A. Planning Background.

Transcription

1 Certification of the Final EIR, Findings and Approvals for the Faculty and Family Student Housing, Open Space Plan, and for Amendment of the Long Range Development Plan, Santa Barbara Campus I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations 15090, The Board of Regents of the University of California ("The Regents") hereby certifies that the Faculty and Family Student Housing, Open Space Plan, and LRDP Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the University of California, Santa Barbara campus ("UCSB" or "the campus") and for amendment of the 1990 Long Range Development Plan for UCSB (the Project ) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, et seq and meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code et seq) as further discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Section III.A hereof. The Regents further certifies that the Final EIR was presented to The Regents and that The Regents has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project, as set forth below. As part of this certification, The Regents hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the University of California (the University ). The Final EIR includes the April 2004 Draft EIR, and the September 2004 Final EIR. II. FINDINGS. Having received, reviewed and considered the information in the record before it, including the Draft and Final EIR, which are herein incorporated by reference, the following findings are hereby adopted by The Regents, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081, , and and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, through 15093, in conjunction with the approval of the Project. The Regents certifies that these findings are based on all evidence received during proceedings related to this matter, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of the findings concerning environmental issues identified and discussed in the Final EIR. Due to the change in conditions from 1990 to 2004, the campus has not tiered the Faculty and Family Student Housing, Open Space Plan, and LRDP Amendment EIR from the certified 1990 UCSB Long Range Development Plan EIR. However, information from the 1990 Long Range Development Plan EIR was considered in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR. A. Planning Background. The project consists of the implementation of portions within the University s jurisdiction of the Joint Proposal for the Ellwood-Devereux Coast and the subsequent Ellwood-Devereux Coast Open Space and Habitat Management Plan, and associated amendments to the 1990 LRDP. In addition to its open space components, the project includes the construction of 236 units of faculty and 151 units of family student housing. The project area includes the area known as the

2 Page 2 North Campus and the area known as the West Campus is generally located west of Storke Road and south of Phelps Road. The primary purpose of the project is to provide an open space, habitat, access, and development plan for the North Campus and West Campus that is, on balance, most protective overall of sensitive natural and coastal resources, and one that mitigates potential environmental impacts to the extent feasible. The North Campus consists of the North Parcel, the South Parcel, the Storke- Whittier Parcel, the Coal Oil Point Reserve Expansion Area, and the Ellwood Marine Terminal. The West Campus is comprised of the Coal Oil Point Reserve (which includes the Devereux Slough), Coal Oil Point, the West Campus Bluffs, the West Campus Mesa, the Devereux Slough North Finger, the West Campus Apartments Family Student Housing, and the West Campus Point Faculty Housing. The Joint Proposal proposes to protect the resources in the area by relocating development potential away from coastal areas to the northern perimeter of the area where it would be clustered contiguous to existing development, roads, and services. Areas proximate to the coast would be preserved as permanent open space or added to the Coal Oil Point Reserve. Environmentally degraded areas would to be preserved and restored. Overall, approximately 37 acres would be developed, and approximately 314 acres would be preserved and some restored by the University. The project would be consistent with comprehensive planning for the area, would improve public coastal access, and contribute to the preservation and enhancement of 652 consolidated acres of recreational and natural land as well as marine environment resources. The residential development proposed by the project is necessary to meet the University s programmatic objectives of providing affordable faculty and family student housing. Affordable faculty housing is required to enable the recruitment and retention of distinguished academic personnel. There is a particular need to provide faculty and family students with suitable housing that is competitive with attractive housing opportunities available at other colleges and markets universities that are competing for the same faculty and students. The price of singlefamily housing in Santa Barbara has escalated well beyond the average earnings of new assistant professors at the University of California. The median price of a South Coast home surpassed $1 million in June 2004, while campus assistant professors earned an average of $58,744 in , the latest year for which data were available. The last faculty housing project developed by UCSB was completed in Located at West Campus Point, the 65 units in the complex were sold at below-market, price-restricted levels to University faculty. The housing has proven to be an effective recruitment and retention tool for the campus. However, the West Campus Point complex alone is insufficient to meet the recruiting and retention objectives. Resale of units in this relatively small complex averages about 5 percent annually, or 3 to 4 units per year. Over the past five years, the campus hired an average of 42 new faculty annually (with 62 newly hired ladder faculty in the latest year for which data were available, ). The need for affordable family student housing and the issues associated with the recruitment and retention of high caliber students with families are the same. The University has worked with the surrounding community and governmental agencies to plan for additional needed faculty and family student housing. The Draft 1990 LRDP proposed 100 units of below market rate faculty housing units on the West Campus Bluffs as well as 167 units

3 Page 3 of student housing on the West Campus Mesa. The then-proposed West Campus Bluffs faculty housing site, owed by the University since 1967, is south of, and directly adjacent to, the West Campus Point faculty housing complex. The then-proposed West Campus Mesa student housing site is north of the West Campus Point faculty housing complex, across the north finger of the Devereux Slough. Various members of the community, interested in preserving coastal open space areas, urged the UCSB to refrain from constructing the proposed faculty housing on the West Campus Bluffs, and to pursue off-site alternatives further inland from the West Campus Bluffs. In response, the University undertook to relocate the proposed faculty units away from the West Campus Bluffs and designated the West Campus Bluffs as open space in its final 1990 Long Range Development Plan. The proposed location for the faculty units was moved to the West Campus Mesa, and reduced to 50 units due to the physical site constraints there. The 167 units of student housing on the West Campus Mesa was reduced to 117 units and the development area available for the student units was reduced to accommodate the additional 50 faculty units. To respond to community concerns, provide for replacement of the 50 units lost in connection with the relocation of the proposed faculty housing from the West Campus Bluffs, and to address its continuing need for affordable faculty and family-student housing, the University also undertook negotiations to acquire the University Exchange Corp. Property (UEC Property), which is now known as the North Campus. The UEC Property, located north of Coal Oil Point Reserve, extended well inland from the West Campus Bluffs, but still close to Isla Vista so that convenient campus transportation linkages could be established. Acquisition of the UEC property was completed in 1994 by the University at a purchase price of almost $12 million including water entitlements. The University made the decision to acquire the UEC Property based on the development entitlements that were in place for it. Santa Barbara County and the California Coastal Commission had approved the property for the development of 351 units on parcels north, east, and south of the Ocean Meadows Golf Course, while setting aside other portions of the UEC property as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat and buffer areas. In 1998, after environmental review, The Regents approved an amendment to the 1990 LRDP to authorize the development of faculty and family student housing units on the North Campus and the West Campus. The 1998 Long Range Development Plan Amendment proposed a total of 369 housing units on the North Campus: 147 faculty housing units on the North Parcel, 122 faculty housing units on the South Parcel, and 144 family student housing units on the Storke-Whittier Parcel. 100 units of faculty housing were also approved on the West Campus Mesa. The 1998 Long Range Development Plan Amendment was substantially consistent with the land use approvals for the UEC Property approved by Santa Barbara County and the California Coastal Commission. However, interested members of the community and government leaders again urged that the University refrain from developing the South Parcel of the North Campus and relocate all development to the North and Storke-Whittier parcels. In response, the University voluntarily deferred implementation of its project for a period of six years and undertook an unprecedented public-private cooperative effort to comprehensively plan development of the North and West Campuses and surrounding undeveloped areas along the Ellwood-Devereux Coast.

4 Page 4 The product of this effort is the Joint Proposal for the Ellwood-Devereux Coast. The Joint Proposal seeks to guide development of the last remaining open coastal lands in the western Goleta area. The Ellwood-Devereux Coast area encompasses 10 properties, which are currently owned by multiple public and private entities within three jurisdictions, the University, the City of Goleta, and the County of Santa Barbara. It provides the opportunity to comprehensively plan the preservation, management, and development of the Ellwood-Devereux area, rather than considering piecemeal project-by-project approvals. As discussed earlier, this comprehensive planning approach would allow improved public coastal access, and the preservation and enhancement of 652 consolidated acres of recreational, natural land, and marine environment resources within the three jurisdictions. Potential residential development would be reduced from 760 to 570 units, and future University and private residential development would be clustered adjacent to existing development and infrastructure, and employment centers. The Joint Proposal supports important area planning objectives, but requires that the University compromise its utilization of property that was acquired by the University to further the University s educational mission rather than open space preservation purposes. The South Parcel of the North Campus, approved for development after environmental review by both Santa Barbara County and the California Coastal Commission, would not be developed and would be preserved as open space and restored as a nature park. The West Campus Bluffs, proposed for the development of 100 faculty units in 1990, would be preserved as open space and available for restoration as a nature park. Development of the West Campus Mesa would be reduced from as many as 167 faculty and family student units in 1990, to 50 faculty units. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas identified by the County of Santa Barbara and the California Coastal Commission in their approval of the Local Coastal Program, known as the Goleta Community Plan would be protected and a 40-acre portion of the North Campus would be annexed to the Coal Oil Point Reserve. Overall, under the Joint Proposal the North and West Campus development program would be reduced from 513 units (269 faculty units and 144 family student units on North Campus, and 100 faculty units on West Campus) to 437 units (236 faculty units and 151 family student units on North Campus, and 50 faculty units on West Campus). The reduction in the development program could not be off-set by development on other University lands because they are already committed for housing projects or for research and education purposes. Substantial University funds would be expended on restoring and enhancing lands to be preserved as coastal and recreational resources. The preservation and restoration components of the project will also increase the University s cost of providing affordable faculty and student housing, thus reducing the resources available to recruit and retain University faculty. This tradeoff however will adequately preserve and restore sensitive coastal resources in the area and assist the University in providing a desirable campus environment for campus and local area residents and visitors. B. Environmental Review Process. In accordance with CEQA and the University of California Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared for the Project, which is included as Appendix A to the

5 Page 5 Final EIR. The Initial Study for the Project concluded that there were no impacts to mineral and agricultural resources. The Initial Study determined that implementation of the proposed Project could, either by itself or cumulatively with existing and proposed development in the area, have potentially significant environmental effects in the following areas: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and geologic hazards, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and utilities, recreation, traffic and circulation, and visual resources. The Draft EIR for the Project therefore analyzed impacts in those areas. In addition, the Draft EIR considered, in separate sections, Growth Inducing Impacts and Alternatives to the Project. The Final EIR analyzes both the impacts of the Project and cumulative impacts and mitigation measures. In compliance with Public Resources Code , a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the Initial Study were distributed to state and local agencies and other interested parties on July 25, 2003 for a 30-day review period. A public scoping meeting was held on August 13, The Notice of Completion and Draft EIR for the project were published on April 9, 2004 (SCH# ). A 45-day public and agency review period was provided, which extended from April 9, 2004 through May 24, Written comments received during the public review period were responded to in the Final EIR. In addition, members of the public were invited to submit comments on the Draft EIR in testimony at a public hearing held for that purpose on May 4, Although not required by CEQA, responses to the oral testimony provided at the May 4 th hearing is provided in the Final EIR. The Final EIR was published September 10, The Final EIR indicates that implementation of the Project may result in significant impacts in a number of areas that can be mitigated to a less than significant level as discussed in Section II.C hereof. The Final EIR identifies potential cumulative impacts and mitigation measures related thereto as discussed Section II.D hereof. The Final EIR also identifies mitigation measures for certain less-than-significant impacts as discussed in Section II.E hereof. Though CEQA does not mandate the adoption of mitigation measures where impacts are identified as less than significant, such mitigation measures are adopted by The Regents as conditions of the Project. The Final EIR indicates that implementation of the Project may result in significant unavoidable impacts as discussed in Section II.F hereof. All mitigation measures included in the Final EIR (as summarized herein) are adopted by The Regents as elements of the Project, and will be monitored through the Project s mitigation monitoring program. The text of the Final EIR, the 1990 LRDP, the 1990 LRDP EIR, and the Findings and Overriding Considerations previously adopted by The Regents in connection with its approval of the LRDP, are hereby incorporated into these Findings in their entirety. Without limitation, the incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the associated significant unavoidable adverse impacts.

6 Page 6 Pursuant to Public Resources Code (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(d) the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in the Final EIR is hereby adopted to ensure compliance with the Mitigation Measures adopted in connection with the Project. Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which The Regents bases its Findings and decisions contained herein. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (a)(2), the custodian for the record of the proceedings is the Director, Campus Planning and Design, Santa Barbara campus. Most documents related to the Final EIR are located in the UCSB Office of Campus Planning and Design, 1325 Cheadle Hall, at the Santa Barbara campus. Some documents included in the record of proceedings may also be located at other offices at the Santa Barbara campus, at the University s Office of the President, 1111 Franklin Street, Oakland, California 94607, and/or at the offices of consultants retained by the Campus for this project. C. Significant Impacts Identified in the EIR That Are Reduced to a Level of "Less Than Significant" by Mitigation Measures Incorporated Into the Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(1), the following potential impacts identified in the Final EIR will be mitigated to less than significant levels or avoided by implementation of the Mitigation Measures hereby incorporated into the Project. 1. Geology and Geologic Hazards: Seismic Hazards. Impact Development of the proposed project could expose people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from seismic surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides. The following mitigation measures will reduce such potential impacts to a less than significant level. MM 4.2-1(a). Per LRDP policy , new development shall be constructed at a sufficient distance to maintain the proposed structure for a minimum of 100 years without the construction of shoreline protective devices. MM 4.2-1(b). During project-specific design, a site-specific geotechnical study shall be conducted under the direct supervision of a California Registered Engineering Geologist or licensed geotechnical engineer to assess seismic, geological, soil, and groundwater conditions at each construction site and develop recommendations to prevent or abate any identified hazards. The University shall incorporate or adhere to the recommendations of each site-specific report that are designed to reduce potential exposure to seismic hazards. These recommendations would include, but not be limited to, specific foundation design features, building and/or structural design features, and grading and excavating recommendations. MM 4.2-1(c). Per LRDP policy , the campus shall determine the required setbacks for new buildings through the use of a report by a registered engineering geologist.

7 Page 7 2. Geology and Geologic Hazards: Soil Erosion. Impact Portions of the project area, including the North Parcel and the South Parcel, have been subjected to major grading. Native soils were removed from the North Parcel by cut and fill operations during construction of the Ocean Meadows Golf Course. Soils were either leveled or cut to fill the golf course. The more disturbed soils in the areas excavated during construction of the golf course have low water-holding capacity and poor vegetative cover, and are subject to existing erosion. Sediments are carried into Devereux Creek For construction of the Ocean Meadows Golf Course, parts of the adjoining uplands in the South Parcel were cut and the lowlands along Devereux Creek were filled in Subsequent to development of the Ocean Meadows Golf Course, a series of east/west drainage channels were graded into the area south of the golf course in an effort to reduce sedimentation into Devereux Slough. The degraded quality of South Parcel contributes to increased sedimentation in the Devereux Slough. The Project will remedy existing erosion problems that contribute to sedimentation, resulting in an net beneficial impact by correcting existing erosion problems, improving the North Parcel while reducing erosion, planting natives, annexing lands to the Coal Oil Point Reserve, setting up a Nature Park on the South Parcel, formalizing trail system and eliminating use by motor vehicles and bmx bicyclists. Grading and/or excavation of soils in association with construction of residential development or open space improvements could result in soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. However, the following mitigation measures will reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level. The overall effect of the Project upon sedimentation to Devereux Creek and Devereux Slough will be beneficial. MM 4.2-2(a). (i) Per LRDP policy , contours of finished surfaces on North and West Campuses are to be blended to achieve a consistent grade and natural appearance. Borders of cut slopes and fills are to be rounded off to minimum radius of five feet so as to blend with the natural terrain. (ii) This shall be applicable to development and structures on the North and West Campuses. MM 4.2-2(b). Per LRDP policy , surface and sub-surface drainage pipes shall be designed to minimize erosion and instability of the bluff face and only where no other less damaging drainage system is feasible. Drainage devices extending over the bluff face shall not be permitted if the site can feasibly be drained landward of the bluff face. MM 4.2-2(c). Per LRDP policy , vegetation within 50 feet of the bluff top shall be maintained or replanted with drought resistant native species should grading be required to establish proper drainage landward of the bluff. MM 4.2-2(d). Per LRDP policy , to protect identified campus wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and coastal waters from sediment transfer or contamination from urban runoff during construction, the following grading and erosion control practices shall be followed: a) North and West Campuses construction periods shall be scheduled during the dry months of the year (May through October) whenever possible;

8 Page 8 b) 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. c) A site-specific erosion control and landscape plan shall be prepared for all new construction. d) Land on the North and West Campuses is to be developed in increments of workable size that can be completed during a single construction season: erosion and sediment control measures are to be coordinated with the sequence of grading. e) Excavated materials shall not be deposited or stored where the material can be washed away by high water or storm runoff. f) Grading operations on campus shall be conducted so to prevent damaging effects of sediment production and dust on the site and on adjoining properties. g) When vegetation must be removed on campus, the method shall be one that will minimize the erosive effects from the removal. h) Exposure of soil to erosion by removing vegetation shall be limited to the area required for construction operations. The construction and staging area should be fenced to define Project boundaries. i) Removal of existing vegetation on campus is to be minimized whenever possible. j) Temporary mulching or other suitable stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed areas during construction or other land disturbance activities on campus. k) Topsoil removed from the surface in preparation for grading and construction on-campus is to be stored on or near the site and protected from erosion while grading operations are underway, provided that such storage may not be located where it would cause suffocation of root systems of trees intended to be preserved. After completion of such grading, topsoil is to be restored to exposed cut and fill embankments of building pads so as to provide a suitable base for seeding and planting. l) Slopes, both cut and fill on campus, shall not be steeper than 2:1 unless a geological and engineering analysis indicates that steeper slopes are safe and erosion control measures are specified. m) Slopes on campus shall not be constructed so as to endanger or disturb adjoining property. n) Sediment basins, sediment traps, or similar sediment control measures shall be installed before clearing and grading operations begin. o) Neither wet concrete, nor slurries thereof, shall be permitted to enter any campus wetlands. MM 4.2-2(e). Prior to the start of construction for any site restoration activities, a restoration plan shall be prepared that identifies construction and post-construction erosion control measures to minimize exposure of soils to wind and water erosion and deposition of sediment in adjacent areas and drainage courses. 3. Geology and Geologic Hazards: Soil Stability. Impact Construction in areas underlain by soils of varying stability could subject people and structures to hazards associated with landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or differential settlement. Project Mitigation Measures 4.2-1(a) through (c) will ensure

9 Page 9 that geology and geological hazards impacts related to the soil stability are reduced to a lessthan-significant level. 4. Geology and Geologic Hazards: Expansive Soils. Impact Implementation of the proposed project could result in construction of facilities on expansive soils, creating substantial risk to people and structures. Project Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b) will ensure that geology and geological hazards impacts related to the expansive soils are reduced to a less-than-significant level. 5. Hydrology and Water Quality: Expansion of Stormwater Drainage Systems. Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not include the construction of new stormwater drainage systems, but would include the expansion of existing stormwater drainage systems, the construction of which could result in significant impacts. Project Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(i), 4.4-2(j), , (a), and (b) will ensure that hydrology and water quality impacts related to the expansion of existing stormwater drainage systems are reduced to a less-than-significant level. 6. Hydrology and Water Quality: 100-Year Flood Zone. Impact Implementation of the proposed project would place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, but would not impede or redirect flood flows. Mitigation Measure below will reduce such potential impacts to a less than significant level. MM For the bridge over Phelps Ditch, structural supports shall either be placed outside the 100-year flood hazard zone, or be designed such that flood flows would be directed toward the overbank area (adjacent to the ditch), which would contain potential flood flows associated with bridge supports. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality: Flooding. Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. Project Mitigation Measure 4.3-9, discussed above, would reduce potential effects from placement of bridge support structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that could impede or redirect flood flows and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 8. Biological Resources: Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species. Impact Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and wildlife species, as discussed in the Final EIR. As discussed in the Final EIR, the residential development proposed by the Project will result in the removal of wetlands. However, the proposed development has been relocated to be contiguous with existing development and infrastructure so as to be most protective of coastal resources, and to reduce adverse coastal resource effects that would result from existing conditions and development in accordance with approved plans. It is also noted that the wetlands

10 Page 10 affected are degraded and have a low functional value. The Project will increase the quantity of wetland area and their biotic functionality. The Project proposes substantial habitat enhancement and restoration, including creation or restoration of wetland complexes on site on both the North Parcel and on the South Parcel. Wetland complexes on the South Parcel will be set in restored open space areas that will be preserved. Accordingly, the Project will result in a net increase in the quantity, quality, and functionality of wetlands in the Project area, which would provide a beneficial impact. The Project also includes flood control improvements which will increase the functionality of Phelps Ditch as a riparian habitat and its functionality as an ESHA. The following mitigation measures, in combination with Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a) through (c), will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level MM 4.4-1(a). Per LRDP policy , development in Coal Oil Point Natural Reserve will be kept to a minimum. Only structures that would be used in conjunction with research in the Reserve, or that would enhance the area s usefulness as a natural study area, will be allowed, such as weather stations, observation blinds, small storage structures, fences, signs, and other gates. MM 4.4-1(b). Per LRDP policy 30240(a)4, to preserve roosting habitat for sensitive bird species and monarch butterflies, special consideration and care shall be given prior to the removal of any significant nonnative trees such as eucalyptus and some pines that are recognized as roosting areas for sensitive species. Nonnative tree and brush species may be removed if their presence inhibits fulfillment of other LRDP objectives such as protection of view corridors or restoration of native habitat. MM 4.4-1(c). Per LRDP policy 30240(a)16, the campus shall use mosquito control methods with the least effects upon non-target organisms. Wetlands shall not be drained for this purpose, nor shall non-native larval predators be introduced. MM 4.4-1(d). (Per LRDP policy 30240(b)6, in order to protect habitats of the Reserve: a) The total square footage of current and replacement Coal Oil Point structures shall not exceed the total square footage of current Coal Oil Point structures. b) New structures that are constructed as part of the Coal Oil Point project shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the bluff edge. c) Trees on Coal Oil Point will not be removed except where necessary to accommodate new structures and infrastructure. MM 4.4-1(e). Per LRDP policy , existing native trees and significant stands of trees that pre-date University acquisition of the campus, to the extent feasible, shall be retained within the overall site area of new development. MM 4.4-1(f) Nesting Birds. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the avian nesting period, no surveys are required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for special status and MBTA-protected nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation should avoid the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. The area surveyed

11 Page 11 should include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 500 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. Installation of bird netting during the non-nesting season on buildings that are used by swallows will prevent nesting and impacts to these species. If this is done, no building-specific surveys would be required. In the event that an active nest of a special status and MBTA-protected nesting birds is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet (500 feet for raptors) of construction boundaries, clearing and construction should be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. MM 4.4-1(g) Sensitive Plants. As previously discussed, southern tarplant, a sensitive plant species, would be impacted by the development of both the North and Storke-Whittier parcels. Protocol plant surveys have not been conducted for other portions of the project area and other sensitive plant species may occur within the project area and be impacted by the project. Therefore, prior to construction or restoration to ensure that no sensitive plants or wetland species would be significantly affected by the project, the University shall conduct plant surveys of the area in accordance with applicable protocols developed by the CDFG. Surveys for sensitive plants should be conducted by a botanist familiar with the species and its flowering status. If sensitive plant species are observed, a qualified botanist should develop a species-specific replacement plan to be incorporated into any restoration plans. If wetland species are involved, the botanist should work closely with the wetland specialist in creating the restoration plan [MM 4.4-2(i) and MM 4.4-2(j)] to ensure that conditions at newly created wetlands sites meet the needs of the sensitive plant species. This plan should include elements to limit project impacts such as the relocation of individual specimens, the collection of seeds and replanting, or the preservation and movement of topsoil that contains the seed bank. MM 4.4-1(h) Sensitive Plants Monitoring. A monitoring program shall be developed by the University and approved by the CDFG to ensure the continued viability of sensitive habitat and/or individual or populations of special-status (CNPS List 1B or greater) plant species that currently occur within the project area. The plan will focus on establishing baseline conditions of the current population(s), creating management and/or enhancement goals, developing a monitoring timeframe, establishing acceptable viability criteria, identifying appropriate remedial actions to be taken if the viability criteria is not met, and a funding mechanism for long-term monitoring, which could include establishment of a fund via development fees. MM 4.4-1(i) Vernal Pool Invertebrates. Prior to construction or restoration activities that could impact federally protected vernal pool crustaceans, the University shall conduct surveys of the appropriate vernal pools in accordance with current USFWS survey protocol. If these species are found, consultation with the USFWS in accordance with the federal ESA shall occur (typically as part of the CWA permitting process). Restoration and preservation activities could be required

12 Page 12 by the USFWS should these species be observed before a permit will be issued by the USFWS or the ACOE. MM 4.4-1(j) Western snowy plover and California least tern Monitoring. If California least terns are observed within the COPR area, the following measures shall apply to both the snowy plover and the California least tern, however, if no nesting or wintering California least terns are observed, the following will only apply to the snowy plover. To ensure that construction and construction-related noise associated with trail and access point closure and formalization and recreational activities associated with the formalization of trails and access points do not detrimentally impact the breeding and wintering activities of western snowy plovers and California least terns, routine monitoring of nesting snowy plovers and California least terns, if applicable, shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist or trained volunteer. Nesting and roosting areas shall be completely surrounded by exclusion fencing placed under the guidance of a qualified biologist and routinely inspected and repaired as necessary year round. Exclusion fencing shall be adequate for preventing disturbance by people, pets, and horses. Should the plovers relocate their nesting sites, additional fencing shall be installed as required. Informational signs indicating the purpose of the fence shall be installed and maintained through the year. To offset potential impacts to nesting and roosting plovers associated with increased recreational use of Sands Beach, the University shall provide a financial contribution to the COPR to maintain and expand the Snowy Plover Docent Program. Additional measures may be imposed by the COPR Director or the USFWS and would augment or supersede MM 4.4-1(j). MM 4.4-1(k) Western snowy plover and California least tern Construction. If California least terns are observed within the COPR area, the following measures shall apply to both the snowy plover and the California least tern, however, if no nesting California least terns are observed, the following will only apply to the snowy plover. Construction and restoration activities within designated snowy plover critical habitat shall only be conducted following approval by the USFWS in coordination with the COPR Director. Once approval has been obtained, all construction and restoration sites shall be surveyed daily by a qualified wildlife biologist during the nesting season to ensure that no plovers have started nesting within restoration or construction areas. If plovers are nesting within a project area, exclusion fencing shall be installed (as described in MM 4.4-1(p)) to prevent disturbance of the nest, and all work shall halt within a buffer zone established by a qualified wildlife biologist until the young have hatched and fledged. If construction occurs outside the nesting season, surveys should be conducted at the request of the USFWS. Additional measures may be imposed by the USFWS and would augment or supersede MM 4.4-1(k). MM 4.4-1(l) Sensitive Reptiles and Amphibians Construction. All project-related construction and restoration sites shall include installation of exclusion fencing of sufficient height and extent to prevent these species from entering into the project areas. Fencing shall be installed under the direction of a qualified wildlife biologist, inspected daily to minimize the potential for damaged fence areas allowing these sensitive species entry into the construction zones. The inspections shall be performed by construction crewmembers, and any damage to the fence shall be repaired immediately.

13 Page 13 MM 4.4-1(m) Domestic Animals. To prevent disturbance of sensitive animals and habitats, pets shall not be allowed within the COPR or snowy plover habitat, and shall be required to be leashed at Sands Beach, providing they do not disturb the plovers. MM 4.4-1(n) Special Status Wildlife Monitoring. Construction and construction-related noise associated with: 1) trail and access point formalization within the South Parcel, West Campus Bluffs, and COPR; 2) recreational and restoration activities within the COPR expansion area, South Parcel and West Campus Bluffs; and 3) recreational activities associated with the formalization of trails and access points within the South Parcel, West Campus Bluffs, and COPR could impact special status wildlife species located within or adjacent to these parcels, although due to habitat improvement long-term effects are expected to be beneficial. Effected species would include species such as the white-tailed kite, and other species identified in Table of the Final EIR that are not specifically identified within previous mitigation measures. To minimize impacts, a monitoring program shall be developed by the University and approved by the CDFG and USFWS to ensure the continued viability of individual or populations of special status wildlife that currently occur within the project area. The plan will focus on maintaining baseline conditions of the current population(s) by creating management and/or enhancement goals, developing a monitoring timeframe, establishing acceptable viability criteria, identifying appropriate remedial actions to be taken if the viability criteria are not met, and a development of a funding mechanism to ensure long-term monitoring. MM 4.4-1(o) Water Quality. The design, construction, and operation of residential development and open space improvement shall include Best Management Practices per the Storm Water Management Plan to reduce the discharge of sediment and pollutants in runoff. 9. Biological Resources: Sensitive Habitats. As discussed in the Final EIR s analysis of potential impacts to sensitive habitats, the Project will also result in the development of areas that serve as foraging habitat for raptors. Some have commented that any improvement of undeveloped land should be considered a significant impact to raptors. However, these comments ignore that areas to be improved are significantly degraded, and that the proposed development has been relocated to be contiguous with existing development and infrastructure so as to be most protective of coastal resources, and to reduce adverse coastal resource effects that would result from existing conditions and development in accordance with approved plans. Flora is highly disturbed on both North and South parcel due to major grading in connection with construction of the Ocean Meadows Golf Course and extensive uncontrolled public uses for activities such as dirt-bike riding and informal BMX tracks. Most of the North Parcel, which is to be improved, consists of non-native and disturbed habitat, and bare ground. The South Parcel, which is proposed to be restored and enhanced as part of a nature park, is the locus of significant erosion, and is similarly dominated by non-native terrestrial habitat and disturbed area. The South Parcel is also subject to use uncontrolled use by motor vehicles and BMX bicyclists. The Project will include significant restoration and enhancement measures to the habitat south of Ocean Meadows Golf course, will reduce existing sedimentation impacts to Devereux Creek and Devereux Slough, and will restore and preserve wildlife connections within preserved areas. The restored and preserved habitat will result in a consolidated and enhanced natural area of approximately 314 acres that will be a part of a larger

14 Page 14 natural area of approximately 652 acres that will be preserved pursuant to the Joint Proposal and the Open Space Plan. Therefore, it is concluded that the Project and its mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level, and will create a superior foraging habitat to that which exists today. Impact Implementation of the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse effect to vegetation communities or habitats that are designated and/or identified as sensitive by the CDFG, USFWS, and/or California Costal Commission. The following mitigation measures, in combination with Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a) through (c), will reduce such potential impacts to a less than significant level. MM 4.4-2(a). Text associated with this Mitigation Measure has been deleted. (i) Per LRDP policy 30240(a)3, mowing of the grassland in the Reserve is prohibited, except for fire protection, and shall be avoided prior to the time plants go to seed. Mowing shall not exceed the minimum necessary for adequate fire protection. (ii) These mowing restrictions shall be extended to preserved or restored natural habitats within the North and West Campus. MM 4.4-2(b). Per LRDP policy , native plant species from genetic stock from the Ellwood-Devereux watershed will be used in all open space areas outside the development areas on North and West Campus, and drought tolerant species will be used within the development areas as much as possible. Landscaping use of exotic invasive plants listed in the most recent update of the Exotic Pest Plant of Greatest Ecological Concern in California (California Invasive Plant Council) shall be prohibited on North and West Campuses. MM 4.4-2(c). Per LRDP policy , within 50 feet of the bluff top, vegetation shall be maintained or replanted with drought-resistant species, should grading be required to establish proper drainage landward of the bluff. MM 4.4-2(d) Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Restoration Plan. When habitat that is regulated by the Clean Water Act (404) or defined as sensitive by the CDFG, or designated as ESHA would be impacted, either directly or indirectly, a Sensitive Habitat Restoration Plan shall be prepared to detail the specifics of the proposed habitat replacement mitigation. The plan shall be prepared prior to applicable vegetation or habitat modification by a qualified restoration specialist who has appropriate knowledge for each habitat type, shall be approved by CDFG and/or ACOE (depending upon jurisdiction), and shall include all measures for the revegetation and maintenance of on and/or off-site habitat. The plan shall include the following, as necessary: a) The details and procedures required to prepare the restoration site for planting (i.e., grading, soil preparations, soil stocking, etc.), including the need for a supplemental irrigation system, if any. b) The methods and procedures for the installation of the plant materials. Plant protection measures identified by this document, the project biologist, and/or agency personnel shall be incorporated into the planting design and layout. c) Guidelines for the maintenance of the mitigation site during the establishment phase of the plantings. The maintenance program shall contain guidelines for the control of nonnative plant species, maintenance of the irrigation system, and replacement of plant

15 Page 15 species. d) The revegetation plan shall include a monitoring plan that when implemented will evaluate developing habitat and/or vegetation such that its final replacement value and ratio shall be at a minimum of 1:1 for non wetlands and 3:1 for ACOE-defined wetlands, or as otherwise mandated. Specific goals for the restored habitat shall be defined by quantitative and qualitative characteristics of similar habitats and plants (e.g., density, cover, species composition, structural development). The monitoring effort shall include an evaluation of not only the plant material installed, but the use of it by wildlife. Monitoring reports of the mitigation site shall be reviewed by the permitting state and federal agency(s). e) In the mitigation of vernal pools that would be filled or otherwise disturbed, the University shall preserve and re-use the topsoil from vernal pools to be filled. Topsoil from vernal pools contains both the seed bank for the plant species that occur in that individual pool and any potential vernal pool crustacean cysts for those species that occur there. Removal of topsoil from vernal pools shall either: 1) comply with the most recent ACOE and USFWS guidelines at the time of construction, or 2) consist of removal of the top 2 inches of soil, followed by the next 4 inches of soil, and placement of these layers in constructed vernal pools in reverse order (e.g., first the 4 inches followed by the 2 inches) to approximately reconstruct the natural soil horizon. f) For areas designated as ESHA, mitigation ratios shall be no less than 1:1 for both replacement of impacted areas, and new areas shall be designated as ESHA. g) Contingency plans and appropriate remedial measures shall also be outlined in the revegetation plan should the plantings fail to meet designated success criteria and planting goals. MM 4.4-2(e). Exotic invasive species shall be prohibited in all open space areas or near ESHA areas and riparian corridors. Landscaping in open space areas and the COPR shall include native species from locally occurring genomes. MM 4.2-2(d), MM 4.3-3, MM 4.4-1(a) through (p), MM 4.4-2(a) through (e), and MM 4.9-4(b) would also apply. Project Mitigation Measures 4.4-2(a) through (e) are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, and with MM's 4.2-2(d), 4.3-3, 4.4-1(a) through (p), 4.4-2(a) through (e), and 4.9-4(b) will ensure that biological resource impacts associated with vegetation communities and sensitive habitats are reduced to a less-than-significant level. 10. Biological Resources: Federally Protected Wetlands. Impact Residential development could result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption. Project Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(d), 4.4-1(a) through (p), and 4.4-2(d) through (e) will ensure that biological resource impacts related to federally protected wetlands are reduced to a less-thansignificant level. 11. Biological Resources: Wildlife Corridors.