The following Findings are hereby adopted by The Regents in conjunction with the approval of the project which is set forth in Section III below.

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR, FINDINGS, AND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF THE SURGERY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES PAVILION, DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15090, the Board of Regents of the University of California (The Regents), as a lead agency, hereby certifies that the Final Focused Tiered Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the University of California, Davis Medical Center ( the campus ) proposed Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. (CEQA Guidelines). The Regents further certifies that the Final EIR was presented to The Regents, and that The Regents has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the design of the Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion (the project), as set forth in Section III. As part of this certification, The Regents hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the University of California. The Final EIR includes the June 2002 Draft Focused Tiered Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and the December 2002 Final Focused Tiered EIR (Final EIR). II. FINDINGS The following Findings are hereby adopted by The Regents in conjunction with the approval of the project which is set forth in Section III below. A. Background As fully described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR as updated in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR, the Davis Medical Center proposes to construct an approximately 420,000-grosssquare-foot (gsf) addition east of the Hospital Tower II (Davis Tower) at the Medical Center in Sacramento, California. The addition would provide replacement and additional space for several acute-care functions now located in the North/South Wing of the Hospital, including the emergency department and cardiology services, and would replace existing operating rooms and add new ones. Clinical Laboratory programs located elsewhere at the Medical Center would be consolidated into the new building. Space vacated by the Clinical Laboratory programs would be used for other existing Medical Center programs. To accommodate the proposed project, nine buildings would be demolished, including Camellia Cottage, which appears to meet the criteria for significance as a historical resource established in Section of the CEQA Guidelines. The project site is within the western part of the Ambulatory Services planning zone identified in the 1989 LRDP. The proposed project includes revising the 1989 LRDP boundary for the Hospital planning zone to include the project site and changing the designation of the area that includes the site where the new building would be constructed from Ambulatory Services Zone to Hospital Zone. The total amount of developable square footage in the Hospital Zone will be increased by 420,000 gross square feet (gsf), from 1,179,170 gsf to 1,599,170 gsf. The total amount of developable square footage in the Ambulatory Services Zone will be decreased by 420,000 gsf, from 741,400 gsf to 321,400.

2 PAGE 2 B. Environmental Review Process A Tiered Initial Study and a Focused Tiered EIR were prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA and the University of California Procedures for Implementation of CEQA. These documents, in accordance with Sections and 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, were tiered from the Davis Medical Center 1989 Long Range Development Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # ; LRDP EIR ), which was certified by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1989 LRDP in March For purposes of these Findings, the term 1989 LRDP shall refer to the 1989 LRDP adopted in March 1989 as amended by subsequent actions. These actions are: June 1997 designation of 3.41 acres east of 49 th Street to accommodate the Ronald McDonald House; May 2001 designation of 10.7 acres east of 50 th Street as Specialized Clinical Services Zone to accommodate development of the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute; and November 2002 designation of 1.4 acres east of 49 th Street as Mixed-Use Zone to accommodate development of the Child Development Center. The term 1989 LRDP EIR similarly refers to the 1989 LRDP EIR as certified in 1989 and as updated by the analyses in the negative declarations prepared for the Ronald McDonald House, M.I.N.D. Institute, and Child Development Center (Ronald McDonald House Initial Study and Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No , February 1997; UC Davis Medical Investigation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (M.I.N.D.) Institute Project Final Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No , April 2001; and UC Davis Medical Center Child Development Center Project Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 2002, State Clearinghouse No ). Hereafter, references to the 1989 LRDP EIR include the 1989 LRDP EIR as updated and revised by the environmental documents listed above. The project is part of the physical development proposed in the 1989 LRDP; therefore, the environmental analysis for the project is presented and analyzed within the context of the 1989 LRDP and incorporates by reference applicable portions of the 1989 LRDP EIR. The 1989 LRDP EIR analyzed the overall effects of campus growth and facility development through the year 2010 and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with that growth. As tiered documents, the Initial Study and EIR for the project rely on the 1989 LRDP EIR for: (1) a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas; and (2) issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the 1989 LRDP EIR for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis. The purpose of the Tiered Initial Study was to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project with respect to the existing 1989 LRDP EIR analysis to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, was appropriate. Based on the analysis contained in the project's Tiered Initial Study, the campus determined that further analysis was required to adequately address potential transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and aesthetics impacts. For the other resource areas, the campus identified that the project would not result in any significant impacts that were not mitigated to a less-than-significant level or sufficiently addressed by the 1989 LRDP EIR and/or projectspecific mitigation measures incorporated into the project. Accordingly, the Focused Tiered EIR

3 PAGE 3 for the project further evaluates the significance of impacts in the areas of potential transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, cultural resources, and aesthetics impacts. The campus published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and an Initial Study indicating that a Focused Tiered EIR would be prepared for the Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion on April 23, The public and agency review of the NOP and Initial Study extended from April 23, 2002 to May 22, No comments were received during the public and agency review period. The project was assigned the State Clearinghouse Number The Notice of Completion (NOC) and Draft EIR for the project were published on June 28, The official public notice for the project was published in the Sacramento Bee (the local paper of public record) on June 28, 2002 and announced: (1) the availability of the Draft EIR for review and comment by the public and agencies; (2) the date and location of a public hearing on the Draft EIR; and (3) how to obtain copies of the Draft EIR. The campus Government and Community Relations office issued a letter to 27 individuals, neighborhood groups, business representatives and political leaders for the City, County and State advising them of the availability of the Draft EIR and soliciting their review and comment. The public and agency review period for the NOC and the Draft EIR extended from June 28, 2002 through August 12, During that time, the Draft EIR was reviewed by various governmental agencies, as well as by interested individuals and organizations. In addition to correspondence from the State Clearinghouse regarding the completion of the review period, 10 comment letters from State and local agencies and members of the public were received. The comments received during the public review period and the responses thereto are presented in the Final EIR. The Final EIR, which includes, among other components, the Tiered Initial Study published in April 2002, the Draft EIR published in June 2002, and campus responses to comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, was published in December Changes to the Project Since Notice of the Draft EIR Since the notice of the Draft EIR, in June 2002, Medical Center staff have made revisions to the proposed project that reflect ongoing planning and design efforts. The major revision is related to changes in the configuration of interior developable space, which would allow for more efficient use of space that would accommodate existing Medical Center programs. Specifically, associated changes in the project description consist of: increasing the amount of developable space from 370,000 gross square feet (gsf) to 420,000 gsf. The change in the amount of developable space from 370,000 gsf to 420,000 gsf would not change the building footprint, the height of the building, or the location of the building from that identified and analyzed in the Draft Focused Tiered EIR.

4 PAGE 4 expanding laboratory space in the proposed building to allow for consolidation of Clinical Laboratory programs into one location, leaving about 30,000 gsf at other campus facilities that will be backfilled with other existing Medical Center uses. The vacated space could be used for research, laboratory, or office uses, consistent with existing programs. increasing the proposed project s contribution to the total campus population from 144 assumed in the Draft Focused Tiered EIR to 194. However, 22 of those individuals are assumed to be in programs that are not on-campus, bringing the actual daily population increase as a result of the proposed project to 172 (28 more than assumed in the Draft Focused Tiered EIR). The space vacated by the Clinical Laboratory is assumed to accommodate up to 50 staff, approximately 35 of which could be relocated from existing programs elsewhere at the Medical Center. However, for purposes of revised traffic modeling (see below), it is conservatively assumed that the vacated space could be occupied by up to 50 individuals new to the daytime campus population. In addition, the design of the Emergency Department emergency vehicle entrance has been further revised from that illustrated in the conceptual drawing included in the Draft Focused Tiered EIR. This new design would provide greater separation between emergency vehicle and public access areas. All other design elements of the proposed project would remain as previously described in the Draft Focused Tiered EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. New information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this standard. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The Regents find that the Final EIR does not contain significant new information as defined in the Guidelines and that recirculation of the draft EIR therefore is not required. In addition, none of the conditions described in CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. 2. Responses to Comments The comments received during the public review period and the responses thereto are presented in the Final EIR. In addition to correspondence from the State Clearinghouse regarding completion of the draft environmental document s review period, 10 comment letters from State and local agencies and members of the public were received. The campus evaluated the comments on environmental issues received from individuals and agencies who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, the campus prepared written responses describing the

5 PAGE 5 disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The campus has reviewed the comments received and responses thereto, and has determined neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts previously disclosed in the Draft EIR. A number of comments from the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association focused on the need for additional traffic study to address the effect of the proposed project on cut-through traffic in the local neighborhood, which has been a continuing issue of concern to both the campus and the association. Of particular concern were traffic volumes on V Street, a minor arterial separating the campus from residences to the north. Based on the revised project description, a revised traffic impact study was prepared in November 2002 to evaluate the potential effects of the additional space and population beyond that assumed in the DEIR traffic study. In conjunction with the updated analysis, the traffic impact study also analyzed data pertaining to local traffic volumes on V Street in response to neighborhood concerns. The results of the revised traffic impact study were incorporated into the EIR. The analysis of cut-through traffic on side streets (e.g., T Street, U Street, V Street, 42 nd Street, 48 th Street, etc.) did not alter the conclusions of the original Draft EIR traffic impact study because the number of projectgenerated trips on the side streets is small and would not be measurable to a level that would exceed a standard of significance. Although the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to local streets that would require traffic mitigation, as documented in the updated November 2002 traffic impact study, the Medical Center supports the efforts of neighborhood groups to reduce local neighborhood traffic impacts. The Medical Center is investigating options to help reduce the amount of cut-through traffic related to Medical Center uses. Medical Center staff and the Medical Center s traffic engineering consultant reviewed a proposed traffic-calming plan, which is a collaborative effort between the City of Sacramento and the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association. The proposed Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) includes traffic calming measures to help reduce speeds on streets and increase traffic safety awareness in the area. In October 2002, residents of the Elmhurst neighborhood voted to approve the NTMP, which now must be considered by the Sacramento City Council. If the NTMP is approved by the City Council, the improvements are scheduled to be installed in Spring While the NTMP is intended to improve safety in the neighborhood, the NTMP s effect on the volume of cut-through traffic is not known at this time. It is possible that some individuals may seek other routes once the trafficcalming measures have been installed, but it is unlikely this would result in a substantial reduction in the number of trips, regardless of whether they are to and from the Medical Center or other destinations in the Stockton/Broadway area. One of the measures the campus is considering to help improve traffic conditions is the closure of Medical Center driveways along V Street between 39 th Street and 45 th Street. The campus is also investigating whether closure or gate control of 48 th and 49 th Streets at V Street would help alleviate cut-through traffic. It should be noted that closing or restricting access to Medical Center driveways or 48 th and 49 th Streets is not required to mitigate a project impact because no significant effects were identified. However, by eliminating or restricting access to driveways that would remain after the proposed project is constructed, or by closing or restricting access at 48 th and 49 th Streets, the results of traffic volume modeling presented in the revised traffic impact study indicate that traffic volumes could increase substantially on adjacent that may not be

6 PAGE 6 planned/designed to carry additional traffic. The Medical Center is currently working with the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association to address the issue of cut-through traffic. Medical Center staff met with the president of the neighborhood association in early November 2002 to discuss this issue and to present preliminary traffic volume data that reflected V Street restrictions. Upon reviewing the preliminary traffic volume data, the president of the association recognized that reducing the amount of cut-through traffic at one location could worsen conditions at another, which would not be a preferred solution to address the Elmhurst neighborhood concerns. Efforts to reduce cut-through traffic would continue to require close coordination with the City of Sacramento and the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association. Some commentors expressed concern about the volume of ambulance traffic, noise from sirens, and ambulance lights. The Draft EIR notes that it is difficult to quantify emergency vehicle access vehicle impacts on the adjacent street system because emergency vehicles operate throughout the day with little predictable pattern (as compared to AM and PM peak traffic patterns). However, as discussed in the responses, ambulance traffic to the Medical Center is insignificant from a traffic capacity standpoint. Moreover, the number of individuals who are transported to the Emergency Department for treatment and the number of ambulance trips is related to regional population, future growth in the area, and the number of incidents requiring emergency care. Therefore, the number of ambulance trips, noise from ambulance sirens, or emergency lights would not occur with any more or less frequency as a result of the proposed project. The Medical Center will request ambulance services use X Street whenever possible to access the Emergency Department. By relocating the Emergency Department from V Street to 45 th Street, with most access off X Street, the noise and lights from ambulance traffic currently experienced by residents along V Street and potentially other side-street locations would be reduced, compared to existing conditions and no-project cumulative conditions. In addition, ambulance sirens would be turned off once the vehicle turns into the Medical Center via X Street. Another issue raised by individuals in the Elmhurst neighborhood was the compatibility of the project with adjacent residential land uses. As indicated in the responses, land use compatibility and aesthetics issues, including building height and light/glare, were addressed in the Initial Study, which incorporated 1989 LRDP EIR mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. The project would develop a three-story (plus mechanical penthouse) in an area that, under the 1989 LRDP, would allow for buildings up to six stories in height. While the new building would be taller than the existing single-story buildings it would replace, the overall scale of the building would be consistent with surrounding Medical Center land uses that were previously analyzed in the LRDP EIR. The building would be set back from V Street and would include perimeter landscaping. The building would include exterior design and lighting features that would be reviewed by the campus independent design review consultant, which will help reduce the visual impact of the project. Some comments were directed to the issue of the aesthetics of the relocated Emergency Department public waiting area and the behavior of non-staff individuals. As indicated in the Final EIR, non-staff visitors currently wait outside the existing Emergency Department, which is across from residences on V Street. Smoking, loitering, litter problems, disturbance of property, or other private behavior along these streets is an existing issue at the present location. The comments do not suggest that the proposed project will result in a

7 PAGE 7 significant adverse physical change caused either directly by the project or indirectly by the social effects of the project, but rather, it expresses concern with an existing condition that some individuals consider a nuisance. The new entrance would be on 45 th Street, within the Medical Center property. A solid wall would separate the public waiting area from the ambulance bay and Emergency Department public entrance. This wall would create a visual barrier between the Emergency Department entrance and the outdoor waiting area, thus reducing the visibility of the behaviors that are of concern to the commentor. A landscaped area for the public outside the Emergency Department entrance south of the wall that separates the public entrance from the ambulance bay would be provided. The outdoor space would be covered and would contain seating, ash trays/receptacles, and litter containers. There would be no vending machines, which would help reduce the amount of litter that could be generated. The Medical Center will ensure the area is kept free of litter and that landscaping is maintained. The UC Davis Police Department would continue to patrol the area to minimize the potential for disruptive behavior. There was one comment that addressed the demolition of Camellia Cottage and recommended that the building be relocated and preserved. The Draft EIR includes mitigation to identify a site to preserve the building by relocating it to a site with suitable historic context. However, as noted in the Draft EIR, it had not been determined whether the nearly 70-year-old masonry building can actually be moved without damage, and an appropriate relocation site was not identified. C. Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Related Mitigation Measures The Final EIR recognized significant and unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the approval of the project and identified related mitigation measures. Three of the four significant and unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR relate to cumulative development. The fourth significant and unavoidable adverse impact is a project-specific impact that is associated with the loss of mature landscaping within the campus interior, which is discussed in C.4, below. The Final EIR evaluated the impact of cumulative development, defined by the CEQA Guidelines as "the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects" (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15355(b)). The cumulative context for the cumulative impact analysis in the Final EIR included the proposed project combined with growth allowed under the 1989 LRDP and growth anticipated in the region. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR used a "plan" approach as a framework for its cumulative impact analysis that is based upon a "summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions" (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15130(b)). The project implements a portion of the 1989 LRDP, the planning document that identifies general types of campus development to support campus growth anticipated through The cumulative impact analysis in the Final EIR, therefore, relies primarily on the 1989 LRDP EIR, which included analysis of campus development projected in the 1989 LRDP and related cumulative development in the campus vicinity. All significant and unavoidable impacts that were analyzed in the 1989 LRDP EIR, including the impacts discussed below in this Part II.C,

8 PAGE 8 were fully addressed by the Findings and Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1989 LRDP and certification of the 1989 LRDP EIR. Significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project in combination with growth allowed under the 1989 LRDP and growth anticipated in the region are discussed below. One project significant and unavoidable impact is also identified. The Regents finds these significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable because the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts for the reasons set forth in Section II.H of these Findings. Associated 1989 LRDP EIR and project-specific mitigation measures are identified and briefly discussed below. For a detailed description of these mitigation measures, please see the text in the Draft EIR and Initial Study. 1. Cumulative Impact on the Transportation Network Associated with the Stockton Boulevard/T Street Intersection (EIR Impact 4.2-4) The project, in conjunction with growth allowed under the 1989 LRDP and development in the region, would lead to increased traffic volumes, which would result in insufficient levels of service at the Stockton Boulevard/T Street intersection. The project incrementally contributes to, but does not exceed, cumulative impacts associated with traffic volumes previously analyzed in the 1989 LRDP EIR, as updated and revised LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures P-a (requiring continued campus support for Transportation Systems Management strategies to reduce campus motorized vehicle trips and encourage use of alternative modes of transportation) is incorporated into the proposed project and would reduce the magnitude of level of service exceedances. Because the implementation of certain recommended physical improvements in 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure P-b(2)(a), which specifically addresses the Stockton Boulevard/T Street intersection is outside The Regent's jurisdiction to enforce, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable at the Stockton Boulevard/T Street intersection. This impact was adequately addressed in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1989 LRDP and certification of the 1989 LRDP EIR. The Regents finds this remaining significant and unavoidable impact is acceptable because the benefits of the project outweigh this and the project's other unavoidable environmental impacts for the reasons set forth in Section II.H of these Findings. 2. Cumulative Impact Associated with Increased Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants in the Region (EIR Impact 4.3-3) The project, in conjunction with growth allowed under the 1989 LRDP and cumulative development in the region, would cause increases in criteria pollutant emissions. These emissions would contribute to the continued exceedance of air quality standards enforced by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). The project incrementally contributes to, but does not exceed, the cumulative criteria air pollutant emissions previously identified in the 1989 LRDP EIR. Implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures G-a and G-b (requiring various Transportation Demand Management measures to reduce automobile use and increase use of public transportation), incorporated as part of the proposed project, will reduce the magnitude of the campus' contribution to this impact. This cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable due to the non-attainment status of

9 PAGE 9 the area with respect to certain pollutants. This significant and unavoidable impact has been adequately addressed in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1989 LRDP and certification of the 1989 LRDP EIR. The Regents finds this remaining significant and unavoidable impact is acceptable because the benefits of the project outweigh this and the project's other unavoidable environmental impacts for the reasons set forth in Section II.H of these Findings. 3. Project and Cumulative Impact Associated with Loss of a Building that Appears to Meet Criteria for Significance as a Historical Resource (EIR Impact 4.5-2) The project, in conjunction with growth allowed under the 1989 LRDP EIR and development in the region, could contribute to a cumulative loss of historical resources in Sacramento County. The 1989 LRDP did not identify any buildings within the campus that were listed or proposed for listing on federal, State, or local historical building registers. The 1989 LRDP and LRDP EIR recommended that Camellia Cottage be retained. The 1989 LRDP EIR did not identify any significant cumulative impacts related to the loss of cultural (or historic) resources. The historic significance of Camellia Cottage (along with eight other buildings that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed project) was evaluated in conjunction with preparation of the Draft EIR. The investigation concluded that Camellia Cottage appears to meet National Register of Historic Places Criterion C and would, therefore, appear to meet the criteria for significance as a historical resource established in Section of the CEQA Guidelines. Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) requires that the building be relocated to a site with equivalent historical context, which would reduce this impact to a lessthan-significant level. The campus is evaluating the feasibility of relocating Camellia Cottage. However, a site has not been located nor a plan developed to move the building. Therefore, it is uncertain whether Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) can be effectively implemented. Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(b) and 4.5-1(c), which require documentation and recordation of the building in accordance with National Parks Scenic and State Office of Historic Preservation standards, and development of informational materials, would reduce the magnitude of the loss of Camellia Cottage, but not to a less-than-significant level. The Regents finds this remaining significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impact is acceptable because the benefits of the project outweigh this and the project's other unavoidable environmental impacts for the reasons set forth in Section II.H of these Findings. 4. Project Impact Associated with Adverse Change to a Valued Element of the Campus Visual Landscape (EIR Impact 4.6-1) The 1989 LRDP identified Camellia Cottage landscaping as an example of exceptional landscaping that would be used to guide development at the rest of the Medical Center, and the 1989 LRDP EIR assumed the mature trees in the vicinity of Camellia Cottage and Professional Building would be preserved. Implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures N-b, O-a, and O-b (which require new landscaping and related improvements at the site and along the perimeter) would reduce the magnitude of this impact, but not to a less-thansignificant level. The Regents finds this remaining significant and unavoidable project impact is

10 PAGE 10 acceptable because the benefits of the project outweigh this and the project's other unavoidable environmental impacts for the reasons set forth in Section II.H of these Findings. D. Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts that would be Mitigated to "Not Significant" or "Less-than-Significant" Levels and Related Mitigation Measures The Final EIR (including the Initial Study) identifies the following significant and potentially significant impacts associated with the project that would be reduced to "not significant" or "less-than-significant" levels by the implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR or project-specific mitigation measures. The associated mitigation measures are identified and briefly discussed below. For a detailed description of these mitigation measures, please see the text in the Draft EIR and Initial Study. 1. Temporary Project Impact Associated with Construction Vehicle Traffic, Access, and Parking (Initial Study Item 4a and 4f) Construction of the proposed project would include construction vehicle traffic and temporary loss of parking in Lot 3 to accommodate project staging, which could temporarily affect local traffic and parking patterns. Implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures K-e and L-b (which require that X Street be used to access the construction site and designation of contractor parking and material delivery routes) would reduce this project impact to a less-than-significant level. 2. Temporary Project Impact Associated with Construction Noise (Initial Study Item 5a,c,d) Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase noise levels in the project vicinity that could affect nearby sensitive uses. Implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures K-a, K-c, K-d, K-e, L-a, and L-b (which address construction schedule, noise-attenuation features for equipment, equipment siting, construction traffic access, and delivery times), incorporated into the project, will reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level. 3. Project Impact Associated with Hazardous Materials Use (Initial Study Item 7a,b) The proposed project would involve the use of hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials, potentially exposing campus occupants to potential health or safety risks. Implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measure I-c (requiring the campus to implement source reduction and hazardous waste minimization measures), incorporated as part of the project, will reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

11 PAGE Project Impact Associated with Construction Activities and Potential Contamination (Initial Study Item 7d) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section , and the campus is not aware of any soil contamination at the site that could affect development. However, the potential exists for previously unidentified contamination to be encountered during site preparation when soil is excavated. Implementation of Project-Specific Mitigation Measure 2 (requiring preparation of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and implementation of recommendations to mitigate hazards, if any), incorporated into the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring potential hazards are identified and remediated prior to construction. 5. Project Impact on Swainson s Hawk Nesting Efforts (Initial Study Item 8a) There is no evidence of Swainson s hawk or other protected raptor species at the project site.. If such species or nests were established prior to construction, construction of the project could result in nest abandonment and nesting failure by Swainson's hawks. Implementation of Project-Specific Mitigation Measure 3 (requiring a pre-construction breeding season survey within a 1/2 mile radius of the project site and, if necessary, change the project in consultation with CDFG to reduce disturbances), incorporated as part of the project, will ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level. 6. Project Impact on Migratory Birds (Initial Study Item 8d) There are no bird species of special concern known to inhabit the campus, but State and federal laws protect migratory birds and their nests and eggs. Removal of trees to accommodate the proposed project could disrupt nesting activities, which could result in the loss of an occupied migratory bird nest. Implementation of Project-Specific Mitigation Measure 4 (which specifies when tree removal may occur, requires a pre-construction breeding season survey, and identifies actions to be taken if nests are present), incorporated as part of the project, will ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level. 7. Project Impact on Storm Drainage Capacity (Initial Study Item 9d,e) Development of the project would result in a slight net decrease in the amount of runoff from the project site, so there would not be a substantial increase in the amount of stormwater runoff that would be discharge to the City of Sacramento storm drainage system. Implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures B-a and B-c (which require preparation of a site-specific drainage plan to ensure consistency with City standards), incorporated as part of the project, will ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

12 PAGE Project Impact to Receiving Water Quality Due to Construction Activities (Initial Study Item 9f) Increased siltation and sedimentation generated during construction activities associated with the project could adversely affect receiving water quality. As part of a recent agreement with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the campus has filed for coverage under a NPDES state-wide General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. As part of this permit, the project s contractor would prepare and implement a project-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan for construction activities. Implementation of this measure will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 9. Project Impact to Receiving Water Quality Due to Increased Storm Water Runoff (Initial Study Item 9f) Development of the project would result in a slight net decrease in the amount of runoff from the project site, so there would not be a substantial increase in the amount of stormwater runoff that would carry urban pollutants to the City of Sacramento storm drainage system that discharges to the Sacramento River. However, the project would be designed to include Best Management Practices in accordance with federal and State NPDES requirements Implementation of these measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 10. Project Impact Related to Potential Seismic Effects of Earthquakes (Initial Study Item 10a [ii and iii]) The project would increase the number of people living and working in the Davis area who would be exposed to strong ground motion and other potential seismic effects from earthquakes on local or regional faults LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures A-a and A-b (requiring compliance of final building design with applicable building codes and seismic safety provisions) are incorporated into the project. Implementation of these measures will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 11. Project Impact Associated with Unstable Soil Conditions (Initial Study Item 10c) Temporary excavations for construction could result in small slides that could affect construction conditions and adjacent surface stability. Implementation of 1989 LRDP Mitigation Measure A-c (which requires shoring in accordance with State building standards), incorporated into the proposed project, will reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. 12. Project Impact Associated with Previously Unidentified Buried Cultural Resources (Initial Study Item 12b,d) The project site is not located within an archaeologically sensitive zone and has been previously disturbed by construction of the existing buildings. However, excavation could unearth previously unidentified resources or human remains. Implementation

13 PAGE 13 of 1989 LRDP Mitigation Measure E-b (which requires work stoppage and an evaluation of the find), incorporated into the proposed project, will reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. 13. Project Impact on Visual Resources Through Development of a Three-Story (Plus Mechanical Penthouse) Building in Place of Existing Single-Story Buildings (Initial Study Item 13a,b,c) The project would result in a change in visual character at the site by constructing a new building to replace existing buildings that would be demolished. Implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures M-a, M-b, N-b (which address building design, footprint, and landscaping), incorporated into the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 14. Project Impact on Glare and Artificial Light (Initial Study Item 13d) The project could create glare and artificial lighting, which could affect nearby receptors. Implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures N-a and N-c (requiring compliance with campus guidelines to minimize effects of light and glare), incorporated into the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 15. Project Impact on Fire and Police Protection Services (Initial Study Item 14a[i],[ii]) The project would result in additional developed space requiring fire and police protection services. Continued implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures J-a through J-e (which address fire safety design standards, fire flow, access, and staffing), incorporated into the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 16. Project Impact on Demand for Electricity and Natural Gas (Initial Study Item 16h) The project would result in increased demand on electricity and natural gas services. Continued implementation of 1989 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures H-c and H-d) (requiring energy conservation measures and building orientation), incorporated into the project, will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. E. Less-than-Significant Impacts for which Mitigation Measures Have Been Incorporated and Related Mitigation Measures The Final EIR (including the Initial Study) identifies the following less-thansignificant impacts for which a mitigation measure has been incorporated as part of the project. Mitigation measures to further reduce less-than-significant impacts are not required by CEQA. The mitigation measure identified below is presented in summary form. For a detailed description of this measure, please see the Draft EIR and the Initial Study.

14 PAGE Project Impact Associated with Construction-Related Air Emissions (Initial Study Item 6b) The project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions during demolition, site preparation, and construction. Unmitigated levels of emissions are well below adopted thresholds. Although not required, Project-Specific Mitigation Measure 1 is incorporated as part of the project to further reduce this less-than-significant impact. 2. Cumulative Impact on the Transportation Network Associated with the Stockton Boulevard/US Highway 50 westbound and eastbound onramps (EIR Impact 4.2-4) The project would minimally contribute to intersection operating conditions at the Stockton Boulevard/US Highway 50 eastbound and westbound ramps, but would not cause operations to exceed City of Sacramento standards (degrade below LOS C or cause an increase in average intersection delay by more than 5 seconds). Although not required, EIR Mitigation Measure is incorporated as part of the project to reflect more current traffic volumes and intersection data developed for the project to further reduce this less-thansignificant impact. F. Mitigation Monitoring Program When making findings, a lead agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Regents hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion EIR, set forth in Chapter 5 of the Final EIR. To the extent that this project incorporates relevant 1989 LRDP EIR mitigation measures previously adopted by The Regents, implementation of these mitigation measures would be monitored pursuant to the 1989 LRDP EIR monitoring program previously adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the 1989 LRDP and certification of the 1989 LRDP EIR. The 1989 LRDP EIR identified mitigation measures that would further reduce environmental impacts determined to be less-than-significant. While there is no requirement in CEQA to mitigate insignificant environmental impacts, mitigation measures further reducing less-than-significant impacts are included in the approval of the project to further enhance environmental quality. The 1989 LRDP EIR and Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion EIR Mitigation Monitoring Programs are designed to reduce or eliminate cumulative significant and unavoidable, significant, and potentially significant impacts, as well as impacts determined to be less-than-significant. G. Alternatives Four alternatives to the Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion project were evaluated in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR, including: No Project-No Development Alternative, No Project-Expected Development Alternative, Smaller Project Alternative, and Same Site-Different Configuration Alternative. The potential environmental impacts, ability to meet project objectives, and feasibility of each alternative are discussed below. CEQA requires that an EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative. The

15 PAGE 15 Smaller Size Project Alternative was selected as the environmentally superior alternative because it avoids the new impacts associated with the Alternate Site Alternative. The following project objectives are described in full in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. These objectives were considered when alternatives were identified that could feasibly attain these objectives. Address seismic safety (SB 1953) mandates; Complete the project within mandated budget and schedule targets; Support academic and strategic objectives; Organize space and facilities to foster excellent patient care and improved operational efficiency; Provide a patient-, visitor-, and staff-friendly environment that promotes healing (i.e., facilities designed with special attention to light, noise, way-finding, air quality, special accommodations for families, patient privacy, thermal conditions, quality of views, and amount and quality of communication; Specifically design facilities to accommodate future changes in technology and the practice of medicine; Reuse existing space when cost-effective; Create a safe and secure environment that also respects the privacy of Medical Center patients and their families; Have a logical and cost-effective plan to accommodate future expansion and/or the replacement of the East Wing and Davis Tower; and Minimize the disruption and inconvenience during all phases of construction. Each of the alternatives identified in the Final EIR has been evaluated herein in relation to these project objectives, as described below. 1. No Project No Development Alternative Under this alternative, the Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion would not be developed. If no project is undertaken, the Medical Center would continue operation as is, with no new construction and no repairs for the seismically deficient portions of the Hospital required under OSHPD code requirements. The project site would remain unchanged, and no demolition of existing buildings, removal of landscaping, or construction of new buildings would occur. Under this alternative, increases in Medical Center population would likely be less than revised 2010 estimates assumed for this EIR because there would be fewer patients, staff, visitors, and students. Although this alternative would not result in demolition of any buildings or removal of mature landscaping, potential transportation, air quality, and noise impacts would still occur because growth would continue in the region. The No Project - No Development Alternative would not achieve any of the objectives of the proposed project related to seismic safety requirements, operational efficiency, academic and strategic objectives, or quality of the health care environment. Because the seismic repairs would not occur by 2008, the Medical Center would lose its license as an

16 PAGE 16 acute-care facility. Consequently, with the termination of acute-care services, instruction in the UC Davis School of Medicine would be eliminated at the Medical Center due to the absence of these acute-care programs. The School of Medicine would have to affiliate with another licensed hospital in order to maintain its accreditation. The Northern California region would lose its only Level 1 trauma center. 2. No Project Expected Development Alternative This alternative assumes the Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion would not be developed. Because the seismic repairs would not occur by 2008, acute-care space in the North/South Wing would be closed. The project site would be developed for a different project consistent with the site s 1989 LRDP Ambulatory Services planning zone designation, which allows for clinics, medical office buildings, library, staff education buildings, and parking. Other functions that might be accommodated in a non-acute-care building built at the project site might include portions of the existing Pathology Department, Nursing Administration, and Dietary, which would require an amendment to the 1989 LRDP for such uses. The level of development on the site would be approximately 350,000 gsf. The incremental change in Medical Center population associated with new development in the Ambulatory Services Zone would be within the estimates projected in the 1989 LRDP EIR. Under this alternative, the Medical Center would consider retaining Camellia Cottage, as identified in the 1989 LRDP EIR, so potential impacts related to the loss of the building and mature landscaping would be reduced. Traffic, air, and noise impacts could be greater than the proposed project because the level of development for ambulatory services could generate more population that the project. However, because the seismic repairs would not occur by 2008, acute-care space in the North/South Wing would be closed. This alternative would fail to meet Staterequired seismic safety mandates, which would, in turn, adversely affect future academic and health care program objectives. There are no significant programs currently in the retained portion of the hospital building that could be moved into non-acute-care space to make room for necessary acute-care functions displaced by the demolition of the North/South Wing. Housing the Pathology Department, Nursing Administrative, and Dietary functions in a separate building would not meet the objective of improved operational efficiency. 3. Smaller Project Alternative The Smaller Project Alternative would involve the development of the Surgery and Emergency Services Pavilion at the same site as the proposed project, but at a reduced size. Under this alternative, approximately 190,000 gsf of space would be built to provide replacement space for only North/South Wing functions. The smaller project would have a smaller footprint, but would still be three stories above grade. No additional space for expansion of existing services would occur (e.g., there would be no additional SICU beds, Dietary, main entrance, cardiology, radiology, operating rooms, or pathology), so there would not be an increase in daytime population. Development of the Smaller Project Alternative would most likely still require the demolition of all buildings to be removed as for the proposed project.