NOTICE OF IMPENDING DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ... · NOTICE OF IMPENDING DEVELOPMENT . UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA . PAULEY TRACK RENOVATION PROJECT . I. INTRODUCTION

1

NOTICE OF IMPENDING DEVELOPMENT

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA PAULEY TRACK RENOVATION PROJECT

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ................................................................................................ 3

II. Project description ................................................................................... 3

A. Project Objective ...............................................................................................................3 B. Project Background ...........................................................................................................3 C. Project Location and Setting ...........................................................................................5 D. Project Description ............................................................................................................7 E. Implementation and Project Schedule ...........................................................................8

III. Procedure .................................................................................................... 9

A. Environmental Review ......................................................................................................9

IV. Consistency with the UCSB Long Range Development Plan ...... 9

A. Public Access .....................................................................................................................9 B. Recreation ........................................................................................................................10 C. Marine Environment ........................................................................................................10 D. Land Resources ..............................................................................................................11 E. New Development ...........................................................................................................11 F. Consistency with 2010 LRDP Policies .........................................................................11

V. References ................................................................................................ 50

Table of Figures Figure 1. Location Map ..............................................................................................................4 Figure 2. Site Map ......................................................................................................................6 List of Attachments Attachment 1. Concept Design ................................................................... 51

Attachment 2. Stormwater Control Plan Sheets L1.1, L2.1, L4.1, L5.1, L6.1, L6.2, D1.1 .................................................................................................. 52

Attachment 3. Public Notice and List of Interested Parties ................ 53

Attachment 4. Notice of Exemption ........................................................... 54

2

Attachment 5. Approval Documentation .................................................. 55

Attachment 6. 2016 Winter and Breeding Raptor Survey .................... 56

Attachment 7. Preliminary Geological Investigation ............................. 57

3

NOTICE OF IMPENDING DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

PAULEY TRACK RENOVATION PROJECT

I. INTRODUCTION The University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) has prepared this Notice of Impending Development for the Pauley Track Renovation project (see Figure 1. Location Map), a proposal to renovate approximately 55,992 square feet of track surface with associated hardscape, utilities, surface drainage, new outdoor sports lighting and field event areas. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Objective The track surface is in poor condition and no longer used for competitive events. The field event areas are at the end of their service life and are outdated. The existing perimeter chain link fence is in poor condition. The renovation will bring the track and associated improvements into conformity with current competition standards. A new improved root barrier will protect the facility from root intrusion caused by the adjacent eucalyptus windrow located along the south side. The project would also add outdoor sports lighting to provide for increased recreation opportunities in the evenings. B. Project Background The track was part of the original build out of the campus in the late fifties. It served primarily as a location for physical education classes, recreation and a young track and field program. It was one of many state funded multi-purpose facilities anchored around the Rob Gym complex and assigned to the Department of Physical Education, which more recently became the Department of Exercise & Sports Studies. In its glory years the track was used as a training facility by world class decathletes under the leadership of longtime coach Sam Adams. The artificial track was built circa 1975 and by 1995 was worn out and tree roots had created bulges and cracks in its surface along the southern portion. The campus was no longer able to host track meets due to safety concerns, however the track was still used for practice. In 2001 the track team obtained sufficient student signatures to fund a project to repair the track surface via a student fee referendum. The fee passed and patch repairs were completed, the bulges were cut out and the surface restored, and the track was shortened from 440 yards to 400 meters. The new surface applied was anticipated to last about 6-7 years. However, within the first year the surface began to deteriorate in many areas. The surface was repaired under warranty a couple of years later. The repaired surface was short lived and the surface again began to deteriorate within a year. Two attempts to remedy the deteriorating condition of the

Aº

!

ProjectLocation

PauleyTrack

MusicArts

22Parking

CNSI

PhelpsHall

DavidsonLibrary

ESSB Chemistry

BroidaHall

NorthHall

UniversityCenter-I Santa

RosaHall

KerrHall

Engineering2

SantaCruzHall

AnacapaHall

StudentHealth 10

Parking

MesaParking

Structure

RobertsonGymnasium

Geology

NobleHall

GirvetzHall

CenterExpansion

SouthHall

FM

EllisonHall

KohnHall

SanClementeStructure

CampusEventCenter

CheadleHall

RecreationCenter

EngineeringI

LifeScience

Humanitiesand

SocialSciences

OrtegaCommons

EngineeringScience

Psychology

CreativeStudies

SnidecorHall

SanMiguel

Hall

MarineSciences

PhysicalScience

North

OldGymnasium

Women'sCenter

IntercollegiateAthletics

HarderStadium

OSEB

StudentResourceBuilding

SanNicolas

Hall

BuchananHall

CampbellHall

StudentServices

PavilionGym

WestgateApts

SanRafael

Hall

Theaterand

Dance

FMStores

AlumniHouse

Switchingstation

FacultyClub

Pharmacology

MaterialsResearch

Lab

BiologicalScience

2

Labs

Fire&

PoliceStationFM

Shop

ErgoLab

ResidenceHall

MarineScience

ResearchBuilding

PhysicalSciences

South

SycamoreHallStudent

Affairs&

AdministrationServices

HarderStadiumOffices

UniversityCenter

-III

UniversityHouse

WoodhouseLab

TheArbor

MirandaHouse

ZacaHouse

BaseballFacilities

TutorialCenter

EnvironmentalHealth

&Safety

SanClemente

RinconHouse

CondorHouse

IVFoot

Patrol

ChicanoStudies

StudentCommunications

Building

GaviotaHouse

CienegaHouse

FilterBuilding

EmbarcaderoHall

TecoloteHouse

JalamaHouse

Aviary

StorageBunker

CentralGarage

PumpStation

Shed

PsychologyAnnex

LockerRooms

PsychologyLab

Arts&

Lectures

ParkingServices

12.47KvSwitchgear

MetalSculpture

Studio

SeaWaterPumpHouse

BikeShop

CommunicationsServices

StorageBins

LagoonPumpHouse

TransServ

TicketBooth

SoftballDugOut

Cent.GarageStorage

Office of CampusPlanning & Design

Path:

G:\P

lannin

g\PJs

\06-10

9.EIC

\Temp

lates

\Bas

eMap

_Main

_031

915_

8x11

.mxd

D

ate: 1

/22/20

16

I0 800400 FeetPauley Track RenovationLocation Map

Figure 1. Location Map 4

5

running surface were made. Over time, mature tree roots along the southern portion of the site have sought water from the grass infield of the track. The root intrusion has continued to compromise the integrity of the running surface. The track has become unsuitable for competitive activity. The track is typically utilized for academic classes, informal recreation, by the triathlon team, and most heavily by the track and field team. The campus held its last home track and field meet in 2010. The bulges created by tree roots had returned and meets were no longer able to be held on the uneven and damaged surface. In spring 2013, the students passed the Student Recreation Facilities Enhancement fee to fund the proposed project with the goal of renovating the track & field facility and to increase recreation opportunities into the evenings by lighting the facility. The project will include rebuilding and resurfacing Pauley Track, replacement of the field event areas, installation of fencing, improvements to the infield including drainage, installation of an upgraded root barrier along the southern perimeter of the track and other minor enhancements to improve the facility. C. Project Location and Setting The proposed project is located on the west side Main Campus, north of the Student Health Center and El Colegio Road, east of the intersection of El Colegio Road and Stadium Road, south of the Lacrosse Field and bike path, west of the Rob Gym basketball and tennis courts, and immediately northwest of the Intercollegiate Athletics Building (see Figure 2, Site Map). The project site is accessed by pedestrians and service vehicles from the north via gates in the chain link fencing. Pedestrian access also exists at the Intercollegiate Athletics building on the southern end of the track. The track is located in a developed area with maintained turf and a eucalyptus windrow along the south. There is also some ornamental landscaping and some small non-native trees/shrubs around the perimeter of the site. The site is a level area that lies approximately 54 feet above mean sea level. The perimeter of the track and associated facilities is enclosed by a chain link fence. The existing track and facilities cover approximately 193,100 square feet (4.4 acres) of land. The track is approximately 600 feet long and 280 feet wide with a pole vault runway, shot put area, hammer and discus cage, long jump and triple jump runways and pits, and javelin and high jump runways. The bike path along the north of the site accommodates commuter traffic to the Main Campus from the west, including the campus housing sites of San Clemente Village, Storke Family Apartments, Santa Ynez Apartments, Santa Catalina (and San Joaquin beginning in fall 2016), Sierra Madre Apartments, West Campus Family Apartments, West Campus Faculty Housing, and Ocean Walk Faculty Housing. The recreation fields and courts to the north are actively used by the community and athletics programs. The Rob Field synthetic turf fields and basketball courts have outdoor sports lighting and are open for evening use. The Intercollegiate Athletics Building immediately to the southwest is actively used by the

Pauley Track

StudentHealth

Building

IntercollegiateAthleticsBuilding

TennisCourts

Bike Path

El Colegio Road

Stadium Road

ParkingLot 30

LacrosseField

Ocean Road

ParkingLot 27

RobGym

RobFields 1-3Artificial

Turf

Educationand

SocialSciencesBuildings

ParkingLot 25

Parkingfor

TropicanaDel Norte

Apartments

San ClementeParking

Structure 50

BikeParking

BikeParking

RobField 4Artificial

Turf

PedestrianGate

PedestrianGate

EquipmentShed

BikeParking

Pauley Track Renovation ProjectOffice of CampusPlanning & Design

Doc

umen

t Pat

h: G

:\Pla

nnin

g\P

Js\0

6-13

4 P

aule

y Tr

ack

Ren

o\-1

0.M

isc\

GIS

\Site

Map

_8_5

x11.

mxd

D

ate:

9/2

8/20

16

0 200100 FeetSite Map

Figure 2. Site Map 6

7

Athletics Department and a ticket office (for athletic events) is open to the community during the day. The Education and Social Sciences Buildings contain classrooms and faculty/staff offices which are used during the day and early evening hours. The Student Health Building is open to students during the daytime hours. The 2010 LRDP land use designation for the site is Recreation. The total proposed project improvement area is approximately 4.4 acres. The proposed project site has been disturbed by previous grading operations for the existing asphalt, concrete and facilities. D. Project Description The proposed project would be to reconstruct the track surface and field event areas and bring them into conformity with competition standards (see Attachment 1 Concept Design). Compartment boxes for timing equipment etc. will be installed and a concrete walkway and fence will be constructed around the exterior of the track. A concrete curb will be installed between the exterior track lane and perimeter walkway. A new LED outdoor sports lighting system will be installed. Areas of the existing grass infield area will be restored with topsoil and seeding. Drainage will be improved with the installation of slot drains and swales, and irrigation adjusted to conform to the new configuration. A new improved root barrier with an herbicide will also be installed to protect the facility from root intrusion from an adjacent eucalyptus windrow along the southern perimeter after construction is completed. There will be no trees removed. A new 400 meter, 8-lane, rubberized running track surface would be installed on an asphaltic concrete base in the same location and with the same orientation as the existing track. The track area would be expanded approximately 8 feet to the north and 6 feet to the west to accommodate expansion of the running lanes widths from 42 inches to 48 inches. The track base would be composed of the existing pulverized asphalt, crushed rock surfacing top course, and asphaltic cement pavement installed in two lifts. The rubberized surfacing system would meet all IAAF performance requirements and would be a minimum of 13 mm in depth including a polyurethane binder. All rubberized surfacing edges would be terminated on the adjacent concrete edges. The track would be surrounded by a new chain link fence around the full perimeter. Drainage: The amount of impervious surface associated with the track and field event surface is increasing from the current condition by 43,515 square feet (approximately 1 acre). The drainage concept includes a perforated pipe with a gravel trench that extends around the inside edge of the track (see Attachment 2 Stormwater Control Plan Sheets L1.1, L2.1, L4.1, L5.1, L6.1, L6.2, and D1.1). The drainage system will collect surface water from the track and field event areas and will have a very flat slope so that it functions as an infiltration trench with an overflow into the existing discharge location at the north end (see Attachment 2 Stormwater Control Plan Sheets L1.1, L2.1, L4.1, L5.1, L6.1, L6.2, and D1.1). A Construction Pollution Prevention Plan, Post Development Runoff Plan and Water Quality and Hydrology Plan will be submitted when the project has reached full design development.

8

Lighting: The proposed project would include a Class IV Recreation Lighting level system - providing an average of 25 foot candles around the entire running track. A Class IV system is designed to serve a facility with no spectator capacity. Track competitions will be held during daylight hours and night-time use would not include spectator events. The system would include fully shielded and full cutoff LED fixtures that minimize glare and spill light. The fixtures would have correlated color temperatures (CCT) of 5,700K and color rendering indices (CRI) between 56 and 82. The lighting fixtures would be “dark sky” compliant. The fixtures would be mounted on a total of 6 galvanized steel poles with an approximate mounting height of 80 feet above finish grade (see Attachment 1 Concept Design). The track would be used for meets and practice during the weekdays and on weekends. On average, daily users could total 400 spread throughout the day. This total includes student athletes, class members, and recreational users from the community. Approximately 130 student athletes (Intercollegiate Athletics) will use the track daily, but these athletes would also likely be spread into groups of 20-30 at different times of the day. Most of the student-athletes ride bikes and park them in the bike racks at Robertson Gymnasium. Approximately 250 “drop-in” recreational users could be expected over the course of an average day. There would be up to 500 people (including spectators) occupying the facility over a 2-3 day period during Intercollegiate Athletics competitions (approximately six events per year). The Big West Conference Tournament will be held at the track once every 8-9 years, with a maximum crowd in the range of 400-500 people, including athletes, staff, and spectators. The presence of the competition attendees would likely be distributed at sub-events throughout the 2-3 days of the track meets and conferences. Parking for spectators would be available in Parking Lots 25, 27 and 30, as well as other nearby lots when needed. A parking plan will be detailed and confirmed by the Transportation and Parking Services Department in advance of each meet – similar to parking arrangements for nearby baseball, soccer, and tennis events. E. Implementation and Project Schedule The proposed renovation is anticipated to commence in the beginning of 2017 and take approximately five months to complete. The staging areas will be almost entirely contained within the footprint of the existing facilities and a temporary construction trailer will be placed at the north end. Construction fencing will be placed around the site during renovation. The existing running track surface would be removed and hauled offsite for disposal. There would be no grading except to smooth the dirt surface and prepare it for the new track. Existing asphalt pavement would be pulverized and re-graded as base material for the new track paving. A trench would be excavated around the outside southern perimeter of the track limits to construct a root barrier. Roots that extend below the area of proposed track paving shall be excavated and removed. The new track surface and field event areas would be installed. The existing infield area will be restored with top soil placement and seeding around the perimeter and where existing field event areas have been removed (see Attachment 1 Concept Design).

9

III. PROCEDURE A public notice regarding the submittal of this Notice of Impending Development has been mailed to local governments, community groups, and interested parties pursuant to California Code of Regulation Section 13549-51. The public notice and a list of interested parties is included in Attachment 3. Section 30606 of the Coastal Act and Article 14, Section 13547 through Section 13550 of the California Code of Regulations govern the Coastal Commission’s review of subsequent development where there is a certified LRDP. Section 13549(B) requires the Executive Director or their designee to review the Notice of Impending Development within ten days of receipt and determine whether it provides sufficient information to determine if the proposed development is consistent with the certified LRDP. The Notice is deemed filed when all necessary supporting information has been received. Within thirty days of filing the Notice of Impending Development, the Executive Director shall report to the Commission and make a recommendation regarding the consistency of the proposed development with the certified LRDP. After a public hearing, by a majority of its members present, the Commission shall determine whether the development is consistent with the certified LRDP and whether conditions are required to bring it into conformance with the LRDP. No construction shall commence until after the Commission votes to render the proposed development consistent with the certified LRDP.

A. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt under CEQA in accordance with Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities. None of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply. A Notice Of Exemption was prepared for the proposed project (see NOE in Attachment 4). The proposed project was approved by the University of California Santa Barbara Chancellor in May 2016 (see attached approval documentation in Attachment 5). IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE UCSB LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed project is consistent with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the 2010 LRDP (UCSB 2008) and also consistent with the 2010 LRDP land use designation of Recreation (UCSB 2015). The renovation will not change the 2010 LRDP land use designation. There are no proposed building structures and height limits would not apply. State-of-the-art “dark sky” compatible lights would be installed in accordance with LRDP Policy ESH-15 and the Outdoor Lighting Retrofit and Replacement Program (OLRRP). A. Public Access The LRDP implements Coastal Act §30210 through §30214 by requiring that new development not generate traffic that exceeds roadway capacity of existing coastal access routes on Campus and therefore restrict or impede coastal access to or along the coast. The LRDP also requires adequate public access parking be provided for new development.

10

The project does not propose new development which generates new traffic or parking demand. Roadway capacities would not be exceeded with the temporary addition of traffic associated with the renovation. Traffic associated with the renovation would not cause long-term restriction or impedance of existing coastal access routes, nor would additional public parking be needed. Temporary construction fencing would be placed around the renovation area. Coastal access would not be affected by the project. On average, a total of 400 users will be expected to use the track facility throughout a typical day; and approximately 500 people will attend track meets which may occur up to six times per year. The daily users will typically be students, faculty, or staff; and they will likely arrive from other parts of the campus by foot or bicycle. The bicyclists will likely use the parking and lockers at Robertson Gymnasium (approximately 340 spaces) and the Parking at Robertson Artificial Turf Field (approximately 230 spaces). The combined 570 bicycle spaces will accommodate daily bicycle parking needs of the facility. People attending track meets and arriving by motor vehicle would park in Lots 25, 27 or 30. The 2016 winter parking surveys for commuter, residential, coastal access, other reserved spaces, and timed parking indicated that parking supply (over the entire campus) was approximately 53 percent occupied. The estimated number of track users will vary due to larger events/track meets. The 2016 winter parking surveys indicated that Parking Lot 30 (closest to the track) had a maximum occupancy of 63%. The remaining nearby (within a 10 minute walk) lots (16, 18, 22, 25, 27, 29, 31 and 38) averaged between 17 and 74% occupancy. Neither the estimated 400 daily users nor the estimated 500 event attendees would require additional public parking for motor vehicles. B. Recreation In accordance with Coastal Act §30220 through §30224, the project would not impact the use of oceanfront land for recreation and would not include any development that would impact water-oriented recreational uses. Campus beaches would remain open to the public. The proposed project would not limit recreational use of oceanfront land. C. Marine Environment

Coastal Act §30230 provides for protection and enhancement of marine resources. The project does not propose changes to or the use of marine resources. Coastal Act §30231 provides for the maintenance of biological productivity and water quality through wastewater treatment, control of runoff/surface flow, and protection of riparian buffers/areas. The project will increase the impervious surface area of the site by approximately one acre. The proposed storm drain system will provide mitigation for the increased surface flow associated with the increased surface area. Coastal Act §30232 requires protection against spillage of hazardous substances. The project will include appropriate best management practices associated with the renovation and operations to prevent sedimentation and runoff from the site. A Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan will be prepared and implemented during construction.

11

D. Land Resources Coastal Act §30240(a) requires protection of ESHAs from disruption by adjacent development. The proposed renovation is not adjacent to ESHA. There would be no impact ESHA. The proposed new outdoor sports lighting will meet full cutoff specifications in compliance with the LRDP Appendix 4 Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Retrofit Program. The project does not propose new development adjacent to ESHA in accordance with Coastal Act §30240(b). Coastal Act §30244 requires reasonable mitigation measures for development projects which would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources. The site has been previously developed, and the project would not disturb any previously undisturbed ground. The services of a Registered Professional Archaeologist and Native American representative will be obtained to monitor ground disturbance activities that penetrate below 7 inches. In the unlikely event archeological resources are discovered, all applicable LRDP policies would be followed. The proposed renovation of Pauley Track was considered in the 2008 LRDP EIR. E. New Development The LRDP contains land use designations, development guidelines, and policies to ensure the location of new development will not adversely affect coastal resources, as specified in § 30250 and 30251. The project would renovate approximately 4.4 acres of recreational area and there would be no expansion of the site use. The proposed new outdoor sports lighting will meet full cutoff specifications in compliance with the LRDP Appendix 4 Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Retrofit Program. The 2010 LRDP allows for the potential new development of 3,600,000 gross square feet (GSF). There are no buildings proposed as part of the project. There will be no addition or subtraction to the running total of GSF allowed for the 2010 LRDP. In accordance with Coastal Act § 30253(c), the project will provide continual dust control of the site at all times and construction equipment emission reduction measures. These controls and measures will be consistent with requirements imposed by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. F. Consistency with 2010 LRDP Policies Table 2 provides an analysis of the project's consistency with the policies of the 2010 LRDP. The following Policies were not relevant to this project: Policies LU-02 through LU-03, TRANS-15, TRANS-18, REC-04 (no housing component in project); LU-10 through LU-12, LU14 through LU-35, SCEN-08 through SCEN-11, GEO-03 through GEO-11, PA-01 through PA-07, PA-10 through PA-11, PA-13, TRANS-08, TRANS-11 through TRANS-12, TRANS-14, TRANS-21 through TRANS-27, REC-03,REC-05, OS-01 through OS-10, ESH-01 through ESH-14, ESH-16 through ESH-20, ESH-22 through ESH-26, ESH-29, ESH-31 through ESH-51, MAR-02 through MAR-10, WQ-14 through WQ-17, HAZ-7, FIL-1 through FIL-3, and SH-1 though SH-7 (specific to other sites); SCEN-02 (no

12

bluff top development in project), and SCEN-04 through SCEN-05 (no buildings proposed in project).

13

2010 LRDP Policy

Final Policies-with suggested modifications November 13, 2014 CCC Hearing Last updated: SRC_06-23-2016

INTRODUCTORY POLICIES

Policy INTRO-1 - The policies of the Coastal Act (PRC Sections 30210 through 30263) are adopted herein as policies with full force and effect as part of the certified Long Range Development Plan.

Consistent.

Policy INTRO-2 - If conflicts occur between requirements of the LRDP, the policies most protective of coastal resources shall con-trol. Protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and public access shall take priority over other development stand-ards and where there is any conflict between general development standards and ESH and/or public access protection, the standards that are most protective of ESHA and public access shall have precedence.

Consistent. There are no conflicts.

Policy INTRO-3 - If there is a conflict between a provision of the LRDP and any other Campus Plan or Program that is not certified as part of the LRDP, and it is not possible for the development to comply with both the LRDP and such other plan, the LRDP shall take precedence and the development shall not be approved un-less it complies with the LRDP provisions.

Consistent. There are no conflicts.

Policy INTRO-4 - Where the LRDP references applicable provi-sions of State law (e.g., the California Government Code or Public Resources Code) the reference shall be construed to be the appli-cable State law provisions effective on the date of the 2014 LRDP certification. Where provisions of the State law are amended in such a way that they are inconsistent with the LRDP, such changes require an LRDP amendment.

Not applicable. No changes in regulations or the LRDP have oc-curred.

Policy INTRO-5 - MOUs, or other agreements with other entities, shall not replace or supersede any policy or provision of the certi-fied LRDP, and may require future LRDP amendments to secure implementation.

Consistent. No other agreements have replaced or superseded poli-cies or provisions of the LRDP.

14

2010 LRDP Policy Final Policies-with suggested modifications

November 13, 2014 CCC Hearing Last updated: SRC_06-23-2016

LAND USE – COASTAL ACT SECTION 30250

GENERAL POLICIES

Policy LU-01 - A maximum of 3.6 million gross square feet (GSF) of additional academic and support uses may be developed on the UCSB campus where designated on Figure D.3, Potential Develop-ment Areas, and provided that it is consistent with all other policies and provisions of the LRDP. The University shall maintain a run-ning account of the changes to Academic and Support (A&S) de-velopment on campus. The A&S build-out documentation shall summarize the total A&S build-out in gross square feet and ac-count for new A&S structural area, additions to existing A&S struc-tures, demolition of existing A&S structural area, and any other changes that affect the GSF of A&S development. The A&S build-out documentation shall include a running annual total and shall provide the current build-out in relation to the Academic and Sup-port “baseline.” The baseline shall be the total build-out of A&S campus-wide as of the date of certification of the 2010 LRDP. The A&S build-out documentation shall be submitted with each NOID or Exemption Request that adds or removes A&S build-out. Any new structures on lands designated as Recreation or Open Space shall also count toward the A&S development cap. Solar en-ergy systems, such as solar panels, on rooftops shall not be counted toward the A&S development cap.

Consistent. Project is within Main Campus Potential Development Area and lands designated as Recreation. The project would not add or remove A&S buildout.

Policy LU-2.1 UCSB shall by July 1st each year provide to the Ex-ecutive Director and post to the UCSB website a report on its en-rollment numbers for on-campus/three-quarter average student population. In this report the Campus will track the growth of the campus from July 2015 to the current reporting year including the percentage change in population over the prior year. If the student population reaches 24,500 (as defined above) prior to November 2025, the campus will include in the report, the measures that the University will take to conform enrollment to the 25,000 student tar-get in November 2025.

Not applicable.

Policy LU-04 – The individual development site build-out parame-ters as identified in the policies (including LU-02 and LU-03) and

Consistent. The site is not located in or near ESHA. Biological re-sources would not be impacted and there are no known archeological

15



provisions of this LRDP represent the maximum build-out potential. Prior to site design, the University shall confirm the environmental conditions through updated environmental resource surveys, in-cluding biological resources (e.g., wetlands, ESHAs, Monarch But-terflies, etc.) completed within 1 year prior to submitting the Notice of Impending Development; traffic, parking and coastal access constraints analyses; and archaeological resource evaluations, as applicable, to establish up-to-date resource constraints for prepa-ration of the Notice of Impending Development. The updated con-straints may further limit the development footprint and/or the maxi-mum build-out potential or design parameters to ensure con-sistency with the LRDP.

resources on the site. Winter and Breeding Raptor surveys were con-ducted in 2016 around the nearby Eucalyptus trees (see Attachment 6 2016 Winter and Breeding Raptor Survey). No nesting raptors were observed and the site was not determined to be raptor habitat.. Though the site is not a known archeological site, archaeological mon-itors will be onsite at the digging sites for tree root barrier, sports light-ing pole foundations, and drainage system during construction.

Policy LU-05 - Development shall be planned to fit the topogra-phy, soils, geology, hydrology, and other conditions existing on the site so that grading is kept to a minimum. Campus development shall protect, and where feasible restore, natural hydrologic fea-tures such as natural stream corridors, groundwater recharge ar-eas, floodplains, vernal pools, and wetlands.

Consistent. The renovation would match the existing topography and there would be minimal grading. The soils and geology will remain the same. There are no natural hydrologic features on site. A drainage system will retain water runoff on site.

Policy LU-06 - New campus development shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to accommodate it and where it will not have significant ad-verse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal re-sources.

Consistent. The project is not “new development” and is a renovation project, Project site work would be within the existing developed foot-print.

Policy LU-07 – Trailers, storage units, and temporary manufac-tured structures shall be located or relocated pursuant to a Com-mission-approved NOID. Where the structure serves an A&S func-tion, it shall be accounted for under the A&S development cap as described in Policy LU-01.

Not applicable. No new trailers, storage units, or temporary manufac-tured structures.

MAIN CAMPUS POLICIES Policy LU-08 – Development at the Parking Lot 30 site shall be located within the approximately 3.5-acre potential development envelope designated as Academic and Support on Figure D.3 and shall be consistent with the following build-out provisions: a. Academic and support build-out on this site shall not exceed a maximum of 250,000 GSF. Academic and support build-out on this

Not applicable. There is no development proposed at Parking Lot 30.

16



site shall be counted toward the 3.6 million GSF campus-wide Aca-demic and Support development cap consistent with Policy LU-01. b. Surface Parking Lot 30 (comprised of 354 commuter spaces and 15 residential spaces) may be redeveloped into a parking structure of up to 2,000 parking spaces to serve the Facilities Man-agement development (Policy LU-10), Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics housing (Policy LU-27), and other nearby development subject to approval of a NOID. c. Development shall not exceed 70 feet in height as shown in Fig-ure D.4. Policy LU-09 – With the exception of the constructed drainage feature, the as-built expansion of Parking Lot 30 within 100 feet of wetland and/or oak woodland habitat shall be removed.

Not applicable. There is no development proposed at Parking Lot 30 and Pauley track is not within vicinity of this wetland or oak woodland.

Policy LU-13 – Development within the Main Campus Core Rec-reation Area site shall be located within the approximately 43-acre potential development envelope designated as Recreation on Figure D.3 and shall be consistent with the following build-out pro-visions: a. Recreation facilities serving organized sports and recreational programs are allowed in the Main Campus Core Recreation Area. Outdoor lighting of the recreational facilities shall be determined as allowed in Policy ESH-15. b. The lupine restoration area shall be avoided and protected. The remaining individual oak trees shall be protected and preserved. c. Development shall not exceed 35 feet in height along Mesa Road and 45 feet in the remainder of the area as shown in Figure D.4.

Consistent. The project is located within the Recreation development envelope.

a) The proposed outdoor sports lighting will comply with Policy ESH-15 and the certified LRDP Appendix 4 Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Retrofit Program.

b) Not applicable to the site. c) No new buildings are proposed on the project. No height limits

will be exceeded.

SCENIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES – 30251

GENERAL POLICIES

Policy SCEN-01 - New structures on the campus shall be in gen-eral conformance with the scale and character of surrounding de-velopment. Clustered developments and innovative designs are encouraged.

Consistent. No new building structures are proposed. The renovation will not change the scale and character of the existing use.

Policy SCEN-03 – New development shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts to the greatest extent feasible on

Consistent. The renovation will not alter scenic view corridors or im-pact scenic resources.

17



scenic resources, including places on, along, within, or visible from public viewing areas such as public parklands, public trails, beaches, and state waters that offer scenic vistas of mountains, coastline, beaches, and other unique natural features, as identified as view points, scenic routes, and trails on Figure F.4. The Univer-sity shall seek to enhance primary and secondary view corridors where feasible to the ocean and scenic coastal areas shown in Figure F.4 such as by the removal of temporary buildings. Policy SCEN-06 - All new development shall include landscaping which mitigates the development’s visual impacts. A landscape plan representing these landscape elements shall be submitted in support of the Notice of Impending Development.

Consistent. The renovation will not add new development with new visual impacts. No landscaping is proposed.

Policy SCEN-07 - For trees with significant scenic value, the first priority shall be to avoid tree removal where feasible. If tree re-moval cannot be avoided, the second priority shall be relocation of the tree. If the scenic tree cannot feasibly be retained in place, the tree removal shall be conducted and mitigated consistent with the Tree Trimming and Removal Program in Appendix 2. Where a scenic tree is located within ESHA or Open Space the tree trim-ming and removal shall be subject to Policy ESH-29.

Consistent. No trees will be removed.

SAFETY, STABILITY, POLLUTION, ENERGY CONSERVATION, VISITORS - 30253 through .13

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

Policy GEO-01 - New development proposals shall be supported by geotechnical and soil studies conducted by a California-li-censed geologist or geotechnical engineer, as appropriate, to de-termine technical requirements for adequate building foundation and infrastructure designs; such studies shall include an appropri-ate evaluation of seismic or liquefaction hazards that may affect the subject site. The results of such studies, and the recommenda-tions of the preparing professional, shall be submitted in support of the pertinent Notice of Impending Development.

Consistent. A preliminary geotechnical investigation is provided in At-tachment 7.

Policy GEO-02 - Building setbacks from an active fault trace shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet, or a greater distance if required by the California Building Code and California Geologic Survey standards in effect at the time of University design approval.

Consistent. There are no buildings proposed.

18



FLOODING AND TSUNAMIS

Policy GEO-12 - Maintain Tsunami-Ready compliance, or equiva-lent procedures to provide and document communication, readi-ness, and evacuation procedures for all campus-based popula-tions, including summer programs.

Not applicable to the project. The campus maintains tsunami ready procedures for the campus population.

SUSTAINABILITY AND RECYCLING

Policy SUST-01 -The University shall reduce transportation emis-sions associated with fleet vehicles by implementing the following measures: replacing vehicles with low or zero emission vehicles; right-sizing fleets (determining the appropriate fleet size, revising business practices to reduce need for travel); reducing fleet fuel consumption; reducing fleet vehicle miles traveled; and increasing use of fuels with lower GHG emissions. The University shall pur-chase the most efficient fleet vehicles with the goal of 95% of the campus light-duty fleet purchases using alternative fueled vehicles (AFV’s) (Biodiesel, Electricity, Ethanol, Hydrogen and Natural Gas as per DOE& CEC’s supported fuels) by 2016.

Consistent. The Transportation & Parking Services department con-tinues to increase efficiency and reduce transportation emissions as-sociated with fleet vehicles – including those vehicles that may be used by the Facilities Management grounds staff and Intercollegiate Athletics Program for Project’s operational phase.

Policy SUST-02 - The University shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of non-renewable resources by complying with the campus-wide sustainability programs.

A. All Notice of Impending Development submittals shall be supported by an evaluation of the project’s consistency with the campus-wide sustainability programs, including but not limited to measures pertaining to:

• Green Building; • Clean Energy; • Transportation; • Climate Protection; • Sustainable Operations; • Waste Reduction and Recycling; • Environmentally Preferable Purchasing; • Sustainable Foodservice; and • Water Conservation.

Consistent.The project complies with the following measures: • Green Building – there are no buildings proposed in the pro-

ject • Clean Energy – energy associated with operations will be

sourced from the University’s portfolio of clean energy supply • Transportation – The Transportation & Parking Services de-

partment continues to seek greenhouse gas reduction strate-gies associated with fleet vehicles that will potentially be used during project operations

• Climate Protection – The UCSB Office of Sustainability contin-ues to measure success of The University’s actions toward re-duction of greenhouse gases, including the sourcing of energy potentially used during project operations

19



• Sustainable Operations – The UCSB Office of Sustainability continues to make recommendations on sustainability initia-tives, including those which might potentially be part of project operations

• Waste Reduction and Recycling – The Physical Facilities De-partment and Associated Students Recycling program con-tinue to play an active role in campus waste management, in-cluding waste generated by project operations

• Environmentally Preferable Purchasing – The Procurement subcommittee of the Chancellor’s Campus Sustainability Committee continues to facilitate the acquisition of resources in an environmentally conscientious and socially responsible manner, including those purchases

• Sustainable Foodservice – The Sustainability Change Agent Food Team subcommittee of the Chancellor’s Campus Sus-tainability Committee continues to work with Housing & Resi-dential Dining Services, UCEN Dining Services, and UCSB researchers who study food and agriculture

• Water Conservation – The project irrigation system will be renovated and the water source will be reclaimed, rather than potable

Policy SUST-03- The University shall promote the use of vehicles with alternative fuel sources on campus by such means as: locat-ing infrastructure to support alternative vehicles (e.g., electrical ve-hicle charging stations), or providing incentives such as first-floor parking spaces and discounts on long-term parking passes. Elec-trical vehicle charging stations shall be provided in the necessary numbers and conveniently located in campus housing develop-ments as well as in the parking facilities on each campus to en-courage the use of such vehicles.

Consistent. The Transportation & Parking Services department con-tinues to support alternative vehicle infrastructure.

Policy SUST-04- The campus shall continue to reduce green-house gas emissions in accordance with the campus Climate Ac-tion Plan and shall continue to inventory and publicly report all

Consistent. The UCSB Office of Sustainability has drafted a Climate Action Plan which accounts for all on-site campus emissions (Scope 1

20



greenhouse gas emissions annually in accordance with the proto-col set forth by The Climate Registry.

emissions) and continues to report annual greenhouse gas emissions to the Climate Registry.

Policy SUST-05- The University shall reduce consumption of non-renewable energy by using a portfolio approach that includes a combination of energy efficiency projects, the incorporation of lo-cal renewable power measures for existing and new facilities, green power purchases from the electrical grid, and other energy measures with equivalent demonstrable effect on the environment and reduction in fossil fuel usage.

Consistent. UCSB Utility & Energy Services continues to pursue a variety of energy efficiency projects and other measures to reduce fossil fuel usage for on-site campus development.

Policy SUST-06- The University shall minimize energy use and reduce pollution through such methods as the use of solar power and other renewable energy systems, natural lighting, passive so-lar heating and cooling and other techniques to produce energy ef-ficient development, building management techniques such as smart metering and lighting/appliance management systems that limit waste, and use of light colored buildings and roofing materi-als.

Consistent. The University and UCSB Utility & Energy Services con-tinue to pursue energy efficient techniques in projects – including the incorporation of LED outdoor sports lighting (with schedule manage-ment systems) into the project.

Policy SUST-07- The campus shall continue to monitor energy usage and make available for public review an Annual Energy Re-port detailing purchased electricity and natural gas consumption, as well as onsite and offsite renewable energy generation.

Consistent. UCSB Utility & Energy Services continues to monitor en-ergy usage and report annual consumption for all on-site campus de-velopment via the UCSB Sustainability website.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE - 30253.14 - 16, 30254

WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Policy PS-01- In recognition of the need to conserve and manage its water resources to achieve the LRDP land use planning objec-tives, the University shall implement a water conservation program as follows: A. Water consumption in existing and new development shall be minimized by using the best available water-conserving plumbing fixtures. B. Landscaping practices shall minimize potable water use by: planting locally native plant species and/ or non-invasive, drought tolerant species; using reclaimed water for landscaping to the maximum extent feasible; designing efficient irrigation systems

Consistent. A. The existing irrigation systems will be tested and updated as

necessary. Reclaimed water sourcing will help conserve pota-ble water supplies.

B. No new landscaping is proposed. Existing turf will continue to be irrigated by reclaimed water.

C. The University will continue its existing public awareness cam-paign.

21



that use the minimum amount of water necessary for the applica-ble landscaping; and maintaining and managing irrigation systems to ensure continued water efficiency. C. The University shall maintain a public awareness campaign on campus and in campus residential facilities for saving water. All dormitory residents shall be required to receive annual training on water conservation. Policy PS-02- Future development provided for in the LRDP land use plan will only be authorized after the University demonstrates at the time of NOID submittal that adequate water supplies, water mains, reclaimed water distribution systems, water treatment facili-ties, sewer services, utility lines, parking lots and structures, road-ways and bicycle/pedestrian corridors, fire suppression facilities, and other essential infrastructure services will be available to sup-ply the existing and proposed development.

Consistent. Project does not propose new development. Existing use of reclaimed water supply is authorized.

Policy PS-03- For development that requires water supply, at the time of NOID submittal, the University shall provide, sufficient wa-ter conservation, efficiency, and supply strategies to factually sup-port a projection of adequate permanent future supplies for the life of the entire development. To minimize impacts to the long-term water supply, each new development shall offset the develop-ment’s anticipated potable water use in accordance with the fol-lowing hierarchy. Notwithstanding the availability of GWD water supplies, the following water conservation measures shall be im-plemented to the maximum extent feasible, except as required pursuant to Policy PS-07, prior reliance on GWD’s potable water supply: A. Maximum feasible incorporation into the proposed project plans of water conservation and efficiency measures, and reclaimed wa-ter use measures. B. Increased campus water conservation and efficiency measures, and increased campus reclaimed water use to reduce campus po-table consumption, such as for irrigation, use in toilets, and in in-dustrial applications. C. Further development of enhanced reclaimed water systems on campus to utilize reclaimed water for industrial applications such as cooling towers to reduce potable consumption.

Consistent. Project does not propose new development. The reno-vated track area will continue to use reclaimed water for turf irrigation.

22



D. New uses of reclaimed water on campus as technology and systems become available. PS-04- A project-specific water availability analysis shall be pro-vided for each proposed development that requires water input and shall be submitted with the Notice of Impending Development. At the time a new campus building is proposed, and before envi-ronmental review is complete, the University shall meet with GWD and ascertain that permanent potable water supplies of the quan-tity needed to serve the proposed development are available from the District as part of the water availability analysis. The water availability analysis shall include but not be limited to the following information: (1) a description of cumulative campus development (existing and approved); (2) cumulative water use (for existing and approved development), including use by University-owned facilities occupied or operated by third parties (such as food service or other vendors, affiliated or independent research programs and institutes, summer programs and camps using University-owned facilities, etc.) and outdoor rec-reational facilities, landscaping, habitat restoration sites (such as Ocean Meadows), open space and habitat management, and the Coal Oil Point Reserve; (3) an estimate of the remaining quantity of water supply available to the University within the University’s 945 AFY planning thresh-old (which, depending on development location, would be served by a portion of one of the University’s three existing allotments from Goleta Water District, including the 945 AFY available cam-pus wide, the 200 AFY available at North Campus, and the 66 AFY available at Devereux School) establishing the maximum amount of potable water needed to fully serve the 2010 LRDP build-out; (4) the estimated quantity of potable water necessary to serve the proposed development; (5) an analysis of year-to-year compliance with campus conserva-tion goals articulated in the 2013 Campus Water Action Plan ap-proved by the Regents of the University of California, and as up-dated from time to time;

Consistent. The track use does not require potable water input.

23



(6) a cumulative regional assessment of water supply and demand within the Goleta Water District’s (GWD) boundaries. This assess-ment shall include a narrative of any changes to GWD’s cumula-tive water supply and demand setting. Policy PS-05- The University shall participate in water use reduc-tions during declared water supply shortages within Goleta Water District (GWD) boundaries and/or other affected campus water service areas to the maximum extent feasible. For each formally declared water shortage Stage I-V, the campus will meet with the GWD and establish specific emergency water conservation bench-marks expressed as a percentage of the University’s regular pota-ble water use based on that assessment, the campus will further reduce potable water consumption to the maximum extent feasi-ble. Once implemented, the pertinent short-term water use reduc-tions shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible until the GWD reduces or lifts the pertinent water shortage declaration.

Consistent. The University will continue to apply water conservation and efficiency measures during the formally declared Stage III drought.

Policy PS-06- If the long-term water supplies relied on by the Uni-versity in planning the 2010 LRDP (i.e., the 945 AFY planning threshold) build-out are jeopardized and/or cannot be acquired and delivered from Goleta Water District (GWD), the University shall halt further water-consuming development under the LRDP unless the University secures the equivalent offsets by underwrit-ing measures to conserve existing potable water supplies within the customer base of GWD, or by underwriting new infrastructure construction to deliver reclaimed water to GWD customers pres-ently irrigating with potable water. For example, the University may, in cooperation with GWD, elect to meet a portion of, or all of, a proposed new campus building’s otherwise unmet water require-ments by: 1) underwriting the installation of additional reclaimed water infra-structure (such as treatment systems, pipelines and metering sys-tems) to deliver reclaimed water to existing agricultural water us-ers served by Goleta Water District, or 2) through the retrofitting of existing development within the Isla Vista/Goleta Water District service area by such measures as re-

Not applicable. The project would not use potable water.

24



placing appliances with certified low water and energy use appli-ances, and installing low flow showerheads and toilet fixtures. At the time of NOID submittal, if the University has selected such an option to ensure adequate potable water supplies for the subject development, the University shall provide to the satisfaction of the Executive Director: a) evidence of the certification by GWD of the equivalent potable water conservation and b) evidence of a bind-ing contract between the University and GWD to permanently se-cure and redirect the equivalent potable water supply for the Uni-versity’s benefit. Policy PS-07 – A. The University shall annually prepare and sub-mit to the Executive Director a report analyzing campus water sup-ply and demand including but not limited to information required in these water supply and demand policies which shall reflect cam-pus-wide demand information tabulated annually, expressed in acre-feet per year, and separated into potable and reclaimed wa-ter supply categories. The report shall include an estimate of the potable water necessary to serve the remaining building of the 2010 LRDP. The report shall also include the results of any short-term water use reductions implemented by the University during the previous year in response to water shortages affecting the Go-leta Water District, and GWD’s most recent projection of its water supply portfolio for the forthcoming year. The University shall make the report available to the public by posting the report on the University’s website, and shall reference the report available to the public by posting the report on the University’s website, and shall reference the report in any environmental review process for new development. B. The policies of the 2010 LRDP notwithstanding, if the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission determines that an extraordi-nary water supply shortage to GWD’s water supply exists based on: 1) the report provided by the University pursuant to Subparagraph A (above); or

Consistent. The project would not use potable water. The second an-nual report is being prepared to submit in the Fall of 2016.

25



2) a declaration, or similar official action, by the Governor, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the Goleta Water Dis-trict; Then any NOID submitted to the Commission thereafter shall demonstrate that the development will not result in a net increase of potable water demand over existing use levels at the time the NOID is submitted.

PUBLIC ACCESS & CIRCULATION – 30210 & 30221

PUBLIC ACCESS

Policy PA-08: The University shall maintain a publicly accessible, accurate, on-line map of campus pedestrian and bicycle routes, public transportation routes and bus stops, and public coastal ac-cess parking locations, including any applicable daily or seasonal restrictions. The subject map shall also be prominently posted at information kiosks and campus parking locations. The map shall identify ADA accessible coastal access parking and amenities.

Consistent. The online maps at www.ucsb.edu/maps-directions con-tain accurate depictions of transportation infrastructure surrounding the project site area.

Policy PA-09 - The University shall conspicuously post coastal access signage that identifies and directs visitors to all publicly available coastal access parking, beach access points, trails, and stairways. Within six months of certification of the 2010 LRDP, the University shall install coastal access signage at the entrances to campus and along key roadways on campus to direct coastal visi-tors to the designated coastal access parking on Main and West Campuses. At the same time, the University shall install signage within the parking lot(s) as necessary, to identify the dedicated coastal access spaces and specify the parking rules that apply to those spaces. At such time any future parking areas are built or assigned to accommodate dedicated coastal access parking spaces, the coastal access signage shall be installed concurrently with the provision of the spaces.

Consistent. Coastal Access signage has been posted at the West Entrance to Campus on El Colegio. The signage directs coastal visi-tors to coastal access parking along Ocean Road and in Parking Structure 22.

Policy PA-12 - Motor vehicle traffic generated by new develop-ment shall not restrict or impede public access to or along the coast by exceeding the roadway capacity of existing coastal ac-

Consistent. Students, faculty, and staff using the renovated track would travel to the site on foot or by bicycle. The project may generate a minimal amount of vehicular traffic during track meets due to incom-ing spectators and visiting teams.

http://www.ucsb.edu/maps-directions

26



cess routes on Campus. Should any proposed development signif-icantly impact the roadway capacity of existing coastal access routes on Campus, the University shall implement or pay its fair share of costs to the City of Goleta and/or County of Santa Bar-bara to implement improvements to roadways and intersections or other traffic control measures necessary to mitigate the impacts. CIRCULATION Policy TRANS-01 - A. The University will work with the Cities, County, SBCAG, SBMTD and other transit providers to provide a balanced trans-portation system on campus, offering vehicular, bicycle, pedes-trian, and transit mobility, including augmentation of external transit systems with University shuttle systems to increase capac-ity, efficiency, and use by the UCSB-affiliated population. The Uni-versity shall include in the plans and designs submitted in support of the requisite Notice of Impending Development for new campus development, intersection and roadway improvements necessary to offset the proportional impacts of the University’s LRDP build-out on roadway capacity. Roadway and intersection improvements shall not conflict with existing or planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities or degrade mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. The University shall maintain campus intersections at a minimum Level of Service D. B. If a proposed project causes an intersection to degrade to LOS E, measures shall be identified and implemented to restore opera-tions to LOS D or better conditions. Prior to intersection improve-ments, the University shall implement alternative transportation measures to reduce roadway demand such as the timing of “after hours” parking; additional bus and/or shuttle service; additional in-centives to faculty, staff, and students to utilize the available alter-native modes of transportation; or other similar measures.

Consistent. The project would not impact roadway capacities. The estimated peak users (including athletes, staff and spectators) during a meet would be between 400 and 500 people. Meets would be about 3 to 4 times per year and one occasion every eight or nine years. A typical day will have up to 400 users, about 20 to 30 people at a time, seven days a week. Most of these daily users are typically on campus for multiple purposes. Intersection service levels would not be affected because both of these estimates will be spread throughout the day – rather than all during a concentrated period of time. Daytime, regular users would access the track by bicycling or walking and would not impact roadways.

Policy TRANS-02 – The University in cooperation with the Metro-politan Transit District shall maintain or expand regular bus and/or shuttle service between all University housing, campus neighbor-hoods, Camino Real Marketplace, Goleta Train Station and the Main Campus, including through the use of University-owned and operated transit if necessary.

Not Applicable.

27



Policy TRANS-03 - The University shall continue its transportation alternatives program with the goal of diverting at least 10 percent of all single occupancy vehicle passenger trips to and from cam-pus. The University shall conduct campus surveys to help deter-mine alternative transportation system adequacy and solicit com-ments on unmet alternative transportation needs and suggestions for alternative transportation facility and program improvements, and report annually to the community the results and conclusions of the survey process. The University shall inventory the number of daily single occupancy vehicle trips from all sources to and from campus during the regular academic and summer sessions over the course of the year and prepare the University’s Annual Trans-portation Report. Within ninety (90) days after completion of the Annual Transportation Report, the University shall prepare and submit a Notice of Impending Development for any new develop-ment, if any, associated with Transportation Alternatives Program intended to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips.

Not Applicable

Policy TRANS-04 -To improve traffic flow and thereby reduce auto emissions, the University shall implement Commission-ap-proved improvements to the transportation and parking system, in-cluding roadways, parking, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, nec-essary to ensure that traffic congestion, auto emissions, and other adverse impacts from the increased traffic associated with a pend-ing development are fully mitigated. Transportation and parking system measures shall be subject to a Notice of Impending Devel-opment (NOID). Where such measures are necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development, the University shall submit the improvements with the relevant Notice of Impending Development. The Commission may condition the NOID to ensure that these re-quirements are met.

Not Applicable

Policy TRANS-05 - The University will work with MTD, SBCAG Traffic Solutions, and Clean Air Express to develop a transit plan to offset the increased demand for public transit that will result from build-out of the LRDP. The University shall provide for subsi-dies, free passes, additional transit services, transit vehicles, and transit facilities, including community car-loan pools such as Zip-Car, and media costs such as for related motivational outreach to

Not Applicable

28



UCSB affiliates, to address future transit overloads that will other-wise result from unmitigated future campus growth. Policy TRANS-06 - The University shall provide additional bicycle parking facilities as part of all campus building projects. The Uni-versity shall periodically survey campus bicyclists (at a minimum before undertaking the environmental review of significant pro-jects) to determine the kinds and locations of bicycle facilities and other bicycle support features (such as bus access for bicyclists, securable bicycle lockers, etc.) that are most needed. The Univer-sity shall incorporate the requested features in new campus devel-opment projects to the maximum extent feasible. The University shall additionally provide bicycle parking facilities near public coastal accessways and trails, where appropriate, to support pub-lic access opportunities while ensuring adequate protection of sen-sitive resources. The bicycle features shall be indicated on the campus visitor’s map upon construction. The University shall iden-tify the requisite bicycle parking facilities as part of the Notice of Impending Development submittal for all significant new campus development proposals.

Consistent. The track users typically park in bicycle racks near Rob-ertson Gymnasium and Parking Lot 30. Track users and visitors arriv-ing by bicycle will continue to use the parking and lockers at Robert-son Gymnasium (approximately 340 spaces), the bicycle parking at Robertson Field 4 (approximately 230 spaces), and the bicycle racks (approximately 24 spaces) at the south end of Parking Lot 30. See Figure 2 Site Map. The combined 584 spaces (approximate) will serve the estimated 400 daily users throughout the day. Current bicycle parking is adequate. No additional capacity is needed for the renova-tion.

Policy TRANS-07 - Site plans submitted in support of the Notice of Impending Development for all significant new campus develop-ment proposals shall include: a) pedestrian and bicycle corridors designed to link the development with other campus locations and with coastal access and recreational amenities in a manner that reduces vehicle miles traveled by campus affiliates, and b) where appropriate, public trails and vehicle/bicycle parking amenities de-signed to facilitate continuing public coastal visitor access to coastal access and recreational amenities available on and near the campus. All public trails shall be clearly signed to ensure that campus visitors are aware of coastal access availability.

Consistent. No new development is proposed. The current pedes-trian and bicycle facilities will enable the estimated 400 daily users to access Pauley Track from the north side of the site. Pedestrians will also continue to access the site from the walkway and gate located between the Track and the walkway and gate at the Intercollegiate Athletics Building from the east side of the site. Track users and visi-tors that arrive by bicycle will continue to use the parking and lockers at Robertson Gymnasium (approximately 340 spaces) and the parking at Robertson Artificial Turf Field 4 (approximately 230 spaces). See Figure 2 Site Map.

Policy TRANS-09 - The University will work with the County of Santa Barbara, City of Goleta and others, including the Coastal Commission staff, to create a sensitively-designed comprehensive network of trails to link the University’s housing developments to each other and to publicly accessible open space and recreational areas. Implementation of trail segments may be undertaken in ac-

Consistent. The existing bike path and pedestrian routes will con-tinue to serve the track. There will be no construction of new trails.

29



cordance with a Notice of Impending Development for specific lo-cations and subject to all other provisions of the certified LRDP, in-cluding siting and design criteria near open space and environ-mentally sensitive habitat areas. The University shall submit evi-dence of coordination with the County and the City, including com-ments received, at the time of the subject Notice of Impending De-velopment submittal. Policy TRANS-10 - The University shall contribute funds toward intersection and transportation improvements in the City of Goleta and County of Santa Barbara proportionate to the University’s im-pacts to the intersection and/or roadway.

Not Applicable.

PARKING Policy TRANS-13 - Visitors shall be entitled to use the parking fa-cilities (all “C” or metered spaces) on campus after payment of the appropriate parking fee and in accordance with campus parking regulations. Subject to Campus Consultation3 , the University will limit issuance of quarterly and annual day time (commuter) park-ing permits to faculty, staff, and students that reside in UCSB housing (excluding the West Campus Faculty Housing and North Campus Faculty Housing developments), unless the need for such permit is demonstrated by virtue of temporary or permanent physi-cal disability, or other extraordinary circumstance, as determined on a case-by-case basis. 3 Campus Consultation is defined in Appendix B to the UCSB-SUN Agreement

Consistent. Visitors attending track meets will be able to use the parking facilities on campus. An adequate number of visitor spaces exist in Parking Lots 25, 27 and 30 (as well as other lots that can be scheduled for bigger events) to serve the track. Approximately 76 visi-tor spaces are available in Lot 25, 198 visitor spaces are available in Lot 27 and 335 visitor spaces are available in Lot 30. The combined 609 spaces will accommodate the estimated 400 to 500 attendees at larger events. This includes athletes, staff, and spectators. A parking plan will be detailed and confirmed ahead of time.

Policy TRANS-16 - Where new development would remove exist-ing commuter or residential parking, the NOID for the project must account for the removed spaces and identify where the removed spaces can either be accommodated in existing campus parking facilities or where new spaces will be built to replace the lost spaces. Where redevelopment of a site also removes a building function and associated potential commuter population, and where the function/population is not displaced elsewhere on campus, the spaces may be removed without being reassigned.

Consistent. No parking will be removed.

Policy TRANS-17 - Consistent.

30



A. For the purposes of this policy, commuter parking shall mean the parking spaces that serve all vehicles arriving to campus ex-cept for residential parking spaces; B. Commuter parking shall be maintained on campus in a suffi-cient quantity to accommodate all UCSB-bound drivers. Com-muter parking to serve faculty, staff, students, researchers, ven-dors, and visitors shall be dispersed at multiple locations on Main Campus to avoid over-crowding at any one location. The Univer-sity shall continue to implement its Transportation Demand Man-agement Program to reduce parking demand to the maximum ex-tent feasible consistent with Policy TRANS-03. Parking demand that is not eliminated through TDM measures shall be accommo-dated on the campus; C. The University shall maintain a running account of the com-muter parking supply consistent with the following categories: (1) the permanently designated commuter parking locations and num-ber of spaces reserved for particular users groups and (2) the non-reserved spaces available to all commuters, including visitor spaces. This parking documentation shall be updated and submit-ted with each Notice of Impending Development (NOID) that adds, removes, or relocates commuter/ visitor parking spaces; and D. The University shall evaluate commuter parking supply and de-mand for each new development that has an impact on commuter parking. Any development that reduces commuter parking supply shall demonstrate that adequate commuter parking capacity still exists, or will exist prior to occupancy of the development, for cam-pus commuters in general, as part of the NOID submittal (as de-termined in subparagraph “D” below). Where the proposed devel-opment contributes to the use of commuter parking, commuter parking supply shall not be deemed adequate for the development if the parking surveys demonstrate 85% occupancy, or greater, for commuter parking within a 10-minute walk of the proposed devel-opment. E. The University shall undertake periodic monitoring, a minimum of once per Fall, Winter, and Spring quarters, of the occupancy of commuter parking spaces for the entire campus during the peak use of parking of this nature (commuters). If parking surveys show

B. An adequate number of visitor spaces exist in Parking Lot 25, Lot 27 and Lot 30 (as well as other lots that can be scheduled for bigger events such as track meets estimated to attract as many as 400 to 500 attendees) to serve the track. The winter parking surveys in 2016 for commuter, residential, coastal ac-cess, and other reserved spaces, and timed parking indicated that parking supply (over the entire campus) was approxi-mately 53 percent occupied.

C. No parking would be added, removed, or relocated. D. The estimated number of track users will vary due to larger

events/track meets. On average, a total of 400 users (student-athletes and recreational users) could be expected per day. Daily users would likely be spread throughout the day, rather than at one particular overlap of time. Approximately 100-130 student-athletes (Intercollegiate Athletics/ICA) will use the track daily, but these athletes would also likely be separated into groups of 20-30 at different times of the day. Most of the student-athletes ride bikes and park them in the bike racks at Robertson Gymnasium. Approximately 200-250 “drop-in” rec-reational users could be expected over the course of an aver-age day.

Approximately 3-4 ICA track meets would be scheduled per year. The meets are typically broken up over the course of a day by the various events and held over a 2-3 day period. The Big West conference tournament would be held at the track once every 8-9 years, with a maximum crowd in the range of 400-500 people including athletes, staff, and spectators. A parking plan will be detailed and confirmed in advance of the meet – similar to parking arrangements for nearby baseball, soccer, and tennis events. Parking lots 30, 25, 31, 38, 16, 18, 27, 22, and 29 are within a 10 minute walk. The 2016 winter parking surveys indicate that

31



average commuter parking occupancy reaches 85% (or greater) of total commuter parking spaces over a period of at least one school year (not including summer session when use is significantly lower), the University shall submit a NOID, and/or LRDP Amend-ment as applicable, to implement additional alternative transporta-tion demand measures, or where alternatives are demonstrated to be insufficient to reduce parking demand to less than 85% occu-pancy, the University shall propose and construct additional park-ing. The new parking shall be fully implemented as soon as feasi-ble and no later than when the average campus commuter occu-pancy (not including summer session) reaches 90% of available spaces. F. The University shall not construct new commuter parking spaces unless the parking surveys required pursuant to subdivi-sions D and/or E demonstrate that commuter parking occupancy reaches 85% or greater, with the exception of construction of large parking structures designated primarily for residential parking that accommodates a shared use secondary to residential use. This requirement shall not apply to retention, reconfiguration, or rede-velopment of existing parking spaces.

parking lot 30 (closest to the track) had a maximum occupancy of 63%. The remaining lots averaged between 17 and 74 % occupancy.

E. The Fall 2015 surveys indicated 48% occupancy over the en-tire campus. The Winter 2016 surveys indicated that parking supply was approximately 53% occupied over the entire cam-pus. There were no parking insufficiencies during the year.

F. No new commuter parking is proposed.

Policy TRANS-19 - The University shall provide and maintain parking to serve the typical recreational parking needs of the Storke and Main Campus Core Recreation Areas, including but not limited to locations within Parking Lot 38 and Parking Structure 18. Parking for peak recreational events may be distributed to other locations on Main Campus using signage and/or other sys-tem (e.g., flag person) to direct traffic to intended spaces.

Consistent. Transportation and Parking Services will coordinate tem-porary parking plans for larger events.

Policy TRANS-20 - The University shall contribute fair-share funds toward the development and implementation of a parking program in Isla Vista proportionate to the University’s contribution to Isla Vista parking use which includes use of parking by student or other University-affiliated residents in Isla Vista, student or other University-affiliated residents on campus, commuters, and campus visitors. The University’s fair-share will be determined by the County of Santa Barbara in consultation with the University and based on

Consistent. Although the project is in close proximity to Isla Vista, project users and visitors will not impact coastal access or coastal ac-cess parking in Isla Vista. Track users are students, staff, and faculty and will either bicycle or walk to the field. There are no coastal access parking spaces within vicinity of the track. The University continues to consult with the County of Santa Barbara regarding Isla Vista parking use and a potential parking program.

32



surveys documenting Isla Vista parking trends. The parking pro-gram shall be designed and implemented with the goal of protect-ing coastal access and coastal access parking in Isla Vista.

RECREATION – 30213, 30220-30221, & 30255

GENERAL POLICIES

Policy REC-01 – A. Recreation facilities serving organized sports and recreational programs are allowed in the Recreation-designated areas on Main Campus (Policy LU-13), Harder Stadium, and Storke Field (Policy LU-29). Outdoor lighting of these recreational facilities shall be de-termined as allowed in Policy ESH-15. B. Recreational facilities on West Campus (LU-32) shall not serve organized sports or recreational programs. Recreational amenities allowed in the Recreation-designated area on West Campus shall be low-intensity recreation facilities for day use only and shall not be lighted except the minimum necessary for safety purposes and consistent with lighting standards in Policy ESH-15. Indoor or other enclosed sports facilities shall be prohibited in the Recrea-tion-designated areas on West Campus. C. Other recreational amenities that are not for organized sports or recreational programs may be developed: 1. Within housing developments to serve the on-site residents or 2. Within Academic and Support areas to serve campus popula-tions, provided such amenities are indoor or limited to daytime rec-reation only. Lighting for the allowed outdoor amenities in housing developments or Academic and Support areas shall be for safety purposes only and consistent with lighting standards in Policy ESH-15. D. New, replacement, expansion, relocation or other significant modifications to facilities within Recreation-designated areas shall be processed as a Notice of Impending Development.

Consistent. A. The proposed outdoor lighting will comply with Policy ESH-15

and LRDP Appendix 4 Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Retrofit Program. The proposed project sports lighting will be full cutoff. The lighting system will provide Class IV recrea-tional lighting levels (will not provide for spectator events).

D. The proposed replacement of the track qualifies for processing as a NOID.

Policy REC-02 – Outdoor recreational facilities, including recrea-tion fields, basketball and tennis courts, may be used by the public at prevailing cost, when not being used by campus classes or pro-grams.

Consistent. The track will be open to the public when not being used by ICA or classes.

33



LAND RESOURCES/ESH - 30240 (a) & (b)

Policy ESH-15 – The University shall replace and/or retrofit all outdoor lighting within ten (10) years following the date of effective certification of the 2010 LRDP to minimize the campus lighting footprint/envelope consistent with the following: A. The University shall prepare a campus-wide Baseline Outdoor Lighting Assessment that: 1. Provides an inventory, map, and detailed description of existing outdoor lighting; 2. Identifies stand-alone (pole-mounted, bollards, etc.) Light fix-tures that do not comply with the design and efficiency standards set forth in Subparagraph C below; and 3. Describes the lighting specifications used to measure compli-ance with the design and efficiency standards set forth in Subpar-agraph C below. B. The University shall prepare and submit an Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Retrofit Program as an LRDP Amendment for Commission approval within 18 months after the updated LRDP is certified. The Program shall: 1. Include the Baseline Assessment developed pursuant to Sub-paragraph A above; 2. Provide a replacement/retrofit map that identifies the location of all non-compliant outdoor lights and describes whether each light shall be replaced or retrofitted; 3. Identify a suite of target technologies and lighting specifications to meet the requirements of Subparagraph C. below. 4. Prioritize the replacement and/or retrofit of the identified lights with the highest priority assigned to the non-compliant outdoor sports and recreation facility lighting and the second highest prior-ity assigned to non-compliant outdoor lights of any kind in closest in proximity to ESHA, wetlands, or open space; when replace-ment/retrofit is implemented in conjunction with a NOID for a new development, the highest priority may, alternately, be assigned to the nearest non-compliant lighting proximate to the proposed de-velopment;

Consistent. The proposed lighting plan will comply with Policy ESH-15 and the Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Retrofit Program.

A. The Baseline Outdoor Lighting Assessment has been pre-pared.

B. 2. There are no existing non-compliant fixtures within the pro-ject boundaries. No existing fixtures would be replaced or ret-rofitted.

C. 1. The proposed high mast fixtures will be full cutoff, fitted with backshields and directional optics that minimize light spill and illuminate the desired target of track and field. 2. The proposed pole heights are 80 feet, which is the mini-mum height at which the targeted area can be properly lit to playing standards with the incorporation of full cutoff fixtures. 3. The color temperature of the full cutoff LED luminaire clus-ters will be 5,700 K. This temperature is the minimum neces-sary for depth and color perception in sporting activities. 4. There are no adjacent ESHA or Open Space areas.

D. Not applicable. E. The proposed new outdoor sports lighting is within the Recrea-

tion-designated lands within the Main Campus recreation com-plex. The LRDP Appendix 4 Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Retrofit Program (OLRRP) has been submitted for certifi-cation as of September 28, 2016.

E. 1. Proposed high mast luminaire color temperature will be 5,700 K. This level is the minimum necessary for proper depth and color perception on the track and field. The lighting will provide Class IV recreational lighting levels (will not provide for spectator events). 2. Existing sports lighting has been identified and prioritized for replacement or retrofit in the baseline inventory of the OLRRP

34



5. Identify a proposed schedule to incrementally implement the re-placement/retrofit in the order prioritized as part of each campus construction project to ensure full replacement/retrofit within ten years of the certification of the 2010 LRDP; this shall include measurable goals to be implemented with each NOID; and 6. Be implemented as part of each campus development that in-cludes an outdoor lighting component; additionally, the Program may be implemented through a series of separate projects as nec-essary to achieve full Program implementation in the given time-frame. C. All outdoor lighting shall be designed to avoid, or minimize to the maximum extent feasible, all forms of light pollution, including light trespass, glare, and sky glow, and shall at a minimum incor-porate the following: 1. Best available visor technology to minimize light spill and di-rect/focalize lighting downward, toward the targeted area(s) only; 2. The minimum standard (pole) height and height of the light mounting necessary to achieve the identified lighting design objec-tive; 3. The best available technology and a lighting spectrum designed to minimize lighting impacts on sensitive species and habitat; and 4. Measures to minimize light trespass onto ESHA and open space areas. D. As part of the routine maintenance and replacement of outdoor light fixtures and bulbs, including repair and maintenance of fix-tures attached to buildings, the University shall use new materials that meet or exceed the standards set forth in Subparagraph C. E. New or retrofitted lighting of outdoor sports facilities shall be limited to the Recreation-designated lands at Harder Stadium, the two approved tennis courts on Storke Campus, and within the Main Campus recreational complex as it exists as of the date of certification of the 2010 LRDP within the area delineated on the “Limits of Outdoor Sports Lighting Map” in Appendix 4. New out-door lighting for sports purposes outside of the limits shown on the “Limits of Outdoor Sports Lighting Map” shall be prohibited. Exist-ing night lighting of sports facilities elsewhere on campus shall be considered a non-conforming use/structure. New or retrofitted

F. The proposed lighting plan and specifications will be are pend-ing and will be submitted upon full design development of the project. The Concept Plan is included in Attachment 1.

G. The proposed project lighting will be included in the first an-nual report for tracking the progress of the OLRRP.

35



sports lighting shall require a Commission-approved Notice of Im-pending Development, which shall not be processed until the Commission certifies the Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Ret-rofit Program required pursuant to Subparagraph B above, and shall meet the standards set forth in Subparagraph C above and the following additional requirements: 1. Shall not exceed the minimum level of power and brightness necessary for the proposed level of collegiate or intramural use; and 2. Shall mitigate the impact of new lighting by retrofitting or remov-ing existing sports lighting and other outdoor lighting sources con-sistent with the identified priorities in Subparagraph B above. F. Development with an outdoor lighting component shall comply with the standards set forth in Subparagraph C of this policy. In addition, the NOID for each development with an outdoor lighting component shall implement a portion of the Outdoor Lighting Re-placement and Retrofit Program consistent with the provisions of Subparagraph B above. Prior to the approval of the Outdoor Light-ing Replacement and Retrofit Program, each NOID with an out-door lighting component shall include outdoor lighting retro fits/re-placements in the nearest feasible location(s) to the proposed de-velopment. The NOID shall include a lighting plan and lighting specifications that identify the location of lights, the light fixture type, the light spectrum/bulb, the direction of light, and any special measures or treatments to control light spill for all on-site and off-site replaced/retrofitted outdoor lighting. The replacement sched-ule/map shall be updated and submitted in support of each NOID to track the progress of the Program implementation. G. The University shall submit to the Executive Director of the Commission an annual report tracking the incremental progress of the Outdoor Lighting Replacement and Retrofit Program. The re-port shall indicate the location, type, and specifications for outdoor lighting replacements and retrofits that occurred in the previous year and priority areas for the subsequent year. WETLANDS, ESHAS & TREES Policy ESH-21 – Biological resources surveys shall be performed for all new development that is proposed where there is a potential

Consistent. No trees would be removed for the project. A wintering and breeding raptor survey was conducted to determine the habitat

36



for sensitive species, ESHA, or wetlands to be present; within or adjacent to ESHA (where the proposed development is within 200 feet of ESHA); within or adjacent (within 200 feet) to wetlands; within or adjacent (within 200 feet) to designated Open Space or other natural open space areas; or within 500 feet of trees suitable for nesting or roosting or significant foraging habitat is present. The results shall be presented in a biological report that shall in-clude an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed devel-opment on any identified habitat or species and recommendations for siting and design of the development to ensure protection of sensitive biological resources and habitat values. Where estab-lished public agency “protocols” exist for the survey of a particular species or habitat, the preparing biologist shall undertake the sur-vey and subsequent analysis in accordance with the requirements of the protocol and shall be trained and credentialed by the perti-nent agency to undertake the subject protocol survey when such training and credentialing is available.

value for these trees. No nesting activity or perching was observed in the survey area. The report (see Attachment 6 2016 Winter and Breeding Raptor Survey) concluded that the area appears to be poor raptor habitat.

Policy ESH-27 – Raptor habitat, including nesting trees, roosting trees, perching locations, and foraging habitat, shall be protected and preserved.

Consistent. No trees would be removed for the project. There is no known raptor habitat within vicinity of the project.

Policy ESH-28 – A. The routine trimming and/or removal of trees on campus neces-sary to maintain campus landscaping or to address potential pub-lic safety concerns shall be exempt from the requirement to obtain a Notice of Impending Development (NOID), unless otherwise re-quired pursuant to subparagraph B, below, and provided that the trimming and/or removal activities are carried out consistent with all provisions and protocols of the certified Campus Tree Trimming and Removal Program in Appendix 2, except that the following shall require a NOID: 1. Trimming and/or removal of trees located within ESHA or on lands designated Open Space as covered in Policy ESH-29, 2. The removal of any tree associated with new development, re-development, or renovation shall be evaluated separately through the NOID process as detailed in subparagraph C, below; 3. The removal of tree windrows, and

Consistent. A. The roots of the existing eucalyptus trees along the south side

of the track will be pruned and a root barrier with herbicide will be installed to prevent damage of the track and pavement caused by root intrusion. The root trenching depth and limits during root pruning will be supervised by the University Arbor-ist. 1. Not applicable.

2. Not applicable. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable.

B. No tree limb pruning or tree removal is proposed. 1. Not applicable 2. Not applicable

37



4. Trimming and/or removal of egret, heron, or cormorant roosting trees proximate to the Lagoon. B. All tree trimming and tree removal activities, including trimming or removal that is exempt from the requirement to obtain a Notice of Impending Development, shall be prohibited during the breed-ing and nesting season (February 15 to September 1) unless the University, in consultation with a qualified arborist, determines that: 1. Immediate tree trimming or tree removal action by the Univer-sity is required to protect life and property of the University from imminent danger, authorization is required where such activity would occur in ESHA or Open Space through an emergency per-mit, 2. Trimming or removal of trees located outside of ESHA or Open Space areas during June 15 to September 1, provided where a qualified biologist has found that there are no active raptor nests or colonial birds roosts within 500 feet of the trees to be trimmed or removed, or 3. Is part of a development or redevelopment approved pursuant to a Notice of Impending Development. C. To preserve roosting habitat for bird species and monarch but-terflies, tree(s) associated with new development, re-development, or renovation that are either native or have the potential to provide habitat for raptors or other sensitive species shall be preserved and protected to the greatest extent feasible. Where native, or oth-erwise biologically significant, trees are retained, new develop-ment shall be sited a minimum of five feet from the outer edge of that tree’s canopy drip-line. The removal of such trees shall be evaluated pursuant to the Notice of Impending Development for the new development. Prior to the removal of any native and/or sensitive tree for development purposes, the University shall con-duct biological studies to show whether the tree(s) provide nest-ing, roosting, or foraging habitat for raptors and sensitive bird spe-cies, aggregation or significant foraging sites for monarch butter-flies, or habitat for other sensitive biological resources. The Com-mission may condition the subject Notice of Impending Develop-

3. The root pruning will be part of the proposed pro-ject.

C. There is no known raptor habitat or monarch butterfly habitat within the vicinity of the project. The existing native oaks at the northern end of the site will be preserved and protected. The existing eucalyptus trees along the southern edge of the pro-ject will remain in place.

38



ment to secure the seasonal timing restrictions and mitigation re-quirements otherwise set forth in the Campus Tree Trimming and Removal Program in Appendix 2. Policy ESH-30 – New development shall avoid all special-status plant species, including Southern tarplant, to the greatest extent feasible. This policy applies to isolated individual plants that do not meet the definition of ESHA. Special-status species that are ESHA shall be afforded full protection under the ESHA provisions of the LRDP. Where the individual(s) do not meet the definition of ESHA and cannot be feasibly avoided, then it may be relocated provided that the impact to individual species shall be fully mitigated.

Not Applicable. There are no special-status plant species on site.

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES – 30244 Policy ARC-01 - New development that requires ground disturb-ance shall be evaluated for its potential to impact archaeological resources. Site research, records reviews and archaeological sur-veys shall be undertaken by a Registered Professional. This docu-mentation shall be submitted with the Notice of Impending Devel-opment.

Consistent. The project will require ground disturbance for root bar-rier installation, irrigation renovation, high mast light pole base instal-lation, and drainage system installation. Although no sites are rec-orded within the track boundaries, a subsurface site was discovered during previous construction monitoring for the Robertson Field Artifi-cial Turf Expansion project, located approximately 110 meters from the northernmost edge of the existing track. A Registered Professional Archeologist and Native American Representative with be on site dur-ing trenching and excavation.

Policy ARC-02 - The Department of Anthropology and Native American tribal groups approved by the Native American Heritage Commission for the area shall be consulted when development may adversely impact archeological resources.

Consistent. Although no known impacts will occur, Native American organizations will be notified of the potential. A Registered Profes-sional Archeologist and Native American Representative will be on site during trenching and excavation.

Policy ARC-03 - A mitigation plan shall be prepared by a Regis-tered Professional Archaeologist when development may ad-versely impact archaeological resources. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in consultation with Native American tribal groups ap-proved by the Native American Heritage Commission for the area, and the State Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable. Mitiga-tion shall be designed in accordance with guidelines of the State Office of Historic Preservation and the State of California Native American Heritage Commission and shall, as the first priority, pre-serve the resources in place. Where in-situ preservation is not fea-sible, partial or total recovery of archaeological resources shall be undertaken.

Consistent. There are no known archeological sites at the project site and a mitigation plan would not be prepared in advance of the project construction. A Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and Na-tive American Representative will be on site during trenching and ex-cavation activities. Should resources be discovered during construc-tion, all affected work will halt and a mitigation plan will be prepared by the RPA.

39



Policy ARC-04 - Archaeological monitors shall be on-site during all earth moving activities and/or other ground disturbances that have the potential to uncover or otherwise disturb archaeological resources. A Registered Professional Archaeological consultant and a Native American representative shall both be present.

Consistent. An RPA and Native American Representative will be on-site during construction at the trenching and excavation portions of the project.

Policy ARC-05 - If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered in the course of construction, all activity which could damage or destroy these resources shall be immediately halted. A Registered Professional Archaeologist, or paleontologist as applicable, shall examine the site and provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources. Mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented to address the impacts of the development on the resources. The Office of Campus Planning and Design shall determine whether the development or mitigation measures require a new Notice of Impending Development and shall notify Coastal Commission staff that archaeological or pale-ontological resources were discovered during construction. Activi-ties that may adversely impact these resources shall not resume without written authorization from the University Office of Planning & Design that construction may proceed.

Consistent. Should resources be discovered, the RPA will stop all work associated with the discovery and follow procedure.

Policy ARC-06 - Vehicle use, unauthorized collecting of artifacts, or other activities that have the potential to destroy or disturb ar-chaeological resources shall be prohibited.

Consistent. The site will be secured with construction fencing and un-authorized access will not be allowed in the event of resource discov-ery.

Policy ARC-07 - Work shall be halted immediately when sus-pected human bone is discovered, regardless of context, until the coroner and a qualified archaeologist can examine the remains. University staff shall notify Coastal Commission staff of the nature of the discovery and that all work has been halted on the site. Ac-tivities shall not resume without written authorization from the Of-fice of Campus Planning and Design that construction may pro-ceed. Where Native American remains are discovered, further ac-tivities may require a Notice of Impending Development.

Consistent. All procedures will be followed in the event of human bone discovery.

Policy ARC-08 - New development shall be sited and designed to avoid adverse impacts to archaeological and paleontological re-sources to the maximum extent feasible. If there is no feasible al-ternative that eliminates all impacts to these resources, then the

Consistent. This is not new development and the area is previously disturbed from construction of the track. Archeological monitors will be onsite during trenching and excavation. In the event archeological re-sources are discovered all applicable policies and procedures would be followed.

40



alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant im-pacts to resources shall be selected. Impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources that cannot be avoided through siting and design alternatives shall be fully mitigated. COASTAL WATERS 30231 and -36 WATER QUALITY (EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION) Policy WQ-01 - New development shall be sited, designed, and managed to prevent adverse impacts from stormwater or dry weather runoff to coastal waters and environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Sources of inflow to coastal wetlands shall be main-tained so that the quality, volume and duration of flows do not di-minish wetland hydrology.

Consistent. The renovated site does not drain directly into coastal waters or ESHA.

Policy WQ-02 – A. Proposed campus development shall be sited, designed, con-structed, operated and managed in accordance with the water quality protection requirements set forth in this LRDP, including Appendix 3, Water Quality Protection, which is hereby incorpo-rated in full, by reference as part of this policy. Appendix 3 re-quires new development, which entails construction or other activi-ties or land uses that have the potential to release pollutants into coastal waters, to submit a water quality protection plan (see Ap-pendix 3 for Construction Pollution Prevention Plan, Post Develop-ment Runoff Plan, Water Quality and Hydrology Plan, as applica-ble) with the NOID. Appendix 3 provides implementation-level re-quirements to develop each type of water quality protection plan that may be necessary depending on the size and nature of the proposed development. Unless the Executive Director determines that future proposed changes to the contents of Appendix 3 are de minimis, such changes shall require an LRDP amendment. All re-visions of Appendix 3 shall be timely published, including the date of the specific revision. B. Development shall be sited and designed consistent with the following runoff control priorities, and implemented through the water quality protection plans in compliance with Appendix 3 (Wa-ter Quality Protection Program): 1. First, where drainage from campus lands may directly or indi-rectly flow into coastal waters, the first priority for the plans and

Consistent.. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan/Construction Pollution Prevention Plan, Post Development Runoff Plan and Water Quality and Hydrology Plan are pending and will be submitted when the project has reached full design development. The Stormwater Control Plan Sheets are included in Attachment 2.

41



designs of proposed campus development shall be the prevention of an increase in post-construction stormwater runoff volume or velocity compared with existing site conditions. 2. Second, where despite the inclusion of all feasible measures to achieve the first priority an increase in site runoff cannot be fully avoided, the project plans and designs shall include all feasible additional drainage management measures necessary to slow, capture, treat, infiltrate, and detain stormwater runoff on site to the maximum extent feasible, and in the manner that best protects coastal resources, including wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and coastal waters. 3. Third, where despite the inclusion of all feasible measures to avoid offsite discharge of stormwater and dry weather runoff, the interconnected nature of existing and future campus development locations or site-specific physical conditions (such as the presence of relatively impervious clay soils) limit the effectiveness of on-site retention options, the University may allow runoff to be discharge, including as necessary piping of runoff under roadways or side-walks, to a permitted offsite drainage management facility where the runoff is treated to remove pollutants and is retained and/or discharged in a non-erosive manner. C. To maximize the protection of water quality, the University shall prioritize the use of earthen-based, bioengineered runoff treatment facilities such as bioswales or vegetated filter strips. Bioengi-neered runoff treatment facilities may incorporate energy dissipat-ers, sand filters, retention basins and engineered soils and sub-strates if warranted by site conditions. Drainage features may in-clude vegetation as an intentional component of the design (such as swales planted with grass species) or in some cases a non-vegetated structure may support volunteer vegetation. In either case, regular management of the vegetation associated with the subject drainage feature, and/or of the feature itself (such as sedi-ment removal), is necessary (1) to ensure the optimal perfor-mance of the structure, and (2) to limit the establishment or over-growth of vegetation. Therefore, the University shall submit a de-tailed monitoring and low impact, non-chemical maintenance plan (relying on mowing, hand weeding, or confined short-term grazing)

42



designed to prevent the overgrowth of vegetation in drainage man-agement structures, and for periodic maintenance activities in ad-dition to vegetation management, such as sediment removal and disposal. This maintenance plan shall include a schedule for pro-posed maintenance and a monitoring program to ensure that the required maintenance achieves the prescribed standard of vegeta-tion control. D. Where the University demonstrates that a permitted drainage facility that was created from dry land has been diligently man-aged and monitored in accordance with the requirements of the pertinent permit, the facility will not be considered a “wetland” for the purpose of interpreting the LRDP when future maintenance, modification, or removal of the structure is proposed. As such, the Commission will not require compensatory mitigation for acreage affected by the proposed activity. However, measures will be re-quired to limit or avoid impacts to coastal resources when such ac-tivities are proposed (such as setbacks from nearby habitat, sea-sonal restrictions on timing of work, relocation of sensitive species, etc.). E. Site plans and designs for new development shall include source control measures which can be structural features or oper-ational actions, to control pollutant sources, minimize runoff, and keep pollutants segregated from stormwater. Site plans and de-signs for new development shall concurrently emphasize runoff management, integrating existing site characteristics that affect runoff (such as topography, drainage, vegetation, soil conditions, and infiltration properties) with strategies that minimize post-pro-ject runoff, control pollutant sources, and where necessary remove pollutants. Site plans and designs shall be in compliance with the water quality protection plans required in Appendix 3, Water Qual-ity Protection Program. The plans and designs for all drainage fa-cilities proposed by the University on lands that may directly or in-directly drain to coastal waters shall be designed by a California-licensed professional in consultation with a qualified biologist, and shall include detailed information that supports the finding that the proposed development is sited, designed, constructed, operated,

43



and maintained in the manner most protective of coastal re-sources including wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat, and coastal waters. Sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance of the proposed project with the requirements of Policy WQ-02 shall be submitted in support of the Notice of Impending Development and the NOID may be conditioned by the Commission to ensure that these requirements are met. Policy WQ-03 - Stormwater and dry weather runoff management shall be addressed early in site design planning and alternatives analyses, taking into account existing site characteristics that af-fect runoff, (such as topography, drainage, vegetation, soil condi-tions, natural hydrologic features, and infiltration conditions) in de-signing strategies that minimize post-development changes in the runoff flow regime, control pollutant sources, and, where neces-sary, remove pollutants. The University shall within a reasonable amount of time, develop a comprehensive surface water quality monitoring program for all discharges from campus. Properties and/or discharges with the highest levels of water pollution will be evaluated and water quality problems addressed, beginning with discharge deemed unhealthful or unsafe for human contact.

Consistent. Project will be designed to minimize stormwater and dry weather runoff from the site (see Attachment 2 Stormwater Control Plan Sheets L1.1, L2.1, L4.1, L5.1, L6.1, L6.2, and D1.1). A Post De-velopment Runoff Plan is pending and will be submitted when the pro-ject has reached full design development.

Policy WQ-04 - Campus site development is to be accomplished, whenever feasible, in a manner that will maximize percolation and infiltration of precipitation into the ground. The University shall site, design, construct and manage development to maintain or en-hance where appropriate, on-site infiltration. Where inadequate in-filtration would increase site runoff, development shall be scaled to ensure that on-site detention capacity (such as storage ponds or vaults) is increased sufficiently to avoid increased offsite discharge volume or velocity to the maximum extent feasible. Increased sur-face runoff shall not be conveyed over bluffs, including through sheet flow, open channels, or outfalls.

Consistent. The project will be designed to avoid increased offsite discharge volume and velocity. A Post Development Runoff Plan is pending and will be submitted when the project has reached full de-sign development.

Policy WQ-05 - The University shall site, design, construct and manage development to preserve or enhance vegetation that pro-vides water quality benefits such as transpiration, vegetative inter-ception, pollutant uptake, shading of waterways, and erosion con-trol. Native vegetation shall be prioritized for use in water-quality

Not Applicable. No vegetation will be removed as part of the project with the exception of the infield grass turf which will be replaced. No new landscaping is proposed.

44



treatment facilities such as bioswales and vegetated filter strips. Removal of existing vegetation on campus shall be minimized and limited to a pre-approved area required for construction opera-tions. The construction area shall be fenced to define project boundaries. When vegetation must be removed, the method shall be one that will minimize the erosive effects from the removal. Temporary mulching or other suitable interim stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed areas during construc-tion or other land disturbance activities. Policy WQ-06 - The University shall design, construct and man-age campus development to minimize the introduction of pollu-tants, including trash and sediment, into coastal waters. Pollutants shall not be allowed to enter coastal waters through drainage sys-tems. Low Impact Development (LID) strategies shall be used to emphasize an integrated system of decentralized, small-scale control measures that minimize alteration of the site’s natural hy-drologic conditions through infiltration, evapotranspiration, filtra-tion, detention, and retention of runoff close to its source. Traps and filters for roadway contaminants shall be provided as part of all drainage structures.

Consistent. Existing connection to storm drain invert at north side of the site will be used for storm overflow (see Attachment 2 Stormwater Control Plan Sheets L1.1, L2.1, L4.1, L5.1, L6.1, L6.2, and D1.1). A Post Development Runoff Plan is pending and will be submitted when the project has reached full design development.

Policy WQ-07 -New development shall be designed to minimize the extent of new impervious surface area, especially directly-con-nected impervious surfaces, and where feasible to increase the area of pervious surfaces, to reduce runoff.

Consistent. The project adds approximately 1 acre of new impervious surface. New impervious area will consist of new concrete perimeter sidewalk for spectator use and widening of track lanes to current com-petition standard. A SWPPP, CPPP and Post Development Runoff Plan is pending and will be submitted when the project has reached full design development.

Policy WQ-08 -If implementing site design, source control, and LID strategies is not sufficient to minimize adverse post-develop-ment changes in runoff volume, flow rate, timing, and duration, use runoff controls sized for the appropriate design storm, to pro-tect coastal waters, habitat, and property.

Consistent. A Water Quality Protection Plan and Post Development Runoff Plan are pending and will be submitted when the project has reached full design development.

Policy WQ-09 - Minimize water quality impacts from construction by implementing best management practices, in compliance with Appendix 3, Water Quality Protection Program, including: A. Construction shall be planned and managed to minimize im-pacts by such measures as limiting the project footprint, phasing

Consistent. Best management practices will be used during construc-tion. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan/Construction Pollution Prevention Plan are pending and will be submitted when the project has reached full design development.

45



grading activities to avoid rainy-season soil disturbance, imple-menting soil stabilization and pollution prevention measures, and preventing soil compaction unless required for structural support; B. Whenever practical, land on the North and West Campus where there is a risk of erosion that may affect ESHAs, plan the project in increments of workable size which can be completed during a single construction season; C. Erosion and sediment control measures are to be coordinated with the sequence of grading. Sediment basins, sediment traps, or similar sediment control measures shall be installed before exten-sive clearing and grading operations begin for campus develop-ment; and D. Fill areas shall have suitable protection against erosion and shall not encroach on Devereux Slough, Storke Campus Wet-lands, Campus Lagoon or any other natural watercourses or con-structed channels on campus. Policy WQ-10 - Grading operations that have the potential to de-liver sediment to wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat ar-eas, or coastal waters shall be scheduled during the dry months of the year (May through October). The construction timeline may be extended into the rainy season for a specific, limited length of time, based on an inspection of the site, and a determination that conditions at the project site are suitable for. Continuation of work may be allowed if appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures are in place and will be maintained during the activity. If grading occurs during the rainy season (November through April), sediment traps, barriers, covers or other methods shall be used to reduce erosion and sedimentation in compliance with Appendix 3, Water Quality Protection Program.

Consistent. The project will not require major grading operations. Erosion control measures will be used. A SWPPP/CPPP is pending and will be submitted when the project has reached full design devel-opment.

Policy WQ-11 - Excavated materials shall not be deposited or stored where the material can be washed away by storm water runoff. Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction is to be stored on or near the site, where the stockpile area(s) will not impact natural vegetation, and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway, provided that the topsoil is also managed consistent with Policy ESH-14. Appro-priate measures shall be taken to protect the preserved topsoil

Consistent. An erosion control plan will be prepared for the project. There is no topsoil being disturbed at the project site. The former track surface would be removed and disposed and replaced with a new track surface.

46



from erosion and runoff through such measures as tarping, jute netting, silt fencing, and sandbagging soil. After completion of such grading, topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill em-bankments of building pads so as to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. These requirements shall be incorporated into applicable water quality protection plans (Construction Pollu-tion Prevention Plan, Post-Development Runoff Plan, and/or Wa-ter Quality and Hydrology Plan as applicable) for processing dur-ing the NOID process as described in Appendix 3, Water Quality Protection Program. Policy WQ-12 - Drainage facilities, BMPs, or other water quality design features required for new development shall be inspected, maintained, operated and managed in a manner that ensures that the intended water quality protection performance requirements are met for the life of the development. This shall be reflected in the applicable water quality protection plan in compliance with Ap-pendix 3, Water Quality Protection Program.

Consistent. Project will comply with required water quality standards for the life of the development. A Post Development Runoff Plan is pending and Low Impact Design will be determined. The conceptual drainage plan includes a slotted drain encased in reinforced concrete and covered with rubberized surfacing proposed between the interior perimeter of the running lanes and the field event/grass area (see At-tachment 1 Concept Design). A reinforced concrete curb and grass drainage swale with catch basin inlets will be provided between the track and the grass infield areas. The facilities will be inspected, main-tained, operated and managed by Facilities Management grounds crews.

Policy WQ-13 - Stormwater outfalls shall be sited, designed and managed to minimize the adverse impacts of discharging concen-trated flows of stormwater or dry weather runoff into coastal wa-ters, intertidal areas, beaches, bluffs, or stream banks.

Not applicable. There is no new storm water outfall associated with the project.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS POLICIES Policy HAZ-1 -The University shall comply with hazardous mate-rial and hazardous waste laws and regulations, including storage, handling, transport, disposal, and spills.

Consistent. In the event the Contractor encounters hazardous sub-stances that have not been identified or rendered harmless on the Project site, the work shall stop until the situation has been remedied. The Contractor shall comply with requirements per Cal OSHA Title 8 and Title 22 for removal and disposal of known hazardous waste ma-terials. Disposal manifests will be reported to UCSB Environmental Health and Safety.

Policy HAZ-2 –The University shall maintain and upgrade its re-sources for chemical spill response in order to minimize the risk of any hazardous materials release or threatened release.

Consistent. UCSB Environmental Health and Safety regularly main-tains and updates campus emergency response capabilities under the Hazardous Waste Program.

47



Policy HAZ-3 - The Environmental Health & Safety EH&S Office will appropriately dispose of hazardous materials.

Consistent. Although the EH&S Office provides a Hazardous Waste Program for campus, the Contractor will be responsible for appropri-ate disposal of hazardous materials. There would be no hazardous materials on the site.

Policy HAZ-4 The University shall maintain and strengthen its hazardous waste minimization program. Waste minimization ef-forts by the EH&S Office will give particular consideration to moni-toring of hazardous materials storage and handling procedures; recycling (onsite and offsite); source reduction goals; implementa-tion procedures; and informational and educational programs.

Consistent. Although the EH&S Office continues these efforts, the Project Contract specifies that all workers must minimize the use of hazardous materials on the Project site.

Policy HAZ-5 - If contaminated soil and/or contaminated ground-water are encountered during excavation and/or grading activities, except where such activities are implementing a Commission-ap-proved remediation plan, the following steps shall be taken: (a) The construction contractor(s) shall stop work and immediately inform Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S); (b) An on-site assessment shall be conducted to determine if the discovered materials pose a significant risk to the public or con-struction workers; (c ) If the materials are determined to pose such a risk, a remedia-tion plan shall be prepared and submitted to EH&S to comply with all federal and state regulations necessary to clean and/or remove the contaminated soil and/or groundwater; (d) Soil remediation methods could include, but are not neces-sarily limited to, excavation and on-site treatment, excavation and off-site treatment and/or disposal, and/or treatment without exca-vation; (e) Remediation alternatives for contaminated groundwater could include, but are not necessarily limited to, on-site treatment, ex-traction and off-site treatment, and/or disposal; and (f) The construction schedule shall be modified or delayed to en-sure that construction will not obstruct remediation activities and will not expose the public or construction workers to significant risks associated with hazardous conditions. The Ellwood Marine Terminal Facility has a known contamination risk and shall be sub-ject to Policy ESH-46.

Consistent. In the event the Contractor encounters hazardous sub-stances that have not been identified or rendered harmless on the Project site, the work shall stop until the situation has been remedied.

48



Policy HAZ - 6 - UC Santa Barbara shall continue to develop and implement campus programs that minimize use of pesticides, which may include the use of Integrated Pest Management strate-gies.

Not Applicable. The project will not use pesticides.

Policy HAZ-7 - Integrated pest management practices shall be used in all private landscape areas (not including buffers) and community open space areas on the Storke, North, and West Campuses. Rodenticides containing any anticoagulant com-pounds (including but not limited to Warfarin, Brodifacoum, Bro-madiolone, or Dipancinone) shall be prohibited.

Consistent.

50

V. REFERENCES Pauley Track Renovation Detailed Project Program (DA Hogan) DA Hogan and Associates, Inc. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) 2008 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) 2015 2010 Long Range Development Plan University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Yjader, Croft 2016. Personal communications with Croft Yjader, UCSB Design and

Construction Services Project Manager.

51

Attachment 1. Concept Design

52

Attachment 2. Stormwater Control Plan Sheets L1.1, L2.1, L4.1, L5.1, L6.1, L6.2, D1.1

MA

TCH

LIN

E A

-A

MA

TCH

LIN

E A

-A

SHEET NO.

PROJ. NO.

SCALEDATE ISSUED

CHECKED BYDRAWN BY

DATE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONSNO.

SUBMITTAL

STAMP

DATE

UC SANTA BARBARAPAULEY TRACKRENOVATIONS

MESA ROADSANTA BARBARA, CA

93106

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUBMITTAL 01-31-17

BL / DC

01-31-17

1603200

STO

RMW

ATE

R M

AN

AG

EMEN

T SU

BMIT

TAL-

NO

T FO

R C

ON

STRU

CTI

ON

UC

SB P

AU

LEY

TRA

CK

REN

OV

ATI

ON

S

EXISTINGCONDITIONS

PLAN

-

L1.1EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN

NORTH0 10' 20' 40' 60'

VICINITY MAPMAPPING LEGEND

AC ASPHALT CONCRETEAWS ALL WEATHER SURFACEBW BACK OF WALKCATV CABLE TVCB CATCH BASINCD CURB DRAINCF CALCULATED FROMCL CENTERLINECLF CHAIN LINK FENCECMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPECO CLEAN OUTCOMM COMMUNICATIONSCONC CONCRETECP CONTROL POINTCYP CYPRESS TREEDG DECOMPOSED GRANITEDI DRAIN INLETDS DOWN SPOUTEP EDGE OF PAVEMENTELEC ELECTRICITYEUC EUCALYPTUS TREEFC FACE OF CURBFF FINISHED FLOORFL FLOW LINE

OHW OHW OHW

W W W

TR TR TR

SD SD SD

S S S

G G G

IRR IRR IRR

FOC FOC FOC

E E E

COMM COMM COMM

CTV CTV CTV

+ + + + +

V V V V V

FOC FIBER OPTIC CABLEFS FINISHED SURFACEFTC FROM TRUE CORNERGND GROUNDHDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (PIPE)OAK OAK TREEOHW OVERHEAD WIRESPB PULLBOXPVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PIPE)RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPER/W RIGHT OF WAYS'LY SOUTHERLYSS SANITARY SEWERSD STORM DRAINSYC SYCAMORE TREETC TOP OF CURBTG TOP OF GRATETS TRAFFIC SIGNALTW TOP OF WALLUM UTILITY MARKUNK UNKNOWNVC VITRIFIED CLAY (PIPE)

382.2

1

1

1

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLO

WFL

OW

FLO

WFL

OW

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLOW

FLO

W

FLOW

FLO

W

FLOW

FLOW

FLO

W

FLO

WFL

OW

FLOW

1

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLO

W

FLOW

XXXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

XXXXXXXXXX

XX

X

X X X

FLO

W

FLO

WFL

OW

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

SHEET NO.

PROJ. NO.

SCALEDATE ISSUED

CHECKED BYDRAWN BY

DATE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONSNO.

SUBMITTAL

STAMP

DATE



93106


BL / DC

01-31-17

1603200

STO

RM

WA

TER M

AN

AG

EMEN

T SU

BM

ITTA

L- N

OT

FOR C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

NU

CSB P

AU

LEY

TRA

CK

REN

OV

ATI

ON

S

EROSIONCONTROL

PLAN

JW

1"=30'

L2.1EROSION CONTROL PLAN

1. THIS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN MAY NOT COVER ALL THESITUATIONS THAT ARISE DURING CONSTRUCTION DUE TOUNANTICIPATED FIELD CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLIMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS), AND SHALLCOMPLY WITH THE STATE REGULATIONS TO CONTROL THE DISCHARGEOF STORMWATER POLLUTANTS.

2. THIS PLAN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED DURING FIRST WEEK OFCONSTRUCTION. THIS PLAN SHALL REMAIN THROUGHOUTCONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE DISPOSED AFTER MAINTENANCE PERIOD.

3. THIS PLAN MAY BE ADJUSTED THROUGH CONSTRUCTION WITHAPPROVAL OR AS DIRECTED BY DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL SWEEP STREETS AND PARKING AREAS AFFECTEDBY CONSTRUCTION WEEKLY WITH STREET SWEEPER.

5. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING CONSTRUCTIONSTAGING AREA TO AS WAS CONDITIONS.

EROSION AND SEDIMENTCONTROL PLAN NOTESEROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN LEGEND

FILTER FABRIC TO BE SECURELY ATTACHEDTO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE TOP.

FILTER ROLL BARRIER

LIMIT OF WORK

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION WASHOUT AREA -PROVIDE A WASHOUT BIN FOR CONSTRUCTIONWASHOUT AND REMOVE AT END OF CONSTRUCTION.

CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA

C-

DESCRIPTIONSYM DTL REF

A-

1

DESCRIPTIONSYM

PROJECT ACCESS

2CONTRACTOR SHALL TEMPORARILY REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE FABRIC ANDPOLES AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. CONTRACTOR SHALLPLACE STEEL PLATES OVER 4" DEPTH SAND OR CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE, AND TWOLAYERS OF GEOTEXTILE FABRIC OVER EXISTING SURFACE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TOEXISTING SIDEWALK AND CURB THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROJECT. CONTRACTORSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT ON ANYREQUIREMENTS REQUIRED FOR THIS TEMPORARY ACCESS. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIROR REPLACE FENCE, LANDSCAPING, SIDEWALK AND ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS TO ANAS-WAS OR BETTER CONDITION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.

DTL REF

D-

C

WOOD OR METALSTAKES

C

STRAW BALES

5'-0" MIN

WEDGE LOOSESTRAW BETWEENBALES

STAPLE ASREQUIRED

PLASTICLINER

(20 mm)

ROCK BAGS IN CORNERS

SECTION C-C

ROCK BAGS INCORNERS

12" (TYP)

PLAN

TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA NTS

NOTES:IN LIEU OF THIS DETAIL, CONTRACTOR MAY UTILIZE AN APPROVED CONCRETE WASHOUT CONTAINER.

STRAW BALES(2 HIGH)

WOOD STAKESOR REBAR(2 PER BALE)

FINISH GRADE

12"(TYP)

NOTES:1. CONSTRUCTION SITE ACCESS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF METAL PANELS WITH STEEL RIDGES OR CORRUGATIONS

TO A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 50 FT. AND MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FT. PANELS TO BE PLACED ON STABLE BASE.

2. LENGTH OF ENTRANCE SHALL BE FROM EXISTING PAVED SURFACE TO LIMIT OF WORK. WIDTH SHALL BE AS

NECESSARY TO COVER ALL VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS. PROVIDE AMPLE TURNING RADII.

3. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD CONDITION BY OCCASIONAL TOP DRESSING WITH MATERIAL ASSPECIFIED IN NOTE 1.

4. ACCESSES SHALL BE INSPECTED WEEKLY DURING PERIODS OF HEAVY USAGE, MONTHLY DURING NORMAL USAGE,

AND AFTER EACH RAINFALL, WITH MAINTENANCE PROVIDED AS NECESSARY. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING SHALL BEDONE AS NEEDED.

5. TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE END OF THE PROJECT. AREA TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO "ASGOOD" OR BETTER CONDITION THAN EXISTING PRIOR TO PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.

RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTINGGROUND

METAL PANELS WITH STEEL RIDGESRUMBLE STRIPS

50 FT MINIMUM

CONSTRUCTION SITE

SECTION A-A

GEOTEXTILEMATERIAL

6 INCHES

MIN.

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

15 FEET (4.5 METERS)MINIMUM

PLAN VIEW

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRY NTS

METAL PANELS WITH STEEL RIDGES

RUMBLE STRIPS

STORM DRAIN INLET FILTERFILTER ROLL BARRIERA B C D

NORTH0 15' 30' 60' 90'

B-

NTS NTS

X

EXISTING FENCING TO ACT AS CONSTRUCTION FENCING

CONSTRUCTION FENCING

MA

TCH

LIN

E A

-A

52

FS 53.25FG 53.22

FS 53.54

FS 53.25FG 53.22

FS 53.25FG 53.22

FS 53.43FG 53.40

FS 53.25FG 53.22

FS 53.43FG 53.40

FS 53.62FG 53.59

FG 53.59

FS 53.62FG 53.59

FS 53.56FG 53.53

FS 53.20FG 53.17

FS 53.25

FS 53.24

FS 53.24

FS 53.25

FS 53.39

FS 53.54

FS 53.54

FS 53.25

FS 53.25

FS 53.54

FS 53.54

FS 53.28FG 53.25

0.4

%

FS 53.25FG 53.15

FS 53.79

FS 53.54

FS 53.56FG 53.53

0.4%

0.6

%

0.6

%

0.6

%

0.9

%

0.9

%

0.9

%

0.4%

0.9

%

0.9

%

0.9

%

0.5

%

0.5

% M

IN.

0.5

%

LP/RIM 52.99HP53.33LP/RIM 52.99

LP/RIM 52.92HP53.15LP/RIM 52.92 HP 53.15

HP53.33 LP/RIM 52.92

RIM 52.92

FS 53.25FG 53.22

HP53.02LP/RIM 52.92

0.5

% M

IN.

0.5

% M

IN.

HP 53.15

0.9

%

0.9%

0.9

%

FS 53.54

FS 53.42

HP 53.18

0.5

% M

IN.

TC 53.52FS 53.21

FG/DG 52.18

TC 53.42

FG/DG 53.18

TC 53.42

FG/DG 53.18

FS 53.24

FG/DG 53.23

FS 53.20FG 53.05

(E) FS 53.42

FS 53.64

FS 53.54

FS 53.54

FS 53.25

HP 53.18

HP 53.18

0.9%

0.9%

0.9%

1.5%

1.5%

0.4

%

0.4

%

0.4

%

FS 53.28FG 53.25

TOP OF RINGCONTINUOUS53.37

FS 53.42FG 53.39

FS 53.25FG 53.22

TC 53.42

FG/DG 53.18

FS 53.33

FS 53.42FG 53.30

FS 53.42FG 53.30

FS 53.58FG 53.46

1.5

%

FS 53.42FG 53.30

0.5% MIN.

0.5%

MIN

.

0.9

%

1.5

%

1.5

%

1.5%

1.5%

LP/RIM 52.99

RIM 52.63

(E) FFE 52.66

FS 53.25FG 53.15

FS 53.43FG 53.40

FS 53.43FG 53.40

FS 53.43FG 53.40

FS 53.35FS 53.35

FS 53.34

FS 53.34

FS 53.34

FS 53.34

FS 53.27FS 53.27FS 53.27 FS 53.27

FS 53.43FG 53.40

FS 53.54

FG 53.22

FS 53.54

FS 53.42FG 53.30

FS 53.54

FS 53.42FG 53.30

LPS/FG 52.00RIM 52.25

FS 53.57FG 53.45

RIM 53.18

RIM 53.18

RIM 53.18

LPS 52.82RIM 53.07

FG 52.44

FS 53.63FG 53.51

HPS 53.18FG 53.05

LPS/FG 52.00

LPS 50.50RIM 50.75

(E) FG 50.40

LP/FG 50.85RIM 51.10

FG 53.22

RIM 53.57

FS 53.31

FS 53.31

1.5

%

FS 53.54

FS 53.42FG 53.30

FS 53.42FG 53.30

FS 53.54

0.9

%

RIM 51.71 RIM 51.71

RIM 51.63RIM 51.63

RIM 53.26

RIM 53.30

53

53

53

HPS 51.10

INV 51.10

52

51

FS 53.42FG 53.30

1.5

%

1.5

%

FS 53.57FG 53.45

FS 53.67

FS 53.57FG 53.45

FS 53.66FG 53.54

FS 53.67

FS 53.42FG 53.18

FS 53.42FG 53.30

FS 53.42FG 53.30

FS 53.49FG 53.37

FS 53.40FG 53.28

FS 53.40FG 53.28

(E) FS 51.25FG 51.13

(E) FS 51.21FG 51.09

FS 52.80

FS 52.74FG 52.62

HPS 51.75

0.6

%0

.6%

MA

TCH

LIN

E A

-A

FS 53.57FG 53.45

FS 53.67FG 53.55

FS 53.57

FG 53.45

0.6

%0.6

%

GRADINGPLAN

JW

1"=20'

L4.1GRADING PLAN

1. EXISTING GRADES ARE BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY: STANTEC. CONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY EXISTING GRADES FOR ACCURACY PRIOR TO THE START OF GRADING,NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY SHOULD CONFLICTS ARISE ANDREDIRECT WORK TO AVOID DELAY.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES,STRUCTURES AND SERVICES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE LOCATIONS OFUTILITIES, STRUCTURES AND SERVICES SHOWN IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BEDEEMED TO BE APPROXIMATIONS ONLY. ALL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WHAT ISSHOWN AND THE ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER'SREPRESENTATIVE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDER GROUND SERVICE ALERT(USA) AT (800) 227-2600 PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OR EXCAVATION. UPONCOMPLETION OF USA MARKING OPERATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD ALL UTILITYMARKINGS ON A SEPARATE SET OF DRAWINGS. THIS SET SHALL BE KEPT ON-SITE FORREFERENCE FOR DURATION OF CONTRACT.

3. PROPOSED GRADES SHALL MEET EXISTING GRADES WITH A SMOOTH ANDCONTINUOUS TRANSITION SO AS TO AVOID TRAPPING WATER. CONTRACTOR SHALLNOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF PUDDLING IS SUSPECTED AND REDIRECT WORK SOAS TO AVOID DELAY WHILE AWAITING RESPONSE.

4. ALL EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, BOXES, UTILITY VAULTS ETC. SHALL BE BROUGHTTO FINAL FINISH GRADE PRIOR TO FINAL SURFACE TREATMENT.

5. FINISH SURFACE ELEVATION REFERS TO TOP OF CONCRETE OR ASPHALT PAVING.

GRADING LEGEND

108

GRADING NOTES

PROPOSED CONTOUR

PROPOSED FINISH GRADE ELEVATION OF SOFTSCAPE/SYNTHETIC TURF,REFER TO PLANS

PROPOSED FINISH SURFACE ELEVATION OF HARDSCAPE

HIGH POINT

HIGH POINT OF SWALE

LOW POINT

TOP OF CURB

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING ELEVATION

CONFORM TO EXISTING GRADE

FS 52.00

DESCRIPTIONSYM

FG 51.50

HP 52.50

HPS 52.50

LP 51.00

TC 52.50

LIMIT OF GRADING, CONFORM TO EXISTING GRADES AT THIS LINE

CONNECTION OF PROPOSED AND EXISTING CONTOURS

RIDGE LINE

GRADE BREAK

SWALE CENTERLINE AND DIRECTION

CENTERLINE OF PERFORATED SUBDRAIN, REFER TO DRAINAGE PLANS

DESCRIPTIONSYM

SHEET NO.

PROJ. NO.

SCALEDATE ISSUED

CHECKED BYDRAWN BY

DATE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONSNO.

SUBMITTAL

STAMP

DATE



93106


BL / DC

01-31-17

1603200

STO

RM

WA

TER M

AN

AG

EMEN

T SU

BM

ITTA

L- N

OT

FOR C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

NU

CSB P

AU

LEY

TRA

CK

REN

OV

ATI

ON

S

LOW POINT OF SWALELPS 51.00

RIM ELEVATIONRIM 50.50

NORTH0 10' 20' 40' 60'

GRADING CALCULATIONS

REMOVAL OF EXISTINGTRACK AND ASPHALTPROFILES

CUT

± 1,000 CYNEW ASPHATL/TRACKAND CONCRETE PROFILES

± 1,000 CY

FILL

TRENCHING OPERATIONS ± 650 CY COMPACTION* ± 650 CY

GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BALANCE CUT AND FILL ON SITE

*VOLUME DUE TO MINOR FILL AREAS AND LOSSES DUE TO COMPACTION

TOTAL DISTURBED AREA= 224,650 SF (5.16 ACRES)

MA

TCH

LIN

E A

-A

SD

SD

SDSD

SD SD SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

12" CBRIM 52.92

INV OUT 50.92

12" CBRIM 52.92

INV OUT 50.92

24" CBRIM 52.92INV IN (SE) 50.24INV IN (OVERFLOW) 50.68INV OUT 50.14

STORMCHAMBERS (44)

FD

FD

FD

96 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.3%

57 LF 8" SD @MIN S=0.3%

SDSD

SD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

SDSD

101 LF 8" SD @MIN S=0.3%

143 LF 10" SD@ MIN S=0.5%

SD

SD

33 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.5%

33 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.5%

54 LF 4" SD @MIN S=0.3%

37' LF 4" SD @MIN S=0.5%

25 LF 2" SD @MIN S=0.5%

6" OVERFLOWINVERT 50.74

6" OUTFLOWINVERT 50.74

12" CBRIM 52.99

INV THRU 50.48STORMCHAMBERS (22)

STORMCHAMBERS (22)

STORMCHAMBERS (18)

STORMCHAMBERS (42)

STORMCHAMBERS (6)

70 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.5%

35 LF 4" SD @MIN S=0.3%

15 LF 4" SD @MIN S=0.3%

27 LF 4" SD @MIN S=0.5%

5 LF 4" SD @MIN S=0.5%

5 LF 4" SD @MIN S=0.5%

40 LF 4" SD @MIN S=0.5%

78 LF 4" FD @MIN S=0.0%

9 LF 2" SD @MIN S=2.0%

83 LF 4" FD @MIN S=0.3%

75 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.5%

12" CBRIM 52.99INV THRU 49.99

6'X4' STORMCHAMBER VAULT

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD

SD

SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD


82 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.3%

163 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.3%

146 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.3%

24" CBRIM 53.00INV IN (EA) 49.74INV IN (OVERFLOW) 50.68INV OUT 49.65

79 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.3%

155 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.3%

74 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.3%





24" CBRIM 53.57INV IN (EA) 49.84INV IN (W) 49.48INV OUT49.48

12" CBRIM 53.18INV OUT 51.35


2 LF 4" SD @MIN S=2.0%

SD SD SD

1


65 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.5%

6 LF 4" SD @MIN S=2.0%

SD SD SD

3" DIRIM @ FG

6" CORIM 53.26INV THRU 51.26

6" CORIM 53.30INV OUT 51.30

111

1

1281 LF TRACKTRENCH DRAIN

1

1

1

1

STEEPLE CHASEDRAIN INLET

12" CBRIM 51.71INV OUT 49.88

12" CBRIM 51.63INV OUT 49.80

12" CBRIM 51.63

INV OUT 49.80

12" CBRIM 51.71

INV THRU 49.70

SD

SD DAYLIGHTINV OUT 52.10

22 LF 6" SDMIN S=0.3%

18 LF TRENCHDRAIN

FD FDFD

71 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.5%

SD

SD

SD

SD

2

SD

SD

51 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.5%


12" CBRIM 52.25

INV OUT 50.25

12" CBRIM 51.10

INV THRU 49.32

SD

SD

SD

SD

84 LF 6" SDMIN S=0.3%

94 LF 6" SDMIN S=0.3%

FD

24" JBRIM @ FG

INV IN (NE) 49.10INV IN (SW) 49.04INV IN (SE) 48.77

INV OUT 48.77

INV 50.82 INV 50.63

INV IN 50.74

INV IN 50.74

INV IN 50.74

INV IN 49.61

9 LF 6" SD @MIN S=0.5%

SD

SD SD

RIM (TD) 52.63INV 52.30

RIM (TD) 52.63INV OUT 52.21

INV IN 50.74

INV IN 49.64

DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM

POC TO EXISTINGDOMESTIC WATER

478 LF DOM

4 LF DOM

SD SD SD

SD SD SD

5 LF 6" SD @MIN S=2.0%

6 LF 6" SS

6 LF 6" SS

3 LF 4" SD @MIN S=2.0%

SD

24" CBRIM 50.75

INV IN 49.25

21 LF 6" SDMIN S=0.3%

MA

TCH

LIN

E A

-A

SHEET NO.

PROJ. NO.

SCALEDATE ISSUED

CHECKED BYDRAWN BY

DATE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONSNO.

SUBMITTAL

STAMP

DATE



93106


BL / DC

01-31-17

1603200

STO

RMW

ATE

R M

AN

AG

EMEN

T SU

BMIT

TAL-

NO

T FO

R C

ON

STRU

CTI

ON

UC

SB P

AU

LEY

TRA

CK

REN

OV

ATI

ON

S

DRAINAGE ANDUTILITY PLAN

JW

1"=20'

L5.1DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN

DRAINAGE & UTILITY LEGEND

NORTH0 10' 20' 40' 60'

B

DTL REFDESCRIPTIONSYM

A

J

N

O

TRACK TRENCH DRAIN

A

DTL REFDESCRIPTIONSYMDESCRIPTIONSYM

M

DRAINAGE & UTILITY NOTES1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, AND SERVICES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. THE LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, AND

SERVICES SHOWN IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE APPROXIMATIONS ONLY. ALL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WHAT IS SHOWN AND THE ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONSSHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER REPRESENTATIVE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDER GROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) AT (800) 227-2600 PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OREXCAVATION. UPON COMPLETION OF USA MARKING OPERATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL RECORD ALL UTILITY MARKINGS ON A SEPARATE SET OF DRAWINGS. THIS SET SHALL BE KEPT ON-SITEFOR REFERENCE FOR DURATION OF CONTRACT.

2. ALL EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES, BOXES, UTILITY VAULTS ETC. TO REMAIN, SHALL BE BROUGHT TO FINAL FINISH GRADE PRIOR TO FINAL SURFACE TREATMENT.

3. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROTECT DRAINAGE SYSTEM FROM DEBRIS, INCLUDING SOIL, ROCK MATERIAL, AND TRASH FROM ENTERING THE PIPE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALLAVOID PLACING CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES OVER INSTALLED DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO PREVENT CRUSHING OF PIPE.

4. COORDINATE ALL SLEEVING AND UTILITY LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND DETAILS CONTAINED WITHIN THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

5. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL REMAINING ACTIVE AND NEW DRAINAGE AND UTILITY LINES ARE PROTECTED AND UNDAMAGED FROM TRENCHING AND FOOTING EXCAVATIONSFOR NEW FOOTINGS, PARTICULARLY FOR NEW FENCING AND WALLS.

6. ALL ABANDONED STORM LINES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNLESS IN CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED DRAINAGE, UTILITY, OR SUBGRADING OPERATIONS, IN WHICH CASE ABANDONED PIPE INCONFLICT SHALL BE REMOVED. REMAINING ABANDONED STORM PIPE SHALL BE SEALED WITH APPROPRIATELY SIZED CONCRETE CAP (3 SACK MIX) 6" ENVELOPE OUTSIDE AND INSIDE DIAMETEROF PIPE.

7. PRIOR TO ALL DRAINAGE AND UTILITY WORK, CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL POTENTIAL DRAINAGE CONNECTIONS AND EXISTING UTILITY BY POTHOLING. INADDITION, ALL DOWNSTREAM CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES SHALL BE THE START OF THESE OPERATIONS, AND GRADES SHALL BE VERIFIED.

8. WHEN WORK HAS TO OCCUR UNDER THE DRIPLINE OF EXISTING TREES NOT SCHEDULED FOR REMOVAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE ALL POSSIBLE CARE TO AVOID INJURY TO THE TREES ANDTREE ROOTS. GRADE IN LINES RADIAL TO THE EXISTING TREES RATHER THAN TANGENTIAL. ALL PARTIAL CUTS OR TEARS THROUGH ROOTS TWO INCHES IN DIAMETER AND LARGER SHALL BECUT CLEAN. TRENCHES ADJACENT TO TREES SHALL BE FILLED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER EXCAVATION, BUT WHERE THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE, THE SIDE OF THE TRENCH ADJACENT TO THE TREE, ANDANY EXPOSED ROOTS SHALL BE KEPT SHADED AND MOIST WITH DAMPENED BURLAP OR CANVAS.

CATCH BASIN, SIZE PER PLAN

DRYWELL

CATCH BASIN IN SAND PIT

SHOT PUT / DISCUS DRAIN

FRENCH DRAINFD

SOLID WALL STORM DRAINSD

DOM DOMESTIC WATER LINE

SANITARY SEWER LINESS

NIBCO GATE VALVES 2" AND SMALLER SHALL BE NIBCOT-113 LF. FOR VALVES ABOVE 2" IN SIZE UTILIZE NIBCOF-619 FLANGED VALVE WITH SQUARE OPERATING NUT.

(E)

CB

INV

EXISTING

CATCH BASIN

INVERT

RIM RIM ELEVATION

LF LINEAR FEET

S=0.5%

MIN. MINIMUM

SLOPE

TD TRENCH DRAIN ELEVATION

N, S, W EA, NORTH, SOUTH, WEST, EAST TAKE OFF BOARD DRAIN

STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS (85.4" X 34" X 16")

K

E

I

C

STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT

STORM CHAMBER VAULT (4' X 6')

1 IN-LINE TRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASIN & TIE-IN TO STORMDRAIN SYSTEM VIA 4" STORM DRAIN LINE

2 CONNECT EXISTING STORM DRAIN TO NEW CATCH BASIN

G

H

D

TRENCH DRAINDI DRAINAGE INLET

CO CLEAN OUT

L

B

ENERGY DISSIPATER FROM DRAINAGE LINE

A

A

DESCRIPTIONSYM DTL REF

JUNCTION BOXP

DMA-23

DMA-61

DMA-21

DMA-30

DMA-32

DMA-33

DMA-22DMA-25 DMA-27

DMA-29

DMA-11

DMA-19

DMA-48

DMA-45

DMA-54

DMA-52

DMA-57

DMA-37

DMA-1

DMA-15

DMA-63

SCM-1

SCM-2

DMA-46 DMA-53

DMA-31

DMA-7

DMA-3

DMA-6 DMA-8

DMA-9 DMA-10

DMA-12

DMA-14

DMA-17

DMA-16

DMA-20

DMA-24 DMA-26

DMA-28 DMA-35

DMA-38

DMA-40

DMA-41

DMA-44

DMA-42

DMA-43

DMA-47

DMA-49

DMA-51

DMA-58

DMA-56

DMA-59

DMA-60

DMA-55

POC-1

POC-2

POC-3

DMA-2

DMA-5

DMA-4

DMA-65

SHEET NO.

PROJ. NO.

SCALEDATE ISSUED

CHECKED BYDRAWN BY

DATE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONSNO.

SUBMITTAL

STAMP

DATE



93106


BL / DC

01-31-17

1603200

STO

RMW

ATE

R M

AN

AG

EMEN

T SU

BMIT

TAL-

NO

T FO

R C

ON

STRU

CTI

ON

UC

SB P

AU

LEY

TRA

CK

REN

OV

ATI

ON

S

STORMWATERMANAGEMENT

PLAN

JW

L6.1STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

NORTH0 15' 30' 60' 90'

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN LEGENDSYM DESCRIPTION

SELF-RETAINING PERVIOUS SURFACE

SELF-TREATING PERVIOUS SURFACE

PERVIOUS SURFACE DRAINING TO A SCM

SYM DESCRIPTION

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA LIMITS

STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE AREA

NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DRAINING TO A SCM

NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DRAINING TO ASELF-RETAINING AREA

NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DRAINING TO ASELF-TREATING AREA

DMA-X DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA REFERENCENUMBER- REFER TO SHEET L6.2

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREADMA

STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURESCM

SCM-X STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE REFERENCENUMBER- REFER TO SHEET L6.2

REPLACED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DRAINING TO A SCM

REPLACED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DRAINING TO ASELF-RETAINING AREA

POINT OF CONNECTION TO UC SANTABARBARA STORM DRAIN SYSTEMPOC

TABLE ADRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA SUMMARY

DRAINAGEMANAGEMENT

AREAAREA (SQFT) TYPE OF

SURFACE DMA TYPENEW/REPLACED

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

37

39

40

41

42

24,825 LANDSCAPE/ MULCH/SOD

43

47

46

2,485

729

N/A

280

263

2,069

326

474

593

3,687

144

447

99

1,678

547

130

1,221

4,500

343

7,268

747

5,470

3,224

5,224

883

DMACONNECTS/DRAINS TO

TABLE BSTORMWATER CONTROL MEASURE SIZING SUMMARY

SCM SCM AREA (SQFT) # OF CHAMBERS3 VOLUME REQUIREDFOR RETENTION (FT3)

TOTAL STORAGEVOLUME (FT3)

1

2

1,413 66 1,863

1,824 88 2,325

MIN. REQUIREDSCM AREA FOR

TREATMENT (SQFT)2

2.5

2.5

2,098

2,718

799

4,814

CONCRETE/ TRACKSURFACING

2,613

SAND

DG

48

REPLACED

REPLACED

REPLACED

REPLACED

REPLACED

NEW

REPLACED

REPLACED

NEW

333

4,743

1,349 NEW

DRAINS TOSELF-TREATING

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

SELF-TREATING

-

DMA-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

DMA-15

SCM-1

DMA-23

DMA-36

INFILTRATION RATE1

(IN/HR)

2,046

2,728

122 REPLACED DRAINS TO SCM SCM-1

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-1

SCM-1

49

38 152

44 1,455

SCM-2

45 591

NOTE: REFER TO SHEET L6.1 FOR LOCATION OF EACH DMA AND SCM

1INFILTRATION RATE IS BASED ON THE INFILTRATION TESTS PROVIDED BY PACIFIC MATERIAL LABORATORY OF SANTA BARBARA ON JULY 7, 2016.2REQUIRED SCM AREA FOR TREATMENT AND VOLUME REQUIRED FOR RETENTION ARE BASED ON THE UCSB SIZING CALCULATOR.3CHAMBERS USED FOR STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES ARE STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS. THE INSTALLED STORAGE VOLUME PER CHAMBERIS 31.0 FT3 WHEN USING A 6 INCH STONE FOUNDATION DEPTH ACCORDING TO STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS.

TABLE CSELF RETAINING AREA SIZING CHECKS

SELFRETAINING

DMA

SELF RETAININGDMA AREA (SQFT)

1

7

3,214

0

TOTAL TRIBUTARYDMA AREA (SQFT)2TRIBUTARY DMA'S

2,3

12, 13, 14

2,069

24,825

TRIBUTARY: SELFRETAINING AREA

RATIO (SQFT)2

15 690

-

1,678

36 1,25934, 352,588

62 4,78237, 38, 3912,767

63 10,05950, 6039,939

0.129

0.000

0.411

0.486

0.375

0.252

TABLE DSELF TREATING AREA SIZING CHECKS

SELF TREATINGDMA

SELF TREATINGDMA AREA (SQFT)

23 333

TOTAL TRIBUTARYDMA AREA (SQFT)2TRIBUTARY DMA'S

2131,483

TRIBUTARY: SELFTREATING AREARATIO (SQFT)2

0.011

NOTE: IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE STORMWATER REGULATIONS THE MAXIMUMACCEPTABLE TRIBUTARY: SELF RETAINING AREA RATIO IS 0.50

NOTE: IN ORDER TO SUPPLY WITH THE STORMWATER REGULATIONS THE MAXIMUMACCEPTABLE TRIBUTARY: SELF TREATING AREA RATIO IS 0.05

23

25

26

27

28

29

33

32

31,483

1,220

3,126

930

3,348

1,093

4,863

1,164

640

619

34

REPLACED

NEW

SELF-RETAINING

DRAINS TOSELF-RETAINING

35

24 830 NEW SCM-1

30 1,720

REPLACED

31 4,621

2,58836

50

51

55

54

913

9,993

1,221

5,295

1,217

1,009

56

57

52 591

53 2,988

60

59

66

219

28,048

12,767

61

62

58 6,892

39,939

N/A

63

SELF-RETAINING

NEW

N/A

NEW

NEW

NEW

N/A

NEW

REPLACED

NEW

NEW

NEW

N/A

REPLACED

NEW

REPLACED

NEW

NEW

REPLACED

REPLACED

NEW

NEW

N/A

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

REPLACED

REPLACED

REPLACED

REPLACED

REPLACED

REPLACED

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

NEW

REPLACED

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

LANDSCAPE/ MULCH/SOD









DG

SAND


DMA-1




DMA-15

DMA-15

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

SCM-1

SELF-RETAINING

DMA-36

-

-

-

-

DMA-62

DMA-62

DMA-62






DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SELF-TREATING -

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SCM-2DRAINS TO SCM

SELF-TREATING

DRAINS TOSELF-RETAINING DMA-63


SELF-TREATING

SELF-RETAINING

SELF-RETAINING

-

-

-

-

DMA-63

SELF-RETAINING

















































3,86764 N/ALANDSCAPE/ MULCH/SOD SELF-RETAINING -

65 1,881 NEW DRAINS TOSELF-RETAINING DMA-64 CONCRETE/ TRACK

SURFACING

64 1,881653,867 0.486

SHEET NO.

PROJ. NO.

SCALEDATE ISSUED

CHECKED BYDRAWN BY

DATE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONSNO.

SUBMITTAL

STAMP

DATE



93106


BL / DC

01-31-17

1603200

STO

RMW

ATE

R M

AN

AG

EMEN

T SU

BMIT

TAL-

NO

T FO

R C

ON

STRU

CTI

ON

UC

SB P

AU

LEY

TRA

CK

REN

OV

ATI

ON

S

STORMWATERMANAGEMENT

PLAN

JW

L6.2STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

NOTE:WHERE TRACK SURFACING IS ON BOTH SIDES OF TRENCH DRAIN,TRACK SURFACING SHALL EXTEND UP TO DRAIN CHANNEL OPENING.

INLINE TRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASIN

4" TYP.12"MAX2" CLEARANCE

TO EDGE, TYP.

NTS

--

ALL-WEATHERSURFACING

2" CLEARANCETO EDGE, TYP.

--

NATURAL TURF

--

ALL-WEATHERSURFACING4" TYP.

12"MAX

COMPACTED SUBGRADE,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

#4 HORIZONTAL REBAR, TYP.

CONCRETE WITH LIGHT BROOM FINISHLENGTHWISE

TRACK TRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASINWITH IN-LINE TRASH BUCKET, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS

ADJACENT FINISH GRADE TO BE 14"BELOW FINISH SURFACE OF TRENCHDRAIN CURB, REFER TO PLANS

12" RADIUS TOOLED EDGE, TYP.


OUTLET DRAIN PIPE, SIZE PER PLANS,INVERT ELEVATION VARIES FORFLOW TO DRAIN

CONCRETE BEDDING

#4 HORIZONTAL REBAR, TYP.

TRACK TRENCH DRAIN CATCHBASIN WITH IN-LINE TRASHBUCKET, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

12" RADIUS TOOLED EDGE, TYP.

SURFACE VARIES, WHEN LOCATED INTRACK SURFACING, EXTEND SURFACINGTO TRENCH DRAIN LIP. REFER TO PLANS

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

NTS

D1.1CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

JO

K

L

M

N

P

SHEET NO.

PROJ. NO.

SCALEDATE ISSUED

CHECKED BYDRAWN BY

DATE

CONSULTANT

SHEET TITLE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

REVISIONSNO.

SUBMITTAL

STAMP

DATE



93106


BL / DC

01-31-17

1603200

STO

RMW

ATE

R M

AN

AG

EMEN

T SU

BMIT

TAL-

NO

T FO

R C

ON

STRU

CTI

ON

UC

SB P

AU

LEY

TRA

CK

REN

OV

ATI

ON

S

℄

2"TYP.

NOTES1. SET CATCH BASIN RIM FLUSH WITH ADJACENT SURFACE. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION AND RIM PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2. POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO INLET SHALL BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR.3. ALL PIPING ENTRIES AND EXITS INTO DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUTED SMOOTH AND WATERTIGHT USING

NON-SHRINK GROUT, TYP.4. ALL RISERS AND EXTENSIONS SHALL BE CONNECTED WITH AN ADHESIVE PRODUCT (RAMNEK OR EQUIVALENT).5. ALL GRATES SHALL BE FITTED WITH LOCK-DOWN MECHANISMS OR BOLT-DOWN COVERS.

SECTION

CATCH BASIN NTS

CAST IRON GRATE AND PRECASTFRAME, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

ADJACENT SURFACE VARIES,REFER TO PLANS

A 6"X6" CONCRETE COLLAR WITH #4REBAR CENTERED, CONTINUOUS

USE MINIMUM TWO 3" EXTENSIONRINGSPUNCH OUT AS NECESSARY TO ACCEPTDRAIN PIPE GROUT IN PLACE, TYP.

SOLID WALL STORM DRAIN PIPE ORPERFORATED PIPE, TYP. REFER TODRAINAGE PLANS

FIELD POURED CONCRETE BASE

COMPACTED SUBGRADE, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS

12" MIN 12" MIN.

CATCH BASIN IN SAND PIT NTS

LONG/TRIPLE JUMP PIT SAND,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

B-

CATCHBASIN


STAPLE DOWN FILTER FABRIC TOSUBGRADE AT MIN. 3" O.C. SPACING,TYP. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

SECTION


NOTE:1. RECESSED THROWING CIRCLE SHALL BE SMOOTH TROWELLED WITH A LIGHT SAND BLASTED FINISHED

CONCRETE AND BE SLOPED TO DRAIN TOWARDS GRATE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN

CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS


112" PVC COUPLING

112" PVC DRAIN PIPE

CONCRETE PAVING, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS

ADJACENT SURFACE VARIES, REFER TOPLANS

RECESSED THROWING CIRCLE

METAL RING (INGROUND EQUIPMENT),REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

SHOTPUT/DISCUS DRAINAGE NTS

TAKE OFF BOARD DRAIN NTS

TAKEOFF SYSTEM W/ BLANKINGLID ASSEMBLY, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS.

1.5" MIN. PVC DRAIN LINE, REFERTO DRAINAGE PLAN.

--


NOTE:CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL SURFACING IMPROVEMENTS PER DRAWINGS. SECTIONS FOR SURFACINGIMPROVEMENTS SHALL SUPERCEDE BACKFILL FOR STORM DRAINS.

3" MIN. TO18" MAX.

BOTTOM OF TRENCH

TRENCH BACKFILL - SOLID WALL STORM/SEWER NTS

FINISHED SURFACE, REFER TO PLANS

TOP OF SUBGRADE

NATIVE BACKFILL, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPACTION

PIPE BEDDING SELECT BACKFILL,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

SOLID WALL STORM DRAIN,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS ANDSIZE PER PLANS

2" CLEARANCETO EDGE, TYP.

TRACK TRENCH DRAIN NTS

4"TYP.

NOTES:1. CONCRETE BEDDING SHALL HAVE SAW CUT JOINTS AT BOTH ENDS OF DRAIN SEGMENTS.2. CONCRETE FINISH FOR TRACK TRENCH AND TRENCH DRAINS SHALL BE MEDIUM BROOM.

--

NATURAL TURF

--


TRENCH DRAIN, 12" MAX GRATEOPENING, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

(2) #4 HORIZONTAL REBAR, TYP. ONEACH EDGE

CONCRETE WITH LIGHT BROOMFINISH LENGTHWISE

CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS


TRENCH DRAIN NTS

4" TYP.

2" CLEARANCEFROM EDGES, TYP.

NOTE:

1. PROVIDE SAW CUT JOINT 8' ON CENTER AND ALIGN WITH FENCE POSTS.2. JOINTS TO BE ON BOTH SIDE OF GRATE.

TRENCH DRAIN, 12" MAX GRATEOPENING, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

ADJACENT SURFACE, TYP.REFER TO PLANS

(2) #4 HORIZONTAL REBAR,TYP. ON EACH EDGE

CONCRETE BACKFILL WITHMEDIUM BROOM FINISHLENGTHWISE

COMPACTED CLASS IIAGGREGATE, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS


SIDE SECTIONFRONT SECTION/ELEVATION

NTS

EQ EQ

PLAN

ENERGY DISSIPATOR

FINISH GRADE

CONCRETE SLURRY BASE

FINISH GRADE

CONCRETE SLURRY BASE

BOTTOM OF SWALE,REFER TO GRADING PLAN

WASHED 3"-4" COBBLE IMBEDDEDIN CONCRETE 2"

SOLID DRAIN PIPE W/ MITEREDCAP & STEEL GRATE BOLT DOWN

12" 6" MIN.

NOTES:1. REFER TO DRAINAGE PLANS FOR CHAMBER LOCATION, DEPTH AND LENGTH.2. SC-310 STORAGE CHAMBER BY ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC.

STORMWATER INFILTRATION CHAMBER NTS

CHAMBER SECTION

NATURAL TURF, SLOPE PER PLAN

EXISTING SUBGRADE,COMPACTED PER SPECIFICATIONS

CONNECTOR PIPE

STORMTECH CHAMBER (SC-310*),DEPTH PER DRAINAGE PLANS,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

SUBDRAIN TRENCH DRAIN ROCK,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC,PLACE ON ALL SIDES OFCHAMBER AND BETWEEN DRAINROCK AND ADJACENTSUBGRADE, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS

12" MIN.TYP.

DRYWELL NTS

FINISH GARDE

FOUNTAIN SANITARY SEWER LINE -CONNECT TO SIDE KNOCK OUT POINT

DRAIN ROCK, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

(2) NDS FLO-WELL, NDS # FWAS24

GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

NDS FLO-WELL. BOTTOMNDS # FWBP24


STORM CHAMBER VAULT

VAULT SECTION

NOTES:1. REFER TO DRAINAGE PLANS FOR VAULT LOCATION AND DEPTH2. 4' X 6' X 4' UTILITY VAULT BY OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC.

2" TYP.

NTS

PLAN OF VAULT BASE

(12) 2" DIAMETER HOLESDRILLED INTO BASE OFSTORM CHAMBER VAULT

2" DIA. TYP.

EXISTING SUBGRADE, COMPACTEDPER SPECIFICATIONS

FINISH GRADE


O-

STORMWATERINFILTRATION CHAMBER

STORM CHAMBER VAULT, DEPTH PERDRAINAGE PLANS, REFER TOSPECIFCATIONS

12" SOLID WALL STORM DRAIN PIPEOR PERFORATED PIPE, TYP. REFER TODRAINAGE PLANS

12" STORM CHAMBER VAULT LID,FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE

CLASS II PERMEABLE BASE, REFERTO SPECIFICATIONS

MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC BETWEENVAULT AND BASE ROCK, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS2" DIA. DRAIN HOLE, TYP.

EQ. EQ. EQ. EQ.

DRAIN LINE,REFER TO PLANS

CLEANOUT DRAIN NTS

SECTION - SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT SECTION - STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT

DRAIN LINE,REFER TO PLANS

FREE-RESTING CAP OVER OPENING.MATERIAL TO BE SAME AS RISER.

ROUND CONCRETE VALVE BOX WITH"STORM" ON CAST IRON LID. REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS

COMMON BRICK (4 MIN.)

6" SOLID CHDPE RISER - LENGTH ASNEEDED, TYP.

45° "ELL," SIZE PER CLEANOUT

45° "ELL," OR WYE, SIZE PER CLENOUT

SOLID CHDPE RISER - LENGTH ASNEEDED, SIZE PER PLAN

FREE-RESTING CAP OVER OPENING.MATERIAL TO BE SAME AS RISER.

ROUND CONCRETE VALVE BOX WITH "STORM"ON CAST IRON LID. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

COMMON BRICK (4 MIN.)

SOLID WALL LONG SWEEP OR WYECONNECTION AS APPLICABLE, REFER TOPLANS

PROVIDE RUBBER EXPANSION PLUGAS SHOWN

F-

CLEANOUTBOX

F-

CLEANOUTBOX

6" CLEANOUT RISER, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

34" DRAIN ROCK, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS

BEDDING, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONSBEDDING, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

34" DRAIN ROCK, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

CLEANOUT BOX NTS

FLUSHADJACENT SURFACE, REFER TO PLANS

ROUND VALVE BOX, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS.

COMMON 4" CONCRETE BRICK

PAVING LANDSCAPE

4" 4"

K-

CLEANOUT DRAIN


℄

FRENCH DRAIN IN DECOMPOSED GRANITE NTS

3" MIN.TYP.

TOP DRESS WITH 14" DECOMPOSEDGRANITE

SAND, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS

PERFORATED DRAIN CDHPE PIPE,HOLES DOWN, SIZE PER PLANS, REFERTO SPECIFICATIONS

GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC, REFER TOSPECIFICATIONS, WRAP ALL SIDES OFTRENCH


ADJACENT SURFACE, REFER TO PLANS


PEA GRAVEL, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

DECOMPOSED GRANITE, REFERTO SPECIFICATIONS

℄

2" TYP.

NOTES1. VERIFY EXACT LOCATION AND RIM ELEVATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2. POSITIVE DRAINAGE TO INLET SHALL BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR.3. ALL PIPING ENTRIES AND EXITS INTO DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUTED SMOOTH AND WATERTIGHT USING

NON-SHRINK GROUT, TYP.4. ALL RISERS AND EXTENSIONS SHALL BE CONNECTED WITH AN ADHESIVE PRODUCT (RAMNEK OR EQUIVALENT).

SECTION

JUNCTION BOX NTS

CAST IRON GRATE AND PRECASTFRAME, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS

USE MINIMUM TWO 3" EXTENSIONRINGS

PUNCH OUT AS NECESSARY TO ACCEPTDRAIN PIPE GROUT IN PLACE, TYP.

SOLID WALL STORM DRAIN PIPE ORPERFORATED PIPE, TYP. REFER TODRAINAGE PLANS

FIELD POURED CONCRETE BASE


FINISH GRADE

53

Attachment 3. Public Notice and List of Interested Parties

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA UCSB OFFICE OF CAMPUS PLANNING AND DESIGN CAMPUS DESIGN AND FACILITIES SANTA BARBARA, CALFORNIA 93106-1030 Tel: (805) 893-5216 Fax: (805) 893-3870

BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

October 2016

PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF IMPENDING DEVELOPMENT PAULEY TRACK RENOVATION PROJECT

Pursuant to the California Coastal Act the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) has prepared and submitted a Notice of Impending Development for the Pauley Track Renovation Project.

The proposed project is to reconstruct the Pauley track surface and field event areas on the Main Campus. The reconstruction will remedy existing problems with the track surface and bring the facilities into conformance with current competition standards. The Notice of Impending Development is available at http://www.facilities.ucsb.edu/files/docs/NOID_PauleyTrackReno.pdf or upon request at the UC Santa Barbara Office of Campus Planning and Design. For more information, please contact Steve Conner at 805-893-5216 or send email to [email protected]. ATTENTION: If you would like to receive future notices ELECTRONICALLY ONLY, or to change your contact information, please email [email protected]

Steve Conner Office of Campus Planning and Design University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California, 93106-1030

http://www.facilities.ucsb.edu/files/docs/NOID_PauleyTrackReno.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

First Name Company Address City State ZipThe Santa Barbara Independent 122 W. Figueroa Street Santa Barbara CA 93101

Roger Lagerquist Isla Vista Association 6826 Pasado Road Isla Vista CA 93117Connie Hannah League of Women Voters 328 E. Carrillo Street #A Santa Barbara CA 93101Surfrider Foundation Santa Barbara Chapter P.O. Box 21703 Santa Barbara CA 93121LeAnne French Citizens Planning Association 916 Anacapa Street Santa Barbara CA 93101Captain of Planning & Engineering Santa Barbara County Fire Department 4410 Cathedral Oaks Road Santa Barbara CA 93110

California Department of Fish & Game 1933 Cliff Drive #9 Santa Barbara CA 93109Peter Neushul Isla Vista Association 915 Camino Lindo Isla Vista CA 93117

Regional Water Quality Control Board 895 Aerovista Place 101 San Luis Obispo CA 93401Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 781 Goleta CA 93116Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco CA 94102Goleta Sanitary District 1 William Moffit Place Goleta CA 93116

Doreen Farr Third District, SB Co. Bd. Of Supervisors 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara CA 93101Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Long Range Planning Division 123 East Anapamu St. Santa Barbara CA 93101

Santa Barbara News Press P.O. Box 1359 Santa Barbara CA 93102Santa Barbara Audubon Society P.O. 5508 Santa Barbara CA 93150

First Name Last Name E-mail Address CompanyAli Aghayan [email protected] Environmental Health & SafetyAndrea Estrada [email protected] Bermond [email protected] City of Santa Barbara

[email protected] Wells [email protected] Colwell [email protected] Housing & Residential ServicesBarton Lounsbury [email protected] UC Office of the President Office of General CounselBrian Trautwein [email protected] Environmental Defense CenterCarly Barham [email protected] sbapcd

[email protected] Strem [email protected] UC Office of the PresidentChris Sneddon [email protected] Haines [email protected] Barbara [email protected] Citizens Planning AssociationCraig Geyer [email protected] Isla Vista Recreation and Park District policy committeeDarlene Chirman [email protected] Santa Barbara Audubon SocietyDavid Marshall [email protected] McHale [email protected] Physical FacilitiesDianne Black [email protected] Blaschke [email protected] France [email protected] Santa Barbara Bicycle CoalitionEd Schmittgen [email protected] Design & Construction ServicesEnvironmental Board [email protected] UCSB Associated Students EAB

[email protected] Corporation [email protected]

[email protected] Horstin [email protected] Design & Construction ServicesGoleta Chamber of [email protected] Packard [email protected] Regional Water Quality Control BoardIsla Network [email protected] Wagner [email protected] Transportation & Parking Services

[email protected] Carman [email protected] Morrison [email protected] Physical Facilities

[email protected] Woods [email protected] Environmental Health & SafetyJoe Van Thyne [email protected] Design & Construction ServicesJoel Michaelsen [email protected] Lofthus [email protected] Cook [email protected] Physical Facilities

First Name Last Name E-mail Address [email protected]

Josephine Axt [email protected] United States Army Corps of EngineersJosh Schimel [email protected] Levangie [email protected] Housing & Residential ServicesKelly Drumm [email protected] UC Office of the PresidentKen Oplinger [email protected] Warfield [email protected] Isla Vista AssociationKim [email protected] COASTKirsten Deshler [email protected]

[email protected] Krop [email protected] Chytilo [email protected] Law Offices of Marc ChytiloMarc Fisher [email protected] Administrative ServicesMark Rousseau [email protected] Housing & Residential ServicesMartin Shumaker [email protected] Housing & Residential ServicesMatt Dobberteen [email protected] Santa Barbara County Public WorksMike Wondolowski [email protected] Citizens for Goleta ValleyMindy Fogg [email protected] County of Santa BarbaraMolly Pearson [email protected] Miyasoto [email protected]

[email protected] Dipaola [email protected] Mesa Lane PartnersPat Saley [email protected] Hembrow [email protected]

[email protected] Imhof [email protected] Aronson [email protected] Design & Construction ServicesRenee Bahl [email protected] Facilities ManagementRichard Watts [email protected] Chancellor's Office, 5130 Cheadle HallRob Crew [email protected] PoliceRodney Gould [email protected] Isla Vista Recreation and Park District

[email protected] Society [email protected] Chapter [email protected] Sweeney [email protected] Zamora [email protected] Housing & Residential Services

[email protected] Wu [email protected] Beland [email protected] Housing & Residential ServicesWilliam Mc Tague [email protected]

First Name Last Name E-mail Address CompanyWillie Brown [email protected] Housing, Dining and Auxiliary Enterprises

54

Attachment 4. Notice of Exemption

55

Attachment 5. Approval Documentation

56

Attachment 6. 2016 Winter and Breeding Raptor Survey

621 CH APAL A STREET

SANT A BARBAR A, C AL I FORNI A 93101

T 805.963 .0651 F 805.963 .2074

August 12, 2016 9432 Shari Hammond Principal Planner University of California, Santa Barbara Building 972 Campus Design and Facilities Santa Barbara, CA 93106 (805) 893-3796 Subject: Wintering and Breeding Raptor Survey Report for the West Campus Entrance,

University of California, Santa Barbara

Dear Ms. Hammond:

At your request, Dudek has conducted wintering and breeding season raptor surveys for the West Campus Entrance area. The University of California, Santa Barbara (U.C. Santa Barbara), requested that Dudek conduct raptor surveys along El Colegio Road to determine the habitat value for raptors of the trees along this section of road and of the area surrounding the trees. This report details methods and results of the surveys.

BACKGROUND

The West Campus Entrance area is located on U.C. Santa Barbara’s Main Campus, along El Colegio Road, between its intersections with Mesa Road and Ocean Road (Figure 1). Mature, ornamental trees are on either side and in the median strip of the road. To assess the suitability of the trees and immediately surrounding area for raptors, U.C. Santa Barbara requested that Dudek conduct wintering and breeding season raptor surveys within 500 feet of the El Colegio Road trees in 2016 (Figure 2). Surveys were intended to meet standards for assessing raptor habitat and occurrence established by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in its raptor survey protocol (Dixon 2004). Results would be used to support CCC permitting for any future project in the West Campus Entrance area.

Biological Setting. U.C. Santa Barbara is located on relatively level terrain on the coastal plain adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. To the north of the plain, the rugged Santa Ynez Mountains rise sharply from the flat coastal landscape. The City of Santa Barbara and the City of Goleta form a stretch of contiguous development extending into the vicinity U.C. Santa Barbara. However, the

Shari Hammond August 12, 2016 Page 2

landscape becomes more open to the west of the university. In addition, several important natural areas are adjacent to or within campus boundaries, including Goleta Slough to the north and east, the Storke Wetlands to the northwest, Devereux Slough and Coal Oil Point Reserve within West Campus, and Ellwood Mesa to the west. However, the West Campus Entrance lies within Main Campus, which, along with Isla Vista to the west and most of East Storke Campus to the northwest, are heavily developed.

METHODS

Surveys were conducted in accordance with CCC protocol (Dixon 2004Dixon (2004) states that wintering raptor surveys shall:

Be conducted between December 1 and February 15.

Consist of at least five visits.

Be spaced at least one week apart.

Consist of at least two hours on site during the period between dawn and 10:00 A.M.

Specifically involve foraging birds and birds using trees for perching, roosting, or nesting.

Breeding season raptor surveys shall:

Be conducted between March 15 and June 15

Consist of at least five visits

Be spaced at least one week apart

Consist of at least two hours on-site between dawn and 10:00 A.M.

Specifically involve searches for nests, foraging birds, and birds using trees for nesting, perching, or roosting.

The protocol also calls for evening surveys, if the site includes habitat for ground-nesting owls. However, as the survey area consists of development (buildings, parking lots, athletic fields, lawns) and ornamental trees and other plantings, no habitat is present for these species, and evening surveys were not conducted.

Dudek biologist Dave Compton, who has extensive experience with raptors and raptor surveys in southern Santa Barbara County, conducted all surveys, which included five surveys during each survey period (Table 1). During the winter survey period, nesting is possible, but unlikely. At this time of year, raptor activities are focused on areas that provide a prey base and perching opportunities. Therefore, methods for wintering surveys focused on foraging (hunting) and


perching. The Dudek biologist walked within the survey area (trees along El Colegio Road and areas within 500 feet), continually scanning for perching or flying raptors. During breeding surveys, the biologist also searched for raptor nests and other raptor breeding evidence. Survey routes in the breeding season permitted inspection of all suitable trees for raptor nests, through either close-up examination or scanning a group of trees at a distance. During each wintering or breeding survey and per Dixon (2004), the biologist spent at least two hours prior to 10:00 A.M. In addition to walking over the entire survey area, the biologist stopped for extended periods at locations in different parts of the survey area that provided vantage points on areas potentially occupied by raptors.

Nesting and Perching

The biologist searched for raptor nests in mature trees within the survey area. Trees of interest included eucalyptus, ornamental pines (Pinus spp.), and other large ornamentals. The biologist also examined all suitable raptor perching areas and listened for raptor calls. Locations of any raptor perches or nests were noted on a field map depicting an aerial photograph of the area, or recorded using a global positioning system (GPS) application on a hand-held device. The locations of other breeding-related behaviors or of raptor fledglings were noted similarly. Locations recorded on field maps were later digitized by a Geographical Information System (GIS) technician.

Hunting and Foraging

All areas where raptors hunted were mapped in the field on aerial photos depicting the site. Not all flying behaviors were assumed to involve hunting/foraging. Raptors such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) engaging in direct flight at higher altitudes were generally assumed to be flying to or from nests or foraging habitat rather than foraging. In general, areas covered by raptors while soaring, hovering, engaged in less direct flight, or flying low over the ground were assumed to be foraging habitat and were mapped. Foraging areas were determined by a combination of flight patterns and active hunting and perching behaviors. Known habits of the species involved were also considered in delineating foraging areas. In addition, for individual birds involved in nesting activities, flight patterns in some cases may be indicative of defense of the nesting territory. Also, the locations of any prey strikes or prey captures were noted on an aerial map or recorded using a GPS application on a hand-held device. Although many raptor species, including white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus), red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawks, and American kestrels (Falco sparverius), are known to hunt from perches, perching alone was not used as a basis for determining foraging areas unless other foraging activities were observed. Any foraging areas were drawn on maps in the field, while biologists were observing raptor activities, then digitized in the office by a GIS technician.


RESULTS

Five winter season surveys were conducted between January 8 and February 12, 2016, and five breeding season surveys were conducted between April 1 and June 13, 2016 (Table 1). The sections below first describe habitat characteristics of the survey area and then describe raptor observations during the surveys.

Habitat Characteristics

The survey area is heavily developed, including various academic, athletic, and other campus facilities, as well as a small portion of residential development in eastern Isla Vista. Tall Tasmanian bluegums (Eucalyptus globulus) line both sides of El Colegio Road and also occupy the median strip. Additional ornamental trees occur elsewhere in the survey area, including additional bluegums at the campus boundary with Isla Vista, taller lemonscented gums (Eucalyptus citriodora) in Lot 27 in the southern part of the survey area, and a variety of trees around the Student Health Building. Several athletic fields occur east and north of El Colegio Road and provide open space among the buildings, paved roads and parking lots, and trees in the survey area. Many of the trees provide suitable perches and even potential nesting locations. However, all open areas are well-maintained and likely provide poor habitat for small mammals favored by many raptor species in the area. In general, the developed nature of the survey area limits its value as foraging habitat, and therefore also limits its value for nesting birds.

Raptor Observations

In all, four raptor species were identified in the survey area, including two in the winter and two in the breeding season (Table 1). A small falcon species seen briefly was not identified to species and would have represented a third species observed during the winter, and a fifth species overall, had it been identified. At least one red-tailed hawk was seen during every survey in both winter and the breeding season, north of the survey area, in areas less dominated by development. As these observations were of birds outside the survey area, they are not further discussed.

No nesting activity or perching was observed in the survey area. No raptor activity observed within the survey area was clearly indicative of foraging. All species detected were briefly observed flying through or soaring over the survey area. One Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) was observed flying east over the southern part of the survey area, carrying a prey item, during the second breeding season survey, on April 22, 2016. This bird continued east until it was out of sight. This behavior was indicative of nesting in the vicinity. However, no Cooper’s hawks were seen on any subsequent survey, nor was this species seen at any other time during winter or breeding season surveys. Several nest structures suitable in size for medium-sized raptor species such as Cooper’s hawk or white-tailed kite were present in the survey area, although none of these was occupied during surveys. Most likely had been built by American crows (Corvus


brachyrhynchos). One nest at the west edge of the survey area had been occupied by Cooper’s hawks in 2013 (Dudek 2013), but was empty and in disrepair in 2016.

Two species considered fully protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife were detected: the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and the white-tailed kite. Each was observed only once, in winter. No species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) were observed. No California species of special concern were observed. Details of observations of each species detected are presented below. Observations are also summarized in Table 1. As no perching or nesting, and no clear foraging, were observed, locations are not depicted graphically.

Cooper’s hawk. The Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is an uncommon to fairly common resident in southern Santa Barbara County (Lehman 2016). Potentially nesting habitat for this species is present in large Tasmanian bluegum trees and other larger ornamental trees throughout the survey area. But the suitability of these trees is limited by the high disturbance level in the area. As noted above, one of this species was observed on April 22, 2016, carrying a small bird east southeast through the southern part of the survey area (Table 1). Although this behavior indicated that this individual had nestlings elsewhere, the nest was likely well away from the survey area. Also note that Cooper’s hawks nested in a Tasmanian bluegum at the western edge of the survey area in 2013, at the Isla Vista boundary. The nest from that year was still visible in the tree in the spring 2016, but was not occupied and was in disrepair.

Red-tailed hawk. The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) is a common year-round resident in southern Santa Barbara County (Lehman 2016). Although Tasmanian bluegums in the survey area provide suitable nesting trees, the high disturbance level around the trees, and the fact that they are not adjacent to good foraging habitat, likely diminished their value for nesting. Although this species was observed near the survey area during all winter and breeding season surveys, it ventured into the survey area once, on June 13, 2016 (the final survey), when one flew through the northwestern portion of the survey area (Table 1).

American kestrel/merlin. The American kestrel (Falco sparverius) is a common bird of prey in the region that nests in cavities more than two inches in diameter, in medium-sized to large trees, and sometimes in human-made structures (Lehman 2016, Smallwood and Bird 2002). No suitable nesting cavities were noted during surveys. Merlin (Falco columbarius) is an uncommon bird of prey in Santa Barbara County from fall through spring and does not nest in the region (Lehman 2016). One small falcon that was likely one of these species was briefly seen chasing a peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) during the final winter survey, on February 12, 2016 (Table 1).


White-tailed kite. The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is a CDFW FP species that is an uncommon year-round resident in coastal Santa Barbara County (Lehman 2016). This species typically nests in medium-sized to large trees with dense foliage in the upper part of the tree (Dunk 1995). Nests are typically well hidden from view beneath the trees (D. Compton, personal observation). Although the Tasmanian bluegums in the survey area are not typical nest trees, several trees on the south side of the Student Health Building and just north of Ocean Road have the potential to support nests by this species. Two nests of suitable size for this species were observed during surveys, but neither nest was active during the surveys. Both were likely nests of American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). The only white-tailed kite seen during surveys was observed soaring above the western portion of the survey area during the final winter survey, on February 12, 2016 (Table 1).


Table 1

Summary of Conditions and Survey Results

Winter/ Breeding

Survey No. Date / Time Site Conditions2 Biologists Observations1

Winter 1

January 8, 2016

7:44 –9:48 A.M.

Clear with light to moderate (0-7 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 47ºF to 57ºF.

Dave Compton None in survey area

Winter 2

January 15, 2016

7:42– 9:47 A.M.

Partly cloudy with strong (12-15 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 52ºF to 61ºF.


Winter 3

January 22, 2016

7:48 – 9:54 A.M.

Partly cloudy with light (2 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 49ºF to 55ºF.


Winter 4

February 3, 2016

7:43 –9:55 A.M.

Clear with light (0-3 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 42ºF to 56ºF.


Winter 5

February 12, 2016

7:39 – 9:54 A.M.

Partly cloudy with light (0-3 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 48ºF to 62ºF.

Dave Compton WTKI – Soaring northwest of Student Health Building, then S along El Colegio Rd.

PEFA – 1 flying along N edge of buffer.

Falcon sp. – chasing PEFA through edge of survey area.

Breeding 1

April 1, 2016

7:44–9:54 A.M.

Mostly clear with light (2‒3 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 52ºF to 62ºF.


Breeding 2

April 22, 2016

7:40–10:07 A.M.

Clear to partly cloudy with with light (2‒5 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 57ºF to 60ºF.

Dave Compton COHA – Carrying prey item eastward over southern part of the survey area.

Breeding 3

May 12, 2016

7:45–9:50 A.M.

Cloudy with with light (1‒3 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 55ºF to 57ºF.



Table 1

Summary of Conditions and Survey Results

Winter/ Breeding

Survey No. Date / Time Site Conditions2 Biologists Observations1

Breeding 4

May 25, 2016

9:55–10:01 A.M.

Clear to mostly cloudy with light to moderate (2‒9 mph) winds. Temperatures ranged from 55ºF to 62ºF.


Breeding 5

June 13, 2016

7:48–9:50 A.M.

Clear to mostly sunny with moderate (5–9 mph) southeast winds. Temperatures ranged from 61ºF to 63ºF.

Dave Compton 1 RTHA adult flying through the northwest portion of the survey area (also observed perching in several locations north of the survey area).

1 COHA = Cooper’s hawk

PEFA = Peregrine falcon

RTHA = Red-tailed hawk

WTKI – White-tailed kite


CONCLUSION

Despite the presence of numerous trees, the survey area is heavily developed, supports a high level of human activity, and lacks foraging habitat for species relying on small mammals. Five species of raptor were detected within the survey area, including four that were identified to species and one that was not. Although trees suitable for nesting by several raptor species were present in the survey area, none nested there. No obvious raptor foraging was observed within the survey area, and all raptor observations were of birds briefly seen flying above or through the survey area. No species of raptor was seen in the survey area more than once in the ten surveys. No species listed under ESA or CESA and no CSSCs were observed. Two FP species, the white-tailed kite and peregrine falcon, were observed briefly during the final winter survey, passing through the area. Several nest structures suitable for raptor species were observed, but none were active. Most were likely built by American crows, while one at the west edge of the survey area, adjacent to Isla Vista, had been occupied by Cooper’s hawks in 2013. None of the trees immediately along El Colegio Road were the site of raptor nesting or perching in 2016. Given the high human disturbance level, the developed nature of the survey area, and the lack of raptor observations, this area appears to be poor raptor habitat.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter report, please do not hesitate to give me a call at (805) 308-8536 (office) or (805) 252-0557 (cell). I may also be reached by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

David Compton John H. Davis IV, MS, CE Biologist Senior Ecologist Dudek

Att: References

Figure 1. Site Location

Figure 2. Survey Area

Appendix A. Photo Plate


REFERENCES

Dixon. 2004. Coastal Raptor Survey Protocol.

Dudek. 2013. Breeding Season Raptor Report for West Campus Sites and Main Campus Sites, University of California, Santa Barbara, Long Range Development Plan. Prepared for the University of California, Santa Barbara, Office of Campus Planning and Design. June 24, 2013.

Dunk, J.R. 1995. “White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus).” In Birds of North American Online, A. Poole, ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna. Accessed August 2016.

Lehman, P.E. 2016. The Birds of Santa Barbara County, California. Revised edition. Updated April 2016. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/lehmanbosbc/.

Smallwood, J. A., and D. M. Bird. 2002. “American Kestrel (Falco sparverius).” In the Birds of North America Online, A. Poole, ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna. Accessed August 2016.

Project Location

University of California, Santa Barbara, West Campus Entrance Raptor Survey

SOURCE: ArcGIS Online Basemap: USA Topo Maps

Da

te:

8/1

0/2

016

- L

ast

sav

ed

by:

kze

che

r -

P

ath

: \\D

ude

k-fil

es\

gis

data

\Pro

ject

s\j9

432

00\M

AP

DO

C\F

igu

re 1

_R

egio

nal M

ap.

mxd

0 10.5Miles

Survey Area

FIGURE 1

Project Site

ME

SA

RD

S E G O V I A R D

C O R D O B A R D

E L G R E C O R D

C E R V A N T E S R D

P I C A S S O R D

ST

AD

I UM

RD

EL

CO

LE

GI O

RD

O C E A N R D

Survey Area

University of California, Santa Barbara, West Campus Entrance Raptor Survey

SOURCE: Google Imagery

Da

te:

8/1

1/2

016

- L

ast

sav

ed

by:

kze

che

r -

P

ath

: \\D

ude

k-fil

es\

gis

data

\Pro

ject

s\j9

432

00\M

AP

DO

C\F

igu

re 2

_S

urv

ey

Are

a.m

xd

0 19095Feet

Survey Area

FIGURE 2

APPENDIX A Photo Plate

Appendix A. Photos

9432 1 August 2016

Photo 1. Looking northwest along El Colegio Road from the intersection of Ocean Road and El Colegio

Road. January 8, 2016.

Photo 2. Looking northwest along El Colegio Road and toward the Student Health Services Building.

January 8, 2016.

Appendix A. Photos

9432 2 August 2016

Photo 3. The northern extreme of the survey area includes some larger trees, but in an area that

consists mostly of buildings and pavement. February 12, 2016.

Photo 4. Looking west from the U.C. Santa Barbara track and field facility toward El Colegio Road. All

open, unpaved areas within the survey area are well-maintained. January 15, 2016.

57

Attachment 7. Preliminary Geological Investigation

Documents

NOTICE OF IMPENDING DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ... · NOTICE OF IMPENDING DEVELOPMENT . UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA . PAULEY TRACK RENOVATION PROJECT . I. INTRODUCTION