3.0 research park master plan - uc davis: home · 3.0_researchpark.doc\12-oct-03\oak 3-18...

$: 3.0 RESEARCH PARK MASTER PLAN - UC Davis: Home · 3.0_ResearchPark.doc\12-OCT-03\OAK 3-18 University of California, Davis radioactive wastes, is expected to be generated within the$
3.0 RESEARCH PARK MASTER PLAN

2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR 3-15 3.0_ResearchPark.doc\12-OCT-03\OAK

3.3.5 Population An estimated 1,400 non-UC employees are expected to occupy the facilities constructed in the RPMP. The term non-UC employees refers to employees that are affiliated with UC Davis (because they work on campus) but are not UC employees. Approximately 400 employees would be accommodated in the facilities constructed on the northern parcel, and about 1,000 employees would occupy the buildings on the southern parcel.

3.3.6 Roadways, Access, and Parking Access to the 11-acre parcel north of I-80 would be from Old Davis Road. The 27-acre parcel south of I-80 would be accessed at its eastern margin, also from Old Davis Road. A bike path connection below I-80 would serve this portion of the proposed development site and would provide direct bike and pedestrian access between the two parcels. Parking would be provided at the ratio of approximately 3.5 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of built space. Approximately 1,250 parking spaces would be provided on the southern parcel, and about 450 parking spaces in the northern parcel. The proposed layouts of the parking lots are shown on Figure 3-1.

The RPMP Project would be designed with an integrated transportation and circulation system that accommodates private automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The main vehicular circulation route would be along the perimeter of the parcels with lateral access provided to each building, thus minimizing conflict between automobiles and other modes of travel. Service access for shipping and receiving would also be isolated from pedestrian and bicycle zones. Facilities for securing bicycles would be provided in and around each building, and shower facilities would also be included in each building to encourage bicycle use for commuting.

3.3.7 Landscaping The development on the northern parcel would include approximately 5 acres of landscaping. Landscaping would be provided along the northern parcel’s perimeter and within the parking lots. Windrows would be provided along the southern side of the northern parcel and natural landscaping to match the Arboretum plantings would be installed along the northern side of the parcel. Shade trees would be planted in the parking lot islands. For the street frontage along Old Davis Road, landscaping would include native grasses, shrubs, and heritage trees such as oaks, so that the research park site would be linked to the natural setting along the Arboretum. About 11.5 acres on the southern parcel would be landscaped. Landscaping similar to that on the northern parcel would be planted along the perimeter of the southern parcel, and within central courtyard areas. Parking lots on both parcels would be oriented towards the perimeter of site. There would be landscaped buffers between the parking lots and the buildings, as well as around the site perimeter, which would include native grasses, shrubs, oaks and other native trees, and limited use of irrigation-intensive landscaping.

The edges and connections between the RPMP and its surrounds are designed to integrate the RPMP into its larger setting. The RPMP encourages the use of native and drought-resistant plant and tree species in landscaping to minimize consumption of irrigation water, and to blend the development with the existing natural setting. An existing retention pond at the western corner of the site would be retained.

Volume III

3.0_ResearchPark.doc\12-OCT-03\OAK 3-16 University of California, Davis

3.3.8 Public Services Fire protection services to the project would be provided by the UC Davis Fire Department. The UC Davis Police Department would provide police services for the RPMP from its facilities on the central campus.

3.3.9 Utilities and Support Services

3.3.9.1 Domestic Water/Fire Water Peak domestic water demand is estimated to be 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) on the northern parcel and about 4,600 gpm on the southern parcel. Domestic water would supply indoor potable uses as well as irrigation water. The points of connection for domestic water for both parcels are located along Old Davis Road, near the northeastern corners of both parcels. With the addition of a 700,000-gallon at-grade storage tank for the project, or a smaller tank in combination with a new well, or other similar infrastructure improvement, adequate capacity would be available at the point of connection and in the system to serve the RPMP development (UC Davis 2002).

3.3.9.2 Irrigation Water The northern and southern RPMP sites could obtain water for landscape irrigation from either the domestic water system (discussed above), the utility water system, or local agricultural irrigation wells. The utility water system and agricultural wells obtain water from the shallow/intermediate aquifer. Associated utility connections for irrigation water would be on or adjacent to the RPMP parcels.

3.3.9.3 Storm Water Storm water runoff from the northern parcel is estimated to be 5.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) at peak. This water would be collected and discharged to the Arboretum waterway via a new outfall, as shown on Figure 3-2. The campus has adequate capacity in the Arboretum waterway and the pump station and force main to convey this storm water into Putah Creek.

Storm water runoff from the southern parcel is estimated to be 16.1 cfs at peak. This would be collected and conveyed via a new storm drain in the southwestern corner of the parcel (as shown on Figure 3-2) to an existing force main to Putah Creek. Adequate capacity is available in the existing force main to handle this flow. Alternately, storm water from this parcel could be discharged to a new storm drain pipeline, which would run under Old Davis Road south of the site and around the Animal Resources Service (ARS) to the existing Drainage Canal at the campus wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (UC Davis 2002). The storm water would not require treatment at the WWTP but would use the same outfall as treated water.

3.3.9.4 Wastewater Wastewater at peak is estimated at 64,000 gallons per day (gpd) from the development on the northern parcel and approximately 164,000 gpd from the southern parcel development for a total of approximately 228,000 gpd. The points of connection into the wastewater collection system



are located east of both parcels on Old Davis Road. The campus WWTP would have adequate capacity to serve the RPMP development (UC Davis 2002).

3.3.9.5 Telecommunications Campus Information Technology would provide phone and computer/internet connections to serve the RPMP project. Approximately 231 network access modules (NAM) would be needed for the development on the northern parcel, and between 2,116 and 1,745 NAM would be needed for the development on the southern parcel. A point of connection is available on the southern parcel. To serve the northern parcel, a new duct bank would be extended from the southern parcel along Old Davis Road. Adequate capacity is available at the connection point on the southern parcel to serve the entire development (UC Davis 2002).

3.3.9.6 Electricity Power to the site would be provided by the campus grid via connections along Old Davis Road. During peak demand periods, the development on the northern parcel would require about 1,230 kilovolt amperes and the development on the southern parcel would require 3.8 to 4.7 megawatts of electricity. A duct bank would need to be constructed from the campus substation on the south campus to Old Davis Road to serve the development on the southern parcel (Figure 3-2). The campus would have adequate capacity to serve the development under the RPMP with the full implementation of the Electrical Improvements Phase 2b Project, which will be completed in 2003 (UC Davis 2002). Emergency generators would be provided on site to provide backup electricity.

3.3.9.7 Natural Gas During peak demand periods, natural gas demand for heating purposes for the development on the northern parcel is expected to be about 7,700 cubic feet per hour (cfh) and between 21,700 and 29,000 cfh on the southern parcel. The northern parcel would be connected to a new natural gas main that would be extended from the central campus to Old Davis Road. Adequate capacity is available at the point of connection. Natural gas to the southern parcel would be supplied by a new pipeline that would be installed along Old Davis Road from the site to a PG&E 6-inch-high pressure line located along the south side of the Union Pacific railroad tracks (Figure 3-2) (UC Davis 2002).

3.3.9.8 Support Services No chilled water or steam service exists for this portion of the campus. Chilled water and steam, if required, would be produced by onsite electric chillers and natural gas-fired boilers. In this case, it is estimated that the development on the northern parcel would require a boiler with capacity of about 3.55 MMBtu/hour, and the development on the southern parcel would require a boiler with capacity of about 12.3 MMBtu/hour (UC Davis 2002).

3.3.9.9 Hazardous Materials and Waste Hazardous materials would be used in the conduct of research, cleaning, and maintenance of the building and grounds. Some amount of hazardous waste, potentially including biohazardous and

Volume III


radioactive wastes, is expected to be generated within the Research Park as a result of these activities. The use of hazardous materials and hazardous waste handling and disposal would be conducted in compliance with the UC Davis hazardous materials and waste programs or equivalent programs as required by federal, state, and local laws. Compliance with the UC Davis–specific requirements would be imposed on noncampus entities as a lease condition.

3.3.9.10 Solid Waste An estimated 312 tons of solid waste per year would be produced when the RPMP project is fully built out and occupied. Solid waste generated in the RPMP project would be disposed of at the Campus Landfill, which has adequate capacity to 2023 or 2027.

3.3.10 Construction Schedule Construction of the Phase 1 projects on the parcel north of I-80 would commence as early as Summer 2004, with occupancy by Fall 2005. Phase 2 of the Research Park would include the development on the southern parcel. Construction there would begin in about 2004 and would proceed at the rate of approximately two buildings per year over the subsequent 4 years.

3.3.11 Permits and Approvals

3.3.11.1 University of California In conjunction with the review of the 2003 LRDP but as a separate action item, The Regents will consider the approval of the RPMP, and this EIR will serve as CEQA review for the RPMP. All projects proposed within the RPMP will be required to implement applicable mitigation measures included in this EIR. For projects proposed by noncampus entities, mitigation measures will be included as lease conditions to ensure implementation. Mitigation monitoring and reporting activities will be conducted by UC Davis. The campus will review each proposed project for consistency with the RPMP. Project approvals for specific buildings will require approval from the University of California and, if necessary, additional CEQA compliance.

3.3.11.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Storm drainage for the proposed development would include construction of a new storm drain outfall on the Arboretum waterway. As the Arboretum waterway is designated Waters of the United States, outfall construction potentially would require a Section 10/404 permit from the ACOE.

ELECTRICALOPTION 2Domestic Water POC

Storm Drain POC

Domestic Water POC

Gas POC

Storm Drain POC

Telecom Service POC

Elec. POC

Electrical POC

Domestic Water POC

Sanitary Sewer POC

Telecom Conduit POC

113

80

LA RUE RD.

ARBORETUM

OLD

DA

VIS

RD

.

RPMP UtilitiesFigure

3-21 inch equals 650 feet

UC DavisLRDP EIR

28649327

LegendResearch Park Infrastructure and Utilities

Domestic WaterNatural GasSanitary SewerStorm DrainTelecommunicationsElectrical

Point of Connection (POC)Domestic Water POCElectrical POCNatural Gas POCSanitary Sewer POCStorm Drain POCTelecom Conduit POC

0 650 1,300325Feet

UR

S C

orp

ora

tion

L:\P

roje

cts\

2864

932

7_U

C_D

avi

s\M

XD

\An

alys

is\F

inal

_EIR

_Fig

ure

s\F

igur

e_3

-2_

Re

sear

ch _

Par

k_In

fra

stru

ctu

re_a

nd_U

tiliti

es.

mxd

Dat

e: 1

0/9

/20

03 1

0:2

6:01

AM

Na

me:

DT

Wo

od



3.3.11.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Implementation of the RPMP could potentially affect habitat of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), a federally listed threatened species. The Federal Endangered Species Act requires a federal agency (potentially the ACOE if issuance of a Section 404 permit is required) to seek formal consultation with the USFWS for species listed as threatened or endangered or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act provides a nonfederal applicant a mechanism to obtain an incidental take authorization for federally listed threatened or endangered species. This could apply to the RPMP with respect to VELB.

3.3.11.4 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) The RPMP project has the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to the western burrowing owl, a state species of special concern, Swainson's hawk, listed by the state as threatened, and northwestern pond turtle, a state species of special concern. The University would be required to obtain a take permit from the CDFG pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act prior to conducting RPMP construction activities that could result in the potential take of state-listed species.

3.3.11.5 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) A Section 401 water quality certification from the CVRWQCB would be required for filling of wetlands that could result from outfall construction. As part of an agreement with the campus’ coverage under the General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, the campus would submit a New Construction Project Information Form for the project to the CVRWQCB. The campus is in the process of developing a new storm water management plan, the provisions of which will apply to this project. In addition, the project contractor would prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the proposed construction activities.

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

3.4.1 Aesthetics

3.4.1.1 Environmental Setting

Section 4.1 Aesthetics (Volume I) presents the existing conditions with respect to aesthetics and visual resources for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site. The following discussion presents additional details of the RPMP, which would be developed on two parcels, both relatively flat. The northern parcel lies immediately south of the Arboretum and is bounded by I-80, SR 113, and Old Davis Road. The parcel includes a number of mature trees as well as fields of annual grasses. This parcel is used from time to time as a horse pasture. The majority of the southern parcel is currently vacant except for one small utilitarian structure, which is a repair shop for agricultural equipment. Portions of the southern parcel are used for horticultural research, and other portions are unused. A substantial number of mature trees are scattered on

Volume III


this parcel, and walnut trees line the adjacent Old Davis Road. Results of a campus tree survey of the southern parcel (Mezger 2002) are presented in Section 3.4.4, below.

Both parcels are visible from the travel lanes on I-80, which in this area is elevated approximately 20 feet above the surrounding lands, and from the Old Davis Road off- and on-ramps. The existing views of the project site from the I-80/SR 113 interchange and from Old Davis Road are of agricultural fields, trees, and shrubs, and have a predominantly undeveloped and rural character. In addition to viewers on I-80, persons exiting SR 113 south onto I-80 east have a clear, direct view to both the northern parcel and the southern parcel. Viewers traveling from westbound I-80 to SR 113 northbound have a clear view of the northern parcel.

3.4.1.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.1 Aesthetics (Volume I) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

As described in Section 4.1, the analysis of visual impacts focuses on the nature and magnitude of the change in visual character of the site due to project implementation, the number of public vantage points from which this change would be visible, and the number of viewers who would be affected by this change.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Analysis at the LRDP level concluded that implementation of the 2003 LRDP would not affect scenic resources within a scenic highway. Therefore, no further project-level analysis of this impact is required.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-1: Implementation of the RPMP would not have a substantial

adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Significance: Less than significant

Mitigation: Mitigation is not required.

Development of the Research Park on the southern parcel would not affect any scenic vistas because the site is not part of a scenic vista. The visual landscape is fragmented by the elevated freeway and ramp structures to the north of the southern parcel. Furthermore, expansive views are not available from this parcel or locations around this parcel due to the presence of large mature trees that line Old Davis Road south of I-80. Consequently, although the views of this parcel would be altered by the development of the RPMP project, there would be no adverse impact on any scenic vistas from viewpoints on Old Davis Road or from I-80 travel lanes. The buildings of the Research Park would be seen in the foreground but would not be in the way of any expansive views. Landscaping at the site, especially trees along the perimeter facing I-80, would soften the effect from the construction of the buildings on the views of the area.

The northern parcel as viewed from westbound I-80 is part of a scenic vista that includes largely open undeveloped land in the foreground and the northern parcel with scattered trees and the riparian corridor of the Arboretum in the background. Views of the Coast Range are also visible from the freeway in the distance. The vista would be altered at close range by the proposed project, as buildings, parking lots, and landscaping would replace open undeveloped land and



some of the trees on the site would also be removed. Views of the Arboretum and the Coast Range would not be interrupted as the buildings would be two to three stories high and at a considerable distance from most of the viewing locations along I-80. Although the effect of the new buildings on the views from the freeway would be softened with landscaping at the site, especially trees along the perimeter facing I-80, the scenic vista presented by this part of the campus would change. The change in the vista would not, however, be viewed as adverse by most viewers because sensitivity of motorists is generally not as high as other viewers such as recreational users. Furthermore, in general, views of the campus for drivers are limited because I-80 runs parallel to the campus and drivers are afforded primarily peripheral views as they travel through the area. In addition, people driving along I-80 would tend to look at the Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts rather than at the northern portion of the research park because the Center is a visually prominent feature in the landscape.

Development is not expected to affect views of vistas from within either parcel, because the project design includes clear sight lines between surrounding properties and transportation corridors. Also, the freeway overpass visually dominates views in one direction. Furthermore, the trees that line Putah Creek would remain visible from the northern parcel, and views across fields would remain visible from the southern parcel. The RPMP design would lay out buildings to break up massing and to preserve the viewsheds. The RPMP design would allow for visual access to all buildings and amenity spaces and ease of orientation in the Research Park itself. Therefore, mitigation is not required, and this impact is considered less than significant.

* * * RPMP Impact 3.4-2: Implementation of the RPMP would not degrade the existing

visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.1-2(a) and (b).

Implementation of the RPMP would develop 27 acres on the south campus and 11 acres on the southern edge of the central campus. The RPMP parcels currently either are used for agriculture and open pasture or are fallow and undeveloped open fields. The southern parcel contains some of the largest tree specimens of their types on campus. These would be preserved during development to the greatest extent possible, as discussed under Section 3.4.4 Biological Resources, below. The proposed development of the parcels would change the site to a built environment and would affect the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings.

The design of the RPMP would make it visible from afar and the entry point would be especially visible, but the development would not be obtrusive. The buildings would be similar in appearance to each other in design, color, and detailing; however, the massing and orientation of each building would vary, providing visual variety. Key planning and organizing concepts in terms of the visual character of the RPMP include a compact and clustered development pattern; an integrated and connected open-space network; bicycle and pedestrian access/circulation; and a mix of uses and amenities to foster a vibrant, convenient, and well-served Research Park. The overall visual character of the new Research Park would be in keeping with the character of the UC Davis campus. Although the existing visual character of the parcels would be altered by the

Volume III


development, the buildings, structures, and landscaping would be designed to create a unified design experience, as described in Section 3.3 Detailed Project Description, above; and mature trees that would link the development to the existing landscape would be retained. Campus architectural buildings and design standards also would be applied to the extent that they are economically feasible. These characteristics would provide a pleasing visual character for the project sites.

The RPMP would implement 2003 LRDP Mitigations 4.1-2(a) and (b), which require that new structures, roads, and landscaping shall be designed to be compatible with the visual elements and policies identified in the 2003 LRDP. Furthermore, prior to design approval, the campus Design Review Committee shall determine that the designs are consistent with the 2003 LRDP and applicable district planning guidelines for the district or with the character of surrounding development within which the new structures will be located. Implementation of this mitigation measure would further reduce the less-than-significant impact to visual quality.

* * * RPMP Impact 3.4-3: Implementation of the RPMP would not create a new source of

substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.1-3(a-c).

Construction of the RPMP would result in new buildings, which would be substantially lit, both inside and outside. Lighting would also be installed along paths and in the parking lots. The buildings and paved surfaces could produce glare, which is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. The amount of glare during the daytime depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight. At night, artificial lighting can cause glare.

The people affected by the lighting and glare of the proposed RPMP primarily include drivers on I-80, SR 113, and Old Davis Road. Drivers are used to buildings along roadways, even those lit up at night, as this occurs regularly along I-80, and therefore, would not be adversely affected by the development.

The area surrounding the project parcels includes agricultural areas and existing labs and offices on the south campus (such as ARS and Vet Med Serology). People in these areas would not be sensitive to light and glare from the new development because of the nature of their work and because of their work hours.

Furthermore, the projects proposed under the RPMP would implement LRDP Mitigation 4.1-3(a-c), which would further reduce the effects of light and glare. Prior to design approval of any building and other source of exterior light, the Design Review Committee shall assess the design proposal for potential impacts caused by glare and lighting. All outdoor lighting will be focused, shielded, and directed to specific locations to avoid the production of glare, and up-light and light spill will be minimized, especially toward I-80 and its intersection with SR 113.

* * *



3.4.2 Agricultural Resources

3.4.2.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.2 Agricultural Resources (Volume I) presents the agricultural resource setting for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site. The 1994 LRDP designated both the 11-acre northern parcel and the 27-acre southern parcel as Teaching and Research Fields. The northern parcel is currently used as horse pasture, and the southern parcel is used to grow field crops. On the Yolo and Solano Counties Important Farmland Map published by the State of California (California Department of Conservation 2000), the northern parcel is designated Other Land (“land that does not meet the criteria of any other category of farmland”), and the southern parcel is designated as Prime Farmland. These categories are explained in detail in Section 4.2 (Volume I).

3.4.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.2 for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.2 for analytical methods relative to agricultural resources.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. As discussed in the Initial Study, campus lands are not subject to Williamson Act land use/tax contracts. Furthermore, the 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, would not alter uses on noncampus lands. Therefore, the 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, would have no impact on lands that are under the Williamson Act contracts. For reasons discussed under LRDP Impact 4.2.2, development of the campus under the 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, would not place development pressures on nearby noncampus lands and therefore would not indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-4: Implementation of the RPMP would convert approximately

27 acres of prime farmland (as described by the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) to nonagricultural uses.

Significance: Significant

LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.2-1.

Residual Significance: Significant and unavoidable

The 27 acres of prime farmland that would be converted by the RPMP project is included in the acreage reported and analyzed as an impact of the 2003 LRDP (LRDP Impact 4.2-1). The 27 acres at the RPMP site are proposed in the 2003 LRDP for redesignation for High-Density Academic and Administrative use to accommodate the anticipated development.

Although much of the new development under the 2003 LRDP would occur as infill and would be clustered, implementation of the RPMP would entail the expansion of the developed area of campus on lands adjacent to the central campus, and the conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. To mitigate this impact, UC Davis shall implement LRDP Mitigation

Volume III


4.2-1. This would permanently preserve approximately 525 acres of prime farmland at Russell Ranch for agricultural purposes, including agricultural teaching and research, within the area designated for Teaching and Research Fields. This preservation would mitigate at a 1:1 ratio for prime farmland converted to developed uses under the 2003 LRDP, including the 27 acres that would be developed in accordance with the RPMP.

Although UC Davis would conserve 525 acres of prime farmland at Russell Ranch, this would only prevent the future loss of additional prime farmland and would not replace the prime farmland converted to development by implementation of the RPMP. Once building or paved areas are constructed on prime farmland, the underlying soils are no longer available for agricultural activities. While theoretically, lost agricultural land could be replaced by removing existing on-campus development from prime farmland or by purchasing developed land off campus and converting it to agricultural land, the feasibility and expense involved in either of these options would preclude this approach. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

* * *

3.4.3 Air Quality This section of the EIR analyzes air quality impacts associated with implementation of the RPMP. Impacts evaluated include (1) dust emissions and emissions of criteria pollutants from construction activities and (2) emissions of criteria pollutants from vehicles, area sources, and stationary sources. Toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the sources included in the RPMP are analyzed along with TACs from other campus sources in Section 4.3 Air Quality (Volume I).

3.4.3.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.3 presents the air quality environmental setting for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site. The project region is in severe nonattainment of state and federal standards for criteria air pollutants. Concentration of pollutants is significantly affected by meteorological conditions. Wind flows are predominantly north and south but are quite variable both daily and seasonally.

The RPMP site is currently under agricultural uses, which are not significant sources of air pollutants although they do generate some airborne dust (PM10) and criteria pollutant emissions associated with farm equipment operations. Existing traffic along I-80 and Old Davis Road contributes to air pollutant emissions in the project vicinity. No sensitive receptors exist on or near the RPMP site.

3.4.3.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

As discussed in Section 3.3.10, RPMP development is anticipated to take place over an 11-year period. Construction activities could be expected to produce PM10 as a result of airborne dust raised by grading, excavation, and earth moving, and criteria pollutants and TAC emissions from the operation of construction vehicles and equipment.



Once the RPMP facilities are constructed, the major sources of operational criteria pollutants would be motor vehicles, two boilers used for heating and chilled water production, and three emergency generators. The 160,000 gsf of wet laboratory space would be a potential local source of TACs. No significant odor source is included in the RPMP.

Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.3 (Volume I) for a discussion of air quality Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. Air quality analysis for the RPMP is tiered from the discussion presented in Section 4.3 (Volume I). Additional analysis presented here focuses on the potential for RPMP construction activity to result in emissions that exceed significance thresholds, and the potential for air quality impacts to result from specific stationary and mobile sources associated with RPMP development and operations.

Vehicular emissions from the project were calculated using EMFAC2002. Based on traffic data developed for the traffic study, there would be a total of about 4,172 daily vehicle trips associated with the project. To estimate daily emissions from motor vehicles, it was assumed that each daily trip would be 10 miles one way, or 20 miles round-trip. For stationary source emissions from the two onsite boilers, it was assumed that those would operate 8,760 hours per year. For three emergency generators, it was assumed that each generator would be tested for ½ hour every week. Stationary source emission factors were taken from AP-42 described in Section 4.3 (Volume I). Construction emissions and area emissions were calculated using URBEMIS 2001 version 6.2.2 and project data with respect to acres of land disturbed each year and the square footage of the proposed development.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Emissions of criteria pollutants that could result from the increased traffic and other activity associated with the growth on campus under the 2003 LRDP (LRDP Impact 4.3-1) took into account the additional students and employees and the additional delivery truck trips associated with the RPMP. The potential for campus growth to hinder the attainment of the regional air quality plan (due to additional emissions from campus growth) was also analyzed under LRDP Impact 4.3-1. Implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.3-1 would help reduce operational emissions but as described in the impact discussion for LRDP Impact 4.3-1, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific details of the potential for the RPMP Project to hinder attainment of the regional air quality plan are provided below in the discussion of RPMP Impact 3.4.6. Similarly, potential impacts to human health from TACs (LRDP Impact 4.3-5) estimated for the campus as a whole also took into account TACs from the laboratory space, boilers and emergency generators included in the RPMP. As these impacts are adequately addressed at the LRDP level, they are not specifically analyzed at the project level. Analysis of localized CO impacts from all the traffic associated with the 2003 LRDP (LRDP Impact 4.3-6) shows that the LRDP-related traffic would not result in a significant localized impact from CO emissions; therefore, a project-level analysis of the same impact is not required.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-5: Construction activities at the RPMP site would result in short-

term emissions of criteria pollutants.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.3-3(a-c).

Volume III



Construction vehicles and equipment and earth-moving activities would produce PM10 and other criteria air pollutants during the construction period. Based on the proposed phasing of RPMP construction, it is anticipated that the northern parcel would be developed over a period of 1 year (Phase 1) and the southern parcel would be developed over a period of 10 years (Phase 2). This would result in short-term emissions reported in Table 3-4 below.

Table 3-4 Estimated Construction Emissions for the RPMP

Daily Emissions (lbs/day)

Criteria Pollutant Phase 1 Phase 2 YSAQMD Significance

Threshold

NOx 164.4 177.4 82

ROG 118.4 148.4 82

CO 0.5 0.6 550

PM10 15.1 16.2 150

SO2 13.3 14.4 82 Emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2001 version 6.2.2. Construction equipment counts based on Walker’s Building Estimator’s Reference Book, 26th Edition (Frank R. Walker Company 1999).

As the table above shows, the daily emissions of NOx and ROG during both phases of construction would exceed the daily standard of 82 pounds per day for each of these pollutants established by the YSAQMD and the impact from construction activities would be considered significant. Implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.3-3(a-c), would reduce the severity of the impact but the remaining emissions would still exceed the significance threshold, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

* * * RPMP Impact 3.4-6: Routine activities at the RPMP site would result in increased

operational emissions of criteria pollutants.

Significance: Potentially significant

RPMP Mitigation 3.4-6: To reduce NOx emissions, the campus shall conduct testing of only one of the project’s three emergency generators on a given day.

Residual Significance: Less than significant

Operational emissions from overall implementation of 2003 LRDP, including the emissions from the RPMP Project are included in LRDP Impact 4.3-1, which concludes that even with implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.3-1(a-c), overall campus related emissions through 2015 would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The following describes the emission contributions of just the RPMP Project to determine whether project specific mitigation measures could help reduce criteria pollutant emission levels. Sources of criteria pollutants associated with



the RPMP include motor vehicles, area sources such as water and space heating, and stationary sources (two boilers and three emergency generators). Emissions from each of these sources were calculated using the methods detailed in Section 4.3 (Volume I). Results are summarized in Table 3-5 below.

Table 3-5 Estimated Operational Emissions from the RPMP

Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Source

NOx ROG CO PM10 SO2

Vehicles 25.4 18.3 385.1 5.6 0.6

Area 4.7 0.5 3.0 0.01 0

Boilers and Emergency Generators 63.1 4.1 37.4 4.7 1.9

Total 93.2 22.9 425.5 10.3 2.5

YSAQMD Significance Threshold 82 82 550 150 82

Area emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2001 version 6.2.2. Emergency generator emissions factors from AP-42. Vehicular emissions calculated using EMFAC2002. Total emissions that exceed significance thresholds are indicated in bold.

As Table 3-5 shows, NOx emissions would exceed the YSAQMD significance threshold of 82 pounds per day, and the impact would be potentially significant. Emissions of all other pollutants would not exceed the thresholds. About 27 percent (24.9 lbs/day) of the project’s NOx emissions are a result of the periodic testing of the three on-site emergency generators. The estimated daily emissions assume that all three would be tested at the same time. Pursuant to RPMP Mitigation 3.4-6, if only one generator is tested on a given day, approximately 16.5 lbs/day of emissions would be avoided, and the resultant daily emissions of NOx from project operations would drop below levels considered significant. The project specific impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

* * *

3.4.4 Biological Resources

3.4.4.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.4 Biological Resources (Volume I) presents the regional environmental setting for the UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site. Both parcels contain habitat types classified in Section 4.4 as Agricultural Land and Ruderal/Annual Grassland. Habitat on the northern parcel consists predominantly of annual grassland, but the parcel also extends to the edge of the campus Arboretum where there are numerous trees. The parcel contains several large valley oaks (Quercus lobata) and walnut trees including English walnut (Juglans regia) and California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), the latter of which is native to California.

The northern half of the southern parcel has been farmed for grain crops and is periodically disced and fallowed. The southern half of the southern parcel is primarily in orchard/vineyard types of perennial plant cover. Ruderal vegetation is also present along the edges of the fields.

Volume III


The cropland/pasture habitat provides food and cover for common and special status wildlife species.

Although there is an agricultural reservoir in the western corner of the southern parcel, no wetland features are located on either parcel. To provide storm drainage for the northern parcel, a new storm drain outfall on the south bank of the Arboretum waterway would be needed. The Arboretum waterway has been determined by the ACOE to be jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and is potential habitat for the northwestern pond turtle.

Large planted walnut trees line the eastern edge of the southern parcel along Old Davis Road. In addition, there are a number of mature and immature introduced and naturalized trees on the southern parcel. These include cottonwood (Populus fremontii), mulberry (Morus alba), and ornamental fruit trees (white mulberry, Catalina cherry, and purple leaf plum), almond (Prunis dulcis), fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), date palm (Phoenix canariensis) and numerous specimens of California black walnut. While the majority of the trees here either were planted or have naturalized from specimens that originally were introduced, some native species are among them.

Some of the parcel’s trees have been identified as among the largest of their species on campus, and have been determined by the campus to meet campus standards for Important trees. Important trees include Specimen trees (healthy trees or stands of trees that are of high value to the campus due to their size, species, extraordinary educational and research value, or other exceptional local importance) and Heritage trees (healthy oaks with trunks over 33 inches in diameter at breast height). These trees represent a biological and aesthetic resource that contributes to the natural environment of the campus. Impacts to such trees are addressed in this section. Eight Specimen trees were identified on the southern parcel and five Specimen trees and two Heritage trees are present on the northern parcel (Mezger 2002).

Special-status plants and wildlife species known to occur on the campus or in nearby areas are discussed in Section 4.4 (Volume I). As discussed in Section 4.4, there is generally a low probability for the occurrence of most special-status plant species on the campus due to the highly modified landscape. That is also true of the RPMP parcels. The parcels have been used for various agricultural crops for many years and routine agricultural practices have rendered the parcels generally unsuitable habitat for native vegetation and special-status plants, with the exception of the Mexican elderberry shrub, which has been identified on the project site.

The Mexican elderberry shrub is present on both parcels. All elderberry shrubs are considered to be potential habitat for Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), a federal endangered species.

Northern California black walnut trees are also present on both parcels. Although this is a native tree species is classified as rare, threatened, or endangered in California, the walnut trees along Old Davis Road in the southern parcel are not naturally occurring, but were planted. The species has become widely naturalized in the interior Coast Range and the Central Valley, especially in riparian woodland such as the Arboretum on the UC Davis campus, adjacent to the northern parcel. The specimens on campus almost certainly have naturalized from originally planted specimens.

Of the special-status wildlife species identified on the campus, potential habitat for one species, Swainson’s hawk, is present on the RPMP parcels and in the nearby areas. Foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk is present on both parcels. During nesting surveys conducted over the last



decade, three trees with active Swainson’s hawk nests have been observed within ½ mile of the two RPMP parcels. In addition, one nest tree was located at the extreme western edge of the northern parcel within 100 feet of the connecting lanes between I-80 and SR 113. Swainson’s hawks have not been observed nesting in the trees on the southern parcel but have been observed perched there. All of the nests observed to have been active are located in areas of high human activity; i.e., along Old Davis Road adjacent to I-80, over a major path in the Arboretum, and adjacent to the information kiosk on Old Davis Road at the southern entrance to the central campus. Although no burrowing owls have been reported on the project parcels and they are not expected due to the current land use, ground squirrel burrows are present on the margins of the fields, and these could potentially be used by western burrowing owls. As noted above, the northwestern pond turtle, or suitable habitat for the species, may be present in the Arboretum waterway, which is the terminus for the proposed storm drain corridor for the northern parcel.

3.4.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.4 Biological Resources (Volume I) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.4 for analytical methods relative to biological resources.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. As addressed in the 2003 LRDP Initial Study, the LRDP, including the RPMP, would not conflict with an established habitat conservation plan. Impacts on special status fish would not occur as a result of the project.

The LRDP-level analysis concluded that campus development could result in the loss of special-status plant species (LRDP Impact 4.4-1). A special-status plant survey conducted for the project site did not identify any occurrences of special-status plants.

LRDP Impact 4.4-2 analyzed the impact of the development of 550 acres of agricultural land and ruderal/annual grassland habitat as loss of habitat for resident and migratory species, including Swainson’s hawk, and determined the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.4-2, which identifies protection of habitat areas at Russell Ranch. The mitigation addresses the 38 acres that would be converted to urban uses by the proposed RPMP Project; therefore, the impact of loss of agricultural land and ruderal/annual grassland habitat is adequately addressed at the LRDP level. The following analysis addresses RPMP impacts on burrowing owl habitat, VELB habitat, Swainson’s hawk nesting sites, Waters of the U.S., and the northwestern pond turtle. Trees of importance are also addressed as a special resource class under campus policy.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-7: Implementation of the RPMP would result in the conversion of

approximately 38 acres of Agricultural Land and Ruderal/Annual Grassland habitat, potentially suitable for western burrowing owl.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.4-3(b), (c), and (d).


Volume III


No burrowing owls have been observed on the RPMP site and none are expected to be present because the habitat is marginal. However, the presence of ground squirrel burrows (used by burrowing owls for both roosting and breeding) and marginally suitable habitat indicates that they could be present on the site and could be affected by development under the RPMP. Burrowing owls may reoccupy sites where they previously were not observed, so mitigation measures would apply to both the initial and subsequent phases of development, and to the development of utilities for the project. LRDP Mitigation 4.4-3(b), which requires preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls, will be implemented to determine whether the species is present at the site prior to construction. If burrowing owls are found on site, LRDP Mitigation 4.4-3(c) and (d) will be implemented to protect nesting sites and to encourage owls, subsequent to nesting, to relocate to burrows outside of the project site so that they will not be injured during construction. The implementation of the mitigations described above would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

* * * RPMP Impact 3.4-8: Implementation of the RPMP would result in the loss of

potential habitat for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.4-6(a) (avoidance). If avoidance of the identified elderberry shrubs is infeasible, implement LRDP Mitigation 4.4-6(b). LRDP Mitigations 4.4-6(a) and (b) shall be applied to each subsequent phase of development.


VELB carry out their entire life cycle in elderberry shrubs. All Mexican elderberry shrubs are considered potential VELB habitat. Thus, removal or disturbance of elderberry shrubs may represent loss of habitat. Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.4-6(a), an elderberry shrub survey of the proposed project sites was conducted in January 2003 (Whisler 2003). Eleven elderberry shrubs with stems over 1 inch in diameter were identified on or adjacent to the southern parcel, and one such elderberry shrub was identified on the boundary of the northern parcel. These shrubs could be damaged or removed as a result of project development.

In compliance with LRDP Mitigation 4.4-6(a), the campus shall attempt to avoid and protect the elderberry shrubs that might be affected by RPMP projects. If elderberry shrubs can be protected in place, for instance, in an open space area of adequate size, they would be left on the site. If preservation is infeasible, consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.4-6(b), the shrubs would be transplanted to the habitat area at Russell Ranch. The same measures, including the preconstruction surveys, will apply to all utility alignments used for the RPMP project. Furthermore, subsequent to initial RPMP development, additional biological surveys will be undertaken as needed for appropriate coverage of additional project development(s), to determine whether special-status species or habitat has established itself subsequent to the 2003 survey. If additional elderberry shrubs are found, LRDP Mitigation 4.4-6(a) and (b) would also apply to these specimens. With the implementation of these measures, the impact would be less than significant.

* * *



RPMP Impact 3.4-9: Implementation of the RPMP could result in the failure of Swainson’s hawk nesting, and in the loss of active nest sites.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.4-4(a) and 4.4-5.


The project sites and adjacent areas include potential nesting habitat for raptors, including Swainson's hawk. Many suitable trees for Swainson’s hawk nesting are present on and near the project site. Within one-half mile of the RPMP site, three active Swainson’s hawk nests have been reported along Old Davis Road and the Arboretum waterway during the last decade. One nest tree used in the last decade is present on the western margin of the northern parcel. This tree would not be affected by development because it would be incorporated into project landscaping.

Project development could result in the removal of trees suitable for Swainson’s hawk nesting on either site. Further, activity and noise associated with project grading and construction potentially could discourage nesting and disturb nesting birds that might be present. Project construction also could affect the nests of any breeding raptors that might be present, such as the northern harrier.

The campus shall implement LRDP Mitigation 4.4-4(a), which requires a preconstruction breeding season survey of the project site trees and for Swainson’s hawk nests within ½ mile of the RPMP site. These surveys will be conducted during the same calendar year that the proposed activity is planned. If nesting raptors are found, a qualified biologist will determine whether project activity is likely to disturb nesting birds, and will assist in the development of feasible measures to adjust construction schedule and other project elements to avoid disturbance during the nesting season. Active nesting sites will be protected. If a potential nest tree must be removed, LRDP Mitigation 4.4-5 will be implemented to ensure that any necessary tree removal takes place outside of the breeding season. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

* * * RPMP Impact 3.4-10: Development of a new storm drain outfall for the RPMP at the

Arboretum waterway could result in the adverse modification of wetlands or other waters of the U.S. that fall under the jurisdiction of the ACOE and/or CDFG.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.4-8(a-c).


Construction of RPMP facilities on the northern parcel would require the construction of a storm drain outfall on the south bank of the Arboretum waterway to dispose of site runoff. The CVRWQCB and the ACOE have determined the Arboretum waterway to be waters of the U.S. A small amount of fill could be discharged into the Arboretum during outfall construction. The outfall would consist of installation of a small diameter pipe and sufficient riprap to prevent erosion of the bank and is not expected to result in substantial disturbance. Consistent with

Volume III


LRDP Mitigation 4.4-8(a-c), in consultation with the ACOE and the CDFG, the campus shall conduct a wetlands delineation during the design phase of the project; avoid, minimize, or mitigate wetland impacts at a 3:1 ratio if avoidance or minimization is not feasible; obtain appropriate ACOE permits; and submit a Streambed Alteration Agreement to CDFG at least 30 days prior to proposed project action that would affect the Arboretum. With the implementation of these measures, there would be no net loss of jurisdictional waters, and the impact would be less than significant.

* * * RPMP Impact 3.4-11: Development of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum

waterway for the RPMP could result in the loss of potential habitat for the northwestern pond turtle or otherwise affect the species during construction.




The construction of the RPMP storm drain outfall at the Arboretum waterway could affect northwestern pond turtles or their habitat. Northwestern pond turtles are known to occur along Putah Creek and the North Fork Cutoff and could be present in the suitable habitat of the Arboretum waterway. Storm drain construction could involve excavation in the Arboretum bank and possibly incidental discharge of a small quantity of silt in the water. In compliance with LRDP Mitigation 4.4-7, the campus would perform a preconstruction survey for pond turtles at the storm drain outfall site; install silt fencing to exclude pond turtles; and, if work is to be performed in the water, seine the waters around the construction site to capture any turtles that may be present and relocate them outside of the impact area. The University would be required to obtain a take permit from the CDFG pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act prior to conducting RPMP construction activities that could result in the potential take of northwestern pond turtles. Implementation of these measures will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

* * *

RPMP Impact 3.4-12: Implementation of the RPMP would result in the removal of trees recognized to meet the campus’ standards for Important trees, including:

(i) Heritage Trees: healthy valley oak trees with trunk diameters of 33 inches at a height of 54 inches or greater from the ground.

(ii) Specimen Trees: healthy trees or stands of trees that are of high value to the campus due to their size, species, extraordinary educational and research value, and/or other exceptional local importance.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.4-11 for both parcels.




The campus has performed tree surveys for both RPMP parcels. A number of trees classified as Specimen trees have been identified on and adjacent to both the northern and southern parcels. In addition, two heritage trees have been identified on the northern parcel. Detailed plans for the Research Park are in their early stages. Consistent with 2003 LRDP Mitigation 4.4-11, to the greatest extent possible, identified Specimen and Heritage trees will be taken into account in project design and avoided or incorporated in the design. All such trees will also be protected during construction to avoid direct and indirect impacts. At the current stage of design, it appears that it will be possible to avoid impacts to all such trees on the project site. However, it is possible that the status of some trees could change prior to the construction period due to natural events, or that it may not be feasible to avoid some trees in final design.

Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.4-11, relocation of a Heritage tree is infeasible because large oaks typically do not survive transplant. In addition, because of the age, rarity, and high local value associated with Heritage trees, replacement of these trees is not considered a reasonable mitigation. If a Heritage tree must be removed, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Due to some uncertainty regarding potential removal of these trees, this impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.4-11, if a Specimen tree cannot be preserved, the campus shall relocate the tree if feasible, or replace the tree with the same species or a species of comparable value. Relocation or replanting would occur within the RPMP parcels if feasible. The implementation of this measure would reduce the impact to Specimen trees to a less-than-significant level.

* * *

3.4.5 Cultural Resources

3.4.5.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.5 Cultural Resources (Volume I) presents the cultural resource setting for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site. Past experience indicates that areas within 800 feet of the historic Putah Creek stream channel and other natural watercourses and historic sloughs may be sensitive for the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources. The northern parcel is adjacent to the Arboretum, which is the historic alignment of Putah Creek through the campus. Furthermore, this parcel is within ½ mile of two archaeological sites; therefore, the parcel is considered highly sensitive and determined to warrant a high level of archaeological investigation, including archaeological survey and subsurface testing. The southern parcel is considered moderately sensitive for cultural resources because it is distant from the historic channel of Putah Creek and no archaeological sites have been recorded nearby. Archaeological investigations of the sites including surface survey and auger testing were conducted in 1998 (Nadolski 1998). Results of these survey efforts were negative.

A single existing building stands on the southern parcel of the RPMP. This is the Viticulture and Enology Field Building, constructed in 1955. The building is less than 50 years old, but it may reach 50 years of age before the start of construction in this area. Because the building is

Volume III


utilitarian in nature, very similar to many other utilitarian agricultural buildings on campus, and because it will be only marginally old enough to warrant consideration for historical significance by the time of proposed construction, this building is considered highly unlikely to meet the significance criteria of the California Register of Historic Resources.

A number of mature specimen trees are located on the southern parcel, including a pair of Canary Island date palms. Exotic specimens of this kind, especially in formal groups, were associated with homesteads and other developments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although there is no archaeological evidence on the surface in this area of a historic occupation, it is possible that these trees might at one time have been associated with such an occupation.

3.4.5.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.5 Cultural Resources (Volume I) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. The analysis of impacts of the RPMP is tiered from the analysis presented in Section 4.5. Only impacts that are not adequately addressed by the analysis conducted for the 2003 LRDP as a whole are examined in detail. Specific analytical methods used to analyze impacts are essentially the same as those outlined in Section 4.5.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The Initial Study for the 2003 LRDP concluded that there are no unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features on campus and therefore no further project-level analysis is required. The potential for the development of the Research Park to affect historic and archaeological resources is evaluated below.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-13: Implementation of the RPMP could damage or destroy an

archaeological resource or historic building or structure as a result of grading, excavation, ground disturbance or other project development.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.5-1(b)(i) and (ii). In the event of a discovery, implement LRDP Mitigations 4.5-1(b)(vi) and/or 4.5-4, as applicable.


The Viticulture and Enology Field Building, constructed in 1955, would be demolished during the development of the southern parcel of the RPMP. As noted above, the building will be less than 50 years old, or only marginally 50 years old at the time the parcel would be prepared for construction. The utilitarian nature of the building and its similarity with other agricultural buildings on campus make it unlikely that the building would qualify as an historic resource based on its architectural merit. It is not known to have been associated with any highly significant person or event, and it does not embody the work of a master architect. Thus, the



impacts to this building, including its demolition, would not constitute an impact of the project. The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

There are no known archaeological or historic sites on the RPMP project site. However, as discussed above, areas within 800 feet of the historic alignment of Putah Creek are considered sensitive for archaeological resources, including human remains. LRDP mitigation measures described in Section 4.5 (Volume I) provide protocols for identification and treatment of archaeological resources and human remains that could be present in the area that would be affected by the RPMP. Consistent with 2003 LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(a)(ii), an intensive archaeological investigation, including survey and auger testing, was conducted on both the northern and southern parcels in 1998, in conjunction with the preparation of the EIR for the UC Davis 1997-98 Major Capital Improvement Projects. The surface survey did not reveal any cultural resource materials. Subsurface testing, which included 12 auger probes on the northern parcel and 46 probes on the southern parcel, also did not detect any subsurface cultural resource materials. Additional surveys are therefore not considered necessary. The northern parcel is nonetheless considered sensitive because of its close proximity to Putah Creek and therefore, in compliance with LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b)(ii), an archaeological monitoring plan will be prepared and implemented during construction on the northern parcel. For projects on both the northern and the southern parcels, consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b)(i), construction crews would be informed regarding recognition of archaeological resources and procedures for resource protection in the event of a discovery. If an archaeological resource or human remains are encountered during construction, LRDP Mitigations 4.5-1(b)(vi) and 4.5-4 will be implemented to ensure appropriate documentation and treatment. With the implementation of these measures, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

* * *

3.4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

3.4.6.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (Volume I) presents the geology, soils, and seismicity environmental setting for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site. The geology and soils of the RPMP site share the typical characteristics of the campus overall. Soils are alluvial and very deep with moderate shrink-swell capacity. Potential for erosion is slight due to the level topography. There are no natural watercourses on the project site and no rock outcrops.

3.4.6.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.6 (Volume I) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.6 for analytical methods relative to geology, soils, and seismicity.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The Initial Study for the 2003 LRDP concluded that there are no known earthquake faults on the central, west, and south campus; that the campus would not be subject to landslides; and that the development under the 2003 LRDP would not have a significant impact on mineral resources.

Volume III


Therefore, no analysis of these impacts is required for the RPMP. The projects developed under the RPMP would not include septic tanks or alternate wastewater disposal systems, and therefore impacts related to the construction of these systems are not applicable to the project. The LRDP-level analysis determined that with compliance with the California Building Code and the University of California Seismic Safety Policy, impacts related to seismic shaking, ground failure, and expansive soils would be less than significant (LRDP Impacts 4.6-1, 4.6-2, and 4.6-3). Further evaluation of these impacts at a project level is not required.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Not applicable.

3.4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.4.7.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Volume I) presents the hazards and hazardous materials setting for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site, and includes definitions of relevant terms, a brief summary of applicable regulations, and a discussion of potential hazardous materials and hazardous waste generated at the campus overall. With the exception of the use of herbicides and pesticides on agricultural land within the project site, there are no other hazardous materials associated with the project site under existing conditions.

3.4.7.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.7 (Volume I) for a discussion of appropriate Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. Analytical methods for assessment of potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts are detailed in Section 4.7 (Volume I) of this EIR.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The proposed research park is not located within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school, and the project site is located outside of the airport safety compatibility zones of the University Airport. The Initial Study for the 2003 LRDP determined that there was no potential for impacts related to wildland fires on the campus or potential safety hazards associated with a private airstrip. Therefore, no project-level analysis of impacts related to hazardous emissions or hazardous materials handling near a school, safety hazards associated with a public use airport, a private airstrip or wildland fires is required. Construction of the proposed Research Park would not require closure of Old Davis Road and therefore would not affect any emergency response plans of the campus. Project-level impacts associated with use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, and exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater are discussed below.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures

RPMP Impact 3.4-14: Implementation of the RPMP could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.7-1 through 4.7-10.




Construction of the Research Park facilities would involve the use of hazardous materials such as paints and solvents, adhesives and glues, and cleaning agents. Fuels would be used in heavy equipment and construction vehicles. These materials are routinely used in small quantities on construction projects, and construction procedures have been established to avoid releases of these materials into the environment. Furthermore, specific projects that are proposed under the RPMP would be required to comply with permitting controls designed to minimize the chances of release of hazardous materials to surface or groundwater. Therefore, the impact from construction-phase hazardous materials use would be less than significant.

Hazardous materials would be used in the research conducted in the Research Park facilities. Due to its affiliation with UC Davis, the types of research that would be conducted within the Research Park would be generally similar to the research that is conducted on the campus. Therefore, risks from hazardous materials use and hazardous wastes generated on the project site would be similar to those described under LRDP Impacts 4.7-1 through 4.7-10. Should campus departments occupy some portions of the Research Park, they would be required to implement LRDP Mitigations 4.7-1 through 4.7-9, which require continued implementation of the campus hazardous materials control programs. Pursuant to LRDP Mitigation 4.7-10, non-UC tenants in the Research Park would be required through contracts and agreements, to implement programs and controls that provide the same level of protection required of campus laboratories and departments. With the implementation of these LRDP mitigations, the impact associated with the use of hazardous materials would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

* * * RPMP Impact 3.4-15: Implementation of the RPMP could expose construction workers

and campus occupants to contaminated soil or groundwater.


RPMP Mitigation 3.4-15(a): The campus shall require the developer of the RPMP to perform a due diligence investigation that includes a review of past and current uses of the site for activities that may have involved hazardous materials use or hazardous waste disposal.

RPMP Mitigation 3.4-15(b): If the review identifies activities or practices that may have resulted in releases of hazardous materials to the soil or groundwater, the campus or developer shall conduct additional investigation and remediation as appropriate.


The proposed project site is not on the list of campus sites with known contamination. Furthermore, neither parcel has been developed with urban uses in the past; both have been used mainly for agriculture. Lands surrounding the parcels are largely undeveloped. As a condition of financing large projects such as the RPMP development, lenders typically require that developers conduct “due diligence” investigations to evaluate the potential that past or current site activities or practices could have resulted in releases of hazardous materials to the soil or groundwater. Therefore, while it is unlikely that contaminated soils or groundwater would be

Volume III


encountered during construction of the proposed project, to further minimize the risk that unexpected contamination could be encountered on the site, implementation of RPMP Mitigation 3.4-19(a) and (b) shall be required.

* * *

3.4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.4.8.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality (Volume II) presents the hydrology and water quality environmental setting for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RPMP Project sites. There are no natural water courses present on the project sites. The project site is not within the 100-year flood plain. Storm water on the currently undeveloped proposed project sites primarily percolates or evaporates. The campus draws water from the deep aquifer to serve the domestic water system and from shallow/intermediate aquifers to serve the utility water system and irrigation needs.


Analytical Method. See Section 4.8 for analytical methods relative to hydrology and water quality impacts.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The 2003 LRDP Initial Study identified that impacts related to hazards associated with levee or dam failure or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would not occur under the 2003 LRDP. The Initial Study also identified that the 2003 LRDP would not place housing within a 100-year floodplain. Impacts associated with the increase of impervious surface and alteration of drainage patterns under the 2003 LRDP that could increase runoff and pollutants in runoff, thereby affecting water quality, were adequately analyzed at the LRDP level (LRDP Impact 4.8-2) and would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with Phase II SWMP measures to minimize the contribution of pollutants to receiving waters (LRDP Mitigation 4.8-2). The LRDP EIR also addresses impacts associated with the increase of impervious surfaces or alteration of drainage patterns under the 2003 LRDP that could exceed the capacity of storm water drainage systems and result in localized and offsite flooding (LRDP Impact 4.8-3). Implementation of LRDP Mitigations 4.8-3 (a) and (b) would reduce this impact to a less than significant level through project specific drainage studies and, if necessary, improvements to the storm drainage system. Impacts associated with potential exceedance of waste discharge requirements were also adequately addressed at the LRDP level. With the incorporation of LRDP Mitigations 4.8-4(a) and b), which require monitoring efforts and modification of the WWTP pretreatment program to comply with permit limits, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. The impact related to construction of structures in a floodplain (LRDP Impact 4.8-9) was adequately addressed at the LRDP level; this impact would be limited to areas in the west campus. Impacts associated with domestic water and reclaimed water were also adequately analyzed at the LRDP level, were found to be less than



significant, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, no additional project-level analysis of these impacts is required. Project-level impacts related to potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, water quality impacts from construction activities, and withdrawal of groundwater are addressed below.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-16: RPMP construction activities would not contribute substantial

loads of sediment or other pollutants in storm water runoff that could degrade receiving water quality.



Construction of the RPMP would involve grading up to approximately 38 acres. These activities could potentially cause temporary increases in erosion during storm events. However, the campus topography is relatively flat and, as discussed in Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (Volume I), the erosion hazard of campus soils is generally slight.

As part of a 2001 agreement with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), UC Davis has coverage under the NPDES state-wide General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity for the entire campus. As part of this permit, the contractor for the RPMP Project would be required to prepare and implement a project-specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As described in Section 4.8, LRDP Impact 4.8-1 (Volume II), EH&S will review and approve the SWPPP and would submit a New Construction Project Information Form to the CVRWQCB. The SWPPP would include best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, waste handling and disposal, implementation of approved local plans, post-construction controls, and non-storm water management.

The UC Davis campus is required by state law to comply with construction management procedures as stipulated in the State Water Quality Control Board’s General Permit for discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity and Phase II requirements during construction of the CWFE. LRDP Mitigation 4.8-1 further confirms that the campus would implement BMPs to reduce CWFE construction-related (and operation-related) water quality impacts. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

* * * SC Impact 3.4-17: Implementation of the RPMP Project would increase the amount

of water extracted from the shallow/intermediate and deep aquifers and would increase impervious surface. Extraction from the aquifers could deplete groundwater levels and could contribute to local subsidence, and increased impervious surface coverage could interfere substantially with recharge. This could result in a net deficit in the aquifers or a lowering of the local groundwater table.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.8-5(a) and 4.8-6(a) and (e).

Volume III



The RPMP Project would have demand for water from the deep aquifer (via the campus’ domestic water system) and shallow/intermediate aquifers (via the campus’ utility water system). Domestic and utility water use by the proposed project is accounted for in the total annual consumption estimates analyzed at the LRDP level in Section 4.8 (Volume II). Implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.8-5(a) would ensure that low-flow toilets are installed, implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.8-5(a) and LRDP Mitigation 4.8-6(a) would ensure that landscaped areas associated with the project reduce demand for irrigation water from the domestic water system (in the south campus) and from the utility water system (in the central campus) to the extent feasible, and implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.8-6(e) would encourage infiltration through minimization of impervious surfaces and use of infiltration techniques where feasible. Other campus-wide efforts to reduce water use, continue aquifer monitoring efforts, and manage water supplies efficiently would be implemented under the 2003 LRDP in compliance with LRDP Mitigations 4.8-5(a) through (d) and 4.8-6(a) through (e). Regardless of mitigation, the combination of effects from continued demand for water from the shallow/intermediate aquifer and deep aquifer, local subsidence trends, and increased coverage could result in a significant impact on intermediate and deep aquifer groundwater levels. Therefore, the impacts on the deep and shallow/intermediate aquifers were found to be significant and unavoidable at the LRDP level (LRDP Impacts 4.8-5 and 4.8-6). This project-specific impact is also considered significant and unavoidable.

* * *

3.4.9 Land Use and Planning

3.4.9.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.9 Land Use and Planning (Volume II) describes the land use patterns on the UC Davis campus and surrounding areas as well as applicable planning regulations. The two RPMP parcels are located east of Old Davis Road on the north and south sides of I-80. The 2003 LRDP renames the land use designation on these two parcels from Enterprise Reserve to Research Park. Land uses surrounding the northern parcel include the Arboretum to the north and west, an undeveloped 25-acre parcel to the east that is currently designated as Teaching and Research Fields and I-80 to the south. Land uses surrounding the southern parcel include ARS to the east, Plant Pathology Field Headquarters to the south, and I-80 to the north and west.


Analytical Method. See Section 4.9 for analytical methods relative to land use and planning.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The 2003 LRDP proposes to designate the RPMP parcels as Research Park for Academic and Administrative – High Density uses. The development of RPMP would therefore not conflict with the LRDP land use plan. As discussed under LRDP Impact 4.9-3 (Volume I), the 2003



LRDP, including the RPMP, would not conflict with an existing or proposed habitat conservation plan. Also, the 2003 LRDP Initial Study concluded that the 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, would not divide an established community. Therefore, no project-level analysis of these impacts is necessary.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-18: Implementation of the RPMP would not result in development

that is substantially incompatible with existing or planned adjacent land uses.



As described above, the land uses surrounding the RPMP parcels are the roadways of Old Davis Road and I-80, Teaching and Research Fields, Academic and Administrative, and Open Space Teaching and Research for the Arboretum. The proposed RPMP would not conflict with these adjacent uses. The type of development and uses that would occur on the RPMP sites would not affect offsite uses or restrict the ongoing uses of the adjacent parcels. In addition, the RPMP is being designed to provide views of the Arboretum and to avoid any adverse modification of the Arboretum. Parking would be located on the south side of the north parcel, away from the more sensitive Arboretum land use. This impact is therefore considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

* * *

3.4.10 Noise

3.4.10.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.10 Noise (Volume II) provides the existing ambient noise environment on the campus, acoustical definitions utilized in the following noise analysis, and a description of the regulatory framework of federal and state noise guidelines that are used in the local-level planning process.

The proposed project site is affected by traffic on I-80, SR 113, and freight and passenger trains. Other noise sources include nearby agricultural activities. Measured noise levels in this area (from long-term noise monitor LT-2) varied from 56 to 63 dBA Leq during the daytime, while nighttime noise levels varied from 53 to 62 dBA Leq. As described above under Section 3.4.9 (Land Use), uses surrounding the project site include the Arboretum to the north, roadways, agricultural fields, ARS, and Plant Pathology Field Headquarters. None of these uses is considered noise sensitive.

3.4.10.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.10 Noise (Volume II) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.10 for analytical background relative to noise. For the RPMP, the existing traffic related noise levels were compared to the increased traffic that would

Volume III


result from implementation of the RPMP. The noise analysis in Section 4.10 includes identification of 2015 noise levels that could affect the RPMP Project site. The RPMP analysis is therefore, limited to just identifying the impacts of the RPMP-generated traffic, and does not include increased traffic through 2015-16 that would result from implementation of other elements of the 2003 LRDP. The results were then compared to the significance criteria contained in Table 4.10-3 (Volume II) to determine the significance level of potential impacts. Noise criteria focus on impacts to noise sensitive land uses; that is, the potential recipients of increased levels of noise that might be produced by project construction and operation. Noise sensitive land uses are defined as residential and institutional uses. Noise levels that would be produced by project activity are considered, including in relation to significant increases in noise above present ambient levels.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Noise impacts from traffic to the campus (LRDP Impact 4.10-1) was based on the increase in campus population that would result from the implementation of the 2003 LRDP through the year 2015-16. The population increase analyzed includes the number of persons who would be present each day in the research park. That analysis showed that the campus-wide increase in traffic would not result in significant impacts related to noise on Old Davis Road. Additional evaluation of the project’s specific traffic noise impact combined with other expected growth is therefore not necessary. Because there are no noise sensitive land uses near the RPMP sites, analysis of construction noise is not considered necessary. With respect to railroad noise and vibration, the RPMP is located at least 800 feet from the UPRR tracks, thus there would be no impact based on a screening analysis performed in accord with the Federal Transit Administration guidelines manual. The manual indicates that the noise and vibration potential impact zone extends to a maximum distance of 750 feet from a railroad track.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-19: Traffic to and from the RPMP site would not result in a

substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.



Table 3-6 provides the calculated noise levels resulting from implementing the RPMP in terms of the increases in noise levels near I-80 and Old Davis Road. The projected noise levels would not cause the exceedance of the traffic noise criterion level established in Table 4.10-3 in Section 4.10 (Volume II) of this EIR, nor would the increase represent a substantial increase, Furthermore, there are no noise sensitive uses in the areas along Old Davis Road leading to the project site that could be affected by this increase. Therefore, there would be no potential roadway noise impact. No mitigation would be required.



Table 3-6 Research Park Traffic Noise Impact Analysis Results

Modeled Receiver Number Representative Area

Calculated Existing CNEL (dBA)

Existing plus

Research Park CNEL

(dBA)

Change compared

with Existing (dB(A))

Does it cause an

exceedance of the

criterion level?

Would there be a substantial increase?

21

100 feet from centerline of Old Davis Road, north of I-80. 64 64 0 No n/a

27 100 feet from centerline of I-80. 69 69 0 No n/a



n/a = not applicable because there are no existing noise sensitive uses at this site.

* * *

3.4.11 Population and Housing

3.4.11.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.11 Population and Housing (Volume II) provides the environmental setting with respect to existing population and housing on campus and in the City of Davis.


Analytical Method. See Section 4.11 for analytical methods relative to population and housing.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Analysis of population and housing at the LRDP level took into account the entire projected increase in campus population, including the increased number of employees in the RPMP Project (LRDP Impacts 4.11-1 through 4.11-3). Therefore, all project-related impacts relative to population and housing are adequately addressed at the LRDP level.


* * *

Volume III


3.4.12 Public Services

3.4.12.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.12 Public Services (Volume II) provides a description of existing public services that currently serve the campus, including the RPMP site. The RPMP Project site would be served by the UC Davis Police and Fire departments.


Analytical Method. See Section 4.12 for analytical methods relative to public services.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The LRDP-level analysis assessed the potential for growth under the 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, to result in increased demand for police and fire facilities, public libraries, and schools, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. Potential environmental impacts associated with provision of UC Davis Fire and Police services on campus were addressed at the LRDP level and were determined to be less than significant. Employees associated with the RPMP would place a demand for libraries and schools in the region, and associated environmental effects were considered in the LRDP EIR at a cumulative level.


* * *

3.4.13 Recreation

3.4.13.1 Environmental Setting

Section 4.13 Recreation (Volume II) describes the existing campus recreational facilities. There are no recreational facilities on the RPMP site. The Arboretum is the only recreational area near the site.


Analytical Method. See Section 4.13 for analytical methods relative to impacts on recreation facilities.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The LRDP-level analysis of impacts related to existing recreational facilities and the need for additional recreational facilities (LRDP Impacts 4.13-1) took into account all of the projected population increase under the 2003 LRDP, including the population associated with the RPMP Project and determined that impacts associated with deterioration of recreation facilities would



be less than significant. The project does not include construction of recreational facilities. Therefore, no additional project-level analysis of this resource area is required.


* * *

3.4.14 Traffic, Circulation, and Parking

3.4.14.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.14 Traffic, Circulation, and Parking (Volume II) describes the existing circulation system and parking for the UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site. As described in Section 3.3.6, access to the project site would be from Old Davis Road and I-80. The entrance to the development on the northern parcel would be on the west side of Old Davis Road, north of I-80, and the entrance to the southern parcel would be on the west side of Old Davis Road, south of I-80. The traffic and circulation study prepared for the RPMP contains additional detail regarding the setting, methodology, and impacts analysis conducted for the RPMP (Fehr and Peers 2003).

Motorized Roadway System. The two principal roadways that serve the project area are I-80, a six- to eight-lane freeway that runs northeast-southwest between the two RPMP parcels, and SR 113, a four-lane highway that leaves I-80 just west of the project site and runs north along the western margin of the central campus. Old Davis Road, the local road that would access the project directly, carries two lanes of traffic. It runs north-south along the eastern margin of the project parcels, crosses under I-80, and makes a turn to the east to form the south entry to the central campus. Old Davis Road provides access to the Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts and the South Entry Parking Structure, and also connects the campus to downtown Davis by A Street and First Street. The portion of the roadway between California Avenue and Mrak Hall Drive was recently realigned to provide access to the performing arts center and is referred to as New Davis Drive in this report. Other local roadways of relevance to the project site are California Avenue, one of the campus’ northern gateways, and La Rue Road, which forms the western portion of the campus loop. At the south end of the campus, California Drive also forms the short segment of the campus loop roadway between La Rue Road and Old Davis Road. It provides access between Russell Boulevard and the core campus. La Rue Road becomes Anderson Road north of Russell Boulevard and provides access to uses within the northern area of the City of Davis.

Existing Intersection Operations. Three intersections were analyzed for impacts from the implementation of the RPMP.

• Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound ramps

• Old Davis Road/I-80 Westbound ramps

• Old Davis Road/California Avenue intersection.

These study intersections are shown on Figure 3-3. Traffic counts were conducted in fall 2001 to determine the existing peak hour traffic volumes at three study intersections. New traffic counts were conducted in fall 2002 at the New Davis Road/California Avenue intersection to account for the realignment of Old Davis Road between California Avenue and Mrak Hall Drive (Fehr

Volume III


and Peers 2003). Traffic counts were conducted during the morning (7:00 – 9:00 AM) and afternoon/evenings (4:00 – 6:00 PM) peak period. The peak hours are based on typical morning and evening commute periods. These peak hours were chosen for analysis because they reflect the time periods with the highest number of vehicle trips within the campus. Results of traffic counts and the resulting levels of service (LOS) are presented in Tables 3-7 and 3-8, below. Criteria defining levels of service are set forth in detail in Section 4.14 (Volume II).

As shown in Tables 3-7 and 3-8, all study intersections and ramp junctions operate at LOS C or better under existing conditions.

Table 3-7 Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Location Traffic

Controla Delay LOS Delay LOS

Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps TWSCb 13.8/21.8 B/C 10.4/46.6 B/E

Old Davis Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps TWSC 11.8/24.3 B/C 1.9/15.4 A/C

New Davis Road/California Avenue TWSC 14.4/>50.0 B/F 9.2/25.8 A/D

a Results shown in average overall intersection delay and LOS / delay and LOS for critical movement. b TWSC = Two-way stop controlled intersection.

Source: Fehr and Peers Associates 2003.

Table 3-8 Ramp Junction Levels of Service – Existing Conditions

I-80/Old Davis Road Interchange

Mainline (VPH)a

On/Off- Ramp (VPH)a

Density (pc/mi/ln)b LOS

I-80/Old Davis Road AM Peak Hour Westbound Off-Ramp 3,987 456 11.3 B Westbound On-Ramp 3,531 25 12.0 B

Eastbound Off-Ramp 3,836 205 19.3 B

Eastbound On-Ramp 4,206 58 1.8 A PM Peak Hour

Westbound Off-Ramp 4,567 100 10.1 B Westbound On-Ramp 4,467 170 14.7 B Eastbound Off-Ramp 3,827 46 18.4 B Eastbound On-Ramp 4,522 350 4.6 A

a Vehicles per hour. b Passenger cars per mile per lane. Source: Fehr and Peers Associates 2003.

GAR

RO

D D

R.

§̈¦80

·|}þ113

LA R

UE

RD

.

LA RUE RD.

DAI

RY

RD

.

OLD DAVIS RD.

BIO

LETT

I WY.

OLD

DAV

IS R

D.

NEW DAVIS RD.

North Site

South Site

2

1

3

MR

AK HALL D

R.C

ALIF

OR

NIA

AVE

.

Research Park Master Plan -Existing Conditions

Figure 3-3

1 inch equals 650 feet

¹UC DavisLRDP EIR

28649327

Legend

- Study Intersections

1

- AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX (YY)

- Travel or Turn Lane

- Traffic Signal

- Stop Sign

- Research Park Master Plan

- Existing Roadway

!(1

- Bicycle Path

- On-Street Bike Lane



Transportation Systems. The UC Davis campus includes a network of bicycle paths, including multi-use trails in the Arboretum, north of the northern parcel; on-street bike lanes on New Davis Road between California Avenue and Mrak Hall Drive, east of the northern parcel; and a bike path on the west side of Old Davis Road, which runs south from the Arboretum along the eastern edge of the northern parcel, crosses under I-80, and continues south along the eastern edge of the southern RPMP parcel. A multi-use path is available for pedestrians from the Arboretum to the area of the southern parcel.

Local transit service in and around Davis and the campus is provided by Unitrans. However, Unitrans does not provide bus service in the project vicinity. The closest Unitrans stop to the I-80/Old Davis Road interchange is located about one-half mile away on Hutchison Drive in the Health Sciences District. The only transit service along Old Davis Road is a UC Davis-operated shuttle between UC Davis and the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. As part of LRDP Mitigation 4.14-4, transit service is expected to serve the RPMP area.

Parking. The South Entry Parking structure on New Davis Road and Visitor Parking Lots 1 and 2 provide parking in the general vicinity of the project. No parking is allowed on Old Davis Road. Parking for the RPMP project would be provided on site. Since the RPMP project will accommodate all of its parking needs on site, it will not use any on-campus parking facilities.

Local Goals and Policies. The transportation policies, laws, and regulations that relate to the UC Davis 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, are provided in Section 4.14 (Volume II).


Analytical Method. The transportation analysis for the RPMP compares existing traffic volumes at intersections that likely would be used by project traffic with projected traffic volumes at the same intersections, based on the additional trips generated by the project.

Trip Generation. The RPMP includes 1,400 employees at buildout, including 1,000 at the southern parcel and 400 at the northern parcel. Table 3-9 summarizes the vehicle-trip generation of the RPMP based on the trip rate contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE] 1997).

This analysis indicates that the RPMP would generate approximately 4,170 daily, 615 AM peak hour, and 600 PM peak hour total vehicle-trips. These trips reflect the total number of vehicles expected to travel to the research park including employees, visitors, and deliveries. No adjustment to the vehicle-trip generation was made for the unique nonmotorized travel characteristics of the Davis community (e.g., work trips made by bicycle or on foot), due to the project location (removed from the city center), the lack of connected bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, and the limited number of RPMP project employees expected to live in Davis due to future housing constraints.

Volume III


Table 3-9 Proposed Project Trip Generation

Trip Ratea Vehicle-Trips

AM

Peak Hourb

PM

Peak Hourb

Land Use Number of Employees Daily

AM

Peak Hour

PM

Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out

Research Park (North) 400 2.98 0.44 0.43 1,192 148 28 40 132

Research Park (South) 1,000 2.98 0.44 0.43 2,891 370 70 99 331

Total Vehicle Trips 4,172 518 98 139 463 a Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers 1997). b 84% in/16% out in AM peak hour, 23% in/77% out in PM peak hour Source: Fehr and Peers Associates 2003.

Trip Distribution. The trip distribution for the RPMP project was developed based on the expected residence locations of RPMP employees. Although some RPMP employees are anticipated to reside in the City of Davis, most vehicles are expected to use I-80 and SR 113 to travel to and from the Research Park due to its close proximity to the I-80/Old Davis Road interchange. Ten percent of vehicle trips were assigned to local roadways (i.e., Old Davis Road and California Avenue to La Rue Road) that travel to and from the RPMP parcels. The remaining vehicle trips were split between I-80 East, I-80 West, and SR 113 North based on the existing distribution of faculty and staff residing outside of Davis. Vehicles traveling to and from the west at the I-80/Old Davis interchange were split evenly between I-80 and SR 113. Trips were assigned to the study intersections using the expected trip distribution discussed above.

Traffic operations under “existing plus project” conditions were analyzed at the three study intersections and at two intersections created by the implementation of the proposed project: Old Davis Road/Research Park (North), and Old Davis Road/Research Park (South). Impacts of the proposed project at these intersections are presented below.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The proposed project would not involve any changes to the street system adjacent to the site that could increase traffic hazards or result in conflicts between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Construction activities at the RPMP parcels would not require closure of Old Davis Road, therefore there would be no impact related to inadequate emergency access. Impacts related to increased demand for transit services, including the RPMP, was addressed in LRDP Impact 4.14-4 in Section 4.14 (Volume II). Implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.14-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, and no further project-level analysis is necessary. Impacts relative to increased traffic, regional and local levels of service, and parking are addressed below.



Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-20: Implementation of the RPMP would cause unacceptable

intersection operations.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.14-1(a-c) and 4.14-2(a-c).

RPMP Mitigation 3.4-20: As needed based on the occupancy levels and occupancy dates of each building in the RPMP, to maintain adequate levels of service, the campus shall obtain funding for traffic signals at Old Davis Road and I-80.


As described under “Analytical Method” above, trips projected to be generated by the RPMP were added to existing traffic volumes and levels of service at project intersections to determine whether the project would result in unacceptable levels of service intersections affected by the project. The RPMP project would generate approximately 4,170 daily trips with 620 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 600 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Table 3-10 and Figure 3-4 display the intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours under “existing plus project” conditions, at existing intersections and new intersections that would be created by the project.

Table 3-10 Intersection Operations – Existing Plus Project Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Existing Existing Plus

Project Existing Existing Plus

Project

Location Traffic Control Delayb LOS Delayb LOS Delayb LOS Delayb LOS

Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps TWSCa 13.8/21.8 B/C >50.0/>50.0 F/F 10.4/46.6 B/E 33.6/>50.0 D/F

Old Davis Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps TWSC 11.8/24.3 B/C 43.9/>50.0 E/F 1.9/15.4 A/C 6.9/50.0 A/F

Old Davis Road/California Avenue TWSC 14.4/>50.0 B/F 16.3/>50.0 C/F 9.2/25.8 A/C 10.0/33.0 A/D

Old Davis Road/Research Park (North) TWSC - - 2.4/28.5 A/D - - 2.4/28.5 A/D

Old Davis Road/Research Park (South) TWSC - - 1.1/10.4 A/B - - 7.2/13.4 A/Ba TWSC = Two-way stop controlled intersection. b Results shown in average overall intersection delay & LOS / delay & LOS for critical movement. Shaded boxes indicate project impacts. Source: Fehr and Peers Associates 2003.

As shown in Table 3-10, the addition of traffic from the RPMP Project would cause the operation of the Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps intersection to deteriorate from LOS B to LOS F during the AM peak hour, resulting in a significant impact. The mitigation measure to reduce this impact is identified below.

• Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Davis Road and the I-80 Eastbound Ramps.

Volume III


The Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps intersection meets Caltrans’ peak hour traffic signal warrant for the AM peak hour. After implementation of the proposed mitigation, the Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps intersection would operate at an acceptable level (LOS B) during both peak periods.

As part of this mitigation measure, it is recommended that a traffic signal also be installed at the Old Davis Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps intersection due to the driver expectation that if one ramp terminal intersection is signalized, the other ramp terminal intersection will be signalized as well. The Old Davis Road/I-80 Westbound Ramp intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours with the installation of a traffic signal. Caltrans may require that a traffic signal be installed at the Old Davis Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps intersection for this reason, even though the intersection operates at an acceptable level of service and does not meet the peak hour volume warrant for a traffic signal.

Any improvement to Caltrans facilities requires the applicant to follow the Caltrans Project Development Process, which includes the preparation of a Project Study Report and a Project Report/Environmental Document. During this process, additional improvements or an improvement alternative may be selected for implementation.

As shown in Table 3-11, all freeway ramp junctions would operate acceptably in the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions, so no impact is identified for these junctions, and no mitigation is needed for these locations.

The implementation of the identified measures would reduce the project’s significant impact to a less-than-significant level.

Table 3-11 Ramp Junction Levels of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions

I-80/Old Davis Road Interchange

Mainline (VPH)a

On/Off- Ramp (VPH)a

Density (pc/mi/ln)b LOS

Location AM Peak Hour Westbound Off-Ramp 4,220 690 20.5 C Westbound On-Ramp 3,531 51 12.1 B

Eastbound Off-Ramp 3,956 325 20.4 C

Eastbound On-Ramp 4,206 103 2.1 A PM Peak Hour Westbound Off-Ramp 4,630 160 19.3 B Westbound On-Ramp 4,467 344 15.2 B Eastbound Off-Ramp 3,861 80 18.7 B Eastbound On-Ramp 4,522 560 6.2 A

a Vehicles per hour. b Passenger cars per mile per lane. Source: Fehr and Peers 2003.

* * *

GAR

RO

D D

R.

§̈¦80

·|}þ113

LA R

UE

RD

.

LA RUE RD.

3

DAI

RY

RD

.

OLD DAVIS RD.

BIO

LETT

I WY.

OLD

DAV

IS R

D.

NEW DAVIS RD.

4

2

1

5

North Site

South Site

MR

AK HALL D

R.

CAL

IFO

RN

IA A

VE.

Research Park Master Plan -Existing Plus Project Conditions

Figure 3-4

1 inch equals 650 feet

¹UC DavisLRDP EIR

28649327

Legend

- Study Intersections!(1

- AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumeXX (YY)

- Travel or Turn Lane

- Traffic Signal

- Stop Sign

- Research Park Master Plan

- Existing Roadway

- Future Roadway



RPMP Impact 3.4-21: Implementation of the RPMP would not cause unacceptable levels of service on roadways listed in the Yolo County and Solano County Congestion Management Plans.



The RPMP project would generate approximately 4,170 daily trips, with 620 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 600 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 3-11, the I-80/Old Davis Road ramp junctions, which are the only affected CMP facilities in the project area, would operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak hours with the implementation of the proposed RPMP Project. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a Congestion Management Plan impact, and no mitigation is required.

* * * RPMP Impact 3.4-22: Implementation of the RPMP would not create an additional

parking demand on campus facilities.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.14-3(a and b).

The RPMP Project includes 1,400 employees. Parking for employees and visitors would be provided on site, and campus parking facilities would not be used. No impact to campus parking facilities would occur.

* * *

3.4.15 Utilities

3.4.15.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.15 Utilities (Volume II) describes the existing utilities systems servicing the UC Davis campus, including the RPMP site. As described in Section 3.3.9, most of the utilities needed for the project, such as domestic water and wastewater, are available along Old Davis Road. In most cases, short connections would be adequate to serve the proposed level of development under the RPMP. With respect to a few services such as storm drainage, electricity to serve the southern parcel, and telecommunication for the northern parcel, longer connections or extensions would be needed.

3.4.15.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.15, Utilities, in (Volume II) for a discussion of the applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.15 (Volume II) for analytical methods relative to utilities.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Analysis at the LRDP level took into account the increased demand from all of the projected development

Volume III


under the 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, in the analysis of consumptive use of utilities under the 2003 LRDP. Adequate capacity is available or can be developed for all utilities. The environmental impacts of this development are addressed in Section 4.14. Specific impacts of utility extensions needed to serve the RPMP are discussed below.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RPMP Impact 3.4-23: Implementation of the RPMP would place a demand on campus

utilities which would not result in significant environmental impacts.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.8-5(a), 4.8-6(a), and 4.15-6(b) or an equivalent measure.

In compliance with LRDP Mitigations 4.15.1(a), 4.15-2(a), 4.15-3, 4.15-4, 4.15-6(a), 4.15-7(a), 4.15-8, and 4.15-9, the campus has evaluated the scale of development proposed under the RPMP for the demand it would place on campus utilities, including domestic water, utility water, storm drainage, landfill capacity, electrical system, wastewater collection and treatment system, natural gas transmission system, and telecommunications. Based on this evaluation, the campus has determined that the existing utility systems are adequate to handle the demand from the RPMP. To further reduce the demand placed by the RPMP development on water resources and the electrical system, the campus will require projects in the RPMP to implement LRDP Mitigations 4.8-5(a) and 4.8-6(a), and 4.15-6(b) or an equivalent measure.

Also based on this evaluation, the campus has determined that with the exception of three utility systems, the points of connection to campus utilities at or adjacent to the RPMP parcels are adequate to serve the proposed development. To serve the development on the RPMP northern parcel, offsite utility improvements that would be constructed include a storm drain outfall on the Arboretum, a duct bank in Old Davis Road to extend telecommunications from the southern parcel to the northern parcel, and a natural gas main from the core campus to the northern parcel along Old Davis Road. Offsite improvements to serve the southern parcel include a new storm drain (two alternate alignments are shown on Figure 3-2), a duct bank from the south campus substation to the site, and a natural gas line from the PG&E line (as shown on Figure 3-2). The environmental impacts from the construction of these offsite improvements are addressed under the other resource areas discussed above, and with the mitigation measures provided for those resources, have been determined to be less than significant.

* * *

3.5 ALTERNATIVES

CEQA requires an EIR to describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or alternatives to the location of the proposed project. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to disclose ways that most of the basic objectives of the proposed project could be attained while reducing or avoiding any significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. This process is intended to foster informed decision making and public participation in the environmental process.



CEQA Guidelines note that alternatives considered in the EIR should be feasible and should attain most of the basic project objectives. A two-step process was used to conduct the alternatives analysis in this EIR. As a first step, potential alternatives were examined for their feasibility and ability to meet most of the basic project objectives. Those that were found to be infeasible were rejected without further environmental review. Feasible alternatives that would attain most of the basic project objectives were carried forth and examined for their ability to reduce or avoid any significant impacts of the project. The alternatives considered but rejected are discussed in Section 3.5.1. The alternatives carried forward are discussed in Section 3.5.2.

The guiding project objective of the RPMP is to provide space on campus for a variety of private, public, and nonprofit organizations that have research affiliations with UC Davis.

Following are the specific RPMP objectives that will facilitate accomplishment of the guiding project objectives.

• Encourage appropriate research partnerships between UC Davis and private, public, or nonprofit organizations

• Expand the range of educational, internship, employment, and career opportunities in close proximity to the campus

• Increase the number, breadth, and diversity of professional researchers within the campus community

• Enhance support of University research and education programs

The analysis below presents the alternatives that were considered for the project. A No Project Alternative is also analyzed, as required by CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives were examined for their ability to reduce or avoid significant impacts of the project and to meet basic project objectives.

3.5.1 Alternatives Considered But Rejected This section discusses alternatives that were considered for the project but rejected because they would not meet most of the basic project objectives or were found to be infeasible.

3.5.1.1 City of Davis Business Park Site The City of Davis General Plan identified approximately 75 acres of land for a business park. It is located north of I-80 at the east end of Davis, west of Mace Boulevard, 3.5 miles from the campus. The land is currently used for agriculture.

The location of this site, 3.5 miles from the campus, would not be conducive to close working relationships with campus researchers or to enhancing education programs. The distinctive association between University and research programs would be weakened by the lack of close proximity, and the close ties between the academic and practical aspects of research would be more difficult to maintain.

Additionally, this alternative was rejected because the University’s research program has specific goals and directions, and the office and laboratory space that this program requires could not be guaranteed in a business park setting under non-University ownership. The University could not ensure that the appropriate University-related tenants would be accommodated.

Volume III


3.5.2 Alternatives Evaluated in Detail This section presents a qualitative evaluation of five project alternatives are considered potentially feasible and would meet most of the project’s basic objectives: (1) the North I-80 Site Only; (2) the South I-80 Site Only; (3) the South Entry Site; (4) Smaller Research Park; and (5) the Higher Density alternatives. The No Project Alternative is also evaluated. For each alternative a brief description is first presented, followed by an impact analysis and a summary comparison with the proposed project objectives. In the impact analysis, impacts to recreation are not addressed, as no project-specific recreation impacts were identified.

3.5.2.1 Alternative 1: North I-80 Site Only Description. This alternative assumes that development would occur only on the 11-acre RPMP project site north of I-80. The 2003 LRDP proposes to designate this parcel as Research Park–High Density. The North I-80 Site Only Alternative would provide the same development of the northern parcel as the proposed project but none of the development of the southern parcel. Thus, the alternative would include a population of about 400 research affiliates and the development of about 135,000 gsf of space, in one or two two-story buildings. The development would include the same 67,500 gsf of lab space as the northern component of the proposed project. The existing agricultural and horticultural uses on the south parcel’s teaching and research fields south of the freeway would continue, and there would be no intensification of uses on this parcel.

Impact Analysis Aesthetics. The North I-80 Site Only Alternative would reduce the less-than-significant aesthetic impacts of the proposed project, because there would be no development south of I-80. The northern parcel would still be seen by those exiting at Old Davis Road for I-80 east, but the existing agricultural views to the south would not be affected, and all trees would be retained. This alternative would keep development within the central campus, and would not affect the existing rural character of the south campus. Because the project site already is dominated by an elevated freeway, the visual impact of the proposed project would be less than significant (Section 3.4.1.2, Volume III). This also would be true of the alternative.

Agricultural Resources. The alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project’s development of the southern parcel on 27 acres of prime farmland, since this parcel would not be developed under the alternative. Since the northern parcel is not designated as prime farmland, development of the alternative at this site would have no impact on agricultural resources.

Air Quality. This alternative would construct the facilities only on the northern parcel. As shown in Table 3-4, the construction phase daily emissions from Phase I construction (Northern Parcel) would exceed YSAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, this alternative would also result in a significant air quality impact from construction activities. With respect to operational emissions, with the elimination of 70 percent of the vehicle trip emissions, and elimination of one large boiler and an emergency generator (all associated with the development of the southern parcel), operational emissions under this alternative would be below YSAQMD significance thresholds and the impact would be avoided.

Biological Resources. The alternative potentially would have reduced impacts upon Important trees, relative to the proposed project, since many of the project’s identified Important trees are



located in the project’s southern parcel. Because the two Heritage trees are on the northern parcel, and that parcel would be developed under this alternative, the significant and unavoidable impact associated with potential Heritage tree removal would not be avoided by this alternative. The alternative would likely have less potential for impacts to VELB since, of the 12 elderberry bushes identified for the project, only one is adjacent to the northern parcel. The alternative has similar potential to the proposed project to result in impacts upon raptor habitat or breeding success, because there are known nests and nesting habitat in the vicinity of the northern parcel. The alternative has the same potential as the proposed project to result in impacts to the northwestern pond turtle and to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., because development of the northern parcel would require construction of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum waterway.

Cultural Resources. The North I-80 Site Only alternative has similar potential to the proposed project to result in impacts to archaeological resources and human remains. There is no potential for construction on the north site to result in impacts to historic structures, since there are no structures on the site. The impacts of either the alternative or the proposed project would be less than significant after mitigation.

Geology and Soils. Both the alternative and the proposed project would be constructed on expansive soils, but because of the use of standard design measures on all projects that take such factors into account, potential risks to life or property would not result. The impact of either the proposed project or the alternative would be less than significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The alternative would have reduced potentially significant impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to potential risks to the public from the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, because approximately 70 percent less lab space that would use such materials would be developed under the alternative than under the proposed project. No other potentially significant impacts related to hazardous materials were identified.

Hydrology and Water Quality. No significant impacts to water quality were identified for the proposed project or the alternative. The North I-80 Site Only alternative would have a reduced impact on the deep and shallow/intermediate aquifers compared to the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning. The alternative would not develop the southern parcel, which would continue in its current agricultural and horticultural uses. Use of the northern parcel would not conflict with any adjacent land uses.

Noise. The North I-80 Site Only Alternative would have a reduced impact relative to the proposed project with respect to temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that would result from construction, because there would be 70 percent less construction under the alternative. The impact related to traffic noise would also be reduced.

Population and Housing. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project with respect to population and housing. The alternative would result in a 1,000-person reduction relative to the population of research affiliates projected in the 2003 LRDP.

Public Services. The alternative would reduce the less-than-significant impact of the proposed project with respect to an increased need for police and fire services, because population and building space that would require these services would be reduced by 70 percent.

Volume III


Transportation and Traffic. The alternative would affect the same intersections and roadways as the proposed project, but would have reduced traffic impacts relative to the proposed project because the amount of development and the trips generated by it would be reduced by about 70 percent. This reduction in traffic to the project site would avoid the one significant level of service impact of the proposed project at the Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound ramp intersection.

Utilities. The alternative would have reduced less-than-significant impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to requirements for new utilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. Use of the northern parcel under the alternative would require the construction of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum waterway, and a gas main from the core campus to Old Davis Road. The utilities that would have been required for construction on the southern parcel—and the impacts resulting from their construction—would not be associated with the alternative.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. This alternative would meet the project’s objectives but at a substantially smaller scale and lesser level than the proposed project, because the scope of development would be 70 percent smaller than the proposed project. The alternative would expand the range of educational, internship, employment, and career opportunities in close proximity to the campus over existing conditions, and would increase the number, breadth, and diversity of professional researchers within the campus community. The alternative would enhance support of University research and education programs, and bring new jobs and business to the region, in distinctive relationship to UC Davis. However, the alternative could be less attractive to business and researchers than the proposed project. The alternative site’s limited acreage would provide limited flexibility and limited potential expansion space, and the smaller development would accommodate only about 30 percent of the research population of the proposed project. These factors might make the development less attractive to researchers, and would afford fewer opportunities for students and university employees and for business and University collaboration, since fewer researchers and projects could be accommodated in the alternative development.

3.5.2.2 Alternative 2: South I-80 Site Only Description. Under the South I-80 Site Only Alternative, all of the Research Park uses would be located on the south side of I-80, on land currently designated as Teaching and Research Fields, and proposed to be designated as Research Park–High Density in the 2003 LRDP. Under this alternative, the parcel to the north of I-80 would continue under its 1994 LRDP land use designation as teaching and research fields and its existing use as horse pasture. The south parcel would be developed in the same uses as under the proposed project and would have a research affiliate population of about 1,000, with developed space of about 345,000 gsf in five or six two-story buildings and would contain about 115,000 square feet of laboratory space.

Impact Analysis

Aesthetics. Under the South I-80 Site Only Alternative, Research Park development would occur only on the 27-acre parcel south of I-80. This would reduce the project’s less-than significant visual impacts on the north side of I-80. People exiting I-80 to enter the central campus would retain views of the field and trees without obstruction. The character of the northern site would remain rural and would not be a source of any additional light or glare. Development on the southern parcel only would distance the development from the central campus and push the edge



of development to the south campus while leaving parts of the central campus as they are, thereby filling in the edges of campus before filling in the core.

Agricultural Resources. The alternative would result in the development of the 27-acre southern parcel, which is designated as prime farmland. This significant and unavoidable impact of the 2003 LRDP would be the same for the alternative as for the proposed project.

Air Quality. This alternative would include only about 70 percent of the development space and population of the proposed project. As shown in Table 3-4, if only Phase 2 (Southern parcel) were to be constructed, daily construction emissions would exceed YSAQMD thresholds and the impact would be significant. With respect to operational emissions, a reduction in vehicle trips, elimination of one boiler and an emergency generator would reduce operational emissions adequately to avoid the significant impact associated with the project.

Biological Resources. The alternative potentially would have somewhat reduced impacts upon Important trees, relative to the proposed project, since some of the project’s identified Important trees are located in the project’s northern parcel, which would not be developed under the alternative. Because the two affected Heritage trees are on the northern parcel, the significant impact would be avoided by this alternative. The alternative also would likely have slightly reduced impacts on VELB habitat, since one of the 12 elderberry shrubs identified for the project is adjacent to the northern parcel, which would not be affected by this alternative. The alternative may have reduced potential relative to the proposed project to result in impacts on raptor habitat or breeding success, because the majority of known nests and nesting habitat are in the vicinity of the northern parcel; however, the impact would not be completely avoided, as there are some nests within the range that potentially could be indirectly disturbed by activity in the southern parcel. The alternative would avoid the potential impact of the proposed project on the northwestern pond turtle and on jurisdictional waters of the U.S., because development of the southern parcel would not require construction of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum, or in any other location that is potential northwestern pond turtle habitat or jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

Cultural Resources. The South I-80 Site Only Alternative has somewhat reduced potential relative to the proposed project to result in potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources and human remains, because it does not include the northern parcel, which is closer to the area of high archaeological sensitivity along the historic channel of Putah Creek. Further, unlike the proposed project, the alternative would not require the construction of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum, which would be in an archaeologically sensitive area. In addition, no archaeological resources have been recorded previously in the vicinity of the south parcel, which further reduces its potential archaeological sensitivity. This alternative site has the same impact potential as the proposed project with respect to historic structures, as the single structure on the project site is on the southern parcel. As described for this proposed project, this structure does not appear to be historically or architecturally significant.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The alternative would have reduced impacts with respect to potential risks to the public from the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials, because

Volume III


less lab space that would use such materials would be developed under the alternative than under the proposed project. The impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation. No other potentially significant impacts related to hazardous materials were identified.

Hydrology and Water Quality. No significant impacts to water quality were identified for the proposed project or the alternative. The South I-80 Site Only Alternative would have a reduced impact on the deep and the shallow/intermediate aquifer, which would still be a significant and unavoidable impact.

Land Use and Planning. The alternative would not develop the northern parcel, which would continue in its current agricultural uses. Use of the southern site would not conflict with any adjacent land uses.

Noise. The alternative would have a reduced impact relative to the proposed project with respect to temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that would result from construction, because construction under the alternative would be reduced by 30 percent. The impact related to traffic noise would also be reduced.

Population and Housing. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project with respect to population and housing. The alternative would result in a 400-person reduction relative to the population of the proposed RPMP project.

Public Services. The South of I-80 Site Only Alternative would reduce the less-than-significant impact of the proposed project with respect to an increased need for police and fire services, because population and building space that would require these services would be reduced by 30 percent.

Transportation and Traffic. The South of I-80 Site Only Alternative would have reduced traffic impacts relative to the proposed project because the amount of development and the associated vehicle use/number of trips would be reduced by about 30 percent. The reduction in traffic with this alternative would not be adequate to reduce the one significant traffic impact of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level.

Utilities. The South of I-80 Site Only Alternative would have reduced less-than-significant impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to requirements for new utilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. Use of the southern parcel, under the alternative, would require the construction of a new storm drain, a duct bank from the south campus substation to the site, and a natural gas line from the PG&E line. The utilities that would have been required for development of the northern parcel—and the impacts that might result from their construction—would not be required for this alternative.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. This alternative would meet the project’s objectives, but at a smaller scale and lesser level than the proposed project, because the scope of development would be 30 percent smaller than the proposed project. The alternative would expand the range of educational, internship, employment, and career opportunities in close proximity to the campus. Although the site is slightly removed from the main campus, it is easily accessible to the central core, where most academic activities take place. However, development on only the southern parcel would distance the development from the central campus and push the edge of development to the south campus while leaving parts of the central campus as they are, thereby filling in the edges of campus before filling in the core. The project would



substantially increase the number, breadth, and diversity of professional researchers within the campus community. The alternative would enhance support of University research and education programs, and bring new jobs and businesses to the UC Davis region.

The reduced size of the alternative site relative to the proposed project overall would somewhat limit flexibility and potential expansion space under the alternative, which could be factors in attracting development partners. The smaller development would accommodate only about 70 percent of the research population of the proposed project. Because of these factors, the alternative would afford fewer research opportunities for students and University employees, and for business and University collaboration. Some opportunities to encourage research partnerships would be unavailable due to lack of facilities, since fewer researchers and projects could be accommodated in the alternative development. The project objectives would not be fully realized.

3.5.2.3 Alternative 3: South Entry Site Description. Alternative 3 proposes to locate the facilities proposed in the RPMP on the South Entry Site. This 25-acre parcel is located at the south entry to the central campus, east of the Old Davis Road exit from I-80 north, between Old Davis Road on the north and I-80 on the south. The Arboretum flanks the parcel on the north, north of Old Davis Road. The south entry parcel currently is used for grain crop production. It was designated under the 1994 LRDP as teaching and research fields, and is proposed under the 2003 LRDP to be divided among open space teaching and research, teaching and research fields, and high-density academic and administrative uses.

Under this alternative, all of the 480,000 gsf of development and 1,400 research affiliate population associated with the proposed project would be located on the South Entry Site. Because the parcel is smaller than the proposed project sites in total (25 acres as compared with a total of 38 acres for the northern and southern parcels of the proposed project), more coverage of the parcel with buildings or higher buildings would be needed at the alternative site than on either the northern or the southern parcel of the proposed project to accommodate the full building space of the proposed development. For example, the development at the South Entry Site could be configured as five or six two-story buildings and one or two two-story buildings, with a total footprint of about 5 acres, excluding landscaping and parking. Under the South Entry Site Alternative, both the northern and southern parcels would remain in their existing agricultural and horticultural uses. The current research and teaching field uses of the South Entry site would be relocated elsewhere on campus, possibly to Russell Ranch.

Impact Analysis Aesthetics. The South Entry Site Alternative would congregate the visual impact of the RPMP between Old Davis Road and the north side of I-80 at the south entry to the central campus, and would not alter the existing semirural character of either the northern or southern parcel of the proposed project. The visual character of the South Entry site would be altered from its current agricultural aspect to a fully developed and rather urban character and the change would be visually prominent.

Development on this alternative site would be more visible from I-80 and from the intersection of SR 113 and I-80 than development of the proposed project, because buildings and parking

Volume III


would be closer to the freeway and possibly of higher density than the proposed RPMP. The primary visual impact of the alternative would be in the moderately dense development of the campus entry area, which currently has an agricultural visual character. This alteration of the visual character of the campus entrance could detract visually from the agricultural ambience of the campus’ south entry.

Agricultural Resources. The alternative would result in the development of approximately 20 acres of designated prime farmland. This significant and unavoidable impact would be slightly less in magnitude than the impact of the proposed project, which would result in the loss of approximately 27 acres of prime farmland.

Air Quality. This alternative would include the same development space and population as the proposed project, and thus would have similar potential for impacts associated with operational emissions and short-term emissions during construction.

Biological Resources. The alternative would have reduced impacts on Important trees, relative to the proposed project, since the site has been developed as cropland and does not contain such trees. The South Entry Site does not include any elderberry shrubs (Whisler 2003), and thus would have a reduced impact to VELB habitat relative to the proposed project, since the proposed project site includes a number of elderberry shrubs. This alternative also has a potential to result in impacts on raptor nesting habitat or breeding success, because there are known nests and nesting habitat in the vicinity, but the number of affected nests would be lower under this alternative. The alternative would remove cropland, a habitat type on campus that provides foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk and other wildlife. The alternative would not result in approximately the same impacts to the northwestern pond turtle and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. because the alternative would also require construction of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum waterway.

Cultural Resources. The South Entry Site Alternative has similar or slightly increased potential compared to the proposed project to result in potentially significant impacts with respect to archaeological resources and human remains. Like the northern parcel of the proposed project, the South Entry Site lies within the area near the historic channel of Putah Creek that is considered to have highest archaeological potential. Furthermore, the South Entry Site is closer to known prehistoric archaeological sites than is either the northern or the southern parcel of the proposed project. And like the proposed project, use of the South Entry Site would require the construction of a new storm drain outfall in the archaeologically sensitive area along the Arboretum waterway. Unlike the proposed project, the alternative has no potential to result in impacts to structures that potentially could be historic, since there are no structures on the site. The impacts of the alternative and the proposed project would be less than significant after mitigation.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The alternative would have similar impacts with respect to potential risks to the public from the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials. Like the proposed project sites, the South Entry site has long been under agricultural uses and appears likely to have minimal risk with respect to human exposure to contaminated soils or



groundwater. No other potentially significant impacts related to hazardous materials were identified.

Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be the same as those under the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning. The South Entry Site is designated under the 1994 LRDP as teaching and research fields and currently is used for growing crops. The parcel is proposed for designation under the 2003 LRDP for three types of use: high density academic and administrative uses along I-80, open space teaching and research immediately east of the Old Davis Road exit, and teaching and research fields along Old Davis Road. To implement this alternative, the land would be designated as Research Park–High Density. The alternative would not be incompatible with existing and proposed adjacent land uses, including the proposed RMI project. The proposed RPMP sites would be maintained in their current uses as agricultural, horticultural, and pasture lands.

Noise. Construction on the alternative site would have a similar or potentially greater impact relative to the proposed project with respect to temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to construction activities. Traffic-related noise impact would be similar. Similar to the proposed project, there are no noise-sensitive land uses near this alternate site.

Population and Housing. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project with respect to population and housing. The population associated with the alternative would be the same as projected under the 2003 LRDP.

Public Services. The alternative would have the same less-than-significant impact of the proposed project with respect to an increased need for police and fire services.

Transportation and Traffic. The alternative’s impact from traffic would be similar to the proposed project, because the alternative would have the same population and the same amount of development, and the same access routes and intersections would be affected. The one significant level of service impact of the proposed project would not be avoided or reduced by this alternative.

Utilities. The alternative would have reduced less-than-significant impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to requirements for new utilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. The utility requirements associated with the alternative would be reduced because the alternative site is closer to the central campus, and could be served by other upcoming improvements in that area. The new duct banks and storm drain that would have been required for development of the proposed project—and the impacts associated with their construction—would not be associated with the alternative. However, the alternative likely would require construction of a new sanitary lift station if it were developed before the completion of wastewater improvements proposed to serve the RMI Project.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. The South Entry Site Alternative would allow the University to meet many of the project objectives, including expansion of educational, internship, employment, and career opportunities in close proximity to the central campus, provision of opportunities for research partnerships, and bringing new jobs to the campus area. Its location on the central campus would add to the dynamic learning environment and would

Volume III


also strengthen campus land use, open space, and transportation patterns, by building on the central core of the campus.

The somewhat smaller acreage of this parcel, compared to the proposed project, potentially would require some reduction in the size of planned buildings or the proportion of open space to buildings. Depending on final planning of building space, in the event that building space is somewhat reduced compared to the proposed project, the alternative might not fully achieve the project’s objective of increasing the number, breadth, and diversity of professional researchers within the campus community.

3.5.2.4 Alternative 4: Smaller Research Park Description. Alternative 4 proposes a Smaller Research Park than the proposed project, to be located on the proposed RPMP’s 27-acre southern parcel south of I-80 with no construction on the 11-acre northern parcel. Under the Smaller Research Park Alternative, a reduced research affiliate population of about 700 would be associated with total development of about 240,000 gsf, or about half the size of the proposed project. This development could be accommodated in about four two-story buildings (each about 60,000 gsf) or two two-story buildings (each about 120,000 gsf). Because the amount of space developed under the alternative would be about 50 percent smaller than the development of the southern parcel under the proposed project, development would use a smaller part of the parcel and would provide as much as 50 percent more open space on the parcel than the proposed project.

Impact Analysis Aesthetics. Under the Smaller Research Park Alternative, only half the square footage of the proposed project would be developed on the parcel south of I-80. This would lessen the project’s already less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas. Although there would still be a change in character of the southern parcel, the change would not be as dramatic as the proposed RPMP project and the site would retain more trees and other aspects of its existing rural character. Impacts of light and glare would also be reduced relative to the proposed project.

Agricultural Resources. This alternative would result in the same significant unavoidable impact as the proposed project on prime farmland, as both would use the same 27-acre parcel south of I-80. Because the area of the development would be smaller than under the proposed project, a smaller area of the parcel would be developed, reducing the direct impact from conversion of prime farmland. However, the undeveloped part of the parcel probably would not be farmed, therefore the impact would be effectively the same as under the proposed project.

Air Quality. This alternative would include only about 50 percent of the development space and population of the proposed project. This reduction would likely be adequate to avoid the project’s significant air quality impacts from construction activities and operations following completion of construction.

Biological Resources. The alternative potentially would have reduced impacts upon Important trees, relative to the proposed project, since its footprint would be smaller, and could be designed to avoid removal of trees. Because construction would be limited to the southern parcel, the significant impact to the two Heritage trees on the northern parcel would be avoided. The smaller footprint of the alternative also would likely have less potential for impacts to VELB habitat, since the reduced footprint would make it easier to avoid elderberry shrubs. The



alternative has somewhat reduced potential relative to the proposed project to result in impacts upon raptor habitat or breeding success, because the known nests and nesting habitat in the project vicinity are closer to the northern parcel, which would not be used. The alternative would eliminate the impacts of the proposed project with respect to the northwestern pond turtle and to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., because the development of the northern parcel, which would require construction of a storm drain outfall at the Arboretum waterway would be eliminated.

Cultural Resources. The Smaller Research Park Alternative has somewhat reduced potential than the proposed project to result in potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources and human remains, because the alternative does not include the northern parcel, which is closer to the area of high archaeological sensitivity along the historic channel of Putah Creek. Further, unlike the proposed project, the alternative would not require the construction of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum, which is likely to be an archaeologically sensitive area. In addition, no archaeological resources have been recorded previously in the vicinity of the southern parcel, which further reduces its potential archaeological sensitivity; and the overall footprint of land that would have to disturbed on the southern parcel is smaller than under the proposed project, so the potential for impacts is reduced. This alternative has the same impact potential as the proposed project with respect to historic structures, as the single structure on the project site is on the southern parcel. However, this structure does not appear to be historically or architecturally significant.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The impacts of the project with respect to potential risk to the public from the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials would be reduced under the alternative project, because approximately 50 percent less lab space that would use such materials would be developed under the alternative. No other potentially significant impacts related to hazardous materials were identified.

Hydrology and Water Quality. No significant impacts to water quality were identified for the proposed project or the alternative. The alternative would result in smaller areas of impervious surface and would require less extensive soil disturbance than the proposed project. The impact on the deep and the shallow/intermediate aquifers would be reduced compared to the proposed project, but would still be a significant and unavoidable impact.

Land Use and Planning. Under the alternative, the southern parcel would be developed in a manner consistent with both the 1994 LRDP and the proposed land use designation under the 2003 LRDP. The northern parcel would remain under its existing agricultural uses. This development would not conflict with adjacent land uses.

Noise. Construction of the alternative would have reduced impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, because only the southern parcel would be affected and total construction would be reduced relative to the proposed project. Operational noise impacts would also be relatively reduced.

Volume III


Population and Housing. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project with respect to population and housing. The alternative would result in a 700-person reduction relative to the population of research affiliates projected in the 2003 LRDP.

Public Services. The Smaller Research Park Alternative would reduce the less-than-significant impact of the proposed project with respect to an increased need for police and fire services, because population and building space that would require these services would be reduced by 50 percent.

Transportation and Traffic. The traffic impacts of the alternative would be reduced relative to the impacts of the proposed project, because the population and development and the trips they would generate would be reduced by about 50 percent. The same roadways and intersections would be affected. The reduction in vehicle trips would be adequate to avoid the one significant level of service impact of the proposed project at the Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound ramp.

Utilities. The Smaller Research Park alternative would have reduced less-than-significant impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to requirements for new utilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. Use of the southern parcel under this alternative would require the construction of a new storm drain, a duct bank from the south campus substation to the site, and a natural gas line from the PG&E line. Construction of these utilities could result in impacts to biological and cultural resources, that could be reduced to less-than-significant levels through mitigation included in the proposed project. The utilities that would have been required for development of the northern parcel—and the impacts that might result from their construction, in particular with construction of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum—would not be required by this alternative.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. Because the scope of the development would be reduced by 50 percent, this alternative would only partially meet objectives of the RPMP. The capacity of the alternative to increase the number, breadth, and diversity of professional researchers within the campus community, and to expand the range of educational, internship, employment, and career opportunities in close proximity to the campus, would be substantially reduced relative to the proposed project.

The location of the Research Park to the south of I-80 without intervening development somewhat separates the site from the central campus, which is not consistent with the university’s goal of maintaining a compact academic core. However, the provision of access from the Old Davis Road, including a bike path connection from the I-80 bike path to the proposed development, would meet the LRDP’s objective to maximize transit, bike, and pedestrian access to the central campus, would compensate to some extent for the relatively less convenient location.

By reducing the proposed size of the Research Park by half, the RPMP objective of promoting regional economic development by bringing new jobs and business to the region would not be fully realized. This alternative would expand the existing opportunities for research partnerships between UC Davis and private, public, or nonprofit organizations, but not to the extent outlined in the proposed RPMP.



3.5.2.5 Alternative 5: Higher Density Description. Alternative 5 would use both of the proposed sites north and south of I-80 and would include the same components, space, and population as the proposed project. However, under this alternative, facilities would be developed at higher density within a smaller footprint than the proposed project. Higher density and smaller footprint would be achieved through the development of four-story buildings (in contrast with the two-and two-story structure of the proposed project) and of parking structures rather than surface parking. Two three-story buildings on the north parcel could provide 135,000 gsf of building space in less than 1 acre, excluding landscaping, parking and circulation. Six four-story buildings on the south parcel could provide 345,000 gsf of building space in as little as 2 acres, excluding landscaping parking and circulation.

Impact Analysis Aesthetics. The Higher Density Alternative would develop the proposed sites in higher buildings than the proposed project, but with a smaller overall project footprint on each parcel. Rather than one to two two-story buildings on the northern parcel, the same space could be provided by one to two four-story buildings, thereby reducing the footprint of the project. On the southern parcel, the proposed five to six two-story buildings could be replaced by two to three four-story buildings, for half the proposed building footprint. Parking structures, which possibly could in part be accommodated under the buildings, would replace surface parking lots, with similar space savings. The taller buildings of the alternative would be more visible from I-80 and SR 113 than would the proposed project, but would not be highly obtrusive, since they still would not exceed four stories. The taller buildings would be balanced by more extensive landscaped areas and larger open space. The visual impacts of this alternative would be slightly greater than the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project, but would be less than significant.

Agricultural Resources. This alternative would result in the same significant unavoidable impact as the proposed project on prime farmland, as both would use the same 27-acre parcel south of I-80. Because the footprint of the development on the parcel would be smaller than under the proposed project, a smaller area of the parcel would be developed; however, the undeveloped part of the parcel probably would not be farmed.

Air Quality. Development of the Higher Density Alternative would include all of the space and population of the proposed project, and thus would have similar impacts to the proposed project with respect to impacts from operation emissions. Short-term emissions of PM10 during construction would be reduced to the extent that the reduction in project footprint decreased the amount of excavation and grading required for construction of the project. However, although the buildings and parking areas developed under the alternative would have smaller footprints than under the proposed project, grading and excavation would be required for parking structures, that likely would produce more fugitive dust than the construction of parking lots under the proposed project.

Biological Resources. The alternative potentially would have reduced impacts upon Important trees, relative to the proposed project, since the project footprint would be smaller. With the smaller footprint, it would be possible to avoid the significant impact associated with the removal of the two Heritage trees on the northern parcel. The smaller footprint of the alternative also would likely have less potential for impacts to VELB habitat, since it might be easier to avoid elderberry shrubs with the reduced footprint. The alternative has similar potential to the

Volume III


proposed project to result in impacts upon raptor habitat or breeding success, because there are known nests and nesting habitat in the project vicinity, and the same sites would be used. The alternative also has the same potential as the proposed project to result in impacts to the northwestern pond turtle and to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., because development of the northern parcel would require construction of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum waterway.

Cultural Resources. The Higher Density Alternative has similar or reduced potential compared to the proposed project to result in potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources and historic buildings, because the footprint of development would be reduced relative to the proposed project. These impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels under either the proposed project or the alternative through the application of mitigation measures.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The alternative would have the same potential for impacts with respect to risks to the public from the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, because the same amount of lab space that would use such materials would be developed. No other potentially significant impacts related to hazardous materials were identified.

Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality from this alternative would be similar to those from the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning. The alternative would develop both parcels, though with higher buildings in smaller footprints. This would be consistent with both the 1994 LRDP and the proposed land use designations. Use of the sites would not conflict with adjacent land uses.

Noise. Construction of the alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed project with respect to temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, because the same amount of space would be developed on the same parcels. To the extent that project-related grading would be reduced because of reduced project footprint, construction noise from grading would be reduced, but the duration of noise related to building erection could be increased under the alternative, as higher buildings would be built. The traffic-related operational noise impact would be similar to that under the proposed project.

Population and Housing. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project with respect to population and housing. The same population of 1,400 UC affiliates would be associated with the alternative as with the proposed project.

Public Services. The Higher Density Alternative would result in the same less-than-significant impact as the proposed project with respect to an increased need for police and fire services, because the same population and building space would be associated with both.

Transportation and Traffic. The traffic impacts of the alternative would be the same as those of the proposed project, as the associated population and development space would be the same for both.

Utilities. The alternative would have the same less-than-significant impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to requirements for new utilities, the construction of which could



result in significant environmental effects. The alternative would have the same population and would develop the same amount of building space on the same sites, as the proposed project, and thus would require the construction of the same new utilities.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. The content of the RPMP would be maintained in this alternative and would include all the proposed components but in a higher density configuration. This alternative would provide the same research facilities as the proposed RPMP. There would no reduction in the scope of the programs proposed in the RPMP, and no reduction in the number of employees to carry out the research projects. The alternative thus would encourage appropriate research partnerships between UC Davis and private, public, or nonprofit organizations to the same extent as the proposed project. The alternative also would increase the number, breadth, and diversity of professional researchers within the campus community to the same extent as the proposed project. The smaller footprint of the Higher Density Alternative would also help preserve surrounding open space and provide compact and clustered new development.

3.5.2.6 Alternative 6: No Project Description. Under the No Project Alternative, the RPMP project would not be built on campus. Campus population would be reduced by 1,400 relative to the 2003 LRDP projections, and projected building space would be reduced by about 480,000 gsf. The existing agricultural and horticultural uses on the northern and southern parcels proposed for the Research Park would continue, and the projects that would be a part of an expanded research program would not be undertaken. The 1994 LRDP land use designations of the parcels as Enterprise Reserve would be converted to the Research Park designation, as proposed under the 2003 LRDP, as provision for future needs beyond 2015.

Impact Analysis Aesthetics. Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed RPMP’s less-than-significant impacts to scenic vistas and the visual character of the site and its surroundings would be eliminated. The proposed site would retain its existing visual character. Under the No Project Alternative, the site would not be a potential source of light or glare in this area of campus.

Agricultural Resources. The No Project Alternative would reduce the significant unavoidable impact on prime farmland, identified in the 2003 LRDP, by 27 acres relative to the proposed project.

Air Quality. The No Project Alternative would avoid the proposed project’s significant air quality impacts from operational emissions and also would eliminate the project’s significant impacts with respect to short-term emissions during construction.

Biological Resources. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the potential impacts of the proposed project upon Important trees, VELB habitat, raptor habitat or breeding success, the northwestern pond turtle, and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Most of these potential impacts of the proposed project could be reduced to less-than-significant levels through mitigation, but if the proposed project resulted in the removal of Heritage trees, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Volume III


Cultural Resources. The No Project Alternative would have reduced potential relative to the proposed project to result in impacts upon cultural resources. Under the proposed project the existing agricultural uses of the project parcels would continue, and the building on the southern parcel would continue in use for farm maintenance activity. If archaeological materials are present subsurface on either site, ongoing periodic plowing could disturb or continue to disturb these materials, although the potential agricultural disturbance likely would be less substantial than that which might occur under the proposed project.

Geology and Soils. The proposed project would be constructed on expansive soils, but because of the use of standard design measures on all projects that take such factors into account, potential risks to life or property would not result, so the impact would be less than significant. This less-than-significant impact would be eliminated by the No Project Alternative.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project with respect to risks to the public and the environment from the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality. No significant impacts to water quality were identified for the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the new disturbance of soils and the new impervious surfaces that would be created by the proposed project. It would also eliminate the impact of the project on the deep and shallow/intermediate aquifers.

Land Use and Planning. The 2003 LRDP proposes to designate both parcels of the proposed project sites as Research Park–High Density. Under the No Project Alternative, both parcels would continue in their current agricultural and horticultural uses. This use would not conflict with any adjacent land uses, although it would not be consistent with existing or proposed land use designations.

Noise. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the potential noise impacts of the proposed project because construction would not take place. Agricultural noise associated with existing operations on the project sites would continue.

Population and Housing. If the No Project Alternative were adopted, the research affiliate population projected by the 2003 LRDP would be reduced by 1,400. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project with respect to population and housing.

Public Services. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the less-than-significant impact of the proposed project with respect to an increased need for police and fire services, because the population and building space of the proposed project would not be added to the campus.

Transportation and Traffic. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the traffic impacts of the proposed project because 480,000 gsf of development space would not be built, and the research affiliate population projected by the 2003 LRDP would be reduced by 1,400. The project sites would continue under agricultural uses, which have minimal ongoing effects to traffic conditions on the campus and in the region.

Utilities. For the No Project Alternative the parcels would remain under agricultural operations and would not require new utility development. No impacts would occur.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. Under the No Project Alternative, the academic programs that would be associated with the RPMP would not be initiated, and students would not have the expanded learning opportunities for internships, employment, or career opportunities in



close proximity to the campus that would be provided by the project. The planning objectives of increasing the number, breadth, and diversity of professional researchers within the campus community would not be achieved, and ability to attract outstanding faculty could be reduced. Without the expanded research programs, the University’s objective of enriching campus life and serving the greater community would be reduced, as would the ability to attract talented researchers and students. The contribution of the RPMP to the increased vitality and richness of core academic programs on campus would not be made. Further, the University’s ability to meet the LRDP objective of encouraging appropriate research partnerships between UC Davis and private, public, or nonprofit organizations would be reduced.

3.5.3 The Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. CEQA Section 15126(d)(2) requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify another alternative as environmentally superior.

Of the remaining alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative is Alternative 1, the North I-80 Site Only Alternative. The great majority of impacts identified for the proposed project and its alternatives are less than significant, or would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by the application of mitigation identified in this section. However, the proposed project would have significant and unavoidable impacts as the result of development of about 27 acres of prime farmland and by the potential damage or removal of Important trees. Alternative 1 potentially would reduce the magnitude of the identified significant and significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed RPMP upon Important trees, as there are fewer such trees on the site (although it would affect Heritage trees). It would eliminate the impact of the proposed development upon farmland, because the alternative site is not designated prime farmland.

3.6 REFERENCES California Department of Conservation. 2000. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,

Yolo County and Solano County, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.

EIP Associates. 1994. University of California Davis, Long Range Development Plan, 1994-2005, Environmental Impact Report, Public Review Draft-April 1994 Prepared for University of California Davis, Planning and Budget Office. April.

EIP Associates. 1998. 1997-98 Major Capital Improvements Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for UC Davis Office of Planning and Budget.

Fehr and Peers Associates. 2003. Research Park Master Plan Traffic and Circulation Study for the 2003 LRDP EIR. Prepared for UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning.

Frank R. Walker Company. 1999. Walker’s Building Estimator’s Reference Book, 26th edition.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 1997. Trip Generation.

Mezger. Skip. 2002. Memo report of the inventory and assessment. UC Davis. Grounds Division.

Volume III


Nadoloski, J. 1998. Archaeological Investigations for the West Campus Enterprise Reserve, Archaeological Investigations for the I-80 South Campus Enterprise Reserve, and Archaeological Investigation for the I-80 Central Campus Enterprise Reserve. Prepared for UC Davis Office of Planning and Research.

UC Davis. 2002. SEC Updated Utility Data. Office of Resource Management and Planning. December.

Whisler, John. 2003. Draft Results of the Special Status Species Survey for the Robert Mondavi Institute. May and Associates. Prepared for UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning.

3.0 research park master plan - uc davis: home · 3.0_researchpark.doc\12-oct-03\oak 3-18...

Documents