4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS"

Jeffry Cain
5 years ago
Views:

3 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-25 Response to Comment I See Master Responses Land Use 2 and Growth Inducement 1. Response to Comment I Section 2.3.9, Volume III of the Draft EIR discusses the compatibility of the NMP with proposed nearby uses. The Stadium Complex land use impacts are evaluated in Volume III, Section 4.4.9, and no significant impacts are identified. On September 30, 2003, the campus learned that is was not a recipient of a grant to construct an NBL. Therefore, no additional environmental review of the facility is required. Response to Comment I The Draft EIR acknowledges that past development in the region has resulted in the conversion of prime farmland and that the implementation of the 2003 LRDP, in conjunction with growth in the City of Davis and Yolo and Solano counties, will result in a cumulative loss of prime farmland (Class I agricultural land) (LRDP Impact 4.2-3). It also notes that although the campus and the local jurisdictions will implement measures to reduce this impact, such lands would be lost permanently to development and the impact would be unavoidable. The recent consolidation of several plant science departments in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences enables the consolidation and redistribution of research lands previously managed independently by each department. Also refer to Master Response Land Use 3, regarding the issue of eminent domain. Response to Comment I The commenter does not raise environmental issue within the purview of CEQA. The University s mission under the California Constitution enables it to provide services necessary for education, research and public service, such as housing and appropriate related services to its students, staff and faculty. Under CEQA, public agencies such as the University of California are authorized to conduct environmental review of projects they propose that may have a significant effect on the environment. The University of California is a constitutionally created entity and thus acts as its own lead agency in this process. See also the response to comment I Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

6 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-26 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment ORG-7-2b Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

8 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-27 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

10 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-28 Response to Comment I The proposed phasing of construction of each housing type in the NMP is detailed in Volume III, Table 2.3 of the Draft EIR. Exact details of providing disabled access housing units are not known at this time. However, planning for campus housing includes compliance with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA requirements) Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

12 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-29 Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment ORG Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

14 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-30 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

16 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-31 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

18 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-32 Response to Comment I Please see Master Response CEQA Process Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

22 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-33 Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment ORG-7-2b. Response to Comment I Refer to Master Response CEQA Process 1 and Master Response Transportation 1. Response to Comment I See Master Response Land Use 1. Response to Comment I See Master Response Alternative Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

25 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-34 Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment ORG-7-7b. Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Response to Comment I See Master Response Land Use 1. Response to Comment I See Master Response Alternative Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

26 Comment Letter I-35 1

27 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-35 Response to Comment I See Master Response CEQA Process Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

30 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-36 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

33 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment Letter I-37 Response to Comment I Campus planners have spent the last 2 years examining the land needs of the campus in detail and developing the proposed 2003 LRDP. Based on the space needs of existing and envisioned teaching and research programs, campus planners have proposed that land on the central campus is best used by devoting it to uses benefiting the largest number of students, staff and faculty. They have also proposed that uses that are land intensive and/or do not require locations adjacent to the main teaching and administrative facilities must be moved to the west or south campus, and in the case of certain agricultural research programs, such as the dairy program, to Russell Ranch so as to allow necessary teaching and research building space to be located on the central campus. The underlying planning principle is to keep most of the campus facilities within easy walking distance so that minimal time and effort is expended in going from one campus building to another for classes and research. Relocation of the dairy and some of the other agricultural facilities to Russell Ranch would generate some vehicle trips between the main campus and Russell Ranch, for the campus as a whole, the proposed land use plan would produce fewer vehicle trips and associated time, fuel and other costs. With respect to the commenter s concern regarding the development of the NMP on prime farmland acquired from the Campbell Ranch, please see Master Response Land Use 3 regarding eminent domain. Response to Comment I As noted in Section of the 2003 LRDP EIR, Volume I, archaeological sites have been found in a zone of cultural sensitivity along Putah Creek. These sites have been subjected to archaeological testing programs and/or construction monitoring as appropriate. To date no archaeological sites have been found west of SR 113 within the area of analysis for the LRDP EIR. The designated zone of cultural sensitivity on the campus recognizes both known archaeological sites and the potential for additional undiscovered archaeological sites on campus. Response to Comment I Please see Master Response Hazards 2. Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment ORG The proposed stadium would be served by Unitrans and Yolobus. Unitrans would serve visitors from the City of Davis and Yolobus would provide service to Sacramento, West Sacramento, Woodland, Winters, Dixon, Vacaville, and Fairfield. A transit stop is located along Hutchison Drive adjacent to the proposed stadium site. The Multi-Use Stadium is anticipated to generate approximately 8,600 total vehicle-trips during a Saturday home football game. This includes vehicles traveling to and from the stadium including spectators, teams, staff, and vendors. The traffic generated by a Saturday football game would result in unacceptable traffic operations for intersections in the vicinity of the Multi-Use Stadium, such as the Russell Boulevard/La Rue Road/Anderson Road intersection during the peak travel hour before and after the game. To mitigate the traffic impact, UC Davis will implement a Traffic Control Plan for all higher-attendance events, such as football games. To ensure LOS F operations only occurred during the one hour before and one hour after the event, UC Davis will monitor traffic operations during events and adjust the Traffic Control Plan as needed. Traffic effects from the proposed Research Park and other regional growth were adequately considered in the 2003 LRDP EIR Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

34 Volume V Response to Comment I See response to comment LA In addition, the Constitution grants to The Regents the full powers and organization of state-level government. Thus, it specifically provides that the University shall not be subject to local government control. The commenter expressed concerns that the RPMP development on campus would contribute to a growth boom in northeast Solano County, which would result in air quality, agricultural and traffic impacts. The potential impacts of the RPMP on air quality and traffic were analyzed in Volume III of the EIR (Sections and ) and found to be less than significant with mitigation, with the exception of criteria pollutants emitted during construction. While these emissions would be a significant and unavoidable air quality impact, the impact would be short term. The proposed RPMP would convert 27 acres of prime farmland to developed uses, which is acknowledged in the EIR to be a significant and unavoidable impact. The 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, is anticipated to be growth inducing with respect to local and regional population and the related demands for housing and services. As acknowledged in the EIR, by virtue of inducing regional growth, the campus would contribute to the environmental effects of that growth. The EIR (Volume II, Section 6.2.2) also acknowledges the magnet effect and incubator effect of campus growth upon surrounding businesses. The RPMP is an element of the LRDP that provides for the magnet effects of campus growth by designating land for these uses. The impacts of development of the RPMP are analyzed in Volume III of the EIR. See also Master Response Land Use 2 and response to comment LA Response to Comment I See response to comment LA In addition, the Constitution grants to The Regents the full powers and organization of state-level government. Thus, it specifically provides that the University shall not be subject to local government control. The commenter expressed concerns that the RPMP development on campus would contribute to a growth boom in northeast Solano County, which would result in air quality, agricultural and traffic impacts. The potential impacts of the RPMP on air quality and traffic were analyzed in Volume III of the EIR (Sections and ) and found to be less than significant with mitigation, with the exception of criteria pollutants emitted during construction. While these emissions would be a significant and unavoidable air quality impact, the impact would be short term. The proposed RPMP would convert 27 acres of prime farmland to developed uses, which is acknowledged in the EIR to be a significant and unavoidable impact. The 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, is anticipated to be growth inducing with respect to local and regional population and the related demands for housing and services. As acknowledged in the EIR, by virtue of inducing regional growth, the campus would contribute to the environmental effects of that growth. The EIR (Volume II, Section 6.2.2) also acknowledges the magnet effect and incubator effect of campus growth upon surrounding businesses. The RPMP is an element of the LRDP that provides for the magnet effects of campus growth by designating land for these uses. The impacts of development of the RPMP are analyzed in Volume III of the EIR. See also Master Response Land Use 2 and response to comment LA Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

38 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-38 Response to Comment I Please see response to comment I Response to Comment I Section of the 2003 LRDP EIR, Volume I, sets forth steps to be taken to address potential impacts and mitigation measures for significant archaeological resources on a programmatic level. Also see response to comment I The RMI project area has already been subjected to archaeological investigations, and archaeological resources have been identified on the project site and vicinity. The analysis of the environmental effects of the RMI project (Volume III, Section 5.4.5) includes specific archaeological mitigation measures for that project. Response to Comment I Please see Master Response Hazards 2. Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment I Response to Comment See response to comment LA In addition, the Constitution grants to The Regents the full powers and organization of state-level government. Thus, it specifically provides that the University shall not be subject to local government control. The commenter expressed concerns that the RPMP development on campus would contribute to a growth boom in northeast Solano County, which would result in air quality, agricultural and traffic impacts. The potential impacts of the RPMP on air quality and traffic were analyzed in Volume III of the EIR (Sections and ) and found to be less than significant with mitigation, with the exception of criteria pollutants emitted during construction. While these emissions would be a significant and unavoidable air quality impact, the impact would be short term. The proposed RPMP would convert 27 acres of prime farmland to developed uses, which is acknowledged in the EIR to be a significant and unavoidable impact. The 2003 LRDP, including the RPMP, is anticipated to be growth inducing with respect to local and regional population and the related demands for housing and services. As acknowledged in the EIR, by virtue of inducing regional growth, the campus would contribute to the environmental effects of that growth. The EIR (Volume II, Section 6.2.2) also acknowledges the magnet effect and incubator effect of campus growth upon surrounding businesses. The RPMP is an element of the LRDP that provides for the magnet effects of campus growth by designating land for these uses. The impacts of development of the RPMP are analyzed in Volume III of the EIR. See also Master Response Land Use 2 and response to comment LA Response to Comment I The commenter states that campus is becoming too urban, developed and crowded, and that this is affecting the ability to attract students, particularly Native Americans and those from rural backgrounds. This comment is noted. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

40 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-39 Response to Comment I Comment noted. Response to Comment I Please see Master Response Hazards 2. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

42 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-40 Response to Comment I Refer to Master Response Biological Resources 2 regarding the adequacy of mitigation for loss of Swainson s hawk habitat. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

44 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-41 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

46 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-42 Response to Comment I Comment noted. As explained in Volume III, Section 2.2.3, the University would manage the long-term affordability of faculty and staff housing through the use of long-term ground leases and resale controls on for-sale housing. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

48 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-43 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Response to Comment I Please see Master Response Agriculture 1. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the loss of prime farmland from the development of the NMP would, even with mitigation, be a significant and unavoidable impact. It should be noted though that if the housing provided in the NMP were not to be developed on the campus, and the same number of housing units were to be developed in the regional communities including the City of Davis, the amount of prime farmland that would be developed would likely be much greater than the affected acreage within the NMP. This is because the proposed density of residential development in the NMP is greater than the densities typically permitted in the regional communities. Response to Comment I Please see Master Responses Alternative 1, Alternative 4, and Alternative 6. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

50 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-44 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

52 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-45 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

55 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-46 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Response to Comment I Please refer to Master Response Recreation 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

57 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-47 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

59 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-48 Response to Comment I The campus appreciates the comment, and notes that the concern does not raise an environmental impact under CEQA. Agricultural research activities currently located on the NMP site would be relocated to prime farmland areas currently used for forage production on campus, and forage production on campus would either be moved off-site or would be reduced (with forage for livestock programs supplied commercially). This would help maintain the total amount of land used for agricultural research on campus, and the campus agricultural research programs would not be adversely affected. Please note that the facilities at the Heidrick Western Center for Agricultural Equipment are included in the NMP site plan and will be maintained in its current use. Use of undeveloped land by programs at the Center will be relocated to adjacent lands to the southwest. Response to Comment I Please see Master Response Alternative 1 and 4. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

61 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-49 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment ORG-7-2b. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

64 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-50 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1 and Master Response CEQA Process 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

66 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-51 Response to Comment I The R4 recycling program is discussed on page of Volume II of the Draft EIR. As stated on page , UC Davis would continue its recycling programs in accordance with the spirit and intent of the 1989 Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939). For a discussion of the University s sustainable design policy, please refer to the 2003 LRDP EIR, Volume I, Section 3.11, which has been revised and expanded in the Final EIR to better explain the policy. Sustainable design features of the NMP are described on pages 2-36 and 2-37 of Volume III of the Draft EIR. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

68 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-52 Response to Comment I Please see Master Response CEQA Process 1 and Master Response Transportation 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

70 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-53 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

73 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-54 Response to Comment I See Master Response Transportation 1. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

79 Volume V Response to Comment Letter I-55 Response to Comment I Please see Master Response Hazards 2. Response to Comment I As discussed in Section 4.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of Volume II of the Draft EIR, annual campus demand for water from the deep aquifer could increase from approximately 2,671 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr) in 2001 to approximately 5,301 ac-ft/yr through (including 424 ac-ft/yr projected for the NMP). This projected increase of approximately 2,620 ac-ft/yr conservatively overestimates water demand because it does not account for increased water conservation efforts or for the potential future use of alternate water sources that could also occur under the 2003 LRDP. While water demand can be projected through , the effects of increased demand on the volume of the deep aquifer are currently not well understood. The results of a recent hydrogeologic examination (discussed further in Section of Volume II) formed a conceptualization of the deep aquifer resources in the area. However, future groundwater characterization efforts (such as groundwater modeling and interpretation of hydrologic data) ultimately will help determine the ability of the deep aquifer to provide for long-term water needs. Consistent with LRDP Mitigation 4.8-5(b), the campus will continue to study the long-term production and quality trends of the deep aquifer. In compliance with LRDP Mitigation 4.8-5(d), if continued hydrogeologic monitoring and evaluation efforts identify constraints in the deep aquifer s ability to provide for the campus long-term water needs, the campus will use alternate water sources, such as treated shallow/intermediate aquifer water and/or surface water from the Solano Project. Response to Comment I To address the comments received on the Draft EIR, the locations listed below were analyzed under existing conditions and in Year 2015 with and without the implementation of the 2003 LRDP. The results are summarized below. 1. Chiles Road/I-80 Eastbound Off-Ramp 2. Chiles Road/Mace Boulevard 3. Chiles Road/I-80 Westbound Ramps 4. I-80 (Richards Boulevard to Mace Boulevard) 5. I-80 (East of Mace Boulevard) The intersections Chiles Road with Mace Boulevard and the I-80 off-ramp were found to operate acceptably based on City standards (i.e., LOS E or better) during the AM and PM peak hours under existing, 2015, and 2015 with 2003 LRDP conditions. The segments of I-80 listed below would operate at LOS F (i.e., unacceptably) in 2015 with the implementation of the 2003 LRDP. I-80 between Richards Boulevard and Mace Boulevard would degrade from LOS E to LOS F in the westbound direction during the PM peak hour. I-80 east of Mace Boulevard would continue to operate at LOS F in the eastbound direction during the AM and PM peak hours. I-80 east of Mace Boulevard would degrade from LOS E to LOS F in the westbound direction during the AM peak hour and would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

80 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The unacceptable traffic operations on I-80 with the implementation of the 2003 LRDP would fall under LRDP Impact This impact states that Implementation of the 2003 LRDP would cause unacceptable intersection and freeway LOS operations at off-campus facilities with and without the NMP connection to Russell Boulevard including facilities contained in the Yolo County and Solano County Congestions Management Plans and was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the Draft 2003 LRDP EIR. The text of the 2003 LRDP EIR has been revised to incorporate this revision. The Interstate 80 Transportation Concept Report (Caltrans District 3, January 2001) identifies I- 80 as currently operating at LOS E from the Solano/Yolo County line to Sacramento County and states that the LOS is expected to decline to LOS F by According to the concept report, the following improvements would provide LOS E operations in 2020: (1) construct HOV lanes (one in each direction); (2) increase Yolo County bus service; (3) increase Yolo bus service; (4) implement Smart Corridor Technology; and (5) implement Traffic Operation Systems such as ramp metering and changeable message signs. To determine if the improvements identified by Caltrans would provide acceptable operations in 2015 with the implementation of the 2003 LRDP, I-80 was re-analyzed with the addition of one HOV lane in each direction. Fehr & Peers collected traffic counts along I-80 in Solano County in March 2001 to determine the number of high occupancy vehicles (i.e., two or more persons) currently traveling on I-80. The percentage of HOVs ranged between 13 to 21 percent during the AM peak hour and 24 to 30 percent during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the HOV lanes on I-80 in the vicinity of Richards Boulevard and Mace Boulevard were assumed to serve 15 percent of vehicles traveling on I-80 during the peak hours. Although 15 percent is likely a low estimate for 2015 conditions, this level of utilization for the HOV lanes would improve peak hour operations to LOS E or better in 2015 with the implementation of the 2003 LRDP. Construction of this improvement has not been assumed in this EIR. Response to Comment I The Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the 2003 LRDP (Volume I) and the NMP (Volume III) provide additional details about how implementation of mitigation measures will be verified. Sustainability (including in building design and in campus operations) is discussed in Section 3, Volume I and in Section 2.3, Volume III. Response to Comment I Please refer to Master Response Aesthetics 2. Response to Comment I Please see Master Response Agricultural Resources 1, which explains how the University s mitigation program in conjunction with the ongoing contributions that the campus is making to the state s agricultural economy, is an appropriate response to the loss of prime agricultural lands, however, because this impact cannot be completely mitigated, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment LA Response to Comment I Refer to response to comment LA-1-3. Response to Comment I The commenter notes that some mitigation measures require actions to be performed to the extent feasible or as feasible, and requests that the constraints on this feasibility should be specified so the effectiveness of the mitigation can be assessed. The potential constraints on the implementation of mitigation measures are discussed in the text following each mitigation, and typically are related to fiscal factors. The University recognizes that some mitigations may not be feasible in every instance. For that reason, in cases where this 2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

81 Volume V term is used, additional mitigation measures are imposed and/or it is concluded that the impact will remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. The term fair share is accurately defined on page of the Draft EIR. It should be noted that because of the City of Marina versus California State University lawsuit that is currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court, there is uncertainty regarding whether the University can in fact make fair share contributions for certain improvements that are not within the jurisdiction of the University. Therefore, this fair share measure may be modified in response to the ultimate decision in that case. Text to this effect has been added to page of the Final EIR. Response to Comment I The commenter asks why the larger alternative to the NMP was not assessed in detail. As discussed in section 2.5 of Volume III of the Draft EIR, 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 campus 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. Please see Master Responses Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 in response to comments about the Central Campus Infill alternative to the NMP. The commenter also expresses concern about using the following as reasons to eliminate the North-South Orientation Alternative: proximity of the Environmental Service Facility, impacts on existing land uses, and previous site uses. Master Response Alternative 6 (North-South Alternative) discusses the limitations of the North/South Orientation Alternative, including proximity to the Environmental Services Facility and impacts associated with existing land uses. The Draft EIR does not identify previous use of the site as a drawback of the alternative. The commenter further requests additional quantitative information for trip reductions and intersection effects along SR 113 associated with the North-South Orientation Alternative. The North-South Orientation Alternative would accommodate the same number of residents as the proposed NMP, and like the NMP, primary peak hour vehicular use associated with the proposed development would be non-campus related trips that, like the proposed NMP, would exit the neighborhood via Hutchison Drive. Therefore, the Draft EIR identifies that the alternative would have traffic impacts similar to the proposed NMP. A detailed traffic intersection analysis was not performed, consistent with direction for evaluation of alternatives provided in the CEQA Guidelines (Section ). Response to Comment I The commenter asks whether the EIR includes mitigation for growth inducing effects and suggests that, if not, this mitigation should be provided. The potential for the 2003 LRDP to induce growth in the region is discussed in Section 6.0, Volume II of the Draft EIR. As explained in that section, the LRDP is considered growth inducing as it would bring new jobs and residential population to the campus and into nearby communities within easy commuting distance of the campus. The potential environmental impacts of this growth are analyzed in the Draft EIR and where significant impacts are indicated, Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak University of California, Davis

82 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS mitigation measures are identified. For instance, environmental impacts of the new residential population on the campus (persons who would live in the proposed neighborhood) are analyzed in Volume III and a number of mitigation measures are identified for NMP impacts. Similarly, impacts of the new traffic generated by this campus-related population are analyzed in Section 4.14, and mitigation measures are provided. Sections 4.13, 4.12, and 4.15 of the EIR analyze the increased demand for services and utilities in the communities of Davis, Dixon, Woodland, and Winters as a result of LRDP-related growth in conjunction with cumulative growth. The University has committed to negotiate to determine its fair share (as defined in Section of the Draft EIR) for mitigation of significant environmental impacts associated with the construction of new infrastructure and facilities to meet this increased demand (see 2003 LRDP Impacts , , , , and associated mitigation measures). However, due to the nature of associated potential environmental impacts (including the irreversible loss of agricultural land and habitat), the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Draft EIR notes that apart from the growth that is directly attributable to the LRDP, there would also be some indirect and induced growth related to the economic stimulus provided by the campus jobs and spending by the campus under the 2003 LRDP. Most of this growth would be expected to occur in the City of Davis. Adequate vacant or underutilized land is identified in the City s General Plan (and evaluated for impacts in the General Plan EIR) to handle this indirect and induced growth. Response to Comment I Significant and unavoidable impacts are those for which there is no practicable or feasible mitigation that will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable when the project cannot be conducted without resulting in the impact, all mitigation measures that may reduce the significance of the impact have been applied, and the impact still has not been reduced to a less-than-significant level. These characteristically are impacts that can only be avoided or reduced to less-thansignificant levels by not carrying out the proposed project, or by modifying the project to such an extent that its goals and objectives cannot be met. In some cases, an impact is determined to be significant and unavoidable because the impact can only be mitigated by or with the consent of outside parties, and it is beyond the authority of the University to enforce the mitigation. The commenter does not identify any specific significant and unavoidable effects for additional review, nor are further potentially feasible mitigations suggested for evaluation. The University believes it has evaluated all feasible mitigations and proposes adopting such measures Long Range Development Plan Final EIR Volume 5 formatted.doc\14-oct-03\oak

Responses to Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation

Received on the Notice of Preparation APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION The Notice of Preparation and Draft Initial Study for the proposed 2003 LRDP were circulated