california environmental quality act findings in...

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES CAMPUS 2008 NORTHWEST HOUSING INFILL PROJECT & LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT

I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

The University of California (“University”), as the lead agency, has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the 2008 Northwest Housing Infill Project (“2008 NHIP”) and Long Range Development Plan (“LRDP”) Amendment (the “Project”) for the University of California, Los Angeles. The Final EIR has State Clearinghouse No. 2008051121. The Final EIR consists of the December 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and the February 2009 Final EIR (“Final EIR”). The Draft EIR assesses the potential environmental effects of implementation of the Project and identifies means to eliminate or reduce potential significant adverse impacts, and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives. The Final EIR provides responses to comments on the Draft EIR from responsible agencies and interested groups and individuals, as well as revisions to the text of the Draft EIR based on those comments and responses. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15090, the Board of Regents certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”). The Board of Regents further certifies that it has been presented with the Final EIR and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the approvals set forth below in Section III. The Board of Regents further certifies that the Final EIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis. The conclusions presented in these findings are based upon the Final EIR and other evidence in the administrative record.

II. FINDINGS In this action, the Board of Regents is certifying the Final EIR and approving the design of the 2008 NHIP and amending the LRDP as described herein. Design approvals of future projects implementing the LRDP, as amended, will be made by the Board of Regents and/or University officials delegated such authority pursuant to the standing orders and bylaws of the University, as applicable, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.

2008 Northwest Housing Infill Project & LRDP Amendment March 2009 of 75

Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record, which is herein incorporated into these Findings by reference, the Board of Regents hereby adopts the following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the University’s procedures for implementing CEQA. The Board of Regents certifies that its findings are based on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR and are supported by substantial evidence. The Board of Regents adopts these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations in conjunction with its approval as set forth in Section III, below.

A. Environmental Review Process

1. Preparation of the EIR On May 27, 2008, the University issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) announcing the preparation of the Draft EIR and describing its proposed scope. An Initial Study (“IS”) was also filed on May 27, 2008 to acknowledge that the potential environmental effects of the Project would be considered in a single EIR. The NOP was circulated to responsible agencies and interested groups and individuals for a 30-day review period ending June 26, 2008. The University issued the Draft EIR on December 5, 2008 and circulated it for public review and comment for a 46-day period that ended on January 19, 2009 (because January 19th was a holiday, the comment period was then extended to January 20, 2009, allowing for a 47-day comment period). Beginning on December 5, 2008, the University widely circulated the Draft EIR by: (1) making hardcopies available at several on- and off-campus libraries and at the UCLA Capital Programs building; (2) posting a copy on the University’s Internet web site; (3) mailing CDs of the document to 53 agencies, organizations and interested individuals; (4) publishing a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Bruin; and (5) posting Notices in various locations within residential facilities proximate to the proposed project site. Additionally, the University held a public hearing at the UCLA Faculty Center on January 6, 2009, to receive verbal comments on the Draft EIR. Five individuals attended the public hearing, three of whom provided verbal comments on the Draft EIR. In addition, approximately seven letters were received during the public comment period, including letters from state and local agencies. The Final EIR contains all of the comments received during the public comment period, including minutes of the public hearing, together with written responses to those comments which were prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the University’s procedures for implementing CEQA. The Board of Regents certifies that it has reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and finds that the Final EIR provides adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the comments.


B. Absence of Significant New Information CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR but before certification. New information includes: (i) changes to the project; (ii) changes in the environmental setting; or (iii) additional data or other information. Section 15088.5 further provides that “[n]ew information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.” Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft and Final EIR and in the administrative record, including all comments received, as well as the requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 and interpretive judicial authority regarding recirculation of draft EIRs, the Board of Regents hereby finds that no new significant information was added to the EIR following public review and thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required by CEQA.

C. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following section summarizes the direct and cumulative environmental impacts of the Project (2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment) as analyzed in the Final EIR, and provides findings as to those impacts, as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Substantial evidence supporting these environmental findings and conclusions are set forth in the Final EIR. These Findings hereby incorporate by reference the analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s findings and conclusions and in making these Findings, the Board of Regents ratifies, adopts and incorporates the evidence, analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the Final EIR except where they are specifically modified by these Findings. Certain environmental effects were determined to be “effects not found to be significant” based upon the analysis provided in the Initial Study for the Project. These impacts are summarized in the Initial Study and the Draft EIR. The Board of Regents hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the Initial Study and Draft EIR as its grounds for concluding that further analysis of these impacts in the Draft EIR is not necessary or appropriate. As described in the Final EIR, the LRDP Amendment includes campus Programs, Practices & Procedures (PPs) that will be continued in association with the implementation of development allocation under the 2002 LRDP, as amended by the


proposed Project. In some instances, these Programs, Practices & Procedures for the proposed LRDP Amendment have been modified from those presented in the Final EIR certified for the 2002 LRDP. All campus Programs, Practices & Procedures, as set forth in the Final EIR for the proposed Project, are hereby adopted by the Board of Regents as part of the Project. The Board of Regents further incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the Final EIR concluding the extent to which the Campus Programs, Practices & Procedures reduce the potential impacts of Project implementation. The Board of Regents hereby adopts and incorporates as conditions of approval, the mitigation measures (MMs) set forth in the findings below to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts. Except when such mitigation measures are specifically rejected or specifically modified by these findings, the Board of Regents adopts the mitigation measures as recommended in the Final EIR. In the comments on the Draft EIR, a number of measures were suggested by various commenters as potential mitigation measures. With respect to the measures that were suggested in the comments, and not adopted by the Final EIR, the responses to comments in the Final EIR explain that the suggested mitigation measures are either already part of ongoing campus programs and procedures, are unnecessary to reduce to a less-than-significant level a potentially significant impact, or why they are infeasible and thus not recommended by the Final EIR for adoption. The Board of Regents hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the response to comments contained in the Final EIR as its grounds for finding these suggested mitigation measures to be infeasible.

1. Aesthetics

a. Impact 4.1-1a: Implementation of the 2008 NHIP would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (focal views).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2008 NHIP will have no impact on scenic vistas and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.1-11 to 4.1-12).

b. Impact 4.1-1b: Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas (focal views).

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Programs, Practices & Procedures 4.1-1(a), 4.1-1(b), 4.4-1(b), and 4.8-1(d), will result in a less-than significant impact on scenic vistas and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.1-12 to 4.1-13).


c. Impact 4.1-2 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the campus and the immediately surrounding area.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(c) In conjunction with CEQA documentation required for each project proposal under the 2002 LRDP, as amended, that would result in the removal of one or more mature trees, the project will include a tree replacement plan with a 1:1 tree replacement ratio at the development site where feasible and/or elsewhere within the campus boundaries where feasible. If it is not feasible to plant replacement trees at a 1:1 ratio within the campus boundaries, the tree replacement plan will include the planting of native shrubs in ecologically appropriate areas within the campus boundaries that would provide nesting, foraging or roosting habitat for birds so that the replacement number of trees and shrubs will result in a 1:1 replacement ratio. LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 UCLA shall replace protected trees removed for construction of projects under the 2002 LRDP, as amended, at a 2:1 ratio as presented in the City of Los Angeles Protected Tree Ordinance (Ordinance Number 177404). Protected trees are defined as coast live oak, valley oak, western sycamore, Southern California black walnut, and California bay laurel. LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practices & Procedure 4.1-1(a), 4.1-1(b), 4.1-2(a) through 4.1-2(d) and 4.8-1(d), will not significantly impact the visual character or quality of the campus and the immediately surrounding area and therefore this impact is less-than-significant; however, the Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(c) and 4.3-4 from Section 4.3, Biological Resources would further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.1-17 to 4.1-18). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not significantly impact the visual character or quality of the campus and the immediately surrounding area. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(c) and 4.3-4 from Section 4.3, Biological Resources, described below, would


further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.1-13 to 4.1-17). No project-level mitigation is required.

d. Impact 4.1-3: Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could create a new source of glare on campus or in the vicinity that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and could introduce new light sources.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(a): Design for specific projects shall provide for the use of textured nonreflective exterior surfaces and nonreflective glass. LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(b): All outdoor lighting shall be directed to the specific location intended for illumination (e.g., roads, walkways, or recreation fields) to limit stray light spillover onto adjacent residential areas. In addition, all lighting shall be shielded to minimize the production of glare and light spill onto adjacent uses.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.1-3(c): Ingress and egress from parking areas shall be designed and situated so the vehicle headlights are shielded from adjacent uses. If necessary, walls or other light barriers will be provided.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.1-2(d), will not create significant impacts from new sources of substantial light or glare on campus or in the vicinity that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area with the implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.1-3(a) through 4.1-3(c). (See Final EIR at 4.1-19 to 4.1-20). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, and with the implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.1-3(a) through 4.1-3(c) will have a less-than-significant impact associated with the introduction of new light sources and new sources of glare on campus or in the vicinity that could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No additional project-level mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.1-18 to 4.1-19).


e. Impact 4.1-4: Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP would not cause shade and/or shadow on currently unshaded, shadow-sensitive uses off campus.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, it was determined that the potential for implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, to cause shade and/or shadow on currently unshaded, shadow-sensitive uses off campus could not be determined until such time as projects implementing the 2002 LRDP, as amended, are proposed identifying building locations, heights, and orientation, among other design features and project-specific environmental review as required by CEQA is conducted. Accordingly, this impact is considered potentially significant. The Board of Regents finds this potentially significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.1-21 to 4.1-23). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2008 NHIP will not create shade and/or shadow on currently unshaded shadow-sensitive uses off campus and therefore, this impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.1-20 to 4.1-21).

2. Air Quality

a. Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan; therefore this impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-18 to 4.2-19). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan; therefore this impact is less-than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-18 to 4.2-19).


b. Impact 4.2-2 Regional construction emissions from the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would exceed SCAQMD standards for NOx. These exceedances would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a): The campus shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(b): The campus shall encourage contractors to utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and low-NOx fuel) to the extent that the equipment is reasonably commercially available and cost effective. LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c): The campus shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment used on site and for on-road export of soil meet USEPA Tier III certification requirements, as feasible. LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.2-2(a) through 4.2-2(d), will result in an increase in criteria air pollutants during construction activities. The Regents further find that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(a) through 4.2-2(c) will reduce this impact to the extent feasible, but that it remains significant after mitigation. The Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.2-22 to 4.2-23). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, , will substantially reduce the generation of criteria air pollutants during construction, but that the impact will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Regents further find that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(a) through 4.2-2(c), will reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level, and that no feasible project-level mitigation measures have been identified. Therefore, this impact remains significant. The Board of Regents finds this


significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.2-20 to 4.2-22).

c. Impact 4.2-3a Implementation of the 2008 NHIP would result in daily operational regional emissions of criteria pollutants and O3 precursors, but would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would result in daily operational regional emissions of criteria pollutants and O3 precursors, but would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, therefore, this impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-23).

d. Impact 4.2-3b Implementation of the proposed LRDP Amendment would result in daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx that could contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which inludes Program, Practices & Procedure 4.13-1(a) through 4.13-1(d), will reduce the daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx that could contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; however, these PPs will not reduce this impact to a less-than significant level. Therefore, this impact remains significant and no feasible mitigation has been identified. The Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.2-24 to 4.2-25).

e. Impact 4.2-4a Construction of the proposed 2008 NHIP could result in a short-term cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a): The campus shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.


LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(b): The campus shall encourage contractors to utilize alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and low-NOx fuel) to the extent that the equipment is reasonably commercially available and cost effective. LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c): The campus shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment used on site and for on-road export of soil meet USEPA Tier III certification requirements, as feasible.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practices & Procedures 4.2-2(a) through 4.2-2(d), and as mitigated through implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures MM4.2-2(a) through MM4.2-2(c) will have a short-term cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant because it is located in a non-attainment region. Therefore, this impact remains significant and no feasible project-level mitigation has been identified. The Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.2-25 to 4.2-26).

f. Impact 4.2-4b Operation of the proposed 2008 NHIP would not result in a long-term cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the proposed 2008 NHIP would not result in a long-term cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. This impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-26).

g. Impact 4.2-4c Implementation of the LRDP Amendment could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice &


Procedures 4.2-2(a) through PP 4.2-2(d), and as mitigated by LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(a) through 4.2-2(c) will contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant because the campus is located in a non-attainment region. Therefore, this impact remains significant and no feasible additional mitigation has been identified. The Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.2-26 to 4.2-27).

h. Impact 4.2-5a Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP would not expose sensitive receptors near roadway intersections to substantial pollutant concentrations due to carbon monoxide hotspots.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not expose sensitive receptors near roadway intersections to substantial pollutant concentrations due to carbon monoxide hotspots; this has no impact and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-27).

i. Impact 4.2-5b Implementation of the LRDP Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors near roadway intersections to substantial pollutant concentrations due to carbon monoxide hotspots. This impact is less than significant.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with exposure of sensitive receptors near roadway intersections to substantial pollutant concentrations due to carbon monoxide hotspots; therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-28).

j. Impact 4.2-6 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations from emissions generated on the project site.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would result in a less-than-significant exposure to sensitive receptors of substantial criteria pollutant concentrations


from emissions generated on campus; therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-31 to 4.2-32). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would result in a less-than-significant exposure to sensitive receptors of substantial criteria pollutant concentrations from emissions generated on the project site; therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-29 to 4.2-31).

k. Impact 4.2-7 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors on or off campus to substantial pollutant concentrations due to campus generated toxic air emissions.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would result in a less-than-significant exposure to sensitive receptors on or off campus of substantial pollutant concentrations due to campus generated toxic air emissions; therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-32 to 4.2-33). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would result in a less-than-significant exposure to sensitive receptors on or off campus of substantial pollutant concentrations due to campus generated toxic air emissions; therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.2-32 to 4.2-33).

3. Biological Resources

a. Impact 4.3-1 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could have a substantial adverse effect on nesting birds, including nesting raptors, which are protected by federal and State regulations, if trees are removed during the breeding season.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(a) Prior to the onset of construction activities that occur between March and mid-August (February 1 through June 30 for raptors), surveys for nesting special status avian species and raptors shall be conducted on the affected portion of the campus following USFWS and/or CDFG guidelines. If no active avian nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary.


LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) If active nests for avian species of concern or raptor nests are found within the construction footprint or within a 250-foot buffer zone around the construction site, exterior construction activities shall be delayed within the construction footprint and buffer zone until the young have fledged or appropriate mitigation measures responding to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with CDFG.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(c) In conjunction with CEQA documentation required for each project proposal under the 2002 LRDP, as amended, that would result in the removal of one or more mature trees, the project will include a tree replacement plan with a 1:1 tree replacement ratio at the development site where feasible and/or elsewhere within the campus boundaries where feasible. If it is not feasible to plant replacement trees at a 1:1 ratio within the campus boundaries, the tree replacement plan will include the planting of native shrubs in ecologically appropriate areas within the campus boundaries that would provide nesting, foraging or roosting habitat for birds so that the replacement number of trees and shrubs will result in a 1:1 replacement ratio. LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practices & Procedure 4.3-1(a) through 4.3-1(e), and with implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) through 4.3-1(c) will result in a less-than-significant adverse effect on nesting birds, including nesting raptors, which are protected by federal and State regulations, if trees are removed during the breeding season. (See Final EIR at 4.3-13 to 4.3-14). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices and Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, and with implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(a) through 4.3-1(c) will result in a less-than-significant impact on nesting birds, including nesting raptors, which are protected by federal and State regulations, if trees are removed during the breeding season. No additional project-level mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.3-12 to 4.3-13).

b. Impact 4.3-2a Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP would not have a substantial adverse effect on special status plant or wildlife species.


2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not have a substantial adverse effect on special status plant or wildlife species and no mitigation measures are required. (See Final EIR at 4.3-14).

c. Impact 4.3-2b Implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, involving the 4-acre parcel or Stone Canyon Creek could have a substantial adverse effect on special status plant species. Additionally, implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, that would involves the 4-acre parcel could have a substantial adverse effect on the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status wildlife species that occur in coastal sage scrubs.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(a) In conjunction with CEQA documentation required for any future project proposal within the 4-acre parcel or Stone Canyon Creek, surveys for special status plant species shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period for each species, as determined by reference populations, to determine the presence or absence of these species. If no special status plant species are identified within the impact area, no further mitigation are necessary and the results of the survey shall be included in the CEQA documentation.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(b) If special status plant species are observed during focused surveys and if the status of the species and the size of the population warrant a finding of significance pursuant to CEQA, then appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed and included in the project-specific CEQA documentation. A detailed Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and approved prior to issuance of a grading permit and may include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following actions: • Avoiding impacts to the species to the extent possible through

project planning; • Minimizing impacts to the species to the extent possible through

project planning; • Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the

impacted environment; • Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and

maintenance operations during the life of the project; • Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute

resources or environments. As appropriate, the Mitigation Plan may include, but not be limited to: • Details for a salvage program;


• Replacement ratios; • Performance criteria for the relocated population; • Site selection parameters to ensure there are no secondary impacts

from mitigation; • Program implementation methods within one year of grading; • Methods to maintain the site for 5 years; • Long-term preservation in dedicated open space.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(c) In conjunction with CEQA documentation required for any future project proposal within the 4-acre parcel, focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher shall be conducted. Surveys shall follow the USFWS protocol to determine the presence or absence of this species. If no coastal California gnatcatchers are identified in the impact area, no further mitigation are necessary and the results of the survey shall be included in the CEQA documentation. LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(d) In conjunction with CEQA documentation required for any future project proposal within the 4-acre parcel, a Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and approved by the USFWS prior to issuance of a grading permit. In addition, grading of coastal sage scrub shall not occur during the coastal California gnatcatcher nesting season (February 15 to August 15). The Mitigation Plan may include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following actions: • Avoiding impacts to coastal sage scrub to the extent possible

through project planning; • Minimizing impacts to coastal sage scrub to the extent possible

through project planning; • Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the

impacted environment; • Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and

maintenance operations during the life of the project; • Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute

resources or environments. As appropriate, the Mitigation Plan may include, but not be limited to: • Replacement ratios; • Performance criteria; • Site selection parameters to ensure there are no secondary impacts

from mitigation; • Program implementation methods within one year of grading; • Methods to maintain the site for 5 years; • Long-term preservation in dedicated open space.


LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(e) If coastal California gnatcatcher is observed within or immediately adjacent to the impact footprint during focused surveys, construction will not proceed until authorization is granted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via a Section 7 Permit or a 10a Permit. All conditions of such permits will be complied with in order to avoid or minimize impacts on the coastal California gnatcatcher. LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would result in a potentially significant impact to coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status wildlife species. The Board of Regents further finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a) through 4.3-2(e) these potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. (See Final EIR at 4.3-14 to 4.3-17).

d. Impact 4.3-3: Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, established wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not have a substantial adverse effect on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, established wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.3-17 to 4.3-18). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not have a substantial adverse effect on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, established wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.3-17 to 4.3-18).

e. Impact 4.3-4: Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could impact mature and protected tree species.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(c) In conjunction with CEQA documentation required for each project proposal under the 2002 LRDP, as amended, that would result in the removal of one or more mature trees, the project will include a tree replacement plan with a 1:1 tree replacement ratio at the development site where feasible and/or


elsewhere within the campus boundaries where feasible. If it is not feasible to plant replacement trees at a 1:1 ratio within the campus boundaries, the tree replacement plan will include the planting of native shrubs in ecologically appropriate areas within the campus boundaries that would provide nesting, foraging or roosting habitat for birds so that the replacement number of trees and shrubs will result in a 1:1 replacement ratio.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 UCLA shall replace protected trees removed for construction of projects under the 2002 LRDP, as amended, at a 2:1 ratio as presented in the City of Los Angeles Protected Tree Ordinance (Ordinance Number 177404). Protected trees are defined as coast live oak, valley oak, western sycamore, Southern California black walnut, and California bay laurel. LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Programs, Practices & Procedure 4.3-1(a) through 4.3-1(e), and with incorporation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(c) and 4.3-4, will have a less than significant impact on mature and protected tree species. (See Final EIR at 4.3-19).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, and with implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.3-1(c) and 4.3-4 will result in a less-than-significant impact on mature and protected tree species. No additional project-level mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.3-18 to 4.3-19).

f. Impact 4.3-5a & b Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP would not impact, and the LRDP Amendment has the potential to impact, the area along Stone Canyon Creek or coastal sage scrub within the 4 acre parcel.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(a) In conjunction with CEQA documentation required for any future project proposal in proximity to Stone Canyon Creek, a jurisdictional delineation shall be conducted to describe and map the extent of resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE and/or the CDFG following the guidelines presented in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2006). The results of the delineation shall be included in the CEQA documentation.


LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(b) Prior to any direct or indirect impacts to jurisdictional areas within Stone Canyon Creek, permits/agreements from the USACE, the RWQCB, and/or the CDFG shall be required. Acquisition and implementation of the permit/agreement may constrain proposed activities; impacts on jurisdictional resources should be minimized to the extent practicable. Mitigation for impacts on jurisdictional resources may include avoidance or minimization of impacts, compensation in the form of habitat restoration, or compensation through participation in a mitigation bank. The exact requirements of any special permit conditions established for impacts on the creek would be determined by the USACE (Section 404) and/or the CDFG (Streambed Alteration Agreement) following review of the formally submitted project application after completion of the CEQA process.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, has the potential to impact the area along Stone Canyon Creek or the coastal sage scrub within the 4 acre parcel but that with implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a) through 4.3-2(e), 4.3-5(a), and 4.3-5(b), the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (See Final EIR at 4.3-20 to 4.3-21). 2008 NHIP FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP would have no impact on the area along Stone Canyon Creek or coastal sage scrub within the 4 acre parcel. No mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.3-20).

4. Cultural Resources

a. Impact 4.4-1a Implementation of the 2008 NHIP would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of structures that have been designated as eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of structures that have been designated as eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). No mitigation is required (See Final EIR 4.4-10).


b. Impact 4.4-1b Implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of structures that have been designated as eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of structures that have been designated as eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The Regents further find that implementation of Program, Practice & Procedure 4.4-1(a) and 4.4-1(b), which are included as part of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would further reduce any impacts related to historic resources. No mitigation is required (See Final EIR 4.4-10 to 4.4-11).

c. Impact 4.4-2 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment construction may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(a) Prior to site preparation or grading activities, construction personnel shall be informed of the potential for encountering unique archaeological resources and taught how to identify these resources if encountered. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the range of resources that might be expected, the type of activities that may result in impacts, and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall be instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified, non-University archaeologist assesses the significance of the find and implements appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of archaeological resources is prohibited. LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(b) Should archaeological resources be found during ground disturbing activities for any project, a qualified Archaeologist shall first determine whether an archaeological resource uncovered during construction is a “unique archaeological resource” pursuant to Section 21083.2(g) of the Public Resources Code or a “historical resource” pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a “unique archaeological resource” or a “historical resource,” the Archaeologist


shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the campus that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 and 15064.5. If the Archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a “unique archaeological resource” or “historical resource,” s/he may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center. The Archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the University and to the California Historic Resources Information System at the South Central Coastal Information Center. LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.4-3(c) Prior to initiation of construction activities for projects that require disturbance of native sediments/soils, the campus shall retain a qualified non-University Archaeologist to observe grading activities and recover, catalogue, analyze, and report archaeological resources as necessary. The qualified Archaeologist shall submit to the Capital Programs University Representative, a written plan with procedures for archaeological resource monitoring. This plan shall include procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the resources as appropriate. LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, has the potential to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. The Regents further find that with implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.4-2(a) through 4.4-2(c) the potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. (See Final EIR at 4.4-12 to 4.4-14). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.4-2(a) and 4.4-2(b) would reduce potential for the 2008 NHIP to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource to less than significant. No additional project level mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.4-12).

d. Impact 4.4-3 Construction of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could directly or indirectly result in damage to, or the


destruction of, unique paleontological resources on site or unique geologic features.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.4-3(a) Prior to site preparation or grading activities, construction personnel shall be informed of the potential for encountering paleontological resources and taught how to identify these resources if encountered. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the range of resources that might be expected; the type of activities that may result in impacts; and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall be instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified, non University Paleontologist assesses the significance of the find and implements appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of paleontological resources is prohibited.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.4-3(b) A qualified Paleontologist shall first determine whether a paleontological resource uncovered during construction meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” under Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2(g) or a “historical resource” under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the paleontological resource is determined to be a “unique archaeological resource” or a “historical resource”, the Paleontologist shall formulate a Mitigation Plan in consultation with the campus that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 of the CEQA Statutes.

If the Paleontologist determines that the paleontological resource is not a unique resource, s/he may record the site and submit the recordation form to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

The Paleontologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the University and to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, may result in a potentially significant impacts from direct or indirect damage to, or the destruction of, unique paleontological resources on site or unique geologic features. The Regents further find that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a) and 4.4-3(b) will reduce the potential impact to a less-than significant level. (See Final EIR at 4.4-14 to 4.4-16).


2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP may result in potentially significant impacts from direct or indirect damage to, or the destruction of, unique paleontological resources on site or unique geologic features. The Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measures 4.4-3(a) and 4.4-3(b) will reduce the impact to a less-than significant level. No additional project-level mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.4-14).

5. Geology and Soils

a. Impact 4.5-1 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not expose people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction), or landsliding.

2008 NHIP Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 Prior to approval of final building designs for the 2008 Northwest Housing Infill Project, a qualified Engineer shall review the final designs to verify that all geotechnical recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed UCLA Northwest Student Housing Infill Project (dated May 8, 2008 and prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc.) have been fully and appropriately incorporated. These recommendations shall include, but not be limited to, the following areas of concern: • Grading Guidelines (removal of unsuitable soils, hillside grading,

compaction). • Temporary Excavations (shoring, soldier piles and lagging,

anchors, monitoring). • Seismic Design Considerations (2007 California Building Code

Seismic Parameters). • Foundation Design (reinforcement, settlement, friction piles,

retaining wall setbacks). • Retaining Wall Design (cantilever and restrained walls,

waterproofing, drainage, backfill). • Slabs on Grade (concrete, waterproofing, reinforcement). • Pavements (moisture, thickness, weight management). • Site Drainage. • Construction Monitoring and Geotechnical Testing (geotechnical

observation and laboratory testing of soils).


LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not significantly expose people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction), or landsliding. The Regents further find that LRDP Program, Practice & Procedure 4.5-1(a) through 4.5-1(d), included as part of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.5-12 to 4.5-13).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedure, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not significantly expose people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction), or landsliding. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation 2008 NHIP Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.5-11 to 4.5-12).

b. Impact 4.5-2 Construction and operation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented for individual development projects, to the extent required by State law, to ensure compliance is maintained with all applicable NPDES requirements at the time of project construction. UCLA shall utilize BMPs as appropriate and feasible to comply with and/or exceed the current requirements under the NPDES program. BMPs that may be implemented include, but are not limited to, the following: • Non-Structural/Structural • Landscape Maintenance • Catch Basin Stenciling and Clean-out • Efficient Irrigation Practices • Litter Control • Fertilizer Management • Public Education • Efficient Irrigation • Permanent Vegetative Controls • Runoff – Minimizing Landscape Design


• Treatment Control BMPs (to minimize storm water pollutants of concern for Ballona Creek - Sediment, Bacteria/Viruses, Toxicity, Trash, and Metals):

• Vegetated Swale(s) – An open, shallow channel with vegetation covering side slopes and the bottom.

• Bioretention – A basin that functions as a soil and plant-based filtration device that removes pollutants through a variety of physical, biological, and chemical treatment processes.

• Turf Block – A grass area that has a structural component which allows it to be used in drive aisles and parking lots.

• Drain Inserts – A manufactured filter placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.7-1, will have a less-than significant impact from substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and therefore no mitigation is required; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.5-13 to 4.5-14). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures will have a less-than significant impact from substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and therefore no mitigation is required; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.5-13 to 4.5-14).

c. Impact 4.5-3 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment that involve construction in areas underlain by soils of varying stability would not subject people and structures to hazards associated with landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or differential settlement.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not significantly subject people and structures to hazards associated with landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or differential settlement, and therefore this impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of Program, Practice & Procedure 4.5-1(a), 4.5-1(c), and 4.5-1(d),


included as part of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.5-14). 2008 NHIP FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures 4.5-1(a) through 4.5-1(d), will not significantly subject people and structures to hazards associated with landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or differential settlement, and therefore this impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.5-14 to 4.5-15).

d. Impact 4.5-4 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in construction of facilities on expansive soils, and would not create a substantial risk to people and structures.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not have a significant impact from construction of facilities on expansive soils, and therefore this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of Program, Practice & Procedure 4.5-1(a), 4.5-1(c), and 4.5-1(d), included as part of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.5-16 to 4.5-17). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices, and Procedures, will not have a significant impact from construction of facilities on expansive soils, and therefore this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required (See Final EIR at 4.5-16).

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

a. Impact 4.6-1 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not expose campus occupants or the nearby public to a significant hazard due to the routine transport, use, disposal, or storage of hazardous materials (including chemical, radioactive, and biohazardous waste).

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not significantly expose campus occupants or the nearby public to a significant hazard due to the routine transport, use, disposal, or storage of hazardous materials (including chemical,


radioactive, and biohazardous waste). The Board of Regents further finds that Program, Practice & Procedure 4.6-1 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.6-13 to 4.6-15). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, will not significantly expose campus occupants or the nearby public to a significant hazard due to the routine transport, use, disposal, or storage of hazardous materials (including chemical, radioactive, and biohazardous waste). This impact is therefore less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.6-13).

b. Impact 4.6-2 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not expose construction workers and campus occupants to a significant hazard through the renovation or demolition of buildings or relocation of underground utilities that contain hazardous materials. This impact is less than significant.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not significantly expose construction workers and campus occupants to significant hazards through the renovation or demolition of buildings or relocation of underground utilities that contain hazardous materials. The Board of Regents further finds that Program, Practice & Procedure 4.6-1 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.6-15 to 4.6-16). 2008 NHIP FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2008 NHIP, as amended, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, will not significantly expose construction workers and campus occupants to significant hazards through the renovation or demolition of buildings or relocation of underground utilities that contain hazardous materials. This impact is therefore less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.6-15).

c. Impact 4.6-3 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not 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.


LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not 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, and this impact is less-than-significant. The Board of Regents further finds that Program, Practice & Procedure 4.6-1 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.6-17 to 4.6-19). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, will not 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, and this impact is therefore less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.6-16).

d. Impact 4.6-4 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not create a significant risk of exposure of campus occupants and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will not create a significant risk of exposure of campus occupants and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater, and this impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. The Board of Regents further finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.6-1 and 4.6-4, will further reduce the less-than-significant risk of exposure of campus occupants and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater. (See Final EIR at 4.6-20). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, will not create a significant risk of exposure of campus occupants and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater, and that this impact is therefore less-than-significant and no mitigation is required (See Final EIR at 4.6-19 to 4.6-20).


e. Impact 4.6-5 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in hazardous emissions but could require the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as mended, will have a less-than significant impact from the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and therefore no mitigation is required; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of Program, Practice & Procedure 4.6-1, which is included as part of the LRDP, will further reduce this less than significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.6-21 to 4.6-22).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Policy, Practice & Procedures, will have a less-than significant impact from the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.6-21).

f. Impact 4.6-6a There are no known hazardous materials sites within the proposed 2008 NHIP project site.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that there are no known hazardous materials sites within the proposed 2008 NHIP project site, therefore, no mitigation is required and no impacts would occur (See Final EIR at 4.6-23).

g. Impact 4.6-6b Buildout of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in construction of facilities on sites containing hazardous materials, and thus would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.

FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that buildout of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in construction of facilities on sites containing hazardous materials, and thus would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment; thus this is a less than significant impact. The Board of Regents also finds that implementation of Program, Practice & Procedure 4.6-1, which is included as part of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would further


reduce this less-than-significant impact (See Final EIR at 4.6-23 to 4.6-24).

h. Impact 4.6-7 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in a safety hazard for an increased number of people residing or working on campus due to its proximity to the UCLA Medical Center helipad.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in a safety hazard for an increased number of people residing or working on campus due to its proximity to the UCLA Medical Center helipad; this impact is less than significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.6-24).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the implementation of the 2008 NHIP would not result in a safety hazard for an increased number of people residing or working on campus due to its proximity to the UCLA Medical Center helipad; this impact is less than significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.6-24).

i. Impact 4.6-8 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will have a less-than significant impact from impairing the implementation of, or physically interfering with, an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan, and therefore no mitigation is required; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of Program, Practice & Procedure 4.13-5 and 4.13-8, included as part of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will further reduce this less-than-significant impact (See Final EIR at 4.6-25 to 4.6-26).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Policies & Procedures, will have a less-than significant impact from impairing the implementation of, or physically interfering with, an adopted


emergency response or emergency evacuation plan, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.6-25).

7. Hydrology and Water Quality

a. Impact 4.7-1 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not violate existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented for individual development projects, to the extent required by State law, to ensure compliance is maintained with all applicable NPDES requirements at the time of project construction. UCLA shall utilize BMPs as appropriate and feasible to comply with and/or exceed the current requirements under the NPDES program. BMPs that may be implemented include, but are not limited to, the following: • Non-Structural/Structural • Landscape Maintenance • Catch Basin Stenciling and Clean-out • Efficient Irrigation Practices • Litter Control • Fertilizer Management • Public Education • Efficient Irrigation • Permanent Vegetative Controls • Runoff – Minimizing Landscape Design • Treatment Control BMPs (to minimize storm water pollutants of

concern for Ballona Creek - Sediment, Bacteria/Viruses, Toxicity, Trash, and Metals):

• Vegetated Swale(s) – An open, shallow channel with vegetation covering side slopes and the bottom.

• Bioretention – A basin that functions as a soil and plant-based filtration device that removes pollutants through a variety of physical, biological, and chemical treatment processes.

• Turf Block – A grass area that has a structural component which allows it to be used in drive aisles and parking lots.

• Drain Inserts – A manufactured filter placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Policy & Procedure 4.7-1, would have a less-than-significant impact and


would not violate existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 would further reduce impacts. (See Final EIR at 4.7-10 to 4.7-13).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Policy & Procedures, would have a less-than-significant impact and would not violate existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact (See Final EIR at 4.7-10 to 4.7-13).

b. Impact 4.7-2 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. This impact is less than significant.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that while implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would increase impervious surfaces, it would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or affect groundwater recharge; this impact is therefore considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.7-14). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that while implementation of the 2008 NHIP would increase impervious surfaces at the site, it will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or affect groundwater recharge; this impact is therefore considered less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.7-13 to 4.7-14).

c. Impact 4.7-3 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not substantially alter site drainage patterns and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedures 4.7-1, and 4.7-5, would increase impervious surfaces at the site, it will not substantially alter site drainage patterns and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site.


The Regents further find that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.7-16 to 4.7-17). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that while the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practices & Procedures, would increase impervious surfaces at the site, it will not substantially alter site drainage patterns and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. The Regents further find that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact (See Final EIR at 4.7-14 to 4.7-16).

d. Impact 4.7-4a Implementation of the 2008 NHIP would not substantially alter site drainage patterns or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and would not result in flooding either on or off site.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that while the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Policies & Procedures 4.7-5, would slightly alter site drainage patterns, it would not substantially alter site drainage patterns or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and would not result in flooding either on or off site. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact (See Final EIR at 4.7-17 to 4.7-19).

e. Impact 4.7-4b Implementation of the LRDP Amendment would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and result in flooding either on or off site.

FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR, the Board of Regents finds that while implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.7-5, would slightly alter site drainage patterns, it would not substantially alter site drainage patterns or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff and would not result in flooding either on or off site. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact (See Final EIR at 4.7-19).


f. Impact 4.7-5 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in runoff that exceeds the capacity of existing storm drain systems or provides substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that while implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.7-5, would slightly alter site drainage patterns, it would not result in runoff that exceeds the capacity of existing storm drain systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and this impact is less-than-significant. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. See Final EIR at 4.7-20 to 4.7-21). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practices & Procedures, would slightly alter site drainage patterns, it would not result in runoff that exceeds the capacity of existing storm drain systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and this impact is less-than-significant. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.7-20)).

8. Land Use and Planning

a. Impact 4.8-1 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in potential incompatibilities between campus development and adjacent land uses.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practices & Procedures 4.8-1(a) through 4.8-1(e), 4.1-1(a), and 4.1-2(d), will have a less-than significant impact from potential incompatibilities between campus development and adjacent land uses, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.8-13 to 4.8-17). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Practices & Procedures, will have a less-than significant impact from potential incompatibilities between campus development and adjacent land


uses, and therefore no mitigation is required (See Final EIR at 4.8-12 to 4.8-13)..

b. Impact 4.8-2 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; therefore, this impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.8-17 to 4.8-30). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2008 NHIP would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; therefore, this impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.8-17 to 4.8-30)

9. Noise

a. Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not expose new on-campus student residential uses to noise levels in excess of the State’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedures 4.9-1 and 4.9-7(a), would not expose new on-campus student residential uses to noise levels in excess of the State’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-17 to 4.9-18).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, would not expose new on-campus student residential uses to noise


levels in excess of the State’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-17).

b. Impact 4.9-2 The 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment construction activities could generate and expose persons on campus, including residents, to excessive groundborne vibration levels.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 The campus shall require by contract specifications that, as feasible, large bulldozers, large heavy trucks, and other similar equipment not be used within 43 feet of the occupied residence halls, within 34 feet of non-residential/non-sensitive buildings, and within 135 feet of buildings that house sensitive instrumentation or similar vibration sensitive equipment or activities. The work shall be done with medium-sized equipment or smaller within this distance.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.9-2, 4.9-7(a), and 4.9-7(d), will result in a potential for exposure to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 will reduce the impact to the extent feasible, but that it remains significant. The Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F. of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.9-19 to 4.9-20). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, has the potential to result in exposure to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels resulting from construction activities. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 will reduce the impact to the extent feasible, but that the impact remains significant and no additional project-level mitigation has been identified to further reduce this significant impact. Therefore this impact remains significant and the Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F. of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.9-18 to 4.9-19).

c. Impact 4.9-3 Construction activities associated with the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not generate and expose persons off campus to excessive groundborne vibration levels from heavy construction trucks.


LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not generate and expose persons off campus to excessive groundborne vibration levels from heavy construction trucks; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-21). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not generate and expose persons off campus to excessive groundborne vibration levels from heavy construction trucks; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-21).

d. Impact 4.9-4 Operation (post-construction) of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not generate and expose persons on or off campus to excessive long-term groundborne vibration levels.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not generate and expose persons on or off campus to excessive groundborne vibration; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-22). 2008 NHIP Finding: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not generate and expose persons on or off campus to excessive groundborne vibration; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-22).

e. Impact 4.9-5 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not cause a substantial permanent on- or off-campus increase in ambient roadway noise levels in the project vicinity.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.13-1(c) and 4.13-1(d), would not cause a substantial permanent on- or off-campus increase in ambient roadway noise levels in the project vicinity, and therefore finds this impact to be less-than-significant and no mitigation is required (See Final EIR at 4.9-22 to 4.9-25).


2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practices Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not cause a substantial permanent on- or off-campus increase in ambient roadway noise levels in the project vicinity, and therefore is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-22).

f. Impact 4.9-6 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could add new stationary sources of noise, but would not cause a substantial permanent on- or off-campus increase in ambient roadway noise levels.

LRDP AMEMDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedures 4.9-6(a) and 4.9-6(b), would not cause a substantial permanent on- or off-campus increase in new stationary source noise levels in the project vicinity, and therefore the impact is less-than-significant no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-25 to 4.9-26).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not cause a substantial permanent on- or off-campus increase in ambient roadway noise levels in the project vicinity, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-25 to 4.9-26).

g. Impact 4.9-7 Construction of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at on campus locations.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.9-7 A solid noise barrier that would break the line of sight between the construction site and a sensitive use area would reduce construction noise by at least 5 dBA. Therefore, when detailed construction plans are complete, the campus shall review the locations of sensitive receptor areas in relation to the construction site. If it is determined that a 12 foot high barrier would break the line of sight between an 11-foot high noise source and adjacent sensitive use areas, a temporary barrier shall be erected. The barrier shall be solid


from the ground to the top, with no openings, and shall have a weight of at least 3 pounds per square foot, such as plywood that is ½-inch thick. LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.9-7(a) through 4.9-7(d), would not reduce impacts related to temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at on-campus locations less-than-significant levels. The Board of Regents further find that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.9-7 will reduce the impact to the extent feasible, but that it remains significant. Therefore the Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F. of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.9-27 to 4.9-28).

2008 NHIP Finding: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures would result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at on campus locations. The Board of Regents further find that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.9-7 is infeasible due to the existing topographical changes within the sites. Therefore this impact remains significant. The Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F. of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.9-26)

h. Impact 4.9-8 Construction activities associated with the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at off-campus locations.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.9-7(a) through 4.9-8(d) and 4.9-8 and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-7 will reduce the potential for substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at on-campus locations; however, this impact remains significant and no feasible mitigation is available. The Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.G. of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.9-28 to 4.9-29) 2008 NHIP Finding: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which


incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures and will reduce the potential for substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at off-campus locations resulting from construction of the 2008 NHIP but that the impact remains significant. The Board of Regents further finds that, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. this impact remains significant. The Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F. of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.9-28)

i. Impact 4.9-9 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to special events.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to special events; thus, this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. See Final EIR at 4.9-29 to 4.9-30).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to special events; thus, this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required See Final EIR at 4.9-29).

j. Impact 4.9-10 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not expose additional students, faculty, and visitors within the UCLA campus to excessive noise levels generated by helicopter operations.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not expose additional students, faculty, and visitors within the UCLA campus to excessive noise levels generated by helicopter operations; thus this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-30 to 4.9-31).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, 4.9-1, would not expose additional students, faculty, and visitors within the UCLA campus to excessive noise levels generated by


helicopter operations, and therefore the impact is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.9-30).

10. Population, Employment, and Housing

a. Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.10-7 to 4.10-9). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2008 NHIP would not result in substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.10-6 to 4.10-7).

11. Public Services

a. Impact 4.11-1 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could increase the demand for fire protection services, but would not require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate the increased demand and maintain acceptable response times and fire flows.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.11.1, could increase the demand for fire protection services, but would not require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate the increased demand and maintain acceptable response times and fire flows, and therefore no mitigation is required (See Final EIR at 4.11-4 to 4.11-5).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, could increase the


demand for fire protection services, but would not require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate the increased demand and maintain acceptable response times and fire flows, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.11-3 to 4.11-4).

b. Impact 4.11-2 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could increase the demand for police services, but would not require new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios for police protection services.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.11-2(a) and 4.11-2(b), could increase the demand for police services, but would not require new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios for police protection services, and therefore no mitigation is required (See Final EIR at 4.11-11 to 4.11-12). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, could increase the demand for police services, but would not require new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios for police protection services, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.11-10 to 4.11-11).

c. Impact 4.11-3 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not require new or physically altered facilities to accommodate additional students in LAUSD schools.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the proposed Project would not require new or physically altered facilities to accommodate additional students in LAUSD schools; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.11-15 to 4.11-17). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not require new or physically altered facilities to accommodate additional students in LAUSD schools; this impact is less-than-


significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.11-15).

12. Recreation

a. Impact 4.12-1 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would increase the campus population but would not result in the increased use of parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedures 4.12-1(a) and 4.12-1(b), would not result in the increased use of parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.12-5 to 4.12-6). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, would not result in the increased use of parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.12-4 to 4.12-5).

b. Impact 4.12-2 The 2008 NHIP would include a fitness center in the Sprout South residential structure. Impacts resulting from construction of this facility are addressed in the following sections: 4.2, Air Quality, 4.9, Noise, and 4.13, Transportation/Traffic.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would include a fitness center in the Sprout South residential structure. Impacts conclusions and findings resulting from construction of this facility are addressed in the following sections: 4.2, Air Quality, 4.9, Noise, and 4.13, Transportation/Traffic. (See Final EIR at 4.12-7).

13. Traffic, Circulation, and Parking

a. Impact 4.13-1a Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP would not generate additional vehicular trips and would not result in a


substantial degradation in intersection or freeway mainline levels of service.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice, & Procedures 4.13-19(c) and 4.13-1(d), as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not generate additional vehicular trips and would have no impact on the degradation of intersection or freeway mainline levels of service. No mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-34 to 4.13-35).

b. Impact 4.13-1b Implementation of the LRDP Amendment would result in additional vehicular trips which would result in a substantial degradation in intersection levels of service.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedures 4.13-1(d) will not reduce any existing impacts related to additional vehicle trips to a less-than-significant level and no feasible mitigation is available. Therefore this impact remains significant and the Board of Regents finds this impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F. of these Findings. Impacts to the freeway mainline segments would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-35 to 4.13-50).

c. Impact 4.13-2 Construction of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would result in the generation of construction-related vehicle trips, which could impact traffic conditions along roadway segments and at individual intersections.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.13-2, will reduce impacts that result in the generation of construction-related vehicle trips, which could impact traffic conditions along roadway segments and at individual intersections, but that this impact remains significant and no feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, the Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.13-51 to 4.13-52).

2008 NHIP Finding: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which


incorporates applicable Program, Practice & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, will reduce impacts that result in the generation of construction-related vehicle trips, which could impact traffic conditions along roadway segments and at individual intersections, but that this impact remains significant and no additional feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, the Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. (See Final EIR at 4.13-50 to 4.13-51).

d. Impact 4.13-3a Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP would not result in additional vehicular traffic volumes, and would not exceed established service levels on roadways designated by the Los Angeles Congestion Management Program. This has no impact.

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures 4.13-1(a) through 4.13(d), as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in additional vehicular traffic volumes, and would not exceed established service levels on roadways designated by the Los Angeles Congestion Management Program; thus, no impact would result and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-52).

e. Impact 4.13-3b Implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would exceed established service levels on roadways designated by the Los Angeles Congestion Management Program. Service levels on CMP freeway facilities would not be exceeded.

FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.13-3(a) through 4.13-1(d) will reduce impacts from the proposed Project related to service levels on roadways designated by the Los Angeles Congestion Management Program but that these impacts will remain significant no feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Therefore, the Board of Regents finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.F of these Findings. The Board of Regents also finds that service levels on CMP freeway facilities would not be exceeded and is therefore less than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-53 to 4.13-55).

f. Impact 4.13-4 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not substantially increase vehicular hazards


due to design features or incompatible uses during operation (long-term).

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not substantially increase vehicular hazards due to design features or incompatible uses during operation (long-term) and is less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-55 to 4.13-56). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not substantially increase vehicular hazards due to design features or incompatible uses during operation (long-term) and is less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-55).

g. Impact 4.13-5 The 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not substantially increase vehicular hazards due to closure of traffic lanes or roadway segments during construction activities

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.13-5, would not substantially increase vehicular hazards due to closure of traffic lanes or roadway segments. The Board of Regents therefore find this impact to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.(See Final EIR at 4.13-56 to 4.13-57). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not substantially increase vehicular hazards due to closure of traffic lanes or roadway segments. The Board of Regents further finds this impact to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-56).

h. Impact 4.13-6 The 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not substantially increase pedestrian hazards due to closure of sidewalks or paths.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.13-6,


would not substantially increase pedestrian hazards due to closure of sidewalks or path, and is therefore less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-57 to 4.13-58). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, would not substantially increase pedestrian hazards due to closure of sidewalks or path, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-57).

i. Impact 4.13-7 Operation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in inadequate emergency access. This impact is less than significant.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002LRDP, as amended, would not result in inadequate emergency access; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required.(See Final EIR at 4.13-58 to 4.13-59). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not result in inadequate emergency access; this impact is less-than-significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-58).

j. Impact 4.13-8 the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in inadequate emergency access. This impact is less than significant.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the construction activity related to the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.13-8, would not result in inadequate emergency access, and therefore is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-59). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the construction activities associated with the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in inadequate emergency access, and therefore is less-than-significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-59).


k. Impact 4.13-9 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in inadequate parking capacity on campus.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in inadequate parking capacity on campus, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-60 to 4.13-61). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not result in inadequate parking on campus and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-59 to 4.13-60).

l. Impact 4.13-10 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in inadequate parking capacity off campus.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not result in inadequate parking capacity off campus, and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-61 to 4.13-63). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not result in inadequate parking off campus and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-61 to 4.13-63).

m. Impact 4.13-11 The 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could result in the temporary elimination of on-campus parking spaces and would require additional temporary parking for construction workers. This impact is potentially significant.

LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.13-11 To the extent that construction worker parking demand exceeds historical levels or available supply, off-site construction worker parking shall be provided with shuttle service to the remote parking location.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that although the 2002 LRDP, as amended, could result in the temporary


elimination of on-campus parking spaces. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.13-11 will reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.13-63 to 4.13-64). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not result in the temporary elimination of on-campus parking spaces and would not require additional temporary parking for construction workers. The Board of Regents further finds that implementation of LRDP Mitigation Measure 4.13-11 will further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (See Final EIR at 4.13-63).

n. Impact 4.13-12 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Programs, Practice & Procedures 4.13-1(c) and 4.13-1(d) will reduce any conflicts between the development of the proposed Project and any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation to a less-than significant level. No mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-64 to 4.13-66). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Programs, Policies & Procedures will not result in any conflicts between the development of the 2008 NHIP and any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The Board of Regents further finds this impact to be less-than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.13-64).

14. Utilities

a. Impact 4.14-1 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not require the construction of new water facilities.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not require the construction of new water facilities and no impact will occur.


(See Final EIR at 4.14-7). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not require the construction of new water facilities and no impact will occur. (See Final EIR at 4.14-6).

b. Impact 4.14-2 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would generate an additional demand for water, but would not require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources or result in the need for new or expanded entitlements.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.14-2(a) through 4.14-2(g) and 4-15.1, would not require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources or result in the need for new or expanded entitlements, and therefore this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.14-8 to 4.14-9).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, would not require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources or result in the need for new or expanded entitlements, and therefore this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required (See Final EIR at 4.14-7 to 4.14-8).

c. Impact 4.14-3 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not generate solid waste that exceeds the permitted capacity of landfills serving the campus.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.14-3 and 4.15-1, would not generate solid waste that exceeds the permitted capacity of landfills serving the campus, and therefore this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.14-15 to 4.14-16). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not generate solid


waste that exceeds the permitted capacity of landfills serving the campus, and therefore this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.14-12 to 4.14-15).

d. Impact 4.14-4 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.14-3 and 4.15-1, would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Board of Regents therefore finds no impacts related to solid waste disposal. (See Final EIR at 4.14-16). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporates applicable LRDP Program, Practice & Procedures, would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and therefore has no impact associated with solid waste disposal. (See Final EIR at 4.14-16).

e. Impact 4.14-5 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would increase the amount of wastewater generated on campus, but would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems beyond lines to connect to existing facilities.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.14-5, would increase the amount of wastewater generated on campus, but would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems beyond lines to connect to existing facilities, and therefore will not result in a wastewater impact. (See Final EIR at 4.14-20 to 4.14-22). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would increase the amount of wastewater generated on campus, but would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems beyond lines to connect to existing facilities, and therefore will result in no impact. (See Final EIR at 4.14-19 to 4.14-20).


f. Impact 4.14-6 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not increase wastewater generation such that treatment facilities would be inadequate to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not increase wastewater generation such that treatment facilities would be inadequate to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments and therefore this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.14-22 to 4.14-23). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not increase wastewater generation such that treatment facilities would be inadequate to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments and therefore this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. See Final EIR at 4.14-22).

g. Impact 4.14-7 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would increase the demand for electricity, but would not require the construction of new or expanded electric facilities beyond lines to connect to existing facilities.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the demand for electricity, but would not require the construction of new or expanded electric facilities beyond lines to connect to existing facilities, therefore, there are no applicable levels of significance for this impact. (See Final EIR at 4.14-28 to 4.14-29). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would increase the demand for electricity, but would not require the construction of new or expanded electric facilities beyond lines to connect to existing facilities, therefore, there are no applicable levels of significance for this impact. (See Final EIR at 4.14-27 to 4.14-28).


h. Impact 4.14-8 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment could increase the demand for natural gas but would not require the construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities beyond lines to connect to existing facilities.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002 LRDP, as amended, could increase the demand for natural gas but would not require the construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities beyond lines to connect to existing facilities, therefore, no level of significance is applicable for this impact. (See Final EIR at 4.14-30to 4.14-31).

2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP could increase the demand for natural gas but would not require the construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities beyond lines to connect to existing facilities, therefore, no level of significance is applicable for this impact.. (See Final EIR at 4.14-30 to 4.14-31).

i. Impact 4.14-9 Implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy by UCLA.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the 2002 LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.14-9 and 4.15-1, would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy by UCLA, and this impact is less than significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.14-30 to 4.14-31). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy by UCLA, and this impact is less than significant and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.14-30 to 4.14-31).

j. Impact 4.15-1 Implementation of the proposed 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment would not impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32.

LRDP AMENDMENT FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2002


LRDP, as amended, which includes Program, Practice & Procedure 4.15-1, would not impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32 and therefore no mitigation is required.(See Final EIR at 4.15-25 to 4.15-37). 2008 NHIP FINDING: Based on the analysis presented in the Final EIR the Board of Regents finds that the 2008 NHIP, which incorporated LRDP Program, Practice & Procedure, as required by the 2002 LRDP, as amended, would not impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32 and therefore no mitigation is required. (See Final EIR at 4.15-25 to 4.15-37)

15. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts would result from implementation of the 2008 NHIP and LRDP Amendment (the “Project”) in combination with the development of related projects in the area and projected regional growth. As analyzed in the Final EIR, most of the contributions of the Project to potential cumulative impacts are less than considerable and/or not significant. With respect to issue areas where this is the case, the Final EIR explains why the contribution of the Project is less than significant, and the Board of Regents hereby adopts and incorporates by reference this analysis in the Final EIR. The impact issue areas in which the contribution of the Project to potential cumulative impacts is not significant are Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities.

FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that, based upon the analysis in the Final EIR which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference, the contribution of the Project to cumulative impacts in the issue areas of Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities will be less than cumulatively considerable and/or the cumulative impact is less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is required; however, the Board of Regents finds that implementation of the project-specific Mitigation Measures and Programs & Procedures set forth in the Final EIR and in these Findings will further reduce potential cumulative impacts.


The impact areas identified in the Final EIR for which there is a significant and unavoidable contribution of the proposed Project to significant and adverse cumulative impacts are the following: • Exceedance of SCAQMD standards for NOx from construction

emissions that could contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

• Daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx from the Project that

could contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

• Cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for

which the region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards during construction and operation of the Project.

• Exposure of persons on campus, including residents, to excessive

groundborne vibration from construction activities.

• Substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at off-campus locations from construction activities.

• Additional vehicular trips which would result in a substantial

degradation in intersection levels of service.

• Generation of construction-related vehicle trips that could impact traffic conditions along roadway segments and individual intersections.

• Exceedance of established service levels on roadways designated

by the Los Angeles CMP

FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that although the contribution of the Project to significant cumulative impacts will be mitigated to the extent feasible by the project-specific Mitigation Measures and Programs & Procedures set forth in the Final EIR and in these Findings, the Project will result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts associated with air quality during construction and operation, noise and groundborne vibration during construction, vehicle traffic during construction and operation. The Board of Regents hereby finds the significant and unavoidable contributions of the Project to significant and adverse cumulative impacts to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in Section II.G of these Findings.


D. Other CEQA Considerations

1. Growth Inducing Impacts CEQA Guidelines §15126 requires consideration of the potential growth inducing impact of proposed projects, including the ways in which “the proposed project could foster economic and population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment….and the characteristic of some projects which may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.” Implementation of the proposed Project will not result in growth inducing impacts, as the proposed Project will not remove an impediment to growth, will not result in the urbanization of land in a remote location (i.e., “leapfrog development”), will not induce substantial economic and population growth in the region, and will not result in the construction of significant additional non-student housing. This impact is less than significant.

FINDING: The Board of Regents hereby finds that the proposed Project site is already developed and is located in a highly urbanized setting, and implementation of the proposed Project will not result in a substantial extension of infrastructure, and would not open up undeveloped areas to new development. Therefore, the Board of Regents hereby finds that the growth inducing impacts are less than significant and therefore no mitigation is required.

2. Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects CEQA Guideline §15126.2(c) indicates that the “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a project may be irreversible since a large commitment of resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely.” Implementation of the proposed Project will not result in significant irreversible environmental impacts, as the Project will not represent a significant change in the use of non-renewable resources, result in irreversible damage to the environment, or result in a wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy or other resources. This impact is less than significant.


FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that construction and operation of the proposed Project would necessarily consume certain limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable natural and energy resources. These resources are similar to those currently utilized by the existing campus, and the consumption of resources proposed with respect to the Project is less than significant when compared to existing local and regional consumption levels. As indicated in the Final EIR, the potential for irreversible environmental damage from an accident associated with the proposed Project is less than significant, in light of existing and ongoing hazardous materials handling practices. Finally, the University has instituted and will continue efficient energy use and conservation practices, as described in the Final EIR. On this basis, the Board of Regents hereby finds that the proposed Project will not result in significant irreversible environmental changes and that therefore no mitigation is necessary.

E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Public Resources Code §21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines §15091(d) require the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the Board of Regents requires the University to monitor mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate significant impacts, as well as those mitigation measures designed to reduce environmental impacts which are less than significant. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes all of the Mitigation Measures and Programs & Procedures identified in the Final EIR and has been designed to ensure compliance during implementation of the proposed Project. The Board of Regents hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto and incorporated herein. (1) The Board of Regents finds that the impacts of the proposed

Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Board of Regents adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project that accompanies the Final EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation for conditions within the jurisdiction of the University.


Implementation of the Mitigation Measures specified in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be accomplished through administrative controls over proposed Project planning and implementation, and monitoring and enforcement of these measures will be accomplished through verification in periodic Mitigation Monitoring Reports and periodic inspection by appropriate University personnel.

(2) The Regents finds that Programs, Practices & Procedures that are

part of the proposed LRDP Amendment and incorporated, as applicable, into the 2008 NHIP and identified in the Final EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will minimize or eliminate the potential for certain environmental impacts, as indicated in the Final EIR. Implementation of the Programs, Practices & Procedures specified in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be accomplished through incorporation into future projects and UCLA actions implementing the 2002 LRDP, as amended.

F. Alternatives

The Draft EIR evaluated a reasonable range of potential alternatives to the Project. In compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the alternatives analysis also included an analysis of a No Project Alternative and discusses the environmentally superior alternative. The analysis examined the feasibility of each alternative, the environmental impacts of each alternative, and the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives identified in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. The Board of Regents certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR and the administrative record, and finds that all the alternatives are infeasible or undesirable in comparison to the proposed Project for the reasons set forth below.

1. Project Objectives The Board of Regents finds that the project objectives for the proposed Project are as described in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR. These specific project objectives are as follows:

1. Provide approximately 1,525 undergraduate beds in on-campus

housing to address current and anticipated demand and housing guarantees for new, entering first year and transfer students, in order to meet projected demand identified in, and the


undergraduate housing objectives of, consistent with the goals of the Student Housing Master Plan 2007–2017.

2. Continue the transformation of UCLA from a commuter to residential campus, thereby improving the quality of student life and academic experience and reducing the number of students who commute to campus.

3. Continue the development of on-campus housing in the Northwest zone to maintain a supportive and cohesive student community that is well integrated with all aspects of campus life.

4. Provide sufficient support space (dining, meeting, assembly, and study rooms) to accommodate the proposed new undergraduate housing beds and to enhance meeting facility accommodations for the campus as a whole.

5. Provide additional recreational opportunities to support the anticipated increase in the student resident population.

6. Provide new undergraduate housing within the Northwest zone to take advantage of programmatic synergies with the existing undergraduate housing community, recreation, dining, and support services.

7. Provide undergraduate housing facilities that are similar (in size, configuration, and program operational efficiency) to existing housing facilities while maintaining the spatial development, massing and density of the Northwest campus zone to the extent feasible.

8. Provide new undergraduate housing facilities that are designed to optimize security, safety, accessibility and convenience for student residents.

9. Improve pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation in the Northwest zone proximate to the proposed NHIP and strengthen the pedestrian linkage with Bruin Walk.

10. Plan, design, and implement the proposed Project 2008 NHIP within the practical constraints of available funding sources, including the need to maintain affordable housing fees.

11. Plan, design, and implement the proposed Project 2008 NHIP in a manner consistent with the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices and the Climate Action Plan required thereunder.

12. Meet the foregoing objectives to provide additional on-campus undergraduate student housing (550,000 gsf), while reserving the campus-wide remaining new development allocation of 1.32 million gsf previously approved under the 2002 LRDP to address the needs of the academic, research and community service mission of UCLA, for a maximum development of 1.87 million gsf of additional building space by 2013.


13. Carry forward the academic, physical and operational objectives identified in the 2002 LRDP, except as modified by Project Objective 12 (previous), above.

2. Project Alternatives Alternative A – No Project Alternative/Continued Development under the 2002 LRDP

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR evaluates Alternative 1, the “No-Project Alternative,” which compares the impacts of approving the Project with the impacts of not approving it. Alternative A analyzes the existing environmental conditions (as described more fully in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR), along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

Alternative A contemplates that the proposed 2008 NHIP would not be constructed and that no amendment to the 2002 LRDP would be considered. It assumes, however, that the campus would proceed with the same level of development contemplated and previously approved under the existing 2002 LRDP, together with related pre-existing project approvals and current infrastructure. Accordingly, this alternative assumes continuation of the aggregate development level, vehicle trip limits, and parking limits, established under the 2002 LRDP. Taking into account current baseline conditions and infrastructure, under the 2002 LRDP approximately 1.32 million gsf remains for new development allocated among the eight campus land use zones. Therefore, the square footage development analyzed under this Alternative would be the approximately 1.32 million gsf remaining allocation under the 2002 LRDP. The current parking limit of 25,169 spaces and vehicle trip limit of 139,500 trips would also be maintained.

Relationship to Project Objectives

Alternative A would allow previously approved remaining development allocation under the 2002 LRDP to proceed, and thus would meet the 2002 LRDP Objectives incorporated into the Project Objectives for this EIR. Alternative A would provide no new on-campus undergraduate housing or related services beyond the 2002 LRDP; therefore, it would not satisfy the essential Project Objectives concerning provision of 1,525 additional undergraduate beds on-campus. There is 104,000 gsf of development allocation remaining in the Northwest zone under the 2002 LRDP; however, this remaining allocation has previously been


identified for library, and child care, and recreational uses. Additionally, it is not expected that this remaining allocation would be used for undergraduate housing as it would not allow for an undergraduate student housing project of be a sufficient size to realize economies of scale to keep housing fees affordable in building this type of use.

This alternative would fail to meet the following Project Objectives:

1. Provide approximately 1,525 undergraduate beds in on-campus housing to address current and anticipated demand and housing guarantees for new, entering first year and transfer students, in order to meet projected demand identified in, and the undergraduate housing objectives of, the Student Housing Master Plan 2007–2017. 2. Continue the transformation of UCLA from a commuter to residential campus, thereby improving the quality of student life and academic experience and reducing the number of students who commute to campus. 3. Continue the development of on-campus housing in the Northwest zone to maintain a supportive and cohesive student community that is well integrated with all aspects of campus life. 4. Provide sufficient support space (dining, meeting, assembly, and study rooms) to accommodate the proposed new undergraduate housing beds and to enhance meeting facility accommodations for the campus as a whole. 5. Provide additional recreational opportunities to support the anticipated increase in the student resident population. 6. Provide new undergraduate housing within the Northwest zone to take advantage of programmatic synergies with the existing undergraduate housing community, recreation, dining, and support services. 7. Provide new undergraduate housing facilities that are designed to optimize security, safety, accessibility and convenience for student residents. 9. Improve pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation in the Northwest zone proximate to the proposed NHIP and strengthen the pedestrian linkage with Bruin Walk. 12. Meet the foregoing objectives to provide additional on-campus undergraduate student housing, while reserving the campus-wide remaining new development allocation of 1.32 million gsf previously approved under the 2002 LRDP to address the needs of the academic, research and community service mission of UCLA, for a maximum development of 1.87 million gsf of additional building space by 2013. 13. Carry forward the academic, physical and operational objectives identified in the 2002 LRDP, except as modified by the above Project Objective.


In sum, this alternative fails to meet the majority of Project Objectives, and in any event fails to meet the Project Objectives as well as the proposed Project.

Air quality, noise and traffic impacts resulting from construction under the No Project Alternative would be slightly less than under the Project, because a single project the size of the 2008 NHIP would not be constructed under this alternative. However, the No Project Alternative would not substantially reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality from construction which would occur under both the No Project Alternative and the proposed Project. Impacts from construction noise would be slightly less under the No Project Alternative, due to a lesser amount of construction near existing residential structures, but would remain significant and unavoidable under both scenarios. The No Project Alternative would result in slightly higher impacts on operational traffic impacts than the proposed Project, because in comparison to the proposed Project, the 2008 NHIP would have a net reduction in traffic (approximately 378 trips), but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at specific intersections. Impacts from construction vehicles would be slightly less under the No Project Alternative than the proposed Project, because a single project the size of the 2008 NHIP would not be constructed under this alternative. However, this reduction is not substantial, and impacts from construction vehicles would remain significant and unavoidable under both scenarios.

FINDING: Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3) The Board of Regents finds that the No Project Alternative is inferior to the proposed Project because it does not eliminate or reduce any of the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to below a level of significance. Moreover, this Alternative cannot attain the University’s objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project, and would result in a substantial negative impact on the University’s ability to further its on-campus housing, academic, research and public services missions, as indicated above.

Alternative 2 –Alternative Location Under this alternative, the proposed 2008 NHIP would be built, in its entirety, on surface parking Lot 36 (Lot 36) in the Southwest zone of the campus. This alternative would include a proposed amendment to the 2002 LRDP to provide an additional 550,000 gsf to accommodate the 2008 NHIP in that zone of the campus. As under the proposed Project, under this alternative the remaining development allocation under the


2002 LRDP of 1.32 million gsf would continue to be implemented. Therefore, when combined with previously-approved development under the 2002 LRDP, the total square footage of new potential development that could occur on the campus is the same as for the proposed Project, or approximately 1.87 million gsf.

Relationship to Project Objectives Under Alternative B, the proposed 2008 NHIP would be built on Lot 36. This alternative would meet several key Project Objectives, including the Project Objective to provide additional undergraduate housing on campus. Moreover, similar to the proposed Project, this alternative would amend the 2002 LRDP to provide an additional 550,000 gsf of future development to accommodate both the proposed 2008 NHIP and thereby retain the previously approved remaining development allocation under the existing 2002 LRDP for other academic, research and community service uses. As a result, this alternative would meet the Project Objective to accommodate additional undergraduate student housing under the 2002 LRDP, as amended, add the housing project to the long range plan without taking away development potential previously approved under the 2002 LRDP for other academic, research and community service uses. Nonetheless, this alternative would not meet several important Project Objectives met by the proposed Project. Notably, Lot 36 is located in the Southwest zone of the campus, away from the other undergraduate housing and support facilities. It thus would not meet the Project Objective related to taking advantage of programmatic synergies with other undergraduate facilities and programs in the Northwest zone, or the Project Objective to build the undergraduate housing in the Northwest zone and improve access and circulation in that zone. This alternative also would not provide the same level of cost efficiency as the proposed Project. The subterranean parking structure required to replace the existing surface parking spaces would add significantly to the cost of the new housing project compared to that of the proposed Project. This additional cost in turn would significantly increase the housing fees making them potentially less affordable compared with the proposed Project for each student. As a result, this alternative would fail to meet the following Project Objectives as well as the proposed Project:

3. Continue the development of on-campus housing in the Northwest zone to maintain a supportive and cohesive student community that is well integrated with all aspects of campus life. 6. Provide new undergraduate housing within the Northwest zone to take advantage of programmatic synergies with the existing


undergraduate housing community, recreation, dining, and support services. 7. Provide new undergraduate housing facilities that are designed to optimize security, safety, accessibility and convenience for student residents. 9. Improve pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation in the Northwest zone proximate to the proposed NHIP and strengthen the pedestrian linkage with Bruin Walk. 11. Plan, design, and implement the proposed 2008 NHIP within the practical constraints of available funding sources, including the need to maintain affordable housing fees.

In contrast, the proposed Project meets all of the Project Objectives, including those listed above that are not met under Alternative B. Alternative B thus would not meet many of the Project Objectives met by the proposed Project, and overall would not satisfy the Project Objectives as well as the proposed Project. Air quality, noise and traffic impacts resulting from construction under the Alternative B would be similar as under the Project, because a single project the size of the 2008 NHIP. Alternative B would not substantially reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and noise from construction which would occur under both Alternative B and the proposed Project. Alternative B would result in slightly higher impacts (i.e., longer–term) on construction-related traffic impacts than the proposed Project, because of the development of subterranean parking, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable at specific intersections for both the proposed Project and this alternative.

FINDING: Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3) The Board of Regents finds that the Alternative Location Alternative is inferior to the proposed Project because it does not eliminate or reduce any of the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, noise, or traffic to below a level of significance. In addition, the Alternative Location Alternative results in a significant and unavoidable impact to land use and planning. Moreover, this Alternative cannot attain the University’s objectives to the same extent as the Project, and would result in a substantial negative impact on the University’s ability to further its on-campus housing goals and land use and planning objectives, as indicated above.

Alternative C – Reduced Footprint


Because of the limited land available in the Northwest zone for additional student housing, the Reduced Footprint Alternative examines the potential development of the 2008 NHIP on only two of the three sites considered for the proposed Project. That is, this alternative assumes that the 1,525 beds of undergraduate student housing, the associated faculty-in-residence apartments, and the dining, fitness, multipurpose rooms and housing maintenance functions (totaling approximately 550,000 gsf) would be accommodated in two high-rise buildings on the sites for the proposed Sproul West and Sproul Complex/South buildings (i.e., Sproul sites). As with the proposed Project, this alternative would include a proposed amendment to the 2002 LRDP to provide an additional 550,000 gsf to accommodate the 2008 NHIP in the Northwest zone of the campus, while continuing to implement the remaining development allocation under the 2002 LRDP of approximately 1.32 million gsf, for a total of approximately 1.87 million gsf of future development. This alternative would provide 1,525 beds of undergraduate student housing and associated support facilities in the Northwest zone of campus within the proposed 2008 NHIP Sproul sites, by other undergraduate housing and facilities, and thus achieves the same synergies with these existing undergraduate facilities as the proposed Project. In addition, as with the proposed Project, this alternative would include a proposed amendment to the 2002 LRDP to provide an additional 550,000 gsf to accommodate the proposed 2008 NHIP in the Northwest zone. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would satisfy the Project Objective to accommodate additional undergraduate student housing under the 2002 LRDP, as amended, without utilizing development potential previously approved under the 2002 LRDP for other academic, research, and community service uses. Despite these similarities to the proposed Project, Alternative C would not meet other Project Objectives that are met by the proposed Project. To fit the entire new housing project on the Sproul sites alone, the project would have to be reconfigured into two high-rise towers that would be unique to the Northwest zone. These high-rise towers would conflict with the Project Objective to:

7. Provide undergraduate housing facilities that are similar (in size, configuration, and program operational efficiency) to existing housing facilities while maintaining the spatial development, massing and density of the Northwest campus zone to the extent feasible.

Further, the costs of building and operating the two high-rise towers under this alternative would be greater than those associated with the


proposed Project reducing the affordability of this housing for the prospective student residents. This alternative would fail to meet the cost efficiency Project Objective below as well as the proposed Project:

11. Plan, design, and implement the proposed 2008 NHIP within the practical constraints of available funding sources, including the need to maintain affordable housing fees. (Objective No. 10)

Overall, then, Alternative C fails to meet Project Objectives as well as the proposed Project. Air quality, noise and traffic impacts resulting from construction and operation under the Alternative C would be similar as under the Project. Alternative C would not substantially reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality from construction which would occur under both Alternative C and the proposed Project. Alternative C would result in slightly reduced construction-related noise impacts off-campus than the proposed Project, specifically in the reduction of off-campus vibration impacts by not constructing on the Upper and Lower De Neve sites. However, construction-related traffic impacts would be greater under this alternative and would remain significant and unavoidable at specific intersections for both the proposed Project and this alternative.

FINDING: Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3) The Board of Regents finds that the Reduced Footprint Alternative is inferior to the proposed Project because, while it reduces off-campus groundborne vibration, it increases construction-related traffic impacts and results in significant and unavoidable land use and planning impacts. Moreover, this Alternative cannot attain the University’s objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project, and would result in a substantial negative impact on the University’s ability to further its on-campus housing and land use planning goals, as indicated above.

Alternative D – Reduced Development Alternative

This alternative involves provision of the same 2008 NHIP as the proposed Project without including the proposed Amendment to the 2002 LRDP to add 550,000 gsf of new development allocation to the Northwest zone to accommodate the proposed undergraduate housing. Because there is insufficient remaining development allocation in the Northwest zone (i.e. approximately 104,000 gsf) to accommodate the proposed 2008 NHIP, under this alternative, an amendment to the 2002 LRDP to re-allocate (or transfer) development allocation from other campus zones to accommodate the 2008 NHIP in the Northwest zone would be considered. For analytical purposes, it is assumed that an


amendment to re-allocate remaining 2002 LRDP square footage development allocation from other campus zones to the Northwest zone would include the following: transfer of approximately 175,000 gsf from the Bridge zone and approximately 271,000 gsf from the Southwest zone. Taken together with the remaining existing development allocation in the Northwest zone of 104,000 gsf, these re-allocations (i.e. 175,000 from the Bridge zone and 271,000 gsf from the Southwest zone) would accommodate the 550,000 gsf development of the proposed 2008 NHIP in the Northwest zone. This alternative involves provision of the same 2008 NHIP as the proposed Project, and thus meets most Project Objectives associated with providing the proposed new housing. The concern, however, is that Alternative D reallocates development square footage previously approved under the 2002 LRDP in other zones, in order to accommodate the 2008 NHIP. Under this alternative, an amendment to the 2002 LRDP to re-allocate (or transfer) development allocation from other campus zones to accommodate the 2008 NHIP in the Northwest would be required. Consequently, this Alternative fails to meet the following important Project Objectives:

12. Meet the foregoing objectives to provide additional on-campus undergraduate student housing, while reserving the campus-wide remaining new development allocation of 1.32 million gsf previously approved under the 2002 LRDP to address the needs of the academic, research and community service mission of UCLA, for a maximum development of 1.87 million gsf of additional building space by 2013.

13 Carry forward the academic, physical and operational objectives identified in the 2002 LRDP, except as modified by the Project Objective above.

Alternative D thus fails to meet Project Objectives as well as the proposed Project. Air quality, noise and traffic impacts resulting from construction and operation under the Alternative D would be slightly reduced but similar as under the proposed Project. Alternative D would not substantially reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality from construction which would occur under both Alternative D and the proposed Project. Alternative D would result in slightly reduced impacts on construction-related noise impacts than the proposed Project, specifically in the reduction of off-campus vibration impacts. However, construction-related traffic impacts would remain significant and


unavoidable under this alternative as similar construction activities as the proposed Project would occur. FINDING: Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3) The Board of Regents finds that the Reduced Development Alternative is inferior to the proposed Project because impacts associated with construction air quality, noise, and construction/operational traffic impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Moreover, this Alternative cannot attain the University’s objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project and would result in a substantial negative impact on the University’s ability to further its on-campus housing goals, academic, research and public services missions, as indicated above.

Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Based on the comparative analysis provided above for each of the alternatives, the Reduced Development Alternative (Alternative D) is the environmentally superior alternative. The reduction in impacts is primarily related to the overall reduction in the amount of development that could occur on campus compared to the proposed project (reduction of 550,000 gsf since there would not be an amendment to the 2002 LRDP to increase the development allocation in the Northwest zone to accommodate the proposed 2008 NHIP). However, this alternative would not avoid any significant unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed Project related to air quality, traffic, and noise. Additionally, although the Reduced Development Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, as discussed above, this alternative would not meet key Project Objectives. The other build alternatives for the proposed 2008 NHIP (Alternative Site and Reduced Impact Footprint) would result in some impacts that are similar or reduced compared to the proposed 2008 NHIP; however, they would also result in increased impacts. Most notably, each of these alternatives would result in a new significant unavoidable land use impact that would not occur with the proposed Project related to land use compatibility. FINDING: The Board of Regents finds that the Reduced Development Alternative to the proposed Project is the


environmentally superior alternative because it would have either similar or reduced impacts as those identified for the proposed Project; however, significant and unavoidable impacts would remain, and the Reduced Development Alternative would not achieve key project objectives.

Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration In connection with the EIR scoping process, UCLA considered and rejected a number of alternative concepts as infeasible or for failure to meet key Project Objectives. One alternative concept that was considered and rejected as failing to meet key Project Objectives was off-campus siting of the proposed student housing and associated support services. In addition to requiring acquisition of off-campus land for this purpose, off-campus housing would not meet the key Project Objectives, including the essential Objective to provide on-campus undergraduate housing and associated support services to continue the development of on-campus housing in the Northwest zone to maintain a supportive and cohesive student community that is well integrated with all aspects of campus life. Off-campus housing would be physically separated from the core undergraduate housing support facilities in the Northwest zone and would not take advantage of programmatic synergies with existing on-campus undergraduate facilities and programs. The proposed 2008 NHIP is an infill development in an already highly developed area of the campus. The proposed 2008 NHIP infill sites (when used together) are largely made available for development by eliminating landscaped areas and demolishing existing buildings with less efficient land use intensity. In this regard, UCLA evaluated the potential to build a reduced density alternative consisting of fewer undergraduate student beds (e.g. 1,350 to 1,400) and determined that a reduced density alternative would fail to meet the key Project Objective to provide 1,525 beds thereby maximizing the number of commuter students that would become on-campus student residents and would not realize the same economies of scale as the proposed Project, thereby reducing the affordability of on-campus student housing. Under a reduced density alternative there would be significantly fewer students to share what would be close to the same cost as the full 1,525-bed 2008 NHIP. As a result, this alternative would be infeasible from a cost perspective. It also would fail to meet the important Project Objective that the housing project be planned, designed, and implemented “within the practical constraints of available funding sources, including the need to maintain affordable housing fees.” Due to the configuration needed for effective undergraduate student housing, a reduction to 1,350 – 1,400 beds would not result in substantive physical changes to the


proposed structures (i.e. footprint and massing) that would offer the opportunity to lessen any significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Commenters during the EIR scoping process proposed two other alternative on-campus locations for the 2008 NHIP: • The landscaped area and roadway south of Rieber Hall • Surface Parking Lot 13 that has recently been modified to provide

mini-basketball courts to replace those removed for the Spieker Aquatic Center project currently under construction.

UCLA has examined these two proposed locations and has determined that neither alternative location is feasible. The area below Rieber Hall is comprised of a small steeply sloped landscape area and the existing De Neve Drive roadway. To create a site large enough to construct a building equivalent to either of the proposed De Neve buildings would require relocation of De Neve Drive southward which would result in a hazardous curve and slope on the relocated roadway and the need to construct very high retaining walls with special shoring in order to maintain slope stability to support the relocated roadway. The additional cost would be prohibitive, and construction impacts much more extensive than with the proposed 2008 NHIP. Potential development of the 2008 NHIP, or components thereof, on Parking Lot 13/mini-basketball court site, east of the Saxon Residential Suites is infeasible because the area is too small to accommodate a building of a size equivalent to any or the residential buildings proposed under the 2008 NHIP. Because the Saxon Suites are wood shingled buildings, fire access requirements are more stringent. Locating a building on Parking Lot 13 would adversely impact required fire access to the Saxon Suites. The small size of Parking Lot 13 and the potentially adverse impact to required fire access to the Saxon Suites makes this proposed alternative location infeasible.

c. Alternatives Suggested by Comments on the Draft EIR.

In the comments on the Draft EIR, a few alternatives to the location and design of the 2008 NHIP were suggested by commenters. With respect to the alternatives that were proposed in the comments, and not further analyzed by the Final EIR, the responses to comments in the Final EIR explain why the proposed alternatives are infeasible. The Board of Regents hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the response to comments contained in the Final EIR as its grounds for rejecting further analysis or adoption of these proposed alternatives.


G. Statement of Overriding Considerations

1. Impacts That Remain Significant As discussed above, the Board of Regents has found that the following impacts of the proposed Project remain significant, either in whole or in part, after adoption and implementation of all the mitigation measures provided in the Final EIR:

a. Proposed 2008 NHIP

• Impact 4.2.2 – Regional construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD standards for NOx.

• Impact 4.2-4a – Short-term construction-related cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment (NOx).

• Impact 4.9-2 – Construction activities could generate and expose persons on campus, including residents, to excessive groundborne vibration levels.

• Impact 4.9-7 – Construction activities could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at on-campus locations.

• Impact 4.9-8 – Construction activities could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at off-campus locations.

• Impact 4.13-2 – Generation of construction-related vehicle trips, which could impact traffic conditions along roadway segments and at individual intersections.

b. Remaining Buildout of the 2002 LRDP as Amended:

• Impact 4.2.2 – Regional construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD standards for NOx.

• Impact 4.2-3b - Daily operational emissions of VOC and NOx that could contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

• Impact 4.2-4c – Short-term and long-term cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment (NOx).

• Impact 4.9-2 – Construction activities could generate and expose persons on campus, including residents, to excessive groundborne vibration levels.

• Impact 4.9-7 – Construction activities could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at on-campus locations.


• Impact 4.9-8 – Construction activities could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at off-campus locations.

• Impact 4.13-1b – Generation of additional vehicular trips, which would result in a substantial degradation in intersection levels of service.

• Impact 4.13-2 – Generation of construction-related vehicle trips, which could impact traffic conditions along roadway segments and at individual intersections.

• Impact 4.13-3b - Exceedance of established service levels at intersections designated by the Los Angeles Congestion Management Program.

2. Overriding Considerations In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Board of Regents has, in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project, balanced the economic, social, technological and other benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the significant adverse environmental effects that are not mitigated to less-than-significant levels, for the reasons set forth below. This statement of overriding considerations is based on the Board of Regents’ review of the Final EIR and other information in the administrative record, including but not limited to the proposed Project. The Board of Regents hereby finds that each of the reasons stated below constitutes a separate and independent basis of justification for the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and each is able to independently support the Statement of Overriding Considerations and override the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects. In addition, each reason is independently supported by substantial evidence contained in the administrative record. A. The proposed Project will provide approximately 550,000 square feet of housing facilities to provide on-campus accommodations for an additional 1,525 undergraduate students, improving the ability of the campus to attain the goals of the Student Housing Master Plan 2007-2017, to recruit and retain students of the highest quality, to enhance the sense of community on campus, to reduce the number of student commute trips to campus, and to reduce the number of students currently housed by triple-room accommodation in rooms designed for double-occupancy.

B. The proposed Project will advance California’s economic, social, and cultural development, which depends upon broad access to an


educational system that prepares all of the state’s inhabitants for responsible citizenship, and meaningful careers. C. The proposed Project will advance California’s recent adoption of legislation to advance sustainable practices, energy and natural resource conservation and climate protection practices by serving as an institutional and educational leader for the State in achieving reductions in energy and resource consumption, waste, vehicle miles traveled and associated global warming emissions as embodied in UCLA’s Climate Action Plan and other sustainability initiatives actively promoted on campus and in the surrounding community. D. The proposed Project supports the campus in achieving its academic goals, including achieving prominence in scholarship, educational leadership, and technological advancement by providing the very highest quality teaching and research, professional preparation and public service for the vital and diverse population the campus serves.

E. The proposed Project will allow the campus to recruit and retain a diverse faculty of the highest quality, remain competitive with the very best research universities in the nation in recruiting and enrolling excellent graduate and undergraduate students; create on the UCLA campus an intellectual milieu and shared ethic that fosters excellence and a sense of community; continue the diversification of all aspects of campus life; and facilitate the development and management of interdepartmental and interdisciplinary instruction and research. F. The proposed Project will allow for the development of approximately 1.87 million square feet of academic, research, administrative and residential facilities to remedy existing and future space shortages, correct deficiencies and technological obsolescence in existing facilities, accommodate planned program direction in instruction, research and public service functions, and provide capacity for future program requirements.

G. The proposed Project will constitute a significant economic benefit to the Los Angeles County area. UCLA has a significant economic impact on the area’s economy, since most of the campus’ operating and capital budgets are spent in the local area. The total economic impact of UCLA in Los Angeles County is much greater than the sum of the direct expenditures made by UCLA and its affiliated organizations and populations. Each dollar spent locally by UCLA cycles through the area economy, generating additional income and employment.

H. UCLA provides many direct services for both on-campus and off-campus users, including but not limited to: police protection and rescue


services; clinical, emergency and outpatient health and mental health services; library services; parks and recreation services; and other academic and support services. As the proposed Project is implemented, the level of these services will grow. I. UCLA provides many indirect community contributions in the form of education, artistic, and cultural enrichment to residents of Los Angeles County through such functions and events as extension courses, lectures, theater productions, art exhibits, sporting events, conferences and workshops. As the proposed Project is implemented and the UCLA campus further matures, the level of these indirect services can be expected to be enhanced. J. UCLA provides a stable source of employment for many Los Angeles County residents. This is particularly significant because of the quality and diversity of new jobs which are related to the implementation of the proposed Project. K. The increased economic activity resulting from campus growth is also expected to result in secondary growth in non-University business in the Los Angeles County area. Implementation of the proposed Project will also provide construction employment as individual building projects are developed. L. When compared to the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR (including the Reduced Density Alternative), the proposed Project provides the best available balance between maximizing attainment of the project objectives and minimizing significant environmental impacts.

M. When compared to the alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR (including the Environmentally Superior Alternative), the proposed Project would maintain affordable housing fees for students.

H. Administrative Record Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which The Regents bases their Findings and decisions contained herein. Most documents related to the Final EIR are located in the Capital Programs Office, located in the Capital Programs Building, 1060 Veteran Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095. Some documents included in the record of proceedings may also be located at other offices at the Los Angeles Campus (including on-campus libraries), at the University’s Office of the President, 1111 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94607, and/or at the offices of consultants retained by the University for this project. The custodian for the record of the


proceedings is the Vice Chancellor, Finance, Budget and Capital Programs, Los Angeles Campus.

III. Summary

1. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the administrative record, the Board of Regents has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant environmental effects of the Project identified in the Final EIR:

a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on the environment.

b. Those changes or alterations are wholly or partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other public agency.

c. Specific economic, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant environmental effects of the Project.

2. Based on the foregoing Findings and information contained in the record, it is hereby determined that:

a. All significant effects on the environment due to approval of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.

b. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section G, above.

IV. APPROVALS

The Board of Regents hereby takes the following actions: A. The Board of Regents has certified the Final EIR for the proposed Project in Section I, above.

B. The Board of Regents hereby adopts and incorporates into the Project all Mitigation Measures and Programs & Procedures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the University as discussed in the Findings, Sections II(C) & II(D), above.


C. The Board of Regents hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project attached hereto and discussed in the Findings, Section II(F), above. D. The Board of Regents hereby adopts these Findings in their entirety, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

E. Having certified the Final EIR, independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR, incorporated mitigation measures into the proposed Project, and adopted the Findings (including the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth therein), the Board of Regents hereby approves the 2008 Northwest Housing Infill Project and the amendments to the 2002 LRDP for the UCLA Campus as set forth in the Final EIR.

california environmental quality act findings in...

Documents