5.0 ROBERT MONDAVI INSTITUTE PROJECT

5.0 ROBERT MONDAVI INSTITUTE PROJECT

2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR 5-13 5.0_RMI.doc\13-OCT-03\OAK

5.3.3.1 The Academic Building The Academic Building would be a modern 3- or 4-story research and instruction building of 129,600 gsf (75,000 asf), which would be shared by the FS&T and the V&E departments, and would also serve as the headquarters for the Robert Mondavi Institute. Figure 5-2 presents elevations of the Academic Building. The Academic Building would house laboratories and offices, and would include a space on the ground floor for a 50-person, sensory teaching laboratory. Three-quarters of the space in the building would be dedicated to research and teaching laboratories designed for four branches of scientific research common to the V&E and FS&T departments: chemistry, microbiology, engineering, and sensory research. The remaining quarter of the space in the building would be used for faculty and administration offices, office support, and conference rooms. With the establishment of the RMI, the FS&T and the V&E departments would share space for increased efficiencies, and would be provided with opportunities to collaborate.

The facility would serve FS&T and V&E students and faculty who currently use Cruess Hall and the Enology Building. These older buildings would be vacated by the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and put to use by other departments, although specific future users and the type of future use have not been identified at this point. To ensure adequate maintenance, the vacated buildings would be retained as part of the campus inventory while vacant.

5.3.3.2 The Winery Building The two-story Winery Building is envisioned as an industry model for teaching, experimentation, and innovation in a state-of-the-art winemaking facility, primarily for the activities of the V&E Department. The intent in establishing this facility is to encourage industry professionals to observe and participate in the academic activities undertaken by the University. Public tours, observation, and tasting facilities would be included, to help educate the public about the UC Davis program. Phase 1 of the Winery Building would include 30,000 gsf (17,600 asf) dedicated to the teaching and research needs of the Viticulture and Enology Department. It would include facilities for grape crushing, aging, bottling and cellar spaces, laboratory demonstration space; and offices. Teaching laboratories for the department would be located within this building to capitalize on the proximity of the winery functions. Additional distillery and hospitality space are planned for Phase 2 of the Winery Building, which would add approximately 40,000 gsf (24,000 asf) to the facility.

5.3.3.3 The Laboratory Building

The Laboratory Building would primarily serve the FS&T Department. It would be designed to serve the needs of a changing field, with the ability to adapt to new projects, equipment, and future expansion over time. The 13,000 gsf (8,000 asf) Phase 1 facility would include processing and related support spaces for the study of brewing, dairy research, and flexible processing, as well as a demonstration Food Preparation Laboratory and Foods Theater. Phase 2 of the project would provide an additional 14,000 gsf (9,100 asf) for classrooms and a conference room, and would increase processing space.

Volume III

5.0_RMI.doc\13-OCT-03\OAK 5-14 University of California, Davis

5.3.3.4 Laboratories A total of approximately 107,000 gsf of laboratory space in the RMI Project would be distributed among the three buildings. The laboratory space planned for the RMI Project includes a combination of traditional research space and large-scale teaching/demonstration space. The proposed laboratory space includes microbiology, chemistry, and engineering/physical chemistry laboratories, sensory research laboratories, and support facilities that would include cold rooms, instrument and equipment rooms, dark room, growth-chamber, and air-filtered rooms.

The laboratory facility components would operate equipment and use materials that would require safety hoods to achieve appropriate room exhaust. These are expected to use a combination of chemical fume hoods, canopy hoods, biosafety cabinets, steam hoods, dust collection hoods for milling operations, carbon dioxide hoods for the fermentation rooms, snorkel exhausts, laminar flow hoods, or stove hoods. Most laboratories in the RMI would operate at Biosafety Level 1 or 2 (for more information on Biosafety levels, see Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials [Volume I]) and one laboratory would operate at Biosafety Level 3. In all buildings with laboratory facilities, primary and secondary biological barriers would be used to reduce or eliminate exposure of the laboratory environment and the outside environment to potentially hazardous agents. Primary barriers (biosafety cabinets) are designed to protect personnel and the laboratory environment from exposure to infectious agents in the few laboratories where these would be present. Facility design criteria provide secondary barriers as protection for personnel inside and outside the laboratory and for persons and animals in the outside environment. The project would comply with design specifications in CDC publication 93-8395 Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1999).

5.3.3.5 Wine Processing Facilities Equipment in the Winery Building would include numerous tanks with capacities up to 1,000 gallons, as well as forklifts, a crusher, and various other moveable equipment. Grapes would be delivered to the facility by trucks. Forklifts would be used to unload and stack the crates. Grape crushing, using a mechanical crusher, would take place on a concrete pad at the south side (rear) of the winery, on the side of the building facing the I-80 freeway. Crushing would take place for a total of about 20 hours per year, over a 20-day period (Waterhouse 2003).

5.3.3.6 Offices Office space in the Academic Building would be provided for academic faculty and administrative staff. Academic faculty would primarily have single-occupant offices; graduate students, visiting professors, and staff would use multiple-occupant offices. Conference rooms and the sensory teaching laboratory would serve both departments, and would be available for lectures or presentations when not in use for sensory classes.

Office and other support space would be a relatively minor component of the Winery and Laboratory buildings. However, office space might be included in a second-story addition to the Winery or Laboratory building during Phase 2 of project development.

west elevation

Robert Mondavi InstituteAcademic Building Elevations

Figure5-2

UC DavisLRDP EIR28649327

south elevation

C;/da

ta/A

rcMap

_pro

jects/L

RD

P_E

IR_

mon

davi_e

levatio

ns.m

xd 4-3

0-200

3

east elevation north elevation



5.3.4 Population As noted above, the Academic Building would house both the FS&T and the V&E departments. The building would include a total of approximately 45 faculty, 180 staff, and 225 students from both departments (see Table 5-4). Employees working in the Academic Building would also use the space in the Winery and the Laboratory buildings. At completion, the Winery and Laboratory buildings are expected to directly employ approximately 10 staff members each, not including other employees using the space. These staff would support the operations and functions within the Winery Building and the Laboratory Building. The total population for Phase 1 and 2 of the entire RMI Project is expected to be 45 faculty, 200 staff, and 225 students.

Table 5-4 Population of the Robert Mondavi Institute

Population Facility Faculty Staff Students Total

RMI Institute for Wine and Food Science 45 180 225 450 V&E Teaching and Research Winery 0 10 0 10 Anheuser-Busch Brewing and Food Science Laboratory 0 10 0 10

Total 45 200 225 470

5.3.5 Roadways, Access, and Parking I-80, which runs along the south edge of the RMI site, and Old Davis Road, the nearest freeway exit, provide the principal southern access to the UC Davis central campus. Access to RMI would be via the Old Davis Road exit. Old Davis Road curves east around the north edge of the RMI site on New Davis Road. Automobile drop off and tour bus parking would be provided at the east side of the RMI site from Beau Vine Lane. The existing South Entry Parking Structure and surface parking lots to the east of the site are considered sufficient for RMI parking needs, so only minimal parking would be provided on site. Students and faculty would enter the site from the central campus to the north. Pedestrian and bicycle approaches are available.

Service vehicles would approach RMI from the south, using parking lot access roads. Receiving and service drives would be shared by the facilities where possible. The Academic Building would have a low volume of deliveries of laboratory supplies, gas cylinders, and equipment. The Winery and Laboratory buildings would receive deliveries from large semi-trailers and tankers. Designated parking for seven campus service vehicles would be provided on site.

5.3.6 Other Project Design Features

5.3.6.1 Lighting Exterior lighting would be provided in accordance with the UC Davis Campus Standards and Design Guidelines. Pole lighting utilizing shielded and cutoff type fixtures with high-pressure sodium lamps would be used for parking and walkways. A photocell and automatic lighting control system would be used to turn lights on and off. Lighting would be designed to minimize light and glare.

Volume III


5.3.6.2 Sustainable Design Approach The campus encourages use of sustainable designs for all new campus buildings. Elements that would be incorporated in the design of all RMI buildings to the extent feasible include variable-air volume laboratory exhaust fans, natural ventilation, use of a renewable energy provider contract, day lighting, use of reclaimed water, waterless plumbing fixtures, photovoltaics, and fuel cells. Other sustainable development elements might include heat recovery for refrigeration, cogeneration, or natural gas-driven equipment; thermal storage ice-making; and incorporation of recycled or low-impact materials like recycled asphalt paving and high fly ash concrete in the buildings. The campus intends to seek LEED certification for the RMI buildings, but the desired level of LEED certification has not been determined. LEED designations are discussed in Section 3 Project Description (Volume I).

5.3.7 Public Services

5.3.7.1 Fire Protection Fire protection would be provided by the UC Davis Fire Department from the central campus fire station. Suitable smoke and fire detectors would be installed in all buildings. The installed fire alarm system would be compatible with the existing campus system and would tie in to the existing system. All buildings would be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. The campus’ existing main domestic water system has adequate capacity to serve the fire flow requirements of the project (UC Davis Architects and Engineers Office 2002).

5.3.7.2 Police Services Police services would be provided by the UC Davis Police Department from the central campus police station.

5.3.8 Utilities and Support Services The RMI Project includes sustainable development initiatives, which would be directed, in part, to the reduction of utility demand. For example, the project water demand would be reduced through the use of high-efficiency fixtures, capture of condensate from mechanical systems for reuse, and use of emerging technologies, such as waterless urinals. The project will be designed to take advantage of other available conservation technologies as well.

The RMI site is located near the perimeter of the central campus, on the south side of the Arboretum waterway, across the creek from most of the central campus facilities. This location isolates the project site from some components of the existing campus utility infrastructure. In particular, campus chilled water and steam lines currently do not cross the Arboretum waterway. New lines would be needed if the RMI facility were to be connected to the CHCP services.

The Center for the Arts District Utility Study (UC Davis Architects and Engineers Office 2002) considers options for bringing utilities to new developments planned and projected for the south side of the Arboretum, through infrastructure extensions, which would be phased to accommodate campus growth. Needed utilities would be brought to the boundary of the RMI site in Phase 1 of the development, so that RMI Phase 1 buildings could be connected. The Center



for the Arts Utility Study includes provisions for nine utility systems: chilled water, steam, electrical, natural gas, domestic water, utility water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, and telecommunications.

Table 5-5 shows the projected peak demands for each RMI utility. Points of connection and additional infrastructure for each utility are described in the following sections.

Table 5-5 RMI Projected Utility Demand

V&E Research Teaching

Winery Food Processing

Laboratory

RMI Wine and Food

Science (Academic Building) Phase 1: 30,000 gsf Phase 1: 13,000 gsf

Phase 1: 130,000 gsf Phase 2: 40,000 gsf Phase 2: 14,000 gsf Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Demand

Total Peak Demand

UTILITY Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Domestic water (gpm) 350 300 400 250 250 1,550 Utility water (gpm) 135 48 26 18 21 158 Sanitary sewer (gpd) 67,066 22,982 15,326 10,234 11,927 127,533 Storm drain (cfs) 1.3 0.46 0.25 0.17 0.2 2.38 Steam (lbs/hr) 8,099 3,861 2,115 1,412 1,646 17,133 Chilled water (tons) 820 297 162 108 126 1,513 Electricity (kVA) 1,224 566 310 207 241 2,548 Natural Gas (therms) 8.5 4.1 2.2 1.5 1.7 18 Telecom (voice/data NAMs) 223/267 68/81 37/44 25/30 29/35 382/457

5.3.8.1 Domestic Water Domestic water service (including water for fire suppression) for the RMI Project would be supplied from the campus domestic water main. A 14-inch domestic water line would be brought to the north edge of the RMI from a point of connection south of the Arboretum waterway, and east of the California Bridge crossing in Old Davis Road. The RMI Project would extend piping to individual buildings to meet project needs. A loop configuration, which would go around the margins of the site, is required to accommodate fire flow needs (UC Davis Architects and Engineers Office 2002). The water consumption for RMI Phase 1 is estimated to range from 40,000 to 86,000 gpd, and total RMI water consumption at build out of Phase 2 would range from 53,600 to 185,000 gpd. The Winery would use about 12,500 gpy for processing water (Waterhouse 2003). This is included within the overall water demand estimate. The campus has adequate domestic water capacity to serve the project. Domestic hot water would be produced via either a steam-to-hot-water heater or gas-fired hot water heaters within each facility. Domestic water would also be used to supply a Central Purified Water System, designed to satisfy present and future laboratory requirements. The level of water purity would be selected based on laboratory user requirements. Water would be purified by reverse osmosis, distillation, or deionization. Sprinklers would be installed in the RMI buildings for fire protection.

Volume III


5.3.8.2 Utility Water Landscaping at RMI would be designed to reduce irrigation water use through the use of native plants and drought-tolerant species, and through water-conservative design. Utility water would be used for irrigation as needed and would be supplied via a new line. The point of connection would be at the south end of the California Bridge. Utility water consumption by the RMI Project is estimated at 4.25 cfs. The campus has adequate utility water capacity to serve the RMI Project.

5.3.8.3 Wastewater The RMI Project incorporates strategies for wastewater reduction, including water recovery and reuse, in an effort to reduce wastewater production. Anticipated peak demand for wastewater treatment from Phase 1 of RMI is estimated to be 105,000 gpd. Peak demand at build out of Phase 2 is estimated to be 132,000 gpd. All wastewater from the RMI Project, including winery processing wastewater (about 12,000 gpy), would be treated at the campus Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Although the campus WWTP has sufficient capacity to treat wastewater from the project, the existing sanitary sewer main along La Rue Road on the central campus is insufficient to accommodate the projected load from RMI and other projects. In order to accommodate the RMI Project and other anticipated development in the South Entry area, the campus would need to either construct an updated sanitary sewer lift station on the central campus as a point of connection for the project, on the south side of the Arboretum and east of California Avenue, or a new sanitary sewer lift station north of the Arboretum waterway near La Rue Road. If the replacement lift station option is selected, sewer extension lines would connect north from the project site to the lift station. A new sewer main would then transport the sewage west to connect with a large sewer main located near the north-to-east curve in Old Davis Road. If the campus elects to construct a new lift station near La Rue Road west of California Avenue, sewer connections would be installed north from the project site under California Avenue to La Rue Road. From the new lift station, a new sewer main would be constructed to connect with the existing sewer main near the intersection of La Rue Road and Putah Creek Lodge Drive. Figure 5-3 shows the alignment of the sanitary sewers that would serve the project. The RMI Project would construct feeder lines to tie-in to the South Entry Parking structure connection to serve each of the RMI buildings.

5.3.8.4 Storm Water

The RMI Project incorporates strategies to reduce the potential impacts of storm water from the project on receiving waters. These potentially would include the capture of site storm water using bio-filtration (bioswales, constructed wetlands); or storm water storage in a cistern for reuse; and thorough filtering before sending into storm water system. “Green” design elements, such as reduction of footprint and of impervious surfaces, will also be incorporated where possible.

Peak storm water production from the RMI Project at the completion of Phase 2 is estimated to be approximately 2.5 cubic feet per second. The proposed point of connection to the storm drain system for RMI is the Arboretum waterway. The existing Arboretum pumps have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. New underground storm drain piping would be installed from the project site either north along the west side of California Avenue to the Arboretum

ELECTRICALOPTION 2 LA RUE RD.

ARBORETUM

OLD DAVIS RD.

Robert Mondavi Institute UtilitiesStorm Drain, Sanitary Sewer

and Natural Gas

Figure5-3

1 inch equals 350 feetUC DavisLRDP EIR

28649327

LegendRMI Offsite Utilities

Natural GasSanitary SewerStorm Drain

0 350 700175Feet

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_5

-3_

RM

I_of

fsite

_ut

ilitie

s_in

fras

tru

ctu

re.m

xd D

ate

: 10

/9/2

003

10:

49:5

5 A

M N

am

e: D

TW

ood



waterway or west for approximately ¼ mile and north to the Arboretum waterway (Figure 5-3). At the Arboretum waterway, the pipe would terminate approximately 10 feet above the water level. A small cement or rock-lined channel would be constructed down to the water line to help dissipate the energy of the flowing water and prevent erosion of the bank.

5.3.8.5 Telecommunications A total of about 380 voice network access modules (NAM) and 460 data NAMs are projected for Phases 1 and 2 of the RMI Project. The RMI facilities would be connected to the existing central campus data/telecommunications loop via an existing point of connection a short distance north of the building in New Davis Road. Capacity is available to accommodate the projected communications load, but central electronics modifications would be required.

5.3.8.6 Electricity The campus can provide electrical capacity to serve both phases of the RMI Project, by recircuiting and rearranging existing electrical loads in the South Entry area. Electrical capacity is available to serve Phase 1 and about 50 percent of Phase 2 of the project if the RMI is not connected to the CHCP. An existing 12kV underground electrical main extends the length of the RMI site, along its northwestern edge. This line would not be disturbed by RMI construction, and would provide a point of connection for the RMI Project near the northwestern corner of the South Entry parking lot.

RMI project design would incorporate sustainable development features to reduce energy use. These would include use of exterior shade, high-efficiency glazing, a displacement ventilation system, use of task-specific lighting to allow reduction of ambient lighting requirements, solar water heaters, daylighting where appropriate, and zoning of offices to allow operable windows and natural ventilation where possible.

Emergency electrical generation would be provided as needed by a radiator-cooled, diesel-fired standby engine generator located in the service yard of the Academic Building and a second diesel-fired standby generator located near the Winery. These would supply power in the event of failure of the normal power source.

5.3.8.7 Natural Gas Natural gas would be required for distribution throughout the laboratories and support spaces as a laboratory utility. Gas would be distributed to laboratories throughout the building at low pressure. Specialty gases would be provided to RMI facilities from cylinders located in the laboratory support space nearest the laboratory requiring the gas. Two options for providing adequate natural gas to the project sites are being evaluated and one option will be selected during the final design phase.

A point of connection to the campus natural gas system is located north of the Arboretum waterway and south of the Cole Facility. Underground gas service would be constructed from this point or from La Rue Road at the Biolleti Road intersection. Alternatively, the project could be served by PG&E via a connection with a PG&E main across the railroad tracks southeast of the South Entry area. In order to use this source, the project would require a new 3-inch pipeline

Volume III


from the PG&E main to the RMI property line. A new PG&E meter also would be required for RMI service.

5.3.8.8 Chilled Water and Steam Chilled water is used for cooling and laboratory purposes on campus. Steam is used for heating, domestic hot water, humidifiers and autoclaves, and other purposes in each building. The Laboratory and Winery buildings would be provided with a chilled water piping system dedicated to the processing equipment. Dedicated steam generators would be installed for food processing utility tanks (for culinary steam) and for process steam for the Laboratory and Winery buildings.

The campus CHCP provides steam and chilled water throughout the central campus, but the existing chilled water and steam service does not at present cross the Arboretum waterway to serve development in the South Entry area. The RMI Project will require the campus to bring these utilities from the existing services on the central campus to the proposed development site.

The potential environmental impacts of the Chilled Water Facility Expansion Project are evaluated in Section 6 (Volume III). That project would extend chilled water and steam supply infrastructure under the Arboretum to the intersection of New Davis Road and Beau Vine Lane. The RMI connection to chilled water and steam would occur at the intersection of New Davis Road and Beau Vine Lane.

The Academic Building has an estimated cooling load of 820 tons. The Phase 1 and 2 Winery has an estimated cooling load of 200 tons, and the Laboratory, 80 tons.

5.3.8.9 Hazardous Waste The Academic Building would have chemical storerooms, one for each department located in the building, as well as one solvent storage room. A cylinder storage area would be provided on the loading dock. The Winery Building and Laboratory Building would also store chemicals and solvents. Chemical and biological waste would be picked up by the EH&S and disposed of off-campus in accordance with state and federal requirements.

A separate drainage and vent system constructed of acid-resistant materials would be provided for the disposal of all laboratory wastes from the RMI. Air from the laboratory fume hoods and other containment apparatus would be routed through the building roof to vent to the atmosphere and would be kept separate from the sanitary system vent piping. A ground-mounted acid neutralization tank would be provided outside of each building to collect and neutralize laboratory waste upstream of the laboratory’s tie-in to the building sanitary waste system. Provisions would be made in the design of the laboratories for hazardous waste disposal. Hazardous waste, including any biohazardous waste, would be collected and disposed of per UC Davis EH&S guidelines.

5.3.8.10 Solid Waste Solid waste from the RMI Project, including biomass from food and wine production, would be managed for source reduction, and would be diverted from the landfill into salvage or recycling to the extent possible. UC Davis provides solid waste collection and recycling services for the



campus. All nonrecycled and nonhazardous solid wastes collected on campus are disposed of at the campus-owned and operated Class III sanitary landfill on west campus, west of County Road 98 and north of Putah Creek. The permitted capacity of the landfill is 500 tons per day. The RMI is considered part of the growth evaluated in the 20003 LRDP EIR analysis. At the projected rate of disposal for the 2003 LRDP, the landfill has adequate capacity through 2023 or 2027.

5.3.9 Construction

5.3.9.1 Activities and Schedule The RMI Project would be built in two phases. Phase 1, to be completed by 2007, would consist of construction of the entire Academic Building, a portion of the Winery Building, and a portion the Laboratory Building. The Winery and the Laboratory buildings would be expanded during Phase 2. This would occur as funding became available, and could start as early as 2005 if private funds were donated. At present, Phase 2 construction is anticipated to begin some time after 2010 and to be completed within the 2003 LRDP planning period. Duration of construction of the Academic Building is expected to be about 32 months. Phase 1 of the Winery could be completed in 24 months and Phase 1 of the Laboratory in 18 months. The timing of Phase 2 construction has not yet been determined. More detail on phasing is provided in the description of individual facility components.

Ultimately, a greenhouse and a large area of outdoor landscaped area with space for a demonstration vineyard or other agriculturally related landscaped areas might be added to the facility as a separate project.

5.3.10 Permits and Approvals

5.3.10.1 University of California In conjunction with the consideration of approval of the 2003 LRDP but as a separate action item, The Regents will consider the approval of the RMI Project. It is anticipated that this EIR will serve as the project-level environmental document for this project, unless changes in the plan, changes in circumstances, or new information warrant additional environmental review. Permitting and other regulatory considerations applicable to the RMI Project as well as to the campus overall are described in detail in Volume I of this EIR.

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

5.3.10.3 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) The RMI Project has the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to the Western burrowing owl, a State Species of Special Concern, and Swainson's hawk, listed by the state as Threatened.

Volume III


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 RMI construction activities that could result in the potential take of state listed species. The campus would also need a streambed alteration agreement with the CDFG for construction of a new storm water outfall on the Arboretum waterway.

5.3.10.4 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 related to 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 RWQCB. In addition, the project contractor would prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the proposed construction activities.

5.3.10.5 State Historic Preservation Office If other aspects of the project trigger federal permitting and review of the project, federal agency review could require compliance for the project with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. Through the NEPA process, the ACOE would consult with the SHPO to determine the federal project’s compliance with Section 106.

5.3.10.6 Other Approvals A variety of other permits and approvals from federal, state, and local agencies may be needed for aspects of the project, or for implementation of project mitigation. These may include encroachment permits and approvals for electricity, and other infrastructure providers for service and extension of facilities to the campus.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.4.1 Aesthetics

5.4.1.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.1 Aesthetics (Volume I) presents the aesthetics setting for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RMI Project site. The project site is located near the southern margin of the central campus, on the south side of New Davis Road just inside the south entrance to the campus. Old Davis Road, which exits I-80 a short distance southwest of the site, is the primary access point to the south part of the central campus. New Davis Road is a parallel feeder of Old Davis Road, built to serve the Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts. A visitor information booth is on the northern side of Old Davis Road, opposite and just west of the RMI site and the junction of Old and New Davis roads. The 3-acre RMI site is relatively flat and is currently planted in alfalfa. The campus’ Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, a parking structure, and surface parking areas are to the east of the site.



The RMI site can be seen from I-80, which is immediately to the south, and from Old and New Davis roads, immediately to the north of the site. Currently, views from I-80 across the RMI site (which are generally peripheral since the freeway parallels the campus) include agricultural fields and campus facilities in the foreground, the campus water tower showing above the trees along the Arboretum waterway and on clear days, an oblique view of the Coast Range in the background. The Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, which is adjacent to the site, is a visually prominent feature in the landscape. Views across the project site from Old Davis Road include the RMI site (currently an alfalfa field) in the immediate foreground, parking lots and a parking garage to the east, and the elevated I-80 freeway in the background.

The agricultural field that would be developed for the RMI Project presently forms part of the visual impression at the south entrance to campus. The visual impression in the foreground thus is somewhat pastoral, although the modern buildings and the freeway are visible in the background.

5.4.1.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.1 for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. As defined 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. The project site is not within a scenic viewshed from major viewing points, including westbound I-80. Therefore, scenic vistas would not be affected by the project and no further analysis is necessary.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-1: Implementation of the RMI Project would not substantially

degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Significance: Less than significant

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

The development of the RMI Project would affect a highly visible parcel at the south entrance to the campus. Since its establishment, UC Davis has strongly emphasized agricultural research, and has been characterized by an agricultural setting consistent with its mission, although the central campus, in particular, has become increasingly built up in the last four decades.

The project site is located in a prominent, gateway position within the South Entry District. Old Davis Road is a primary entry point to the central campus, and provides access from I-80 via the parallel New Davis Road to public functions at the Mondavi Center for Performing Arts. This parcel near the campus entry provides an initial visual impression of the campus for many

Volume III


viewers. Although landscaping around the RMI buildings would soften the impression, the development of the RMI Project would alter the visual character of this campus entrance from agricultural to institutional.

Consistent with LRDP Mitigations 4.1-2(a) and 4.1-2(b), the campus will design new structures, roads, and landscaping to be compatible with visual elements and policies identified in the 2003 LRDP. Furthermore, prior to design approval, the campus Design Review Committee will determine that project designs are consistent with applicable LRDP guidelines, and with the character of surrounding development. These measures would ensure that the project would not degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding development, and the impacts of the project upon the visual character of the south entry to campus would be less than significant.

* * * RMI Impact 5.4-2: Development of the RMI Project would not create a new source

of substantial light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.


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

The RMI Project would include new buildings that would be substantially lit, both inside and outside. Lighting also would be installed along pathways and roads and in the parking lots. The buildings and paved surfaces could produce glare, as the result of 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 potentially affected by the lighting and glare of the proposed RMI primarily include drivers on I-80 and on Old and New Davis roads. Existing buildings along both I-80 and Davis Road are lit at night. The area surrounding the project parcel on the central campus includes agricultural fields, the Mondavi Performing Arts Center, a parking structure, and a parking lot. Additional outdoor side lighting to serve the proposed project would be minimal relative to the existing parking and roadway lighting.

The proposed project includes design elements to minimize and manage daytime glare and nighttime light. These include appropriate use of exterior materials, adjustment of the scale of lighting to the necessary use, and use of design technology to direct and shield lighting. Furthermore, the RMI Project would implement LRDP Mitigation 4.1-3(a-c), which requires that 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 would be focused, shielded, and directed to specific locations to avoid the production of glare, and minimize up-light and light spill, especially towards I-80 and Old Davis Road and nonreflective exterior surfaces and glass would be used. With the inclusion of these measures, the impact would be less than significant.

* * *



5.4.2 Agriculture

5.4.2.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.2 Agricultural Resources (Volume I) presents the agricultural resource setting for the entire campus, including the RMI site. The proposed project area, at the southern margin of the central campus, is currently used to grow alfalfa. The RMI parcel is designated Prime Farmland in the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (Figure 4.2-1, Volume I) (CDC 2000).

5.4.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.2 Agricultural Resources (Volume I) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. The analysis of impacts of the RMI Project is tiered from the analysis presented in Section 4.2. Only those impacts that are not adequately addressed by the analysis conducted for the 2003 LRDP as a whole are examined in detail in this section. Specific analytical methods used to analyze impacts are essentially the same as outlined in Section 4.2.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Impacts relevant to zoning of agricultural lands classified under the Williamson Act were adequately addressed in the Initial Study because the 2003 LRDP identifies land uses only for University of California lands, which are not subject to Williamson Act land use tax contracts.

Analysis conducted for the 2003 LRDP (LRDP Impact 4.2-2) indicates that the 2003 LRDP projects, including the RMI Project, would not indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no project-specific analysis of this impact is required.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-3: Development of RMI would convert approximately 3 acres of

prime farmland (as defined 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 2003 LRDP designates the RMI site for Academic and Administrative–High Density uses. The RMI Project would develop this land with buildings for teaching and research, parking lots and landscaping. This would displace the agricultural uses that now occupy the parcel, and would make this land unavailable for future agricultural use. Relative to the loss of prime farmland, RMI development would convert about 3 acres of prime farmland to nonagricultural uses. The prime farmland acreage that would be converted due to the development of the proposed project is included in the 745 acres of total prime farmland identified at the LRDP level that would be lost as a result of the 2003 LRDP. Pursuant to LRDP Mitigation 4.2-1, prior to conversion of prime farmland to nonagricultural uses under the 2003 LRDP, the campus will permanently preserve approximately 525 acres of prime farmland at Russell Ranch, within the area designated for Teaching and Research Fields, for agricultural purposes (including agricultural teaching and research). The campus will preserve prime farmland at a one-to-one

Volume III


(1:1) mitigation ratio for prime farmland converted to developed uses and a one-third-to-one (1/3:1) ratio for prime farmland converted to habitat at Russell Ranch. The reduced mitigation ratio for conversion to habitat addresses the loss of agricultural activity from this land, but recognizes that this land’s prime soil characteristics would not be permanently and irreversibly changed. Although UC Davis would conserve 525 acres of prime farmland at Russell Ranch, this would only prevent the future loss of prime farmland and would not replace the prime farmland converted to development due to the 2003 LRDP. Once buildings or paved areas are constructed on prime farmland, the underlying soils are no longer available for agricultural activities. Therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

* * *

5.4.3 Air Quality

5.4.3.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.3 Air Quality (Volume I) presents the existing air quality for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RMI site. The project region is in severe nonattainment of state and federal standards for criteria 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 RMI site currently is under agricultural use. This type of use, although not a significant source of air pollutants, can generate airborne dust (PM10) and criteria pollutant emissions associated with farm equipment operations. Traffic along Old Davis Road and I-80 contributes to local criteria pollutant emissions in the project vicinity. No existing or proposed sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, or day care centers are on or near the RMI site.

5.4.3.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures As discussed in Section 5.3.9, development of RMI is anticipated to take place in two phases over a period of 32 months. 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 facilities are constructed, the major source of operational criteria pollutants would be motor vehicles. Onsite boilers for steam and emergency generators would be stationary sources associated with the project. The laboratory space included in the RMI Project would be a potential local source of TACs. No significant odor source is included in the RMI Project.

Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.3 for a discussion of air quality Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. Air quality analysis for the RMI Project is tiered from the discussion presented in Section 4.3. Additional analysis presented here focuses on the potential for RMI construction activity to result in emissions in excess of YSAQMD’s thresholds for criteria pollutants, and the potential for air quality impacts to result from specific stationary sources and mobile sources associated with RMI development and operations.



Vehicular emissions from the project were calculated using EMFAC2002. A total of 1,384 daily vehicle trips (estimated as part of the traffic study for this project) were used to estimate emissions, assuming an average one-way trip length of 10 miles. Emissions from the two onsite emergency generators included in the project were estimated assuming that each generator would operate ½ hour each week at 25 percent load. Stationary source emission factors were taken from AP-42. Construction emissions and area emissions were calculated using URBEMIS 2001 V. 6.2.2.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Emissions of criteria pollutants that could result from the increased traffic associated with the growth on campus under the 2003 LRDP (LRDP Impact 4.3-1) took into account all 2003 LRDP related growth including the additional students and employees and the additional delivery truck trips associated with the RMI Project. 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 sources included in the RMI Project. As the TAC impacts are adequately addressed at the LRDP level, they are not specifically analyzed at the project level. Project-specific operational emissions for the RMI activities are addressed below in RMI Impact 5.4-5 to provide project-specific details regarding pollutant emissions solely from the RMI Project. 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. No odor sources are associated with the project, therefore odor impact is not an issue. Because of the low operational emissions associated with the project, it would not conflict with the regional air quality management plan. The project would, however, contribute to the operational emissions from the campus as a whole that are analyzed in Section 4.3 under LRDP Impact 4.3-1. As noted there, the total growth under the 2003 LRDP would result in substantial pollutant emissions that may conflict with the regional air quality plan.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-4: Construction activities at the RMI Project site would result in

short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.




Construction activities could be expected to produce PM10, as a result of airborne dust raised by grading, excavation and earth moving, and criteria pollutants from construction vehicles and equipment. Table 5-6 below presents the estimated peak daily emissions from construction activities associated with the RMI Project.

As the table below shows, the daily emissions of NOx and ROG 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 likely still exceed the significance threshold, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Volume III


Table 5-6 Estimated Construction Emissions for the RMI Project

Criteria Pollutant Daily Emissions (lbs/day) YSAQMD Significance Threshold NOx 226.3 82 ROG 197.8 82 CO 0.8 550

PM10 20.1 150 SO2 17.9 82

Note: Emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2001 V.6.2.2. Construction equipment counts based on Walker’s Building Estimator’s Reference Book, 26th Edition (Frank R. Walker Company 1999). Emissions in excess of significance thresholds are indicated in bold.

* * * RMI Impact 5.4-5: Operational emissions from the RMI Project would not violate

an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.


Mitigation: Mitigation is not required.

Sources of criteria pollutants associated with the RMI Project are the daily motor vehicle trips associated with students, faculty, and staff traveling to and from the RMI site. Stationary sources include two emergency generators that would be used only during power outages but would be tested for short periods of time each week. Area sources include the proposed buildings. Emissions from all three types of sources were calculated using the methods detailed in Section 4.3. Results are summarized in Table 5-7 below.

Table 5-7 Estimated Operational Emissions from the RMI Project

Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Source NOx ROG CO PM10 SO2 Vehicles 5.9 5.4 94.9 1.2 0.03 Area 2.2 0.2 1.5 0.01 0 Emergency Generators 8.8 0.7 1.9 0.6 0.6

Total 16.9 6.3 98.3 1.8 0.6 YSAQMD Significance Threshold 82 82 550 150 82

Note: Area emissions calculated using URBEMIS 2001 V.6.2.2. Cooling tower emissions based on existing cooling tower permitted emission rates. Vehicular emissions calculated using EMFAC2002.

As Table 5-7 shows, operational emissions would not exceed the YSAQMD significance thresholds of 82 pounds per day for any of the criteria pollutants. The impact from the operational emissions from the RMI Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.



* * *

5.4.4 Biological Resources This section evaluates the potential effects of the development of the RMI Project on the biological resources that exist on and in the vicinity of the project site. Biological resources include all flora, fauna, and associated habitats (including wetlands) that would be affected by project implementation.

5.4.4.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.4 Biological Resources (Volume I) presents the regional environmental setting for the UC Davis campus, including the RMI site. The land on which the project would be constructed is currently farmed as an alfalfa field.

A large area that would be considered Cropland/Pasture habitat type in the south entry area of campus, including the RMI site, was surveyed in January 2003 to identify special-status plant and animal species that may be present (Whisler 2003). The project site and adjacent areas have been almost completely disturbed by human activity, and most natural vegetation has been removed in the course of decades of agriculture on the site. The site is plowed and planted regularly. No agricultural ditches, emergent marshes, or other features that would be classified as wetlands are present on the project site, although the Arboretum waterway, the former course of Putah Creek, which is considered jurisdictional waters of the United States is located nearby. Landscaped vegetation is limited to plantings along roads and other campus facilities.

A survey for elderberry bushes, all of which are potential habitat for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), revealed one elderberry shrub about 250 feet south of the southern border of the project site, beyond the 100-foot distance where potential impacts are of concern, according to USFWS guidelines. The project would require construction of a new stormwater outfall to the Arboretum waterway, which is considered to be potential habitat for the northwestern pond turtle, a federal and state species of special concern.

Swainson’s hawk, a California threatened species, has been recorded in the project vicinity. Swainson’s hawks’ nest in large mature trees. No suitable hawk nest trees are on the project site, but potential Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat occurs in the Arboretum, which lies about 500 feet north of the project site and within the vicinity of the utility connections associated with the project. Annual surveys of nesting Swainson’s hawks on and adjacent to the campus have been conducted since 1991. During these surveys, three nest trees have been recorded within approximately ½ mile of the RMI Project site. The closest of these was along Old Davis Road (the main southern entrance road to the campus) approximately 900 feet west of the RMI site. It was used once in 1991, and has not been used subsequently. The two other nests have been identified between 0.4 and 0.5 mile from the project site and are screened by existing vegetation and by either campus buildings to the north or I-80 to the south. Both are in areas with high levels of human activity and are habituated to the presence of humans in the area. The agricultural fields on and adjacent to the RMI site are considered suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. However, the site is not considered appropriate habitat for the burrowing owl.

Volume III


5.4.4.2 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 Biological Resources (Volume I) for analytical methods relative to biological resources. A biological consultant performed records searches for the project site and vicinity in the CDFG California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2002, as cited in May & Associates 2003) for special-status species; the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001, as cited in May & Associates 2003); and the May & Associates, Inc. unpublished file of rare plant and wildlife species in Yolo and Solano counties. These records document special-status species previously recorded in the project vicinity. As reported above, a biological survey of the RMI site and adjacent areas was conducted in January 2003 (Whisler 2003). The object of the survey was to describe and document the plant communities and habitats and associated wildlife resources that were present on and near the site, and secondarily, to evaluate the potential for special-status species and jurisdictional wetlands on the project site. Because the survey was conducted outside the appropriate identification period for special-status plant species in the area, rare plant assessment was limited to determining whether suitable or potential habitat for special-status species was present. Due to the use of the site as an agricultural field for decades, no suitable habitat for special status plants was found.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP level or Not Applicable to the Project. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an established habitat conservation plan. This item was adequately addressed in the 2003 LRDP Initial Study.

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 of the project site conducted for the project did not identify any occurrences of special-status plants on the site. A single Mexican elderberry shrub was found outside the project site; therefore, no impacts on VELB would occur. In addition, no trees identified by the campus as Important are on the site, and no such trees would be affected by project-related utility construction.

As identified in Section 4.4 (Volume I), LRDP development would result in the conversion of 550 acres of agricultural land and ruderal/annual grassland, which would be lost as general wildlife habitat, including Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (LRDP Impact 4.4-2). Approximately 3 acres of agricultural land that would be developed for the RMI would contribute to this impact. The LRDP–level analysis determined that with the implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.4-2 (which identifies protection of habitat areas at Russell Ranch), this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The acreage affected by the RMI is included in the 550 acres evaluated and mitigated in Section 4.4, and therefore the impact is adequately addressed at the LRDP level.

The LRDP impact related to the burrowing owl is not relevant to the RMI Project because this species and its habitat are not present on the RMI site and would not be affected by the proposed project. LRDP impacts on special-status fish species would not occur as a result of the RMI Project, as this project would not affect Putah Creek. Potential project-specific impacts associated with Swainson’s hawk nesting sites, waters of the U.S., and the northwestern pond turtle are addressed below.



Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-6 Development of the RMI Project could result in the failure of

nesting efforts by Swainson’s hawks or other birds of prey.

Significance: Potentially significant

LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.4-4(a).

Residual Significance: Less than significant

There are no suitable trees for Swainson’s hawk nesting on the project site, although there are suitable trees along the Arboretum waterway and a recorded occurrence of nesting in a tree along Old Davis Road near the project site, approximately 200 feet to the north. While Swainson’s hawks that nest in this area are accustomed to human activity, including agricultural operations and automobile and pedestrian traffic, construction activity and noise at the RMI site potentially could discourage nesting and disturb nesting birds along the Arboretum waterway or along Old Davis Road. The campus will implement LRDP Mitigation 4.4-4(a) prior to project construction. This requires that a pre-construction survey of trees greater than 30 feet in height on or near the project site, and Swainson’s hawk nests within ½ mile of the RMI site be conducted during breeding season. If nesting raptors are found, active nesting sites will be protected and measures such as changes in construction schedule or procedures will be developed to ensure that project activity does not interfere with nesting. Implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.4-4(a) would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

* * * RMI Impact 5.4-7: Development of a new storm drain outfall for the RMI Project at

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




The RMI Project would require the construction of a new storm drain outfall on the south bank of the Arboretum waterway to dispose of site runoff. The RWQCB and the ACOE have determined the Arboretum waterway to be jurisdictional. The outfall would consist of installation of two to four 8-inch pipes through the existing gabion wall on the bank. Construction of the outfall could potentially result in the discharge of a small amount of silt or gabion material into the waterway. Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.4-8(a-c), in consultation with the ACOE and the CDFG, the campus will, if required, conduct a wetlands delineation during the design phase of the project; avoid, minimize, or mitigate at a 3:1 ratio if avoidance and/or minimization is not possible; obtain the appropriate ACOE permit; 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, the impact would be less than significant.

* * *

Volume III


RMI Impact 5.4-8: Development of a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum waterway for the RMI Project could result in temporary loss of potential habitat for the northwestern pond turtle.




The construction of a new RMI storm drain outfall at the Arboretum waterway would result in minor disturbances in the gabion wall on the south margin of the Arboretum waterway. This area is potential habitat for northwestern pond turtles. 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 would involve minor excavation in the Arboretum bank and possibly the incidental deposition 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. Implementation of these measures will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

* * *

5.4.5 Cultural Resources This section assesses the potential for development of the RMI Project to affect cultural resources, in particular archaeological resources.

5.4.5.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.5 Cultural Resources (Volume I) presents the cultural resource setting for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RMI site. Past experience indicates that areas within 800 feet of the historic Putah Creek stream channel and other natural water courses and historic sloughs (including the Arboretum waterway, which is a former channel of Putah Creek) or in the vicinity of known archaeological sites, may be sensitive for the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources (Nadolski 2003b). The entire RMI Project site lies within this archaeological high sensitivity area.

A known archaeological site, P-48-000222, was identified prior to and during activities associated with the construction of the South Entry Parking Structure and the Mondavi Center for the Arts, which are immediately east of the RMI site (Nadolski 2003b). Human burials and a variety of artifacts were recovered during archaeological investigations and construction monitoring for those projects (Nadolski 2003a).

Archaeological survey of the RMI Project site and of about 65 additional acres to the west and south of the RMI site and along the Arboretum waterway, revealed a surface scatter of prehistoric archaeological materials near the southeast corner of the project site and a scatter of historic debris along the Arboretum. Subsequent subsurface investigations including auger and shovel probes and controlled hand excavation of six 1-m by 1-m units. These revealed a sparse deposit of prehistoric materials in the upper 50 cm of soil in the southeastern area of the project



site. This material, probably originally associated with the adjacent site, P-48-000222, appears to have been redeposited by past agricultural or construction activity. A scatter of historic debris was noted during testing, but did not appear to be significant. No intact subsurface deposits were encountered (Nadolski 2003c).

Potential utility connections are located to the north, northwest, and northeast of the project site (Figure 5-3). All utility corridors on the south side of the Arboretum waterway were surveyed either as part of the survey for the RMI Project (Nadolski 2003c) or as part of the archaeological resources work for the Mondavi Center for the Arts project (Nadolski 2003b). No significant cultural resources were identified in the area to the west of the Mondavi Center. A possible natural gas extension could be extended from the RMI site under Old Davis Road to the east. This area is within the boundaries of site P-46-000222. The proposed connection would be under the existing New Davis Road in an area previously disturbed by construction of the Mondavi Center. As part of the cultural resources assessment for the Mondavi Center, site P-46-000222 was the subject to a cultural resources investigation that collected relevant information before the disturbance occurred. The results of that investigation are in preparation.

Potential utility corridors to the north of the Arboretum waterway are all along existing utility and road alignments. Previous cultural resources surveys or monitoring representative of the entire routes have been conducted along all but a few short segments of the possible alignments. No cultural resources have been found along these routes (Nadolski 2003b).

No structures are present on the project site, nor are there historic buildings nearby, so the project has no potential to result in direct or indirect impacts on historic buildings. However, one option would be to install utilities on the underside of the California Street Bridge, a structure that is more than 50 years old and potentially could qualify as a historical resource.

5.4.5.2 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. Archaeological resources may be affected by any activity that potentially disturbs the surface or subsurface, including increased vehicular traffic, grading or excavation. The proposed project would involve extensive grading and excavation of the project site, as well as construction of new underground utility connections. The project’s location within the archaeologically most sensitive zone of the campus, the presence of an archaeological deposit containing human remains and a variety of archaeological materials on an adjacent site, the presence of fragmentary archaeological material on the surface of the project site, and the extent of ground disturbance associated with the proposed project, all indicate that the project has a potential to result in impacts to buried archaeological resources and human remains.

Therefore, consistent with the requirements of the 2003 LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(a)(ii), the proposed project was determined to merit an intensive level of archaeological investigation, which was conducted in 2002 and 2003 (Nadolski 2003c). The impact assessment that follows is based on the findings of that survey and the recommendations of the qualified project archaeologist as reported in Section 5.4.5.1, above.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The 2003 LRDP Initial Study concluded that there are no unique paleontological resources or unique

Volume III


geologic features on campus and therefore no further project-level analysis is required. No analysis of potential impacts to historic structures is needed, because there are no structures on the project site, although one potentially historic bridge could be used to convey utility lines across Putah Creek. Potential impacts of the development of the RMI Project on the California Avenue bridge, and on archaeological resources and human remains, are addressed below.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-9: Construction of the RMI Project utility lines and other project

facilities could damage or destroy an archaeological resource or historic structure, and/or disturb human remains.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b)(i) and (ii). In the event of an additional archaeological discovery, implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(vi). If a discovered resource is determined to quality as an historical resource or unique archaeological survey, implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-2. If human remains are discovered, implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-4, as applicable.


As discussed above, the RMI site and associated utility alignments are within the zone of high potential for the occurrence of archaeological resources. Archaeological survey and testing conducted at the RMI site in compliance with LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b)(i) revealed the presence of surface archaeological materials, but suggested that these materials had been redeposited from their original location, and would not qualify as a unique archaeological resource or historical resource. Nonetheless, because it is always possible that intact pockets of archaeological deposit may be preserved in such cases, the project site and the utility alignments are considered to be archaeologically sensitive. If intact materials are present, they could be disturbed or destroyed by earth moving associated with the RMI Project construction. The campus will implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b)(i) to inform contractors on how to identify archaeological materials, and of campus procedures to protect resources discovered during construction. The campus will also implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b)(ii) to ensure that an archaeological monitoring plan for construction at the project site and along utility lines south of the Arboretum waterway is implemented during construction. In the event of a discovery during construction, the campus will implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b)(vi), which will ensure that the discovery is appropriately recorded, evaluated, and protected. Implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.5-4 provides for the protection and treatment of human remains found during construction. If a resource is determined to be an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, LRDP Mitigation 4.5-2 will be implemented to provide appropriate data recovery. The implementation of the mitigation measures above will reduce the potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Although some portions of the utility alignments would affect only areas where the ground already has been extensively disturbed, and thus have reduced archaeological potential, portions of the alignments closest to the Arboretum and in the vicinity of the South Entry Parking Structure may still have high archaeological potential. A surface archaeological survey was conducted of the area that includes utility alignments south of the Arboretum waterway, with negative results. However, the campus shall also implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b)(ii) to



provide for appropriate archaeological monitoring during construction of the utilities, and for treatment of any finds.

* * * RMI Impact 5.4-10 Construction of RMI utility lines would not diminish the

significance of an historic structure.


RMI Mitigation: Mitigation is not required.

If it is determined that the RMI project will be served with utility lines from the north side of the Arboretum waterway, one potential route to bring these utility lines to the site would be by installing the lines under the California Avenue Bridge. Possibly the bridge would be widened as well. While this bridge is more than 50 years old and thus could qualify as a Historic Resource, the bridge has been subject to numerous past upgrades, including recent seismic retrofitting. Further, the bridge already carries several other utility lines. Widening and the addition of another utility line would not substantially change the existing condition of the bridge, which already has been altered from its historic condition. The impact would not be significant and mitigation is not required.

* * *

5.4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

5.4.6.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (Volume I) presents the environmental setting for geology, soils, and seismicity for the entire UC Davis campus, including the RMI site. The geology and soils of the RMI area share the typical characteristics of the campus overall. Soils throughout the campus are alluvial and very deep, with moderate shrink-swell capacity. The potential for landslides and erosion is slight because of the level topography of the campus. There are no natural watercourses on the project site, and no rock outcrops. Most significant for the site from the geotechnical standpoint is that the soil of the site consists of soft compressible clay soils and loose sandy silts. Due to settlement considerations, the upper clays are not considered suitable for support of shallow spread foundations without substantial site preparation, and piling foundations may be the best option for construction.

5.4.6.2 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. A geotechnical investigation conducted for the adjacent and recently constructed Mondavi Center for the Arts and the South Entry Parking Structure characterized soils on these sites to provide data for design considerations. Although applicable to the RMI Project site, a geotechnical evaluation will be specifically performed to address the RMI Project.

Volume III


Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Analysis in the 2003 LRDP Initial Study concluded that there are no known earthquake faults on the central campus and thus the project would not expose people or structures to the impacts of rupture of earthquake faults. It also concluded that the potential for landslides on campus is low because of the level topography, and that development under the 2003 LRDP level would not have an impact on mineral resources. Therefore, no additional project-level analysis of these issues is required. The project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, impacts related to construction of these systems are not applicable to the project. Although development of buildings in the RMI Project could expose people or structures to the effects of seismic ground shaking, and secondary seismic effects, such potential impacts are addressed at the LRDP level (LRDP Impact 4.6-1) and are considered less-than-significant due to state and campus safety programs already in place. These include routine campus review of all draft building plans in compliance with California Building Codes (CBC), which include specific provisions for structural seismic safety. The campus also adheres to the University of California Seismic Safety Policy, and the campus Standards and Design Guide, which requires the implementation of seismic safety measures in campus facilities. Procedures mandated by the campus Office of Environmental Health and Safety and departmental emergency response plans further reduce the hazards from seismic shaking. Section 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity (Volume I) concluded that potential impacts related to unstable and expansive soils were less than significant and did not require mitigation because of building codes, regulations, and BMPs already in place (LRDP Impacts 4.6-2 and 4.6-3). Compliance with existing procedures and regulations will ensure that impact potential is less than significant. No project-specific mitigation is required.

* * *

5.4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.4.7.1 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 RMI site, and includes definitions of appropriate terms, a brief summary of applicable regulations, and a discussion of potential hazardous materials and hazardous waste generated at the campus overall.

5.4.7.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.7 for a discussion of appropriate Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. Analytical methods for assessment of potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts for the campus overall are detailed in Section 4.7.

The RMI would include multiple uses, but would be largely academic and laboratory-oriented, and would include a Biosafety Level 3 laboratory. Laboratories in all three project components would be used primarily for teaching and related research. No animal research facilities or use of research animals are included in the project.



Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The proposed project is not located within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school, so no project-level analysis of impacts related to hazardous emissions or hazardous materials handling near a school is required. Impacts related to wildland fires on campus and safety hazards associated with private airstrips were determined not to be issues applicable to the campus in the 2003 LRDP Initial Study. The project site does not include any listed hazardous materials locations. The project is outside of the airport safety compatibility zones of the University Airport, so users of the facilities would not be exposed to air traffic hazards. Construction of the RMI Project would not require any road closures and therefore it would not affect any emergency response plans of the campus. The development of the RMI Project would not require building demolition or renovation, so the project would not expose construction workers or campus occupants to contaminated building materials. No impacts would occur with respect to these issues.

Project-level impacts associated with use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, and with the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment are addressed below.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-11: Implementation of the RMI Project would not create a

significant hazard to the public or the environment through the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.7-1, 4.7-2, and 4.7-5(b), and 4.7-8.

Construction of the RMI Project 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, construction of the RMI Project 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.

The RMI would include a total of about 107,000 gsf of traditional research laboratory space and large-scale teaching/demonstration laboratory and support space. This would include microbiology, chemistry, and engineering/physical chemistry laboratories, sensory research laboratories, and support facilities including cold rooms, instrument and equipment rooms, dark room, growth-chamber, and air-filtered rooms. The laboratory facility components would operate equipment and use materials that would require safety hoods to achieve appropriate room exhaust and are expected to use a combination of chemical fume hoods, canopy hoods, biosafety cabinets, steam hoods, dust collection hoods for milling operations, carbon dioxide hoods for the fermentation rooms, laminar flow hoods, stove hoods, and snorkel exhausts. The proposed Biosafety Level 3 laboratory would be used for research using biohazardous organisms and, similar to existing facilities on campus, would be designed to prevent the exposure of workers or the public to potentially hazardous organisms. Laboratories could use and store small quantities of potentially hazardous chemicals and cleaning agents similar to laboratory materials currently used in laboratories elsewhere on campus. Similar to laboratories existing and proposed

Volume III


elsewhere on the campus, the RMI Project would generate small quantities of hazardous waste. The risks from hazardous materials use and hazardous waste generated on the project site would be similar to those described under LRDP Impacts 4.7-1 through 4.7-9. Implementation of LRDP Mitigations 4.7-1, 4.7-2, 4.6-5(b), and 4.7-8, which require that the campus continue to implement existing programs, practices, and procedures related to the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous chemicals and biohazardous materials, would further reduce this less-than-significant impact.

* * * RMI Impact 5.4-12: Implementation of the RMI Project would not expose

construction workers and campus occupants to contaminated soil or groundwater.



A Phase 1A Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site (URS 2002). The Phase 1A ESA concluded that there were no adverse environmental conditions associated with the project site. Therefore, the potential that contaminated soil or groundwater would be encountered is low and the impact would be less than significant.

* * *

5.4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

5.4.8.1 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 RMI Project sites. There are no natural water courses present on the project site. The project site is not within the 100-year flood plain. Storm water on the currently undeveloped proposed project site 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. Six campus wells draw water for the domestic water system, six main campus wells draw water for the campus utility water system, and 21 wells draw water from the shallow/intermediate aquifer to supply the field teaching and research system.

5.4.8.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.8 for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

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). 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 were analyzed adequately at the LRDP level (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 RMI Impact 5.4-13: RMI 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 RMI Project would involve grading up to 3 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 RMI 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.

Volume III


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 RMI Project. LRDP Mitigation 4.8-1 further confirms that the campus would implement BMPs to reduce RMI Project construction-related (and operation-related) water quality impacts. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

* * * RMI Impact 5.4-14: Implementation of the RMI Project would increase the amount

of water extracted from the shallow/intermediate and deep aquifers and would increase impervious surface coverage. 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).


The RMI 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 in the facility, and implementation of LRDP Mitigation 4.8-6(a) would ensure that landscaped areas associated with the project reduce utility water needs for irrigation to the extent 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.

* * *

5.4.9 Land Use and Planning

5.4.9.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.9 Land Use and Planning (Volume II) describes the land uses and applicable planning regulations for the UC Davis campus and surrounding areas. The 2003 LRDP designated the RMI site, which is currently under agricultural uses, for Academic and Administrative–High



Density uses. The site is surrounded by Old and New Davis Road to the north, I-80 to the south, the south entry gate to central campus, and the Robert and Margrit Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts to the northeast.

5.4.9.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.9 (Volume II) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.9 (Volume II) 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 Initial Study concluded that the LRDP, including RMI, would not physically divide an established community. In addition, the 2003 LRDP, including RMI, would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan. The RMI Project would be consistent with the 2003 LRDP proposed land use designation for this site—Academic and Administrative–High Density. Therefore, no project-level analysis of these impacts is necessary.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-15: Implementation of the RMI Project would not result in

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



The RMI Project would be comprised of an academic building, a winery building, and a laboratory building. These components relate in function and would be integrated through interdisciplinary programs and activities in the buildings. They also relate to surrounding uses. The land to the west would be redesignated to Teaching and Research Fields under the 2003 LRDP. In addition, the RMI location was selected for its prominent position near the central campus entry from I-80, its accessibility to visitors, industry partners, and students, and its contribution to the welcoming atmosphere of the South Entry gateway. Therefore, the RMI Project would not be incompatible with existing or planned adjacent land uses, and mitigation is required.

* * *

5.4.10 Noise This section assesses the potential noise impacts of development of the RMI Project on adjacent noise sensitive land uses.

5.4.10.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.10 Noise (Volume II) provides the existing conditions with respect to the noise environment on the campus, including the RMI site, acoustical definitions utilized in the noise analysis, and a description of the regulatory framework of federal and state noise guidelines that are used in the local-level planning process.

Volume III


The RMI site is presently used for agricultural uses, and the ambient noise levels in the project area are moderate. The project site is subject to noise from traffic on I-80 on the south, a railroad on the southeast, and Old Davis Road, a primary entrance to the central campus, on the north. The South Entry Parking garage and parking lots are located to the immediate east of the RMI site. Adjacent vacant areas are designated for Academic and Administrative High Density and Research Park uses. There are no noise sensitive land uses on or near the RMI site.

5.4.10.2 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 RMI, the existing traffic related noise levels were compared to the increased traffic that would result from implementation of the RMI. The RMI analysis is therefore, limited to just identifying the impacts of the RMI generated traffic, and does not include increased traffic that would result from implementation of other elements of the 2003 LRDP. The results are then compared to the significance criteria contained in Table 4.10-3 to determine the significance level of potential project-specific 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 related to construction are not analyzed specifically for this project because there are no noise sensitive land uses near the RMI site and therefore no significant criteria would be exceeded. The Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts is located about 500 feet to the northeast of the RMI site. However, that facility has been acoustically designed to minimize any intrusion of exterior noise, and would therefore not be affected by RMI construction noise.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-16: Traffic to and from the RMI site would not result in a substantial

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



Potential traffic noise impacts were modeled for the project using the methodology outlined in Section 4.10 (Volume II). Noise-sensitive (future) receptors were analyzed along Old Davis Road and adjacent to I-80 near Old Davis Road. The analysis shows that the increase in traffic from the project would not result in measurable or perceptible changes to the noise levels. Modeled Existing plus RMI noise levels were less than one decibel higher than the noise levels that would exist without the project.

* * *



RMI Impact 5.4-17: Construction of the RMI Project would not expose noise-sensitive land uses to significant rail noise.



The RMI Project would be located at a distance of about 450 feet from the UPRR tracks that run along the southern boundary of the central campus. As discussed under LRDP Impact 4.10-4 (Section 4.10 in Volume II), to avoid exposing people to significant rail-related noise and groundborne vibration, all projects within 750 feet of a rail line should be evaluated using the FTA Noise and Vibration guidelines. In compliance with LRDP Mitigation 4.10-4, the RMI Project was evaluated to determine whether any modifications to project design and/or construction would be necessary to achieve an interior noise and vibration level within the standards recommended by the FTA guidelines.

Using Federal Transit Administration Guidelines (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995), vibration levels from trains at the nearest RMI buildings (approximately 450 feet from the rail line) would be approximately 60 VdB. The vibration criteria for Category 3 type land uses (daytime and institutional) is 83 VdB for infrequent train events (i.e., occurring less than or equal to 70 train events per day). For the most stringent type land use (Category 1, “Buildings for which low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations”), the criterion is 65 VdB whether frequent or infrequent. So, the predicted vibration level from train operations would not result in a vibration impact.

With regards to noise, and using the same guidance (FTA Manual), the 1-hour Leq peak-noise-hour level from rail noise is estimated to be 55 dBA. Based upon FTA criteria for the Category 3 land use, and an existing ambient noise level of approximately 58 dBA (the lower end of the ambient long-term noise measurements in the area), there would be no impact to the land uses at the RMI site.

* * *

5.4.11 Population and Housing

5.4.11.1 Environmental Setting

Section 4.11 Population and Housing (Volume II) describes the population and housing conditions of the UC Davis campus and surrounding area as well as applicable planning regulations.

5.4.11.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.11 (Volume II) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.11 (Volume II) 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

Volume III


campus population, including the increased number of persons that would work, research or attend classes in the RMI (LRDP Impacts 4.11-1 through 4.11-3). Therefore, all project-related impacts related to population and housing were adequately analyzed at the LRDP level.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Not applicable.

* * *

5.4.12 Public Services

5.4.12.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.12 Public Services (Volume II) provides a description of public services currently available within the UC Davis campus, including the RMI site. Public services in relation to the RMI are discussed specifically in Section 5.3.7, above. Public services would be provided to the RMI by the UC Davis Police and Fire departments and other UC Davis service agencies.

5.4.12.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.12 Public Services (Volume II) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. The additional demand for public services caused by the implementation of the RMI is evaluated by comparing the demand generated and the service ratios, response times and other performance objectives of each service to determine if there would be an unmet need.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The LRDP-level analysis of public services impacts (LRDP Impacts 4.12-1 through 4.12-9) evaluated the effects of all campus population growth and facilities expansion under the 2003 LRDP, including the employees and facilities associated with the RMI Project. The impact of increased demand for UC Davis police and fire services under the 2003 LRDP, including demand generated by RMI, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of LRDP Mitigations 4.12-1(a-b) and 4.12-2(a-b). Therefore, no additional project-level analysis of these impacts is required.


* * *

5.4.13 Recreation

5.4.13.1 Environmental Setting See Section 4.13 Recreation (Volume II) for a discussion of existing campus recreation facilities. There are no recreation facilities on the RMI site.

5.4.13.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.13 for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.



Analytical Method. See Section 4.13 for analytical method 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 took into account all of the projected population increase under the 2003 LRDP, including the additional residential population and employees associated with the RMI Project (LRDP Impacts 4.13-1 and 4.13-2). The RMI Project does not include construction of recreation facilities. Therefore, no additional project-level analysis of this resource area is required.


* * *

5.4.14 Traffic, Circulation, and Parking

5.4.14.1 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 RMI Project site. The circulation system and parking in the vicinity of the proposed RMI is summarized below. Additional details regarding the RMI traffic setting, methodology, and impact analysis are contained in the RMI Traffic and Circulation Study (Fehr and Peers 2003a).

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 near the south end of the project site, 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 UC Davis central campus. Old Davis Road, the principal local road that would connect the project site with I-80, exits the freeway west of the project site, and carries two lanes of traffic. North of I-80, Old Davis Road turns east and forms the south entry to the central campus. New Davis Road, a two-lane roadway recently constructed to provide access to the performing arts center, extends east from Old Davis Road and parallels it between California Avenue and Mrak Hall Drive. New Davis Road forms the northern boundary of the RMI Project site. New Davis Road has sidewalks and on-street bicycle lanes between Beau Vine Lane and the Mrak Hall Drive. Other major local roadways of relevance to the project site are California Avenue, one of the campus’ northern gateways, which carries about 8 percent of the traffic to the campus, and La Rue Road, which forms the western portion of the campus loop, and carries about 26 percent of the traffic to campus. Beau Vine Lane is a two-lane roadway that provides access to the South Entry Parking Structure and Parking Lots 1 and 2, which are located just south of New Davis Road and immediately east of the RMI site.

Existing Intersection Operations. Five intersections could potentially be affected by the RMI Project and were identified as the study intersections:

• the Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound ramps

• the Old Davis Road/I-80 Westbound ramps

• the New Davis Road/California Avenue intersection

Volume III


• the New Davis Road/Beau Vine Lane intersection

• the New Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive

Traffic counts were conducted (Fehr & Peers Associates 2003) in fall 2001 during morning (7:00 – 9:00 AM) and afternoon/evening (4:00 – 6:00 PM) peak periods, to determine the existing peak hour traffic volumes at five study intersections: Additional 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.

The peak hours are based on typical morning and evening commute periods. In addition, the AM and PM peak hours correspond to the periods with the highest number of vehicle-trips within the campus. Figure 5-4 displays the AM and PM peak hour volumes, lane configurations, traffic controls at each of the study intersections, and the existing levels of service (LOS) are presented in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 below.

Table 5-8 Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location

Traffic Control1,2 Delay LOS Delay LOS

Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps TWSC 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 New Davis Road/Beau Vine Lane TWSC 1.4/19.3 A/C 7.8/21.0 A/C New Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive AWSC 9.6 A 10.1 B 1 TWSC = Two-way stop controlled intersection. Results shown in average overall intersection delay & LOS / delay & LOS

for worst-case movement. 2 AWSC = All-way stop controlled intersection LOS = level of service Source: Fehr & Peers Associates 2003a.

Table 5-9 Ramp Junction Levels of Service – Existing Conditions

I-80/Old Davis Road Interchange Mainline (VPH)1

On/Off- Ramp (VPH)1

Density (pc/mi/ln)2 LOS I-80/Old Davis Road

Interchange 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

LOS = level of service VPH = Vehicles per hour. pc/mi/ln = Passenger cars per mile per lane. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates 2003a.

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.

BEAU VIN

E LN.

MR

AK HALL D

R.

OLD

DAVI

S RD

.

2

1

34

5

CAL

IFO

RN

IA A

VE.

Robert Mondavi InstituteTraffic Existing Conditions

Figure 5-4

1 inch equals 650 feet

¹UC DavisLRDP EIR

28649327

Legend

- Study Intersections!(1

1

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

- Permitted Turning Movement

- Traffic Signal

- Stop Sign

- Robert Mondavi Institute

- Bicycle Path

- On-Street Bike Lane



As shown in Tables 5-8 and 5-9, all study intersections and ramp junctions operate at LOC C or better under existing conditions. As shown in Table 5-8, the delay for the worst-case movement at two-way stop controlled intersections (i.e., stop signs on the minor street approaches) is reported. Although UC Davis criteria for identifying significant impacts is based on overall intersection operations, reporting both the overall intersection operations and operations for the worse-case movement present a more accurate reflection of potential delay experienced by drivers traveling through the intersection. This is because vehicles traveling through the intersection on the major street (i.e., the uncontrolled approaches) experience no delay while vehicles traveling to/from side streets and yielding to major street traffic may experience substantial delay. Locations that have unacceptable operations for the worst-case movement are discussed in the project analysis section and potential improvements are identified for use by UC Davis and other jurisdictions in future planning.

Other Transportation Systems. The RMI facility design and location are intended to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the central campus by employees, students, staff and visitors. The UC Davis campus includes a network of bicycle paths, including: multi-use trails in the Arboretum, near the northern margin of the project site; Class II bike lanes on New Davis Road between California Avenue and Mrak Hall Drive, along the northern margin of the project site; and a Class I bike path on the west side of Old Davis Road, which extends south from the Arboretum to cross under I-80. UC Davis has an extensive system of pedestrian paths connecting most buildings in the central core. Existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity include a signalized pedestrian crossing of New Davis Road at the eastern end of the South Entry Parking Structure; a sidewalk on the south side of New Davis Road in front of the South Entry Parking Structure; sidewalks on both sides of Mrak Hall Drive north of New Davis Road; and a multi-use path that is available for pedestrians, southward from the Arboretum.

The Unitrans bus service does not provide 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 or at the Health Sciences District. The only transit service along Old Davis Road is a University operated shuttle that runs between UC Davis and the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. Part of the shuttle route is Old Davis Road between I-80 and Mrak Hall, with a stop at Mrak Hall.

Parking. The South Entry Parking Structure and Visitor Parking Lots 1 and 2 provide parking in the project vicinity and would be utilized for the proposed project. UC Davis Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) oversees the parking services on campus including selling parking passes, providing traffic control at special events, ticketing violators, and measuring parking utilization throughout campus on a quarterly basis. The TAPS Parking Space Utilization Survey conducted in fall 2001 and winter 2002 was used to determine the existing parking supply and utilization of the South Entry Parking Structure and Visitor Lots 1 and 2. The South Entry Parking Structure is limited to permit holders and contains 685 parking spaces that are approximately 30 percent utilized during the Fall quarter and approximately 40 percent utilized during the Winter quarter. Visitor Lots 1 and 2 contains 860 parking spaces that are approximately 40 percent utilized during the Fall quarter and approximately 50 percent utilized during the Winter quarter.

Local Goals and Policies. Local and campus goals and policies with respect to transportation are detailed in Section 4.14 Traffic, Circulation, and Parking (Volume II).

Volume III


5.4.14.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.14 Traffic, Circulation, and Parking (Volume II) for a discussion of applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. The transportation impact analysis for the RMI compares traffic volumes under current conditions at intersections that likely would be used by project traffic with projected levels of service at the same intersections, based on the addition of trips generated by the project. Impacts would result where intersection or roadway conditions would fall below local or regional level of service standards as a result of traffic added by the project.

Trip Generation. The proposed RMI would include 245 faculty and staff and 225 students at build out. UC Davis students attending classes in the RMI would already be attending other classes on-campus. Therefore, RMI students would already be traveling to campus and were not assumed to generate any new vehicle-trips. Although some RMI faculty and staff would also already be on-campus, all faculty and staff were assumed to generate new trips, to ensure that the vehicle-trip generation of the RMI Project was not underestimated. In addition, assuming that all faculty and staff generate new vehicle-trips offsets the potential effects of some RMI students shifting their travel patterns to park in lots closer to the RMI.

Trip rates were developed for UC Davis faculty and staff, resident students (i.e., students living on-campus), and off-campus students (i.e., students living in the City of Davis or surrounding areas) based on data collected for use in the 1994 LRDP. These rates were adjusted to reflect the current vehicle traffic volume on-campus. UC Davis faculty and staff generate approximately 4.5 vehicle-trips per day. This rate may seem higher than expected since not all faculty and staff drive to campus. However, this rate reflects trips made by campus vehicles throughout the day and by visitors to campus. Since the number of campus visitors on a daily basis was unknown at the time the trip rates were developed, visitor trips were included in the trip-generation for faculty and staff. This assumption is reasonable because increases in the faculty and staff population indicate overall campus growth, which would attract more visitors to the campus.

The RMI would host classes, events, and tours for the general public. A list of typical public activities at the RMI that would generate vehicle trips is summarized below. These events assume a “worst-case scenario” of activity that would generate traffic at the facility within one day during the week.

• One all day class per weekday with a maximum enrollment of 30 people.

• Two half-day classes per weekday with a maximum enrollment of 20 people per class. Only one class would create vehicle trips in the PM peak hour.

• One evening class per weekday with a maximum enrollment of 20 people.

• One evening event per weekday with a maximum attendance of 50 people.

• Two bus tours per weekday.

Table 5-10 summarizes the projected vehicle-trip generation of the RMI Project based on the trip rate contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 1997).



Table 5-10 Proposed Project Trip Generation

Trip Rate Vehicle-Trips AM

Peak Hour PM

Peak Hour Trip Type

Amount (people) Daily

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out

Employees 245 4.491 0.401 0.451 1,100 84 13 25 86 All-Day Class 30 2.002 1.00 1.00 60 30 0 0 30 2 Half-Day Classes3 40 2.002 0.00 1.00 80 0 0 0 20 Evening Class 20 2.002 0.00 1.00 40 0 0 20 0 Evening Event 50 2.002 0.00 1.00 100 0 0 50 0 Bus Tour 2 2.002 0.00 1.00 4 0 0 1 1

Total Vehicle-Trips 1,384 114 13 96 137 Notes: 1 Davis Travel Demand Model Development Report (Fehr & Peers Associates, March 2003). 87 % in/13% out in

AM peak hour, 23% in/ 77% out in PM peak hour. 2 Trip Rate based on assumption of 2 trips per person, 1 in and 1 out. 3 Assumes 2 half-day classes with 20 students in each class, 1 midday and 1 during p.m. peak hour std = students. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates 2003a.

As shown in Table 5-10, the RMI Project would generate approximately 1,385 daily, 125 AM peak hour, and 235 PM peak hour total vehicle-trips. These trips reflect the total number of vehicles expected to travel to the project including employees, visitors, and deliveries. This estimate also assumes that all general public classes would be attended by people driving alone, which means no one is assumed to carpool.

Trip Distribution. The trip distribution for the RMI was developed based on the expected residence locations of employees and visitors. Some employees and visitors are anticipated to reside in the City of Davis; however, the majority of vehicle-trips are expected to use I-80 and SR 113 to travel to and from the RMI site due to its close proximity to the I-80/Old Davis Road interchange and based on the number of faculty, staff, and visitors that would be traveling from outside the Davis area. Therefore, 40 percent of vehicle-trips were assigned to local roadways (i.e., Old Davis Road and California Avenue to La Rue Road) to travel to and from the RMI. 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.

Intersection Operation. Traffic operations under “existing plus project” conditions were analyzed at the study intersections as identified in Section 5.4.14.1. Results of these analyses are presented under “Project Specific Impacts,” below.

Parking. The RMI includes 245 employees and up to 70 daytime visitors during the week. Parking studies conducted by UC Davis Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) in fall 2001 and winter 2002 were used to determine the number of available parking spaces adjacent to the project site. TAPS parking studies for the morning (10:00 AM) and midday (2:00 PM) surveyed time periods, which were the periods with the highest parking utilization indicate that

Volume III


the South Entry Parking Structure had approximately 480 parking spaces available during the Fall quarter and approximately 410 parking spaces available during the Winter quarter. Visitor Lots 1 and 2 had approximately 515 parking spaces available during the Fall quarter and approximately 430 parking spaces available during the Winter quarter. Based on the number of parking spaces available within these nearby lots, the parking demand created by the RMI would be accommodated by the existing parking facilities in the project vicinity.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. The proposed RMI Project is designed to include adequate circulation, access to alternative transportation, and would accommodate regional policy with respect to planning in these areas, and would avoid potential impacts from the creation of design traffic hazards through project design. 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 and bicycles and pedestrians. Construction activities at the RMI site would not require road closure, therefore there would be no impact related to inadequate emergency access. Analysis at the LRDP level of the impacts on traffic patterns and congestion as described in Section 4.14 Volume II, took into account all of the projected increase in population under the 2003 LRDP, including the student population and employees of the RMI Project. In addition, impacts related to the increased demand for transit services, including RMI, 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. Project-specific impacts solely related to increased traffic, regional and local levels of service, and parking from the RMI Project are addressed below.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-18: Implementation of the RMI Project would not cause

unacceptable intersection operations in relation to the existing operations, including roadways listed in the Yolo County and Solano County Congestion Management Plans.



The RMI would generate approximately 1,385 daily trips, with 130 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 235 trips occurring during the PM peak hours. Tables 5-11 and 5-12 and Figure 5-5 display the intersection and ramp junction operations during the AM and PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions, respectively.

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.

BEAU VIN

E LN.

MR

AK HALL D

R.

OLD

DAVI

S RD

.

2

1

34

5

CAL

IFO

RN

IA A

VE.

RMI TrafficExisting Plus Project Conditions

Figure 5-5

1 inch equals 650 feet

¹UC DavisLRDP EIR

28649327

Legend

- Study Intersections!(1

1

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

- Permitted Turning Movement

- Traffic Signal

- Stop Sign

- Robert Mondavi Institute



Table 5-11 Intersection Operations – Existing Plus Project Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location

Traffic Control1 Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps TWSC 17.2/27.0 C/D 20.8/>50.0 C/F 2. Old Davis Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps TWSC 16.0/33.4 C/D 2.0/16.8 A/C 3. New Davis Road/California Avenue TWSC 31.7/>50.0 D/F 12.5/49.7 B/E 4. New Davis Road/Beau Vine Lane TWSC 2.0/24.5 A/C 28.0/>50.0 D/F 5. New Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive AWSC 10.1 B 10.8 B 1 TWSC = Two-way stop controlled intersection. Results shown in average overall intersection delay & LOS / delay & LOS

for worst-case movement. 2 AWSC = All-way stop controlled intersection Source: Fehr & Peers Associates 2003a.

As shown in Table 5-11, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project conditions. Some intersections would operate acceptably with the implementation of the proposed RMI, although operations would degrade by two or more service levels (e.g., LOS A to C, LOS B to D, etc.). The New Davis Road/California Avenue intersection would degrade from LOS B to LOS D during the AM peak hour. The New Davis Road/Beau Vine Lane intersection would degrade from LOS A to LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Table 5-12 Ramp Junction Levels of Service – Existing Plus Project Conditions

I-80/Old Davis Road Interchange

Mainline (VPH)1

On/Off- Ramp (VPH)1

Density (pc/mi/ln)2 LOS I-80/Old Davis Road

Intersection AM Peak Hour Westbound Off-Ramp 4,020 490 18.8 B Westbound On-Ramp 3,530 30 12.0 B Eastbound Off-Ramp 3,854 223 19.4 B Eastbound On-Ramp 4,200 62 1.8 A

PM Peak Hour Westbound Off-Ramp 4,599 129 19.0 B Westbound On-Ramp 4,470 200 14.8 B Eastbound Off-Ramp 3,840 61 18.6 B Eastbound On-Ramp 4,520 391 4.9 A

1 Vehicles per hour. 2 Passenger cars per mile per lane. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates 2003a.

As shown in Table 5-12, all freeway ramp junctions would operate acceptably in the AM and PM peak hours under “existing plus project” conditions.

Volume III


The worst-case movement for unsignalized study intersections is expected to operate unacceptably at the intersections listed below. Although unacceptable operations for the worst-case movement at these locations are not project impacts, improvements are identified to improve operations for the worst-case movement for use by UC Davis in future planning. Traffic operations for the worst-case movement could be improved by implementing the measures discussed below.

• Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps (LOS F for the worst-case movement during the PM peak hour)

The installation of a traffic signal at the Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps would improve the LOS of the eastbound left-turn movements to an acceptable level (LOS B or better) and would provide acceptable operations for the overall intersection. The Old Davis Road/I-80 Eastbound Ramps intersection does not meet Caltrans’ Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant (Traffic Manual, Caltrans, 1996).

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

• New Davis Road/California Avenue (LOS F and E for the worst-case movement during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively)

The construction of a roundabout or the installation of a traffic signal at the New Davis Road/California Avenue intersection would improve the LOS for the southbound left-turn movements to an acceptable level and would provide acceptable operations for the overall intersections. The New Davis Road/California Avenue intersection does not meet the Caltrans’ Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant in either the AM or PM peak hour.

• New Davis Road/Beau Vine Lane (LOS F for the worst-case movement in the PM peak hour)

The construction of a roundabout or the installation of a traffic signal at the New Davis Road/Beau Vine Lane intersection would improve the LOS for the northbound left-turn movements to an acceptable level and would provide acceptable operations for the overall intersections. The New Davis Road/Beau Vine Lane intersection does not meet the Caltrans’ Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant.

As shown in Tables 5-11 and 5-12, all study intersections and freeway ramp junctions would operate acceptably in the AM and PM peak hours under “existing plus project” conditions. The impact is less than significant and mitigation is not required.

* * *



RMI Impact 5.4-19: Implementation of the RMI Project would create additional parking demand.



The RMI includes 245 employees and up to 70 daytime visitors during the week. Based on parking studies conducted by TAPS, 995 parking spaces were available on a weekday in nearby lots (South Entry Parking Structure and Visitor Lots 1 and 2) during the Fall 2001 quarter and 840 spaces were available during Winter 2002. These parking spaces would be adequate to serve the RMI needs, and additional parking would not be required. The impact is less than significant.

* * *

5.4.15 Utilities

5.4.15.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.15 Utilities (Volume II) describes the existing utilities systems servicing the UC Davis campus, including the RMI site. Utility demand and proposed points of connection are described in detail in Section 5.3.8, above.

5.4.15.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.15 for a discussion of the applicable Standards of Significance.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.15 for analytical methods relative to utilities.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Analysis at the LRDP level of impacts related to the capacity of utility systems took into account the increased demand from all of the projected development and population growth under the 2003 LRDP, including the proposed RMI Project. Adequate capacity is available or can be developed for all utilities. The environmental impacts of this development are addressed in Section 4.15 (Volume II). Specific impacts of utility extensions needed to serve the RMI Project are discussed below.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures RMI Impact 5.4-20: Implementation of the RMI would place 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 equivalent measures.

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 development proposed under the RMI Project for the demand it would place on campus utilities including domestic water, utility water, storm

Volume III


drainage, landfill capacity, electrical system, and telecommunications. Based on this evaluation, the campus has determined that the existing utility systems are adequate to handle the demand from the RMI. To further reduce the demand placed by the RMI development on water resources and the electrical system, the campus will require that the RMI Project implement LRDP Mitigations 4.8-5(a), 4.8-6(a), and 4.15-6(b) or equivalent measures.

Also based on this evaluation, the campus has determined that several off-site utilities would need to be constructed to serve the proposed RMI. A 14-inch domestic water line would be brought to the north end of the RMI from a point of connection south of the Arboretum waterway and east of the California Bridge crossing in Old Davis Road. Utility water would be supplied by a new line that connects to the existing system at the south end of the California Bridge. A new sewer line would be constructed either north from the project site to the existing lift station on the south side of the Arboretum and east of California Avenue, then west to a large sewer main near the north-to-east curve in Old Davis Road; or north from the project site under California Avenue to La Rue Road, then along La Rue Road to connect with the existing sewer main near the intersection of La Rue Road and Putah Creek Lodge Drive. New underground storm piping would be installed from the project site either north along the west side of California Avenue to the Arboretum waterway or west for approximately one quarter mile and north to the Arboretum waterway. Underground natural gas service would be constructed from the north end of the project site either to a point of connection north of the Arboretum waterway and south of the Cole Facility, to La Rue Road at the Bioletti Road intersection, or across the railroad tracks to a point of connection south of the Center for the Arts District.

The utility extensions for the RMI Project would occur along roadways that have been previously trenched or otherwise disturbed in connection with utility installation or roadway construction. Therefore, the potential to affect sensitive resources is considered low. Furthermore, the environmental impacts resulting from construction of these utility extensions are addressed under the relevant resource areas above, and have been reduced to less than significant levels.

* * *

5.5 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 other ways that the major 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 significant impacts of the project. The alternatives considered but rejected are discussed in Section 5.5.1. The alternatives carried forward are discussed in Section 5.5.2.



The guiding objective of the RMI Project is to support instruction and research conducted by the V&E Department and the FS&T Department in their academic programs in the study and research of the science of food and wine. Specifically, campus objectives in the development of RMI are to:

• Create a strong identity and inviting entry for the University of California Davis campus, and the departments of Viticulture and Enology, and Food Science and Technology

• Provide a state-of-the-art research and teaching facility, which offers education and extension programs for the industry, community and campus and continues to reinforce the departments’ reputations for academic excellence

• Facilitate interaction among RMI researchers

• Accommodate visitors within the public portions of the project to encourage community outreach and education, while maintaining separation between research functions and public areas within the RMI

• Expand training capability for hands-on production of wine, in a facility similar to that which students will encounter in commercial experience

• Develop a flexible food processing facility to accommodate a variety of testing alternatives and simulations

• Demonstrate good environmental practices in all aspects of the project

• Accommodate future expansion of the RMI and the departments that use it

5.5.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected as Infeasible This section discusses alternatives that were considered for the project but rejected because they did not meet most of the basic project objectives.

5.5.1.1 Construction of Project on Campus Dairy Site

This alternative would locate the RMI facilities as described for the proposed project on the site of the existing campus dairy on La Rue Road. The site is currently used for the care and study of dairy cattle. Because the campus dairy is not compatible with the high-intensity academic uses of the central campus, the campus plans to relocate the facilities to Russell Ranch. This relocation will take place when funding is available. Because it would result in a delay in starting the construction of the buildings needed for the RMI Project, which would delay the implementation of the academic program, this alternative was rejected. Additionally, this alternative would not fulfill the campus’ objective of having the RMI Project create a strong identity and inviting entry to campus.

5.5.1.2 Location Outside the Central Campus This alternative would locate the program outside of the central campus. The University would construct the facilities on an undeveloped site on either the south or the west campus. This alternative would provide flexibility of design and size because it would not be constrained by

Volume III


existing development and other uses. The RMI Project on an alternative site on the south or west campus would be self-contained with regard to open areas and parking, and could expand as needed into the surrounding area.

Despite these assets, a site remote from central campus development would not satisfy the requirement for the RMI Project, which as a major core academic program, needs to be near other related academic facilities. A location removed from the central campus would not be easily accessible to students moving between classes. This alternative would also not meet the project objectives of creating a strong identity for the RMI Project and an inviting entry to the UC Davis campus and the V&E and FS&T departments.

5.5.2 Alternatives Evaluated in Detail This section presents a qualitative evaluation of three project alternatives that are considered potentially feasible and would meet most of the project’s basic objectives: (1) Smaller Project; (2) the Plant Science Teaching Center Lands; and (3) Dairy Road Recreation Field Location. 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.

5.5.2.1 Alternative 1: Smaller Project Description. This alternative would reduce the size of the RMI program and project footprint by about 25 percent. The reduction in size would be achieved by constructing only Phase 1 of the development as proposed. The project thus would consist of construction of the entire Academic Building component (130,000 gsf), and the initial components of both the Winery and the Laboratory buildings, which would provide a total additional area of about 43,000 gsf. This configuration would accommodate the entire student, staff and faculty population described for the Academic Building (Section 5.3.4, above) (a total of 225 faculty and staff and 225 students), but would reduce the additional staff estimated for the Winery and Laboratory at completion of Phase 2 by half, to a total of about 10. The project would be constructed on the same site as the proposed facility, to the north of I-80 and south of Old Davis Road, but the project footprint would be reduced from about 3.0 acres to about 2.25 acres. The demand on campus utility systems would be reduced by about 25 percent. However, off-site utilities needed to serve this alternative would be largely the same as those needed for the proposed project.

Impact Analysis Aesthetics. Aesthetically, Alternative 1 would be virtually the same as the proposed project, but of slightly smaller scale. The reduced area of development would not contrast markedly with the proposed project from New Davis Road, the principal viewing point, since the Phase 2 addition would be located primarily at the back (south side) of the facility under the proposed project. The alternative would have similar less-than-significant impacts upon the visual character of the site, and with respect to light and glare as the proposed project, though at an incrementally lesser level.

Agricultural Resources. The alternative would have a slightly lesser significant impact on prime farmland than the proposed project. The alternative would result in the use of 2.25 acres of prime farmland as opposed to the 3 acres used by the proposed project.



Air Quality. Emissions of criteria air pollutants from construction of the proposed project alternative would exceed the daily standards for NOx and ROG established by the YSAQMD, which would result in a significant air quality impact. The alternative would have only marginally lesser significant impacts than the proposed project with respect to the project’s construction and emissions. Operational emissions form both the proposed project and the alternative would be less than significant.

Biological Resources. The alternative would have the same potentially significant impacts as the proposed project with respect to Swainson’s hawk nesting, northwestern pond turtle, and jurisdictional waters of the U.S., because the same project site and utility alignments would be utilized.

Cultural Resources. Alternative 1 would have somewhat reduced potential to result in potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources and human remains relative to the proposed project, because the ground area disturbed at the project site would be 25 percent smaller. The utility alignments would be the same for both the proposed project and the alternative, and would carry the same potential for impacts.

Geology and Soils. No project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project and the alternative would have similar less-than-significant impacts with respect to the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials, and to the potential to expose construction workers and campus occupants to contaminated soil and ground water.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The less-than-significant impacts of the project with respect to increased sediment loads and pollutants in storm water runoff from construction activities, and the significant impact with respect to the potential to deplete ground water and interfere with recharge, would be reduced by about 25 percent by the alternative, because the project would require less grading, the new impervious surface area would be smaller, smaller quantities of stormwater would be discharged, and smaller amounts of domestic and utility water would be used.

Land Use and Planning. Neither the proposed project nor the alternative would result in development that is incompatible with existing or planned land uses. project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative.

Noise. The proposed project and the alternative would have similar less-than-significant impacts with respect to increases in the ambient noise level as the result of the development, or exposure of sensitive uses to rail noise.

Population and Housing. No project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative.

Public Services. No project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative. The alternative would have slightly reduced potential requirements for fire services relative to the proposed project because of the reduction in building space.

Recreation. No project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative.

Volume III


Transportation and Traffic. The project and the alternative would have essentially the same less-than-significant impacts with respect to changes in the levels of service at affected intersections, and to parking demands, as the population that would generate the traffic is only slightly reduced under the alternative.

Utilities. No project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. This alternative would allow the project to be located on the central campus, which would protect natural areas elsewhere that might otherwise be used for the RMI buildings. This would be consistent with the project objective of demonstrating good environmental practices in all aspects of the project.

However, this alternative would not allow the project to be developed to the extent envisioned under the proposed project. The planned curricula of the V&E and FS&T that would be carried out through the RMI facility are designed to complement each other, and to provide a well-rounded understanding of food and wine science, with many student opportunities for hands-on practical experience. Reducing the scale of the Winery and Laboratory would result in a reduction of opportunities for students to take part in this learning and research experience. It would also reduce opportunities for collaborative research by student/faculty teams because research space and facilities would be reduced.

The smaller project alternative meets the project’s objectives to provide a state-of-the-art research and teaching facility which provides education and extension programs for the industry, community and campus, but to a lesser degree than the proposed project. The reduced facility would expand hands-on training capability for both the V&E and FS&T departments, but would not fully provide the opportunities that would be offered by the proposed project, because facilities would be more limited. The reduced project would not accommodate future expansion of RMI and the V&E and FS&T departments. Alternative 1 would allow the campus to demonstrate good environmental practices in building.

5.5.2.2 Alternative 2: Plant Science Teaching Center Lands Description. The RMI as proposed would be developed on Plant Science Teaching Center lands on the central campus east of SR 113 and west of the Bowley Center. This site is currently used for growing crops, but has been proposed for greenhouse expansion to the Plant Sciences Teaching Center.

Impact Analysis Aesthetics. The proposed project and the alternative would have similar less-than-significant impacts with respect to the visual character of the site. The alternative potentially would result in slightly increased impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to increased night light, because of the proximity of the alternative site to the Colleges at La Rue apartments, about 750 feet northeast.

Agricultural Resources. Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in the loss of about 3 acres of prime farmland, a significant impact.

Air Quality. The alternative would have the same significant impacts as the proposed project with respect to short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants, as well as the same less-than-



significant and operational emissions, because the same development would occur at the alternative location.

Biological Resources. The Plant Science Teaching Center Lands Alternative would have potentially significant impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, VELB habitat, western burrowing owl habitat, and Important trees, that are not shared by the proposed project. The alternative would have reduced potential for impacts to northwestern pond turtle and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. because, unlike the proposed project, it would not require construction of a new storm water outfall on the Arboretum waterway.

Cultural Resources. The alternative would have similar or possibly increased potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources and human remains, because a significant archaeological site that included human remains, YOL-134, is present in the vicinity of the alternative site. While the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to another recorded archaeological resource, P-48-00222, this site appears to have been substantially disturbed within the proposed project area. Therefore the potential for significant cultural resources impacts from the alternative probably is higher than for the proposed project. The California Street Bridge would not be affected by the alternative, so the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project would not occur.



Hydrology and Water Quality. The less-than-significant impacts of the project with respect to increased sediment loads and pollutants in storm water runoff from construction activities, and the significant impact with respect to the potential to deplete ground water and interfere with recharge, would be shared by the alternative, because the project would involve the same amounts of grading, the same new impervious surface area, the same quantities of stormwater discharge, and the same volumes of domestic and utility water use.

Land Use and Planning. No project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative. The alternative site is designated for high density academic and administrative uses under the proposed 2003 LRDP, which would be consistent with its use for development of the RMI. Use of this site for the RMI, however, would constrain the proposed expansion of the adjacent Plant Science Teaching Center.

Noise. Neither the proposed project nor the alternative would result in significant impact with respect to noise. However, because of the proximity of potentially noise-sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Alternative 2 site (the Bowley Center, adjacent to the east, the University Extension center, to the north, and possibly the Colleges at La Rue, about 750 feet northeast), the potential for noise impacts from project traffic probably is somewhat increased under the alternative. The alternative does not share the project less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure to rail noise since, unlike the project, it is distant from any rail line.


Volume III


Public Services. No project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative.


Transportation and Traffic. The project and the alternative would have the same less-than impacts with respect to intersection operations and parking, but the proposed project would have potential effects on levels of service at intersections serving the south entry to the campus, while the alternative would potentially affect intersections on Hutchison Drive and Extension Center Drive.

Utilities. Both the proposed project and the alternative would require utility tie-ins. These would not create any significant impacts under the proposed project, or under the alternative. Unlike the proposed project, the alternative site area is already served by campus chilled water and steam lines, and would require only tie-ins, and not upgrades, to be served by the campus system. The alternative site could be readily tied-in to existing central campus utilities, which have the capacity to serve the project at this site. Unlike the proposed project, the alternative would not require construction of a new sanitary lift station to provide sanitary sewer capacity for the site.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. This location would be on the central campus and near the other academic facilities (although about 0.2 mile from the nearest buildings in the academic core), and thus would have the proximity to other academic facilities desirable for the project. There is sufficient space at the site to accommodate the facility as proposed, and adjacent vacant land available for expansion that might be planned in the future, so the site would meet the objective of accommodating future expansion of RMI. This location would also meet the project objectives of providing a state-of-the-art research and teaching facility, expanding training capability for hands-on production of wine, and providing collaborative research opportunities for the V&E and FS&T departments.

Because its location is less prominent than the proposed site, the alternative site may not lend itself to achieving the objective of creating a strong identity and an inviting entry for the RMI, the campus, and the V&E and FS&T departments, and this site possibly would be less attractive of visitors than the proposed project. Alternative 2 would allow the campus to demonstrate good environmental building practices.

5.5.2.3 Alternative 3: Dairy Road Recreation Field Location

Description. This alternative would locate the RMI on a 3-acre site currently occupied by the Dairy Road Recreation Field on the central campus, southeast of the Hutchison Drive/La Rue Road intersection, and bounded on the east by Dairy Road and on the south by the Animal Science Dairy. The parcel is designated for PE/ICA/Recreation land uses in the 2003 LRDP. This alternative would locate all the components of the proposed RMI on this site and would have the same population as the proposed project. The existing recreational use would be relocated elsewhere on campus.

Impact Analysis Aesthetics. Aesthetically, Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project, and would have similar less-than-significant impacts with respect to visual character of the site. The alternative



potentially could result in increased less-than-significant impacts with respect to increased night light, because light from the site could be visible at the Tercero dormitories, which are adjacent to the southeast of the alternative site.

Agricultural Resources. In contrast to the significant impacts of the proposed project, which would develop 3 acres of prime farmland, the alternative site is not designated as prime farmland and therefore this alternative would not have an impact on prime farmland.

Air Quality. Alternative 3 would have the same significant impact as the proposed project with respect to short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction (RMI Impact 5.4-4), and the same less than significant impact stemming from traffic emissions.

Biological Resources. Because the alternative site is a landscaped athletic field, the potentially significant impacts of the construction of the project with respect to biological resource would not occur. Utility tie-ins would be required for the alternative site, but its proximity to existing campus services would reduce the amount of additional infrastructure that would be required compared to the proposed project. Any tie-ins or utility extensions likely would be principally in highly developed areas, and thus potential for impacts to biological resources would be slight. The potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and to northwestern pond turtle, associated with construction of a new storm drain outfall for the proposed project, would not occur because the alternative site area is already served by storm drainage.

Cultural Resources. The alternative and the project would have similar potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources and human remains, as both sites are located in proximity to known archaeological resources. The California Street Bridge would not be affected by the alternative, so the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project would not occur.



Hydrology and Water Quality. The less-than-significant impacts of the project with respect to increased sediment loads and pollutants in storm water runoff from construction activities, and the significant impact with respect to the potential to deplete ground water and interfere with recharge, would be shared by the alternative, because the project would involve the same amounts of grading, the same new impervious surface area, the same quantities of storm water discharge, and the same volumes of domestic and utility water use.

Land Use and Planning. The alternative would convert 3 acres designated as PE/ICA under the proposed 2003 LRDP to high density academic and administrative uses. The PE/ICA use would be relocated elsewhere on campus, but this would require redesignation of land elsewhere on campus. The significance of the impacts cannot be assessed since a site has not been identified for the relocation of the Dairy Road Recreation Field. No project-specific land use impacts were identified for the proposed project.

Noise. Neither the proposed project nor the alternative would result in significant impacts with respect to noise. However, because of the proximity of potentially noise-sensitive uses in the

Volume III


vicinity of the Alternative 3 site (the Tercero dormitories, adjacent to the alternative site), the potential for noise impacts from project traffic probably is somewhat increased under the alternative. The alternative does not share the project less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure to rail noise since, unlike the project, it is distant from any rail line.


Public Services. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project or the alternative.

Recreation. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project. The alternative would displace a 3-acre recreation field. This would reduce convenient recreational opportunities for nearby residents, but there are several other fields nearby that would serve these residents. The recreation field would be relocated elsewhere on the central campus, so the impact would be less than significant.

Transportation and Traffic. The project and the alternative would have the same less-than-significant impacts with respect to traffic, but the proposed project would have potential effects on intersections that serve the campus’ south entry whereas the alternative would potentially affect intersections on Hutchison Drive and La Rue Road.

Utilities. Both the proposed project and the alternative would require utility tie-ins. These would not create any significant impacts under either the proposed project or the alternative. Unlike the proposed project, the alternative site area is already served by campus chilled water and steam lines, and would require only tie-ins, and not upgrades, to be served by the campus system. The alternative site could be readily tied-in to existing central campus utilities, which have the capacity to serve the project at this site. Unlike the proposed project, the alternative would not require construction of a new sanitary lift station to provide sanitary sewer capacity for the site.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. Development of the RMI at the Dairy Road Recreation Field site would accomplish most of the objectives of the project. The site is large enough to accommodate the proposed elements of the RMI plan, and there would be potential for future expansion, since the adjacent dairy is slated to be moved. The site would also support the RMI objective of providing a state-of-the-art research and teaching facility, which would provide opportunities for hands-on student experience and collaborative research. Alternative 3 would allow the campus to demonstrate good environmental building practices.

The location of this site, although at the intersection of two major campus roads, would not provide opportunities for the project to meet the objective of creating a strong identity and an inviting entry for the RMI, the associated departments, and the campus, as it would not be highly visible to passers-by outside the campus.

5.5.2.4 Alternative 4: The No Project Alternative Description. As required by CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative is analyzed below. Under this alternative the RMI Project would not be built, and the associated curriculum expansion not be offered at UC Davis. The proposed site would either be left in its current use as an agricultural field, or developed for other elements of the proposed 2003 LRDP.



Impact Analysis Aesthetics. The No Project Alternative would have no potential to result in the less-than-significant impacts identified for the proposed project with respect to the visual character of the campus, and contribution to night light or glare.

Agricultural Resources. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the project’s significant impact on prime farmland. The 3-acre prime farmland site proposed for the project would either remain in farm uses, or would ultimately be developed in some other use.

Air Quality. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s significant impact with respect to short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction. The proposed site likely would continue in existing agricultural uses, which presently produce small quantities of farm-related emissions from farm equipment and fugitive dust.

Biological Resources. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts with respect to special status species and the jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

Cultural Resources. The alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts upon archaeological resources on and off site.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Less-than-significant impacts related to hazardous chemicals and chemical wastes associated with the proposed project would be eliminated by the No Project Alternative.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The less-than-significant impacts of the project with respect to increased storm water runoff and pollution, and significant impacts on shallow/intermediate and deep aquifers would be eliminated by the No Project Alternative.

Land Use and Planning. No project-specific impacts were identified for the proposed project.

Noise. The alternative would eliminate the less-than-significant noise impacts that would result from the proposed project.


Public Services. No project-specific impacts were identified for either the proposed project or the alternative.


Transportation and Traffic. The alternative would eliminate the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project with respect to intersection levels of service and parking.

Utilities. The No Project Alternative would eliminate the utility demands of the proposed project. No new utility connections would be required.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives. Under the No Project Alternative, the goals of the RMI Project would not be achieved. The V&E and FS&T departments would continue to operate

Volume III


with outmoded facilities, and would not have the resources of a state-of-the-art research and teaching facility. Education and extension programs, and potential cooperative endeavors for the industry, community and campus would be reduced. The departments would not be able to expand their training capability for hands-on production of wine and modern food processing technology, to accommodate a variety of testing alternatives and simulations, or to offer experience in facilities similar to what students will encounter professionally. The campus would not create a strong identity and inviting entry to campus.

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

The project as proposed has few significant impacts. It would result in the development of 3 acres of prime farmland, and would contribute to the campus-wide significant and unavoidable impact of loss of 745 acres of prime farmland as a result of the 2003 LRDP. It would result in significant unavoidable impacts associated with construction emissions, and the withdrawal of domestic water from the deep aquifer. All other impacts of the project would be less than significant or would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by mitigation.

Of the remaining alternatives, the Dairy Road Recreation Field Alternative is considered environmentally superior. It would eliminate the significant impact of the project on prime farmland. It would have reduced impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to biological and cultural resources, and to utilities. The alternative would have a less-than-significant land use impact not shared by the project on recreation, through displacement of a recreation field.

5.6 REFERENCES California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2000. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring

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

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1996. Traffic Manual.

Fehr and Peers Associates. 2003a. Robert Mondavi Institute Traffic and Circulation Study. Prepared for UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning. April.

Fehr & Peers Associates. 2003b. Davis Travel Demand Model Development Report. March.

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

May & Associates, Inc. 2003. Results of Special-Status Species Survey for the Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science Project. University of California, Davis.

Nadolski, John. 2003a. Pacific Legacy. Personal communication with Sally Morgan, URS Corporation, regarding findings of archaeological investigations at the RMI site conducted by Pacific Legacy. March 20.



Nadolski, John. 2003b. Draft Summary of Archaeological Findings on the UC Davis Campus. Prepared by Pacific Legacy for UC Davis. March.

Nadolski, John. 2003c. Archaeological investigations for the Robert Mondavi Institute Project. Prepared by Pacific Legacy for UC Davis. April.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. Fourth Edition. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health.

UC Davis Architects and Engineers Office. 2002. Center for the Arts District Utility Study. July, 2002.

UC Davis Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS). 2002. Parking Space Utilization Survey. January.

URS Corporation. 2002. Limited Phase 1A Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Robert Mondavi Institute Project. Prepared for UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning.

Waterhouse, Andy. 2003. Personal communication with Sally Morgan, URS Corporation, regarding water usage, waste, and noise associated with winemaking. UC Davis Viticulture and Enology Department. April 11, 2003.

West Yost and Associates. 2000. Draft Storm Water Master Plan. Prepared for UC Davis.

Whisler, John. 2003. Draft Results of the Special Status Species Survey for the Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science Project, University of California, Davis. Prepared by May and Associates for UC Davis ORMP. January, 2003.

Documents

5.0 ROBERT MONDAVI INSTITUTE PROJECT