FINDINGS FOR AND APPROVAL OF THE BREWERY, WINERY & FOOD PILOT FACILITIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS

Transcription

1 FINDINGS FOR AND APPROVAL OF THE BREWERY, WINERY & FOOD PILOT FACILITIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS I. CONSIDERATION OF THE CERTIFIED 2003 LRDP EIR AND APPROVAL OF THE BREWERY, WINERY & FOOD PILOT FACILITIES The Regents of the University of California ( University ), as lead agency, has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2003 Long Range Development Plan ( 2003 LRDP ) for the University of California, Davis ( UC Davis or the campus ). The Final 2003 LRDP Environmental Impact Report ( LRDP EIR ) has been assigned State Clearinghouse No Volume III of 2003 LRDP EIR provides project-level analysis of the potential environmental effects of five projects proposed by UC Davis for implementation under the 2003 LRDP, including the Robert Mondavi Institute project. The 2003 LRDP EIR is hereby incorporated in these findings by reference. The Robert Mondavi Institute (RMI) project was planned to ultimately contain three components: (1) The Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science (RMI Academic Building), (2) The Viticulture and Enology Research and Teaching Winery, and (3) The Anheuser-Busch Brewing and Food Science Laboratory. The 2003 LDRP EIR evaluated the combined impacts of all three components of the RMI Project. The RMI Academic Building was approved by the University after consideration of the Findings and Approval of the University of California Davis Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science in February As evaluated in the 2003 LRDP EIR, the RMI Project included two phases. Phase 1 was described in the LRDP EIR as including the RMI Academic Building (now constructed) and the components proposed for the Brewery, Winery and Food Pilot Facilities (BWF Pilot Facilities). The BWF Pilot Facilities currently under consideration include the approximately 17,600 assignable square feet (asf) described as Phase 1 of the Viticulture and Enology Research and Teaching Winery and the Phase 1, 8,000 asf of the Anheuser-Busch Brewing and Food Science Laboratory. Details for these components and phasing were described in the table titled Building Space Allocation on page 5-10 of Volume III of the LRDP EIR. Phase 2 of the RMI project was described in the LRDP EIR as expansion space for the Viticulture and Enology Research and Teaching Winery and expansion space for the Anheuser-Busch Brewing and Food Science Laboratory components. Site planning efforts for the RMI project remain unchanged from the project evaluated in the LRDP EIR. The BWF Pilot Facilities would construct the Phase 1 elements of the Viticulture and Enology Research and Teaching Winery and the Anheuser-Busch Brewing and Food Science Laboratory. The Phase 2 elements of the Viticulture and Enology Research and Teaching Winery and the Anheuser-Busch Brewing and Food Science Laboratory would be constructed at a future date and would require separate design approval.

2 The project components of the BWF Pilot Facilities match the project described in the LRDP EIR with regard to the building height, architectural design elements, program activities, expected population, and site circulation. The University has considered the information included as part of the above-described California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000, et seq. (CEQA) documentation prior to making the findings and determinations herein, as part of its approval of the proposed Project and finds that said EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the University. II. FINDINGS The Regents is adopting these findings for the entirety of the actions described in these findings and in the 2003 LRDP EIR as comprising the BWF Pilot Facilities for UC Davis. Having received, reviewed and considered the 2003 LRDP EIR and other information in the record of proceedings, as described below, The Regents hereby adopts the following findings pertaining to the BWF Pilot Facilities in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the University s procedures for implementing CEQA: Part A: the Final EIR. Part B: Findings regarding the environmental review process and the contents of Findings regarding impacts and disposition of related mitigation measures. The Regents certifies that these findings are based on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these findings, concerning the environmental issues related to the Project. The Regents has exercised its independent judgment and adopt these findings for the approvals set forth in Section III, below. A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 1. The RMI Facilities The overall RMI Project was proposed to provide a modern facility to accommodate the Food Science and Technology (FS&T) and Viticulture and Enology (V&E) departments (two departments within the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences), which currently are housed in Cruess Hall and the Enology Building. These buildings were constructed in 1952 and 1939, respectively, for agricultural programs that at the time had relatively simple laboratory needs. The facilities provided by these buildings are outdated, and the lack of modern science laboratories limits teaching and research opportunities and also limits collaboration efforts of the V&E and FS&T departments. In addition to outdated facilities, the amount of space available to the V&E and FS&T departments has not kept pace with modern teaching and research practices. Some

3 research activities have not been pursued because of a lack of space. The typical size of a research team involved in biological science ranges from 10 to 12 individuals comprising faculty, post-doctoral scholars, graduate students, and undergraduate students. The lack of sufficient space hampers the appropriate involvement of these team members, and adversely affects the campus goal to engage more students in the research enterprise. As described in the 2003 LRDP EIR, the BWF Pilot Facilities were proposed as approximately 25,300 asf with single-story building heights. Consistent with the components described in Section of Volume III of the LRDP EIR, the BWF Pilot Facilities are designed to contain 24,700 assignable square feet. The BWF Pilot Facilities will construct a one-story steel framed building to accommodate teaching and research programs for the Departments of Viticulture & Enology and Food Science & Technology. The facility will include a winery, brewery, food processing plant, milk processing room, two laboratories, two classrooms and support spaces. Exterior finishes will consist of plaster, curtain wall glazing and metal accents to match the adjacent Robert Mondavi Institute. 2. Absence of Changed Circumstances CEQA Guidelines Sections and require a lead agency to prepare a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR when substantial changes to the project are proposed which require changes to the previous EIR, or when substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances in which the project is undertaken which require changes to a previously certified EIR. As demonstrated in Section II(B), below, no changes are proposed to the BWF Pilot Facilities as it was described and analyzed in the certified UC Davis 2003 LRDP EIR, and there have been no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. Based on the foregoing, The Regents hereby finds that preparation of a subsequent EIR or a supplement to the UC Davis 2003 LRDP Final EIR is not required and that no further environmental review is necessary. B. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES As stated in Section I above, the 2003 LDRP EIR evaluated the combined impacts of all three components of the RMI Project and the proposed BWF Pilot Facilities is the second component of the RMI to be approved. The following section summarizes the environmental impacts of the BWF Pilot Facilities, and includes the findings of The Regents as to those impacts, as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of The Regents regarding the environmental impacts of the BWF Pilot Facilities and the mitigation measures proposed by the 2003 LRDP EIR and adopted and incorporated by The Regents. These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about BWF Pilot Facilities impacts before and after mitigation and do not attempt to describe the

4 full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and adopted by The Regents, and state The Regents findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the BWF Pilot Facilities s impacts. In making these findings, The Regents ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR in these findings, and ratifies, adopts and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to mitigation measures and environmental impacts of the BWF Pilot Facilities, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. As set forth in Part III, below, The Regents incorporates into the project the mitigation measures set forth in these findings to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the BWF Pilot Facilities, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts. In adopting these mitigation measures, The Regents intends to implement each of the mitigation measures proposed in the Final EIR which pertain to the BWF Pilot Facilities. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure from the Final EIR which pertains to the BWF Pilot Facilities has inadvertently been omitted from these findings, said mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of the mitigation measures set forth below fail to accurately reflect the mitigation measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings. 1. Aesthetics The 2003 LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI would not affect scenic resources within a scenic highway and that the project site is not within a scenic viewshed from major viewing points, including westbound I-80. Therefore, no further projectlevel analysis of these impacts is required. The Project is consistent with the LRDP and RMI and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis. No additional environmental analysis or mitigation measures are required to address scenic highway or scenic viewshed topics. The 2003 LRDP EIR identified the following mitigation measures to address potential aesthetic impacts associated with implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI, which are hereby incorporated into the Project.

5 a. Visual Quality The LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the RMI would have a less-thansignificant impact on visual character and quality (Final EIR, RMI Impact 5.4-1) and that this impact would be further reduced with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures), which are included as part of the BWF Pilot Facilities Project: LRDP Mitigation 4.1-2(a) New structures, roads, and landscaping at UC Davis shall be designed to be compatible with those visual elements and policies identified in the 2003 LRDP. LRDP Mitigation 4.1-2(b) Prior to design approval of development projects under the 2003 LRDP, the Campus Design Review Committee must determine that project designs are consistent with the valued elements of the visual landscape identified in the 2003 LRDP, applicable planning guidelines, and/or the character of surrounding development so that the visual character and quality of the project area are not substantially degraded. The Project is consistent with the RMI as analyzed and described in the Final EIR and would not introduce any new potential visual character and quality impacts, and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis of aesthetic impacts. The proposed building design would complement the existing RMI academic buildings and the adjacent vineyard area. The BWF Pilot Facilities building would enclose the southern edge the RMI building complex and would help to complete the site planning and visual character designed for this area. The Project incorporates LRDP MM (a,b), which will further reduce this less than significant impact. No additional mitigation measures or project revisions are required. Therefore, the Final EIR analysis is sufficient and comprehensive to address visual quality impacts and no further environmental review is required. b. Light and Glare The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the RMI would have a less-thansignificant impact on light and glare (Final EIR, RMI Impact 5.4-2) and that this impact would be further reduced with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures), which are included as part of the BWF Pilot Facilities Project: LRDP Mitigation 4.1-3(a) Design for specific projects shall provide for the use of textured nonreflective exterior surfaces and nonreflective glass. LRDP Mitigation 4.1-3(b) Except as provided in LRDP Mitigation 4.1-3(c), all new outdoor lighting shall utilize directional lighting methods with shielded and cutoff type light fixtures to minimize glare and upward directed lighting.

6 LRDP Mitigation 4.1-3(c) Non-cutoff, non-shielded lighting fixtures used to enhance nighttime views of walking paths, specific landscape features, or specific architectural features shall be reviewed by the Campus Design Review Committee prior to installation to ensure that: (1) the minimum amount of required lighting is proposed to achieve the desired nighttime emphasis, and (2) the proposed illumination creates no adverse effect on nighttime views. The Project is consistent with the RMI as analyzed and described in the Final EIR and would not introduce any new potential visual quality impacts, and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis of aesthetic impacts. The project would minimize the effect of increased light and glare through the use of building materials, light fixture design, and light fixture placement to reduce light and glare effects. The Project incorporates LRDP MM (a,b,c), which will further reduce this less than significant impact. No additional mitigation measures or project revisions are required. Therefore, the Final EIR analysis is sufficient and comprehensive to address visual quality impacts and no further environmental review is required. 2. Agricultural Resources The 2003 LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI would not conflict with Williamson Act contracts or existing zoning for agricultural uses because the University is not subject to local land use zoning and is a tax-exempt entity. Further, implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI were determined to have a less than significant impact on the potential for conversion of off-campus land to urban uses. The Project is consistent with the LRDP and RMI and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis. No additional environmental analysis or mitigation measures are required to address Williamson/ag conversion impacts. The 2003 LRDP EIR identified the following mitigation measures to address potential agricultural resources impacts associated with implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI, which are hereby incorporated into the Project. a. Conversion of Prime Farmland. The Final EIR concluded (Final EIR, RMI Impact 5.4-2) that implementation of the RMI would have a significant impact on prime farmland even with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, which are included as part of the Winery Project: LRDP Mitigation Prior to conversion of prime farmland to nonagricultural uses under the 2003 LRDP, the campus shall preserve approximately 525 acres of prime farmland at Russell Ranch, within the area designated for Teaching and Research Fields,

7 or the Kidwell and McConeghy parcels for agricultural purposes (including agricultural teaching and research). The campus will preserve prime farmland at a one-to-one (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 Project is consistent with the RMI as analyzed and described in the Final EIR and would not introduce any new potential agricultural impacts, and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 EIR analysis of agricultural/prime farmland impacts. With implementation of the proposed project, the campus will continue to implement the campus farmland mitigation program by preserving prime farmland at a one-to-one ratio to match the amount of land converted from development activities. Accordingly, the mitigation measures prescribed in the LRDP EIR would minimize this impact to the greatest extent feasible (LRDP Mitigation 4.2-1). No additional mitigation measures or project revisions have been identified that would further lessen the previously identified significant impact. Therefore, the Final EIR and is sufficient and comprehensive to address the agricultural impacts of the proposed Project and this impact remains significant after mitigation. 3. Air Quality The 2003 LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI would not result in potentially significant impacts through increases in toxic air contaminants, or localized carbon monoxide levels and that a project-level analysis of these issues is not needed because the project impacts would be substantially lower than the levels previously determined to be below the applicable level of significance. No odor sources are associated with the project, therefore odor impacts are not an issue for the Project. The Project is consistent with the LRDP and RMI and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis. No additional environmental analysis or mitigation measures are required to address toxic air contaminants, carbon monoxide, or odor impacts. The 2003 LRDP EIR identified the following mitigation measures to address potential air quality impacts associated with implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI, which are hereby incorporated into the Project. a. Construction Related Emissions The Final EIR concluded (Final EIR, RMI Impact 5.4-4) that implementation of the RMI would have a significant impact on air quality from construction emissions even with the

8 incorporation of the following mitigation measures, which are included as part of the Winery Project: LRDP Mitigation 4.3-3(a) The campus shall include in all construction contracts the measures specified below to reduce fugitive dust impacts, including but not limited to the following: All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purpose, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking. When demolishing buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least two feet of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices also is expressly forbidden. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions by utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. LRDP Mitigation 4.3-3(b) The campus shall include in construction contracts for large construction projects near receptors, the following control measures: Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. To the extent feasible, limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. LRDP Mitigation 4.3-3(c) The campus shall implement the following control measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors from construction equipment exhaust:

9 To the extent that equipment is available and cost effective, the campus shall encourage contractors to use alternate fuels and retrofit existing engines in construction equipment. Minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes when construction equipment is not in use. To the extent practicable, manage operation of heavy-duty equipment to reduce emissions. To the extent practicable, employ construction management techniques such as timing construction to occur outside the ozone season of May through October, or scheduling equipment use to limit unnecessary concurrent operation. The Project is consistent with the RMI as analyzed and described in the Final EIR and would not introduce any new potential air quality impacts, and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 EIR analysis of construction related air quality impacts. With implementation of the proposed project, the campus will continue to construction measures to reduce air quality emissions from equipment, land development, and building materials. Accordingly, the mitigation measures prescribed in the LRDP EIR would minimize this impact to the greatest extent feasible (LRDP Mitigation (a,b,c)). No additional mitigation measures or project revisions have been identified that would further lessen the previously identified significant impact. Therefore, the Final EIR and is sufficient and comprehensive to address the air quality impacts of the proposed Project and this impact remains significant after mitigation. a. Increased Air Pollutant Emissions The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the RMI would have a less-thansignificant impact on increased air emissions (Final EIR, RMI Impact 5.4-5) and identified no mitigation measures to further reduce this less-than-significant impact. The proposed BWF Pilot Facilities is a component of the RMI project evaluated in Volume III of the LRDP EIR and the BWF Pilot Facilities remains substantially unchanged from the project described in the RMI evaluation. Accordingly, all impacts from the BWF Pilot Facilities are expected to be within the projected emission levels completed for the LRDP EIR. The Project is consistent with the RMI as analyzed and described in the Final EIR and would not introduce any new potential impacts, and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis of these impacts. No additional mitigation measures or project revisions have been identified to reduce this less-than-significant impact. Therefore, the Final EIR analysis is sufficient and comprehensive to address these impacts and no further environmental review is required.

10 b. Contribution to Global Climate Change Project activities will result in greenhouse gas emissions from construction equipment and long-term operation of the project. Although the development proposal would result in buildings that meet or exceed California s Title 24 energy efficiency requirements and this effort would help to minimize operational emissions from the buildings, the project would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that are producing global climate change. In 2006, after certification of the 2003 LRDP EIR, California passed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which requires CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions). The principal greenhouse gases of concern are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H2O). CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant greenhouse gas emitted. As of the date of this analysis, neither SCAQMD, CARB nor any federal agency has implemented an emissions threshold for the purposes of identifying a significant contribution to global climate change. Nor are there rules or regulations in place from CARB, SCAQMD, Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) or other resource agency applicable to the proposed project that define what is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, and there are no applicable facility-specific greenhouse gas emission limits or caps. Pursuant to Senate Bill 97, the OPR is in the process of developing CEQA Guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. OPR is required to prepare, develop, and transmit the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1, The Resources Agency must certify and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1, In compliance with the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices, UC Davis is currently developing a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission to support the goals of AB 32. In the interim, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has prepared a white paper that considers options for evaluating and addressing greenhouse has emissions under CEQA. CARB staff has provided an early action list, which includes 44 greenhouse gas reduction measures. The 44 recommended early actions have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 25 percent of the estimated reductions needed by These strategies are almost entirely targeted at emissions from fuel production and storage, transportation of goods (via haul trucks and ports), cement plants, and energy facilities. In lieu of any official regulatory directive or precedent for identifying significant greenhouse gas emissions, a project could be deemed to have a significant air quality impact if it would conflict with the 44 greenhouse gas reduction measures, set forth by the timetable

11 established in AB 32. If a project complies with the state s strategies to reduce greenhouse gasses to the level proposed by the governor, it follows that the project would have a less-thansignificant cumulative impact to global climate change. If a project does not or cannot comply with reduction strategies, the applicant can alternatively reduce its cumulative contribution to greenhouse gas emissions to less-than-significant levels by contributing to available regional, state, national, or international mitigation programs, such as reforestation, tree planting, or carbon trading. In considering applicable directives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, three types of analyses are used to determining whether the proposed project could be in conflict with the state goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis includes a review of: A. The potential conflicts with the CARB 44 early action strategies (CARB, 2007b); B. The relative size of the project in comparison to the estimated greenhouse reduction goal of 174 MMT eco 2 by 2020 and in comparison to the size of major facilities that are required to report greenhouse gas emissions (25,000 metric tons of e CO 2 /yr), (CAPCOA Significance Threshold 2.3); and C. The basic parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient. With regard to item A, the proposed project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of CARB s 44 early action strategies. As previously noted, these strategies are almost entirely targeted at emissions from fuel production and storage, transportation of goods (via haul trucks and ports), cement plants, and energy facilities. The strategies that do address light-duty motor vehicles are directed toward regulatory agencies and not land use development. With regard to item B, CO 2 emissions from construction and operation have not been quantified as this process of emission quantification is being developed concurrently with the UC Davis Climate Action Plan. The magnitude of the proposed project in relation to the overall operations at UC Davis is fairly small and is not anticipated to disrupt future emission reduction programs. The project helps to provide new energy efficient facilities at UC Davis to replace existing facilities with high energy usage. The project will be served by energy efficient building design and will be designed to achieve a LEED Silver designation. Hence, this impact is considered less than significant. Additionally, consistent with item C above, the new construction would also be required to meet California Energy Efficiency Standards in the state Building Code, helping to reduce future energy demand as well as reduce the project s contribution to regional greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions 4. Biological Resources The 2003 LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI would not conflict with the provisions of an established habitat conservation plan. This

12 item was adequately addressed in the 2003 LRDP Initial Study. 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 (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 wetlands and the northwestern pond turtle are were included with the RMI Academic Building but these impacts are no longer applicable to the project because the off-site utility connections associated with the RMI Academic Building have been constructed. The Project is consistent with the LRDP and RMI and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis. No additional environmental analysis or mitigation measures are required to address the biology impacts described above. The 2003 LRDP EIR identified the following mitigation measures to address potential biological impacts associated with implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI, which are hereby incorporated into the Project: a. Swainson s Hawk Nesting Efforts The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the RMI would have a potentially significant impact on Swainson s hawk nesting (Final EIR, RMI Impact 5.4-9) and that this impact could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, which are included as part of the BWF Pilot Facilities Project: LRDP Mitigation 4.4-4(a) The campus shall conduct a pre-construction survey of trees on and adjacent to a project site during the raptor breeding season (approximately March 1 to August 31). Additionally, the campus shall conduct surveys within a ½-mile radius

13 of the site to determine the presence or absence of any nesting Swainson s hawks. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the same calendar year that the proposed activity is planned to begin to determine if any nesting birds-of-prey would be affected. If phased construction procedures are planned for the proposed activity, the results of the above survey shall be valid only for the season when it is conducted. If any Swainson s hawks are nesting within a one-half-mile radius of the project site or if other raptors are nesting in, on or adjacent to the project site, a qualified biologist shall determine the potential for disturbance to nesting raptors, including Swainson s hawks. If the biologist determines that there is a significant potential for disturbance, the campus shall implement feasible changes in the construction schedule or make other appropriate adjustments to the project in response to the specific circumstances. If feasible project changes are not readily identifiable, the campus will consult with CDFG to determine what actions should be taken to protect the nesting efforts. If after five years, a previously recorded nest site remains unoccupied by a Swainson s hawk, it will no longer be considered as a Swainson s hawk nest site subject to this mitigation. The Project is consistent with the RMI as analyzed and described in the Final EIR and would not introduce any new impacts to nesting Swainson s hawks, and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis of nesting efforts of Swainson s hawks. The proposed project will complete the required pre-construction survey effort and, if necessary, revise the project activities or consult with CDFG to protect the nesting efforts. The Project incorporates LRDP Mitigation (a), which will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact. No additional mitigation measures or project revisions are required. Therefore, the Final EIR analysis is sufficient and comprehensive to address Swainson s hawk nesting impacts and no further environmental review is required. 5. Cultural Resources The 2003 LRDP EIR concluded that there are no unique paleontological resources or unique 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. The RMI Project evaluation in the LRDP EIR included analysis of potential impacts to a potentially historic bridge that could be used to convey utility lines across Putah Creek but these impacts are no longer applicable to the project because the off-site utility connections associated with the RMI Academic Building have been constructed and did not disturb the bridge. The Project is consistent with the LRDP and RMI and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP

14 EIR analysis. No additional environmental analysis or mitigation measures are required to address paleontological geologic features, or historic structure impacts. The 2003 LRDP EIR identified the following mitigation measures to address potential cultural resources impacts associated with implementation of the 2003 LRDP and RMI, which are hereby incorporated into the Project: a. Damage to Cultural Resources The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the RMI would have a potentially significant impact on damage to cultural resources (Final EIR, RMI Impact 5.4-9) and that this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, which are included as part of the BWF Pilot Facilities Project: LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b) During the planning phase of the project, the campus shall implement the following steps to identify and protect archaeological resources that may be present in the APE: i) For project sites at all levels of investigation, contractor crews shall be required to attend an informal training session prior to the start of earth moving, regarding how to recognize archaeological sites and artifacts. In addition, campus employees whose work routinely involves disturbing the soil shall be informed how to recognize evidence of potential archaeological sites and artifacts. Prior to disturbing the soil, contractors shall be notified that they are required to watch for potential archaeological sites and artifacts and to notify the campus if any are found. In the event of a find, the campus shall implement item (vi), below. ii) (vi) For project sites requiring a moderate or intensive level of investigation, a surface survey shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist during project planning and design and prior to soil disturbing activities. For sites requiring moderate investigation, in the event of a surface find, intensive investigation will be implemented, as per item (iii), below. Irrespective of findings, the qualified archaeologist shall, in consultation with the campus, develop an archaeological monitoring plan to be implemented during the construction phase of the project. The frequency and duration of monitoring shall be adjusted in accordance with survey results, the nature of construction activities, and results during the monitoring period. In the event of a discovery, the campus shall implement item (vi), below. If a resource is discovered during construction (whether or not an archaeologist is present), all soil disturbing work within 100 feet of the find shall cease. The campus shall contact a qualified archaeologist to

15 provide and implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation as needed to define the deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project area to determine whether the resource is significant and would be affected by the project. LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b), steps (iii) through (vii) shall be implemented. LRDP Mitigation 4.5-2(a) For an archaeological site that has been determined by a qualified archaeologist to qualify as an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource through the process set forth under LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b), and where it has been determined under LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(b) that avoidance or preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the campus, shall: (i) (ii) (iii) Prepare a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the recovery that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant, and implement the data recovery plan prior to or during development of the site. Perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a full written report and file it with the appropriate information center, and provide for the permanent curation of recovered materials. If, in the opinion of the qualified archaeologist and in light of the data available, the significance of the site is such that data recovery cannot capture the values that qualify the site for inclusion on the CRHR, the campus shall reconsider project plans in light of the high value of the resource, and implement more substantial modifications to the proposed project that would allow the site to be preserved intact, such as project redesign, placement of fill, or project relocation or abandonment. If no such measures are feasible, the campus shall implement LRDP Mitigation LRDP Mitigation 4.5-2(b) For a structure or building that has been determined by a qualified architectural historian to qualify as an historical resource through the process set forth under LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(c), and where it has been determined under LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1(c) that avoidance is not feasible, documentation and treatment shall be carried out as described below: (i) (ii) If the building or structure can be preserved on site, but remodeling, renovation or other alterations are required, this work shall be conducted in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995). If a significant historic building or structure is proposed for major alteration or renovation, or to be moved and/or demolished, the campus shall ensure that a qualified architectural historian thoroughly documents the building and associated

16 landscaping and setting. Documentation shall include still and video photography and a written documentary record of the building to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), including accurate scaled mapping, architectural descriptions, and scaled architectural plans, if available. A copy of the record shall be deposited with the University archives, Shields Library Special Collections. The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site-specific history and appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate. (iii) (iv) If preservation and reuse at the site are not feasible, the historical building shall be documented as described in item (ii) and, when physically and financially feasible, be moved and preserved or reused. If, in the opinion of the qualified architectural historian, the nature and significance of the building is such that its demolition or destruction cannot be fully mitigated through documentation, the campus shall reconsider project plans in light of the high value of the resource, and implement more substantial modifications to the proposed project that would allow the structure to be preserved intact. These could include project redesign, relocation or abandonment. If no such measures are feasible, the campus shall implement LRDP Mitigation LRDP Mitigation 4.5-4(a) Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.5-1, and to minimize the potential for disturbance or destruction of human remains in an archaeological context and to preserve them in place, if feasible. LRDP Mitigation 4.5-4(b) Provide a representative of the local Native American community an opportunity to monitor any excavation (including archaeological excavation) within the boundaries of a known Native American archaeological site. LRDP Mitigation 4.5-4(c) In the event of a discovery on campus of human bone, suspected human bone, or a burial, all excavation in the vicinity will halt immediately and the area of the find will be protected until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the bone is human. If the qualified archaeologist determines the bone is human, or if a qualified archaeologist is not present, the campus will notify the Yolo or Solano County Coroner (depending on the county of the find) of the find before additional disturbance occurs. If it is determined that the find is of Native American origin, the campus will comply with the provisions of PRC regarding identification and involvement of the Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD). LRDP Mitigation 4.5-4(d) If human remains cannot be left in place, the campus shall ensure that the qualified archaeologist and the MLD are provided opportunity to confer

17 on archaeological treatment of human remains, and that appropriate studies, as identified through this consultation, are carried out prior to reinterment. The campus shall provide results of all such studies to the local Native American community, and shall provide an opportunity of local Native American involvement in any interpretative reporting. As stipulated by the provisions of the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the campus shall ensure that human remains and associated artifacts recovered from campus projects on state lands are repatriated to the appropriate local tribal group if requested. The Project is consistent with the RMI as analyzed and described in the Final EIR and would not introduce any new potential cultural resources impacts, and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis of cultural resources impacts. The construction activities will include the contractor training and excavation monitoring identified in the required mitigation measures and the contract specification will include requirements for proper coordination of suspected cultural materials that could be discovered during the construction process. The Project incorporates LRDP Mitigations (b), (a,b), and (a-d), which will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. No additional mitigation measures or project revisions are required. Therefore, the Final EIR analysis is sufficient and comprehensive to address cultural resources impacts and no further environmental review is required. b. Diminish the Significance of a Historic Structure The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the RMI would have a less than significant impact on historic resources (Final EIR, RMI Impact ). This impact was identified in anticipation of off-site utility construction. The anticipated connection was completed during construction of the RMI Academic Building and the identified impact is no longer applicable to the BWF Pilot Facilities project. The proposed project would have no effect on historical resources. No impact would occur. 6. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 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.

18 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 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. Compliance with existing procedures and regulations will ensure that impact potential is less than significant. The Project is consistent with the LRDP and RMI, and would not introduce any new potential geology, soils, and seismicity impacts not already assessed in the 2003 LRDP FEIR. No changed circumstances or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis of geology, soils, and seismicity impacts. Therefore, the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis is sufficient and comprehensive to adequately address this issue. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The 2003 LRDP EIR concluded that 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. The Project is consistent with the LRDP and RMI and no changed circumstance or new information is present that would alter the conclusions of the 2003 LRDP EIR analysis. No additional environmental analysis or mitigation measures are required to address the hazards and hazardous materials impacts described above.