe 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 (a) and (b) would be incorporated as part of the project.The proposed project would not result in new or significant geology and soils impacts that have notalready been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 92 -

11. MINERAL RESOURCES

Background

Natural gas has been found on the main campus and at the Russell Ranch. Natural gas extractiontechniques allow wells to be placed at considerable distances from the deposits. No other known orpotential mineral resources have been identified on the UC Davis campus. As such, the 1994 LRDP EIRdid not identify any impacts to mineral resources.

1994 LRDP EIR

Mineral resources are briefly addressed in Section 4.9 (Geotechnical Factors) of the 1994 LRDP DraftEIR. Mineral resources are briefly discussed in Section 4.9 of the 1994 LRDP EIR. The 1994 LRDPEIR did not identify impacts of campus development through 2005-06 on mineral resources. Asdiscussed in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis presented as Appendix C of this document, campusgrowth through 2014-15 is not expected to introduce an new cumulative mineral resource impacts orrequire new mitigation measures.

MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of aknown mineral resource that wouldbe of value to the region and theresidents of the state?

o o o o n

b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resourcerecovery site delineated on a localgeneral plan, specific plan or otherland use plan?

o o o o n

c) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o o o n

Discussion

a) As described on page 4.9-9 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR, there are no known mineral resourcesidentified on the main campus. Natural gas has been identified under a portion of the campus,but development of the proposed project would not affect the availability of any mineral resource.Therefore, no impact would occur.

b) The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineralresource recovery site delineation on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.No impact would occur.


- 93 -

c) The 1994 LRDP EIR did not identify any standards of significance with respect to mineralresources. No impact would occur.

Summary

The proposed project would not result in any new or significant mineral resource impacts. Nomineral resource impacts were identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 94 -

12. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Background

The 1994 LRDP EIR describes known cultural (prehistoric and historic) resources on the campus.Prehistoric resources are those sites and artifacts associated with the indigenous, non-Euroamericanpopulation, generally dating prior to contact with people of European descent. Historical resourcesinclude structures, features, artifacts and sites that date from Euroamerican settlement of the region.

Prehistoric Resources: At the time of first European contact, the campus was within the territory ofthe Patwin. The Patwin controlled a 90-mile section of land running from Suisun Bay to Princetonon the Sacramento River, and from Long Valley-San Pablo Bay on the west to the Sacramento Riveron the east. Record searches were conducted for the central campus, west campus, south campus,Russell Ranch and the South Davis Research Park. Surface and subsurface cultural resource surveyshave been performed for extensive areas of the campus as part of the site work for campusconstruction projects. Prehistoric Native American sites, including burials, have been identified atseveral locations on the central campus.

Historic Resources: No properties within the campus are listed on the National Register of HistoricPlaces. Six properties on or near the campus have been recorded with the California Inventory ofHistoric Resources, and several are considered significant historical resources. There are more than50 structures on campus that are over 45 years old. Most of these have not been evaluated forhistorical significance. Future analysis will be required under CEQA and the National HistoricPreservation Act for any buildings over 45 years old that could be damaged or destroyed.


An impact was considered significant in the 1994 LRDP EIR if campus or regional growth would:

• result in the damage or destruction of prehistoric sites or artifacts that would meetCEQA and/or federal criteria for significance; or

• result in the damage or destruction of historical structures, features, artifacts,landscaping or sites that would meet CEQA, federal, or campus criteria forsignificance.


Impacts of campus growth through year 2005-06 on cultural resources are addressed in Section 4.10(Cultural Resources) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. Significant impacts identified in the 1994 LRDPEIR that are relevant to the proposed project are presented in the following table. The levels ofsignificance before and after the application of mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIRare also presented. The proposed project is within the scope of the cultural resources analysispresented in the 1994 LRDP EIR. Please note that cumulative regional impact 4.10-4 includedmitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. However, this impact wasidentified as significant and unavoidable because the University of California can not guaranteeimplementation of mitigation measures that fall within other jurisdictions to enforce and monitor.


- 95 -

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 wouldincrease development beyond that anticipated under the 1994 LRDP and could contribute to thecumulative damage or destruction of cultural resources. However, campus growth through 2014-15is not anticipated to result in any new cumulative cultural resources impacts. The campus willreexamine potential cumulative cultural resources impacts and the availability of additional feasiblemitigation measures during the LRDP update process.


to Mitigation


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

SU SU

4.10-4 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could contribute to a cumulativeloss of prehistoric and historic resources in Yolo and Solano Counties. SU SU


Mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR that are applicable to the proposed project andthat will be required as part of project implementation include the following:

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(a) – Prior to project approval, the campus shall determinethe level of archaeological investigation that is appropriate for the project site. The levels are:

Minimum: in areas of known archaeological sensitivity (i.e. known sites) excavation lessthan 18” deep and in a relatively small area (e.g. routine maintenance andoperations such as repairing broken facilities, a short trench for lawnirrigation, tree planting, 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 that has not beencharacterized and is not suspected to be a likely location for archaeologicalresources.

Intensive: excavation below 18” and/or over a large area on any site that is within 800’ ofthe historic alignment of Putah Creek (prior to 1880) or that is adjacent to arecorded archaeological site.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(c) - For sites requiring moderate level of investigation, thefollowing steps shall be taken.

(i) A surface survey shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist prior to projectapproval.


- 96 -

(ii) If evidence of archeological resources are found, a qualified archaeologist shall prepareand implement a plan for subsurface investigation of the site. The archaeologist shalldetermine and advise the campus on the potential for the project to affect a significantarchaeological resource. If the project might affect a significant archaeological resource,the campus shall adopt an appropriate mitigation plan at the time of project approval. Iffeasible, the campus shall consider avoidance at significant archaeological sites as thepreferred mitigation. At a minimum, data recovery at significant archaeological siteswill be implemented.

(iii) If evidence of archaeological resources is not found during the surface survey, aqualified archaeologist shall be present during excavation and grading, as deemednecessary by the archaeologist.

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

(b)(i) Prior to disturbing the soil, contractors shall be notified that they are required towatch for potential archaeological sites and artifacts and to notify the campus ifanything is found. In addition, campus employees whose work involves routinelydisturbing the soil shall be trained to recognize evidence of potential archaeologicalsites and artifacts.

(b)(ii) If resources are discovered during activities, all soil disturbing work within 100' ofthe find shall cease. The resources shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist whowill determine and advise the campus on the potential for the activity to affect asignificant archaeological resource.

(b)(iii) If the activity might affect a significant archaeological resource, consistent with CEQAand Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines addressing archaeological impacts a plan forsurveying the remainder of the site and conducting appropriate data recovery and othermitigations shall be prepared and implemented using the services of a qualifiedarchaeologist.

(b)(iv) If human remains are found, the County coroner shall be contacted. The coroner shallcontact the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall notify the appropriatedescendant. The campus shall coordinate re-interment of Native American remainswith the NAHC and the designated descendant.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 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).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-4(b) - The Yolo and Solano County General Plans and the Cityof Davis General Plan contain policies which address the preservation of cultural resources. It iswithin the jurisdiction of these agencies to implement the General Plan policies which encouragethe protection and restoration of cultural resources.



- 97 -

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse changein the significance of a historicalresource as defined in §15064.5?

o o o o n

b) Cause a substantial adverse changein the significance of anarchaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5?

o o n o o

c) Directly or indirectly destroy aunique paleontological resource orsite or unique geologic feature?

o o o o n

d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside offormal cemeteries?

o o n o o

e) Cause a substantial adverse changein the significance of a historiclandscape feature?

o o o o n

f) Exceed an applicable LRDP ProgramEIR Standard of Significance?

o o n o o

Discussion

a) There are no historical buildings or resources located on the project site. Therefore, no impactwould occur.

b) As discussed on page 4.10-9 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR, any time earth is disturbed, buriedresources can be damaged or destroyed. This risk on campus is highest along the historic banksof the tributaries and slough channels of Putah Creek. The proposed telecommunications towersite is within the zone of cultural sensitivity bordering the historic channel of Putah Creek (nowthe North Fork Cutoff), and the proposed CEF site is approximately 1/2 mile south of the historicchannel of Putah Creek (now the campus Arboretum).

Consistent with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(a), incorporated into the proposedproject, archeological surveys and auger testing were conducted on the proposed project sites.No significant cultural resources were identified on either site (Pacific Legacy 2002). However,due to the proposed project's proximity to the historic channel of Putah Creek, an archaeologicalmonitoring plan will be developed for the proposed project that addresses the level, timing, andimplementation of cultural monitoring activity during construction of the proposed project.1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(c), incorporated into the proposed project, wouldreduce the project-level impact on cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.


- 98 -

The 1994 LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the 1994 LRDP could contribute to acumulative loss of cultural resources on the campus (Impact 4.10-1) and in Yolo and Solanocounties (Impact 4.10-4). Although 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 (a) and (c) and4.10-4 (a) and (b), incorporated into the proposed project, would reduce the magnitude of thesecumulative impacts, the cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable becauseeven if cultural resources are adequately recorded, destruction and/or removal from their place oforigin reduces their value as a resource. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-4(b) is not within the jurisdiction of the University to enforce and monitor. Significant andunavoidable 1994 LRDP EIR Impacts 4.10-1 and 4.10-4 were adequately analyzed in the 1994LRDP EIR and fully addressed by the Findings and Overriding Considerations adopted by TheRegents in connection with its approval of the 1994 LRDP and certification of the 1994 LRDPEIR. As discussed in Appendix C, these cumulative cultural resource impacts identified in the1994 LRDP EIR are anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15. Theseimpacts and the availability of additional feasible mitigation measures will be reexamined as partof the LRDP update process.

c) As described on page 4.9-1 of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR, subsurface soils on campus arecomprised of alluvial sediment (to a depth of up to 3,000 feet below the surface) deposited byPutah Creek over the last five million years. Fossilized remains have been found in soils of thistype. Although not restricted to specific soil depths, such fossils would likely be encountered inlarge, deep excavations or contouring-type activities, such as those associated with mining,quarrying, or road building, in which substantial amounts of rock or unconsolidated materials areexposed. The likelihood of damaging or destroying paleontological resources is minimal becauseconstruction of the proposed project would not involve deep excavations (i.e., deeper than 20 feetbelow ground surface). Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impactsto unique geological features, as none have been identified on the proposed project site.Therefore, no impacts on paleontological resources or unique geologic features are anticipated tooccur.

d) In compliance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(b), incorporated into theproposed project, should human remains be encountered during proposed construction, work inthe vicinity would halt and the County Coroner would be notified as stipulated by PublicResources Code 5097. Native American consultation would be carried out should the remains bedetermined to be Native American. Implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10-1(b) would reduce the project's potential impact to human remains to a less-than-significantlevel.

e) The proposed project would not involve demolition of landscape features meeting therequirements of historic significance because no such features are known to occur on theproposed project site. The proposed project sites include annual/grassland habitat, andvegetation on the sites consists primarily of non-native weedy grasses. No impact would occur.

f) Standards of significance for cultural resources impacts that were used in preparation of the 1994LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with the culturalresources questions in the current Environmental Checklist. As discussed above, with theimplementation of 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not exceed


- 99 -

the standards of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would not result in newsignificant impacts related to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the 1994LRDP EIR.

Summary

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.10-1 (a) and (c) and 4.10-4 (a) and (b) are incorporated intothe proposed project. The proposed project would not result in new or significant cultural resourceimpacts that have not already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 100 -

13. AESTHETICS

Background

The campus is bordered on the south and west by orchards, tilled fields, and pastures interspersed withrural homes and agricultural structures. The City of Davis is adjacent to the eastern and northernboundaries of the campus. The City is primarily composed of one and two story homes and businesses.The downtown area retains the atmosphere of a small college town. Each of the major components ofthe campus has a distinct visual character.

The proposed project would be located on two sites: one in the west campus and one in the southcampus. The proposed telecommunications tower site is in the west campus and is surrounded byagricultural land and an existing communications tower facility. Prominent visual features on thewest campus include the existing water tower and the two communication towers. The water andcommunication towers are visible from many off campus locations and serve as reference points foridentifying the location of campus. The proposed CEF site is located in the south campus and issurrounded by agricultural land and an existing CEF building.

The 1994 LRDP identifies features of the visual environment that are valued by the campuscommunity and should be preserved. For the central campus, these features include: (1) the large,open lawn of the Quad at the heart of the campus, (2) the framework of tree-lined streets, particularlyaround the Quad where the street tree branches arch to create a canopy overhead, (3) the Arboretum,with its large trees and variety of landscapes along the waterway, (4) the shingle-sided buildings fromthe founding years of the University Farm, (5) buildings from the second era of campus developmentsuch as Hart Hall and Walker Hall, (6) the open, green lawns that face the community along RussellBoulevard and A Street, and (7) bicycles.


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to aesthetics significant ifcampus or regional growth would:

• allow incompatible development in or near areas with high visual quality, such as PutahCreek and the Arboretum Waterway, or substantially affect the valued elements of thevisual landscape identified in the LRDP.

• result in structures that would disrupt views of surrounding agricultural lands, theCoast Range, or the Sierra Nevada; or

• create substantial new sources of artificial light and/or glare.


- 101 -


Impacts of campus growth through 2005-06 on aesthetics are discussed in Section 4.11 (VisualQuality/Aesthetics) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. Significant impacts identified in the 1994 LRDP EIRthat are relevant to the proposed project are presented in the following table. The levels ofsignificance before and after application of mitigation measures identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR arealso presented. The proposed project is within the scope of the analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR.Please note that cumulative regional impact 4.11-5 included mitigation measures to reduce theimpact to a less-than-significant level. However, this impact was identified as significant andunavoidable because the University of California can not guarantee implementation of the mitigationmeasures that fall within other jurisdictions to enforce and monitor.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 wouldincrease development beyond that anticipated under the 1994 LRDP and could contribute to thecumulative degradation of aesthetic resources. However, campus growth through 2014-15 is notanticipated to result in any new cumulative aesthetic resource impacts. The campus will reexaminepotential cumulative aesthetic resource impacts and the availability of additional feasible mitigationmeasures during the LRDP update process.


to Mitigation


4.11-2 Structures built under the 1994 LRDP could be incompatible with the existingrural agricultural character of the west and south campuses and Russell Ranch.. PS LS

4.11-3 Development under the 1994 LRDP could disrupt long-distance views from theCampus and surrounding areas. LS N/A

4.11-4 Structures built under the LRDP could create glare, artificial light, heat andshade, making the immediate area uncomfortable for people. PS LS

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

SU SU



• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 – The Campus Design Review Board shall review proposedstructures on the South and West Campuses and Russell Ranch to ensure that the design,setbacks, screening, and landscaping will achieve compatibility with the surroundingenvironment.


- 102 -

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-4(a) – Prior to design approval of the first structure approvedfollowing adoption of the 1994 LRDP, the campus shall develop guidelines to minimize discomfortfrom light, heat, and glare.

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

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-4(b) – Prior to design approval of any building, the campusDesign Review Board shall assess the building design for compliance with the guidelines developedunder Mitigation Measure 4.11-4(a).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-5(a) – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 and 4.11-4(a)and (b).

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-5(b) – The City of Davis General Plan, Yolo County GeneralPlan, and Solano County General Plan contain policies that address the preservation and protectionof agricultural land. It is within the jurisdiction of these agencies to implement the General Planpolicies which support the conservation of agricultural land and the prohibition of newdevelopment in designated agricultural areas.


AESTHETICS

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista? o o o g o

b) Substantially damage scenicresources, including, but not limitedto, trees, rocks outcroppings, historicbuildings within a State scenichighway? o o o o g

c) Substantially degrade the existingvisual character or quality of the siteand its surroundings? o o g o o

d) Create a new source of substantiallight or glare, which would adverselyaffect day or nighttime views in thearea? o o g o o

e) Affect valued elements of the CentralCampus visual landscape o o o o g


- 103 -

AESTHETICS

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

f) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance? o o g o o

Discussion

a) The UC Davis campus occupies fairly flat terrain and is substantially surrounded by one to four-story development and agricultural uses. Views from numerous areas on and around the campusare relatively expansive, and on clear days the Sierra and the Coast Ranges can be seen. Theproposed project would develop a small CEF building in the south campus and a 155-foot talltelecommunications tower and associated structures the west campus. The proposedtelecommunications tower would be located approximately 90 feet east of the 150-foot tall UCDavis telecommunications tower, approximately 500 feet north of the 150-foot tall UC DavisWater Tower No. 2, and approximately 500 feet northwest of the 150-foot tall CharterCommunications tower. Site security lighting at the CEF site and the tower site would be limitedto ground facing illumination using cut-off, shielded fixtures that would conform to the campuslighting standards. The tower would include lighting as required by the FAA. The proposedtower would closely resemble the existing UC Davis telecommunications tower, presented inFigure 5.

Due to the proximity of the tower structure to existing towers and the extremely narrow visualprofile of the telecommunications tower, views to the Coast Range would not be disrupted by theproposed project. This impact would be less-than-significant.

b) SR 113 and I-80 in the vicinity of UC Davis are not designated scenic highways. The projectwould not impact scenic resources within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

c,e) The visual character of the sites would change from the existing vacant areas to developed sitescontaining infrastructure that would be similar to existing adjacent structures. The proposedtelecommunications tower facility would include a 155-foot tall tower that would match theexisting adjacent tower (shown in Figure 5) in terms of design and materials. The proposed CEFwould be a 12-foot by 28-foot building that would closely resemble the adjacent UC Davis CEF.

The 1994 LRDP EIR determined that development under the 1994 LRDP, in conjunction withother development in the region, would contribute to a cumulative alteration of the ruralcharacter of Yolo and Solano counties (Impact 4.11-5). Although 1994 LRDP EIR MitigationMeasures 4.11-5 (a) and (b) would be implemented as part of the proposed project, this impactwas considered significant and unavoidable because implementation of 1994 LRDP EIRMitigation Measure 4.11-5(b) is not within the University’s jurisdiction to enforce and monitor.This cumulative impact was adequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR and fully addressed bythe Findings and Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with itsapproval of the 1994 LRDP and certification of the 1994 LRDP EIR. As discussed in Appendix C,


- 104 -

this cumulative impact is anticipated to remain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15.This impact and the availability of additional feasible mitigation measures will be reexamined aspart of the LRDP update process.

d) Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such asreflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on theintensity and direction of sunlight. At night, artificial light can cause glare. The proposed projectwould introduce increased lighting and light levels to the proposed site. The 1994 LRDP EIRidentified that structures built under the 1994 LRDP could create glare, artificial light, heat, andshade, making the immediate area uncomfortable for people (Impact 4.11-4). In compliance with1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11-4(a), the campus has developed guidelines to minimizediscomfort from light, heat and glare. Site security lighting at the CEF site and the tower sitewould be limited to ground facing illumination using cut-off, shielded fixtures that wouldconform to the campus lighting standards. The tower would include lighting as required by theFAA. With implementation of mitigation measure 4.11-4(a), the potential impacts associatedwith light and glare would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

f) Standards of significance for aesthetics impacts that were used in preparation of the 1994 LRDPEIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with the aestheticsquestions in the current Environmental Checklist. As discussed above, with the incorporation ofrelevant 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not exceed thestandards of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would not result in new significantimpacts related to aesthetics that were not previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.11-2, 4.11-4 (a) and (b), and 4.11-5 (a) and (b) areincorporated into the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in new or significantaesthetics impacts that have not already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 105 -

14. PUBLIC SERVICES

Background

Fire Protection

The UC Davis Fire Department provides fire protection, hazardous materials incident response, andemergency medical service to the campus. Recent figures show the campus Fire Department employs18 line firefighters, in addition to fire prevention, supervisor, and support personnel. In addition,nine student firefighters are also employed (Ebner 2001). Fire protection service demand is based ona ratio of personnel to increased square footage (3.5 fire fighters per 1,000,000 gsf). The campus FireDepartment entered into two automatic aid agreements in 1994 with the City of Davis to maintainthis ratio and to ensure adequate response times.

Police Protection

The campus Police Department provides police protection service for all buildings and facilities eitherowned or leased by UC Davis. Recent figures show the campus Police Department employs 31.5sworn officers, in addition to other non-sworn personnel, including dispatchers and support staff(Chang 2001). Police protection service demand is based on a ratio of personnel to increasedpopulation (0.72 officers per 1,000 population). In 1999-00, the campus population of students,faculty, and staff was 32,775 (Table 1). Thus, the ratio of officers was approximately 0.96 per 1,000students, faculty, and staff, which exceeded the campus standard.

Schools

The Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) serves the City of Davis and portions of Yolo andSolano counties. With the exception of one elementary school, all DJUSD facilities are within City ofDavis boundaries.

Other Public Facilities

The campus currently has four libraries located in the central campus serving both the campuspopulation and the general public: Shields Library, Physical Sciences Library, Law Library, andHealth Sciences Library. The Davis Library, a branch of the Yolo County Library, is located in theCity of Davis.

The City of Davis maintains adequate park and recreation uses to accommodate buildout of the City.In addition, the campus provides parks and open space available to the general public.


The environmental analysis provided in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to fire protection,police protection, schools, parks and other public facilities significant if campus or regional growthwould:

• substantially diminish the current level of fire protection service (i.e., response time,level of investigative services);


- 106 -

• substantially diminish the current level of police protection service (i.e., responsetime, level of investigative services);

• require expansion or realignment of the existing school system; or

• require an expansion of library facilities or the library system.


Impacts of campus growth through year 2005-06 on fire protection, police protection, schools, andother public facilities are addressed in Sections 4.12 (Fire and Police Protection) and 4.13(Community Services) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. Significant impacts identified in the 1994 LRDPEIR that are relevant to the proposed project are presented in the following table. The levels ofsignificance before and after application of 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures are also presented.The proposed project is within the scope of the public services analysis presented in the 1994 LRDPEIR. The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of thisdocument, that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus'potential growth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15would increase cumulative demand for public services. However, campus growth through 2014-15 isnot anticipated to result in any new cumulative impacts on public services. The campus willreexamine potential cumulative public service impacts and the availability of additional feasiblemitigation measures during the LRDP update process.


to Mitigation


4.12-1 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in a reduction of thelevel of fire protection service provided by the UC Davis Fire Department.

S LS

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

S LS

4.12-3 Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in a reduction of thelevel of police protection service provided by the UC Davis Police Department. S LS



• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 - The campus shall implement one or more of the followingmeasures in order to maintain current level of fire protection services:

(a) hire additional firefighters and support staff as necessary to maintain the existing ratioof 3.5 firefighters per 1,000,000 square feet of building area on the UC Davis campus;


- 107 -

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

(c) expand mutual aid assistance from adjacent jurisdictions.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 - Prior to the construction of new buildings or facilities, thecampus shall determine the water pressure of the domestic/fire water system serving the site. If thepressure is determined to be below the industry standard set for fire water flows, then the campusshall upgrade the domestic/fire water system to provide the appropriate water pressure and flow tothe proposed building or facility site.

• LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 - The campus shall implement one or more of the followingmeasures in order to maintain current level of police protection services:

(a) hire additional sworn-officers and support staff as necessary to maintain the existingratio of 0.72 sworn-officers per 1,000 daily population;

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

(c) expand mutual aid assistance from adjacent jurisdictions.

Mitigation measures listed above are incorporated into the proposed project, and the proposedproject, as mitigated, is evaluated in the checklist below.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Result in substantial adverse physicalimpacts associated with theprovision of new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, needfor new or physically alteredgovernmental facilities, theconstruction of which could causesignificant environmental impacts, inorder to maintain acceptable serviceratios, response times or otherperformance objectives for any of thepublic services:


- 108 -

PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

(i) Fire protection? o o n o o

(ii) Police protection? o o n o o

(iii) Schools? o o o o n

(iv) Parks? o o o o n

(v) Other public facilities? o o o n o

b) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o n o o

Discussion

a)(i) The campus Fire Department provides service to the project sites. Design and construction of theproposed project would conform to all applicable building codes and fire/life safety codes. Inaddition, the proposed project would include fire safety features such as fire sprinkler systems asappropriate.

The proposed project would contribute approximately 912 gsf of enclosed building space to thecampus. The 1994 LRDP identified that assumed development could result in a reduction of fireprotection services provided by the UC Davis Fire Department (Impact 4.12-1). The 1994 LRDPEIR identified an adequate level of fire protection services for the campus was 3.5 firefighters per1,000,000 gsf of campus building space. To meet this, the proposed project would require farless than one additional firefighter. In compliance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 and in order to maintain an adequate level of fire protections services, the campus FireDepartment entered into automatic aid agreements with the City of Davis in 1994. Continuedcompliance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12-1, incorporated as part of the proposedproject, would reduce the project's impact to fire protection services to a less-than-significantlevel.

Development allowed under the 1994 LRDP is projected to increase the daily maximum peakdomestic/fire water demand to a total demand of approximately 12,593 gpm at buildout. Currentcapacity of the existing domestic/fire water system is 10,892 gpm (West Yost 2000a). The 1994LRDP EIR identified that development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in theconstruction of new facilities in areas where water pressure may be low (Impact 4.12-2). Peakdemand for fire flows is substantially higher than peak domestic water demand. Therefore,campus domestic/fire water system distribution lines are sized to meet peak fire flows. Incompliance with Mitigation Measure 4.12-2, the fire water demand associated with the proposedproject will be assessed to determine if the project is within the current system capacity. Theimpact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level and no further mitigation is required.


- 109 -

Because the proposed project would not result in campus population growth, the proposedproject would not contribute to cumulative development and associated demand on City of Davisfire protection services.

(a) (ii)The campus Police Department provides service to the project sites. The 1994 LRDP EIRconcluded that development allowed under the 1994 LRDP could result in a reduction of thelevel of police protection service provided by the UC Davis Police Department (Impact 4.12-3).Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-3, incorporated as part of the project, would reduceincreased demand on police protection services to a less-than-significant level. In compliancewith 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 (a), UC Davis police protection service demandis based on a ratio of personnel to increased population (0.72 sworn officers per 1,000 populationof students, faculty, and staff). The proposed project would not contribute to the campuspopulation. Recent figures show the campus has approximately 0.96 sworn officers per 1,000students, faculty, and staff, which exceeds the campus standard and would adequately serve theproposed project. In accordance with 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 (b), the campusPolice Department has also updated its communications center with the addition of astate-of-the-art radio system. In addition, in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.12-3 (c) thecampus has Mutual Aid Agreements with law enforcement agencies from the City of Davis, YoloCounty, and the state to ensure that adequate campus police protection services and responsetimes are provided. Continued implementation of 1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.12-3(a) through (c), incorporated as part of the proposed project, would reduce the project's impactto police protection services to a less-than-significant level.

Because the proposed project would not result in campus population growth, the proposedproject would not contribute to cumulative development and associated demand on City of Davispolice protection services.

a)(iii, iv)The proposed project would not contribute to the campus population and therefore would notcontribute to demand for local schools and parks. No impact would occur.

a)(v) The proposed project would not result in a need for new or altered public services, other thanthose identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR, because building space associated with the project iswithin the projections allowed under the 1994 LRDP and the project would not contribute to thecampus population. This impact would be considered less-than-significant and no mitigation isrequired.

b) Standards of significance for public services impacts that were used in preparation of the 1994LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with the publicservices questions in the current Environmental Checklist. As discussed above, with theincorporation of 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, the proposed project would not exceed thestandards of significance identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR and would not result in new significantimpacts related to public services that were not previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

1994 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.12-1, 4.12-2, and 4.12-3 (a) through (c) are incorporated aspart of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in new or significant publicservices impacts that have not already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 110 -

15. RECREATION

Background

The campus contains many park-like areas, including: landscaped open spaces between buildings; theQuad and Arboretum in the central campus; and the Putah Creek Reserve in the west campus.Recreational facilities on campus include structures and fields used for physical education,intercollegiate athletics, intramural sports, sports clubs, and general recreation.


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to recreation significant ifcampus or regional growth would:

• affect or require the designation of substantial additional parkland to remain inconformance with locally acceptable or adopted park standards.


Impacts of campus growth through year 2005-06 on recreation issues were addressed in Section 4.13(Community Services) of the 1994 LRDP Draft EIR. No significant recreation impacts were identifiedin the 1994 LRDP EIR or subsequent documents. The proposed project is within the scope of therecreation analysis presented in the 1994 LRDP EIR. The campus has prepared a Cumulative ImpactsAnalysis, presented as Appendix C of this document, that serves to inform the public concerning allthat is currently known about the campus' potential growth through 2014-15. As discussed in theanalysis, campus growth through 2014-15 would contribute to cumulative demand for recreationalresources. However, campus growth through 2014-15 is not anticipated to result in any newcumulative impacts on recreational resources. The campus will reexamine potential cumulativerecreational resource impacts and the availability of additional feasible mitigation measures duringthe LRDP update process.

RECREATION

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Would the project increase the use ofexisting neighborhood and regionalparks or other recreational facilitiessuch that substantial physicaldeterioration of the facility wouldoccur or be accelerated?

o o o o n

b) Does the project include recreationalfacilities or require the constructionor expansion of recreational facilitieswhich might have an adversephysical effect on the environment?

o o o o n


- 111 -

RECREATION

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

c) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o o o n

Discussion

a) The proposed project would not contribute to the campus population and therefore would notincrease the use of existing campus recreation facilities. No impact would occur.

b) The proposed project does not include construction of new recreational facilities, nor would itrequire expansion of existing facilities. No impact would occur.

c) Standards of significance for recreation that were used in the preparation of the 1994 LRDP EIRare presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with the recreation questionsin the current CEQA Environmental Checklist. Based on the discussion presented above, theproposed project would not exceed the standards of significance for recreation identified in the1994 LRDP EIR. The project would not result in new impacts related to recreation.

Summary

The proposed project would not result in new or significant recreation impacts that have not alreadybeen adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 112 -

16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Background

The proposed telecommunications tower facility and CEF would both connect to campus utilitysystems including electricity and telecommunications. Stormwater on the proposed project siteswould be contained and percolate on-site and would drain off the sites as the existing grade allows.Campus utility systems that would serve the proposed project are discussed below.

Electricity

The main campus receives power from Pacific Gas and Electric and the Western Area PowerAdministration through the campus substation located south of I-80. The main campus also receivespower from the campus cogeneration plant located on the core campus in the Central Heating andCooling Plant facility. The campus substation converts the power from the transmission level voltageof 60 kV to the campus distribution voltage of 12.47 kV. Recent estimated annual electrical usage oncampus was approximately 190 million-kilowatt hours per year.

Telecommunications

The campus installed its telecommunications system in 1987. The main switching facility is locatedin the Telecommunications Building, east of the Central Heating and Cooling Plant. The majority ofall voice and data switching equipment and network infrastructure facilities are owned by the campusand operated by UC Davis Communications Resources Service. As new buildings are constructed,Communications Resources coordinates with the UC Davis Office of Architects and Engineers todesign and direct the installation of intra- and inter-building telecommunications facilities inaccordance with established standards.


The environmental analysis in the 1994 LRDP EIR considered an impact to utilities and servicesystems significant if campus or regional growth would:

• result in a significant increase in the consumption of potable water and requiresubstantial expansion of water supply treatment or distribution;

• result in the need for increased chilled water or steam generation capacity or majordistribution improvements;

• require substantial expansion of wastewater treatment and distribution capacity;

• exceed available landfill capacity;

• require substantial expansion of the telecommunication service and distributionsystem;

• create an energy demand in excess of supply or major infrastructure; or

• require the development of new sources of energy.


- 113 -


Impacts of campus and related regional growth through year 2005-06 on utilities and service systemsare addressed in Sections 4.14 (Utilities and Infrastructure) and 4.15 (Energy) of the 1994 LRDPDraft EIR. No significant impacts identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR are relevant to the proposedproject. Potential impacts to the deep and shallow/intermediate aquifer and water quality areaddressed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this checklist. No mitigation measuresidentified in the 1994 LRDP EIR are applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project isevaluated in the checklist below.

The campus has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis, presented as Appendix C of this document,that serves to inform the public concerning all that is currently known about the campus' potentialgrowth through 2014-15. As discussed in the analysis, campus growth through 2014-15 wouldcontribute to the cumulative demand on utilities and service systems. However, campus growththrough 2014-15 is not anticipated to result in any new cumulative impacts on utilities and servicesystems.

UTILITIES AND SERVICESYSTEMS

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatmentrequirements of the applicableRegional Water Quality ControlBoard?

o o o o n

b) Require or result in the constructionof new water or wastewatertreatment facilities or expansion ofexisting facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause significantenvironmental effects?

o o o o n

c) Require or result in the constructionof new storm water drainage facilitiesor expansion of existing facilities, theconstruction of which could causesignificant environmental effects?

o o o n o

d) Have sufficient water suppliesavailable to serve the project fromexisting entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlementsneeded?

o o o o n


- 114 -

UTILITIES AND SERVICESYSTEMS

Would the project:


Impact






ImpactNo Impact

e) Result in a determination by thewastewater treatment provider thatserves or may serve the project that ithas adequate capacity to serve theproject’s projected demand inaddition to the provider’s existingcommitments?

o o o o n

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficientpermitted capacity to accommodatethe project’s solid waste disposalneeds?

o o o o n

g) Comply with applicable federal,state, and local statutes andregulations related to solid waste?

o o o o n

h) Require or result in the constructionof new electrical or natural gasfacilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of whichcould cause significantenvironmental effects?

o o o n o

i) Require or result in the constructionof new telecommunication facilities,the construction of which wouldcause significant environmentaleffects?

o o n o o

j) Exceed an applicable LRDP orProgram EIR Standard ofSignificance?

o o n o o

Discussion

a,b) The proposed project would not directly discharge wastewater into the campus sanitary sewersystem, nor would it induce growth that would increase wastewater discharge. No impact wouldoccur.

c) The proposed project sites would be lined with geo fabric covered with crushed rock and wouldbe designed to accommodate stormwater percolation on site and drain as the existing gradeallows. Stormwater runoff from the telecommunications tower site would drain to the NorthFork Cutoff and could ultimately flow to the South Fork of Putah Creek during a storm greaterthan a 25-year event. Stormwater runoff from the CEF site would ultimately drain to the SouthFork of Putah Creek. As described in Item 9, the Hydrology and Water Quality section of thischecklist, the proposed project would create less than 0.36 acre of additional impervious surfaces.The proposed project would not result in construction of new storm drainage facilities orexpansion of existing facilities. The impact is considered less-than-significant.


- 115 -

d) The proposed project would not require or increase demand for domestic or utility water. Noimpact would occur.

e) The project would not connect or increase flows to the campus sanitary sewer system. No impactwould occur.

f,g) Operation of the proposed project would not generate solid waste. In addition, the campuslandfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in solid waste anticipated throughimplementation of the 1994 LRDP. Therefore, no impact would occur.

h) The proposed SureWest telecommunications tower facility would connect to the campuselectrical system at a transformer servicing the UC Davis telecommunications tower. Theexisting 225 KVA transformer would be upgraded to a 500 KVA unit to adequately serve bothtelecommunication tower facilities. An emergency diesel generator could be installed at thefacility in the future to provide electricity during emergency power outages. Electricity would beprovided to the proposed CEF via an extension of the campus electrical system from an existingtransformer located southeast of the UC Davis CEF.

The proposed project, as required of all new buildings constructed in California, would complywith Title 20, Energy Building Regulations, and Title 24, Energy Conservation Standards of theCalifornia Code of Regulations. Peak energy demand for the proposed project would contributeto peak demand for electricity on campus. However, the proposed project would begin operationafter the completion of the Electrical Improvements Phase 2B project that will provide a newsystem capacity of 60,000 kVA, sufficient capacity to meet the electrical needs of recentlycompleted facilities and anticipated new campus development, including the proposed project.Therefore, impacts on the electrical distribution system capacity would be less-than-significant.

There is current uncertainty with respect to the cost of electricity throughout California. Becauseit is early to determine future sources of energy, it would be speculative to evaluateenvironmental impacts from the construction and operation of new generating facilities that maybe triggered by the project in conjunction with other development in the region. In addition, theCalifornia Energy Commission conducts environmental review for all large generating facilitiesthat are proposed in California. The Commission prepares a CEQA-equivalent document thatanalyzes and discloses environmental impacts from the construction and operation of new powerplants and imposes mitigation measures as conditions of project approval to address significantimpacts.

i) The proposed project would result in the construction of new telecommunications facilities. Theenvironmental effects of the proposed project are evaluated in this document and are consideredless-than-significant with the incorporation of 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures.

j) Standards of significance for utilities and service systems impacts that were used in preparation ofthe 1994 LRDP EIR are presented earlier in this section. These standards are consistent with theutilities and service systems questions in the current Environmental Checklist. Based on thediscussion presented above, with the incorporation of 1994 LRDP EIR mitigation measures, theproposed project would not exceed the standards of significance in the 1994 LRDP EIR. The


- 116 -

project would not result in new significant impacts related to utilities and service systems thatwere not previously analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.

Summary

The proposed project would not result in new or significant utilities and service systems impacts thathave not already been adequately assessed in the 1994 LRDP EIR.


- 117 -

17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

MANDATORY FINDINGS OFSIGNIFICANCE Potentially

SignificantImpact






ImpactNo Impact

a) Does the project have the potentialto degrade the quality of theenvironment, substantially reducethe habitat of a fish or wildlifespecies, cause a fish or wildlifepopulation to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten toeliminate a plant or animalcommunity, reduce the number orrestrict the range of a rare orendangered plant or animal oreliminate important examples of themajor periods of California historyor prehistory?

o o n o o

b) Does the project have impacts thatare individually limited, butcumulatively considerable?(“Cumulatively considerable” meansthat the incremental effects of aproject are considerable whenviewed in connection with the effectsof past projects, the effects of othercurrent projects, and the effects ofprobable future projects)?

o o n o o

c) Does the project have environmentaleffects that will cause substantialadverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly?

o o n o o

a) The proposed project would not significantly affect fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it eliminateexamples of California history or prehistory. Cumulative regional impacts could be significant,but mitigation measures to reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significantlevel are not within the jurisdiction of the University of California to enforce and monitor. Thesepotentially significant and unavoidable impacts were adequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR,and addressed in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by TheRegents in connection with approval of the 1994 LRDP and certification of the 1994 LRDP EIR.As discussed further in Appendix C, the campus anticipates that these cumulative impacts wouldremain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15.

b,c) The proposed project is consistent with the 1994 LRDP, as described in Section IV of this TieredInitial Study. The proposed project would not contribute to significant unavoidable impacts


- 118 -

identified in the 1994 LRDP EIR related to agriculture resources. It would incrementallycontribute to, but not exceed, significant and unavoidable impacts related totransportation/circulation, noise, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, biologicalresources, hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, cultural resources, aesthetics, publicservices, and utilities and service systems. These potentially significant and unavoidable impactswere adequately analyzed in the 1994 LRDP EIR, and addressed in the Findings of OverridingConsideration adopted by The Regents in connection with approval of the 1994 LRDP andcertification of the 1994 LRDP EIR. As discussed further in Appendix C, the campus anticipatesthat these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable through 2014-15.

18. FISH AND GAME DETERMINATION

Based on the information presented in this Tiered Initial Study, the project has a potential toadversely affect wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depend. Therefore, a filing fee will bepaid.

Certificate of Fee Exemption

X Pay fee


- 119 -

VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

The Draft Tiered Initial Study for the SureWest Telecommunications Tower Project at UC Davis wascirculated for public and agency review from May 29, 2002 to June 28, 2002. Comment letters werereceived during this period from the following:

Letter 1: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and ResearchState ClearinghouseTerry Roberts, Director1400 Tenth StreetSacramento, California 95812-3044

Letter 2: California Department of TransportationDivision of AeronauticsSandy Hesnard, Aviation Environmental Planner1120 N. StreetSacramento, California 94273-001

Letter 3: California Department of TransportationDistrict BranchJean C. R. Finney, District Branch ChiefP.O. Box 23660Oakland, California 94623-0660

Letter 4: Yolo CountyWayne Y. Taniguchi, Supervising Environmental Health [email protected]


- 122 -

Letter 1: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research

Response to Comment 1-1:

Comment noted. This letter indicates that UC Davis complied with the State Clearinghouse reviewrequirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental QualityAct.


- 125 -

Letter 2: California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics


A Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) for the proposedtelecommunications tower will be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prior toconstruction of the proposed tower, and the proposed tower will be marked and lighted inaccordance with the FAA "Obstruction Marking and Lighting" Circular. In addition, the FAAcompleted Aeronautical Study No. 02-AWP-1068-OE for the proposed tower on March 29, 2002. Adetermination of no hazard to air navigation was made.


- 127 -

Letter 3: California Department of Transportation, District Branch


Comment noted. The commenter indicates that the California Department of Transportation hasreviewed the Draft Tiered Initial Study and finds that the proposed project would not significantlyimpact the State highway system.

------------------- Message requiring your approval ------------------From: "Wayne Taniguchi"<[email protected]>To: <[email protected]>Subject: Surewest Telecommunications Tower Project At UC DavisMIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"content-class: urn:content-classes:messageContent-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

John A. Meyer, Vice Chancellor- Resource Management and Planning

Our office has reviewed this project proposal and determined that isunlikely to create any significant negative environmental impacts. Weconcur with the Negative Declaration.

Wayne Y. TaniguchiSupervising Environmental Health Specialist


- 129 -

Letter 4: Yolo County


Comment noted. The commenter indicates that the Yolo County Office of Environmental Healthdetermined that the proposed project is unlikely to create any significant negative environmentalimpacts.


- 130 -

IX. REFERENCES

Chang, Cecilia. 2001. Personal communication with Cecilia Chang, UC Davis Police Department.February 17, 2001.

Ebner, John. 2001. Personal communication with John Ebner, UC Davis Fire Department. February6, 2001.

EIP Associates. 2000. Update to Heatlh Risk Assessment; UC Davis LRDP Sources, including NewSciences Laboratory. Technical Memorandum from Brewster Birdsall, EIP to Francisca Mar, EIP.September 21, 2000.

Federal Communications Commission. 2000. A Local Government Official's Guide to TransmittingAntenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance. June 2, 2000.

Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 2001. Draft Transportation Mitigation Monitoring Update for the UCDavis LRDP. Winter, 2001.

May & Associates. 2002. Results of Biological Resources Surveys for the SureWest Cell TowerProject, UC Davis. May 2002.

Pacific Legacy 2002. Archaeological Investigations for the Proposed SureWest WirelessCommunications Facility on the UC Davis Campus.

UC Davis. 2000. Office of Resource Management and Planning assignable space estimates.

UC Davis. 2001a. Office of Resource Management and Planning 1999-00 online populationestimates. www.ormp.ucdavis.edu.

URS. 2002a. Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Proposed SureWestCommunications Building & Trench Site. February 11, 2002.

URS. 2002b. Limited Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Proposed SureWest Cell TowerSite. April 18, 2002.

US Bureau of Reclamation. 1998. Monticello Dam Breach Simulation Maximum Inundation andLeading Edge Times (Map).

US Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Comprehensive Facility Review, Monticello Dam, Solano Project,California.

USFWS. 2000. Service Interim Guidelines for Recommendations on Communications Tower Siting,Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning.

Yolo County Community Development Department. 1983. Yolo County General Plan, Part 2:Description and Data. p. 9. July 1983.


- 131 -

X. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED

Cindy Wells, Project Manager, UC Davis Communications Resources

Jamie Strachan, Director of Acquisitions and Construction Management, STC Wireless Resources

XI. REPORT PREPARERS

Sarah Dickerman, Associate Environmental Planner, UC Davis Office of Resource Management andPlanning

Matt Dulcich, Associate Environmental Planner, UC Davis Office of Resource Management andPlanning

A. Sidney England, Environmental Planner, UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning

surewest telecommunications tower project at uc davis

Documents