Volume III - University of California, Davis

Volume III

2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR 2-100 2.0_NMP.doc\13-OCT-03\OAK

• Unitrans operates 17 routes, which serve the central campus and areas within the City of Davis, including downtown, major retail centers, schools, and hospitals. Unitrans operates the following bus lines in the immediate project vicinity.

• “B Line” – The “B Line” serves the Sycamore Lane area and travels on Russell Boulevard and Sycamore Lane.

• “D Line” – The “D Line” serves West Davis on Russell Boulevard and Arlington Boulevard.

• “P Line” – The “P Line” operates in a counterclockwise direction around the perimeter of Davis including the downtown area of Davis, South Davis, Covell Boulevard and West Davis.

• “Q Line” – The “Q Line” operates in a clockwise direction around the perimeter of Davis including West Davis, Covell Boulevard, South Davis and the downtown area of Davis.

Yolobus also provides service within the project area along SR 113 and Hutchison Drive. Yolobus is operated by the Yolo County Transit Authority and provides service to Davis, Sacramento, West Sacramento, Woodland, Winters, Dixon, Vacaville, and Fairfield. The closest Yolobus stop to the proposed project is at the Health Sciences District east of SR 113.

The proposed project would provide additional transit service between the project site and the main campus, with a new transit line central to the Neighborhood.

Parking. Parking lots located on campus would not serve the proposed project. NMP residents would not be allowed to purchase campus parking permits, except for daily parking permits and handicapped permits. Parking for the project would be provided onsite. The NMP includes parking guidelines that would direct the development of parking. These are detailed in the NMP Project Description, Section 2.3.6.4, above.

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

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

Analytical Method. The analysis of impacts of the NMP is tiered from the analysis presented in Section 4.14. Analytical methods used to analyze impacts are essentially the same as outlined in Section 4.14. Specifically, traffic counts under existing conditions at intersections that likely would be used by project traffic were compared with projected LOS at the same intersections with the addition of trips generated by the project. The proposed project is analyzed with pedestrian/bicycle/emergency vehicle access from Russell Boulevard to the neighborhood at Arthur Street and at Eisenhower Street.

Trip Generation. The NMP land uses and population listed in Tables 2-4 and 2-5, in the project description above, were used to determine the anticipated number of trips that would be generated by the proposed project. These uses include faculty and staff housing, student housing, student family housing, Community Education Center, Elementary School, Multi-Use Center

à

à

à

PORTAGE BAY

ARLINGTON BLVD.

EISE

NH

OW

ER S

T.

ARTH

UR

ST.

SYC

AMO

RE

LN.

AND

ERSO

N R

D.

RUSSELL BLVD.

GAR

RO

D D

R.

ORCHARD

RD.

·|}þ113

GARROD DR

LA R

UE

RD

DAI

RY

RD

CAM

PBEL

L R

D

BIOLETTI W

AY

KLEIBER HAL

OR

CH

ARD

PA RK D

R

Existing Bicycle andPedestrian Facilities

1 inch equals 1,250 feet

¹

UR

S C

orpo

ratio

n L:

\Pro

ject

s\28

6493

27_U

C_D

avis

\MX

D\A

naly

sis\

Prop

osed

_pro

ject

_loc

atio

ns_1

1x17

.mxd

Dat

e: 1

/24/

2003

3:3

7:00

PM

Figure2-6

UC DavisLRDP EIR28649327

Legend Pedestrian Access

- Pedestrian Path - On-Street Bike Lane - Bicycle/Pedestrian Path

à - Grade Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing

- Neighborhood Master Plan Site

PORTAGE BAY

ARLINGTON BLVD. EISE

NH

OW

ER S

T.

ARTH

UR

ST.

SYC

AMO

RE

LN.

AND

ERSO

N R

D.

RUSSELL BLVD.

HUTCHISON DR.

GAR

RO

D D

R.

ORCHARD

RD.

RUSSELL BLVD.

HUTCHISON DR

·|}þ113

DP,Q

D,P,Q

B,C

B,C,D,P,Q

G

C,D,G

A,C,D,G

A

B,G,P,QD

LA R

UE

RD

DAI

RY

RD

CAM

PBEL

L R

D

OR

CH

A RD

P ARK D

R

Existing Transit Network

1 inch equals 1,250 feet

¹

Figure2-7

UC DavisLRDP EIR28649327

Legend - Unitrans Bus Route

- Unitrans Bus LineA- Neighborhood Master Plan Site

- Grade Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossingà

2.0 NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN


and Recreation Fields, with intra mural and recreation activities. The last are assumed to include two softball fields, two soccer fields, and two basketball courts.

The methodology used to determine the vehicle-trip generation for each of the above uses is described below.

Faculty/Staff Housing. The faculty and staff housing proposed within the NMP would have trip generation characteristics similar to UC Davis’ Aggie Village faculty and staff housing, located on First Street close to UC Davis and the downtown area of the City of Davis. Fehr & Peers conducted a trip generation study at Aggie Village in spring 2002. Traffic counts were collected over a one-week period (April 30 through May 7) to determine the number of trips generated on a daily basis and during the AM and PM peak hours. Additional peak hour counts were conducted in fall 2002 for a two-day period. Both sets of traffic counts were used to estimate the number of “vehicle-trips per unit” that would be generated by the faculty and staff housing within the NMP as shown in Table 2-13. The trip generation rates for Aggie Village were based on the number of occupied single family dwelling units. However, these units also have cottages that are rented to students. Therefore the actual trip rates are slightly higher on a daily basis than a typical single family dwelling unit, as discussed below.

The vehicle-trip rates for Aggie Village were compared to trip rates published in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE] 1997) for a typical single-family housing development. The ITE trip rates reflect data collected at a variety of single-family housing developments with different price ranges, locations, sizes, and resident ages, throughout the United States. The comparison indicated that Aggie Village generates slightly more daily vehicle-trips per dwelling unit on a weekday than the typical single-family housing development reflected in the ITE trip rate. However, Aggie Village has a lower peak hour vehicle-trip rate per dwelling unit on a weekday than a typical single-family housing development.

Student Housing. The student housing proposed within the NMP would have trip generation characteristics similar to Colleges at La Rue apartments, which are located on La Rue Road north of Hutchison Drive on the UC Davis campus. Like students who reside in Colleges at La Rue, NMP students are not expected to make frequent vehicle trips to campus but would be expected to drive to uses off-campus, such as shopping or work trips. Fehr & Peers conducted a trip generation study at Colleges at La Rue in spring 2001. Traffic counts were collected over a one-week period (March 6th through March 13th) to determine the number of trips generated on a daily basis and during the AM and PM peak hours. The traffic counts were used to estimate the number of “vehicle trips per unit” and “vehicle-trips per student” generated by Colleges at La Rue. The number of vehicle trips per student was used to estimate the trip generation for NMP student housing as shown in Table 2-13.

Volume III


Table 2-13 Neighborhood Master Plan Vehicle-Trip Generation

Trip Rate Trips AM

Peak Hour PM

Peak Hour Land Use Unit Daily

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out

Faculty/Staff Housing 500 units a 9.79 0.59 0.65 4,895 121 174 176 149

Student Housing 2,920 std 3.51 0.06 0.24 10,249 77 98 379 322 Student Family

Housing 80 units 8.99 0.16 0.62 719 6 7 34 16

2,130 CEC std 1.54 0.14 0.17 3,280 271 27 246 116 Community

Education Center 250 High School std - - 0.17 - - - 29 14

Elementary School 200 std 1.02 0.29 - 204 34 24 - -

Mixed-Use Center 49.5 ksf 87.62 1.03 7.98 4,337 31 20 190 205

Softball Fields 2 fields 180.00 - 25.20 360 - - 25 25

Soccer Fields 2 fields 180.00 - 25.20 360 - - 25 25

Basketball Courts 6 courts 180.00 - 25.20 1,080 - - 76 76

Subtotal 25,484 540 350 1,180 948

Mixed-Use Center Pedestrian/Bicycle Trips (20% of trips)b - 867 - 6 - 4 - 38 - 41

Recreation Fields Pedestrian/Bicycle Trips (20% of trips)b - 360 - - - 25 - 25

Total External Vehicle Trips 24,257 534 346 1,117 882

Notes: a. Includes NMP cottages. b. 20% of non-work trips in Davis are made by walking and bicycling based on 2000 SACOG travel survey std = students ksf = thousand square feet Source: Fehr & Peers Associates 2003.

The vehicle-trip rates for Colleges at La Rue were compared to trip rates published by ITE for a typical apartment complex. The ITE trip rates reflect data collected at a variety of apartment complexes throughout the United States. The comparison indicated that Colleges at La Rue development generates slightly more daily vehicle-trips per person on a weekday than the typical apartment complex when compared on a “per person” basis. However, the number of vehicle trips generated during the peak hours is substantially lower at Colleges at La Rue than for a typical apartment complex when compared on a “per person” basis.

Student Family Housing. The NMP student family housing vehicle-trip rate was also based on the results of the Colleges at La Rue trip generation study, using the number of vehicle-trips generated per unit. While applying this trip rate to family housing within the NMP may be slightly conservative (i.e., higher than expected), ITE rates reflect the average rate for a variety of apartment types including single occupancy apartments and apartments with families. Therefore, a family housing complex would be expected to generate vehicle-trips at slightly higher than the average rate for apartments.



Community Education Center (CEC). The CEC would have a trip generation rate similar to a typical community college. Although the CEC may have more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips than a typical community college located in a suburban area, the location of CEC student residences is speculative. If students attending the CEC reside in the surrounding areas (e.g., Woodland or Dixon) they would be more likely to drive to the CEC. The CEC trip generation was based on ITE trip rates for Community Colleges using the proposed number of full time equivalent students of 2,130. Since the expected 200 high school students would be participating in school programs at the CEC primarily during the afternoon, they were only included in the trip generation for the PM peak hour.

Elementary School. The proposed size of the NMP’s elementary school would accommodate the estimated number of children that would reside in the proposed Neighborhood; however, the DJUSD would set the attendance boundaries for the school. While many children are anticipated to walk and bike to school, some pick-up and drop-off trips would occur. In addition, the elementary school teachers and staff would likely drive to the school. The vehicle-trip generation was based on ITE rates for Elementary Schools assuming 200 students in attendance.

Mixed-Use Center. The Mixed-Use Center would include a combination of retail and office uses. Since the types and number of office uses for the Mixed-Use Center are unknown, the ITE rate for retail centers was used to estimate the number of vehicle trips generated by the Mixed-Use Center. ITE rates for retail centers reflect the presence of some office uses within the site. This rate is likely conservative (i.e., high). The vehicle-trip generation assumes 49,500 gross-square-feet of leasable area. The total vehicle-trips generated by the retail center were reduced by 20 percent to account for higher bicycle and pedestrian use in Davis than reflected in ITE rates, based on the 2000 SACOG household travel survey.3 This reduction was not necessary for trips generated by the NMP student, family, and faculty/staff housing, because these were generated on the basis of actual local rates, which already reflect a high percentage of pedestrian and bicycle trips.

Recreation Fields. The NMP recreation fields would be used for UC Davis intramural sports and recreation. While some participants would walk or bike to the games, the NMP fields are further from many housing areas in Davis than the fields currently located on campus. Therefore, some vehicle trips would be generated by the NMP fields. Vehicle-trip generation for NMP recreation fields assumes that one intramural game begins and one game ends during the PM peak hour. The vehicle-trip generation was based on a review of previously completed traffic studies for similar projects in California, which host organized activities similar to the recreation fields in the NMP. The sites studied were used primarily for organized adult activities and do not reflect a high number of pick-up/drop-off trips by parents. The trips generated by the NMP recreation fields were reduced by 20 percent to account for higher bicycle and pedestrian use in Davis than in typical suburban areas based on the 2000 SACOG household travel survey4.

3 Pre-Census Travel Behavior Report Analysis of the 2000 SACOG Household Travel Survey, DKS Associates and

Mark Bradley Research & Consulting, July 25, 2001. 4 Pre-Census Travel Behavior Report Analysis of the 2000 SACOG Household Travel Survey, DKS Associates and Mark Bradley Research & Consulting, July 25, 2001.

Volume III


Summary. Table 2-13 summarizes the vehicle-trip generation of the NMP. As shown, the NMP would generate approximately 24,260 daily, 880 AM peak hour, and 2,000 PM peak hour net external vehicle-trips. External trips reflect vehicles entering and exiting the NMP at Hutchison Drive and do not include trips between uses within the NMP (e.g., a vehicle traveling from the faculty/staff apartments to the Mixed-Use Center). Due to the density of land uses within the NMP and the proposed size and layout (e.g., pedestrian and bicycle facilities), internal vehicle-trips are expected to be minimal.

The estimated number of vehicle-trips generated by the NMP is likely a conservative (i.e., high) estimate compared to the actual number of vehicles that will travel to/from the NMP. For example, the number of vehicle-trips generated by the Community Education Center is based on trip rates for similar facilities located across the United States and does not consider the unique trip generation characteristics of the Davis community. Therefore, the NMP is expected to generate fewer vehicle-trips than estimated in Table 2-13. For the purposes of this study and to satisfy CEQA requirements, this conservative approach was taken to minimize the potential of underestimating the impacts of the NMP on the adjacent roadway network.

Trip Distribution. The trip distribution for the NMP was developed primarily with the UC Davis & City of Davis Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model, calibrated and validated to 2002 conditions. Complete documentation of the model development effort and validation results are contained in Davis Travel Demand Model Development Report, Fehr & Peers Associates March 2003, available from the UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning. The Davis TDF model was run to determine the expected distribution of NMP trips. Additional refinement in the project trip distribution was based on existing travel patterns and complementary land uses (e.g., shopping centers) in the project vicinity.

Figure 2-8 displays the NMP’s vehicle-trip distribution. As shown, a greater percentage of trips were distributed to major arterials (e.g., Russell Boulevard toward Downtown Davis) and collectors with shopping centers (e.g., Anderson Road) than to local streets (e.g., Eisenhower Street). SR 113 is the major travel route between the project site and major destinations throughout Davis and to I-80 and consequently, is expected to carry approximately 43 percent of the NMP vehicle-trips. The central core of the campus is expected to be the destination of only 4 percent of NMP vehicle-trips. Although NMP residents would be able to buy parking permits on campus only by exception, some drop-off and short-term parking trips are expected.

Vehicle-trips were assigned to the study intersections using the expected trip distribution discussed above, to determine “existing plus project” conditions. Figure 2-9 displays the resulting peak hour traffic volumes at each study intersection.

Traffic Operations. This section describes intersection and freeway facilities traffic operations under “existing plus project” conditions. Intersection operations are presented in Table 2-14.

à

à

à

PORTAGE BAY

ARLINGTON BLVD.

EISE

NH

OW

ER S

T.

ARTH

UR

ST.

SYC

AMO

RE

LN.

AND

ERSO

N R

D.

RUSSELL BLVD.

GAR

RO

D D

R.

ORCHARD

RD.

·|}þ113

LA R

UE

RD

.

DAI

RY

RD

.

OR

CH

ARD

PAR

K D

R.

CAM

PBEL

L R

D.

GARROD DR.

BROOKS RD.

3%

1%

5%

1% 3%

18%

3% 7%

25%

1%

1%1%

5%1%

25%

87%

10%

3%

D

NMP Trip Distribution Figure2-8

1 inch equals 850 feet

¹UC DavisLRDP EIR

28649327

UR

S C

orpo

ratio

n L:

\Pro

ject

s\28

6493

27_U

C_D

avis

\MXD

\Ana

lysi

s\Pr

opos

ed_p

roje

ct_l

ocat

ions

_11x

17.m

xd D

ate:

1/2

4/20

03 3

:37:

00 P

M

Legend

- Trip Distribution


45%

- Grade Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossingà

PORTAGE BAY

PORTAGE BAY

ARLIN

GTO

N B

LVD

.

ARLIN

GTO

N B

LVD

.

EIS

EN

HO

WE

R S

T.

EIS

EN

HO

WE

R S

T.

AR

TH

UR

ST

.A

RT

HU

R S

T.

SY

CA

MO

RE

LN

.S

YC

AM

OR

E L

N.

AN

DE

RS

ON

RD

.A

ND

ER

SO

N R

D.

RUSSELL BLVD.RUSSELL BLVD.

GA

RR

OD

DR

.G

AR

RO

D D

R.

ORCHARDORCHARD

RD.RD.

113

LA R

UE

RD

.LA

RU

E R

D.

DA

IRY

RD

.D

AIR

Y R

D.

9 10 11

1 23

4

5 6 7 8

OR

CH

AR

D P

AR

K D

R.

OR

CH

AR

D P

AR

K D

R.

CA

MP

BE

LL R

D.

CA

MP

BE

LL R

D.

GARROD DR.

GARROD DR.

BROOKS RD.

BROOKS RD.

12 1413

15

Neighborhood Master Plan -Existing Plus Project Conditions

Figure2-9

1 inch equals 850 feet

UC DavisLRDP EIR

28649327

UR

S C

orpo

ratio

n L:

\Pro

ject

s\2

864

9327

_UC

_Dav

is\M

XD

\Ana

lysi

s\P

rop

osed

_pr

ojec

t_lo

catio

ns_

11x1

7.m

xd D

ate:

1/2

4/2

003

3:3

7:0

0 P

M

Legend

- Study Intersections1

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

- Permitted Turning Movement

- Traffic Signal

- Stop Sign


- Roundabout

- Grade Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing



Table 2-14 Intersection Operations – Existing Plus Project Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location

Traffic Controla Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Hutchison Drive/SB SR 113 Ramps TWSCb >50.0/>50.0 F/F 44.0/>50.0 E/F 2. Hutchison Drive/NB SR 113 Ramps TWSC >50.0/>50.0 F/F >50.0/>50.0 F/F 3. Hutchison Drive/Health Sciences Drive TWSC 4.3/>50.0 A/F >50.0/>50.0 F/F 4. Hutchison Drive/La Rue Road Signal 57.7 E >80.0 F 5. Russell Boulevard/Arlington Boulevard TWSC 2.9/25.9 A/D 4.9/>50.0 A/F 6. Russell Boulevard/Eisenhower Street Signal 7 A 7 A 7. Russell Boulevard/Arthur Street Signal 11.1 B 12.3 B 8. Russell Boulevard/SB SR 113 Ramps Signal 17.8 B 5.8 A 9. Russell Boulevard/NB SR 113 Ramps Signal 11.9 B 33.7 C 10. Russell Boulevard/Sycamore Lane Signal 14.2 B 20.2 C 11. Russell Boulevard/La Rue Road Signal 25.7 C 31.5 C

12. Hutchison Drive/Project Access 1 TWSC 1.0/11.2 A/B

2.3/12.0 A/B

13. Hutchison Drive/Main Project Access Roundaboutc 0.51/0.61 - 0.95/1.14 - 14. Hutchison Drive/Project Access 2 TWSC 0.2/25.5 A/D 1.6/>50.0 A/F Notes: a. Results for signalized and unsignalized intersections shown in average overall intersection delay & LOS / delay & LOS for critical movement. b TWSC = Two-way stop controlled intersection. c. Results for roundabouts shown as volume-to-capacity ratio for high capacity / low capacity roundabout. Volume-to-capacity ratios under 1.00 indicate a roundabout operating below capacity. Shading indicates project impact. Source: Fehr & Peers Associates 2003a and 2003b.

As shown in Table 2-14, most study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels under existing plus project conditions. The locations listed below would not operate at acceptable levels under this scenario.

• Hutchison Drive/Southbound SR 113 Ramps (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours)

• Hutchison Drive/Northbound SR 113 Ramps (LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours)

• Hutchison Drive/Health Sciences Drive (LOS F in the PM peak hour)

• Hutchison Drive/La Rue Road (LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour)

• Hutchison Drive/Main Project Access (over capacity in the PM peak hour)

In addition, the worst-case movement for unsignalized study intersections is expected to operate unacceptably at some intersections. Although the unacceptable operations for the worst-case movement at these locations do not exceed UC Davis significance standards for average overall intersection delay, improvements are identified to improve operations for the worst-case movement for use by UC Davis and other jurisdictions in future planning. Measures are

Volume III


proposed that would improve traffic operations for the worst-case movement for the intersections discussed below.

• Russell Boulevard/Arlington Boulevard

− Deficient operations for the worst-case movement (i.e., the left-turn movement from Russell Boulevard onto Arlington Boulevard) could be improved by installing traffic signal at this intersection. However, the peak hour traffic volumes at this intersection do not warrant a traffic signal. In addition, fewer than 20 vehicles make this movement during the AM and PM peak hours. Alternative routes are also available for vehicles traveling to the north from Russell Boulevard (e.g., Arthur Street, Eisenhower Street, or Lake Boulevard). Although installing a traffic signal at this intersection would improve operations for the worst-case movement, it would degrade operations for vehicles traveling through this intersection, which currently are free-flow. Therefore, this improvement is not recommended.

• Hutchison Drive/Project Access 2 (LOS E in the PM peak hour)

− Deficient operations for the worst-case movement at the Hutchison Drive/Project Access 2 intersection could be improved by prohibiting left-turn movements (i.e., only allowing right-turn to and from Hutchison Drive). While this improvement would improve the delay for the worst-case movement during the peak hours, it may negatively impact circulation and mobility in the NMP. Therefore, this modification is not recommended.

Freeway operations. Freeway operations under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 2-15. As shown in Table 2-15, all freeway facilities would operate at acceptable levels (LOS C or better) under existing plus project conditions.

2.4.14.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance. Refer to Section 4.14 in Volume II for a detailed discussion of applicable Standards of Significance. Criteria defining levels of service (the measures of traffic flow and operating conditions) are also detailed in that section.

Analytical Method. See Section 4.14 in Volume II for analytical methods relative to traffic and circulation. As detailed above, trips generated by the project, based on project population, and trip distribution, based on anticipated travel patterns, are the basis for most analysis in this area.

The proposed 2003 LRDP, including the NMP, would make only limited changes to the roadway network and would not create or increase hazards due to design features such as dangerous intersections. Impacts related to increased demand for transit services are addressed in LRDP Impact 4.14-4, in Section 4.14, Volume II of this EIR. Implementation of 2003 LRDP Mitigation 4.14-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, and no further project-level analysis is necessary. Impacts relative to increased traffic, regional and local levels of service, parking, and bicycle and motor vehicle conflicts are addressed below.



Table 2-15 Freeway Operations – Existing Plus Project Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Densitya LOS Densitya LOS

Freeway Mainline Analysis

Northbound SR 113 at Hutchison Drive (after loop on-ramp) 6.2 A 11.0 A Southbound SR 113 at Russell Boulevard (after loop on-ramp) 7.3 A 6.1 A Southbound SR 113 at Hutchison Drive (after loop on-ramp) 7.5 A 5.2 A

Weave Section Analysis

Northbound SR 113 – I-80 to Hutchison Drive 13.2 B 14.3 B Northbound SR 113 – Hutchison Drive to Russell Boulevard 8.1 A 22.8 C Southbound SR 113 – Russell Boulevard to Hutchison Drive 14.4 B 8.6 A Southbound SR 113 – Hutchison Drive to I-80 10.1 B 11.1 B

Ramp Junction Analysis

Northbound SR 113 – Russell Boulevard diagonal on-ramp 11.6 B 20.3 C Southbound SR 113 – Russell Boulevard diagonal off-ramp 20.8 C 14.6 B Notes: a. Density reported in passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln). Source: Fehr & Peers Associates 2003a.

2.4.14.4 Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section outlines the project impacts and associated mitigation measures for the proposed NMP.

NMP Impact 2.4-31: Implementation of the NMP would cause unacceptable intersection LOS.

Significance: Significant

LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigations 4.14-1(a-b).

NMP Mitigation 2.4-31: To maintain adequate levels of service, the campus shall obtain funding for the intersection improvements listed below, as needed, based on occupancy levels and occupancy dates of NMP buildings.

Residual Significance: Less than significant

Implementation of the NMP would result in approximately 24,260 daily trips, with about 880 trips in the AM peak hour and about 2,000 trips during the PM peak hour. These additional trips would cause the LOS at intersections to drop below acceptable levels, resulting in a significant impact at these intersections. Mitigation measures to reduce these impacts are identified below.

In compliance with LRDP Mitigation 4.14-1(a), UC Davis shall continue to actively pursue Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce reliance on travel to and from campus by private automobile. As described in Volume I, Section 4.14.1.7 of this EIR, UC Davis offers a wide range of services to faculty and staff to promote campus travel by modes other than single occupancy vehicles. The UC Davis Alternative Transportation Program provides

Volume III


incentives to encourage the use of alternative modes to minimize parking demands and traffic congestion on campus. Reducing peak hour traffic volumes on campus could also be achieved by implementing flexible work schedules and revising class schedules.

Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.14-1(b), UC Davis shall continue to monitor AM and PM peak hour traffic operations at critical intersections on campus and in the campus vicinity at least every 3 years. The monitoring program will identify improvements that are needed to provide acceptable traffic operations and will measure the effects of the implementation of travel demand management programs on campus.

Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 14.4-1(c) and 14.4-2(c), the campus has identified and will implement the improvements below to provide acceptable operations with the implementation of the NMP.

• The Hutchison Drive/Southbound SR 113 Ramp intersection would operate unacceptably at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours, resulting in a significant impact. The following measure would improve operations to LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.

− Install a traffic signal at the Hutchison Drive/Southbound SR 113 Ramp intersection.

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

• The Hutchison Drive/Northbound SR 113 Ramp intersection would operate unacceptably at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours, resulting in a significant impact. The following measure would improve operations to LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.

− Install a traffic signal at the Hutchison Drive/Northbound SR 113 Ramp intersection.

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

• The Hutchison Drive/Health Sciences Drive intersection would operate unacceptably at LOS F during the PM peak hour, resulting in a significant impact. The following measures would improve operations to LOS B during the PM peak hour, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.

− Install a traffic signal at the Hutchison Drive/Health Sciences Drive intersection.

− Provide two eastbound and two westbound through lanes between SR 113 and La Rue Road.



− The Hutchison Drive/Health Sciences Drive intersection meets the Caltrans peak hour traffic signal warrant for the PM peak hour. The signalization of this intersection was adopted previously by UC Davis. However, only signalizing the intersection would provide LOS E operations during the PM peak hour, which is considered unacceptable. Therefore, Hutchison Drive would also need to be widened to provide four lanes between the SR 113 overcrossing and La Rue Road.

• The Hutchison Drive/La Rue Road intersection would operate unacceptably at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of the following measures would improve operations to LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

• Modify the Hutchison Drive/La Rue Road intersection to provide the following lane configuration and signal phasing.

− An exclusive left-turn lane, a through lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach.

− An exclusive left-turn lane, a shared left-turn/through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane on the northbound approach.

− Protected phasing on the eastbound/westbound approaches.

− An exclusive bicycle and pedestrian phase.

− An exclusive left-turn lane, a shared through/left-turn lane, a through lane, and an exclusive right-turn lane on the southbound approach.

These improvements are planned by UC Davis with the construction of the West Entry Parking Structure anticipated for completion in 2005 except for the improvements on the southbound approach. The improvements on the southbound approach (i.e., constructing an exclusive right-turn lane) are required to provide acceptable (LOS D) operations during the PM peak hour. This would require realigning the sidewalk and bicycle path on the west side of La Rue Road. A 100-foot southbound right-turn pocket could be constructed between the intersection stop line and the existing tree on the west side of La Rue north of Hutchison Drive.

• The Hutchison Drive/NMP Main Access intersection would operate over capacity during the PM peak hour with a single lane roundabout, resulting in a significant impact. The following options would improve operations to an acceptable level.

• The following measure would provide acceptable operations (i.e., the intersection would operate below capacity).

− Construct a two-lane roundabout, or

• Alternately, the following measures would improve operations to LOS C during the PM peak hour, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level.

− Install a traffic signal at the Hutchison Drive/NMP Main Access intersection. Provide the following lane configurations and signal phasing.

Volume III


− An exclusive left-turn lane (75 feet) and a shared through/right-turn lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches.

− An exclusive left-turn lane (175 feet for northbound approach and 150 feet for southbound approach), a through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane on the northbound and southbound approaches.

* * * NMP Impact 2.4-32: Implementation of the NMP could create additional parking

demand.


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


The proposed parking supply for the NMP land uses other than student housing are expected to meet anticipated demand, as detailed above. Parking standards in the City of Davis would require parking spaces for approximately 66 percent of the NMP population within the development. The Colleges at La Rue apartment complex provides parking for approximately 86 percent of the population and an additional 4 percent of the students are allowed to purchase a campus parking permit, which indicates a potential parking demand of approximately 90 percent at the Colleges at La Rue complex. Unlike the Colleges at La Rue complex, the student housing area in the NMP would be required to charge apartment rents and parking permit fees separately for students. The effect of this policy is to identify a direct cost for parking permits, thereby introducing a financial incentive for students to not bring cars to UC Davis.

In the NMP student housing areas, onsite parking would be provided at a rate of 75 percent of the 3,000 student residents, for a total parking supply of 2,250 parking spaces. If parking demand exceeds this supply, then overflow parking will be provided near the recreation fields to prevent parking pressure on university and City neighborhoods to the north. Additional visitor and resident parking spaces will be provided as on-street parallel parking and is anticipated to be adequate to meet visitor parking needs. The parking data from the parking conditions at the Colleges at La Rue apartment complex indicate that an actual demand of 90 percent of student residents or 2,700 spaces of student parking may be needed for UC Davis student housing areas such as that proposed in the NMP. According to the City of Davis parking standards, approximately 1,980 spaces would be required. The provision of 2,250 parking spaces in the NMP is considered adequate by City standards to meet anticipated demand. However, on the basis of the high demand for parking at the Colleges at La Rue apartment complex, it is possible that there would be a greater than anticipated demand from the NMP student housing.

Consistent with LRDP Mitigations 4.14-3(a) and (b), the following demand management strategies and monitoring measures would be implemented.

• UC Davis shall include development restrictions on student housing areas and shall review the parking permit fees charged to student residents to ensure that apartment rent and parking permit fees are charged separately to students. The effect of this mitigation measure is to ensure implementation of the project component of creating a financial incentive for students to not bring cars to UC



Davis. This mitigation measure is expected to reduce demand for parking in the NMP. However, it is possible that this measure would have the unintended effect that students would attempt to park elsewhere in the NMP or in the neighborhoods north of Russell Boulevard.

• UC Davis shall provide free bicycles to students willing to trade in or forego the purchase of a campus parking permit.

• UC Davis shall attempt to implement a car-sharing program for NMP student housing residents. The campus is currently undertaking a car-sharing study with the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. The purpose of the study is to design pilot programs applicable to campus such as car-sharing and mobility based information systems for application on campus and in the community.

• If needed, UC Davis shall allow NMP student residents who are not able to purchase a permit to park in the NMP due to limited supply, to purchase a campus parking permit for parking automobiles. Such students would then be able to utilize parking lots in the Central Campus.

• If needed, UC Davis shall implement a parking restriction and enforcement program for all of the areas in the NMP to ensure that students living in the NMP do not attempt to park automobiles outside of the student housing areas. The need for this program will be determined by annual monitoring of parking conditions in NMP streets and parking areas.

• If needed, UC Davis shall work with the City of Davis to implement a parking restriction and enforcement program for the neighborhoods north of Russell Boulevard to protect on-street parking for City residents and to ensure that students living in the NMP do not attempt to park automobiles outside of the NMP student housing areas. The need for this program will be determined by annual monitoring of City of Davis streets north of Russell Boulevard of on-street parking conditions and by resident complaints regarding parking by non-residents.

The implementation of these measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

* * * NMP Impact 2.4-33: Implementation of the NMP would result in increased conflicts

between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles, and cause increased congestion and safety problems.


LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.14-5.

NMP Mitigation 2.4-33: The campus shall construct the additional bicycle facilities:

• Construct the bicycle path along the south side of Orchard Park Circle. Bicyclists and vehicles would be separated by the perpendicular parking on the south side of Orchard Park Circle, or

Volume III


• Construct the bicycle path in the location of the existing perpendicular parking on the south side of Orchard Park Circle and provide a barrier (e.g., a landscaped median) to separate vehicles traveling on Orchard Park Circle from the bicyclists.


The bicycle path along Orchard Road is discontinuous between the SR 113 bicycle/pedestrian bridge and the Orchard Park Drive/Orchard Road/Orchard Park Circle intersection. Consequently, bicyclists traveling across the SR 113 bridge must travel on Orchard Park Circle to access the Orchard Road bicycle path. The on-street perpendicular parking on Orchard Park Circle and the narrow pavement width on the west end of the road (about 20 feet with on-street parallel parking) creates an unsafe condition for bicyclists traveling along this segment. The NMP will add bicyclists to the SR 113 bicycle/pedestrian bridge, and increase the potential for bicycle/motor vehicle conflicts.

Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.14-5, the Campus will improve traffic operations to avoid increased safety problems. This will be facilitated by implementation of NMP Mitigation 2.4-33 and construction of pedestrian/bicycle/emergency vehicle connections at Arthur Street and Eisenhower Street. To this end, an off-street bicycle path should be constructed to provide a continuous path between the NMP and the main campus. Two potential alignments are feasible.

The implementation of these measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Review of the transit green proposal indicates that adequates facilities for bikes and pedestrians could be designed to ensure efficient operations with no hazardous conflicts between transit vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, and other vehicles. No safety impacts are expected to result from the design of the transit green.

* * *

2.4.15 Utilities Public comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation raised issues related to the following: the domestic water delivery system, impacts to the capacities of local landfills, increased electrical use, wastewater treatment system capacity, and wastewater discharge requirements. These issues are addressed in the following analysis.

2.4.15.1 Environmental Setting Section 4.15 Utilities (Volume II) describes the existing utility systems servicing the UC Davis campus, including the NMP site. Utility demand and proposed points of connection are described in detail in Section 2.2.8, above.

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



Analytical Method. See Section 4.15 for analytical methods relative to utilities. Utility impacts are measured in terms of the adequacy of the available supply to meet the project demand, the availability of supply or service at the project’s point of connection, and the environmental impacts from construction of utility connections.

Impacts Adequately Analyzed at the LRDP Level or Not Applicable to the Project. Analysis at the LRDP level of impacts related to the capacity of utility systems, including wastewater treatment and storm water drainage systems, water supply, and solid waste disposal facilities, took into account the increased demand from all of the projected development and population growth under the 2003 LRDP, including the NMP. Adequate capacity is available or can be developed for all utilities. Sufficient water supply is available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. Development under the NMP would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and implementation of the NMP would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Wastewater treatment and storm water conveyance and discharge for all development under the LRDP would comply with applicable standards. Therefore, no additional analysis of project-level impacts associated with the overall capacity of the utility systems to serve the NMP is required. The project-level analysis of impacts to utilities and service systems focuses on the adequacy of each system at the points where the project facilities would be connected to the distribution/collection systems and the environmental impacts, if any, from the construction of offsite utility connections to serve the NMP.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures NMP Impact 2.4-34: Implementation of the NMP would place a demand on campus

utilities that would not result in significant environmental impacts.

Significance: Less than significant

LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.8-5(a), 4-8-6(a), and 4.15-6(a) or an equivalent measure.


In compliance with LRDP Mitigations 4.15.1(a), 4.15-2(a), 4.15-3, 4.15-4, 4.15-6(a), 4.15-7(a), 4.15-8, and 4.15-9, the campus has evaluated the scale of development proposed under the NMP for the demand it would place on utilities, including domestic water, utility water, storm drainage, landfill capacity, electrical system, wastewater collection and treatment system, and telecommunications. Based on this evaluation, the campus has determined that either the existing utility systems are adequate to handle the demand from the NMP or utility improvements would be required that would not result in significant environmental impacts. To further reduce the demand placed by the NMP development on water resources, wastewater treatment, and the electrical system, the campus will require projects in the NMP to implement LRDP Mitigations 4.8-5(a) and 4.8-6(a), and 4.15-6(b) or equivalent measures. These require the use of water conservation and energy conservation design and strategies for all campus projects.

Also based on this evaluation, the campus has determined that on and offsite utility improvements would be needed, as described in Section 2.3.9, above, although there are some adequate points of connection in the near vicinity. A number of options to provide the proposed

Volume III


project with utility services are under consideration. Most offsite utility alignments would be located primarily in existing roadways and utility corridors

All three storm water service options for the NMP would include onsite detention basins, and would use storm drains along SR 113 or Hutchison Drive and Hopkins Road, to discharge at a new or enlarged outfall either at Putah Creek or the Arboretum waterway. Wastewater conveyance would require a new force main, which would carry wastewater to the campus WWTP via a line in La Rue Road. For domestic water service to the NMP, offsite utilities could include a short pipeline segment along Hutchison Drive to connect to a new well or storage tank on the west campus that would likely be located adjacent to Hutchison Drive. Utility water would likely be provided from onsite irrigation wells.

Electrical service would be provided to the NMP either through a tie-in to the existing PG&E electrical service, with a point of connection along Russell Boulevard, or through the campus electrical distribution system with a point of connection at a new west campus substation. All the distribution system options would include construction of electrical lines along existing roadways. A new west campus substation would be located within a support site on the west campus. The exact site of this substation is not currently known.

The NMP project would connect with the telecommunications network either through use one of several existing service providers through connection with existing infrastructure along Russell Boulevard, or through connection with infrastructure on the west campus. Natural gas connection options are addressed separately under NMP Impact 2.4-36 below.

The environmental impacts from the construction of these offsite improvements are addressed under the other resource areas discussed above and, with the mitigation measures provided for those resources, have been determined to be less than significant.

* * *

NMP Impact 2.4-35: Implementation of the NMP would require the expansion of natural gas transmission systems, which could result in impacts to a significant archaeological resource.

Significance: Potentially significant

LRDP Mitigation: Implement LRDP Mitigation 4.15-7(b).

Residual Significance: Significant and unavoidable.

Per campus practice of locating all linear utilities within road rights-of-way where feasible, most new pipelines would be located within existing road rights-of-way, areas that have already been disturbed, where intact cultural and biological resources would likely not occur. In addition, the campus would implement, as appropriate, LRDP mitigations that include pre-construction surveys and monitoring to avoid inadvertent impacts to biological and cultural resources during construction of pipeline expansions and extensions. Potential impacts of erosion and water quality effects from trenching and constructing in rights-of-way would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through implementation of 2003 LRDP mitigations presented in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality (Volume II).

Future conditions analysis indicates that due to the growth planned for the west campus, including the NMP, the peak gas demand on the west campus will increase beyond current



capacity. PG&E and the campus are considering three options to meet the natural gas requirements of the west campus, including the need for gas in the NMP: construct a new or replacement line along Russell Boulevard from A Street to a new connection for the NMP (and other parts of the west campus); construct a new or replacement PG&E line along Russell Boulevard to the campus CHCP and then another line (either campus or PG&E) to the NMP along Hutchison Drive; or construct a new line from the PG&E main near the intersection of Union Pacific Railroad and Old Davis Road to the central campus, and then a new line along Hutchison Drive to the NMP. All of these improvements would require an upgrade to a PG&E main on A Street between Second and Third Avenues in the City of Davis. Impacts on biological and cultural resources from installing a new natural gas pipeline in the Russell Boulevard corridor or from Old Davis Road to the central campus would be less than significant for the same reasons as noted above for on-campus pipelines. With respect to the upgrade of the PG&E main on A Street, that improvement would potentially disturb a known archaeological site, CA-Yol-118, which was encountered during previous construction activities in this area. The impact of this off-campus improvement potentially could be significant. Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.15-7(b), to minimize disturbance to archaeological resources associated with CA-Yol-118, PG&E can and should implement directional drilling or other alternative to pipeline installation, and should have a qualified archaeological monitor present in the near vicinity of the site. PG&E also should provide a representative of the local Native American community an opportunity to monitor during construction.

While the implementation of these measures would reduce the significance of this impact, the full extent of the site is not known and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, PG&E, and not the campus, would be responsible for implementing the off-campus mitigation measure. Before PG&E can begin this project, the project will be subject to CEQA review. While the requirement for the project to comply with CEQA should take the potential impact into consideration, due to the uncertainties associated with the effectiveness and feasibility of the mitigation measure with respect to its application by an outside party, this EIR concludes that the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

* * *

2.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires an EIR to describe and evaluate a range of alternatives to a proposed project or alternatives to the location of the proposed project. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to discuss ways that the objectives of the proposed project could be attained while reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. This process is intended to foster informed decision-making and public participation in the environmental process.

The guiding objective of the NMP is to create an affordable and accessible residential community for students, faculty, and staff. This additional housing stock would help alleviate potential housing problems due to the proposed increase in campus population through 2015-16.

The specific objectives of the NMP are as follows:

• Create an affordable and accessible residential community for students, faculty, and staff

Volume III


• Provide a mixed-use neighborhood to foster the creation of a vibrant, convenient, and well-served community

• Provide a CEC and recreation fields west of SR 113

• Integrate open space and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities to reduce the need for residents to bring vehicles to campus

• Enhance the sense of community enjoyed by current campus and community residents

• Provide opportunities for members of the campus to participate fully in the life of the campus and community

2.5.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected as Infeasible This section presents a qualitative analysis of alternatives that were considered for the project but rejected because they would not meet most of the project objectives. These included alternative locations on the Hamel Property and on the Nishi Property, and the Full Neighborhood Alternative.

2.5.1.1 Alternative Location on Hamel Property The 538-acre Hamel Ranch property is located south of I-80 (Figure 2-10). This property is isolated from the central campus and is not easily accessible because of the traffic limitations of the Richards corridor. The difficulties of providing access to the campus and Davis community from this location make this location unsuitable for a neighborhood development. In addition, like the proposed NMP site, the property is currently agricultural, so its use would not reduce the impact of the proposed project with respect to the development of farmland. NMP development at this site would require further extension of campus utilities.

The relative isolation of the Hamel location would not foster as strong a physical and community connection to the existing campus, and the fact that it is also remote from City neighborhoods would further isolate the residents from the larger Davis community. These factors led to the elimination of this site from further consideration.

2.5.1.2 Alternative Location on Nishi Property The Nishi property is a 44-acre site in the City of Davis adjacent to the central campus, and bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad and I-80. About 20 acres of the site could possibly be developed at a density of 25 housing units per acre maximum (based on gross density assumptions in the 2001 Davis General Plan), for a total of about 500 units, housing up to 1,500 students. The Nishi property is designated as “Agriculture” in the City of Davis General Plan. The University does not own the site.

Development of the NMP on the Nishi property would require a major reduction in the scale of the proposed project. The parcel would accommodate substantially fewer student housing units than the proposed NMP, and could not accommodate the other mixed-use components of the NMP. Furthermore, development of the parcel does not appear to be feasible if access for vehicles is provided only from the campus. Although this property would be desirable for

Neighborhood Master PlanAlternatives

Figure2-10

80

CO

UN

TY

RO

AD

98

HUTCHISON DR

RUSSELL BLVD

HUTCHISON DR

OLD DAVIS RD

LA RUE RD

C i t y o f D a v i s

11380

WEST CAMPUS

CENTRAL CAMPUS

SOUTH CAMPUS

OLI

VE

TR

EE

DR

IVE

UC DavisLRDP EIRCampus Boundary

0 1,500 3,000750Feet

28649327

Legend

Proposed Neighborhood Master Plan

Neighborhood Master Plan Alternatives

Olive Tree Drive Option

Higher Density Option

North-South Orientation

No Housing Option

Central Campus Infill 1 inch equals 1,500 feet

UR

S C

orp

ora

tion

L:\P

roje

cts\

2864

932

7_U

C_D

avi

s\M

XD

\An

alys

is\F

inal

_EIR

_Fig

ure

s\F

igur

e_2

-10

_N

eigh

borh

ood

_Alte

rna

tive

s_11

x17

.mxd

Da

te: 1

0/9

/20

03 1

0:14

:49

AM

Na

me:

DT

Wo

od



housing on the basis of its proximity and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to the central campus and downtown Davis, residential development would be constrained by the proximity of freeway and railroad and the parcel’s triangular shape. According to the City of Davis General Plan, the site would have to be accessed from the campus (across the railroad line) rather than from the adjacent Richards Avenue because of existing traffic congestion in the Richards corridor. This would require a new railroad undercrossing, the cost of which would increase the rental cost of each unit beyond a level that would be financially feasible relative to the cost of comparable units in the area. Extra noise mitigation measures would probably also have to be incorporated in a residential project at this site, because of the proximity of the freeway and railroad. For these reasons, this site was eliminated from further consideration.

2.5.1.3 Full Neighborhood Alternative This alternative would develop the proposed Neighborhood from SR 113 to the Patwin neighborhood on the west campus. This proposed site, at 368-acres, is 66 percent larger in area than the 225-acre site of the proposed NMP. The Full Neighborhood Alternative would provide 1,050 faculty and staff units and 4,000 student beds, as compared to 500 faculty and staff units and 3,000 student beds accommodated by the proposed NMP.

This alternative would accomplish the University’s goal to provide housing for the growing campus population through 2015-16, and could also accommodate the other aspects of the plan with respect to the CEC, recreational fields, commercial services, and an elementary school.

The development of this site would avoid the problems of remote locations and the associated traffic and lack of cohesiveness associated with the Hamel property. The site would be an integral part of the campus community, and would support the objectives of providing a mixed-use neighborhood to foster a vibrant, convenient, and well-served community. This site would also provide a CEC and recreation fields west of SR 113. This alternative would integrate open space and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities to reduce the need for residents to bring vehicles to campus.

Although the Full Neighborhood Alternative appears to accomplish most of the NMP’s objectives, it was rejected for three primary reasons. First, input from public workshops indicated a strong preference from people in established neighborhoods in West Davis for the University to proceed with a smaller-scale neighborhood. Second, the amount of agricultural activity displaced by the Full Neighborhood alternative could not be adequately relocated to the remaining inventory of lands on the West Campus. Third, the amount of development in the alternative probably could not be built out in the planning horizon of the 2003 LRDP, based on faculty/staff housing development rates experienced at other UC campuses. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration and is not assessed in detail below.

2.5.2 Alternatives Evaluated in Detail This section presents a qualitative evaluation of five alternatives to the proposed NMP that are considered potentially feasible and would meet some of the project’s objectives. Alternatives evaluated in detail include: the No Neighborhood Housing Alternative; the Olive Tree Drive Alternative; the North-South Orientation Alternative; the Central Campus Infill Alternative; the Higher Density Alternative; and the No Project Alternative. Discussion for each alternative

Volume III


includes a brief description, an impact analysis, and a summary comparison with the proposed project. Locations of the alternatives are illustrated on Figure 2-10. The Central Campus Infill Alternative, which consists of further development within the central campus, is also illustrated on Figure 2-10. A summary of the potential environmental impacts of each alternative as compared with the potential impacts of the proposed project is presented in Table 2-2, in Section 2.2.3, above.

2.5.2.1 Alternative 1: No Neighborhood Housing Alternative Description. Under this alternative, no new housing would be built on the NMP site. Only the CEC and the new recreational fields would be located west of Highway 113, on about 40 acres of the proposed NMP site north of Hutchison Drive (Figure 2-10). The alternative would not include any housing, commercial uses, or the proposed elementary school, and the reminder of the NMP site would be retained as Teaching and Research Fields. No additional students, faculty or staff would be housed on the west campus, and a higher percentage of the campus population than at present would reside outside the Davis/UC Davis community and commute to campus. Project population in the neighborhood would be reduced to about 90 employees who would work at the CEC and about 2,130 students who would attend classes at the CEC. For utilities to serve this alternative, it is assumed that irrigation water, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication distribution options would be similar to the proposed project. With respect to wastewater, because of the smaller population involved, service would be provided by connecting to and possibly enlarging the existing main along Hutchison Drive. With respect to domestic water, because the amount of needed water would be substantially lower, it is likely that service would be provided from the campus domestic water system without constructing a new well on the west campus. Onsite storm drainage areas would be significantly reduced from the proposed project, but these remaining areas could potentially provide sufficient onsite detention to eliminate the need for a new discharge to Putah Creek.

2.5.2.2 Impact Analysis Aesthetics. Under the No Neighborhood Housing Alternative, significant impacts of the proposed project on scenic vistas would be reduced as compared with the proposed project, in that views to the west from campus and to the south from Russell Boulevard, and the SR 113 bike path would be less blocked by Neighborhood development. The CEC and recreation fields in the middle distance would block some, but not all views across agricultural fields to the Coast Range from adjacent view points. The NMP site would largely retain its present visual character as agricultural land, so the potentially significant impact of the proposed project would be reduced. The alternative also would have reduced potentially significant impacts with respect to light and glare because of the smaller scale of development on the project site, although the light possibly would be more noticeable in contrast to the surrounding dark fields, since the adjacent residential development would not be built.

Agricultural Resources. Implementation of the proposed NMP would result in designation of about 225 acres of prime farmland for multi-use residential development. This would be a significant impact. The loss of prime farmland under the No Neighborhood Housing alternative would be reduced to about 40 acres, but this would still be a significant impact. Furthermore, because the residential population of the NMP would, under this alternative, reside in other



regional communities, there could be a commensurate or greater amount of agricultural land converted to non-agricultural uses in areas not controlled by the University.

Air Quality. The significant impacts of the project with respect to short-term emissions from mobile sources and fugitive dust during construction would be further reduced by the diminished levels of new construction under the No Neighborhood Housing Alternative. Significant regional air quality impacts as the result of project emissions would increase under this alternative as a result of an increase in automobile commuting by people who could not reside on campus.

Biological Resources. Potentially significant impacts of the proposed project with respect to potential burrowing owl habitat, Swainson’s hawk foraging and nesting habitat, and VELB habitat would be reduced by the alternative because less potential habitat would be lost. The potentially significant impacts of the project on jurisdictional wetlands and northwestern pond turtle, associated with construction of a new storm drain outfall off-site to serve the proposed project, could also occur under the alternative because storm drainage outfalls could be needed for the reduced facilities. Impacts from off-site utilities could be reduced relative to the proposed project, since there would be a reduced need for utility expansions.

Cultural Resources. Potentially significant impacts to potential buried archaeological resources and human remains would be reduced relative to the proposed project, because a much smaller land area would be affected. Similarly to the proposed project, this alternative has no potential for impacts to historic architectural features, since none is present in the project area.

Geology and Soils. Neither the proposed project nor the alternative has the potential for impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Potential exposure of people to contaminated soil and groundwater during construction, would be reduced by the No Neighborhood Housing Alternative because less development would occur. Project impacts relating to the use of hazardous material in teaching laboratories and potential for human and environmental exposure are the same for the alternative as for the project, as both include the teaching laboratories at the CEC, where hazardous materials potentially would be present. However, under this alternative, one of the new sensitive receptors (the elementary school) would not be built and therefore the impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project. The potentially significant impact associated with constructing the CEC within the Traffic Pattern Zone of the University Airport would be the same for both the proposed project and the No Neighborhood Housing Alternative.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project could affect wastewater discharge and groundwater supplies, and construction of the project could provide sources of potentially contaminated surface runoff. The No Neighborhood Housing alternative would reduce these impacts, because it would disturb only about 20 percent of the land area of the proposed project, and would introduce correspondingly less impermeable surface area than the proposed project. It would place a smaller demand on domestic water supplies from the deep aquifer and individually could result in a less-than-significant impact. Similarly, the use of irrigation water from the shallow and intermediate aquifer would be lower than under the proposed NMP because only the recreational fields would be developed. With respect to wastewater, the alternative would place less demand on the existing WWTP facilities.

Volume III


Land Use and Planning. Development of the No Neighborhood Housing Alternative would result in the same less-than-significant impacts associated with incompatibility with existing or planned adjacent land uses as the proposed project. Both the proposed project and the alternative would result in a potentially significant land use conflict as a result of siting the CEC within the University Airport Traffic Pattern Zone. However, because the alternative would use less land than the proposed project and would not have residential uses, this less-than-significant impact would be further reduced.

Noise. The No Neighborhood Housing Alternative would have reduced impacts relative to the proposed project with respect to construction noise. The traffic-related noise associated with the proposed project would be reduced in the immediate NMP area of the west campus. However, under the alternative, commute traffic and commute-related noise would increase, particularly on the central campus, since more students, faculty and staff who could not be housed on campus would need to commute.

Population and Housing. Campus daytime population increases would be similar under the No Neighborhood Housing alternative as under the proposed project and campus residential population would be less. However, since the campus would not provide housing for the increased population, the demand for housing in surrounding communities would increase.

Public Services. The need for additional police, fire, and other services in the NMP would be substantially reduced under the alternative since the residential component of the project, with associated demands, would be eliminated. Impacts to sensitive habitat and prime farmland that could result from construction of new fire protection facilities by the City of Davis would not occur because the alternative would rely on campus services and would not need City of Davis services.

Recreation. The No Neighborhood Housing provides the same acreage of recreational fields to the same campus population as the proposed NMP, and thus, like the proposed project, would have no impact on campus recreational facilities. However, people who could not be housed on campus, under the alternative, would seek housing in other communities, and would place additional demands on recreational facilities in those communities.

Transportation and Traffic. The proposed project would reduce the need for students, faculty, and staff to drive onto campus, because parking would be provided on the west campus, and the project would include alternative transportation and bicycle routes to the central campus. These would not be provided by the alternative. The significant and potentially significant traffic impacts of the proposed project would be exacerbated under the No Neighborhood Housing alternative. Because a larger percentage of students, faculty, and staff would commute to and from campus, the alternative would result in an increased number of vehicle trips and would require more parking on the central campus. Because of an increase in commuting, the alternative would make a larger contribution than the proposed project to regional traffic congestion. Increased congestion on campus also would carry the potential for increased conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles. Conversely, because a larger portion of the 2003 LRDP related population would be living outside of Davis, the traffic congestion within Davis may be less under the No Neighborhood Housing alternative.

Utilities. Utility demands would be reduced by the No Neighborhood Housing alternative relative to the proposed project, since the residential component of the project, with associated utility demands, would be eliminated. The alternative would not eliminate utility extensions



(except wastewater and a new domestic water well); however, due to reduced service it would potentially require smaller diameter pipelines. Significant impacts to archaeological resources associated with the extension of a PG&E natural gas line from utility extensions would be the same for the alternative as for the proposed project, as gas service to the west campus still would be required.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives This alternative would satisfy the project objective of providing a CEC and recreation fields west of SR 113. It would not provide the affordable and accessible residential community for students, faculty, and staff as is proposed in the NMP, nor would it provide a mixed-use neighborhood. Under this NMP alternative, the 2003 LRDP could not meet its objective of promoting affordable and accessible residential communities. Most project objectives would not be met by the alternative.

2.5.2.3 Alternative 2: Olive Tree Drive Alternative Description. This larger alternative would cover approximately 260 acres between SR 113 on the east and Olive Tree Drive on the west, and from Russell Boulevard on the north to Hutchison Drive on the south (Figure 2-10). It would include all of the facilities provided by the proposed project, as well as additional student, faculty, and staff housing. Housing provided by the Olive Tree Drive Alternative could accommodate 3,400 to 4,150 students, and would provide approximately 600 to 800 faculty and staff housing units. Assuming that faculty/staff units would accommodate 2.5 persons per unit, and that some dependents and other non-students would reside with students, this alternative would house 4,900 to 6,150 persons, as compared with 3,000 student beds and 500 faculty and staff housing units, and a total of approximately 4,350 persons, under the proposed project. Other elements of this alternative, including recreational fields, elementary school, CEC, mixed-use center and greenbelts, would be the same or slightly larger. With respect to off-site utilities, it is assumed that this alternative would require a similar set of utility extensions that are necessary for the NMP although it is possible that the pipeline sizes for this alternative may be somewhat larger due to the larger area and population under this alternative.

2.5.2.4 Impact Analysis Aesthetics. The Olive Tree Drive Alternative would exacerbate significant impacts identified for the proposed project with respect to scenic vistas, because the alternative would be more extensive than the proposed project. As under the proposed NMP, views to the west from campus and to the south from Russell Boulevard and the SR 113 bike path would be blocked by the development. Like the proposed project, the alternative would have similar or greater potentially significant impacts on the site’s visual character and with respect to increased light and glare because of the greater level of development on the project site under the alternative.

Agricultural Resources. The Olive Tree Drive Alternative would have a greater significant impact on prime farmland because the footprint of the project on prime farmland would be approximately 35 acres larger than the proposed project.

Air Quality. The Olive Tree Drive Alternative could accommodate a larger residential population than the proposed project, and therefore would include more cars and more local

Volume III


traffic, with associated significant emissions. There would be fewer commute trips, with commensurately reduced contribution to significant regional emissions. The larger area of construction, relative to the proposed project, would produce higher quantities of pollutants during construction than the proposed project, and thus would make an increased contribution to significant air quality impacts from construction emissions.

Biological Resources. Because a larger area of grassland and agricultural fields would be affected, the Olive Tree Drive Alternative would have a greater potential than the proposed project to result in impacts to Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl habitat. The impact on VELB habitat would be the same as under the proposed NMP because no other elderberry shrubs are present on the Olive Tree Drive Alternative site other than the single shrub that would be affected by both the NMP and this alternative. The proposed project and the alternative would have the same potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, northwestern pond turtle, and special-status fish species because both would require a new storm drain outfall at the Arboretum Waterway or Putah Creek. Less-than-significant off-site utility impacts would be the same for the proposed project and this alternative. The potentially significant impact to Important trees would be the same for both.

Cultural Resources. The Olive Tree Drive Alternative would cover a more extensive area than the proposed project, so would have an increased potentially significant impact relative to the proposed project for impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative has no potential for impacts to historic architectural features, since no features are present in the affected area. Off-site utility impacts would be the same for the proposed project and this alternative.

Geology and Soils. Neither the proposed project nor the alternative would result in any significant impacts in the area of geology, soils, and seismicity.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Significant and potentially significant project impacts relating to the use of hazardous materials at the CEC and potential exposure of construction workers and campus occupants to contaminated soil and groundwater, and less-than-significant impacts related to the handling of hazardous materials within one quarter mile of a school, (CEC), would be the same or somewhat increased under the alternative relative to the proposed project. Potentially significant impacts with respect to hazards from overflight and construction within a restrictive Airport Safety Compatibility Zone at the University Airport would be greater, as a larger portion of this alternative site would be within the more restrictive safety zones of the University Airport.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project potentially could affect wastewater discharge and groundwater supplies, and construction of the project could provide sources of potentially contaminated surface runoff. The Olive Tree Drive Alternative potentially would have greater impact potential than the proposed project, because it would disturb more land area, and introduce more impermeable surface area. Impacts on the groundwater aquifers and wastewater treatment facilities would be greater because this alternative would involve a larger residential population and would cover a larger area with impervious surfaces.

Land Use and Planning. Development of the Olive Tree Drive alternative would result in the same less-than-significant impacts associated with incompatibility with existing or planned adjacent land uses as the proposed project, although this impact would be somewhat increased because a greater area would be developed. The alternative would extend the Neighborhood to



the west, which would pose potentially significant land use conflicts with the University Airport, through intrusion into the restrictive Airport Safety Compatibility Zones.

Noise. The Olive Tree Drive Alternative and the proposed project are essentially the same with respect to noise, except that it can be assumed that construction (and associated noise) would have greater duration for the Olive Tree Drive Alternative. The larger population of the project also would be expected to generate more local vehicle trips, which would produce more ambient operational noise on the west campus. As this alternative would extend all the way west up to Olive Tree Drive, its southwestern portion would be in the area affected by aircraft noise but the noise levels in this affected area would be between 55 and 60 CNEL, which is considered acceptable for residential uses.

Population and Housing. The campus daytime population under this alternative would be similar under this alternative to the proposed project, but the on-campus residential population would be more. Since more housing would be provided with this alternative, the demand for housing in surrounding communities would somewhat decrease.

Public Services. The need for additional police, fire and other services in the neighborhood would be increased under the alternative, since the population and square footage of the development would be greater. Significant impacts to habitat and prime farmland associated with the need for new fire facilities in the City of Davis to serve the proposed project would also result from the alternative.

Recreation. Similar to the proposed NMP, this alternative would not significantly affect recreational facilities, as adequate recreational facilities including the recreational fields would be provided in the Neighborhood. In general, there would be reduced impacts on recreation in the region as compared with the proposed project, because larger recreational fields would be provided. However, Olive Tree Drive, as a recreational amenity used by bicyclists and persons walking and jogging in this part of the campus, could be adversely affected by the alternative.

Transportation and Traffic. Because more of the population would live on campus under this alternative than under the proposed project, regional commute trips would be reduced relative to the proposed project but in City of Davis and on campus traffic congestion may be worse. The alternative and the proposed project both would result in significant impacts on the operation of local intersections. If this alternative were adopted, circulation and parking in the neighborhood would be planned to accommodate the larger number of vehicles, but the impact to parking and increased conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles would still be potentially significant.

Utilities. The less than significant impacts of utility demands of the Olive Tree Drive Alternative would be increased relative to the proposed project, since the residential component of the project, with associated utility demands, would be enlarged. The utility extensions needed to serve this alternative would be along the same alignments as under the proposed project although somewhat larger diameter pipelines may be needed. The significant environmental impacts from PG&E natural gas extensions would be as described for the proposed project.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives This alternative would accomplish most of the NMP objectives and would utilize the site identified in the LRDP as the location of the Neighborhood. Development of the NMP under this scenario would support some of the plan’s objectives, including:

Volume III


• The creation of an affordable and accessible residential community for students, faculty, and staff

• Provision of a mixed-use neighborhood to foster a vibrant, convenient, and well-served community

• Provision of a CEC and recreational fields west of SR 113

The additional housing units, including student beds, that would be included in this alternative as compared to the proposed project, would allow the University to provide housing to a greater number of the new campus population than the current proposal. This would be consistent with the objective of developing a neighborhood to provide housing for the campus’s growing student, faculty, and staff populations.

The University is a major presence in the City of Davis area, and as such is concerned about enhancing the sense of community enjoyed by current campus and community residents. UC Davis has made that goal a guiding principle in the development of the LRDP and NMP. Input from public workshops indicated a strong preference from people in established neighborhoods in West Davis for the University to proceed with a smaller-scale neighborhood. The Olive Tree Drive alternative would displace a large amount of agricultural activity, which also is viewed unfavorably in the local community. Further, the amount of development in the alternative probably could not be built out in the planning horizon of the 2003 LRDP. These factors detract from the ability of this alternative to meet project objectives.

2.5.2.5 Alternative 3: North/South Orientation Alternative Description. Under this alternative, the orientation of the proposed Neighborhood would be turned 90 degrees, and its long axis would have a north-south orientation (Figure 2-10). Development would extend north and south of Hutchison Drive west of SR 113, but would be much narrower on the east-west axis than the proposed project. This configuration would minimize the length of the development along Russell Boulevard. The western boundary of the alternative would take an irregular shape both to conform with campus boundaries in this area and to accommodate existing land uses in this area to the extent possible. The acreage and components of the alternative would be the same as analyzed for the proposed project.

With the changed configuration of the neighborhood under this alternative, off-site utilities would also be configured somewhat differently from the proposed project. For domestic water, either a longer pipeline from the proposed new well or water tank along Hutchison Drive would be required or the new well or tank would be constructed on this alternative site. For storm drainage, two options (drainage via a storm drain to Putah Creek or to the Arboretum) would require shorter pipelines, and a third option (discharge via the Hopkins Road outfall), would not follow Hutchison Drive and Hopkins Road but an alternate route across agricultural fields south of the University Airport. For wastewater, the options would be the same as the proposed project but pipeline lengths would be shorter. For electrical service to this alternative, the future west campus substation could be located within the neighborhood site whereas, under the proposed project, electrical lines needed to connect to a potential substationsite would be longer. For natural gas service, the options would be similar to those under the proposed project but the pipeline lengths would be shorter. Off-site extensions for telecommunications would be reduced



under this alternative because the on-campus telecommunication points of connection are located within this alternative site.

The land uses that would be displaced by this alternative are agricultural teaching and research fields, which presently contain support facilities, teaching and research centers, technical research equipment, and lands assigned to six campus departments. These uses would be relocated to other areas of the campus or, in the case of feed crops, possibly replaced through purchase of commercial forage. By comparison, the proposed project also would require relocation of campus agricultural uses, but would affect only two departments on the campus - the Department of Agronomy, and the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department.

2.5.2.6 Impact Analysis Aesthetics. Under the North-South Orientation Alternative, significant impacts of the proposed project on scenic vistas possibly would be reduced relative to the proposed project, in that views to the south from Russell Boulevard and bicycle paths would remain more open. However, views to the west from the campus and the SR 113 bike path still would be blocked by NMP development, similar to the proposed project. Potentially significant impacts associated with visual character and increased light and glare would be similar for the proposed project and this alternative, but may be somewhat reduced due to reduced frontage along Russell Boulevard.

Agricultural Resources. The North-South Orientation Alternative would have similar significant impacts on agricultural resources as the proposed project, since it would encompass the same amount of acreage in a different configuration. This alternative would potentially convert less prime farmland to nonagricultural uses than the proposed project, since some of the alternative site includes existing development.

Air Quality. The same significant air quality impacts from construction and operation emissions would result from the North-South Orientation Alternative as from the proposed project.

Biological Resources. The southern half of the North-South Orientation Alternative has not been subject to systematic biological surveys, but would likely contain the same special-status species habitat. Therefore, like the proposed project, the North-South Orientation Alternative has the potential to result in potentially significant impacts to habitat for burrowing owls, Swainson’s hawks, and VELB and on northwestern pond turtles and their habitat, either on the project site or along associated utility alignments. Wetland impacts would be similar to the proposed project and would stem from the construction of the storm water outfall on Putah Creek. The differences in off-site utility extensions (mostly in terms of shorter or longer lengths of utility lines along roadways or one changed alignment in the case of the storm drain options) would not result in biological impacts that are substantially different from the proposed project.

Cultural Resources. The North-South Orientation Alternative possibly has an increased potential, relative to the proposed project, for potentially significant impacts to undiscovered buried archaeological resources and human remains, because the project would extend closer to the areas of higher archaeological sensitivity closer to the historic course of Putah Creek. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative has no potential for impacts to historic architectural features, since none are present in the project footprint.


Volume III


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Significant project impacts relating to the use of hazardous materials in teaching laboratories at the CEC and potential for exposure would be the same for the alternative as for the project. Issues relative to hazards from University Airport operations would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. The proximity of the alternative to the campus Environmental Service Facility (ESF) would increase the potential for exposure and risk of upset relative to the proposed project. The potential that contaminated soil or groundwater would be encountered during construction, a potentially significant impact of the proposed project, would be greater than under the proposed project, because the southern portion of the alternative site has been previously developed.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The North-South Orientation Alternative would have the same potential as the proposed project to affect wastewater requirements and deplete groundwater supplies, and construction of the project could provide sources of potentially contaminated surface runoff. The North-South Orientation Alternative would extend closer to Putah Creek than the proposed project, but would not place the south end of the Neighborhood in the 100-year flood zone. The impacts of the alternative would be essentially the same as those of the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning. Like the proposed project, the North-South Orientation Alternative would have potentially significant impacts with respect to construction in an aircraft Traffic Pattern Zone, but the impact would be reduced by the greater distance of most of the alternative from the more restrictive Airport Safety Compatibility Zones of the University Airport.

The alternative would result in increased impacts associated with incompatibility with existing or planned land uses. Development of the North-South Orientation Alternative would require relocation of existing uses established on and adjacent to the site by six campus departments. In addition to the land use issues affected under the proposed project, the alternative would displace the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering’s five-year-old Heidrick Western Center for Agricultural Equipment; Vegetable Crops Department research lands and support facilities; facilities pasture and animal feed lands of the Animal Science Department; and meteorological and soil research fields and facilities of the Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, which include long term research that could not be relocated in the short term without significant impacts to the research. While the North-South Orientation Alternative would not develop the LAWR site itself, it would develop land to the east, south and southeast of the research area. Prevailing winds are form the southeast to the southwest, except for isolated north wind events, so the development to the southeast of the long-term field site would greatly impact meteorological research, necessitating its relocation. These displacement impacts would be additional significant impacts of this alternative because they would represent conflicts with existing land uses. The alternative also indirectly would result in additional impacts associated with the reestablishment of the displaced facilities at new locations.

Noise. Potentially significant noise impacts generated by people, traffic and construction under the North-South Orientation Alternative would be expected to be approximately the same as under the proposed project. Most residences would be more distant from the University Airport under this alternative; however, airport noise impacts would be less than significant under both the proposed project and this alternative.

Population and Housing. Population and housing impacts are the same for the proposed project and the North-South Orientation Alternative.



Public Services. The need for additional police, fire and other services in the neighborhood would be the same as under the proposed project, since the population and square footage of the development would be the same. Therefore, the impacts would be similar to those described for the proposed project.

Recreation. The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed NMP.

Transportation and Traffic. Vehicular transportation and traffic issues are the same for the proposed project and the alternative, as either site would be accessed via Hutchison Drive. If this alternative did not include a connection with Russell Boulevard, it would have reduced significant impacts with respect to Russell Boulevard traffic relative to the proposed project. The alternative would place more bicycle traffic on busier roads than the proposed project, and thus could increase the significant impacts of the project with respect to conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles.

Utilities. Utility issues would be essentially the same for the proposed project and the North-South Orientation Alternative, although there would be some differences in the alignment of off-site utilities. The differences in off-site utility extensions (mostly in terms of shorter or longer lengths of utility lines along roadways, or one changed alignment in the case of the storm drain options) would not result in environmental impacts that are substantially different from those that would result from the proposed project.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives The North-South Orientation Alternative is similar to the proposed project, with the exception of the layout of the Neighborhood. The project objectives would therefore be accomplished to the same extent as by the proposed project.

This alternative would create an affordable and accessible residential community for students, faculty, and staff; and it would provide a mixed-use Neighborhood. The alternative would be supportive of the project objective to enhance a sense of community enjoyed by current campus and community residents.

This alternative would be close to the central campus area and therefore would contribute to the integration of open space and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, to reduce the need for residents to bring vehicles on campus. However, it potentially would increase conflicts between bicycles and vehicles in the southern portion of the project. This alternative also poses potential hazards not shared by the proposed project as a result of increased residential development in the vicinity of the Environmental Service Facility, and potential increased exposure to hazards related to that facility. This alternative also would result in impacts to existing land uses that would be relocated as the result of this alternative but would not be affected by the proposed project. In particular, the relocation of on-going long term agricultural research projects would impair and delay the research, which would have to begin again at a new location.

2.5.2.7 Alternative 4: Central Campus Infill NMP Alternative

Description. Under this alternative, which reflects a subset of the Central Campus Infill Alternative to the 2003 LRDP, the NMP would not be adopted and there would be no NMP development west of SR 113. Instead, the NMP’s growth program would be sited as infill on the

Volume III


central campus. The proposed NMP site would remain under its existing uses, primarily as agricultural lands.

Infill development on the central campus would include most of the proposed NMP components: recreation fields, housing for 3,000 students (in 865 apartments, 150 student cottages, and 80 family apartments), 500 faculty and staff housing units (about 275 detached houses, 80 townhouses, and 145 apartments and live-work units), the CEC, the Mixed-Use Housing Center, the neighborhood park, and the elementary school. Under this alternative, associated vehicle circulation, bicycle and pedestrian greenways and landscaping would be reduced, relative to the NMP, as it is assumed that the developed setting, smaller site size, and close proximity to other central campus development would allow the project to share existing facilities, and that a less extensive circulation system would be needed. The NMP’s proposed Transit Green, community open space, and much of the proposed formal open space also would be eliminated, as similar amenities would be available in relatively close proximity on the central campus. As thus configured, and at the NMP’s proposed densities, the alternative would require a total of about 150 acres, and would include 1,635 units of faculty, staff and student housing.

The campus examined alternate ways in which this envisioned NMP development could be accommodated on the central campus as infill. An increase in the density of the development relative to the proposed project almost certainly would be needed to accommodate the NMP on the central campus. The needed area potentially could be provided on the central campus: (1) by developing currently vacant or underutilized land parcels at the same density as the NMP or higher, (2) by redeveloping developed land at a higher density, or (3) a combination of the above. The campus would preserve lands on the central campus identified for academic uses under the 2003 LRDP, and these would not be available for NMP development. However, a number of currently vacant or underdeveloped lands in a variety of land use designations on the central campus were considered as potential infill development sites. These were analyzed to determine their suitability for student housing. Initially, the use of a number of dispersed sites, primarily existing parking lots and recreation fields, was considered (Table 2-16).

Existing surface parking lots range in size from 2 to 6 acres and are interspersed with other campus land uses. Some of the lots are too small to be viable as housing sites. Although some parking lot locations potentially would be suitable for student housing, these generally would not be attractive to future faculty and staff as housing sites, due to their locations amidst other uses. If parking lot sites were to be used for housing infill, residential uses would be scattered throughout the campus and would not offer the type of community environment desired. Furthermore, surface parking spaces displaced on the central campus would need to be replaced in additional parking structures. This would involve high construction costs and could raise parking fees on campus to unsustainable levels.

With respect to the infill use of sites currently used for campus athletics and recreational facilities, although some of the sites are large and well-located and potentially would be suitable housing sites, their use for NMP development would displace existing recreation and athletic uses. These fields are essential for campus physical education and athletics programs; thus, they would need replacement elsewhere on the campus, and are not optimal choices for redevelopment.

After consideration of these factors, the campus formulated the Central Campus Infill Alternative as development. There are no vacant or sparsely-used sites on the central campus large enough to



accommodate all of the NMP components in the proposed density and in the proposed configuration. However, there is one potentially suitable site of about 73 acres in the northwestern portion of the central campus, east of SR 113 and south of Russell Boulevard (Figure 2-10). This area, which presently is primarily vacant or developed at low density, is also the only area on the central campus where housing would be attractive to faculty and staff. Present uses of the site, primarily at low density, include the Student Farm, the Domes, the Orchard Park Greenhouses, and a surface parking lot. The site is proposed for Community Gardens and Student Housing land use designations under the 2003 LRDP. This site is less than half the size that would be needed to accommodate the NMP development as proposed; thus, all of the proposed components could be accommodated only if the housing were developed at significantly higher densities than proposed.

Table 2-16 Areas Suggested for Infill

Number of Students Potentially Housed Area # Current Use Area

(acres) 50/acre 100/acre 200/acre 1 Parking 4 200 400 800 2 Dairy, vacant/IM field 18.3 915 1830 3,660 3 Parking 6.2 310 620 1,240 4 Parking 4 200 400 800 5 Parking 5.9 295 590 1,180 6 Toomey Field, Howard IM Field 8.9 445 890 1,780 7 Parking 2.4 120 240 480 8 Parking 4.4 220 440 880 9 Tennis courts and parking 5 250 500 1,000

10 Parking and Veterinary Medicine (Haring Annex)

2.3 115 230 460

11 Softball field 3.5 175 350 700 12 Unidentified parcel 3.7 185 370 740 13 Vacant 2.7 135 270 540 14 Parking 2 100 200 400 15 Parking 2 100 200 400

Total 75.3 3,765 7,530 15,060

Volume III


To obtain additional contiguous space for the NMP development, the Central Campus Infill Alternative would also include the use of the contiguous parcel that presently is developed with the Orchard Park Apartments. This student family housing is of relatively low density, at about 13.3 units per acre. The space available for development of the NMP project could be increased to a total of 88 acres through redevelopment of the Orchard Park Apartment site at a higher density. This, of course, would require that additional housing be added to the NMP development to replace the displaced housing. While the displacement and replacement of existing housing has significant cost disadvantages for housing on campus overall, redevelopment of low density housing at higher densities is consistent with the alternative proposal. The existing Orchard Park Apartments would be demolished. Two hundred units of student family housing would be added to the 80 student family apartments proposed for the NMP housing component (for a total of 280 units), to replace the student family housing currently provided by the Orchard Park Apartments. This would imply an increase in the population to be housed by about 370 persons, including 200 students and their associated family members. The development in this area also would displace 14 units of student housing at the Domes, currently housing 28 persons. Housing to replace the Domes units would also have to be included in the NMP Central Campus Infill Alternative.

Substantial changes would be needed to the NMP as proposed in order to accommodate all of the proposed components on the 88-acre infill site. Recreation fields (about 18 acres), the neighborhood park (2 acres), the elementary school (3 acres), and the CEC (6 acres) would be retained at the proposed densities, since changes in the configuration of such facilities could diminish their ability to function as planned. It is assumed that, since the alternative site is about 40 percent smaller than the proposed NMP site, the acreage necessary for circulation and bicycle and pedestrian greenways would be commensurately reduced. Thus, a total of about 22 acres would be identified for these uses. Given these considerations, the space available for housing on the 88-acre site would total about 37 acres.

With the 1,635 housing units proposed under the NMP, and an additional 200 units to replace the Orchard Park housing and 14 units to replace the Domes housing, the 37-acres of housing area would need to accommodate a total of about 1,850 units of housing. This equates to an average of about 50 housing units per acre. However, one objective of the NMP is to provide a mix of housing types and densities. Housing at the uniform density of 50 units per acre, which could only be accommodated in high-rise development, probably would not be desirable to many faculty and staff. However, the entire space available for housing on the alternative site could not accommodate the faculty/staff housing component of the NMP at the NMP’s proposed average density for faculty and staff housing of 8.9 units per acre. Overall, although some range in housing density could be developed on the site, housing of all types would need to be developed at substantially higher densities than proposed for development of the NMP west of SR 113.

For the Central Campus Infill Alternative, the 275 faculty/staff housing units that would have been developed as large, detached houses at a density of 5.7 units per acre under the NMP would instead be developed as townhouse apartments three to four stories in height. The student cottage apartments that would have been associated with many houses would be eliminated from the townhouse lots (and added to the apartment inventory), and yard sizes also would be smaller than proposed. Unit sizes would be at the low end of the proposed NMP ranges. About 15 acres of the housing area would be provided for this part of the housing element, at an average density of about 18.3 units per acre. The NMP’s proposed 100 faculty/staff townhouses and live-work units



would be provided in four to six story buildings on the infill site, in contrast to the two-story building in the proposed NMP project, and would use about 4 additional acres at a density of 25 units per acre. 100 faculty/staff apartments would be provided in high-rise buildings of 6 to 8 stories, which would require about 2 acres. Faculty/staff housing in these configurations would require about 21 acres total, leaving about 16 acres of the alternative site available for student housing.

The proposed NMP would provide 30.4 acres for 1,095 units of student housing, at an average density of 28.5 units per acre, plus 65 units of student, staff and faculty housing on 4 acres at the Mixed-Use Housing Center, at a density of 25 units per acre. On the Central Campus Infill Alternative site, 214 additional units of student housing would be needed to replace housing displaced by the NMP development of the site, for a total of about 1,375 student housing units. With the 16 acres available at the site for student housing development, a density of about 86 units per acre would be required. This could be achieved by tripling the height of the student buildings, from the three- to four-story mid-rises of the proposed site to nine- to twelve-story high-rises. If desired, to provide neighborhood services for the development, the ground-floor retail and office functions of the Mixed-Use Housing Center proposed in the NMP could be accommodated in the ground floor of faculty/staff or student apartments, by increasing the height of selected buildings by one additional story.

Under the Central Campus Infill Alternative, limited street parking would be accommodated within the circulation system. However, most parking would be provided as stacked structures, either under or immediately adjacent to apartment buildings and townhouses. If detached parking structures were preferred, then the already-limited open space provided by the site would be further reduced.

2.5.2.8 Impact Analysis Aesthetics. Adoption of the Central Campus Infill Alternative would avoid significant impacts to scenic vistas and potentially significant impacts to the visual character of the west campus that are associated with the proposed NMP. It would also not produce the potentially significant impacts of the project in relation to increased light and glare on the west campus. The alternative could result in potentially significant impacts to visual character and scenic vistas on the central campus, where views to the west could be blocked by high-rise construction, and density of development relative to open space would increase. The potential for glare and light impacts on the central campus would also increase relative to the proposed project, due to the denser development of the alternative in proximity to existing development.

Agricultural Resources. The 225 acres of prime farmland on the west campus within the NMP footprint would be maintained in its current condition under agricultural uses and as open space, and the significant impact of the project to this land would not occur. However, about 50 acres of the infill housing site under the Central Campus Infill Alternative is prime farmland, so this alternative also would result in a significant prime farmland impact. Farmland used as the Student Experimental Farm has been maintained as pesticide-free land for approximately 30 years. This local resource would be lost under this alternative.

Air Quality. The air quality impacts of this alternative from construction and operation emissions would be similar to the significant impacts of the proposed project.

Volume III


Biological Resources. The proposed project and the alternative could result in impacts on burrowing owl habitat and breeding areas, Swainson’s hawk foraging areas and nesting sites, and VELB habitat, since these habitat types are present both on the proposed site and in the alternative area. The alternative would pose a significant or potentially significant impact associated with the removal of important trees, which could also occur under the proposed project if trees had to be removed for a Russell Boulevard connection. The alternative would not require the new storm drain outfall required for the proposed project as it could tie into the existing control campus system. It therefore would not result in the potentially significant impacts to wetlands, northwestern pond turtle habitat and special-status fish associated with the proposed project’s storm drain outfall.

Cultural Resources. The alternative would have greater potential for impacts to historic structures and landscapes than the proposed project, since there are no historic buildings or landscapes in the proposed NMP area, while on the Central Campus Infill site there are a large number of greenhouses and other structures, which would need to be evaluated to determine if they possess historic significance. The alternative also would have increased potential for potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources and human remains, because there are known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the areas that would be developed under the alternative.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The potentially significant impacts of this alternative and the proposed project with respect to use of hazardous materials at the CEC and exposure of people to contamination during construction would be similar. The higher density of buildings and population could result in increased potentially significant impacts to emergency response capability during construction, as the higher density of uses at the alternative site may make it more difficult to construct the project without changing vehicle traffic patterns. The alternative would eliminate the proposed project’s impact with respect to aircraft safety, because none of the alternative development would take place in the Airport Traffic Pattern Zone.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The alternative would have similar impacts with respect to groundwater use, wastewater discharge, and construction-related water quality effects as the proposed project. In addition, the Central Campus Infill Alternative has less potential than the proposed project to alter existing drainage patterns such that surface runoff could produce flooding, or provide substantial sources of potentially contaminated surface runoff, because it would create far less new impermeable surface area.

Land Use and Planning. Like the proposed NMP, this alternative would also remove teaching and research fields. In addition, it would change the designation of Community Gardens to residential and other uses. This alternative would displace several land uses, including the Student Farm which is highly valued by the campus. It would also require redevelopment and high rise construction, which would make new housing more expensive. Potential for land use conflicts may be higher under the alternative because of the increased proximity of a variety of land uses. However, the alternative would eliminate the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project related to development in the airport’s Traffic Pattern Zone.

Noise. Potential less-than-significant noise impacts of the proposed project on sensitive receptors in the west campus would be eliminated by the Central Campus Infill Alternative. However, the



alternative would have increased potential relative to the proposed project to result in significant construction noise impacts on the central campus, especially on student housing in Russell Park Apartments. Higher density of development would increase ambient noise levels, both in the short-term during construction, because of the greater proximity of construction activity to housing and other sensitive receptors, and over the long-term due to increased traffic and population density in a densely populated area.

Population and Housing. The Central Campus Infill Alternative would house the same population as is housed under the proposed project and its impacts on regional population and housing would be similar to those from the proposed project. The faculty and staff housing types required by this alternative would be of significantly higher density than that generally found in the Davis area, or provided by the proposed project, and could fail to meet project objectives, if faculty and staff were not attracted to these housing types.

Public Services. Public services demand could be absorbed on the central campus. The significant impacts of the proposed project that would result from the need to construct new fire protection facilities in the City of Davis would not occur under the alternative.

Recreation. Neither the proposed project nor the alternative would result in significant impacts with respect to recreation. Both include the same population and provide the same acreage of recreation fields.

Transportation and Traffic. The same number of vehicles that would be associated with the campus population under the proposed project would also be associated with the Central Campus Infill Alternative, and similar significant impacts to intersection LOS and as the result of increased bicycle and motor vehicle conflicts would be anticipated. The alternative potentially result in a higher degree of traffic congestion on the central campus than the proposed project, because a larger number of people would be residing and using and parking their vehicles on campus. The alternative would have increased potentially significant impacts on parking supply, since more cars would be brought onto the central campus.

Utilities. The Central Campus Infill Alternative would not require the utility extensions and new connections and services required on the west campus by the proposed project. Although the alternative would demand the same facilities as the proposed project, most utility services could be obtained through short spur connections to the existing on-campus utility systems. The potentially significant impact of the proposed project on a known archaeological resource as a result of construction of a new PG&E natural gas line would not occur, as a result of the project although it would occur to serve the needs of other campus developments.

2.5.2.9 Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives This alternative is a high-rise version of the NMP that contains all of the elements of the proposed project. In this respect, it would accomplish most of the goals of the NMP, with the exception of providing the CEC and recreation facilities west of SR 113.

Development of the Central Campus Infill Alternative would not achieve the University’s objective to create an affordable and accessible residential community for students, faculty and staff because the high-rise housing and underground parking required to accommodate the program on a reduced number of acres would result in housing units that would be considerably more expensive than existing housing in Davis. However, the alternative would provide a mixed-

Volume III


use neighborhood, would enhance the sense of community on campus for residents, would provide opportunities for residents to participate fully in the life of the campus and community, and would reduce the need for residents to bring vehicles to campus. Because of its location, the community developed under this alternative would be integrated with the central campus to a higher degree than the proposed project.

By using practically the last remaining contiguous central campus lands for the proposed residential uses, this alternative would conflict with the planning goal of the 2003 LRDP to maintain flexibility to respond to future academic initiatives, because these lands would not be available for development of new or expanded academic facilities. However, this is not one of the objectives of the project.

2.5.2.10 Alternative 5: Higher Density Alternative Description. This alternative would include all the same components as the proposed project, and would use the easterly portion of the west campus NMP site, but housing would be developed at a higher density and would cover a smaller footprint than the proposed project. The Higher Density Alternative would reduce the overall 225-acre footprint of the proposed NMP to approximately 180 acres, approximately 80 percent of the acreage of the proposed NMP. The Alternative would include about 50 acres of faculty, staff and student housing at double the density proposed under the NMP (as compared with 92 acres in the proposed project for residential land uses) and about 130 acres for the other uses included in the proposed project. Higher density for housing would be achieved through the use of high-rise buildings for student housing, as well as denser housing for faculty and staff, achieved by reducing the number of single-family homes and increasing the number of apartments. Some reconfiguration of the residential part of the neighborhood as compared with the NMP might also be needed to accommodate the traffic and parking patterns that would result from higher density residential use. Off-site utilities would be the same as under the proposed project.

2.5.2.11 Impact Analysis Aesthetics. The significant aesthetic impacts of the Higher Density Alternative on scenic vistas, and the potentially significant impacts on visual character and increased light and glare would depend on the site footprint and placement of buildings within the footprint. Although a smaller area would be used by the Alternative, which would permit more lands to retain a visual agricultural character than under the proposed project, views to the west from the central campus might be more completely blocked by high-rise buildings. The visual character of the Neighborhood would be dominated by multi-story structures under the alternative, which would present a marked visual contrast and could be visually incompatible with adjacent low-profile developments, including the existing Russell Boulevard neighborhood. The potentially significant impacts of the proposed project with respect to light and glare could be increased in the denser development of the alternative, as light and glare effects would be somewhat concentrated by denser development.

Agricultural Resources. The Higher Density Alternative, because of its somewhat smaller footprint (about 180 acres compared to 224 acres under the NMP), would reduce the significant impact to prime farmland.



Air Quality. The High Density Alternative would result in similar significant air quality impacts as the project as the result of construction and operation emissions.

Biological Resources. The Higher Density Alternative would have reduced potentially significant impacts to Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and VELB and their habitat, relative to the proposed project, because a smaller area of potential habitat would be affected. The alternative would result in the same potentially significant impacts as the project to important trees, jurisdictional wetlands, northwestern pond turtle, and special-status fish species, which could be affected by offsite storm drain outfall construction.

Cultural Resources. The Higher Density Alternative would cover a smaller area than the proposed project, so would have an decreased potential relative to the proposed project for potentially significant impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains. Like the proposed project, the alternative has no potential for impacts to historic architectural features, since none are present in the project area.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Alternative would result in similar potentially significant impacts to the proposed project with respect to hazardous materials and waste, and Air Traffic Safety Compatibility Zones.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The Higher Density Alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed project associated with groundwater use and wastewater discharge. The alternative would have slightly less potential than the proposed project to contribute poor quality surface runoff as a result of construction activities because it would disturb a smaller area of land.

Land Use and Planning: The Higher Density Alternative would require designation of about 176 acres of land for the Neighborhood compared to approximately 225 acres under the NMP. This alternative would have greater potential than the proposed project to result in land use conflicts, because potentially incompatible high density land uses could be placed in close proximity to lower density land uses.

Noise. The proposed project and the alternative would have the same potentially significant impacts as the result of construction noise and traffic noise subsequent to project occupation.

Population and Housing. The population served and number of housing units provided would be the same for the proposed project and for the Higher Density Alternative. The proposed housing density under the Higher Density Alternative however would be higher than for recent similar developments in the City of Davis, and at the upper end of densities that the City permits. Other issues associated with increased density include the development of student environments not conducive to study, higher density than would be desirable in relation to market demand, and increased cost due to the need to construct expensive underground or stacked parking in order to minimize footprint size.

Public Services. The alternative would have the same or very similar significant impacts as the project due to the need for construction of new fire protection facilities in the City of Davis, the construction of which could result in impacts to habitat and prime farmland.

Volume III


Recreation. Impacts on recreational resources would be similar to those that would result from the proposed project, because both would supply the same recreation field and would include the same population.

Transportation and Traffic. The traffic generated by the alternative would be the same as by the proposed project, with the possible exception that within the development, roadways could potentially be more congested because of its higher density. Thus, the alternative would result in the same significant traffic impacts as the proposed project. The development, as a planned community, would be designed to accommodate the necessary circulation and parking, but could still result in the same potentially significant impacts on parking offsite as the proposed project.

Utilities. The increased density of the Higher Density Alternative relative to the proposed project would allow for a more compact utility grid onsite. Utility demand ultimately would be the same for the alternative as for the proposed project because the residential population of both would be the same. Both the alternative and the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to known archaeological resources, as the result of PG&E construction of a new off-site natural gas line to serve the project.

Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives This alternative contains all the elements of the proposed plan, and would be located in the same location. In this respect, it could achieve all the objectives of the plan as outlined in the NMP.

The number of students, faculty, and staff that could be accommodated with this alternative would be equal to the proposed project, and this would support the objective of creating an affordable and accessible residential community for students, faculty, and staff. The resulting compactness of the development would further the goal of providing a mixed-use neighborhood to foster a vibrant, convenient and well-served community.

This alternative would substantially increase the average density of proposed residential development to lessen the overall acreage footprint. This would be inconsistent with the scale and character of the surrounding City development. In addition, if high-density housing was not marketable to faculty and staff seeking single family homes, the alternative could have reduced ability to meet the objective to provide a campus community.

2.5.2.12 Alternative 6: No Project Alternative Description. As required by CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative is analyzed below. The No Project Alternative would be a no-development alternative under which the existing physical conditions of the proposed NMP site would be maintained through the lifetime of the LRDP. The additional student, staff, and faculty associated with the 2003 LRDP would use and work on the campus. About 2,000 of these students would reside in new central campus housing, including 780 beds already approved under the 1994 LRDP, and about 1,200 additional student beds proposed for the central campus under the 2003 LRDP, but not included in the NMP. The 3,000 students and 500 faculty and staff (and associated family members) who would have been housed in the NMP would seek housing off campus. No additional faculty and staff population would be housed on campus.

Utility development to the west campus associated with projects other than the proposed NMP would take place under the No Project Alternative, but the utility lines required to serve the NMP



(including storm drain and outfall) would not be built. The new PG&E natural gas line required by the NMP would be built as it would also be required for other west campus development.

2.5.2.13 Impact Analysis Aesthetics. Under the No Project Alternative, significant impacts of the proposed project with respect to scenic vistas, visual agricultural character (NMP Impact 2.4-2), and increased lighting and glare would be eliminated.

Agricultural Resources. Under the No Project Alternative, the 225 acres of prime farmland on the west campus that would be converted to suburban uses under the proposed project would remain in agricultural use. However, the alternative could indirectly result in increased potential for agricultural resource impacts off campus (potentially including impacts to prime farmland), to the extent that demand for student, faculty, and staff housing not met on campus results in increased new construction on farmland elsewhere.

Air Quality. The potential significant impacts of the proposed project on air quality as the result of construction emissions would be eliminated by the No Project Alternative, although the same air quality issues still would apply to ongoing agricultural operations at the site. The significant impacts of the proposed project to regional air quality would be worse under the Alternative as more persons would travel longer distances to come to the campus since they could not reside on campus.

Biological Resources. The potentially significant impacts of the proposed project on biological resources on campus would be eliminated by the No Project Alternative. However, the alternative could indirectly result in increased potential for biological resources impacts off campus, to the extent that demand for student, faculty, and staff housing not met on campus results in increased new construction elsewhere.

Cultural Resources. This alternative would not result in impacts to cultural resources on campus. However, the alternative could indirectly result in increased potential for cultural resources impacts off campus, to the extent that demand for student, faculty, and staff housing not met on campus results in increased new construction elsewhere.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The potentially significant impacts of the proposed project would be eliminated by the No Project Alternative.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed project would be eliminated by the No Project Alternative.

Land Use and Planning. Under the NMP, 225 acres that formerly were designated Teaching and Research Fields would be designated for multiple suburban uses to accommodate the proposed project. If the No Project alternative were selected, that land would revert to “Teaching and Research Fields” under the 2003 LRDP and the current use of the land would remain unchanged through the LRDP planning period.

Noise. The potentially significant construction noise impacts of the proposed project would be eliminated by the No Project Alternative. However, the potentially significant noise impacts

Volume III


from traffic could increase under the No Project Alternative since it would result in increased commuter traffic and increase traffic on the central campus.

Population and Housing. The proposed project would have no impacts with respect to population and housing. The No Project Alternative could result in impacts with respect to population and housing because housing accommodated on campus would be limited, and students, faculty, and staff who cannot be housed on campus would seek housing in the surrounding communities. These communities would then experience increased housing pressures and related demands.

Public Services. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no new demands on public services. However, because the campus-related population would seek housing elsewhere in the region, the alternative would result in increased demand for public services in those communities.

Recreation. The demand for recreation facilities would be the same for the No Project Alternative as for the proposed project since the same campus population would be included. The proposed recreation field would not be built; thus there would be fewer recreation facilities available for the same population. Further, because the campus-related population would seek housing elsewhere in the region, campus-related population residing off campus would contribute to the demand on recreational resources in other communities in the region.

Transportation and Traffic. Substantially more commute traffic would be associated with the No Project Alternative than with the proposed project, as students, faculty and staff who would have resided locally under the NMP would seek housing in the surrounding communities and commute to campus. The trips from these commuters would be added to trips associated with the other population growth anticipated on campus under the 2003 LRDP. Regional traffic impacts thus would be greater than the significant impacts associated with the proposed project. Local traffic directly related to access to the proposed project from Hutchison Drive and Russell Road would be reduced by the alternative, but the eliminated local trips would be replaced by trips generated by commuters entering and leaving the campus, which would focus on access points to the central campus. On the central campus, traffic congestion, parking demand and potential conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles would increase under the alternative relative to the proposed project.

Utilities. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no new demands on utilities as a result of site development. However, because the campus-related population would seek housing in other regional communities, the population would place a demand for utilities in those communities. Utility service would still be required for other projects on the west campus that would be carried out under the proposed 2003 LRDP.

2.5.2.14 Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives

The No Project Alternative would not accomplish the goals of the University to promote affordable and accessible residential communities, and it would not fully support the objective of providing students, faculty, and staff opportunities to live in the community and participate fully in campus life. To the extent that students, faculty, and staff could not be housed on campus, the alternative would also not provide opportunities for members of the campus to participate fully in campus and community life. The No Project Alternative would increase the number of



vehicles on the central campus and would not provide new transit facilities, which is counter to the project objective. It also would not provide the CEC or the new recreation fields west of SR 113. The No Project Alternative would not meet project objectives.

2.5.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. As is almost always the case, the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce all project impacts except for traffic impacts and emissions associated with vehicles. These would be higher for the No Project Alternative than for the proposed project because of the increased commute traffic associated with the No Project Alternative. CEQA Section 15126(d)(2) requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify another alternative as environmentally superior. The Central Campus Infill Alternative appears to be environmentally superior alternative among the build alternatives.

The Central Campus Infill Alternative would reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project on agricultural resources and would not result in new impacts not shared with the proposed project. This alternative is a high-rise version of the NMP that contains all of the elements of the proposed project, and would be well-situated physically to integrate with other uses on the central campus. In this respect it would accomplish most of the goals of the NMP, with the exception of providing CEC and recreation facilities west of SR 113.

Development of this alternative on the central campus would not achieve the University’s objective to create an affordable and accessible residential community for students, faculty and staff. The high-rise housing and underground parking required to accommodate the program in a substantially reduced area would result in housing units that would be considerably more expensive than existing housing in Davis. Thus, this alternative would not meet the project objective of building affordable housing for students, faculty and staff. It would also displace some uses such as the Student Farm that are valued by the campus.

The principal disadvantage of the Central Campus Infill Alternative is that it would develop practically the last remaining contiguous central campus area of significant size for the proposed residential uses. As a result, the campus’ ability to develop future facilities on the central campus for new or expanded academic programs would be limited.

2.6 REFERENCES

California Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2003. Public Health Assessment for laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research [a/k/a Old Campus Landfill (U.S. Department of Energy)], Davis, Solano County, California. July 11.

California Department of Transportation. 2002a. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Sacramento. (www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut)

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002b. Comment letter on NMP by Sandy Hesnard, Aviation Environmental Planner, to Sid England, UC Davis. November 18, 2002.Chandler, Michael. 2003. Personal communication with Interim Fire Chief Michael Chandler, UC Davis Fire Department, in meeting with Sid England and

Volume III


Sarah Dickerman regarding service capacities and standards for LRDP. January 10, 2003.

Chang, Cecelia. 2001. UC Davis Police Department. Personal communication with UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning.

City of Davis. 1999. City of Davis General Plan Update.

City of Davis. 2003. City Profile, City of Davis Website. www.city.davis.ca.us/aboutdavis/cityprofile/.

City of Davis. 2001. 2001-02 Final Budget. http://www.city.davis.ca.us/finance/budget01-02/.

City of Davis. 2002a. City of Davis Website. www.city.davis.ca.us.

Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD). 2001. October 2001 Enrollment. http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/.

DJUSD. 2002a. Draft Planning Study, UC Davis and DJUSD Partnership. February 7, 2002.

DJUSD. 2002b. Davis Joint Unified School District Website. http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/. October.

Diaz-Flores, Herbert. 2003. Email communication from Herbert Diaz-Flores, Campus Data Administrator (faculty and staff residence data). February 21 and 27.

Dulcich, Matt. 2003. Revised Student Population Projection for NMP. Provided by Matt Dulcich, UC Davis ORMP. January 24, 2003.

Fehr and Peers. 2003a. Davis Travel Demand Model Development Report.

Fehr and Peers. 2003b. Analysis of NMP access for emergency vehicles at Russell Boulevard.

Ebner, John. 2001. Personal Communication with John Ebner, UC Davis Fire Department reported in UC Davis ORMP 2002.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1997. Trip Generation.

Jones & Stokes. 2000. Draft Program EIR for the City of Davis General Plan Update and Project EIR for Establishment of a New Junior High School.

Jones & Stokes. 2002. City of Davis General Plan Environmental Impact Report.Kermoyan, Dan. 2003. Preliminary Site Investigation for the Neighborhood Development Plan Project (~225 acres). September 24. 2003.

Klippert, D. 2003. UC Davis, Manager, O&M Agricultural Services. Personal communication with Matt Dulcich, UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning. August 14.

Lewis, Martin. 2003. Estimated Runoff from NMP site. Email from Martin Lewis, Cunningham Engineering Consultants to S. Barati of URS Corporation. Dated March 31.

Magness, Jason. 2003. Memo from Jason Magness, UC Davis Operations and Maintenance, Solid Waste Unit, to S. Dickerman, UC Davis ORMP, regarding landfill capacity, solid waste service capacity and solid waste generation. January 29, 2003.



Mattern, Sarah. 2003. Personal communication regarding meeting between Sid England and Sarah Mattern, UC Davis ORMP, and UC Davis Chief of Police Calvin Hardy and Interim Fire Chief Michael Chandler. January 26, 2003

May and Associates, Inc. 2003. Biological resources for the University of California, Davis Neighborhood Study Area and Kidwell and McConeghy Properties, California. Prepared by May and Associates, Inc., Walnut Grove, CA, for URS Corporation, San Jose, CA. February, 2003.

Mohr, Karl. Land Use Alternatives Response Analysis, Working Draft. UC Davis Office of Research Management and Planning. August 7, 2002.

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

Ove Arup and Partners California. 2003. Utilities Demand Assessment—Base Case. University of California, Davis LRDP. Job Number 32466. March.

UC Davis. 1994a. UC Davis Long Range Development Plan 1994-2005, Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the UC Davis Planning and Development Office by EIP Associates, Sacramento. April, 1994.

UC Davis. 1994b. Report of Disposal Site Information. February, 1994.

UC Davis. 2000. UC Davis Draft Utility Water Master Plan.

UC Davis. 2001. UC Davis Fire Department Website: http://fire.ucdavis.edu. May 29, 2001.

UC Davis. 2002. Draft Neighborhood Alternatives Population Summary Table Assumptions. UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning (ORMP). Dec. 4, 2002.

UC Davis. 2003. Fall 2002 UC Davis Travel Behavior Survey. Office of Resource Management and Planning, UC Davis.

UC Davis Police Department. 2002. UC Davis Police Department Website: http://police.ucdavis.edu.

UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning. 2002. UC Davis 2003 Long Range Development Plan Initial Study. October.

UC Davis R4 Recycling. 2003. 2002 Annual Report Figures, Revised.

Wilhoff, Kathy. 2003. City of Davis Fire Department Fire Business Manager. Personal communication with Sarah Mattern, UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning. March 11, 2003.

Volume III - University of California, Davis

Documents

Transcript of Volume III - University of California, Davis