Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines will be considered mitigated to a less than significant level, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3).

Other applicable thresholds of significance include whether the project would:

Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries;

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site; or

Exceed an applicable LRDP or program EIR standard of significance. This enables the campus to establish campus specific significant resources which may be important to the campus culture and history, but not qualify for local, state or national listing.

Analytical Methods

As stated above, impacts must be considered when a proposed undertaking has the potential to affect cultural resources, such as those described above. CEQA associates a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of an historical resource with a significant impact on the environment. PRC Section 5020.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) define the term “substantial adverse change” as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that a resource’s value would be materially impaired.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines the term “historical resources” to include

1)		A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 11.5 Section 4850 et seq.).
2)		A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) , or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements in PRC Section 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3)		Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Division 3, chapter 11.5, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history and colonial heritage; or (B) Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A resource may still be considered historical if it does not meet these standards: CEQA Statutes Section 21084.1 states that a resource need not be listed on any register to be historical. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(4) states that “until such time as a structure is evaluated for possible inclusion in the inventory pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) of PRC Section 5024.5 [historical significance criteria], state agencies shall assure that any structure which might qualify for listing is not inadvertently transferred or unnecessarily altered.”

However, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4), if the study finds that an archaeological resource is neither a historical resource nor a unique archaeological resource, the project effects on the resource shall not be considered significant.

The lead agency must, therefore, resolve two questions:

Is there a historical resource that may be affected by the proposed project; and

Will the project result in a substantial adverse change to the extent that the resource’s historical value is materially impaired or lost?

Field reconnaissance for surface indications of paleontological or archaeological resources should usually be conducted at the project level. Other appropriate investigations include evaluation of specific, potentially historic structures by an architectural historian, particularly if a structure was not evaluated in the LRDP because of its youth, but has aged to 50 years or older by the time of project implementation.

Other data sources for addressing whether resources may be present include consultation with the vertebrate paleontology sections of applicable county museums of natural history, and records checks and literature searches from the applicable California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) information center. Paleontological data may usually be obtained by environmental consultants. However, CHRIS checks will not provide site-specific data unless requested or conducted by a qualified archaeologist.

Also, as described above, information regarding Native American sacred lands or sites of significance can be obtained by consultation with Native American contacts provided by the NAHC, or by a Sacred Lands File Check.

Once the lead agency has made a determination of whether a resource is historical, and determined that a substantial adverse change will occur to the resource, then the analysis must also address ways to reduce the adverse affect on the resource.

Generally Feasible Mitigation Measures

Appropriate recovery and study of unevaluated paleontological or archaeological resources to determine their significance and determine a further course of action.

For projects that cannot feasibly be relocated or reconfigured, excavation may also be necessary. However, for cases in which excavation of a paleontological or archaeological site that is an historical resource or unique resource of its type, excavation must be limited to the portion of the resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project, as stated in CEQA Statutes Section 21083.2(d).

Avoid siting project land uses in areas of known paleontological, archaeological, or Native American sensitivity.

Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites.

Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space (including surface parking lots) in areas where buried resources are likely to be encountered.

Where site reconnaissance, records checks, consultation, or previous investigations associated with surrounding areas or the subject site have indicated that resources are likely to be present, avoid to the extent feasible siting project uses near the areas that contain the highest density of resources. If resources are discovered during project implementation, and are determined to be historical or unique resources, attempt, to the degree feasible, to reconfigure remaining uses to avoid the resources encountered. Additionally, although the above measures are intended to mitigate or avoid impacts to sites that are historical resources or unique resources of their type, they are also adequate for sites for which no determination of significance has been made.

Consultation with appropriate Native American groups regarding the disposition of landfindss, burials, or cultural materials.

When resources of significance to Native Americans are known, or likely to be present, or are unexpectedly discovered, follow the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e).

For historic or potentially historic structures that will undergo seismic retrofit or other renovation, follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, or the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer, 1995).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3) states that projects that follow the above guidelines shall generally be considered as mitigated to a level of less than significant. If a structure that is listed, or has been determined eligible for listing in, a local, State, or federal register of historic resources will be demolished, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. However, recording the structure to the standard established for the National Park Service’s Historic American Building Record (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) is advisable.

Use of architecturally complementary fixtures or building elements in historic areas or districts.

Although the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s standards and guidelines prohibit the creation of a false sense of history, the disturbance of an historic context by a project could be reduced or mitigated by the incorporation of similar architectural elements into the relevant structure, so long as a clear distinction between the historical and new elements are maintained.

3.3.11

Geology and Soils

Introduction

The purpose of the Geology and Soils section is to evaluate whether the proposed project would create a physical change in surface or subsurface soil or rock characteristics, or would expose people or structures to major geotechnical hazards. Changes could also include the damage or destruction of unique geologic/physical features.

Responsible Agencies

The primary agency with regard to geologic conditions in the State is the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. The California Geological Survey gathers data and publishes maps and reports about earthquake faults, ground motion and other seismic hazards, mineral resources and mines (see UC CEQA Handbook Section 3.3.15, Mineral Resources), landslide hazards, and fundamental California geology.

Other agencies that may also be Responsible Agencies, depending on the site-specific conditions or geologic resources that could be affected, include:

Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, which oversees the exploration and development of oil, gas, and geothermal resources and regulates construction and operation of wells.

State Mining and Geology Board, which provides policy advice for earthquake fault, groundshaking, liquefaction, and landslide hazard-mapping programs.

Seismic Safety Commission, which advises the Governor, the Legislature, and the public on earthquake policy-related issues, develops and monitors seismic risk mitigation programs, and sponsors legislation regarding seismic safety.

LRDP EIR

The geology and soils analysis should focus on whether the proposed project would create a physical change in surface or subsurface soil or rock characteristics, or would expose people or structures to major geotechnical hazards.

The Geology and Soils section of the LRDP EIR should be based on a generalized summary of geologic and seismic activity and features, such as faults in the region, as well as a description of topographic and hydrologic features, slope, soil and substrate characteristics, groundwater elevations, and other geotechnical conditions that could affect structures.

The Geology and Soils section should consider the location and type of projects relative to the known geologic and soils conditions to qualitatively evaluate the potential for adverse geologic effects. In addition to the potential for seismic hazards, landslides, or avalanche, the section should assess whether: excavation and grading would significantly alter land features that could be subject to or result in erosion or unstable slopes; foundations would be subject to liquefaction, settlement, expansive soils or other soils conditions that could affect structural integrity; or involve excavation or foundations that could encounter groundwater.

The UC seismic policy requires new UC facilities to comply with the current seismic provisions of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, California Building Standards Code, or local seismic requirements, whichever requirements are more stringent. Title 24 of the CCR regulates the design criteria for new University of California buildings to ensure that they are structurally sound under static and dynamic conditions, and are free of geotechnical hazards. A certain level of geologic and seismic safety is therefore integrated into the safe building practice inherent in compliance with the code.

Project EIR

To the extent not analyzed in an LRDP EIR, the Geology and Soils section of the Project EIR or the Initial Study should analyze whether the site for a specific project would result in any effects that were not anticipated or evaluated by the LRDP EIR.

Standards of Significance

Would the project:

Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.

• Strong seismic groundshaking?

• Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction?

• Landslides?

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994 or most current edition), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Exceed an applicable LRDP or program EIR standard of significance?

Analytical Methods

The description of existing conditions and the impact analysis should be based on the following information:

At the campus LRDP level, a general technical study prepared by a geologist, engineering geologist, or civil or structural engineer with expertise in geotechnical issues registered in the State of California.

At the project level, the site plan and building footprint, if appropriate, reviewed by the registered professional to ensure that project siting and design provides adequate protection from features such as faults and unstable slopes (if the project site is within a geologically sensitive area). Site-specific information and recommendations presented in the site-specific study should be summarized in the setting and impact analysis.

If project features have not been developed to a level that would allow for preparation of a geotechnical study or detailed analysis, other published technical information should be used to generally characterize site-specific conditions for use in evaluating project effects. These resources (some of which are available in digital format suitable for GIS mapping) include:

• general geologic information and maps available from California Geological Survey

• seismic hazards information available from the California Geological Survey: Alquist-Priolo maps; Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards; seismic hazard zone mapping

• county soil surveys published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service

• topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey, which can be combined with other data sources to create slope maps

• groundwater elevation maps published by Department of Water Resources

• local general plans and general plan background documents (useful for identifying locations where local jurisdictions have identified geologic hazards, such as erosive soils, landslides, avalanches, liquefaction, expansive soils), and other environmental documents for projects in the vicinity

When using digital GIS data, the metadata should be carefully reviewed, along with a comparison to published (paper) materials or other documents to ensure accuracy of mapping.

The approximate areal extent and volume of grading, excavation, and cut-and-fill slopes, methods to control potential hazards, and disposition of waste soils should be also be described. Methods included in the project to reduce potential hazards should be described in the impact analysis.

The geotechnical evaluation should consider potential cumulative effects, including growth-related increases in the number of people and property that could be exposed to geologic hazards.

Generally Feasible Mitigation Measures

A site-specific geotechnical study shall be performed for projects in geologically sensitive areas prior to final design to identify potential concerns and recommended measures to reduce hazards. Recommendations in the geotechnical study should be implemented. The study must be prepared by a geologist, engineering geologist, or civil or structural engineer with expertise in geotechnical issues who is registered in the State of California.

Proposed development must comply with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly Special Studies Zone Act), which requires site-specific evaluation and restricts the construction of buildings on or near active fault traces.

Determine the maximum slope above which development would not occur. Avoid placing structures in areas characterized by unstable slopes or soils that are subject to liquefaction or differential settlement.

Anchor non-structural building elements (i.e., fixtures, permanent equipment, etc.) to minimize potential hazards from earthquakes.

3.3.12

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Introduction

The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR primarily relates to the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that are likely to result from the project. The term “hazardous material” refers to both hazardous substances and wastes. A material is defined as hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local regulatory agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. Two types of materials that are regulated separately from hazardous chemicals and materials are biohazardous materials (i.e., that contain biological material capable of causing disease in humans) and radioactive materials (i.e., that spontaneously emit ionizing radiation). The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR also discusses the potential for soil or water contamination that could affect the project.

The State CEQA checklist also includes physical hazards such as proximity to airports and wildland fire hazards in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section.

Responsible Agencies

Hazardous Materials

Numerous laws and regulations have been enacted to regulate the management of hazardous materials and waste to protect the public and the workplace. Implementation of these laws and the management of hazardous materials is regulated through programs administered by various agencies at the federal, State, and local levels. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the primary Responsible Agency for matters concerning the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes.

In addition to DTSC, other agencies that may rely on CEQA documents for decision-making or who may wish to comment on the project include:

Cal/EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which provides objective scientific evaluation of risks to public health and the environment posed by hazardous substances.

Cal/EPA Department of Pesticide Regulation, which regulates all aspects of pesticide sales and use to protect public health and the environment.

Cal/EPA Integrated Waste Management Board, regarding the potential for hazardous materials in the solid waste stream.

Cal/EPA State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards for issues regarding soil and water contamination from hazardous materials use and disposal (see also UC CEQA Handbook Sections 3.3.11 Geology and 3.3.13 Hydrology).

State Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) , which regulates hazardous materials in the workplace pursuant to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.

California Highway Patrol and Caltrans, which enforce and monitor U.S. Department of Transportation hazardous materials and waste transportation laws and regulations.

State Office of Emergency Services , which implements hazardous materials notification programs and provides emergency response services to hazardous materials accidents in cooperation with local emergency response providers.

Individual Certified Uniform Program Agencies (CUPAs) within local jurisdictions. CUPAs perform the hazardous materials and hazardous waste regulatory activities previously performed by numerous State and local agencies. Contact the local environmental management agency to determine whether a CUPA has been established for the project area.

Toxic Air Contaminants

The development of policies and State regulations pertaining to the release of hazardous air emissions is the responsibility of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which are implemented at the local level by various local air districts. CEQA Statutes Section 21151.4 and Education Code Section 17213 contain specific procedural requirements with regard to the siting of school sites near potential sources of hazardous emissions. (See also UC CEQA Handbook Section 3.3.8).

Airport Safety

Planning for existing and future land uses in proximity to airports must consider siting regulations established at the federal, State, and local level by the following agencies:

Federal Aviation Administration

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, which reviews projects for potential effects related to the safety of existing aircraft operations as well as new facilities such as helipads.

Airport land use plans developed by local jurisdictions.

Wildland Fire Hazard

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection provides a variety of fire protection-related services for locations within State Responsibility Areas and through mutual aid agreements with local emergency response providers.

LRDP EIR

The Hazards and Hazardous Materials impact analysis should focus primarily on the potential for development to increase the risk of adverse human health or environmental effects related to the presence of hazardous materials in research and teaching laboratories and in the workplace.

There is a vast array of laws and regulations designed to minimize the adverse environmental effects associated with the use of hazardous substances and physical hazards. One of the most important means of minimizing such effects is for the campus to continue to comply with such laws and regulations. Mitigation measures should be designed to reinforce existing regulations and improve, where possible, campus programs for handling hazardous substances. Additional measures may be required if regulatory compliance is not adequate to address a particular hazardous substance.

Project EIR

For projects that are consistent with an LRDP, the topics listed in “Analytical Methods,” below, should have been previously evaluated. In addition to site-specific features, the Project EIR should include updated setting, specific quantities, types, and locations of hazardous materials use, and updated regulatory context, as well as applicable LRDP mitigation measures and their status.

Standards of Significance

Would the project:

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ("Cortese List") and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Exceed an applicable LRDP or program EIR standard of significance?

Analytical Methods

This hazardous materials section of the EIR should be prepared by individual(s) with expertise in hazardous materials management, including soil and groundwater contamination-related topics.

The section should generally describe, as applicable:

Hazardous materials - hazardous chemicals, radioactive, and biohazardous materials, use, storage, transport, and disposal, including types or categories, locations, and approximate quantities of hazardous materials that will be used during construction and occupancy, how the hazardous substances would be handled, and detail any potential risks associated with use of the materials; the results of formal human health risk assessments should be presented in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials discussion, if not provided in the Toxic Air Contaminants discussion (see UC CEQA Handbook Section 3.3.8).

Compliance record with applicable laws and regulations, or known concerns;

How identified problems are being addressed (e.g., storage and disposal of low-level radioactive waste);

Laboratory animals – approximate number, how and where they are housed, handling procedures;

Underground and above-ground storage tanks;

Known or potential locations where hazardous materials (e.g., asbestos, lead, soil/groundwater contamination) could be encountered during construction;

Whether the campus or local emergency response provider has a specially-trained hazardous materials unit, and if so, response times.

How the use of facilities would be linked to a building specific or campus wide emergency response plan.

Physical hazards to be evaluated in the LRDP EIR should consider:

Proximity to private and public airports and airstrips;

Whether LRDP uses would involve aircraft operations (e.g., helipads at medical centers);

Proximity to areas subject to wildland fire hazard or areas designated in local plans as severe or high fire hazard.

Other hazards specific to the project.

The regulatory context is an important component of the discussion. The regulatory context, including applicable federal, State, and local regulations and specific UC policies and their relevance to the information presented in the discussion should be explained. State- or federally-imposed restrictions or mandates (low-level radioactive waste disposal, for example) should also be described.

The project and cumulative impact analysis should consider the following:

How increased use of hazardous substances (including chemicals, radioactive materials, biohazardous materials, laboratory animals) could increase risk of adverse health or environmental effects either through routine use or accidental release;

Limits on permitted facilities and disposal capacity for UC-generated hazardous waste;

How activities associated with demolition, renovation, or construction could encounter asbestos, lead, or fixtures contaminated with mercury, PCBs, etc., or for earth-disturbing activities to encounter contaminated soil or groundwater from past site uses;

The extent to which construction or occupancy could interfere with emergency response efforts and whether response provider times and locations are adequate.

Generally Feasible Mitigation Measures

As indicated above, mitigation measures should be designed to reinforce existing regulations and improve, where possible, campus programs for handling hazardous substances. The following additional measures may be required if regulatory compliance is not adequate to address a particular hazardous substance or situation:

Develop or expand training programs for proper use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous substances.

Provide proper building systems for the level of hazardous substances to be used or stored.

Develop or expand waste minimization programs.

Develop a site-specific emergency response plan. Verify or develop mutual aid agreements.

Prepare site-specific hazardous materials site assessments and building surveys prior to demolition, renovation, or construction. Implement appropriate remedies or management controls to minimize risk of exposure before and during construction-related activities, and during occupancy (e.g., underground utilities maintenance and repair).

3.3.13

Hydrology and Water Quality

Introduction

The purpose of the Hydrology and Water Quality section is to evaluate and describe the impacts of the LRDP or specific projects on surface and groundwater resources (including aquifer characteristics and water quality), and for the project site to generate runoff that could affect flooding or drainage characteristics (both on-site and downstream), or to be affected by flooding from storm events or dam failure indundation.

The availability of water supplies and infrastructure to serve LRDP and project demand should be addressed in the Public Services and Utilities and Energy sections of the LRDP or Project environmental document, as discussed in UC CEQA Handbook Section 3.3.21, Utilities and Energy.

Responsible Agencies

The protection of water resources and water quality, flooding issues, and floodplain encroachment in California is the responsibility of the following primary federal and State agencies, which either have statutory authority or are Responsible Agencies under CEQA:

Department of Water Resources (DWR), which guides development and management of the State's water resources;

State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards for projects resulting in point source discharges to surface waters (e.g., industrial facilities, wastewater treatment plants) and non-point source discharges (e.g., construction site and urban stormwater runoff) in accordance with the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act;

California Department of Health Services for projects involving water or wastewater treatment, and use of reclaimed water;

California Department of Fish and Game for projects that would change the natural state of any river, stream or lake (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600 through 1607);

State Reclamation Board for any activity or any type of encroachment on or near the banks of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries; or for activities on any designated "floodway" (Colby-Alquist Flood Plain Management Act: California Water Code, Section 8590 et seq); and

California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) for projects involving construction, enlargement, repair or removal of a dam or reservoir (California Water Code, Division 3C Parts 1 and 2).

Other State agencies with statutory authority or that may wish to comment on the environmental document with regard to hydrology and water quality issues include: Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Real Estate, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, State Lands Commission, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Conservation, California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, California Coastal Commission, and the Department of Forestry.

Federal Agencies

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for projects requiring "404 Permits" for modifying waters of the United States, as established under the federal Clean Water Act. Three district offices, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles provide review and permitting services for California.

LRDP EIR

The Hydrology and Water Quality section of the EIR should describe the specific hydrological characteristics of the campus, including existing water bodies, drainage patterns, 100-year flood plain(s), existing drainage and/or flood control facilities, groundwater recharge potential, surface and groundwater quality. The section should then assess whether the proposed project would substantially affect these characteristics and factors.

The analysis should focus primarily on:

changes in drainage patterns and/or the quantity and rate of drainage that would affect existing system capacity

changes in the quantity and rate of runoff or other discharges that would affect receiving water quality (surface and/or groundwater)

development in areas subject to 100-year flood hazard or in areas subject to dam failure or inundation.

Project EIR

To the extent not analyzed in an LRDP EIR, the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Project EIR or the IS should analyze whether the project would result in any effects that were not anticipated or evaluated by the LRDP EIR. Further, it should analyze the project in relation to the current LRDP. The results of a site-specific drainage study should be used to quantify the rate and volume of stormwater runoff.

Standards of Significance

Would the project:

Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;

Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;

Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;

Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;

Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;

Place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows;

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or

Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Analytical Methods

Collect information on drainage patterns, water volumes and quality, extent of floodplain and dam failure inundation areas, and locations of groundwater recharge areas. Sources of information can include U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and watershed mapping information compiled by the USGS, California Geological Survey, DWR , SWRCB and RWQCBs , Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps and dam failure inundation maps prepared by DOSD and State Office of Emergency Services (OES), and master drainage plans and recent environmental reports for the project vicinity.

Calculate increases in stormwater runoff from the proposed project. Preliminary drainage studies should be prepared by qualified engineers or hydrologists using standard protocols (e.g., HEC-1, HECRAS) to determine the effects of increased runoff on downstream flooding and whether mitigation (e.g., on-site detention) is needed.

Determine the effects of stormwater runoff water quality on the quality of the receiving water by testing or collecting data, or qualitatively, based on anticipated uses, when limited or no data is available.

Determine which regulatory standards must be met, including federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits administered by the SWRCB and RWQCBs, any local pretreatment requirements, and evolving nonpoint source discharge requirements, including those under the NPDES Phase II program.

Identify potential cumulative impacts, with particular focus on effects of increased stormwater runoff at downstream locations and reduction in floodplain storage area.

Generally Feasible Mitigation Measures

Redesign project facilities to avoid floodprone lands and natural stream channels.

Implement stormwater drainage and erosion control strategies to avoid significant adverse water quality impacts.

Incorporate facilities to provide temporary or long-term storage of stormwater runoff to minimize increase in downstream flood risk.

Provide facilities to allow increased groundwater recharge of stormwater or reclaimed wastewater.

Design landscaped areas of development sites to absorb runoff from roofs and walkways.

Explore the feasibility of using reclaimed wastewater for landscape irrigation or other subpotable use.

Design development on campus to maintain sufficient levels of absorption in water recharge areas, so that springs and seeps fed by affected aquifers are not substantially diminished.

Require Best Management Practices in construction contracts, consistent with NPDES General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements to minimize sedimentation resulting from construction and the transport of soils by construction vehicles.

Schedule construction grading during the dry season to the extent feasible

Incorporate applicable NPDES Phase II requirements

Continue to comply with permit requirements and applicable laws and regulations in discharging wastewater effluent.

3.3.14

Land Use and Planning

Introduction

The purpose of the Land Use and Planning section is to identify and evaluate potential conflicts between the project or LRDP and 1) local land use plans and policies (including the campus LRDP); and 2) existing land uses. Although the University of California is constitutionally exempt from the application of local plans and policies, mitigation measures should be suggested to reduce or minimize any physical consequences of potential conflicts. Environmental documents should include a statement such as: “The University of California is constitutionally exempt under Article IX, Section 9 from local land use regulation including general plans and zoning, but seeks to cooperate with local jurisdictions to reduce any physical consequences of potential land use conflicts to the extent feasible.”

Responsible Agencies

The following are those agencies potentially responsible for land use issues:

California Coastal Commission. Pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976, the Coastal Commission is responsible for:

1.		protecting and, where feasible, enhancing the overall quality of the Coastal Zone environment and its resources, and
2.		ensuring orderly, balanced use of resources, taking into account social and economic needs.

The Commission's primary tool for accomplishing these objectives is the Local Coastal Plan, which sets forth policies and a land use plan for protecting and guiding development within Local Coastal Zones. At UC campuses, under a special process, the Coastal Commission reviews and approves the LRDP, which in effect serves as the equivalent of a Local Coastal Plan.

The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over dredging or alteration of structures, mineral extraction and geothermal exploration of State lands, as well as for a series of more general uses of State lands, including income-producing enterprises and right-of-ways. (See California Public Resources Code, Section 6201 et. seq.).

LRDP EIR

The Land Use and Planning Section of an LRDP EIR should identify and evaluate potential land use, zoning, and policy conflicts between the proposed LRDP and existing local land uses and policies. If the LRDP is comprised of multiple sub-areas or encompasses more than one local jurisdiction, the analysis should be organized by sub-area and jurisdiction. Graphic aids should be used as needed to depict boundaries and districts. The contextual nature of land use conflicts, i.e., issues of noise/habitat sensitivity, should be described. An assessment of cumulative impacts should also be included.

Project EIR

T